Appendix E-6: Consultation - Part 1 - Loup Power District

APPENDIX E-6
CONSULTATION
A portion of this appendix contains privileged contact information of persons with
whom relicensing coordination or consultation occurred. This information is
considered privileged information and is provided in Volume 4 of this Draft License
Application.

APPENDIX E-6
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
April 13, 2012
Attachment A
District Response to Comments on the Draft License Application
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
1
2
3
4
1
February 14, 2012 – Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Water temperature in the bypass reach of the Loup River was identified as a potential issue due to the repeated occurrence
of fish kills in this reach. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) identified low flows and thermal
stress suspected causes of mortality in these fish kills. NDEQ has established temperature standards for support aquatic life
in a warm water stream with a maximum limit of 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
The NGPC provided LPD with a requested flow bypass of 75 cfs in 2003. However, after a more thorough analysis, we
recommend higher flows to help address the thermal stress issue and avoid future fish kills. We concur with the FWS letter
that outlines the use of the Montana Method to address the flows (see paragraph from the FWS letter below). The lower
number of the identified flow ranges below would satisfy our concerns.
The NGPC supports a further investigation of the sediment management portion of LPD’s operations. We support FERC’s
request for further analysis stated in their December 21, 2011 letter. Specifically, we believe Alternative #4 should be
addressed (see language below from FERC’s letter).
The FWS and NGPC identified impacts from Project hydrocycling to the least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, and the
lower Platte River ecological community and provided several potential alternatives at earlier meetings.
We continue to support any activity/study that would reduce the magnitude and duration of discharge peaks from the
Project tailrace to benefit the downstream biotic community. We would also advocate evaluating the feasibility and
efficacy of the full array of possible alternatives, including those that have been provided and those that have not, that
would minimize the impacts of hydrocycling on species and communities while optimizing the efficiencies of LPD power
operations.
The NGPC recognizes that monitoring is critically important in evaluating the positive or negative consequences of any
action. However, we further acknowledge that creation of effective and efficient monitoring programs are fraught with
logistical and methodological challenges. Therefore, NGPC is also willing to offer technical assistance on any monitoring
plans that are developed during the remaining steps of the re-licensing process.
February 16, 2012 – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
In Exhibit A, you state that there are no transmission lines at either the Monroe or Columbus powerhouses. However, in
several places in the draft license application, you describe transmission facilities at both of these powerhouses. For
example, in Section A.2.9 (page A-8), you state that at the Monroe powerhouse, there is a powerhouse bus that is directly
connected to a substation by an underground bus cable. You state in Section A.2.16 (page A-14) that at the Columbus
powerhouse, each of the three generator step-up transformers is connected directly to a substation bus.
A primary transmission line is a line that is used solely to transmit power from a licensed project to a load center. By this
definition, without the line, there would be no way to transmit the project’s power to the electrical grid. A line leading
from a project ceases to be a primary line at the point it is no longer used solely to transmit power from the project to the
interconnected grid. Based on the information you provided in Exhibit A, it appears that the underground bus cable at the
Monroe powerhouse and the generators leads connecting to the step-up transformers may be primary transmission lines.
Therefore, please tell us in the final license application (final application) where the Loup River Project transmission lines
at the Monroe and Columbus powerhouses interconnect with the grid and cease to be primary lines used solely to transmit
power from the project to the electrical grid. Exhibits A and G may need to be revised to note the type, length, and voltage
of the transmission lines, and show where the project transmission lines interconnect with the regional grid.
1
The District notes that three fish kills have been documented in the Loup River bypass reach, as detailed in FLA Section
E.6.3.2, and that the District’s study of Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach determined no statistically
significant relationship between water temperature and discharge as detailed in FLA Section E.6.3.2 and FLA Volume 3,
Appendix C.
The District’s proposed action (see FLA Section E.5.2), includes the provision of 75 cfs of flow in the Loup River
bypass reach in accordance with previous agreements, as discussed in FLA Section E.6.3.3.
The results of Study 14.0, Alternative Project Operations and Sediment Management Study requested by FERC are
included in FLA Volume 3, Appendix J.
The District’s analysis of the impacts of hydrocycling on threatened and endangered species are summarized in FLA
Section E.6.6.2 and in the District’s Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2)..
The District appreciates NGPC’s offer of assistance.
The District has clarified the discussion of the Project’s transmission connection to the grid in FLA Sections A.2.9,
A.2.16, and A.2.20.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
In Section A.2.9 of Exhibit A (page A-8), you state that at the Monroe powerhouse, power is metered and purchased by the
Nebraska Public Power District (Nebraska Power) prior to the power entering the substation. However, you also state that
the substation is connected with the District’s and Cornhusker Public Power District’s sub-transmission and distribution
systems. As stated in the draft license application, the implication is that the District operates a distribution system.
Please clarify in the final application which “District” operates a distribution system as there are three “District’s”
discussed in the draft application (i.e., Loup Power District, which in some places in the application it is called simply
District; the Nebraska Public Power District; and the Cornhusker Public Power District).
In Section A.2.12 of Exhibit A (pages A-10 and A-11), you provide storage characteristics for Lakes Babcock and North.
You provide the effective storage for Lake Babcock, the gross storage capacity for Lake North, and the gross storage
capacity of both reservoirs. The dead storage and combined area-capacity relationship for Lakes Babcock and North are
presented in Section B.2.4 of Exhibit B (page B-19). In the final application please clarify the relationship between
effective and gross storage and provide the following information for each lake: (1) the elevation-storage relationship for
the project’s range of operation and (2) the elevation below which there is dead storage.
In Section B.1.2 of Exhibit B (page B-2), you state that the Monroe powerhouse units were sized to handle a design flow
rate of 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). In Section A.2.9 of Exhibit A (page A-8), you state that the three units each have
a maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,000 cfs for a total capacity of 3,000 cfs. Please eliminate this inconsistency between
exhibits in the final application.
In Section B.2.4 of Exhibit B (page B-19), you state that Lake Babcock’s effective storage is exhausted at 1,426 feet mean
sea level (MSL) and Lake North provides storage down to its outlet sill at elevation 1,420 feet MSL. Exhibit F, sheet no.
20 of 26 (sectional view of the Columbus powerhouse intake) shows the minimum upstream elevation at the lakes is 1,499
feet MSL. Please eliminate this inconsistency between exhibits in the final license application. Please also describe in
Exhibit B of the final application, the operation of Lakes Babcock and North as related to water surface elevations,
effective storage, and entry to the Columbus powerhouse intake.
In Section E.6.1.2 of Exhibit E (page E-58), you state that no requests were made to study the direct project effects on
geology and soils. However, in the sentence following that statement, you state that studies were requested to determine
the effect of project dredging operations on sediment transport and channel morphology, and then you follow with a
discussion on the effects of sediment transport and project dredging operations geology and soils. Therefore, it is unclear
to us why you state that no requests were made to study project effects on geology and soils.
On a related matter, the final application should include the results of Study 1.0, Sedimentation and Study 2.0,
Hydrocycling (HEC-RAS sediment transport modeling) in section E.6.1, geology and soils.
In our Study Determination on Requests for Modifications to the Loup River Project Study Plan, dated December 21,
2011, we directed you to complete the Alternative Project Operations and Sediment Management study. Please include
the results of this study in the final application.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (page E-108), you state that the degrading trend at the Louisville gage was attributed to
site-specific circumstances and not considered to be generic. In the final application, please elaborate on the site-specific
circumstances for the degrading trend occurring at the Louisville gage.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (page E-110, table E-32), you provide identical drainage areas for sites 3 and 4 (Platte
River upstream and downstream of the tailrace return, respectively). The drainage areas for sites 3 and 4 are larger than
that provided for the North Bend gage, which is significantly downstream. Please describe in the final application how the
drainage areas for sites 3 and 4 were developed and why the drainage areas for these sites are larger than that provided for
the North Bend gage, which is significantly downstream. Also, the drainage area provided for the Ashland gage should be
83,600 square miles according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s records. Please correct the Ashland gage drainage area in
the final application.
2
As noted in Section H.2, the Loup Power District is a wholesale and retail electric distribution utility that owns and
maintains an extensive distribution system that serves over 18,000 customers in five counties. Loup Power District also
owns and operates the licensed hydropower Project—its only generation asset—which is the subject of this relicensing.
The District’s distribution system is not related to Project relicensing and discussion of the distribution system has been
removed from the FLA. Additionally, the District has clarified discussion of the Project’s transmission connection to
the power grid. Finally, the District has clarified all discussion involving more than one public power district by using
the Loup Public Power District’s full name to clarify which public power district is being discussed.
The District has expanded the reservoir storage characteristic discussion in FLA Section B.2.4.
FLA Section B.1.2 has been revised and made consistent with FLA Section A.2.9.
Elevation discrepancies have been revised in FLA Section B.2.4. This section has also been expanded to describe lake
operations relative to water surface elevations, effective storage, and entry to the Columbus powerhouse intake.
The statement that “agency and stakeholders did not request studies to address direct Project effects on geology and
soils” has been removed from Section E.6.12.
FLA Section E.6.1 includes the results of Study 1.0 Sedimentation, as well as the sediment related results from Study
2.0 Hydrocycling, Study 5.0, Flow and Depletion and Flow Diversion, and Study 14.0 Alternative Project Operations
and Sediment Management.
The Sediment and Sediment Transport subheading of FLA Section E.6.1.1 includes this discussion and references
applicable literature citations that address this comment.
Table E-32 of the DLA is Table E-15 in the FLA and is included in FLA Section E.6.1.2. A note has been added to the
table to explain the drainage areas in question.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (pages E-113 and E-114), you state that the project has no discernible impact on flow area
because of tailrace return flows. You base this conclusion on the relationship of discharge and flow area presented on
graph E-4. We agree that there is a strong relationship of the points in graph E-4 as indicated by the coefficient of linear
regression. However, it is unclear how the calculation of the dominant and effective discharges for sites downstream of
the tailrace return differs from those sites not impacted by project operation. In the final application, please include a
discussion of the methodology used to calculate the dominant and effective discharges to assess the effects of project
operation on channel geometry.
HEC-RAS was used to calculate flow characteristics (for example, water surface elevation, width, depth, area, and
velocity) corresponding to a range of flow rates. The calculated relationships between flow rates and flow characteristics
for the eight sites along the lower Platte River were used develop graphs E-3 and E-4. The cross sections used in the
HEC-RAS model were field surveyed in the spring and fall of 2010. So that we understand the flows that shaped the cross
section during the survey, in the final application, please include the date and flow characteristics of the cross sections in
the HEC-RAS model used to develop graphs E-3 and E-4.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (page E-113), you state that dominant discharge generally increases in the downstream
direction. This is true for all sites on both graphs E-3 and E-4 with the exception of site 5. In the final application, please
discuss the apparent anomaly for the dominant discharge at site 5.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (pages E-116 through E-118), you present graphs E-5, E-6 and E-7. You state that the
abscissa in these three graphs represents the channel-forming discharge. In the final application, please clarify whether
effective or dominant discharges are plotted on the x-axis for these three graphs.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (pages E-116 through E-118), the data set used to develop the channel-forming discharge
presented in graphs E-5, E-6, and E-7 is unclear. The only values of channel-forming discharges in the draft license
application are presented in table E-33 (page E-112), which include the years 2003-2009. Three figures in Study 1.0,
Sedimentation (dated August 26, 2011) were developed for the years 1985-2009 and appear to be identical to those
presented in the draft license application. Therefore, in the final application, please clarify what data were used to develop
the channel-forming discharge presented in graphs E-5, E-6 and E-7. Also, in the final application please revise the plotted
data to provide positional accuracy.
In Section E.6.2.2 of Exhibit E (page E-115), you state that all plotted points on graph E-7 are positioned away from any
threshold to a different morphology. However, all points plotted on graph E-7 are located within an area termed
“intermediate streams” or very close to the threshold between intermediate and braided streams. The intermediate area
appears to be a transitional zone between braided and meandering streams. In the final application, please include
additional discussion to clarify your statement that all plotted points on graph E-7 are positioned away from any threshold
to a different morphology.
In Section E.4.12.1 of Exhibit E (page E-27), you state that the original maximum pool elevation in Lake Babcock was
increased to 1,531 feet MSL from 1,529 feet MSL. However, this change in water surface is not reflected in Exhibit F,
sheets 15 of 26, 20 of 26, and 21 of 26. In the final application, please revise Exhibit F to reflect the present normal water
surface elevation in the project’s regulating reservoirs.
In Section E.4.18 of Exhibit E (page E-37), you state that in 1952, the crest of the outlet weir was lowered about 18 inches.
However, this change is not reflected in Exhibit F, sheet 26 of 26. In the final application, please revise Exhibit F to
reflect the present crest elevation of the outlet weir and upstream water surface.
On pages E-81 to E-105, you discuss water quality and state water quality standards. You also list state water quality
standards in Appendix E-3. The title of table E-1 in Appendix E-3 should be modified to indicate “state water quality
standards” rather than “standards.” Also, please include dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature in table E-1.
On pages E-88 to E-105, you discuss in detail various water quality parameters and how the sampling and water quality
data collected at the project and in nearby waters meet state water quality standards. It would be very helpful to have a
short table in that section of the discussion that would indicate the state standards for several parameters, excluding all the
metal and nutrients shown in Table E-1. In other words, the table would have the numeric state water quality standards for
3
Explanatory text has been added to the Effective and Dominant Discharge Calculations portion of FLA Section E.6.1.2.
Explanatory text and appropriate FLA component references have been added to the Hydraulic Geometry Relationships
and Spatial Analyses portion of FLA Section E.6.1.2.
This discussion is contained in FLA Section E.6.1.2, immediately preceding Table E-16, and includes new content
relative to the noted anomaly.
Text that defines the horizontal axes as the 2003-2009 dominant discharges has been added to the Regime Analysis of
the Loup and Platte Rivers portion of FLA Section E.6.1.2.
Text that defines the horizontal axes as the 2003-2009 dominant discharges has been added to the Regime Analysis of
the Loup and Platte Rivers portion of FLA Section E.6.1.2. Plotted data has been revised on Graphs E-5, E-6, and E-7.
This discussion is contained in the Regime Analysis of the Loup and Platte River subheading of FLA Section E.6.1.2
and includes new content relative to the noted anomaly.
FLA Exhibit F, Sheets 15, 20, and 21 of 26 have been revised to show the Lake Babcock pool elevation as 1,531 feet
MSL.
FLA Exhibit F, Sheet 26 of 26 has been revised to reflect corrected elevations for the outlet weir and water surface
elevations.
Nebraska Water Quality Standards has been added to the title of the titles of the tables in FLA Appendix E-3.
Additionally, Tables E-40 through E-44 identifying the applicable water quality standards have been added to FLA
Section E.6.2.1.
DO, temperature, E. coli, aquatic life, and ammonia state water standards are noted in FLA Tables E-40, E-41, E-42, E-
43, and E-44, respectively. All referenced tables are contained in the Water Quality Standards portion of the FLA
Section E.6.2.1.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the following: DO, temperature (in Celsius and Fahrenheit), pH, E. coli, conductivity, ammonia, and chloride. Please also
include in the revision to the final application the length of time, if available, where temperature exceeded the state
standard of 90° F at each of the various collection sites.
On page E-159, you state that you “believe” that the Loup Power system fishery that was characterized by Rupp (1981) as
an excellent fishery and of regional importance to east-central Nebraska is still valid today, nearly 31 years after the report.
Please explain the basis for your conclusion about the recreational fishery resources of the Loup River Project in your final
application and include a copy of the 1981 paper by Rupp.
On page E-156, you mention that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (Nebraska Game) historically stocked
walleye in Lake North but currently has no regular stocking program in Loup River Project waters. If available, it would
be helpful to know why the walleye stocking program was discontinued, particularly, since in the very next sentence you
state that the same agency stocked sauger in the Loup Power Canal in 2009. Please indicate in your final application
whether Nebraska Game has any intention of continuing the stocking of sauger in the Loup Power Canal, and what, if any,
management objectives have been established for that species in the canal.
On page E-168, you also discuss other fish stocking efforts by Nebraska Game and it is unclear what fish stocking
occurred in the Loup Power Canal from among the 244,614 fish stocked in various locations since 2001. Please explain,
in the final application, which species were stocked in the Loup Power Canal from among the 244,614 fish stocked and
whether there is any intention by Nebraska Game to continue this stocking. Please also indicate if the stocking would be
done on an annual basis or intermittently.
In your final application, please indicate if any exotic fish species, like Asian carp, northern snakehead, or other exotic fish
species are present in project waters, and if so, the estimated relative abundance of these species compared to other native
species found in the same waters.
On page E-256, you state that you have erected public awareness signs at Lake North in 2011 that alert the public to
preventing the spread of potential aquatic invasive plants and animals. Please indicate in your final application whether
any invasive aquatic plants or animals have been reported in project waters.
In table D-1, Preliminary Cost Estimate of Proposed Environmental Measures of your draft license application, you
provide the cost to install a sand volleyball court at the project’s Headworks Park. However, you do not provide a
proposed construction schedule for this volleyball facility in section C.2 Proposed Construction Schedule. Please provide
a construction schedule for the sand volleyball court in your final application.
In table E-57 of your draft license application, you summarize the average daily and annual recreation use at the project’s
recreation facilities and the power canal; however, you do not define how you obtained the average daily and annual use
for the recreational facilities and the power canal. Please state if the recreational use estimates are based on a recreation
day, (i.e., a visit by a person for recreational purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period) or by other means and
provide responses in your final application.
In section E.6.7.1 Existing Environment of your draft license application, you describe the parks and trails located within
the project boundary; however, you do not describe any regional recreation facilities or parks. Please provide information
about regional recreational facilities and parks in your final application.
In section E.6.7.1 Existing Environment of your draft license application and section 3.2 Capacity of District Recreation
Sites of your draft Recreation Management Plan, you provide a brief qualitative summary of the project’s capacities at
various recreation facilities; however, more information is needed to determine if the project’s recreational facilities are at
or exceed their use capacities. Therefore, as requested in the Second Initial Study Report Meeting Summary filed March
11, 2011, please provide, quantitatively, the facility capacity for each recreation resource at your recreation facilities. To
calculate facility capacity, compare the average total amount of weekend use with the total combined capacity of these
resources to handle such use and enter a percentage that indicates their overall level of use. Please do not consider peak
weekend use. For example, if all available camping sites at the Headworks Park would be used to half its capacity during
non-peak weekend days, the facility would be at 50 percent capacity.
4
Results of the District’s 2010 creel survey support this determination and have been added to FLA Section E.6.3.2.
Explanatory and corrected fish stocking discussion has been added to FLA Section E.6.3.1.
More detailed fish stocking information has been added to FLA Section E.6.3.4.
New information, regarding Asian carp observations within the Tailrace Canal, was received from NGPC and has been
added to FLA Section E.6.3.1.
Note preceding comment/response regarding Asian carp. No other invasive aquatic species have been reported in
Project waters.
Sand volleyball court construction at Headworks Park is scheduled for 2015. This schedule is now indicated in FLA
Section C.2, Section E.6.7.3 and the District’s Recreation Management Plan.
Recreation use estimate methodologies previously included in the SISR Study 8.0 – Recreation Use are now also
included in FLA Section E.6.7.2 in association with Table E-80.
As detailed in FLA Section E.6.7.1, the Nebraska SCORP-defined Recreation Region 3: Northeast Area contains two
state parks, one state historical site and four state recreational areas. These resources are now summarized in the FLA.
Camper counts taken during the District’s 2010 recreation use survey, and resulting percent usage capacity values, are
now included in FLA Section E.6.7.2.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
1
2
In section E.6.7.1 Existing Environment of your draft license application, you state that you sponsor and maintain a public
trail network within the project boundary. However, you do not state who owns these public trails. Please provide the
ownership of the public trails you refer to in your final application.
In section E.6.7.1 Existing Environment of your draft license application, you state that you maintain Contemplation Point,
kiosks, and other recreation enhancements built by the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Please state who owns these
recreational enhancements built by the scouts and the location of these enhancements in your final application.
In section E.6.7.3 Proposed Environmental Measures of your draft license application; you state that a new 2,000-foot trail
segment would be constructed along the southeast side of Lake Babcock. Please state if the proposed trail would be
included in the project boundary in your final application.
In section E.3.5, National Historic Preservation Act of your draft license application, you state that as the non-federal
representative for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, you contacted six Indian tribes, and three of the
tribes indicated that they have no interest in the project. Please identify in the final application the six tribes you contacted
and the three tribes that stated that they are not interested in the project.
In section E.3.5, National Historic Preservation Act of your draft license application, you state that a draft Historic
Properties Management Plan (HPMP) has been sent to the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Officer for comment and
review. The restricted service list for the project, issued on July 1, 2009, identifies the Pawnee Tribal Business Council,
Santee Sioux Nation, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska as tribes that we would consult with during the section 106
process. Please send the draft HPMP to these tribes for review, allowing at least 30 days for comment, and summarize
their response, if any, in your final license application.
On page E-9, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions, you state that one of the parameters of concern would be the
continued actions of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Recovery Program) upstream in the central Platte
River. On page E-154 you provide a brief description of the Recovery Program. Please include a footnote on page E-9
describing the Recovery Program.
In your discussion of the Recovery Program on page E-154, please identify the four federally-listed endangered species of
concern and provide an example of one type of management measure for flow in the Platte River under the Recovery
Program that could potentially affect these four federally-listed species. Also, please provide an example of how flows
recommended under the Recovery Program could affect operation of the proposed Loup River Project in the future.
On page E-19, you mention that the project’s skimming weir is fitted with screens to collect trash and debris. Please
include in the final application the dimensions of the weir, including the clear bar spacing, and revise the drawing of the
skimming weir to include profile and elevation views of the trashrack. Also include in your discussion about the
skimming weir how debris is removed from the trashrack, and where it is disposed.
On pages E-80 and E-81, you use the term “raise dam” as a type of use related to water rights claims, applications, and
appropriations. We are not familiar with this terminology. Please define the term “raise dam” in the final license
application and explain how it relates to your proposed project.
February 16, 2012 – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The Service cannot concur with the conclusion that adverse effects resulting from Project operations to the whooping
crane (Grus americana) are discountable because species usage estimates can be determined, the Project is located within
the migratory corridor, and habitat affects are measureable.
The Service cannot concur with the determination that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and least tern (Sternula antillarum).
5
As stated in FLA Section E.6.7.1, the District owns and maintains all trails within the Project Boundary.
As stated in FLA Section E.6.7.1, the District owns the amenities that resulted from cooperative efforts with local
scouts.
As stated in FLA Section E.6.7.3, the proposed trail segment would be wholly constructed within the Project Boundary
and would be owned and maintained by the District.
The six contacted tribes, and the three tribes that stated that they are not interested in the Project, are specified in FLA
Section E.3.5.
As described in FLA Section E.3.5, the District provided the Draft HPMP to Nebraska SHPO and Native American
tribes for review. SHPO concurrence has been received and is noted in Section E.3.5; to date, no comments have been
received from Native American Indian tribes.
A footnote that briefly defines the Recovery Program has been added to FLA Section E.2.5.
The requested information has been added to FLA Section E.6.2.5.
The requested detail has been added to FLA Sections A.2.7 and E.4.7 and Exhibit F Sheet No. 3 of 26.
A footnote has been added to define “raise dam” in FLA Section E.6.2.1.
The District has expanded the whooping crane discussion in the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2) to support the
determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect. Additionally, the District previously responded to a similar
USFWS comment regarding Project affects to whooping crane on Attachment B, Pages 2-7 of the District’s May 11,
2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District has clarified discussions and provided additional information that supports the determination that Project
relicensing may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the interior least tern and the piping plover in Section 6.1 of
the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2). District responses to specific USFWS comments provided in association with the
USFWS’s affect determination are provided in subsequent matrix responses.
3 The Service cannot concur with the determination that Project operations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect As stated in Section 6.3 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2), the District has clarified discussions and provided

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). additional information that supports the determination that Project relicensing may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect pallid sturgeon. District responses to specific USFWS comments provided in association with the USFWS’s
6
affect determination are provided in subsequent matrix responses.
The Service concurs that Project operations are not likely to adversely affect the western prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera praeclara). The District notes the provided affect determination and USFWS concurrence.
The conclusion that Project hydrocycling for this relicensing action has no effect on federal and state trust species seems to
be unique and somewhat inconsistent with what other researchers have found on the Platte River and other river systems.
The Service has determined that the Project hydrocycling operations may impact the aquatic community in the lower Platte
River. As reported in recent studies, the Project hydrocycling operations are likely to be a contributor in the reduction of
benthic invertebrate production resulting the reduction in the growth rates of species that feed on benthic invertebrates
including channel catfish, shovelnose sturgeon, and pallid sturgeon. Project impacts similarly affect the fish community
by reducing the quantity of habitat available, quality of habitat available, and connectivity of these habitats.
The PLP proposes a minimum Loup River bypass discharge of 50 to 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) will maintain a "severe
degradation" condition under the Montana Method. A study conducted by LPD under the ILP process showed that Project
diversions severely impact fish habitat in the Loup River bypass area from April through October with the most severe
degradation of such habitat from July through October. Furthermore, the minimum bypass has a high probability of
exceeding the temperature standard set by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (approximately 90-percent
daily exceedence according to the Second Initial Study Report (SISR) results). The Service expects similar impacts to the
Platte River bypass area although impacts based on results from the SISR and the Updated Study report (USR) as
completed by LPD are difficult to discern because of the influence of central Platte River streamflow.
The Service supports the investigations of the four alternatives described in FERC's June 10, 2011, request for study plan
modifications (as amended December 21, 2011).
Hydrocycling related PM&E measures should be put into place to avoid or minimize impacts to federal and state trust fish
and wildlife resources within the March through October time frame.
Consider implementation of some or all of these alternative PM&E measures including: a) no hydrocycling; b) limit the
number of operational turbines; and/or c) develop re-regulation facilities.
The Service recommends the development of an instream flow bypass that is greater than the 50 to 75 cfs proposed in the
PLP.
(The Service recommends that the District) Implement an effective/dominant discharge level flow from May-June on the
Loup River bypass reach to enhance sediment transport.
The District has included a discussion of the effects of hydrocycling on the macroinvertebrate community of the lower
Platte River in Sections 6.1.6 and 6.3.8 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2). Additionally, the District previously
responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the affects of hydrocycling on pallid sturgeon in Attachment B,
Pages 13-16 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
Based on USFWS comments regarding potential Project impacts to macroinvertebrate/species forage, the District
performed a thorough review of the literature citations provided by USFWS in support of their stated concerns. In lieu
of responding to each specific comment independently, the District generally notes that the ultimate findings of the cited
literature are either, 1) not applicable to the Loup River Project, 2) inconclusive, 3) unsubstantiated, or 4) counter to the
USFWS representation of the findings. A notable example is the reference to studies performed on waterways in
Washington, Maryland, and Austria. Based on the varied geography, channel morphologies, and substrate materials of
these waterways, the District is concerned with any attempts to make direct comparisons regarding macroinvertebrate
density and diversity relationships with the Loup and lower Platte rivers. Regarding the geographically-pertinent
statement by Barada that hydrocycling operations affect the growth rates of channel catfish in the lower Platte River via
adverse affects to the macroinvertebrate (forage) community, the District finds this conclusion to be speculative. Barada
performed no macroinvertebrate sampling to substantiate this finding and further states that intra- and inter-specific
competition, temperature, and watershed characteristics could also contribute to the observed growth rates of channel
catfish. Furthermore, the District notes the 2005 NDEQ Stream Classification Study as a suitable and specifically
relevant study relating to the macroinvertebrate community of the lower Platte River. In association with this study,
NDEQ performed site-specific sampling in the lower Platte River, just below the Tailrace return, and rated the
associated macroinvertebrate population as “Good” (on a rating scale of Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor).
District analysis of fish habitat suitability within the Project bypass reach is stated in FLA Section E.6.3.2. Additionally,
the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments in Attachment B, Pages 9-10, 19, and 34-36 of the
District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
In association with the FLA, the District has included Study 14.0, Alternative Project Operations and Sediment
Management.
The District is not proposing PM&E measures relative to hydrocycling, as Project-specific studies have not identified
any adverse impacts resulting from Project hydrocycling.
The District is not proposing PM&E measures relative to hydrocycling, as Project-specific studies have not identified
any adverse impacts resulting from Project hydrocycling.
The District’s proposed action (see FLA Section E.5.2), includes the provision of 75 cfs of flow in the Loup River
bypass reach in accordance with previous agreements, as discussed in FLA Section E.6.3.3.
District studies have not identified that the suggested flow modification would benefit listed species. As such, the
District is not proposing to implement such flow modifications.
12
The Service recommends mechanical modifications on two to four sandbar point bars within the Loup River bypass area.
Because mechanical sandbar modification would require associated flow modifications, and because the District has not
found the associated flow modifications to provide species benefit, the District is not proposing mechanical sandbar
modification.
13 A multi-year monitoring program is recommended for the Loup River bypass and lower Platte River to: a) ascertain The District is not proposing a multi-year monitoring program, as Project-specific studies have identified no adverse

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
14
15
16
response of the least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, whooping crane, and other riverine fish and wildlife species to the
recommended PM&E measures; and b) ascertain habitat response of the above species to the recommended PM&E
measures.
The Service will defer to FERC to determine the level of documentation needed to satisfy NEPA requirements for the
Loup River Hydroelectric Project. However, the Service has serious concerns about the inadequacy of PM&E measures
currently proposed in the PLP given the number of important resources involved. It may be difficult for FERC to support
preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact with only the current level of PM&E measures.
A recognized shortcoming of the Missouri River Basin study is that the sediment yield analysis only evaluates sediment
sources, but does not assess sediment sinks. The assumed absence of sediment sinks leads to the incorrect assumption that
the total quantity of source sediment is transported to the next downstream sub basin. The Missouri River Basin study
identified sources of sediment, but study methods did not identify areas of sediment deposition which includes hillslope
deposition, valley deposition, and floodplain deposition (i.e., sediment sinks). This line of reasoning has also been applied
in the Preliminary License Proposal (PLP) with the North and South Sand Management Areas (SMA) but nowhere else.
The Service is concerned about the Project's removal of 24 percent of the sediment supply from the Platte River at North
Bend and its effect on channel morphology leading to impacts to species habitats. The Service encourages FERC to
consider the cumulative effects to lower Platte River sediment supply and how these effects may change in the future.
The central Platte River is currently experiencing similar problems in the loss of sediment supply (Murphy et al. 2006).
This erosion of sediment supply has migrated downstream as evidenced through the progressive coarsening of sediment in
the central Platte River (Kinzel and Runge 2011). It is assumed that sediment transport impacts in the central Platte River
will be realized in the lower Platte River. The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program intends to offset the
sediment imbalance in the central Platte River through sediment augmentation, but the long-term feasibility of sediment
augmentation remains under investigation. When considering the central and lower Platte River cumulative effects, the
Corps (1990) conclusion that the sediment supply of the lower Platte River is virtually unlimited does not appear to be
valid.
7
impacts that warrant such an effort.
Comment noted.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding fish habitat in the bypass reach on
Attachment B, Pages 6 to 8 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
To clarify, there are two different sediment analyses being performed in Study 1.0 Sedimentation. The first is the
estimate of sediment yield from the watershed. This is soil erosion from sheet and rill erosion from rainfall, streambank
erosion, and channel erosion. The MRBC sheet and rill erosion was calculated using the USLE equation. The sediment
yield analysis performed by the MRBC estimates “the amount of sediment delivered to the mouth of individual
watersheds within the subbasins” which includes sediment deposition in the watershed. The streambank and channel
erosion were estimated using actual measurements. As stated in USACE, 1990 “There are a number of methods
available to determine sediment yield. All can be grouped into two broad categories: those based on direct measurement
and those based on analytical techniques. Only those methods based on direct measurement are considered a rigorous
approach; analytical techniques are trend indicators at best.”
FERC approved of the use of the MRBC Platte River Basin Level B Study for calculating sediment yield in the August
26, 2009 Study Plan Determination for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
The sediment budget that FERC requested on April 8, 2011 was not related to the MRBC soil erosion calculations. The
comments were related to sediment capacity within the river systems.
The USLE methods employed by the MRBC were applied on several smaller subbasins, not on the entire Platte River
Basin.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments regarding sediment supply in, 1) Attachment B of the
District’s November 24, 2010 Response to Comments on the ISR (USFWS Comment 2 on Project Sediment-related
Effects: Tailrace to North Bend) and 2) Attachment B, Pages 24 to 28 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to
Comments on the SISR.
With regard to the central Platte River, The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) is scheduled to
initiate a pilot test to augment sediment in the central Platte River in the fall of 2012 as a result of clear water returns
from a hydroelectric project. The pilot study is being performed to evaluate the PRRIP Sediment Priority Hypothesis
No. 1 which states that “Average sediment augmentation near Overton of 185,000 tons/year under existing flow regime
and 225,000 tons/year under Governance Committee proposed flow regime achieves a sediment balance to Kearney.”
The sediment imbalance was identified based on historic stream gage trends at the Overton gage, survey measurements,
bed material samples, and sediment transport modeling (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, April 2006; Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary).
In the lower Platte River, particularly in the vicinity of the Project, historic stream gage data, channel surveys, bed
material samples, existing literature, and sediment transport models all show that the river is neither aggrading nor
degrading, but is a stable channel which has adjusted to the incoming sediment load and the increase in flow at the
Tailrace Return. The PRRIP study and the results of the studies performed Project relicensing corroborate this finding
(Sedimentation Study - Appendix A, and Hydrocycling Study - Appending B, in the Final Study Report, Study 14.0
Alternative Project Operations and Sediment Management). In addition, the PRRIP’s hypothesis is to achieve sediment
balance at Kearney, recognizing that the sediment deficit will not translate approximately 115 miles downstream to the
Loup River/Platte River confluence.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sediment-free water from the Tailrace Return is likely to facilitate sandbar erosion.
When reviewing the body of current literature for the lower Platte River, there is not clear support that the lower Platte
River is in stable geomorphic condition as stated in the PLP.
The Service believes that hydrocycling operations have resulted in the erosion of sandbars in the lower Platte River.
The Service believes that Project operations have increased the probability of high water temperatures in the Loup River
bypass. The comparison of the probability of temperature exceedence to streamflow is one product of the relicense studies
whose methods were derived from Sinokrot and Gulliver (2000). LPD replication of methods developed by Sinokrot and
Gulliver (2000) demonstrate that, at lower discharges, diel temperature fluctuations are more pronounced as evidenced in
the probability of temperature exceedences graph in the USR (Figure 5-16). The current minimum flow bypass of 50 to 75
cfs has a high probability exceeding the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality standard (approximately 90percent
daily exceedence).
The Service has determined that Project operations impact the Loup River fish community by: a) increasing the probability
of exceeding the water quality standard for warm water aquatic life, and b) reducing suitability of instream habitat.
The conclusion that Project hydrocycling for this relicensing action has no effect on federal and state trust species seems to
be unique and somewhat inconsistent with what other researchers have found on the Platte River and other river systems.
The Loup River bypass has a role in whooping recovery in the future if habitat could be improved compared to present
conditions.
Assessments of habitat use in the DBA do not consider information from recently published documents. The DBA does
not consider channel width, wetted width, and depth information published by Farmer et al. (2004) or Howlin et al. (2008)
which represent important habitat criteria for the whooping crane. It is important to recognize that, although whooping
crane may use a range of unobstructed and wetted widths, the species selects for the widest unobstructed and wetted
widths available. The DBA description of habitat use in Table 4 does not capture the complexities of how the species
selects habitats based on habitat availability using resource selection applications (Johnson et al. 2006, Rosenfeld 2003,
Johnson 1980).
8
The District previously responded to a similar comment regarding the potential for Project operations to facilitate
sandbar erosion in Attachment A of the District’s November 23, 2011 Response to Comments on the USR. In addition,
the District responded to Project effects on channel morphology and habitat in Attachment B of the District’s May 11,
2011 Response to Comments on the SISR, and in Attachment B of the District’s November 24, 2010 Response to
Comments on the ISR. Finally, the District performed studies specific to the Project in both the Loup and Platte Rivers.
These studies are detailed in the Final Study Report (Study 1.0 Sedimentation, Study 2.0 Hydrocycling, Study 5.0 Flow
Depletion and Flow Diversion, and Study 14.0 Alternative Project Operations and Sediment Management).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding Joeckel and Henebry (2008) in Study 2.0
Hydrocycling Section 5.4.3 Regime Analysis. The District also previously responded to a similar USFWS comment
regarding Elliot (2009) in a letter to FERC dated November 24, 2010.
Throughout relicensing, the District has cited and provided USACE, USGS, and other sources that confirm that the
geomorphic condition of the lower Platte River is in dynamic equilibrium. The District does not consider the support of
this position to be in question.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the potential affect of hydrocycling on
sandbar erosion on Attachment B, Pages 11 and 12 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
Additional information is provided in response to USFWS comment 17, above.
The District notes that Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach determined no statistically
significant relationship between water temperature and discharge (see FLA Section E.6.3.2 and FLA Volume 3,
Appendix C). Furthermore, the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding temperature in
the bypass reach in Attachment B, Page 9 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District’s proposed action (see FLA Section E.5.2), includes the provision of 75 cfs of flow in the Loup River
bypass reach in accordance with previous agreements, as discussed in FLA Section E.6.3.3.
The District notes that Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach determined no statistically
significant relationship between water temperature and discharge (see FLA Section E.6.3.2 and FLA Volume 3,
Appendix C). Furthermore, the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding temperature in
the bypass reach in Attachment B, Page 9 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District’s proposed action (see FLA Section E.5.2), includes the provision of 75 cfs of flow in the Loup River
bypass reach in accordance with previous agreements, as discussed in FLA Section E.6.3.3.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding bypass reach habitat related to flow on
Attachment B, Page 19 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District’s response to USFWC Comment No. 5 specifically addresses potential hydrocycling affects to the
macroinvertebrate community of the lower Platte River.
The District has included a discussion of the effects of hydrocycling on the macroinvertebrate community of the lower
Platte River in Sections 6.1.6 and 6.3.8 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2). Additionally, the District previously
responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the affects of hydrocycling on pallid sturgeon on Attachment B,
Pages 13-16 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District has addressed potential changes to whooping crane habitat in Sections 5.3.2, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3 of the Draft
BA ((FLA Appendix E-2).
Additionally, the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding Project affects to whooping
crane in Attachment B, Pages 2-7 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District has addressed potential changes to whooping crane habitat in Sections 5.3.2, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3 of the Draft
BA ((FLA Appendix E-2).
Additionally, the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding Project affects to whooping
crane on Attachment B, Pages 2-7 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The Service does not support the DBA conclusion that interior least tern use of the Loup River in relation to use of other
Nebraska rivers is minimal. The species recovery plan has identified the Loup River as important for species conservation
and recovery, and species recovery cannot occur unless Loup River recovery objectives are achieved.
The DBA does not include important interior and least tern adult and nest survey information that was provided by the
(Nebraska Game and Parks) Commission.
The Loup River upstream of the diversion has a higher number of: a) maximum number of individuals surveyed per mile,
b) total number of least tern nests per river mile, and c) total number of nesting colonies per river mile for all three years of
survey.
The PLP stated that the calculation of channel width and depth using the no diversion effective and dominant discharges
reveals that the values of both parameters would be larger under a no diversion condition than under current operations.
The LPD May 11, 2011, response to SISR comments stated that under the no diversion condition, the Loup River bypass
reach would over time develop characteristics similar to the upstream location. If the Loup River downstream of the
Project diversion was geomorphically similar to the river upstream of the diversion, then species use would be similar. If
the rate of species use for the Loup River bypass area was similar to use documented for the Loup River upstream of the
diversion, then we would expect the: a) maximum number of individuals to increase by 20 to 33 individuals; b) total
number of nests to increase by 4 to 26 nests; and c) number of nesting colonies to increase by 2 to 4 colonies.
Channel width in the bypass segment of the Loup River is narrower than channels upstream of the diversion. The Service
believes that the lower rates of use and nesting in the Loup River bypass are linked to lower channel width suitability.
Furthermore, the DBA did not consider the position of the sandbars in relation to habitat suitability. While the DBA
correctly states that the Loup River bypass has greater areas of bare sand, the Service does not consider bare sand as
suitable habitat unless the sand represents a mid-channel sandbar isolated by streamf1ow. Study sites upstream of the
Project diversion have a larger percentage of mid-channel bars in comparison to downstream sites which have a higher
proportion of point bars. Mid-channel sandbars located upstream of the project diversion are likely to be higher in
suitability because sandbars would be located away from visual obstructions.
Project operations may affect least tern forage because of Project diversions affecting water temperature in the Loup River
bypass and instream habitat in the Loup and Platte River bypass areas. Least terns are opportunistic feeders. However,
adults and chicks have different sizes requirements for food items, so a diverse and healthy fish community is necessary to
support different least tern life stages.
The Service supports the DBA assessment that OHV could represent a disturbance-related effect to the species, and broad
use of OHV in the bypass may be facilitated by low bypass flows.
The DBA concluded that factors such as suitable habitat, mid-summer flooding, recreational disturbance, predation,
nesting success in other locations, and threats in the wintering locations create variability in nesting numbers. The Service
has determined that the DBA analyses cannot singularly assess Project effects to least tern nesting. The Project may/may
not affect the species, but current methods can not verify this effect (of lack of) because methods cannot account for the
aforementioned confounding factors that creates variability in the results.
According to the LPD USR response, approximately 1,794,800 tons of sediment are removed on an average annual basis
through Project operations. Assuming a bulk density of sand at 1.9 tons per cubic yard (Kinzel 2009), approximately
944,632 cubic yards of sediment near the Project tailrace return would be needed to maintain sediment balance on an
annual basis. The sediment removed from the available sediment supply would come from Platte River streambed, banks,
and sandbars. Project removal of sediment at the Project diversion may affect Platte River sandbar formation and
sediment free water from the Tailrace Return may facilitate sandbar erosion. This relationship between suspended
sediments and sandbar development has been documented in other river basins.
9
Sections 5.2.3 and 6.1 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2) clarify discussions and provide additional information that
supports the determination that Project relicensing may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the interior least tern
and the piping plover.
The referenced survey information has been added to Section 5.1.3 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District notes that regardless of bypass reach conditions (under current operations or a no diversion scenario), the
nesting data demonstrates higher least tern nest counts along the Loup River below the Project diversion, as compared to
least tern nest counts on the Loup River above the Project diversion (see Section 5.1.3 of the Draft BA [FLA Appendix
E-2]).
Further, the District has addressed issues related to sediment and sandbar habitat in Section 6. 1.4 and 6.1.5. of the Draft
BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding temperature in the bypass reach on
Attachment B, Page 9 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
OHV use of the Loup River bypass reach is a private property matter over which the District has no control. Potential
disturbance-related effects to least tern and piping plover, resulting from OHV use within the Loup River bypass reach,
can not be linked to the District; furthermore, the District has no authority to police recreation activities on private
property.
The District notes that the Draft BA statement relative to multiple variables that affect nest count variability also
included the statement that, while nest counts have been variable (from 1987 – 2009), Project operations have remained
constant. It should also be noted that differences in nest count methodology may also attribute to this variability.
Furthermore, the District’s studies were developed in an effort to isolate the Project effects. The effects of hydrocycling
were evaluated in comparison to a run-of-river operation to assess potential frequency of benchmark flow exceedences
as a surrogate for potential nest elevations. This analysis used historical flow data as a method of comparison. HEC-
RAS models were used to compare current operations to run-of-river operations as a method of determining Project
operations on river morphology and sediment transport parameters. Study 14.0 was performed to analyze how hydraulic
and river morphology characteristics would be affected under hypothetical situations relative to sediment availability
(for the Platte River) and by-pass flow rates (for the Loup River bypass reach). In each circumstance, no substantial
difference between current operations and run-of-river operations were identified.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments regarding sediment supply in, 1) Attachment B of the
District’s November 24, 2010 Response to Comments on the ISR (USFWS Comment 2 on Project Sediment-related
Effects: Tailrace to North Bend and 2) Attachment B, Pages 24 to 28 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to
Comments on the SISR.
The District previously responded to a similar FERC comment regarding the potential for Project discharge to facilitate
sandbar erosion in Attachment A of the District’s November 23, 2011 Response to Comments on the USR.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The PLP referenced results from the aggradation/degradation analysis which used methods from Chen et al. (1999) stating
that channel degradation was not detected at the North Bend streamgage and sites further downstream. However, the
aggradation/degradation analysis is limited in that stream gage. The North Bend gage is approximately 30 miles
downstream from the Project tailrace, and methods could not be used to detect change to the sub-aerial component of the
channel (i.e., sandbars) (Alexander 2009).
As discussed in Appendix B, Project hydrocycling operations also affect primary productivity in the Platte River below the
tailrace return which may affect least tern forage base. Project hydrocycling affect the least tern through sandbar erosion,
and the continuous wetting of sandbars may also impact sandbar suitability by facilitating vegetation establishment.
Project hydrocycling also affects least tern nest inundation. The Service does not support the DBA conclusion that the
relative elevation above the wetted sand of a sand bar would be the same for current operations and a run-of-river scenario.
It is reasonable to conclude under certain flow conditions that hydrocycling either: a) has the potential for nest inundation,
or b) has the potential to inundate nesting habitat that would preclude nesting opportunities.
The genus for the least tern has recently changed from Sterna to Sternula.
The DBA is correct in that the breeding range (of the least tern) has not changed, but the number of breeding sites rangewide
has diminished. Noted.
The DBA statement that least terns are associated with piping plovers at nesting sites is incomplete. The species have
been known to nest at colonies independent of the other species. Furthermore, species ranges are different further
documenting why species are not always associated.
The Service would like to caution the use of 2005 census data as the sole source of data used to determine the significance
of the Loup River to the species. Noted.
The North SMA has 425.5 acres of sand, but only 100 to 150 acres is considered habitat for terns and plovers.
The Service does not view the MOU as a mitigation or enhancement offset for Loup or Platte River habitat impacts. The
North SMA memorandum of understanding reduces the take of least tern and piping plover nests resulting from sand
mining operations only and does not reduce effects of Project operations on Loup River nesting habitat.
The Service does not support the DBA conclusion that piping plover use of the Loup River in relation to use of other
Nebraska rivers is minimal. The species recovery plan has identified the Loup River as important for species conservation
and recovery, and species recovery cannot occur unless Loup River recovery objectives are achieved.
The DBA does not include important adult and nest survey information.
Similar to findings in the least tern section, the Loup River upstream of the diversion has a higher number of: a) piping
plover individuals per mile, b) piping plover nests per river mile, and c) nesting colonies per river mile for all three years
of survey. This change is especially dramatic when considering that a single nesting colony as well as all of the
documented piping nests in the Loup River bypass area occurred at the Central Sand and Gravel sandpit. As noted in
Figure C-5, channel widths of approximately 1,700 feet are much wider than widths documented in the flow
depletion/flow diversion study in the bypass area. When removing nest totals from the Central Sand and Gravel sandpit,
there would be zero nests in the Loup Bypass area.
The PLP stated that the calculation of channel width and depth using the no diversion effective and dominant discharges
reveals that the values of both parameters would be larger under a no diversion condition than under current operations.
10
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments regarding the aggradation/degradation analysis in
Attachment B of the District’s November 24, 2010 Response to Comments on the ISR (USFWS Comment 2 and 3 on
Aggradation/Degradation).
The District’s response to USFWC Comment No. 5 specifically addresses potential hydrocycling affects to the
macroinvertebrate community of the lower Platte River.
The District has included a discussion of the effects of hydrocycling on the macroinvertebrate community of the lower
Platte River in Sections 6.1.6 and 6.3.8 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the potential affect of hydrocycling on
sandbar erosion on Attachment B, Pages 11 and 12 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District has provided additional information and clarification regarding the District’s analysis of potential for piping
plover and interior least tern nest inundation is included in Draft BA Section 6.1.6 (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS and NGPC comment regarding the potential for nest inundation
resulting from hydrocycling in Attachment C, Pages 13 to 25 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on
the SISR.
Noted and applied to the FLA and associated Draft BA.
Section 5.1.2. of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2) has been updated, consistent with USFWS input.
Noted.
The District agrees that the MOU reduces the risk of take of least tern and piping plover nests resulting from sand
mining operations. The District also cites the species data contained within Section 5.1.3 of the Draft BA that
demonstrates the considerable use of the North SMA by the species and demonstrates that the MOU has been effective
in protecting the species at the North SMA.
The District has clarified discussions and provided additional information that supports the determination that Project
relicensing may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the interior least tern and the piping plover in Section 5.2.3
of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District notes that regardless of bypass reach conditions under a no diversion scenario, the current data provided in
Section 5.1.3 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2) demonstrates higher piping plover nest counts along the Loup River

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
43
44
45
46
47
48
50
51
Channel width in the bypass segment of the Loup River is narrower than channels upstream of the diversion. Results from
the HEC-RAC analysis show channel widths upstream of the diversion averaging 825 feet while channels downstream of
the diversion average 640 feet.
The Service believes that the lower rates of use and nesting in the Loup River bypass are linked to lower channel width
suitability. While the DBA correctly states that the Loup River bypass has greater areas of bare sand, the Service does not
consider bare sand as nesting habitat unless the sand represents a mid-channel sandbar isolated by streamflow. Study sites
upstream of the Project diversion have a larger percentage of mid-channel bars in comparison to downstream sites which
have a higher proportion of point bars. Mid-channel sandbars located upstream of the project diversion are likely to be
higher in suitability because sandbars would be located away from visual obstructions.
As discussed in the least tern section, the Project may/may not affect the species, but current methods cannot verify this
effect (or lack of) because methods cannot account for the confounding factors that creates variability in the results.
Project hydrocycling operations affects primary productivity in the Platte River below the tailrace return which may affect
piping plover forage base.
Project hydrocycling may affect the piping plover through sandbar erosion, and the continuous wetting of sandbars may
also impact sandbar suitability by facilitating vegetation establishment. It is also reasonable to conclude under certain flow
conditions that hydrocycling either: a) has the potential for nest inundation, or b) has the potential to inundate nesting
habitat that would preclude nesting opportunities.
11
below the Project diversion, as compared to least tern nest counts along the Loup River above the Project diversion.
The District notes that the Draft BA statement relative to multiple variables that affect nest count variability also
included the statement that, while nest counts have been variable (from 1987 – 2009), Project operations have remained
constant. It should also be pointed out that differences in nest count methodology may also attribute to this variability.
Furthermore, the District’s studies were developed in an effort to isolate the Project effects. The effects of hydrocycling
were evaluated in comparison to a run-of-river operation to assess potential frequency of benchmark flow exceedences
as a surrogate for potential nest elevations. This analysis used historical flow data as a method of comparison. HEC-
RAS models were used to compare current operations to run-of-river operations as a method of determining Project
operations on river morphology and sediment transport parameters. Study 14.0 was performed to analyze what would
happen to hydraulic and river morphology characteristics under hypothetical situations relative to sediment availability
(for the Platte River) and by-pass flow rates (for the Loup River bypass reach). In each circumstance, no substantial
difference between current operations and run-of-river operations were identified.
The District’s response to USFWC Comment No. 5 specifically addresses potential hydrocycling affects to the
macroinvertebrate community of the lower Platte River.
The District has included discussion of the effects of hydrocycling on the macroinvertebrate community of the lower
Platte River in Sections 6.1.6 and 6.3.8 of the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the potential affect of hydrocycling on
sandbar erosion in Attachment B, Pages 11 and 12 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The Service cautions the use of international piping plover census data as the sole source of data to determine the
significance of the Loup River to the species. Noted. Additionally, the District has included additional survey data along the Loup River in Section 5.1.3
The International Piping Plover Census is conducted every five years, not four as cited in the DBA.
Table 3 of the DBA should compare the Loup River metapopulation to the total number of piping plover adults when
comparisons should be developed at the subspecies, population, or Distinct Population Segment level because of the
biological significance of these units to species conservation.
Banded piping plover data accessible to the LPD demonstrates regular and routine dispersal between breeding sites and
areas at various scales. This exchange of individuals demonstrates the Loup River contributes to the overall population
and shows the interconnectedness of breeding areas and sites. Loss or increases of breeding sites and habitat on the Loup
River, or elsewhere for that matter, has population-level consequences.
The Project's removal of 24 percent of the sediment supply at the Project tailrace may result in future channel degradation
which would affect pallid sturgeon habitat.
Pallid sturgeon may also be affected by Project bypass operations. Study Site 3, located within the Platte River bypass
area, has narrower channels compared to study sites downstream of the Project's tailrace return which is a result of Project
diversions lowering effective discharge. This reduction in channel area would assume to have some proportionate
Noted and updated in Draft BA Section 5.1.3 (FLA Appendix E-2).
The District is uncertain as to the information requested herein. The District has included all relevant species data, at its
disposable.
Relicensing of the Project would not result in habitat loss. It would however maintain the North SMA as suitable habitat
that contributes to the interconnectedness noted by the USFWS.
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments regarding sediment supply in, 1) Attachment B of the
District’s November 24, 2010 Response to Comments on the ISR (USFWS Comment 3 on Aggradation/Degredation
and USFWS Comment 2 on Project Sediment-related Effects: Tailrace to North Bend) and 2) Attachment B, Pages 24 to
28 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR. In addition, the District performed studies
specific to the Project in both the Loup and Platte Rivers. These studies are detailed in the Final Study Report (Study
1.0 Sedimentation, Study 2.0 Hydrocycling, Study 5.0 Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion, and Study 14.0 Alternative
Project Operations and Sediment Management).
District analysis regarding this USFWS concern is included in Draft BA Section 6.3.2 and Section 6.3.9 (FLA Appendix
E-2).

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
reduction in pallid sturgeon habitat.
Project reductions in active channel area may affect pallid sturgeon habitats in two ways. Reduction in active channel area
may affect the longitudinal distribution of habitats which in turn affect the presence or absence of species at large spatial
scales (Rosenfeld 2003). Reductions in channel area may also reduce the lower Platte River's habitat capacity for a species
which in turn affect species abundance (Rosenfeld 2003). These reductions in channel area may result in river segments
that are unsuitable to pallid sturgeon, or suitability is so reduced that the river segment serves only as a migration corridor.
The Project's removal of 24 percent of the sediment supply at the Project tailrace return could affect the development of
channel sandbars and macroforms. Furthermore, the Project's release of clear water at the tailrace return would increase
water clarity in the lower Platte River. The clear water returns would affect the pallid sturgeon which select for dark to
very dark conditions, avoid areas of low turbidity, and have specialized physiological adaptations to turbid environments
(Peters and Parham 2008b). The increase in water clarity would decrease habitat suitability and may increase predation
pressure on individuals near the tailrace return (Peters and Parham 2008b).
Project hydrocycling may also affect pallid sturgeon habitats.
Elliot (2011) noted that deep water geomorphic classification (i.e., percent of deep water) was sensitive to discharge
changes resulting from hydrocycling; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that hydrocycling similarly affects pallid
sturgeon habitat.
Service April 7, 2011, comments on the SISR identified Project hydrocycling effects to the connectivity to pallid sturgeon
habitats.
The most prominent Project effects to connectivity occur from February through June and in November. For certain
months, Project effects to connectivity occur upstream to Study Site 4. These losses of connectivity at Study Site 3 could
imply Project diversions potentially affecting pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River Bypass area. Project effects to
habitat connectivity may reduce the capacity of the Platte River to support pallid sturgeon individuals. Reductions in
habitat connectivity may also affect the spawning migration of pallid sturgeon in the Platte River between April and July
when reproductive shovelnose and pallid sturgeon generally move upstream to spawn.
It is likely that Project operations would not affect spawning behavior of the pallid sturgeon. DeLonay etal. (2009)
identified potential long-term and short term cues for reproductive maturation and readiness to spawn. Day length is the
likely long-term cue that is initiated months before a predictable spawning date. Of three potential short-term spawning
cues (i.e., water temperature, discharge, day of year) water temperature is the most likely to affect the sensitivity of pallid
sturgeon hormones, embryo development, and embryo survival. Since Project operations are not known to affect stream
temperature in the Platte River, it is reasonable to conclude that Project operations would not affect spawning behavior.
The Project may affect pallid sturgeon prey items by: a) flow and sediment-related effects to sustainability of habitats, b)
flow and sediment-related effects to habitat quantity and quality, c) flow-related effects to habitat connectivity, and d)
flow-related effects on primary production.
Project reductions in channel area, reductions in suspended sediment, removal of sediment supply near the tailrace return
may affect habitat quality and quantity of pallid sturgeon prey items.
Project hydrocycling operations may affect habitat quality and connectivity of habitat for pallid sturgeon prey items.
Project hydrocycling effects to primary production has been well documented. This effect would be realized for benthic
invertebrates commonly consumed by juvenile pallid sturgeon as well as affecting small fishes commonly consumed by
adults.
University of Nebraska at Lincoln researchers have captured both stocked and wild pallid sturgeon upstream of the
Elkhorn River confluence for all three sampling years and all three sampling time periods (i.e., spring, summer, and fall).
Thus, implying that the Platte River provides habitat for the pallid sturgeon year round as opposed to providing seasonal
habitat described in the DBA.
12
District analysis regarding this USFWS concern is included in Draft BA Section 6.3.2 and Section 6.3.9 (FLA Appendix
E-2).
The USFWS’s definitive statement regarding clean water discharge impacts to the Platte River is speculative, not
substantiated by associated turbidity sampling, and contrary to Project-specific study findings. Attachment B of the
District’s November 23, 2011 response to USFWS Comment 3 on the Updated Study Report illustrates a lack of bed
coarsening downstream of the Tailrace return: this suggests a lack of clear water, as clear water would result in bed
coarsening. In addition, the District previously responded to a similar USFWS comments regarding sediment supply in,
1) Attachment B of the District’s November 24, 2010 Response to Comments on the ISR (USFWS Comment 2 on
Project Sediment-related Effects: Tailrace to North Bend) and 2) Attachment B, Pages 24 to 28 of the District’s May 11,
2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
District analysis regarding this USFWS concern is included in Draft BA Section 6.3.2 and Section 6.3.9 (FLA Appendix
E-2).
The District previously responded to a similar USFWS comment regarding the affects of hydrocycling on pallid
sturgeon on Attachment B, Pages 13-16 of the District’s May 11, 2011 Response to Comments on the SISR.
The District concurs with this USFWS conclusion.
District analysis regarding this USFWS concern is included in Draft BA Section 6.3.8 and Section 6.3.9 (FLA Appendix
E-2).
The District’s response to USFWC Comment No. 5 specifically addresses potential hydrocycling affects to the
macroinvertebrate community of the lower Platte River.
District analysis regarding this USFWS concern is included in Draft BA Section 6.3.2 and Section 6.3.9 (FLA Appendix
E-2).
The reference to seasonal habitat has been removed from the Draft BA (FLA Appendix E-2).
60 The Service cautions the use of angler-reported pallid sturgeon to determine the range of the species. The initial range of The District notes that the reference to angler reported sturgeon in the DBA is from Peters and Parham; which is a

Loup River Hydroelectric Project April 13, 2012
FERC Project No. 1256
NUMBER COMMENT / COMMENT SUMMARY DISTRICT RESPONSE
the pallid sturgeon for the Platte River (i.e., downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence) was developed in absence of
directed research upstream of the Elkhorn River confluence. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln studies provided the
first effort in searching for the species upstream of the confluence.
13
widely used reference for pallid sturgeon. The District also notes that the DBA also utilizes the findings of the UNL
Sturgeon Management Study. Further, the District notes that Peters and Parham used multiple gear types in multiple
unsuccessful attempts to capture pallid sturgeon at multiple lower Platte River sampling locations upstream of the
Elkhorn River confluence (2008).

APPENDIX E-6
CONSULTATION RECORD

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
April 28, 2006 Letter George Waldow (HDR)
Ann Bleed (NDNR), Frank
Albrecht (NGPC), Robert
Puschendorf (SHPO), Steve
Anschutz (USFWS)
Introduction Letter
May 12, 2006 Letter George Waldow (HDR) Jay Ringenberg (NDEQ) Introduction Letter
February 11, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Ann Bleed (NDNR) Loup River Activities
April 22, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Stakeholders Agency Orientation Invitation Letter
April 25, 2008 Letter
Donald Bright (USDA ‐ Forest
Dept)
Neal Suess (LPD) Participation Withdrawal
May 7, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Agency Orientation Meeting
May 12, 2008 Email Emily Buss (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Agency Follow‐up Meeting Schedule
May 14, 2008 Email Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Emily Buss (HDR) POC and NGPC Initial Concerns
May 19, 2008 Email Randy Thoreson (NPS) Emily Buss (HDR) POC and NPS Initial Concerns
May 20, 2008 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Emily Buss (HDR) NGO List
May 30, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Stakeholders Open House Invitation Letter
June 2, 2008 Email Philip J Soenksen (USGS) Emily Buss (HDR) USGS Initial Concerns
June 3, 2008 Email Emily Buss (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Agency Follow‐up Meeting Schedule Follow‐up Email
June 5, 2008 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Emily Buss (HDR) POC and NDEQ Initial Concerns
June 6, 2008 Telephone
Stephanie White
Record
Loup Project Hotline Hotline Message
June 6, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Stakeholders Joint Agency Invitation Letter
June 9, 2008 Email Martha (Marty) Link (NDEQ) Emily Buss (HDR) NDEQ POC
June 10, 2008 Comment
Form
H Groothuis (public) Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 10, 2008 Comment
Form
D Westermann (public) Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 10, 2008 Comment
Form
T Keuter (public) Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 10, 2008 Comment
Form
BLANK Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 10, 2008 Comment
Form
BLANK Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 11, 2008 Email Anna Baum (Upper Loup NRD) Emily Buss (HDR) Upper Loup NRD Initial Concerns
June 16, 2008 Letter
Justin Lavene (Attorney
General's Office)
Neal Suess (LPD) Attorney General Office POC
June 17, 2008 Email Henry Santin (Nance Co Board) Emily Buss (HDR) Nance County POC and Initial Concerns
June 17, 2008 Letter Adrian Smith (Congress) Neal Suess (LPD) Tour of Facilities
June 18, 2008 Email Joe Cothern (USEPA) Neal Suess (LPD) USEPA POC and Initial Concerns

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
June 19, 2008 Email Emily Buss (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Meeting Reminder and Agenda
June 19, 2008 Email Emily Buss (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Agency Concerns Meeting Reminder and Agenda
June 20, 2008 Letter
Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources
Emily Buss (HDR) Issues concerning the relicensing of the Loup Public Power District with FERC
June 20, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Stakeholders Informational Letter
June 23, 2008 Email Jean Angell (NDNR) Emily Buss (HDR) DNR Initial Concerns
June 23, 2008 Letter Aaron Thompson (USBOR) Neal Suess (LPD) Bureau of Reclamation POC
June 24, 2008 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Neal Suess (LPD) USFWS Initial Concerns
June 25, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Agency Follow‐up Meeting – Identify Issues & Concerns
June 27, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) H Groothuis (public) Response to Comment
June 27, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) T Keuter (public) Response to Comment
June 27, 2008 Email Stephanie White (HDR) Randy Thoreson (NPS) Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Workgroup Contact List
June 27, 2008 Email Stephanie White (HDR) Jean Angell (NDNR) Water Rights Workgroup Contact List
June 27, 2008 Comment
Form
S Drinnin (public) Comment Form Comment on the Project
June 30, 2008 Comment T Stec (public) Neal Suess (LPD) Conversation about the Relicensing
July 1, 2008 Letter Ron Ziola (LPD) Jean Angell (NDNR) Information requested regarding irrigators and access to project property
July 1, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) D Westermann (public) Response to Comment
July 1, 2008 Phone T Keuter (public) Ron Ziola (LPD) Camping
July 2, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Robert Harms (USFWS) FERC and ESA process discussion and Endangered Species List
July 2, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Randy Thoreson (NPS) Work Group Coordination
July 2, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders June 25th Meeting Notes
July 3, 2008 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Matt Pillard (HDR) Fish Kill and Integrated Reports
July 7, 2008 Comment T Jarecke (public) Ron Ziola (LPD) Conversation about the Relicensing Process
July 8, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) S Drinnin (public) Response to Comment
July 11, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Robert Harms (USFWS) FERC and ESA process discussion and Endangered Species List
July 11, 2008 Email J Gates (public) Project Email Address Relicensing Process
July 14, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Richard Roos‐Collins
(Natural Heritage Institute)
Invitation to Participate in Project Scoping
July 14, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Robert Harms (USFWS) July 22 meeting Agenda
July 14, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Meeting Notes and Next Meeting Reminder
July 14, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Meeting Date Correction
July 15, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Meeting Notes and Agenda for July 24th Meeting
July 16, 2008 Email Randy Thoreson (NPS)
Recreation/Land
Use/Aesthetics Workgroup
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Workgroup Call
July 17, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Recreation / Land Use / Aesthetics Work Group
July 18, 2008 Letter Ron Ziola (LPD) Jean Angell (NDNR) Interference Agreements

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
July 21, 2008 Letter Ronald Asche (NPPD) Neal Suess (LPD) POC Change
July 21, 2008 Letter John Cochnar (USFWS) Neal Suess (LPD) USFWS Technical Assistance
July 22, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Water Rights Work Group
July 22, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees (USFWS) Correlation between ILP and ESA Section 7 processes
July 24, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Agency Follow‐up Meeting – Study Needs
July 25, 2008 Letter RE White (LPD) Kirk Nelson (NGPC) Loup‐NGPC Correspondence 2003‐2004
July 25, 2008 Email Neal Suess (LPD) J Gates (public) Response to Comment
July 30, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Agency Meeting ‐ Study Needs Continued
July 30, 2008 Email Henry Santin (Nance Co Board) Matt Pillard (HDR) Review of Meeting Notes and Issues Clarification
July 30, 2008 Email
Robert Mohler (Lower Loup
NRD)
Project Email Address Sediment Budget
July 31, 2008 Email Jeff Schuckman (NGPC) Matt Pillard (HDR) Review of Meeting Notes and Issues Clarification
August 1, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Draft 7‐24‐08 Agency Meeting Notes
August 4, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Jim Gates Response to Comment
August 4, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Mohler Response to Comment
August 7, 2008 Email Jeff Schuckman (NGPC) Matt Pillard (HDR) Study Needs
August 13, 2008 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR) Mary Bomberger‐Brown Request for interior least tern and piping plover data
August 13, 2008 Email John Shadle (NPPD) Matt Pillard (HDR) Review of Meeting Notes and Issues Clarification
August 13, 2008 Email Melissa Marinovich (HDR)
Mary Bomberger‐Brown
(TPCP)
Request for tern and plover data
August 13, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders 7‐24 Meeting Minutes and 8‐19 Meeting Agenda
August 14, 2008 Email Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Copy of letter requesting data from Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
August 14, 2008 Email Jean Angell (NDNR) Matt Pillard (HDR) Additional DNR Concerns
August 14, 2008 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Additional USFWS Agenda Item Request
August 15, 2008 Letter
Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources
N/A Concerns requested to be addressed
August 19, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Agency Follow‐up Meeting – Study Needs Continued
August 26, 2008 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern and Plover Photos
August 26, 2008 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern Pair with Fish Photo

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
August 26, 2008 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) More Tern and Plover Photos
August 29, 2008 Letter Jean Angell (NDNR) Pat Engelbert (HDR) DNR Study Requests
September 5, 2008 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Tony Provost (Omaha Tribe
of Nebraska)
Project Introduction Letter
September 5, 2008 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Francis Morris (Pawnee
Nation of Oklahoma)
Project Introduction Letter
September 5, 2008 Letter
Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) and
Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP)
Requested Tern and Plover Data
September 18, 2008 Letter June DeWeese (USFWS) Neal Suess (LPD) Supplemental Technical Advisory
September 23, 2008 Letter Kristal Stoner (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Response to Request for data
October 22, 2008 Letter
Randall Karstaedt (Department
Neal Suess (LPD)
of the Interior ‐ Forestry Dept)
Participation Withdrawal
October 23, 2008 Letter Ann Miles (FERC)
Ansley Griffin (Omaha Tribe
of Nebraska), George Howell
(Pawnee Tribe), Larry Wright
(Ponca Tribe of Nebraska),
Trey Howe (Ponca Tribe of Tribal Consultation
Oklahoma), Roger Trudell
(Santee Sioux Tribe), John
Blackhawk (Winnebago
Tribe)
October 29, 2008 Email
Gary Robinette (Ponca Tribe of
Kim Nguyen (FERC)
Nebraska
No Comment on the new permit
October 30, 2008 Email John Shadle (NPPD) Matt Pillard (HDR) POC for Nebraska Public Power District
November 3, 2008 Email Jean Angell (NDNR) Matt Pillard (HDR) Relicensing Pre Application Document
November 3, 2008 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jean Angell (NDNR) Information Request and Meeting Notes Clarifications
November 3, 2008 Email Jean Angell (NDNR) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Information Request Response and Ice Reports
November 24, 2008 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Matt Pillard (HDR) Fish Tissue Info
December 1, 2008 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Information request for piping plover and least tern population trends in Nebraska
December 2, 2008 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Jean Angell (NDNR) Data Request
December 8, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Notice of Scoping Information
December 9, 2008 Email
Louis Houghton (Winnebago
Tribe of Nebraska)
Kim Nguyen (FERC) No Comment on the new permit
December 11, 2008 Email Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Matt Pillard (HDR) SHPO POC
December 12, 2008 Letter Kim Nguyen (FERC) Public and Stakeholder Notice of Scoping Meetings and Site Visits

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
December 12, 2008 Letter Kim Nguyen (FERC) Public and Stakeholder
Scoping of environmental issues for relicensing the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project
December 15, 2008 Postcard Loup Public Power District Public and Stakeholder Announcement of SD1 and Invitation to Scoping Meeting
December 19, 2008 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Study Plans
December 19, 2008 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders
Project Update Information (PAD, Notice of Commencement, Site Visit, Upcoming
Meetings)
December 24, 2008 Letter Kristal Stoner (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Request for information for piping plover and least tern population trends in
Nebraska
January 5, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Area of Potential Effects for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
January 9, 2009 Telephone
Ryan Bjerke (LPRCA)
Record
Loup Project Hotline Hotline Message
January 12, 2009 Telephone
Mary Brown (TPCP)
Record
Loup Project Hotline Hotline Message
January 13, 2009 Comment T Rodehorst (public) Comment Form Project Comment
January 15, 2009 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Ron Ziola (LPD) Information Request
January 16, 2009 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) John Bender (NDEQ) Information Request Response for PAD Figure 3‐3 Data
January 16, 2009 Comment G Schutz (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 16, 2009 Comment Bradbury Family (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 16, 2009 Letter K Sothan (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 16, 2009 Letter Hurley (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 17, 2009 Letter R Shea (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 19, 2009 Letter W Larson (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 20, 2009 Letter R Nelson (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 21, 2009 Letter J Brooke(public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 22, 2009 Letter Lewis (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 23, 2009 Letter Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) Neal Suess (LPD) Proposed APE Coordination
January 25, 2009 Letter B Simons (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 26, 2009 Letter Jason (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 26, 2009 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR)
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska (off‐Missouri
River)
January 26, 2009 Letter T Leinart (NOHVA) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 26, 2009 Letter Smisek (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 26, 2009 Letter F Shanle (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 27, 2009 Letter T Henkle (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 27, 2009 Email Christine Thody (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Example Census Sheet
January 27, 2009 Email M Kroeger (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 27, 2009 Letter Zabka (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 27, 2009 Letter Widga/Peterson (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
January 28, 2009 Letter Ladehoff Family (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 28, 2009 Letter J Sibert (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 29, 2009 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) FERC Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership PAD and Scoping Comments
January 29, 2009 Letter J Shanle (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 30, 2009 Letter B Shanle (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 30, 2009 Letter NOHVA Members FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 30, 2009 Letter Heesacker (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 31, 2009 Letter J Boirn (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 31, 2009 Letter R Caster (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
January 31, 2009 Letter T Walter (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 1, 2009 Letter Nichols (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 1, 2009 Comment K Kersten (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Comment Benson (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Comment S Wilson (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Comment R Leiser (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Letter Bowersox (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Letter J Bowersox (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 2, 2009 Letter Dan Nitzel (NOHVA) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Headworks Park and other recreation Comments
February 3, 2009 Letter M Peterson (CART) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Trails Comment
February 3, 2009 Comment A Feller (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 3, 2009 Letter D Maurer (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 4, 2009 Letter J Buss (CART) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Trails Comment
February 4, 2009 Letter R Haskell (CART) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Trails Comment
February 4, 2009 Email Michael Madson (HDR) Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) APE Clarification
February 4, 2009 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) USFWS PAD Preliminary Comments/Questions
February 4, 2009 Letter M Lee‐Bus (CART) FERC Headworks Park and other recreation Comments
February 5, 2009 Letter Mellen (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 5, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Determination 1 Errata Notice
February 5, 2009 Email Kristal Stoner (NGPC) Matt Pillard (HDR) NGPC POC Change
February 5, 2009 Letter J Trautwein (CART) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 5, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Meeting Save the Date
February 6, 2009 Letter Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Scoping Document and Pre‐Application Document (PAD)
February 7, 2009 Letter T Wurst (public) FERC Comment about Trails
February 7, 2009 Letter Sprauge (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 8, 2009 Letter R Spenner (public) FERC Trails Comment
February 8, 2009 Letter J Donoghue (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 9, 2009 Letter Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Kimberly Bose (FERC) DNR Request for Ice Jam Flooding Study
February 9, 2009 Letter June DeWeese (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Pre‐Application Documents and Scoping Documents
February 9, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Scoping Document 1

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
February 10, 2009 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Agencies and Interested
Stakeholders
Study Plan Save the Date
February 10, 2009 Letter Jennifer Hill (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD)
Staff comments on Loup River Hydroelectric Project Pre‐Application
Document and Study Request
February 18, 2009 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR) Robert Harms (USFWS) Confirmation of threatened and endangered species list
February 19, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Meeting Request
February 24, 2009 Letter M Engel (public) FERC Irrigation Comment
February 24, 2009 Letter Taylor (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
February 25, 2009 Letter Swantek (public) FERC Irrigation Comment
February 27, 2009 Email Neal Suess (LPD) HDR Project Team Meeting with Brian Dunnigan
February 27, 2009 Letter B Wells (public) FERC Headworks Park & ATV Comment
March 2, 2009 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR) Frank Albrecht (NGPC) T&E Occurrence Request
March 5, 2009 Email OPPD Lisa Richardson (HDR) OPPD POC Change
March 9, 2009 Letter Randy Thoreson (NPS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Pre‐Application Documents and Scoping Documents
March 13, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Whooping Crane Information
March 23, 2009 Email Quinn Damgaard (HDR) John Bender (NDEQ) Request for Individual Reporting Sheets
March 26, 2009 Email Neal Suess (LPD) Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Meeting Request
March 26, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Ansley Griffin (Omaha Tribe
of Nebraska), George Howell
(Pawnee Tribe), Larry Wright
(Ponca Tribe of Nebraska),
Trey Howe (Ponca Tribe of Study Plan Tribal Consultation
Oklahoma), Roger Trudell
(Santee Sioux Tribe), John
Blackhawk (Winnebago
Tribe)
March 27, 2009 Letter Kim Nguyen (FERC) Public and Stakeholder
Scoping Document 2 for the Relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric
Project
March 30, 2009 Email Gregory Pavelka (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern and Plover Data
March 30, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Meeting Reminder
April 2, 2009 Letter Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Agencies and Interested
Stakeholders
Proposed Study Plan Meeting Reminder
April 7, 2009 Letter Racheal Simpson (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Response to T&E Occurrence Request
April 7, 2009 Email Racheal Simpson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Requested Data from Nebraska Game and Parks
April 10, 2009 Email John Bender (NDEQ) Quinn Damgaard Loup Power canal fish kill
April 13, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders PSP Meeting Reminder
April 14, 2009 Letter Jean Angell (NDNR) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Request for Ice Jam Flooding Study
April 14, 2009 Email Racheal Simpson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Small White Lady Slipper Question

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
April 15, 2009 Email Martha Tacha (USFWS) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) NE whooping crane migration corridor and observation data
April 20, 2009 Email Kelly Crane (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern and Plover Created Habitat
April 20, 2009 Email Kelly Crane (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern and Plover Design Questions
April 21, 2009 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Consensus on Study Plan Goals & Objectives
April 23, 2009 Email Gary Lewis (HDR)
April 27, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR)
Mary Bomberger‐Brown
(TPCP)
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Schuckman (NGPC), Dave
Tunink (NGPC), Richard
Holland (USFWS)
Requested Paper on Sandbar Studies in Lower Platte
Data Needs Meeting
April 28, 2009 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Proposed Study Plan and Study Determination 2 Comment
April 28, 2009 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Additional Study Plan Meetings
April 29, 2009 Email Michael Madson (HDR)
Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) and
Robert Puschendorf (SHPO)
Agenda For 090505 SHPO meeting
May 5, 2009 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees (NSHS) Study 11 – Section 106 Compliance
May 5, 2009 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees (NGPC) Proposed Study Plan – Fish and Wildlife Data Gathering
May 6, 2009 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jeff Runge (USFWS) Response to Runge 4/28/09 email
May 8, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Study Plan Meeting Information
May 8, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Meeting Information
May 11, 2009 Email Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) Matt Pillard (HDR) Nebraska SHPO POC
May 15, 2009 Email Gregory Pavelka (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Missouri River Habitat Questions
May 15, 2009 Email Gregory Pavelka (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Additional Missouri River Habitat Questions
May 18, 2009 Email Steve Schainost (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Response to Johnson Survey (s) and Rock Ramp Questions
May 19, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Meetings
May 19, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Meeting Reminder
May 20, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR)
Todd Crawford, Louis
Pofahl, Emily Brummund
Notice to Congressional Members of the Agency/Stakeholder Study Plan Mtg
Reminder
May 20, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Agency/Stakeholder Study Plan Mtg Reminder
May 21, 2009 Email Steve Schainost (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Loup River Fish Collection Data
May 28, 2009 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Study Plan Goals, Objectives, and Activities
June 2, 2009 Email Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) Lisa Richardson (HDR) May 5th Meeting Note Comments
June 2, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Rick Schneider (NGPC) Species Occurrence Data Request
June 2, 2009 Email Gregory Pavelka (USACE) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Additional Response to Missouri River Habitat Questions
June 7, 2009 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Tern and Plover Data Questions

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
June 9, 2009 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees (NGPC) Proposed Study Plan – Tern and Plover Data Gathering
June 15, 2009 Email Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Meeting Notes
June 19, 2009 Letter Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Loup River Bird Data Requested
June 23, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Plan Information and Comments Reminder
June 24, 2009 Letter June DeWeese (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Proposed Study Plan
June 24, 2009 Letter Mark Weeley (NPS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Proposed Study Plan
June 25, 2009 Letter Jean Angell (NDNR) Neal Suess (LPD) Comments on the Proposed Study Plan
June 26, 2009 Email Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Neal Suess (LPD) Comments on the Proposed Study Plan
June 30, 2009 Email
Robert Mohler (Lower Loup
NRD)
Matt Pillard (HDR) Mohler Email Address Change
June 30, 2009 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Platte river mile shapefiles
June 30, 2009 Email Stephen Wilson (NPS) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Niobrara Census
July 6, 2009 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Loup river mile response
July 8, 2009 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jean Angell (NDNR) Response to Comments on PSP
July 13, 2009 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Response to Data Questions
July 14, 2009 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Sand Management Area
July 16, 2009 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) 1996 Loup Bird Data
July 16, 2009 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) 2001 Bird Data Response
July 17, 2009 Letter Robert Swanson (USGS) John Cochner (USFWS)
Technical Review of Hydrologic and Geomorphologic Components of the PSP ‐ USGS
Administrative Report
July 21, 2009 Email Rich Kern (NDNR) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) River Miles for the Loup River
July 21, 2009 Email Rich Kern (NDNR) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) River Miles for the Loup River Clarification
July 21, 2009 Email Rich Kern (NDNR) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Loup River Miles clarification
July 27, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Revised Study Plan filed
August 6, 2009 Email M Green (public) Loup Project Email Address Request for Information about Energy
August 7, 2009 Email Ron Ziola (LPD) M Green (public) Response to Comment
August 7, 2009 Letter Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Proposed Alternate RSP
August 10, 2009 Letter June DeWeese (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Revised Study Plan
August 17, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Clarifications for the NDNR Study 12 Request
August 17, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Clarifications for the USFWS RSP Comments
August 26, 2009 Letter Jeff Wright (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Study Plan Determination for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
September 1, 2009 Letter Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Final Study Plan Determination, Study Plan Number 12
September 3, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Richard Holland (NGPC) Montana Method
September 16, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Phase 1a Archaeological Overview
October 14, 2009 Letter Ann Miles (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Clarification of Study Plan Determination
October 16, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Phase 1a Report

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
October 16, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Ansley Griffin (Omaha Tribe
of Nebraska), George Howell
(Pawnee Nation of
Oklahoma), Larry Wright
(Ponca Tribe of Nebraska),
Trey Howe (Ponca Tribe of
Oklahoma), Roger Trudell
(Santee Sioux Tribe), John Tribal Consultation ‐ Phase 1a Report
Blackhawk (Winnebago
Tribe of Nebraska), Julia
Sage (Ponca Tribe of
Nebraska), Amen Sheridan
(Omaha Tribe of Nebraska),
Douglas Rhodd (Ponca Tribe
of Oklahoma)
November 2, 2009 Letter Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Neal Suess (LPD) Phase 1a Concurrence
November 2, 2009 Letter
Cora Jones (Santee Sioux
Nation)
FERC No Objection to the Proposed Project
November 2, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) USFWS Comments on the Shovelnose listing
November 23, 2009 Email George Hunt (HDR) David Russ (USGS) Loup River water temperature monitoring scope of work
November 24, 2009 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Information request for 2009 piping plover and least tern census and location data
November 25, 2009 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Loup Study Determination Tasks
December 2, 2009 Email David Russ (USGS) George Hunt (HDR) Loup River water temperature monitoring scope of work
December 3, 2009 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Quarterly Progress Report 1 filed
January 4, 2010 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Melissa Marinovich (HDR) Response to questions about 2009 LPR Nest Data
January 5, 2010 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Loup Power District Study Plan Data Gathering
January 5, 2010 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC)
Melissa Marinovich (HDR)
and Matt Pillard (HDR)
On River Data Clarification
January 6, 2010 Letter Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Neal Suess (LPD) Response to Data Requests
January 7, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Data clarification response
January 8, 2010 Email Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Matt Pillard (HDR) Data clarification additional follow‐up
January 8, 2010 Letter John Moeschen (USACE) Ron Ziola (LPD) Dredging Project Authorization
January 12, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Data clarification additional follow‐up
January 12, 2010 Email Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Matt Pillard (HDR) Data clarification additional follow‐up
January 14, 2010 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Study 8.0: Recreation Use

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
January 19, 2010 Email Quinn Damgaard (HDR)
Randy Thoreson (NPS), Mark
Ivy (FERC), Jeff Schuckman
(NGPC), Richard Holland
(USFWS), Dave Tunink
(NGPC), Ron Ziola (LPD), Jim
Frear (LPD)
Recreation Call Notes from 01/14/10
January 19, 2010 Email Mark Ivy (FERC) Quinn Damgaard (HDR) Trail Counter Information
January 22, 2010 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) USFWS Study Plan Input
February 11, 2010 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Study 8.0: Recreation Use
February 25, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Quarterly Progress Report 2 filed
February 25, 2010 Email
Robert Mohler (Lower Loup
NRD)
Loup Project Email Address Comment about Progress Report 2
February 25, 2010 Email Wendy Thompson (HDR)
Robert Mohler (Lower Loup
NRD)
Response to Comment
March 13, 2010 Comment M Kush (Public) Loup Project Email Address Information Request about project participation
March 13, 2010 Email Neal Suess (LPD) Mitch Kush Comments regarding Angling Access
April 5, 2010 Email Mark Ivy (FERC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Comments on Bypass Reach Survey Meeting Notes
April 16, 2010 Telephone
M Kush (Public)
Record
Quinn Damgaard (HDR) Conversation about Angler Access
April 26, 2010 Email M Kush (Public) Quinn Damgaard (HDR) Comments on Angling and Recreation
April 28, 2010 Email Quinn Damgaard (HDR) M Kush (Public) Response to Comments
May 19, 2010 Email Kim Nguyen (FERC)
Neal Suess (LPD), Lisa
Richardson (HDR), George
Waldow (HDR)
FERC Project Coordinator Changes
May 24, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Quarterly Progress Report 3 filed
May 26, 2010 Email Patricia Leppert (FERC) Matt Pillard (HDR) Request for Removal from Mailing List
August 6, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Report Info and Study Results Meeting Reminder
August 11, 2010 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Question about PCB Tissue Study Results
August 11, 2010 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jeff Runge (USFWS) Response to question about PCB Tissue Study Results

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
August 26, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Ansley Griffin (Omaha Tribe
of Nebraska), George Howell
(Pawnee Nation of
Oklahoma), Larry Wright
(Ponca Tribe of Nebraska),
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation Tribal Coordination
Roger Trudell (Santee Sioux
Tribe), Amen Sheridan
(Omaha Tribe of Nebraska),
Douglas Rhodd (Ponca Tribe
of Oklahoma)
August 26, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
August 27, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Initial Study Report Filing and Study Results Meeting Reminder
September 3, 2010 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Pat Engelbert (HDR) ISR Questions
September 3, 2010 Email Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Acknowledgement of Attachments Sent
September 8, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Study Report and Study Results Meeting Presentation Availability
September 9, 2010 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
September 13, 2010 Email Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) FERC Relicensing Process Questions
September 13, 2010 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Response to Comment
September 15, 2010 Letter Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Neal Suess (LPD) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation Concurrence
September 16, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Interim General Recreation Use Report Filed with FERC
September 26, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Initial Study Report Meeting Summary Filing
October 19, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Second Initial Study Results Meeting Notification
October 20, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Reminder about Comments on the Initial Study Report
October 20, 2010 Letter Michael George (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Initial Study Report
October 22, 2010 Letter Nicholas Jayjack (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Commission Staff Comments on Initial Study Report and Meeting Summary
October 22, 2010 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) HPMP Coordination
October 22, 2010 Email Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Lisa Richardson (HDR) HPMP Coordination Response
October 22, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Addendum to Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
October 25, 2010 Letter Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Initial Study Report
October 25, 2010 Letter Randy Thoreson (NPS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on the Initial Study Report
November 1, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Gary Robinette (Ponca Tribe
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
of Nebraska)
November 3, 2010 Letter Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Neal Suess (LPD) Information Request
November 3, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Emily Smith (Winnebago
Tribe of Nebraska)
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
November 22, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Initial Study Report Schedule Delay
November 23, 2010 Email
Robert Mohler (Lower Loup
NRD)
Wendy Thompson (HDR) Acknowledgement of Attachments Sent

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
November 24, 2010 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC)
Responses to Comments Initial Study Results (ISR) Meeting Summary and the Initial
Study Report
November 29, 2010 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Initial Study Results District Response to Comments
Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Response to Information Request
December 20, 2010 Letter
Jeff Wright (Office of Energy
Projects)
Neal Suess (LPD)
Determination on Requests for Modifications to the Loup River Hydroelectric
Project Study Plan
January 13, 2011 Letter Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Neal Suess (LPD) Concurrence on Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
January 19, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders 2nd Initial Study Results Meeting Save the Date
January 19, 2011 Email Jill Dohlberg (SHPO) Matt Pillard (HDR) Study Results for Section 106
January 21, 2011 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Melissa Marinovich (HDR)
Data for the terns and plovers nesting on the Loup Public Power North Sand
Management Zone (the sand pile)
February 14, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Notice of Second Initial Study Report Filed
February 22, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Second Initial Study Report Meeting Presentation Availability
February 24, 2011 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Second Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
March 4, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) 2010 Tern and Plover Database Information Request
March 10, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Second Initial Study Report Revision Filed
March 11, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders SISR Meeting Summary Filed with FERC
March 17, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Lee Emery (FERC) USGS Water Resources Investigations Report
April 7, 2011 Letter Michael George (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Second Initial Study Report
April 8, 2011 Letter Nicholas Jayjack (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Commission Staff Comments on Second Initial Study Report and Meeting Summary
April 11, 2011 Letter Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Second Initial Study Report
April 28, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Harms (USFWS) 2009 and 2010 Loup River Tern and Plover Information Request
May 3, 2011 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Data Request Response
May 10, 2011 Email Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Data Request Response
May 11, 2011 Letter Kimberly Bose (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD)
Responses to Comments on the Second Initial Study Results (SISR) Meeting
Summary and the Second Initial Study Report
May 13, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders
Responses to Comments on the Second Initial Study Report and SISR meeting Filed
with FERC
May 20, 2011 Letter Ron Ziola (LPD) Mark Ivy (FERC) 2010 Annual Conveyance Report
June 10, 2011 Letter Jeff Wright (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD)
Determination on Requests for Modifications to the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project Study Plan
July 13, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Study Report and Meeting Save the Date
August 17, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting Reminder
August 26, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Study Report Filing and Meeting Reminder
August 29, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jeff Runge (USFWS) Updated Study Report Appendices
August 29, 2011 Email Jeff Runge (USFWS) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Updated Study Report Appendices Download Confirmation
September 7, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Jeff Runge (USFWS) Updated Study Report Appendix H ‐ revised
September 7, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Study Report Addendum and Meeting Materials

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
September 8, 2011 Meeting
Notes
September 13, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Loup Public Power District Meeting Attendees Updated Study Results Meeting Summary
Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) and
Mary Bomberger‐Brown
(TPCP)
Updated Study Report Appendix H
September 13, 2011 Email Mary Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Updated Study Report Appendix H Download Confirmation
September 25, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Joel Jorgenson (NGPC), Mary
Bomberger‐Brown (TPCP),
Mary Tacha (USFWS)
Nesting interior least terns and piping plovers MOU
September 26, 2011 Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Harms (USFWS) 2011 Loup River Tern and Plover Information Request
September 26, 2011 Email Robert Harms (USFWS)
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Runge (USFWS), Lisa
Richardson (HDR), Matt
Pillard (HDR), Neal Suess
(LPD), Joel Jorgenson
(NGPC), Richard Holland
(NGPC), Michelle Koch
(NGPC)
Endangered Species Act and Federal Power Act discussions Agenda
September 26, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Harms (USFWS) Request for an Updated Species List
September 26, 2011 Email Kirk Nelson (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Nesting interior least terns and piping plovers MOU
September 27, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting Summary
October 3, 2011 Email Robert Harms (USFWS)
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Runge (USFWS), Lisa
Richardson (HDR), Matt
Pillard (HDR), Neal Suess
(LPD), Joel Jorgenson
(NGPC), Richard Holland
(NGPC), Michelle Koch
(NGPC)
Endangered Species Act and Federal Power Act discussions Agenda
October 3, 2011 Meeting
Notes
HDR Meeting Attendees Section 7 ESA and Section 10J FPA
October 14, 2011 Email Pat Engelbert (HDR) Paul Makowski (FERC) Response to questions on the Updated Study Report
October 16, 2011 Letter Dan Nitzel (NOHVA) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Comments on Preliminary Draft Recreation Management Plan
October 18, 2011 Email Pat Engelbert (HDR) Paul Makowski (FERC) Platte River Channel Document
October 20, 2011 Email Paul Makowski (FERC) Pat Engelbert (HDR) Teleconference Notes and Dredge Information
October 20, 2011 Letter Michael George (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Updated Study Report
October 21, 2011 Letter Nicholas Jayjack (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Commission Staff Comments on the Updated Study Report

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
October 21, 2011 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR)
October 24, 2011 Email Frank Albrecht (NGPC)
October 28, 2011 Email Randy Thoreson (NPS)
November 2, 2011 Meeting
Notes
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Runge (USFWS), Joel
Jorgenson (NGPC), Richard
Holland (NGPC), Robert
Harms (USFWS)
Lisa Richardson (HDR),
Quinn Damgaard (HDR)
Lisa Richardson (HDR),
Quinn Damgaard (HDR)
October 3rd Meeting Notes
Comments on Preliminary Draft Recreation Management Plan
Comments on Preliminary Draft Recreation Management Plan
HDR Meeting Attendees Section 7 ESA and Section 10J FPA ‐ Meeting #2
November 9, 2011 Letter
Joe Mangiamelli (City of
Columbus)
Neal Suess (LPD) Support of Recreation Management Plan
November 13, 2011 Matrix N/A N/A Preliminary Draft Recreation Management Plan Comment/Response Matrix
November 18, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Harms (USFWS) Coordination on the Biological Assessment
November 21, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Draft Application Filing
November 23, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Responses to Comments on the Updated Study Report
November 28, 2011 Email Matt Pillard (HDR) Agencies and Stakeholders Response to Comments on USR and Meeting Notes
December 15, 2011 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) FERC Hydraulic Model Associated with the Updated Study Report
December 21, 2011 Letter Jeff Wright (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD)
Study Determination on Requests for Modifications to the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project Study Plan
January 12, 2012 Letter Robert Harms (USFWS) Matt Pillard (HDR) Loup PD Species List
January 17, 2012 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Robert Harms (USFWS) Data Request
January 17, 2012 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR) Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Data Request
February 3, 2012 Email Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) Lisa Richardson (HDR) Response to Data Request
February 14, 2012 Letter Frank Albrecht (NGPC) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Draft License Application
February 16, 2012 Letter Nicholas Jayjack (FERC) Neal Suess (LPD) Comments on Draft License Application
February 16, 2012 Letter Michael George (USFWS) Kimberly Bose (FERC) Comments on Draft License Application
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Robert Puschendorf (SHPO) Historic Properties Management Plan
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
Amen Sheridan (Omaha
Tribe of Nebraska)
Historic Properties Management Plan
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
George Howell (Pawnee
Nation of Oklahoma)
Larry Wright (Ponca Tribe of
Nebraska)
Douglas Rhodd (Ponca Tribe
of Oklahoma)
Roger Trudell (Santee Sioux
Tribe of Nebraska)
Historic Properties Management Plan
Historic Properties Management Plan
Historic Properties Management Plan
Historic Properties Management Plan

Loup River Hydroelectric Project ‐ FERC Project No. 1256
Relicensing Correspondence
DATE TYPE FROM TO SUBJECT
February 23, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD)
March 2, 2012 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR)
March 5, 2012
Draft
Meeting
Notes
Emily Smith (Winnebago
Tribe of Nebraska)
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Runge (USFWS), Richard
Holland (NGPC), Michelle
Koch (NGPC), Robert Harms
(USFWS), John Cochnar
(USFWS)
Historic Properties Management Plan
Section 7 Consultation
HDR Meeting Attendees Section 7 ESA and Section 10J FPA – Meeting #3
March 29, 2012 Letter Neal Suess (LPD) Brian Dunnigan (DNR) Bypass Flow Verification
April 2, 2012 Email Lisa Richardson (HDR)
Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Jeff
Runge (USFWS), Richard
Holland (NGPC), Michelle
Koch (NGPC), Robert Harms
(USFWS), Joel Jorgensen
(NGPC)
April 2, 2012 Letter Patrick Pope (NPPD) Neal Suess (LPD) Project Benefits
Transmittal of Draft MOU for Headworks Dredging Operations

November 30, 2007
Barb Friskopp
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nebraska Regulatory Branch
1430 Central Avenue
Kearney, NE 68847-6856
RE: 2007-3190-KEA, Amendment 3, Proposal to continue maintenance dredging in the Loup
power canal for another ten years, Nance County, Loup Public Power District (LPPD);
applicant
Dear Ms. Friskopp:
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) staff members have reviewed the information for the
proposal identified above. The maintenance dredging in the LPPD canal has been an on-going activity
since 1937. After water is diverted from the Loup River, river sediments build up in the settling basin,
which reduces the capacity of the hydropower canal. Sediments are hydraulically dredged from the
settling basin and conveyed via pipeline to previously established disposal areas along both sides of the
canal on property owned by the applicant. These disposal areas serve as detention areas, as sediment
settles out before the water is returned to the Loup River downstream of the diversion structure. The
purpose of the project is to remove accumulated sediment from the settling basin to allow for continued
operation of the hydropower canal system. This permit amendment would allow for the continuation of
dredging operations for ten years.
Based on a review of the Nebraska Natural Heritage database, we have records of the state-listed
endangered least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) and state-listed threatened piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) nesting on the sand disposal sites adjacent to the settling basin. The continued disposal of the
dredged material from the settling basin onto the disposal piles has the potential to directly impact these
bird species. However, we believe our concerns for impacts to least terns and piping plovers are being
addressed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that is being developed between NGPC, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Legacy Resources LLC, which is the company that is extracting sand from
the disposal sites.
Because the stated purpose of this project is to remove accumulated sediment from the settling basin to
allow for the continued operation of the hydropower canal system, we have also identified concerns for
several indirect impacts that may occur as a result of this action. The 1 to 1.5 million cubic yards of
sediment per year that is dredged from the settling basin and piled at this location, if in a natural,
unaltered system, would normally move downstream in the Loup River and eventually enter the Platte
River. However, because of the water diversion into the Loup canal system at the Genoa Headworks, this
sediment does not make it down to the Platte River. This sediment loss indirectly impacts the Loup River
below the diversion and the Platte River by reducing the available sediment supply for riverine sandbar
habitat creation and maintenance in downstream reaches of both rivers. Habitat loss in the Platte River
may impact not only state-listed threatened and endangered species, but also many non-listed aquatic
species.

The Loup Power Canal water diversion also results in reduced flows in the Loup River downstream of the
diversion. We understand that LPPD is appropriated 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the
Loup River for power generation purposes, but this results in reduced flows below the diversion near
Genoa. These reduced flows have less capacity to move the remaining sediment downstream and may
also result in increased water temperatures in the lower reaches of the Loup River, especially during the
summer, which may negatively impact aquatic species. We also recognize that there is an agreement by
LPPD to allow between 50 and 75 cfs to pass the diversion and remain in the river to help ameliorate
summer water temperature stresses for aquatic resources.
Furthermore, the operation of the canal system itself may also result in the indirect loss of aquatic species
that inhabit the Loup River. Fish, or other aquatic species, that are drawn into the canal may be lost to
dredging operations in the settling basin, or to turbine operations at either of the power plants, Monroe or
Columbus, located along the canal.
The Loup Power Canal was designed for hydroelectric power generation, which is achieved at the abovementioned
power plants by regulation, or hydro-cycling, of the water in the canal system on a daily basis.
Hydro-cycling and the resultant fluctuations in outflow of the canal directly influences the dynamics of
the Platte River downstream of the canal return, and may have negative biological and ecological impacts
on the river.
Lastly, the Loup River Hydroelectric Project will be up for re-licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) in 2014. Because of the complexity and time involved in re-licensing, LPPD has
already initiated planning, coordination, and information gathering as part of the process which will
continue up until 2014. Due to the concurrent re-licensing process, rather than this amendment
authorizing dredging for another ten-year period, we would ask the Corps to consider limiting the lifespan
of this amendment to five years. This shorter permit period would allow for the reevaluation of the 404
permit closer to the time of re-licensing, and would allow for the utilization of new information obtained
during the planning phase of the re-licensing. We would further recommend continuation of efforts to
protect least terns and piping plovers at existing LPPD dredge spoil sites, and that the summer diversion
bypass of 50 to 75 cfs be continued for water quality purposes.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(402) 471-5423 or carey.grell@ngpc.ne.gov.
Sincerely,
Carey Grell
Environmental Analyst
Realty and Environmental Services Division
cc: Jeff Runge, USFWS
Terry Hickman, NDEQ
Eliodora Chamberlain, EPA
Frank Albrecht, NGPC
Larry Hutchinson, NGPC
Richard Holland, NGPC
Kristal Stoner, NGPC
Joel Jorgensen, NGPC
2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Agency Orientation Meeting
Meeting Date: May 7, 2008, 10:00 am – 2:00 pm
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Loup Public Power District (District)
HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Wunderlichs, Columbus, NE
Jim Frear
Tom Kumpf, Board Member
Neal Suess
Ron Ziola
Emily Buss
Pat Engelbert
Dennis Grennan
Bill Sigler
Shannon Snow
George Waldow
Stephanie White
John Cochnar
Robert Harms
Mike LeValley
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Jeff Runge
Martha Tacha
Greg Wingfield
US Geological Survey (USGS) Phil Soenksen
Randy Thoreson
National Park Service (NPS)
Mark Weekley
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
Frank Albrecht
Jeff Schuckman
Kristal Stoner
Gene Zuerlein
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Mike Thompson
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) John Bender
Lower Loup Natural Resources District (NRD) and Nebraska Dick Hadenfeldt
Natural Resources Commission (NRC)
Central Platte Natural Resource District (NRD) Mark Czaplewski
City of Genoa Lacie Andreasen
City of Columbus Joe Mangiamelli
Meeting Agenda:
I. Welcome and Introductions
II. The History of Loup Power District
III. Loup Hydro Facilities and Operations (Neal)
IV. FERC Licensing Process (George/Neal)
V. The Role of the Agencies (Neal)
VI. Next Steps
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
Discussion:
Topic Detail Interested
Agency
Loup Power District Includes information about park sites and available NPS
History Book
recreation through the Loup Power District offices.
Water Right The District has a water right to divert up to 3,500
cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Loup River for
power generation purposes.
USFWS
Irrigation The District has 40 irrigation customers and 78
irrigation diversion points with water rights to water
in the canal
Irrigator rights, approved by the State, are junior
water rights to the District’s but are given preference
for agricultural use as priority users of water
District is compensated for acre-feet pumped by
irrigators through a subordination arrangement
Most irrigators are west of Lake Babcock; only four
irrigators are located below the Columbus
Powerhouse.
USFWS
Water Capacity There are no plans to increase the hydraulic capacity
of the canal.
Both the power canal and the Monroe Powerhouse
are designed for a hydraulic flow capacity of 3,500
cfs.
USFWS
NPPD Partnership All energy produced at the two powerhouses
NDEQ,
(Monroe and Columbus) is sold directly to NPPD as NGPC,
a portion of their overall power portfolio.
All power the District distributes is purchased back
from NPPD
The District has a negotiated contract with NPPD;
price of energy fluctuates yearly, based on average
cost of NPPD generation.
Because generation is based on flow availability, the
District is not always able to meet NPPD’s
needs/requests.
USFWS
Sluice Gates Used to periodically flush sand and debris away from USFWS,
intake gates.
Original settling basin sluice pipe was an open flume
but has now been filled with sand and abandoned.
Gate operation is based on water conditions and sand
or debris accumulation; there is no defined schedule
of operation.
Operation moves a large amount of sand.
NDEQ, NGPC
Sand Management There are sand management areas on the north and
south side of the settling basin.
One to two million tons of sand are dredged from the
settling basin per year.
Water flows from dredge on the north side are
conveyed through a series of ditches and discharged
back into the Loup River upstream of the diversion
NGPC
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
structure.
Bypass Reach There are control gates adjacent to the diversion
structure which allow flows to be bypassed back into
the Loup River channel.
River overtops the low weir or wall when there is
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
sufficient flow.
Power Canal Canal gradient is approximately 1 foot per mile
The canal can only hold 3,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs) – the system is running at capacity when the
canal bank is full
There are several siphons along the canal that convey
natural drainage from the north side of the canal to
the south side of the canal; they include Beaver Creek
siphon, Looking Glass Creek siphon, Dry/Cherry
Creek siphon, and the Oconee siphon.
Monroe Powerhouse Monroe Powerhouse is operated in a run-of-river
manner and has no water storage capabilities.
Most of the time, all units are available to run near
capacity but there is often insufficient water to do so.
The system runs at full capacity only a few days per
year.
Lake Storage Lake Babcock and Lake North are used to manage
the flow going into the Columbus Powerhouse.
Generally, the water level rises at night and then
lowers during the day when the Columbus facility
runs to cover NPPD’s peak.
Lake North is significantly deeper than Lake
Babcock; can not be totally drained.
Silt at Lake Babcock The District has considered dredging the lake but it is
not economically prudent.
District flushes sediment out of the lake through the
Columbus Powerhouse to keep the original flow
channel open.
Alternative methods to reclaim some of the storage
capacity are currently being evaluated.
Columbus Powerhouse Columbus Powerhouse is a peaking facility operated
by the District but dispatched by NPPD according to
their system requirements.
The units are generally run to cover NPPD peak load
or conditions when NPPD generation facilities go
off-line. NPPD has a double peak in winter and there
is a very late night peak in the summer due to
irrigation.
NPPD’s needs mandate daily generation activity.
Any two of the three units at the Columbus
Powerhouse can accommodate the 3,500 cfs canal
design. When all three units are used at capacity, the
5,000 cfs intake canal design flow is utilized.
If the entire plant went off line, lake water levels are
maintained to contain the flow, once diversion is
stopped at the headgates.
Vertical trash rack bars are several inches apart and
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
NPS
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
USFWS,
NGPC
NPS
USFWS
NGPC
NGPC, USGS,
NDEQ,
USFWS
Page 3 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
are not intended as a screen to exclude fish.
Fish Fish are present in the canal; the state record Flathead
catfish was taken from the canal.
There are no fish protection screens at the
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
powerhouses.
Endangered Species Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be
considered in the relicensing process.
FERC will initiate informal consultation 60 days
following filing of the NOI/PAD.
Drought Concerns The Loup River is classified as one of the most
consistent flowing rivers in the US. During recent
droughts, summer Loup River flows were near
normal.
Action Items:
Who
Task
LPD Determine issuance process for 401 Water Quality Certification associated
with the FERC public process.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
USGS
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
USFWS
USGS
Date
Assigned
5/7/08
LPD Distribute agency contact information. 5/7/08
All
Agencies
Provide list of NGOs that may be interested in the Project to the District. 5/7/08
Next Meeting:
What: Agency Follow-up Meeting
When: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 : 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Lunch will be provided
Where: Wunderlichs, 304 E. Highway 30, Columbus, NE 68601
RSVP: On or before Friday, June 20, 2008 to Emily Buss, emily.buss@hdrinc.com
or 763-278-5904
The purpose of the meeting is to introduce, discuss and compare the hydropower related issues and concerns
identified by the participating agencies. Our objectives for this meeting are to talk through and reach a mutual
understanding of the basis or rationale for each issue or concern.
Page 4 of 4

Selzle, Lydia
From: Buss, Emily D.
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:09 PM
To: Frank Albrecht; Gene Zuerlein; Greg Wingfield; Jeff Runge; Jeff Schuckman; Joe
Mangiamelli; John Bender; John Cochnar; Kristal Stoner; Lacie Andreasen; Mark Czaplewski;
Mark Weekley; Martha Tacha; Marty Link; Mike LeValley; Mike Thompson; Phil Soenksen;
Randy Thoreson; Robert Harms
Cc: Neal Suess
Subject: Loup Power District: Agency Follow6up Meeting
Importance: High
Greetings:
I want to thank all of you who participated in our agency orientation meeting on Wednesday, May 7 th . We hope
that the information presented regarding the District’s hydroelectric project and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) Integrated License Process (ILP) will be useful to you as we proceed with our relicensing
program. The District looks forward to working collaboratively with all interested agencies and stakeholders
over the six year schedule of this undertaking.
Please reserve Wednesday, June 11 th and plan to attend our first follow/up agency meeting. We will meet in
Columbus, Nebraska from 10 am until 2 pm. Lunch will be provided. Information on the specific location will
be provided later this week.
We request that you please prepare the following information in preparation for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Confirm who from your agency will attend the meeting on June 11th.
3. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in this relicense process.
4. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding the present or future
operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
(Note: Please do not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at this time; that step will
occur later in the interactive process.)
Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e/mail and send it to me, Emily
Buss, HDR at emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at nsuess@loup.com on or
before Friday, May 16 th . If I have not heard from you by Friday, May 16th I will be contacting you via
telephone. Thank you.
Not all agencies are required to participate in the relicense process. If, at any point in time, your agency should
choose not to formally participate in the relicense process, please so indicate in the form of a signed letter or an
e/mail addressed to:
Neal Suess
President / CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 69602/0988
nsuess@loup.com
1

Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you have questions or
need any additional information.
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Frank Albrecht [Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:57 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Cc: Carey.Grell@ngpc.ne.gov; Kristal Stoner; Dave Tunink; gene.zuerlein@ngpc.ne.gov; Bob
Harms; Jeff Runge
Subject: Re: Loup Power District: Agency Follow8up Meeting
Attachments: 2007831908KEA8LPPD canal dredging8Nov07.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Emily,
I am the POC for the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for this project. I am unable to attend on the 11th
I was hoping you were going to poll the agencies for available meeting dates but unfortunately, this didn't
happen. I am unsure who will attend at this time as I will need to contact them for their availability.
Some of our concerns/issues are outlined in the attached letter which addressed an associated 404 permit. On a
short notice, I thought this would help with the process. We can explain and expand on these for you at a later
date.
Feel free to call or email if you have questions.
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
Visit us at http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us
88888 Original Message 88888
From: Buss, Emily D.
To: Frank Albrecht ; Gene Zuerlein ; Greg Wingfield ; Jeff Runge ; Jeff Schuckman ; Joe Mangiamelli ; John Bender ;
John Cochnar ; Kristal Stoner ; Lacie Andreasen ; Mark Czaplewski ; Mark Weekley ; Martha Tacha ; Marty Link ; Mike
LeValley ; Mike Thompson ; Phil Soenksen ; Randy Thoreson ; Robert Harms
Cc: Neal Suess
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Subject: Loup Power District: Agency Follow8up Meeting
Greetings:
I want to thank all of you who participated in our agency orientation meeting on Wednesday, May 7 th . We
hope that the information presented regarding the District’s hydroelectric project and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Integrated License Process (ILP) will be useful to you as we proceed with our
relicensing program. The District looks forward to working collaboratively with all interested agencies and
stakeholders over the six year schedule of this undertaking.
1

Please reserve Wednesday, June 11 th and plan to attend our first follow up agency meeting. We will meet in
Columbus, Nebraska from 10 am until 2 pm. Lunch will be provided. Information on the specific location will
be provided later this week.
We request that you please prepare the following information in preparation for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Confirm who from your agency will attend the meeting on June 11th.
3. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in this relicense process.
4. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding the present or future
operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
(Note: Please do not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at this time; that step
will occur later in the interactive process.)
Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e mail and send it to me, Emily
Buss, HDR at emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at nsuess@loup.com on or
before Friday, May 16 th . If I have not heard from you by Friday, May 16th I will be contacting you via
telephone. Thank you.
Not all agencies are required to participate in the relicense process. If, at any point in time, your agency should
choose not to formally participate in the relicense process, please so indicate in the form of a signed letter or an
e mail addressed to:
Neal Suess
President / CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 69602 0988
nsuess@loup.com
Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you have questions or
need any additional information.
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Randy_Thoreson@nps.gov
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:49 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.; nsuess@loup.com
Cc: Mark_Weekley@nps.gov
Subject: Re: Loup Power District: Agency Follow-up Meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Emily,
I was away from my office last week so am responding to your email today.
As I mentioned to you at the May 7th meeting, I will be the primary point of contact for the
National Park Service on the Loop Power District Hydro Relicensing Project. I expect to
attend the June 11th meeting along with Mark Weekley from our Omaha Regional Office.
Primary Hydro relicensing interests from the National Park Service (NPS), and particular to
the the Loop Power District Project, will be Recreation, Land Use and Asethetics. Other
topics of discussion and areas of study, such as project operations and natural resources
impacts, are also of interest to the NPS as the FERC "Integrated License Process (ILP)"
moves forward. The opportunities for stakeholders (including NGO'S) as well as
public review and input are of further importance. One NGO that comes
to mind, and is likely influenced by the Project, is the Lower Platte River Corridor
Alliance. As applicable, I would suggest adding Rodney Verhoeff, Coordinator of the
Alliance, to your list of NGO's. If you wish to discuss the project with him, his telephone
number is (402) 476-2729. His office address is 3125 Portia Street, P.O Box 83581, Lincoln,
Nebraska-3581.
Thankyou for keeping the NPS informed in the Loop Power District Hydro Relicensing Project.
Feel free to call me at (651) 290-3004 if you have any questions.
Randy Thoreson
National Park Service
Rivers,Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program / Hydro Program
111 East Kellogg Blvd. Suite 105
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel (651) 290-3004
Fax (651) 290-3815
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Buss, Emily D." |
| | |
| | |
| | 05/12/2008 04:09 |
| | PM EST |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: "Frank Albrecht" , "Gene Zuerlein"
, "Greg Wingfield" |
1

| , "Jeff Runge" , "Jeff Schuckman"
, "Joe |
| Mangiamelli" , "John Bender" ,
"John Cochnar" |
| , "Kristal Stoner" , "Lacie
Andreasen" , "Mark |
| Czaplewski" , "Mark Weekley" , "Martha
Tacha" , "Marty |
| Link" , "Mike LeValley" ,
"Mike Thompson" , |
| "Phil Soenksen" , "Randy Thoreson" ,
"Robert Harms" |
| cc: "Neal Suess"
|
| Subject: Loup Power District: Agency Follow-up Meeting
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------|
Greetings:
I want to thank all of you who participated in our agency orientation meeting on Wednesday,
May 7th. We hope that the information presented regarding the District’s hydroelectric
project and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Integrated License Process (ILP)
will be useful to you as we proceed with our relicensing program. The District looks forward
to working collaboratively with all interested agencies and stakeholders over the six year
schedule of this undertaking.
Please reserve Wednesday, June 11th and plan to attend our first follow-up agency meeting.
We will meet in Columbus, Nebraska from 10 am until 2 pm.
Lunch will be provided. Information on the specific location will be provided later this
week.
We request that you please prepare the following information in preparation for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Confirm who from your agency will attend the meeting on June 11th.
3. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in
this relicense process.
4. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding
the present or future operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
(Note: Please do not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at
this time; that step will occur later in the interactive
process.)
Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e-mail and send
it to me, Emily Buss, HDR at emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at
nsuess@loup.com on or before Friday, May 16th. If I have not heard from you by Friday, May
16th I will be contacting you via telephone. Thank you.
Not all agencies are required to participate in the relicense process. If, at any point in
time, your agency should choose not to formally participate in the relicense process, please
so indicate in the form of a signed letter or an e-mail addressed to:
2

Neal Suess
President / CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 69602-0988
nsuess@loup.com
Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you
have questions or need any additional information.
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: NGO list
Attachments: LoupNGOlist.DOC
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attached is an excerpt from my mailing list. I have removed agency contacts, NRDs, and
national contacts. What remains are local representatives of NGOs that have expressed an
interest in water issues.
(See attached file: LoupNGOlist.DOC)
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
402/471-4201
1

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City St PostCode
Mr. Kevin Poague Audubon Nebraska P.O. Box 117 Denton NE 68339 1.
Mr. Vince Shay State Director The Nature
1025 Leavenworth Suite 100 Omaha NE 68102 2.
Conservancy St.
Mr. Tony Korth President Elect Nebraska Chapter
American Fisheries
Society
21502 W. Hwy. 31 Gretna NE 68028 3.
Mr. Duane Hovorka Executive Nebraska Wildlife P.O. Box 81437 Lincoln NE 68501- 4.
Director Federation
1437
Mr. Steve Wilson Nebraska East Nebraska Ducks 3648 S. 16
Region Director Unlimited
th St Lincoln NE 68502 5.
Mr. Dick Boyd Chapter Chair Nebraska Chapter P.O. Box 4664 Omaha NE 68104- 6.
Sierra Club
0664
Mr. Wes Sheets Izaak Walton League 6710 Marcia Ln. Lincoln NE 68505 7.
Dr. Felipe Chavez- Executive Platte River Whooping 6611 W. Whooping
Wood NE 68883 8.
Ramirez Director Crane Trust Crane Dr.
River
Ms. Traci Bruckner Rural Policy Center for Rural 145 Main St. P.O. Box 136 Lyons NE 68038- 9.
Program
Assistant
Director
Affairs
0136
Mr. Craig Head Nebraska Farm Bureau P.O Box 80299
Federation
Lincoln NE 68501 10.
Mr. John Hansen President Farmers Union of
Nebraska
1305 Plum Lincoln NE 68502 11.
Mr. Michael Kelsey Executive Vice Nebraska Cattlemen 134 S. 13
President
th St. Suite 900 Lincoln NE 68508- 12.
1901
Mr. Larry Sitzman Executive Nebraska Pork A103 Animal University of Lincoln NE 68583- 13.
Director Producers
Sciences Building Nebraska-
Lincoln
0909
Mr. Jeff Keown Extension Dairy
A218 Animal University of Lincoln NE 68583 14.
Specialist
Sciences Building Nebraska-
Lincoln

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City St PostCode
Ms. Susan Joy General Nebraska Poultry P.O. Box 830908 University of Lincoln NE 68583- 15.
Manager Industries
Nebraska-
Lincoln
A103 Animal
Sciences
Building
0908
Mr. Scott Merritt Executive Nebraska Corn 1327 H St., Suite
Lincoln NE 68508 16.
Director Growers Association 305
DeMaris Johnson Executive Nebraska Water 1233 Lincoln Mall Suite 203 Lincoln NE 68508 17.
Director Resources Association
Mr. Don Kraus General Central Nebraska P.O. Box 740 Holdrege NE 68949- 18.
Manager Pubic Power &
Irrigation District
0740
Mr. Bill Neal Environmental Omaha Public Power 444 South 16th
Omaha NE 68102- 19.
and Government District
Affairs
Street Mall
2247
Mr. Joe Citta, Jr. Environmental Nebraska Public 1414 15th St. Columbus NE 68601 20.
Protection
Supervisor
Power District
Mr. Jeff Forney Secretary Nebraska Water 2120 S 72
Environment
Association
nd St. Suite 1400 Omaha NE 68124- 21.
6316
Mr. Lash Chaffin Utilities Section League of Nebraska 1335 L St. Lincoln NE 68508 22.
Director Municipalities
Ms. Gordon Kissel Executive Nebraska Society of 301 South 13
Director Professional Engineers
th
Suite 400 Lincoln NE 68508- 23.
Street
2571
Ms. Jane Griffin President The Groundwater P.O. Box 22558 Lincoln NE 68542- 24.
Foundation
2558

May, XX, 2008
,
Re: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing
Public Open Houses Scheduled for June 10 and 11, 2008
Dear ,
You have received this letter because you have been identified as a potential interested stakeholder in
the Loup Power District’s (District) relicensing process for its hydroelectric project. The District has
scheduled public open houses to provide information about the history and operation of the hydroelectric
project, the relicensing process, and the opportunities for public comment and participation.
The format for these public open houses is very informal. There will be no formal presentation;
the Relicensing Team will be available to answer questions and take comments. You are welcome to
attend at any time during the open house hours listed below. To learn more about the relicensing
process please go to the website www.loup.com or relicensing hotline 1-866-869-2087 for additional
information.
The times and locations for the public open houses are listed below. The information available at each
open house will be the same.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 in Columbus, Nebraska.
Time: 2 PM-4 PM or 6 PM- 8 PM
Columbus VFW Club
2720 23rd St
Columbus, NE 68601
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 in Genoa, Nebraska.
Time: 6 PM- 8 PM
Genoa Senior Center
115 N Oak St
Genoa, NE 68640
We look forward to working with you throughout the multi-year relicensing process.
Loup Power District
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess, PE
President/CEO

Selzle, Lydia
From: Philip J Soenksen [pjsoenks@usgs.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Cc: Neal Suess; Robert B Swanson; Richard C Wilson; rbzelt@usgs.gov; pjsoenks@usgs.gov
Subject: Re: Loup Power District: Agency Follow3up Meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Emily,
Sorry for the late response to your e3mail. Our senior staff has been scattered for the last several weeks (prior
commitments out of town, 2 weeks of flooding, time off, ...), and we were not able to have the necessary discussions to
respond until today. Below are those responses as per the numbering in your e3mail.
1. Primary points of contact:
Ben Dietsch, Hydrologist, bdietsch@usgs.gov, 402332834122 (office), 402341635154 (cell)
Jason Alexander, Hydrologist, jalexand@usgs.gov, 402332834132 (office), 402331437661 (cell)
2. June 11th meeting attendance:
Ben Dietsch, Jason Alexander, Ron Zelt, Phil Soenksen
3. List of NGOs:
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, Jerry F. Kenny, Executive Director, kennyj@headwaterscorp.com,
308323735728 (office), 303351431305 (cell)
Nebraska Airboaters Association
Suggest contacting Rodney Verhoeff, Coordinator for the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance to get more NGOs (he
was out when I called today)
RVerhoeff@lpsnrd.org, 402347632729 (office at LPS NRD), 402342930334 (cell)
4. Preliminary list of issues/concerns: As a non3regulatory science agency, we do not, in a sense, have issues/concerns of
our own; but rather, we seek to provide the necessary good science information to help answer such issues/concerns for
others. That being said, below is a list of general scientific inquiries that might be of interest.
Effects of LPD operations on water temperature in lower Loup and lower Platte Rivers (implications for aquatic biota)
Effects of LPD operations on sediment budget below the tailrace canal outfall (implications for in3channel sources)
Effects of LPD operations (especially hydropeaking) on sandbar elevations (implications for aquatic biota)
Effects of LPD operations on hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution (implications for aquatic biota)
Effects of LPD operations on in3channel vegetation extent and composition (implications for woodland expansion and
invasive species)
Phil Soenksen
Chief, Hydrologic Data Section
USGS Nebraska Water Science Center
402332834150
pjsoenks@usgs.gov
http://ne.water.usgs.gov
"Buss, Emily D."
05/12/2008 04:09 PM
To "Frank Albrecht" , "Gene Zuerlein"
, "Greg Wingfield" , "Jeff
Runge" , "Jeff Schuckman" , "Joe
Mangiamelli" , "John Bender"
, "John Cochnar" , "Kristal
Stoner" , "Lacie Andreasen" ,
"Mark Czaplewski" , "Mark Weekley" ,
"Martha Tacha" , "Marty Link"
, "Mike LeValley" , "Mike
Thompson" , "Phil Soenksen" ,
"Randy Thoreson" , "Robert Harms"
1

Greetings:
cc "Neal Suess"
Subject Loup Power District: Agency Follow3up Meeting
I want to thank all of you who participated in our agency orientation meeting on Wednesday, May 7 th . We hope
that the information presented regarding the District’s hydroelectric project and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) Integrated License Process (ILP) will be useful to you as we proceed with our relicensing
program. The District looks forward to working collaboratively with all interested agencies and stakeholders
over the six year schedule of this undertaking.
Please reserve Wednesday, June 11 th and plan to attend our first follow/up agency meeting. We will meet in
Columbus, Nebraska from 10 am until 2 pm. Lunch will be provided. Information on the specific location will
be provided later this week.
We request that you please prepare the following information in preparation for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Confirm who from your agency will attend the meeting on June 11th.
3. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in this relicense process.
4. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding the present or future
operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
(Note: Please do not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at this time; that step will
occur later in the interactive process.)
Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e/mail and send it to me, Emily
Buss, HDR at emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at nsuess@loup.com on or
before Friday, May 16 th . If I have not heard from you by Friday, May 16th I will be contacting you via
telephone. Thank you.
Not all agencies are required to participate in the relicense process. If, at any point in time, your agency should
choose not to formally participate in the relicense process, please so indicate in the form of a signed letter or an
e/mail addressed to:
Neal Suess
President / CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 69602/0988
nsuess@loup.com
Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you have questions or
need any additional information.
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Buss, Emily D.
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:40 PM
To: Frank Albrecht; gene.zuerlein@ngpc.ne.gov; 'Greg Wingfield'; Jeff Runge; Jeff Schuckman;
Joe Mangiamelli; 'John Bender'; 'John Cochnar'; Kristal Stoner; Lacie Andreasen; Mark
Czaplewski; Mark Weekley; Martha Tacha; Marty Link; Mike LeValley; 'Mike Thompson'; Phil
Soenksen; Randy Thoreson; Robert Harms
Cc: Neal Suess; Waldow, George
Subject: IMPORTANT : Loup Power District: Agency Follow:up Meeting Schedule
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Greetings:
We sent you an e mail on May 13 th , 2008 informing you about an Agency Follow up Meeting scheduled in Columbus for June 11 th . That meeting has
now been rescheduled for June 25 th to better accommodate the majority of agencies interested in actively participating in the process. Please watch
your mail in the coming week for information on the exact time and location of this meeting.
We ask that you review your calendars for July – September and provide dates that you or a representative of your agency can attend upcoming
meetings. We also remind you to please prepare the following information for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in this relicense process.
3. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding the present or future operation of the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project. (Note: Please do not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at this time; that step will occur later
in the interactive process.)
Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e mail and send it to me, Emily Buss, HDR at
emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at nsuess@loup.com before the meeting on June 25 th .
The ILP process is moving steadily forward and we all need to work collaboratively to find sufficient time to meet and discuss issues, concerns, and
solutions.
Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you have questions or need any additional information.
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:48 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.; Neal Suess
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT * Loup Power District: Agency Follow*up Meeting Schedule
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I am already committed to two other meetings on June 25, so I doubt that I can attend your
rescheduled meeting. As far as July - September dates go, my calendar is open the weeks of
July 22 and 29, all of August except Aug, 28, and all of September except the week of Sept.
22.
As stated earlier, I will be the primary point of contact at NDEQ for the ILP. I forwarded
Emily a list of NGOs that have expressed interest in our Water Quality Standards in an
earlier email.
NDEQ's interests in the ILP will revolve around the 401 water quality certification for the
FERC license. Water quality issues could include T&E species (aquatic-related only) since
there is a reference to protecting them in our Water Quality Standards; any fish kills that
have occurred in the canal or lakes; and the bacteria in Lake Babcock (I realize that the
recreation occurs on Lake North, but the criteria are assigned to all lakes and we have data
indicating high levels in Babcock).
I will try to find someone in my unit to attend on the 25th in my place, but it is unlikely
they would be familiar with the process.
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
402/471-4201
"Buss, Emily D."
To
"Frank Albrecht"
06/03/2008 06:40 ,
PM , "Greg
Wingfield"
, "Jeff
Runge" , "Jeff
Schuckman"
, "Joe
Mangiamelli"
, "John
Bender"
,
1

Greetings:
"John Cochnar"
, "Kristal
Stoner"
,
"Lacie Andreasen"
, "Mark
Czaplewski" , "Mark
Weekley" ,
"Martha Tacha"
, "Marty
Link"
,
"Mike LeValley"
, "Mike
Thompson" ,
"Phil Soenksen"
, "Randy
Thoreson" ,
"Robert Harms"
cc
"Neal Suess" ,
"Waldow, George"
Subject
IMPORTANT - Loup Power District:
Agency Follow-up Meeting Schedule
We sent you an e-mail on May 13th, 2008 informing you about an Agency Follow-up Meeting
scheduled in Columbus for June 11th. That meeting has now been rescheduled for June 25th to
better accommodate the majority of agencies interested in actively participating in the
process. Please watch your mail in the coming week for information on the exact time and
location of this meeting.
We ask that you review your calendars for July – September and provide dates that you or a
representative of your agency can attend upcoming meetings. We also remind you to please
prepare the following information for this meeting:
1. Confirm who will be the primary point(s) of contact for your agency.
2. Provide a list of any NGO’s you are aware of that should be invited to participate in
this relicense process.
3. Prepare a preliminary list of any issues and/or concerns that your agency has regarding
the present or future operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. (Note: Please do
not categorize these issues/concerns as study needs or study requests at this time; that step
will occur later in the interactive process.)
2

Please prepare your responses to the above items in a word document or in an e-mail and send
it to me, Emily Buss, HDR at emily.buss@hdrinc.com and to Neal Suess, Loup Power District at
nsuess@loup.com before the meeting on June 25th.
The ILP process is moving steadily forward and we all need to work collaboratively to find
sufficient time to meet and discuss issues, concerns, and solutions.
Thank you again for you interest and participation in this process. Please contact me if you
have questions or need any additional information.
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
3

Project: Loup Public Power FERC Relicense
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098
Telephone Record
Project No: 000000000037139
Date: 06/06/08 Subject: Hotline Message
Call to: Loup Hotline Phone Number
Call from: Stephanie White
Phone No: ext. 6961
Phone No: (402) 926-7037
Discussion, Agreement and/or Action:
Hello, this is a test message from me, this is Stephanie White. I would actually like to be added to the mailing
list. 8404 Indian Hills Dr., Omaha, NE 68114-0498. More importantly, I would like whoever gets this
message to contact me immediately and let me know you got it and tell me what you’re doing with it. You can
send me an email, Stephanie.white@hdrinc.com or you can call my direct number (402) 926-7037. Thanks.
Phone (402) 399-1098
Fax (402) 399-1111
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Marty.Link@NDEQ.State.NE.US
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:44 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Cc: John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US; nsuess@loup.com
Subject: June 25 meeting in Columbus
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Emily
Please put John Bender of NDEQ as our agency's official representative on the Joint Agency
Meeting 'team'. John will respond to the other questions in the letter from Loup Power Dist
dated June 6, 2008. Regarding a list of issues/concerns, our agency is responsible for the
water quality of the surface and ground water of the state, along with air and land quality
concerns, so that is where our main interest lies.
Thanks for including us.
Martha (Marty) Link
Nebr. Dept. Environmental Quality
Assoc. Dir, Water Quality Div.
402/471-4270 {Fax 471-2909}
marty.link@ndeq.state.ne.us
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Anna Baum [abaum@upperloupnrd.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:51 AM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: requested information
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning Emily. Per request from a letter from Loup Power District I am passing along the following information.
I am the primary point of contact for our agency.
Our main concern is the impact the call on the river may have in regards to fully appropriating our Loup Basin.
It is very hard to put down any concrete dates to be able to attend any future meetings – I can say that the 2 nd and the 4 th
week of August is out for me.
We very much want to be kept abreast of the issues.
Thanks!
Anna Baum
General Manager, Upper Loup NRD
PO Box 212
Thedford, Ne 69166
Phone: 308#645#2250
Fax: 308#645#2308
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Henry Santin [santin@hamilton.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:55 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: june 25th meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
emily i am planning on attending the meeting on june 25th I will be the primary contact for the nance co board at this
time the board has no specific concerns as far as future meetings evenings would work best for me but as far as dates
go were all involved in farming so the weather will be our main concern. thanks Henry Santin Nance co. supervisor
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Cothern.Joe@epamail.epa.gov
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:45 PM
To: nsuess@loup.com
Cc: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: Hydropower Relicensing Meeting on 6/25
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Suess,
I am responding to the meeting invitation letter sent to Regional Administrator John Askew,
dated June 6, 2008. EPA will not be able to attend next week's meeting, however. we would
welcome the opportunity to address any environmental issue within our jurisdiction or
expertise.
Please let me know if EPA has previously presented a concern relative to this proposed
reliscensing.
Responding to your specific questions:
-I will be EPA's point of contact for this reliscensing. In particular, NEPA documentation
should be submitted to my office.
-EPA does not know of any particular NGO group that should be contacted.
-Inquiries of various EPA program offices did not identify issues or concerns.
-First and last week of August are not available for meeting participation.
Thank you for including EPA in your coordination efforts.
Sincerely,
Joe Cothern
Joseph E. Cothern
NEPA Team Leader
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
910 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7148
cothern.joe@epa.gov
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Buss, Emily D.
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:04 PM
To: john.bender@ndeq.state.ne.us; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; mark@cpnrd.org;
jeff.schuckman@ngpc.ne.gov; frank.albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; pjsoenks@usgs.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
ulnrd@upperloupnrd.org; Barbara.J.Friskopp@usace.army.mil; santin@hamilton.net;
rpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; justin.lavene@nebraksa.gov;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com
Cc: Buss, Emily D.; nsuess@loup.com
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
Attachments: 080625.Agenda.Agency_Issues.pdf; nAgency.080507.Orientation.pdf
Greetings,
This is a reminder that a meeting will be held on June 25, 2008 to discuss agency issues and concerns related to
relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. An agenda for the meeting is attached. Meeting details are below:
Date: June 25, 2008
Time: 10 am to 2 pm (lunch provided)
Location: Wunderlich's
304 E. Highway 30
Columbus, NE 68601
Also attached are the notes from the Agency Orientation meeting that was held on May 7, 2008. Please let me know if
you have any comments on the meeting notes.
We are providing this information to the primary contacts identified by each agency, please forward this information on to
others in your agency as appropriate.
Regards,
Emily Buss
Environmental Scientist / Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763.278.5904 | Fax: 763.591.5413 | Email: Emily.Buss@hdrinc.com
1

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject:
Meeting Date: Meeting Location:
Discussion Topics:
1. Welcome
2. Introductions
3. Process Review
4. Issues Received to Date
5. Issues Discussion
6. Next Steps
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Agenda
Page 1 of 1

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Agency Orientation Meeting
Meeting Date: May 7, 2008, 10:00 am – 2:00 pm
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Loup Public Power District (District)
HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Wunderlichs, Columbus, NE
Jim Frear
Tom Kumpf, Board Member
Neal Suess
Ron Ziola
Emily Buss
Pat Engelbert
Dennis Grennan
Bill Sigler
Shannon Snow
George Waldow
Stephanie White
John Cochnar
Robert Harms
Mike LeValley
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Jeff Runge
Martha Tacha
Greg Wingfield
US Geological Survey (USGS) Phil Soenksen
Randy Thoreson
National Park Service (NPS)
Mark Weekley
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
Frank Albrecht
Jeff Schuckman
Kristal Stoner
Gene Zuerlein
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Mike Thompson
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) John Bender
Lower Loup Natural Resources District (NRD) and Nebraska Dick Hadenfeldt
Natural Resources Commission (NRC)
Central Platte Natural Resource District (NRD) Mark Czaplewski
City of Genoa Lacie Andreasen
City of Columbus Joe Mangiamelli
Meeting Agenda:
I. Welcome and Introductions
II. The History of Loup Power District
III. Loup Hydro Facilities and Operations (Neal)
IV. FERC Licensing Process (George/Neal)
V. The Role of the Agencies (Neal)
VI. Next Steps
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
Discussion:
Topic Detail Interested
Agency
Loup Power District
Includes information about park sites and available NPS
History Book
recreation through the Loup Power District offices.
Water Right The District has a water right to divert up to 3,500
cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Loup River for
power generation purposes.
USFWS
Irrigation The District has 40 irrigation customers and 78
irrigation diversion points with water rights to water
in the canal
Irrigator rights, approved by the State, are junior
water rights to the District’s but are given preference
for agricultural use as priority users of water
District is compensated for acre-feet pumped by
irrigators through a subordination arrangement
Most irrigators are west of Lake Babcock; only four
irrigators are located below the Columbus
Powerhouse.
USFWS
Water Capacity There are no plans to increase the hydraulic capacity
of the canal.
Both the power canal and the Monroe Powerhouse
are designed for a hydraulic flow capacity of 3,500
cfs.
USFWS
NPPD Partnership All energy produced at the two powerhouses
NDEQ,
(Monroe and Columbus) is sold directly to NPPD as NGPC,
a portion of their overall power portfolio.
All power the District distributes is purchased back
from NPPD
The District has a negotiated contract with NPPD;
price of energy fluctuates yearly, based on average
cost of NPPD generation.
Because generation is based on flow availability, the
District is not always able to meet NPPD’s
needs/requests.
USFWS
Sluice Gates Used to periodically flush sand and debris away from USFWS,
intake gates.
Original settling basin sluice pipe was an open flume
but has now been filled with sand and abandoned.
Gate operation is based on water conditions and sand
or debris accumulation; there is no defined schedule
of operation.
Operation moves a large amount of sand.
NDEQ, NGPC
Sand Management There are sand management areas on the north and
south side of the settling basin.
One to two million tons of sand are dredged from the
settling basin per year.
Water flows from dredge on the north side are
conveyed through a series of ditches and discharged
back into the Loup River upstream of the diversion
NGPC
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
structure.
Bypass Reach There are control gates adjacent to the diversion
structure which allow flows to be bypassed back into
the Loup River channel.
River overtops the low weir or wall when there is
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
sufficient flow.
Power Canal Canal gradient is approximately 1 foot per mile
The canal can only hold 3,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs) – the system is running at capacity when the
canal bank is full
There are several siphons along the canal that convey
natural drainage from the north side of the canal to
the south side of the canal; they include Beaver Creek
siphon, Looking Glass Creek siphon, Dry/Cherry
Creek siphon, and the Oconee siphon.
Monroe Powerhouse Monroe Powerhouse is operated in a run-of-river
manner and has no water storage capabilities.
Most of the time, all units are available to run near
capacity but there is often insufficient water to do so.
The system runs at full capacity only a few days per
year.
Lake Storage Lake Babcock and Lake North are used to manage
the flow going into the Columbus Powerhouse.
Generally, the water level rises at night and then
lowers during the day when the Columbus facility
runs to cover NPPD’s peak.
Lake North is significantly deeper than Lake
Babcock; can not be totally drained.
Silt at Lake Babcock The District has considered dredging the lake but it is
not economically prudent.
District flushes sediment out of the lake through the
Columbus Powerhouse to keep the original flow
channel open.
Alternative methods to reclaim some of the storage
capacity are currently being evaluated.
Columbus Powerhouse Columbus Powerhouse is a peaking facility operated
by the District but dispatched by NPPD according to
their system requirements.
The units are generally run to cover NPPD peak load
or conditions when NPPD generation facilities go
off-line. NPPD has a double peak in winter and there
is a very late night peak in the summer due to
irrigation.
NPPD’s needs mandate daily generation activity.
Any two of the three units at the Columbus
Powerhouse can accommodate the 3,500 cfs canal
design. When all three units are used at capacity, the
5,000 cfs intake canal design flow is utilized.
If the entire plant went off line, lake water levels are
maintained to contain the flow, once diversion is
stopped at the headgates.
Vertical trash rack bars are several inches apart and
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
NPS
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
USFWS,
NGPC
NPS
USFWS
NGPC
NGPC, USGS,
NDEQ,
USFWS
Page 3 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting - May 7, 2008
are not intended as a screen to exclude fish.
Fish Fish are present in the canal; the state record Flathead
catfish was taken from the canal.
There are no fish protection screens at the
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
powerhouses.
Endangered Species Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be
considered in the relicensing process.
FERC will initiate informal consultation 60 days
following filing of the NOI/PAD.
Drought Concerns The Loup River is classified as one of the most
consistent flowing rivers in the US. During recent
droughts, summer Loup River flows were near
normal.
Action Items:
Who
Task
LPD Determine issuance process for 401 Water Quality Certification associated
with the FERC public process.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
USGS
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
USFWS
USGS
Date
Assigned
5/7/08
LPD Distribute agency contact information. 5/7/08
All
Agencies
Provide list of NGOs that may be interested in the Project to the District. 5/7/08
Next Meeting:
What: Agency Follow-up Meeting
When: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 : 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Lunch will be provided
Where: Wunderlichs, 304 E. Highway 30, Columbus, NE 68601
RSVP: On or before Friday, June 20, 2008 to Emily Buss, emily.buss@hdrinc.com
or 763-278-5904
The purpose of the meeting is to introduce, discuss and compare the hydropower related issues and concerns
identified by the participating agencies. Our objectives for this meeting are to talk through and reach a mutual
understanding of the basis or rationale for each issue or concern.
Page 4 of 4

TO: Emily Buss
RE: Issues concerning the relicensing of the Loup Public Power District with FERC.
FROM: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
DATE: June 20, 2008
1. Nebraska law provides that waters used for irrigation have preference over waters
used for manufacture of power. This means an irrigator with an appropriation junior to
LPPD’s appropriation may require the senior water right for power – LPPD 22 to
subordinate its water use. The law also provides that just compensation must be paid by
an irrigator to LPPD when subordination is demanded. Just compensation is not an
arbitrary amount, but an amount not greater than the cost of replacing the power which
would be generated by the water so acquired. LPPD has set amounts for irrigators to take
water out of priority. The rate for those irrigators taking water from the canal between
the diversion on the Loup River and the power plants at Monroe and Columbus is
different than the rate charged for those irrigators taking water upstream of the diversion.
How does LPPD figure “just compensation”? The Power Interference Agreement states
that the amount charge irrigators is not just compensation.
2. Why does LPPD allow farmers to irrigate out of its canal? The Nebraska Department
of Natural Resources knows of no easements in place for those irrigators taking from the
canal. LPPD appears to operate as an irrigation district, rather than a power district.
3. At times LPPD diverts most or all of the Loup River, in effect changing the channel of
the river. What if an irrigator requests water be delivered out of the river downstream of
the diversion point and upstream of the discharge into the Platte River, willing to pay
LPPD just compensation?
4. Has LPPD considered its response in the event irrigation development continued in
areas upstream of LPPD’s plants to the point of making the manufacturing of electricity
no longer feasible?
5. Should LPPD be allowed to divert their entire appropriation when making power with
less than the entire appropriation, given that LPPD has no storage permit?

June, XX, 2008
,
Re: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing
Dear ,
The existing license for Loup Power District’s hydroelectric project will expire in April 2014. The process
for relicensing begins this year as mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The first step in that process is to thoroughly assess the environment in which our hydroelectric project
operates. A key consideration of this assessment is the natural Loup River channel, sometimes called
the bypass reach. As a land owner along the bypass reach, your input in the project is important.
We are currently collecting environmental data and are working with state and Federal agencies to
identify pertinent issues along the power canal and the bypass reach. If you would like to provide input,
ask a question of the study team, or be more directly involved in the process, we would welcome your
participation. You may indicate your interest in any of the following ways:
E-mail the project team at: relicensing@loup.com
Call the project hotline: 1-866-869-2087
Send a letter by mail or by fax to me:
Neal Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Fax: 402-564-0970
Attn: Relicensing
We have also established a website with up-to-date information about this project: www.loup.com.
We look forward to working with you throughout the multi-year relicensing process.
Loup Power District
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess, PE
President/CEO

TO: Emily Buss
RE: Issues concerning the relicensing of the Loup Public Power District with FERC.
FROM: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
DATE: June 20, 2008
1. Nebraska law provides that waters used for irrigation have preference over waters
used for manufacture of power. This means an irrigator with an appropriation junior to
LPPD’s appropriation may require the senior water right for power – LPPD -- to
subordinate its water use. The law also provides that just compensation must be paid by
an irrigator to LPPD when subordination is demanded. Just compensation is not an
arbitrary amount, but an amount not greater than the cost of replacing the power which
would be generated by the water so acquired. LPPD has set amounts for irrigators to take
water out of priority. The rate for those irrigators taking water from the canal between
the diversion on the Loup River and the power plants at Monroe and Columbus is
different than the rate charged for those irrigators taking water upstream of the diversion.
How does LPPD figure “just compensation”? The Power Interference Agreement states
that the amount charge irrigators is not just compensation.
2. Why does LPPD allow farmers to irrigate out of its canal? The Nebraska Department
of Natural Resources knows of no easements in place for those irrigators taking from the
canal. LPPD appears to operate as an irrigation district, rather than a power district.
3. At times LPPD diverts most or all of the Loup River, in effect changing the channel of
the river. What if an irrigator requests water be delivered out of the river downstream of
the diversion point and upstream of the discharge into the Platte River, willing to pay
LPPD just compensation?
4. Has LPPD considered its response in the event irrigation development continued in
areas upstream of LPPD’s plants to the point of making the manufacturing of electricity
no longer feasible?
5. Should LPPD be allowed to divert their entire appropriation when making power with
less than the entire appropriation, given that LPPD has no storage permit?

Selzle, Lydia
From: Angell, Jean [jangell@dnr.ne.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: June 25 LPPD meeting
Attachments: concerns.doc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I will be able to attend the Loup Public Power District FERC relicensing meeting in Columbus on June 25,
2008. Attached please find the Department of Natural Resources issues for consideration. If you have any
questions about the document, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Jean Angell
Legal Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
471.3931
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Robert_Harms@fws.gov
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:23 PM
To: Waldow, George; nsuess@loup.com; Buss, Emily D.; White, Stephanie
Cc: rick.schneider@ngpc.ne.gov; kristal.stoner@ngpc.ne.gov; frank.albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov;
gene.zuerlein@ngpc.ne.gov; joel.jorgensen@ngpc.ne.gov; mike.fritz@ngpc.ne.gov;
mark.porath@ngpc.ne.gov; Martha_Tacha@fws.gov; John_Cochnar@fws.gov;
Greg_Wingfield@fws.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Donald_Anderson@fws.gov;
richard.holland@ngpc.ne.gov; larry.hutchinson@ngpc.ne.gov
Subject: Concerns Loup Power District Relicensing
Attachments: Loup PD Concerns.doc
Neal/George/Emily:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(Commission) have prepared a preliminary list of concerns associated with proposed
relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project as requested at the May 7, 2008, meeting.
They are attached. The Service and Commission look forward to discussing these with you
tomorrow.
(See attached file: Loup PD Concerns.doc)
Bob Harms
Robert R. Harms
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
Phone: 308-382-6468, Extension 17
Fax: 308-384-8835
robert_harms@fws.gov
1

Preliminary Concerns,
Loup Power District Relicensing
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
June 25, 2008
1) Flow depletion on the Loup River below the diversion at Genoa. Affected resources
include:
a) diminished peak flows affecting sand bar suitability for nesting and foraging
piping plover and least tern;
b) increased susceptibility of invasive and/or woody plant species becoming
established on sandbar habitats;
c) water diversion for hydropower, irrigation, and any associated evaporation
from the Loup River may increase susceptibility of land-based predation due to
shallow water in channels affecting least tern and piping plover;
d) water diversion from the Loup River may increase human disturbance which
may affect nest initiation and/or abandonment for the least tern and piping plover;
e) water diversion from the Loup River may lower production of invertebrates and
fish affecting food availability for the least tern, piping plover, Tier 1 species, and
other riverine fish and wildlife species;
f) low flows affecting fish movement/migration;
g) water diversion from the Loup River will increase probability of fish kills due
to stranding of fish in pools and increased water temperatures;
h) loss and/or degradation of adjacent wetland habitats connected to the river via
groundwater; and
i) narrow channels could result in vegetative encroachment.
2) Flow depletion on the Loup River above the diversion at Genoa due to potential sales
of water rights to other upstream water users. Affected resources include:
a) diminished peak flows affecting sand bar suitability for nesting and foraging
piping plover and least tern;
b) increased susceptibility of invasive and/or woody plant species becoming
established on sandbar habitats;

c) water withdrawals for other uses on the Loup River may increase susceptibility
of land based predation due to shallow water in channels affecting least tern and
piping plover;
d) water withdrawals from the Loup River may increase human disturbance which
may affect nest initiation and/or abandonment for the least tern and piping plover;
e) water withdrawals from the Loup River may lower production of invertebrates
and fish affecting food availability for the least tern, piping plover, Tier 1 species,
and other riverine fish and wildlife species;
f) low flows affecting fish movement/migration;
g) water withdrawals from the Loup River will increase probability of fish kills
due to stranding of fish in pools and increased water temperatures;
h) loss and/or degradation of adjacent wetland habitats connected to the river via
groundwater; and
i) narrower channels could result in vegetative encroachment.
3) Flow depletion on the Platte River system from: a) evaporative losses within the
power canal system, and b) withdrawal of water from canal for irrigation uses. Affected
resources include:
a) diminished peak flows affecting sand bar suitability for nesting piping plover
and least tern;
b) reduced production of invertebrates and fish potentially affecting food
availability for the least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Tier 1 species, and
other riverine fish and wildlife resources;
c) reduced flows affecting pallid sturgeon migration/movement;
d) increased susceptibility of invasive and/or woody plant species becoming
established on sandbar habitats;
e) potential impact on spawning cues for pallid sturgeon, catfish, sauger, and
other river fish;
f) loss and/or degradation of adjacent wetland habitats connected to the river via
groundwater;
g) narrower channels could result in vegetative encroachment; and
2

h) thermal stress on fish.
4) Sediment-deprived flow that is discharged from the tailrace into the Platte River may
have the following impacts:
a) reduced sandbar formation/maintenance for least tern, piping plover nesting
and foraging habitats and
b) channel degradation resulting in disconnected side-channels, backwaters, a
deeper, narrower main channel, and floodplain affecting least tern, piping plover
and other riverine fish and wildlife resources.
5) Dredging and discharge activities at the settling basin. Impacts include:
a) overcovering of nests with discharge on nesting least terns and piping plovers;
b) entrapment of fish on spoil pile; and
c) entrainment and mortality of fish during dredging operations.
6) Hydrocycling. Affected resources include:
a) inundation of sandbars and loss of least tern and piping plover nests;
b) inundation of sandbars results in the loss of sandbar habitat that could have
otherwise been used by least terns and piping plovers for nesting and foraging;
c) frequent daily erosion of sandbars affecting least tern and piping plover habitat
needs;
d) impacts to benthic production affecting food resources for riverine fish and
wildlife including listed threatened endangered species; and
e) seasonal hydrocycling impacts to pallid sturgeon and other riverine fish species
affecting fish passage, stranding fish in pools, heat stress, and elevated levels of
predation.
7) Recreation. Recreational benefits of the multiple use project may have degraded over
the project period. Have the proposed benefit components been completed, maintained
and operated, or enhanced during the project period? Affected resources include:
a) aquatic habitat for recreational fish species in storage reservoirs;
b) impediments in canal delivery system for distribution of recreational fish
species;
3

c) access to project property for public fishing and hunting;
d) project operation activities resulting in fish kills within the canal and storage
reservoirs;
e) degradation of the recreational fishery due to project-related activities;
f) a barrier to fish movement at the diversion dam; and
g) Canal maintenance activities may affect fish.
4

First
Name
Last
Name
Randy Thoreson National Park Service
Field Office
Dave Tunink Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission
Organization Address 1 Address 2 City State
111 E. Kellogg
Blvd., Suite 105
Loup Power District
Hydroelectric Relicense Project
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Contact List
Up to date as of 06/26/2008 Page ________ of ________
Zip
Code
St. Paul MN 55101-
1256
Phone Fax E-Mail
1-651-
290-3004
2201 North 13th Norfolk NE 68701 1-402
471-5553
Henry Santin Jr. Nance County 209 Esther St Fullerton NE 68638 1-308-
894-5495
Bob Harms United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Matt Pillard HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills
Drive
Federal Building 203 West Second
Street
Grand
Island
NE 68801 1-308-
382-6468
ext. 17
Omaha NE 68114-
4049
Ron Ziola Loup Power District P.O. Box 988 2404 15th Street Columbus NE 68602-
0988
402-399-
1186
402-564-
3171 ext.
254
1-651-
290-
3815
randy_thoreson@nps.gov
Dave.Tunink@ngpc.ne.gov
santin@hamilton.net
robert_harms@fws.gov
matt.pillard@hdrinc.com
rziola@loup.com

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Agency Follow-up Meeting – Identify Issues & Concerns
Meeting Date: June 25, 2008, 10:00 am – 2:00 pm
Notes by: HDR
Attendees: See Attached
Meeting Agenda:
1. Welcome
2. Introductions
3. Process Review
4. Issues Received to Date
5. Issues Discussion
6. Next Steps
Discussion:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Wunderlichs, Columbus, NE
1. Welcome
This meeting was a follow-up to the agency orientation meeting held on May 7, 2008. The purpose of the
meeting was to introduce, discuss and compare the hydropower related issues and concerns identified by
the participating agencies. The objectives for this meeting were to talk through and reach a mutual
understanding of the basis or rationale for each issue or concern.
2. Introductions
The protocol for the meeting was intended to be an open dialog to get the issues identified.
Items of housekeeping discussions included that each agency was asked to review the point of contact
information for their agency for accuracy.
A first draft of meeting notes from each agency meeting will be provided by HDR within one (1) week.
Comments on meeting notes from the agencies are requested to be sent to HDR within one (1) week so
the final notes can be posted to the relicensing website.
The question was raised as to whether non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be included in the
agency meetings to discuss issues? The District noted that NGOs were invited to the public meetings and
that three attended the meeting (Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association, Tern and Plover
Partnership, and the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance). The National Park Service (NPS) noted they
like to see NGO participation at the agency meetings. It was decided to include NGOs at the next agency
meeting.
The question was also raised as to whether tribes were included for the meeting. The District noted that
tribal coordination is occurring independently and they are working to identify a time to meet. Tribal
coordination will continue separately because of their sovereign nation status - unless they would prefer
to join the larger group.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
Matt Pillard, HDR, will be the new point of contact for agencies (Emily Buss was the previous point of
contact). He will be responsible for coordinating with agencies throughout the relicensing process.
3. Process Review
HDR provided a review of the FERC Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), the opportunities for agency
input, and the current stage process is in. It was noted that the process requires a long-term commitment
from all involved.
The general timing of key milestones was discussed (see attached for general submittal time frames).
HDR noted that if the Project is not relicensed by mid-April of 2014, FERC will issue an annual license
that allows the District to operate under the previous license terms and conditions until a new license can
be issued. It was also noted that the relicensing effort does not stop after the new license is issued.
Certain items, such as plan development, mitigation and monitoring, may continue or be required after the
new license is issued. FERC establishes comment timeframes and other milestones based on submittals
and it is important for each agency to monitor these timeframes. When the Pre-Application Document
(PAD) is submitted, a schedule identifying these milestones will be made available.
Agency study requests were discussed. The agencies were encouraged to provide their preliminary list of
study needs for inclusion in the PAD. There will be other opportunities after the PAD submittal to
identify and discuss studies, it was noted that this is the time to think about specific study needs to
address issues of concern. Study requests should ultimately consider the seven (7) basic study criteria
identified by FERC. However they do not need to address every criteria at this time. Eventually all study
requests will need to address the seven criteria in order for FERC to include them in the Study Plan to be
conducted by the District (as the applicant).
The National Park Service (NPS) asked if Loup Power District would entertain a settlement agreement or
if was too early to tell. HDR responded that while it is too early to tell at this time, that it is a possibility.
Any agreement on the issues at hand is important and the process to resolve them is also important. It was
noted that FERC will consider how the group has collaborated relative to study requests and settlement
agreements.
4. Issues Received to Date
Based on the request for comments, eight (8) agencies responded. The US Environmental Protection
Agency (Kansas City Regional Office) responded that they had no comments at this time. A summary of
the agency issues identified prior to the meeting is included in the presentation handout. Additionally,
specific comment letters received from US Fish & Wildlife Service/NE Game & Parks, NE Department
of Natural Resources, and US Geological Survey are attached.
5. Issues Discussion
Each agency was asked to provide a discussion of their comments:
• National Park Service – Agency authority for participation in relicensing is provided through the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Section 10A of the Federal Power Act. The NPS provided six
issues:
o Recreation – land and water based. Land recreation issues are focused on trails, outdoor
recreation opportunities, fishing, and camping (interest to improve/expand existing). Water based
recreation issues are focused on opportunities for canoeing/boating.
o Land Use – issues relate primarily to access points to recreational facilities and
conflict/opportunity points with adjacent land uses.
o Aesthetics – aesthetics can cover the whole spectrum of analysis. NPS noted that this will be one
area where the level of analysis needs to be discussed as a group prior to submittal of the PAD.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
o Natural Resources – NPS is an agency within the Department of Interior and thus has interest in
natural resource impacts.
o Stakeholders/NGOs – NPS is interested in input from these groups.
o Project Operations – Flows and how project operation affects the above listed interests. NPS
noted this area was not a major interest, but is considered.
o The District asked if NPS would be detailing more specific issues. NPS said they would and that
the tour of the facilities will be of help in that regard.
• United States Geologic Survey (USGS) – The USGS has no regulatory authority on the Project.
However, they have a responsibility as a technical resource to the Department of Interior to provide
technical information and to ensure that good science is applied. The questions the USGS have
relative to the Project are related to (specific issues questions are attached):
o Water temperature changes in the Loup River bypassed reach and in the Platte River below the
return point
o Sediment budget in the bypassed reach and below the discharge point – how much sediment is
removed and how does that affect the Loup River and once returned, how does that affect the
Platte River?
o Effects from hydrocycling – have enough studies been done to know the effects on sand bar
characteristics and longevity, change in sediment moisture and its effect on water content in sand
bars, vegetation composition, and erosion.
o Habitat connectivity
o Effects on in-channel vegetation – does hydrocycling effect soil moisture regime and its
implications on nesting habitat? Does removal of water in the Loup River by-pass reach effect
woodland expansion/species composition? How does hydrocycling after a natural high or lowwater
event effect plant establishment?
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
HDR inquired about USGS studies that might be of some assistance in beginning to look at how to
address their questions. USGS identified that they currently monitor turbidity and temperature at the
gauge at Louisville (since 2002). No studies have been performed to date on temperature.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) & Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) – The
USFWS has authorities under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other federal policies and
procedures. The NGPC has authorities under the Non-game and Endangered Species Conservation
Act. The USFWS works closely with the NGPC through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
prepared a single list of issues (attached)
The USFWS and NGPC provided a list of seven (7) issues, concerns, and related questions relative to
the Project, copies were provided to attendees (list attached). Each item was not discussed in detail
but summarized:
o Flow depletions on the Loup River below Genoa – diversion effect on sandbars and tern/plover
habitat; low flow effects on fish migration, water temperature, fish kills
o Flow depletion above the diversion – lack of water upstream and water rights. The question was
asked if Loup Power District can sell credits/water rights to upstream users. It was noted that the
District does not have the authority to sell water rights; however, through preference (agriculture
over industry) and under low flow conditions, upstream irrigators receive water before the
District. A negotiated interference agreement exists which provides for irrigators to compensate
the District for the equivalent power generation lost due to water use for irrigation. The District
has no control over the appropriations. It was noted that upstream water appropriation issues that
are not within the District’s control are not part of the relicensing project.
o Flow depletions on the Platte River – concerns relate to evaporation from the District’s Power
Canal/Regulating Reservoirs and losses due to irrigation along the canal.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
o Sediment-deprived flows – effect sediment removal has on downstream sandbar creation.
o Dredging operations at the settling basin – effects on tern and plover nests and fish
entrainment/stranding.
o Hydrocycling – effect of daily stage changes on tern/plover nests, loss of nesting and foraging
habitat, erosion of sandbars, fish passage and thermal stress.
o Recreational benefits – impediments to fish passage in the Power Canal, access to facilities and
camping. It was noted that Section 10(J) was still part of the relicensing process.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
The NGPC added that the Project does provide some very good recreation resources and that they
have had a good working relationship with the District relative to maintenance timing and flow
releases. They added that some items needed a closer look, such as impediments to fish passage, the
Diversion Weir as a potential barrier to fish passage and that they don’t have a good handle on how
this affects fish.
The comment was made that the positive benefits of the Project should be mentioned, such as
increased water surface area, recreation, lakes, wetlands via seepage in some areas. It was
acknowledged that there are some good benefits and that the issues raised by the USFWS and NGPC
were questions that they have and some of the issues may become non-issues pending studies or
subsequent information.
USFWS noted that they expect this Project to require formal consultation (under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act).
HDR noted that some of the comments appear to be written as if considering a new construction
project. However, this is a relicensing of an existing project. The process is not intended to go back
to look at situations prior to the project being constructed. However, it was also noted that the
relicensing action may result in a change in operations and the process will evaluate how would this
could affect resources.
NGPC also noted that the river otter historically occurred in the Loup River Basin and the impact to
this species is unknown.
• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) – NDEQ’s authority is provided under
administering the Section 401 water quality certification as part of the Clean Water Act. However, the
conditions they have authority on relate only to water quality. They need to determine if there is a
discharge of pollution that affects water quality. There have been a few fish kills reported, but they
were determined to be disease related. Lake Babcock is currently on the impairments list (low
priority) to have a TMDL established. They are obligated to coordinate with NGPC to make sure no
NDEQ action affects state non-game or endangered species. The question was asked relative to
placing dredged material back into the Loup River (for added sediment). NDEQ commented that that
would be a Section 404 issue. It was also noted that the other item to consider under this scenario is
the ability of the bypassed reach flow to carry the sediment.
• Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – The DNR is involved in the Project through the
appropriation for the diversion (1934*) and a permit for power generation. The DNR commented that
the District does not hold a storage permit; however, power companies are allowed to store water for
24 hours to build up head for generation. Water rights are determined through age of appropriations
(first in time) and preference. A higher preference (domestic, irrigation, industry) allows for water
from a junior appropriation to be satisfied before a senior appropriation, but the junior water right
must compensate the senior water right holder for its loss of water. DNR noted an issue for the
District to consider is the possibility that, if there are enough requests for water with higher
preference, will enough be left for power generation?
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Another concern of the DNR is that the District is charging different amounts for compensation for
loss of water from the canal verses requests for water upstream from the diversion. This shouldn’t be
a problem as long as the amount is less than the just compensation amount.
DNR speculated that the District is in a unique situation where it has a canal that is acting as a river.
DNR questioned under what agreements were adjacent property owners accessing the canal. DNR
noted that the District could potentially decide not to grant irrigators access to get water out of the
canal. The District noted that all District properties (with some exceptions for public safety) are
publicly accessible. Another DNR concern is that irrigators who get water from the canal are using
an appropriation from a 1934* permit, even though their water right may be younger than other
permits along the bypass reach.
Another concern of the DNR is - what happens to irrigators if water in the canal is down and they
can’t get water? All irrigators from the canal are adjacent to District property, and the ability to use
the canal water for irrigation is provided through an agreement or easement that provides access to
the irrigators. This access is allowed under the existing FERC license (access to water is only
provided if the requestor has a water right from the State). The agreement between the irrigators and
the District grants the ability to pump water, but there is no guarantee of water being in the canal. It
was also noted that the DNR issues priority shut-off notices to irrigators in times of water shortage.
There are 78 diversion points and 42 irrigators on the Loup Power Canal. The District noted that
there is a meter on every irrigation pump. These meters are checked at the beginning and end of the
irrigation season. On the Loup River, the DNR has done the pump inspections for 55 years. The
District will take over this task in 2009. Pumping books are used to check appropriations.
Waters of the State was also discussed. All water in Nebraska is considered to be in the public trust
and a water of the state. The DEQ uses the definition of waters of the State as defined by the
legislature and provides added definition per their regulations. The Power Canal has defined stream
segments and is not unique in this regard as being considered a waters of the State. These segments
clearly differentiate the Power Canal from the Loup River bypassed reach.
*Per DNR water right application A-2287, Priority Date of 1932.
• Lower Loup Natural Resources District – Their only concern/issue noted was the issue of
appropriations in the Loup River Basin.
• Nebraska Public Power District – Their primary issue is that, under the new FERC license, Loup
Power District retains the operational flexibility to the follow fluctuations in power demand
(hydrocycling). They also stressed the importance of basing relicensing decisions on good science.
• Health and Human Services – Their issues/concerns are related to public drinking water supply. There
are a number of supplies in the basin which become an appropriations issue. They have seen an
increase in lake front developments and they need to consider how supply and overall quality and
quantity of drinking water sources are affected.
Issue Categories
The issues were grouped into basic categories:
• Sediment Budget
• Hydrocycling
• Flow Depletions
• Project Maintenance and Operations (timing)
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
• Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics
• Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat
• Water Rights/Appropriations
The formation of working groups was discussed - it was decided that the majority of the issues are
interrelated and cannot be broken into working groups. Two working groups were identified: 1)
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics and 2) Water Rights and Appropriations. Members of working groups
were established (see attached).
The working groups will discuss categorical issues and to help define the questions/issues that are to be
answered. The intent of the working groups was discussed as a way to have smaller groups address the
issues and report back to the larger group.
USFWS noted that it would need to maintain some autonomy due to Section 7 Consultation.
6. Next Steps
Data Request
Agencies were requested to provide data that they may have relative to the Project and the issues
identified. The purpose of providing this information is to allow the District to determine data gaps and
will relate to the need for studies.
• NDEQ will provide information relative to fish kills.
• USFWS will review its information to determine what can be provided.
• NGPC will look for information available on the lower Loup River.
Study Needs and Requests
The District requested that agencies begin to formulate study needs that may be necessary to address the
issues and concerns identified by the agencies and forward that information to HDR as soon as possible.
When developing study needs and requests, agencies should keep in mind the seven (7) criteria FERC
uses to asses study viability. At this point it is not necessary for agencies to address every item of the
FERC criteria, the intent of the request is to consider what kind of information can be used to address the
defined issues/concerns. The District is interested in collaboration on study requests, to the extent the
agencies wish. Studies should focus on specific project related issues.
Eventually the FERC criteria will be used to determine which studies the District (as the applicant) will
perform. There will be additional opportunities to introduce study requests after the PAD is submitted
and during the FERC scoping process. A Study Plan will be developed in 2009 that must be approved by
FERC.
USFWS asked what flexibility the District has in changing project operations and addressing the issues
and noted that there will need to be an alternatives analysis under NEPA. HDR noted that the issue of
flexibility is still too early to address, as of now, we have a list off issues/concerns and multiple
assumptions of impacts. HDR noted that, as the studies are conducted, the data is reported and may result
in alteration of some studies and that some studies may include testing of ways to mitigate impacts.
The USFWS noted that the Section 7 Consultation process may also require studies to be performed.
The next agency meeting is scheduled for July 24, 2008 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn
Express in Columbus, Nebraska to discuss study needs and requests. Prior to that meeting, HDR and the
District may contact agencies for further clarification of issues and to request data.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – June 25, 2008
Action Items:
Who
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Task
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Date
Assigned
All Agencies Identify preliminary study needs and requests. 6/25/08
Recreation/Land
Use/Aesthetics
Working Group
Water Rights/
Appropriations
Working Group
Coordinate and determine date/time for conference call meeting 6/25/08
Coordinate and determine date/time for conference call meeting 6/25/08
NPS Further definition of issues. 6/25/08
USFWS Review available information to provide to the District relative to
threatened and endangered species.
6/25/08
NGPC Information available on the Lower Loup River 6/25/08
NDEQ Provide the District with information on fish kill reports. 6/25/08
Next Meeting:
What: Potential Studies Discussion
When: Thursday, July 24, 2008: 9:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided
Where: Holiday Inn Express, 524 E 23rd St, Columbus, NE 68601 (402) 564-2566
RSVP: On or before Friday, July 18, 2008 to Matt Pillard, matt.pillard@hdrinc.com
or 402-399-1186
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the potential studies to be performed to address Project
related issues.
Page 7 of 7

Selzle, Lydia
From: White, Stephanie
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:47 AM
To: randy_thoreson@nps.gov
Cc: Pillard, Matt
Subject: Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Workgroup
Attachments: 080626_Recreation_Land_Use_Aesthetics_WG_Contact_List_edb.doc
Good morning Randy /
Attached please find the contact list for your workgroup. Over time you may end up adding or subtracting to this group /
please keep Matt Pillard in the loop so we can appropriately reflect the group and its activities in our pre/application
document and subsequent reports.
It was nice to see you this week / thanks for making the trip to Columbus. You're a very important resource for the group.
Have a nice weekend /
Stephanie
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: White, Stephanie
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:51 AM
To: jangell@dnr.ne.gov
Cc: Pillard, Matt
Subject: Water Rights Workgroup
Attachments: 080626_Water_Rights_WG_Contact_List_edb.doc
Good morning Jean .
Attached please find the contact list for your Water Rights Workgroup. You may find that the group will grow or
shrink over time . please keep Matt Pillard in the loop so that we can appropriately reflect the groups membership and
activities in our pre.application document as well as subsequent reports.
Thanks for contributing your time to this . as our discussion indicated on Wednesday, this is a very important topic.
Have a great weekend .
Stephanie White
1

First
Name
Last
Name
Jean Angell Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources
Bob Harms United States Fish and
Wildlife Service
Organization Address 1 Address 2 City State
State Office
Building, 4th Floor
300 Centennial
Mall South; P.O.
Box 4676
Federal Building 203 West Second
Street
Loup Power District
Hydroelectric Relicense Project
Water Rights Work Group Contact List
Up to date as of 06/26/2008 Page ________ of ________
Zip
Code
Lincoln NE 68509-
4676
Grand
Island
Phone Fax E-Mail
1-404-
471-3931
NE 68801 1-308-
382-6468
Phil Soenksen U.S. Geologic Survey 5231 South 19th Lincoln NE 68512-
1271
Robert Mohler Lower Loup NRD 2620 Airport Drive,
P.O. Box 210
David Jundt Nebraska Department of
Health and Human
Services; Division of
Public Health; Northeast
Regional Office
304 North 5th St.
Suite C
Pat Engelbert HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills
Drive
John Engel HDR Engineering, Inc. 8404 Indian Hills
Drive
Ord NE 68862-
0210
Norfolk NE 68701-
4093
Omaha NE 68114-
4049
Omaha NE 68114-
4049
Jim Frear Loup Power District P.O. Box 988 2404 15th Street Columbus NE 68602-
0988
John Shadle Nebraska Public Power
District
P.O. Box 519
Norfolk NE
68702-
0519
ext. 17
1-402 328-
4150
1-308-
728-3221
1-402-
370-3404
1-402-
399-4917
1-402-
926-7110
1-402-
564-3171
ext. 255
1-402-
563-5489
1-402-471-
2900
1-308 728-
5669
1-402-370-
3493
jangell@dnr.ne.gov
robert_harms@fws.gov
pjsoenks@usgs.gov
mohler@nctc.net
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov
pat.engelbert@hdrinc.com
john.engel@hdrinc.com
jfrear@loup.com
jjshadl@nppd.com

From: White, Stephanie
To: Snow, Shannon; King, Wendy
Cc: Buss, Emily D.
Subject: FW: Mailing List
Date: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:35:40 AM
Please make sure this gets into the Database.
From: Neal Suess [mailto:nsuess@loup.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:16 AM
To: Buss, Emily D.; White, Stephanie; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: arobak@loup.com
Subject: Mailing List
Emily, Stephanie and Lisa:
Had a gentleman come into my office this morning regarding relicensing. He owns some
property along the Loup River on the bypass reach. He received our letter and wants to be kept
informed on relicensing. Contact information is:
Anthony (Tony) Stec
His concern is regarding changes in the river channel due to river flows caused by the diversion
into the canal. This adds an additional concern about changes in land ownership with the
changing river channel.
Let me know if you need more information.
Neal Suess, P.E.
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988 (2404 15th Street)
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone: 402-564-3171
Fax: 402-564-0970
Cell: 402-910-8979
E-Mail: nsuess@loup.com

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:07 PM
To: 'Robert_Harms@fws.gov'
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Ron Ziola (rziola@loup.com)
Subject: Loup Power Relicensing / FERC and ESA process discussion
Attachments: esa_guide.pdf
Bob,
July 22nd will work for Loup. So we'll plan on meeting at 10:00 a.m. at Loup's office.
Also, please see the attached Hydropower Licensing and Endangered Species Guide.
Please contact me with any questions.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114/4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:09 AM
To: 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'
Subject: Loup Power District Hydro Project ' Work Group Coordination
Dear Randy,
I wanted to thank you for agreeing to chair a Work Group for the Loup Power District Hydro Project. On behalf of Loup, I
wanted let you to know that HDR is available to provide administrative assistance for this effort. This includes providing a
conference call service and meeting notes.
The conference call number that you can utilize is:
Toll free dial in number (US and Canada): (866) 994 6437
Conference code: 4023994909
I believe Stephanie sent you a member list for your work group.
Please let me know if we can be of any other administrative assistance.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114'4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:00 PM
To: 'Anna Baum'; 'Barb Friskopp'; 'Bobbie Kriz#Wickham'; 'Butch Koehlmoos'; 'David Jundt'; 'Frank
Albreicht'; 'Henry Santin'; 'Jason Alexander'; 'Jean Angell'; 'Joe Cothern'; 'John Bender'; 'Justin
Lavene'; 'Lacie Andreason'; 'Mark Czaplewski'; 'Randy Thoreson'; 'Richard Hadenfeldt';
'Robert Harms'; 'Robert Puschendorf'
Subject: Loup Power District Hydro Project # June 25 Agency Meeting Notes
Attachments: nAgency.080625.Issues.doc; nAgency.080625_Attachments.pdf;
Mystic.StudyRequest14.Recreation_Counts.pdf; Mystic.StudyRequest7
_Temperature_Monitoring.pdf
Good afternoon!
As the point of contact for your respective agency for the Loup Power District Hydro Project, please find attached a draft
copy of the meeting notes and associated attachments. Please distribute as needed to your fellow agency
representatives.
If you have questions or comments on the meeting notes and/or attachments to the notes, please consolidate your
agency's comments and send them to my attention on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday July 11, 2008. You can make your
comments in track changes directly to the Microsoft Word document if you choose. A final version of the meeting notes
will be placed on the Project web site (http://www.loup.com/relicense/) by Monday July 14, 2008.
Also, for your information, I have attached two examples of final study requests from other relicensing projects.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114#4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Agency Meeting Attendees
June 25, 2008
10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Last Name First Name Agency / Organization
Albrecht Frank Nebraska Game and Parks
Alexander Jason United States Geological Survey
Angell Jean Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Barels Brian Nebraska Public Power District
Bender John Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Cochnar John United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Engelbert Pat HDR
Hydroelectric Relicensing
FERC Project 1256
Project #37104
Jim Frear Loup Power District
Lower Loup Natural Resources District; Nebraska
Hadenfeldt Richard Natural Resources Commission
Harms Bob United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Jundt David
Services; Division of Public Health
Mangiamelli Joe City of Columbus
Mohler Robert Lower Loup Natural Resources District
Pillard Matt HDR
Runge Jeff United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Santin Henry Nance County Supervisors
Page __1__ of __2__

Last Name First Name Agency / Organization
Shadle John Nebraska Public Power District
Sigler Bill HDR
Soenksen Phil United States Geological Survey
Stoner Kristal Nebraska Game and Parks
Sunneberg Jon Nebraska Public Power District
Tacha Martha United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Thoreson Randy National Park Service
Tunink Dave Nebraska Game and Parks
Waldow George HDR
Weekley Mark National Park Service
White Stephanie HDR
United States Geological Survey; Nebraska Water
Zelt Ronald Science Center
Ziola Ron Loup Power District
Zuerlein Gene Nebraska Game and Parks
Page _2___ of __2__

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:24 PM
To: Robert Harms (Robert_Harms@fws.gov)
Subject: FW: Loup Power Relicensing + FERC and ESA process discussion
Attachments: esa_guide.pdf
Bob,
Message from July 2.
Thanks.
Matt
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:07 PM
To: 'Robert_Harms@fws.gov'
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Ron Ziola (rziola@loup.com)
Subject: Loup Power Relicensing 0 FERC and ESA process discussion
Bob,
July 22nd will work for Loup. So we'll plan on meeting at 10:00 a.m. at Loup's office.
Also, please see the attached Hydropower Licensing and Endangered Species Guide.
Please contact me with any questions.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114+4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

King, Wendy
From: Angell Robak [arobak@loup.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:44 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: King, Wendy
Subject: FW: Hill Farm Bypass reach
Lisa,
I am forwarding you this e-mail we received today, just in case Wendy didn't receive it.
Angell
From: Jim Gates
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:15 PM
To: RelicenseGroup
Cc: jegates@clearwire.net
Subject: Hill Farm Bypass reach
Dear Mr. Suess,
8/14/2008
Page 1 of 1
I would like some more information prior to seeing the re-licensing being conducted.
As a landowner on part of the bypass reach. I have noted for several years how the water flow near my property has been eroding
and taking more of the land into the by pass. Where as the landowner on the other side of the bypass is increasing in land size.
What is to be done to reverse this process and gain back our property?
Also what measures are to be used to stop or reduce flooding and ice flows from eroding future lands?
Regards
James Gates

J
~
~ °flAol;j
o;;JU~Q(?U, ~+ (~ .
-....

July 14, 2008
Richard Roos-Collins
Senior Attorney
Natural Heritage Institute
100 Pine St., Suite 1550
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing
Invitation to Participate in Project Scoping
Dear Mr. Roos-Collins,
In May of 2008, your organization was invited to attend public meetings regarding Loup Power District’s (District)
relicensing process for its hydroelectric project near Columbus, Nebraska. We appreciated the input we received at
the public meetings held on June 10 and 11. At this time, we wish to invite Non-Government Organizations
(NGOs) to participate in the agency discussions regarding the scope of relicensing for the Project.
There are several opportunities for NGOs to become involved.
• The District is working with numerous resource agencies to identify issues related to relicensing and we
invite you to participate in this group, providing comments and attending agency information meetings.
• The District has also organized two working groups to discuss specific project issues: Recreation, Land
Use & Aesthetics and Water Rights & Appropriations.
If your NGO would like to participate in the project scoping process by participating in the larger agency group or
by participating in a working group, please contact either myself by email at nsuess@loup.com or Matt Pillard with
HDR by email at Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com or by phone at 402-399-1186. Please provide the name and contact
information of the participant from your organization.
The next meeting of the larger agency group has been set for July 24 th , 2008 to discuss potential studies. Your
agency is welcome to participate in this discussion. Details of the meeting are below.
What: Agency Meeting – Potential Studies Discussion
When: Thursday, July 24 th: 9:00 a.m. –1:30 p.m. (lunch will be provided)
Where: Holiday Inn Express, 524 E. 23 rd St., Columbus, Nebraska, 68601
Conference call participation is also available
RSVP: Matt Pillard, HDR, 402-399-1186, Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
We look forward to your participation and working with your organization throughout the relicensing process.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess, P.E.
President/CEO

Agency Meeting Attendees
June 25, 2008
10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Last Name First Name Agency / Organization
Albrecht Frank Nebraska Game and Parks
Alexander Jason United States Geological Survey
Angell Jean Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Barels Brian Nebraska Public Power District
Bender John Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Cochnar John United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Engelbert Pat HDR
Hydroelectric Relicensing
FERC Project 1256
Project #37104
Jim Frear Loup Power District
Lower Loup Natural Resources District; Nebraska
Hadenfeldt Richard Natural Resources Commission
Harms Bob United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Jundt David
Services; Division of Public Health
Mangiamelli Joe City of Columbus
Mohler Robert Lower Loup Natural Resources District
Pillard Matt HDR
Runge Jeff United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Santin Henry Nance County Supervisors
Page __1__ of __2__

Last Name First Name Agency / Organization
Shadle John Nebraska Public Power District
Sigler Bill HDR
Soenksen Phil United States Geological Survey
Stoner Kristal Nebraska Game and Parks
Sunneberg Jon Nebraska Public Power District
Tacha Martha United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Thoreson Randy National Park Service
Tunink Dave Nebraska Game and Parks
Waldow George HDR
Weekley Mark National Park Service
White Stephanie HDR
United States Geological Survey; Nebraska Water
Zelt Ronald Science Center
Ziola Ron Loup Power District
Zuerlein Gene Nebraska Game and Parks
Page _2___ of __2__

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:18 PM
To: 'Anna Baum'; 'Barb Friskopp'; 'Bobbie Kriz#Wickham'; 'Butch Koehlmoos'; 'David Jundt'; 'Frank
Albreicht'; 'Henry Santin'; 'Jason Alexander'; 'Jean Angell'; 'Joe Cothern'; 'John Bender'; 'Justin
Lavene'; 'Lacie Andreason'; 'Mark Czaplewski'; 'Randy Thoreson'; 'Richard Hadenfeldt';
'Robert Harms'; 'Robert Puschendorf'
Subject: Loup Power District Hydro Project # Meeting Notes and Reminder
Good afternoon.
Please find on the Project website (http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html) the meeting notes from the
June 9 Agency Follow#up Meeting (Identify Issues and Concerns).
As a reminder, our next agency meeting is scheduled for July 25, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m at the Holiday Inn Express
(524 E 23rd St) in Columbus. Please RSVP to me so we can get an accurate count for lunch.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential studies to be performed to address Project related issues. If your
agency has developed preliminary study requests or has questions or information pertaining to study requests, please
send them to my attention at any time.
As always, please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114#4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:33 PM
To: 'Anna Baum'; 'Barb Friskopp'; 'Bobbie Kriz$Wickham'; 'Butch Koehlmoos'; 'David Jundt'; 'Frank
Albreicht'; 'Henry Santin'; 'Jason Alexander'; 'Jean Angell'; 'Joe Cothern'; 'John Bender'; 'Justin
Lavene'; 'Lacie Andreason'; 'Mark Czaplewski'; 'Randy Thoreson'; 'Richard Hadenfeldt';
'Robert Harms'; 'Robert Puschendorf'
Subject: Loup Power District Hydro Project $ Meeting day correction
My apologies for anther email here. Please make note:
Please find on the Project website (http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html) the meeting notes from the
June 25 Agency Follow$up Meeting (Identify Issues and Concerns).
As a reminder, our next agency meeting is scheduled for July 24, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m at the Holiday Inn Express
(524 E 23rd St) in Columbus. Please RSVP to me so we can get an accurate count for lunch.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114$4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:35 AM
To: 'Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov'
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Hydro Project - Meeting Notes and Reminder
Attachments: nAgency.080625.Issues.doc; nAgency.080625_Attachments.pdf;
Mystic.StudyRequest14.Recreation_Counts.pdf; Mystic.StudyRequest7
_Temperature_Monitoring.pdf
Frank,
It looks like I had your mailing address typed incorrectly in my list-serve. Please see below. Let me know if you have any
comments on the notes as it is possible you didn't get the email with them attached that was sent on July 2. The notes
and associated attachments are attached. Sorry for the confusion. If you have anything that needs correcting, I'll get them
corrected.
Also, the agenda for the July 24th meeting is also on the web site. Thanks.
Matt
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:18 PM
To: 'Anna Baum'; 'Barb Friskopp'; 'Bobbie Kriz#Wickham'; 'Butch Koehlmoos'; 'David Jundt'; 'Frank Albreicht'; 'Henry
Santin'; 'Jason Alexander'; 'Jean Angell'; 'Joe Cothern'; 'John Bender'; 'Justin Lavene'; 'Lacie Andreason'; 'Mark
Czaplewski'; 'Randy Thoreson'; 'Richard Hadenfeldt'; 'Robert Harms'; 'Robert Puschendorf'
Subject: Loup Power District Hydro Project # Meeting Notes and Reminder
Good afternoon.
Please find on the Project website (http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html) the meeting notes from the
June 25 Agency Follow-up Meeting (Identify Issues and Concerns).
As a reminder, our next agency meeting is scheduled for July 24, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m at the Holiday Inn Express
(524 E 23rd St) in Columbus. Please RSVP to me so we can get an accurate count for lunch.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential studies to be performed to address Project related issues. If your
agency has developed preliminary study requests or has questions or information pertaining to study requests, please
send them to my attention at any time.
As always, please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Randy_Thoreson@nps.gov
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Dave.Tunink@ngpc.ne.gov; santin@hamilton.net; robert_harms@fws.gov; Pillard, Matt;
rziola@loup.com
Cc: Mark_Weekley@nps.gov
Subject: Loop Power Dist. recreation/land use/aesthetics work group conf. call
Attachments: Mystic.StudyRequest14.Recreation_Counts.pdf
National Park Service
Rivers,Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program / Hydro Program
MN Office / Randy T. phone (651) 290-3004
Hi all,
As a follow-up to my calls to you folks, please note that we will have a conference call
Thursday July 17, 2008 @ 2:00pm - 3:00pm
The call in information is:
Toll free dial-in number (866) 994-6437
Conference Code 4023994909
Items to discuss:
Group organization
Brainstorm list of recreation/land use/aesthetics issues of importance
for the Loop Power District project
Initial identification and format of Study Requests
Input for the July 24, 2008 meeting
Next steps
Background
excerpt from June 25, 2008 meeting minutes:
Study Need and Requests
"The District requested that agencies begin to formulate study needs that may be necessary to
address the issues and concerns identified by the agencies and forward that information to
HDR as soon as possible. When developing study needs and requests , agencies should keep in
mind the
*seven(7) criteria FERC uses to asses study viability . At this point it in not necessary
for agencies to address every item of the FERC criteria, the intent of the request is to
consider what kind of information can be used to address the defined issues/concerns. The
District is interested in collaboration on study requests, to the extent the agencies wish.
Studies should focus on specific project related issues".
* Randy T. note: here are the seven criteria FERC uses to assess study
viability:
1. Describe the goals and objectives of the study.
2. Explain relevant resource management goals.
3. Explain any relevant public interest considerations.
4. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal.
5. Explain the nexus between project operations and effects on the resources to be studied.
6. Explain how any proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice.
7. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost.
1

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Recreation / Land Use / Aesthetics Work Group
Meeting Date: July 17, 2008, 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm
Notes by: HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Meeting Location: Conference Call
Attendees:
Mr. Randy Thoreson – National Park Service
Mr. Dave Tunink – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Mr. Jeff Schuckman – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Mr. Ron Ziola – Loup Power District
Mr. Neal Suess – Loup Power District
Mr. Matt Pillard – HDR
Mr. Quinn Damgaard – HDR
[Mr. Bob Harms (USFWS) and Mr. Henry Santin (Nance Co.) were unable to attend]
Topics Discussed:
1. Group organization
2. Project issues related to recreation, land use, and aesthetics
3. Initial identification and format of study requests
4. Next steps
Action/Notes:
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Group Organization
• Work group currently contains a broad cross section of entities including National Park Service
(NPS), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Loup Power District (LPD), and HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR)
• Letters have been mailed to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) including the Nebraska Off-
Highway Vehicle Association (NOHVA), Columbus Area Recreational Trails (CART), and the Tern
and Plover Partnership requesting their participation in the next agency meeting and/or their interest
in joining the work group
NPS Interest Items (Ref. Meeting notes from the June 25, 2008 Agency Meeting)
• Outdoor recreation, trails, fishing, boating/canoeing, and access
• Land Use – NPS requests a map of adjacent landowners along the Project Boundary. Their particular
interest involves conflict points and access points
• Aesthetics – This can be a diverse item
• NGPC is specifically interested in fisheries and fishing opportunities
NGPC and USFWS Interest Items
• NGPC reps did not receive June 25, 2008 notes and were directed to Loup.com for reference
• USFWS is currently working on the Technical Assistance Letter (TAL) for the Project. This will
reference the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
• Bullet No. 7 of the June 25, 2008 USFWS and NGPC “Preliminary Concerns” document lists seven
items related to recreation and asks if benefit components have been completed, maintained, and
operated, or enhanced during the project period.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 3

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Conference Call – July 17, 2008
o Discussed whether or not there were initial recreational intentions at Project implementation and
determined that the Project was originally constructed for power production and economic
development with no specified intent related to recreational resources. Recreation components
of the Project came later and at the District’s expense or through public/private partnerships
(especially during the 1963 construction of Lake North).
Identification of Potential Recreational Study Requests
• Assess existing recreational opportunities against current and projected demand
o Recreational User Survey
Include frequency of use, what amenities are commonly used, what could be improved,
current conditions, and plans for implementation
Loup currently performing weekly camper and tent counts for incorporation into 2008 Form 80
(to be submitted March 2009)
o Evaluate hunting opportunities and needs
o Coordinate with CART on trail development and connectivity of off-site trails with trails within the
Project Boundary
o Potentially improve Tailrace Park (vandalism is a problem which may require creative ideas to
resolve)
o Develop a plan to incorporate needed facilities identified during subsequent studies and
determine project mitigation and enhancements (PMEs)
o Creel Survey – what are anglers targeting, angler needs and expectations, catch rates, quality of
fishery, determination of needed regulations or stocking
Should consist of angler interviews spanning one open-water fishing season
NGPC has existing creel survey cards that could be manipulated for use on the Project
Rupp performed creel survey on the canal in 1983-1984
Canal is included in Platte River survey
• NGPC would like to develop a “Fishery Plan” specific to Lake North. This plan should be approached
as a study related to the relicensing process.
o Could fish habitat/brush piles be installed
o Could shoreline erosion be avoided by construction of jetties in the corner of the lake
o Could angler access be improved
o NGPC has other “Fishery Plan” models previously produced for other state and NRD lakes
o Fishery improvements on Lake Babcock are limited due to the need for expansive dredging
o LPD would be open to consider fishery improvements so long as Project operations are not
impeded
Initial Identification and Format of Land Use Study Requests
• Assess potential for additional access
• Document removal of sand off-site for processing
• Concern with OHV use on private property, generally in the river channel (adjacent landowners own
to the center of the channel).
Initial Identification and Format of Aesthetics Study Requests
• The group discussed aesthetics, but did not identify any specific study requests related to aesthetics
• It is not anticipated that a formal Project Aesthetic Resource Assessment or Visual Quality
Assessment will be required
• At this time, it is assumed that any studies related to aesthetics would result following PAD submittal
and review
Fisheries Studies Relative to Biology
• NGPC will likely suggest further studies related to the fisheries as part of the Biological Opinion
• NGPC would also like to perform fish counts (species, length, frequency) in the canal
o Special access would be required to perform the counts. LPD could likely accommodate the
effort
o Non-motorized boating is not restricted on the canal, but it is also not advertised. It is
inconvenient for boater use as frequent portages are required at bridges
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 3

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Conference Call – July 17, 2008
• Flows will also be an issue that will require study
o LPD is entitled 3,500 cfs; however, fish kill in the bypass reach may be an issue
o LPD should notify and work with NGPC prior to performing draw downs to assure fish kill is not an
issue
Next Steps
July 24, 2008 Meeting – Present meeting summary to act as a model for other Project work groups
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 3

FWS-NE: 2008-494
Mr. Neal Suess
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street, PO Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Nebraska Field Office
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
July 21, 2008
RE: Technical Assistance, Relicensing; Loup River Hydroelectric Project; Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project Number 1256; Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska
Dear Mr. Suess:
This is in regards to the proposed relicensing ofthe Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Project) by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Project Number 1256. The Loup Power
District manages operation of the Project, and is the non-federal project sponsor for the proposed
relicensing action. The Project encompasses a diversion at Headwaters Park, near Genoa, Nebraska
whcre flow at a maximum capacity of 3,500 cubic feet per second is diverted from the Loup River
into a 35-mile-Iong canal. Flow from that canal is used to generate electricity at the Monroe and
Columbus powerhouses. The Monroe Powerhouse is a run-of-the-river powerhouse. Lakes North
and Babcock are located along the canal and are used to generate head prcssure for the generation of
electricity at the Columbus Powerhouse. Once exiting the Columbus Powerhouse, flows are
discharged into thc Platte River, approximately I-mile downstream from the Loup and Platte rivers
confluence. The 35-mile-Iong canal concurrently provides a water source to meet the irrigation
needs of approximately 80 entities holding junior water rights to the Loup Power District's water
right, dated 1935. Electricity generated by the Loup Power District is sold to the Nebraska Public
Power District. The original 50-year federal license for the Loup River project was granted on
April 17, 1934. The current license will expire in April 2014.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in coordination with the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission (Commission), has completed its preliminary review of the proposed relicensing
project based on information and documentation provided at meetings on May 7, 2008, and June 25,
2008. The following comments are submitted to assist Loup Power District and its consultant HDR,
in the preparation of a Pre-application document (PAD) for submittal to FERC in October 2008. A
summarization of our preliminary concerns is included with this letter as an enclosure.
AUTHORITIES
The Service has responsibility under a number of authorities for the conservation and management
of fish and wildlife resources. Chief among the federal statutes with which this office deals are the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.c. 1531 et seq.), Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (488 Stat. 401; 16 U.S.c. 661 et seq.), Bald and Golden

6
404(B)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Clean Water Act, the Guidelines emphasize that
avoidance and minimization precede compensation, which is to be considered solely for
unavoidable adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and supporting ecosystems. For
projects that do not require access or proximity to, or location within aquatic environments (i.e.,
non-water dependant project) to fulfill its basic project purpose, it is assumed that practicable
alternatives exist that would cause less damage to aquatic resources than projects that are located in
aquatic ecosystems. In addition to determining the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative, 40 CFR Part 230.1 O( a) of the Guidelines also states, " ... no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have
other significant adverse environmental consequences (emphasis added).
If after an alternatives analysis has been completed in accordance with the Guideline, and
unavoidable impacts are to occur to aquatic habitats, the Service recommends that compensation
(i.e., restoration of a degraded wetland or creation) occur for like wetland type at a ratio of2: 1
(acres of wetlands restored/created to acres of wetlands impacted). For unavoidable impacts to
streams, the Service recommends that stream pattern, profile, and dimension be mitigated at a ratio
of no less that 1:1 (stream length and number, pattern, and length of meanders created/restored
versus stream length and number, pattern, and length of meanders impacted; sequence and number
of pools and riffles created/restored versus sequence and number of pools and riffles impacted).
Additionally, compensation for impacts to riparian habitats should occur at a minimum ratio of 3: 1
(i.e., acres of riparian habitat replaces for acres of riparian habitat impacted) The 3:1 ratio is based
on the loss of the habitat and the amount of time that will be required for planted trees to reach
maturity.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Under the MBTA, activities in grassland, wetland, stream, and woodland habitats that would
otherwise result in the taking of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests should be avoided.
Although the provisions ofMBTA are applicable year-round, most migratory bird nesting activity
in Nebraska occurs during the period of April 1 to July 15. However, some migratory birds are
known to nest outside of the aforementioned primary nesting season period. For example, raptors
can be expected to nest in woodland habitats during February 1 through July 15, whereas sedge
wrens which occur in some wetland habitats normally nest from July 15 to September 10.
If various Project actions would occur during the primary nesting season or at any other time which
may result in the take of nesting migratory birds, the Service recommends that FERC/Loup Power
District arrange to have a qualified biologist conduct a field survey of the affected habitats and
structures to determine the absence or presence of nesting migratory birds. For example, migratory
birds can be electrocuted or collide with powerlines and be killed or injured. Bank swallows can
nest on cut banks of canals and cliff swallows can nest on powerhouse and siphon structures.
Routine maintenance of the canal, powerhouse, siphons and other facilities by FERC/Loup Power
District could result in loss of these active nests. Surveys must be conducted during the nesting
season. The Service further recommends that field surveys for nesting birds, along with information
regarding the qualifications of the biologist(s) performing the surveys, be thoroughly documented
and that such documentation be maintained on file by FERC/Loup Power District.
The Service requests that the following be provided to this office prior if the above conditions
occur. The purpose of the request is to assist the project proponent to avoid the unnecessary take of
migratory birds and the possible need for law enforcement action:

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Water Rights Work Group
Meeting Date: July 22, 2008, 1:30 pm – 2:30 pm
Notes by: HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Meeting Location: Conference Call
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Ms. Jean Angell – Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Ms. Pam Andersen - Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Mike Thomopson - Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Jim Frear – Loup Power District
Mr. Ron Ziola – Loup Power District
Mr. Neal Suess – Loup Power District
Mr. John Shadle - NPPD
Mr. Brian Barels – NPPD
Mr. Bill Sigler – HDR
Mr. George Waldow – HDR
Mr. Pat Engelbert – HDR
[Mr. Bob Harms (USFWS) Mr. David Jundt (NeHHS), Mr. Robert Mohler (LLNRD), Mr. Phil Soenksen (USGS), Mr. Gene
Zuerlein (NGPC), and Mr. John Engel (HDR) were unable to attend]
Topics Discussed:
1. Items distributed by DNR;
2. List of DNR issues as detailed in June 20, 2008 DNR letter and discussed by DNR at June 24, 208
agency meeting;
3. Next steps.
Action/Notes:
The meeting minutes listed below reflects information as discussed during the conference call. They are not
to be misconstrued as the official position of DNR or LPPD.
Items Distributed by DNR
The following items were sent to the work group members prior to the conference call. They include:
• Pump irrigation agreements, rules and regulations between LPPD and irrigators, and a page from the
existing FERC license regarding access to LPPD’s land and water;
• A CD containing an aerial photo of the water rights along the canal and the points of diversion;
• State of Nebraska statues giving preference to irrigation appropriations over power appropriations,
and compensation for exercise of preference;
• A list of the surface water appropriations on the LPPD canal;
• A list of the surface water appropriations junior to, and downstream of, the confluence of the canal tail
race and the Platte River.
There was no indication from the call participants that information had yet to be received.
List of DNR issues as detailed in June 20, 2008 DNR letter and discussed by DNR at June 24, 2008 agency
meeting
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 3

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Conference Call – July 17, 2008
DNR stated that they did not bring up the issues because of opposition to re-licensing the Project; DNR
wishes that the Project be re-licensed and that stakeholders be served well by it. There was extensive
discussion as to whether the issues were re-licensing issues or state water policy issues. DNR’s position
is that FERC should determine whether or not the issues are re-licensing issues. The following is a list of
the issues from the DNR letter dated June 20, 2008, and the discussion on each topic.
1. Nebraska law provides that waters used for irrigation have preference over waters used for
manufacture of power. This means an irrigator with an appropriation junior to LPPD’s appropriation
may require the senior water right for power – LPPD -- to subordinate its water use. The law also
provides that just compensation must be paid by an irrigator to LPPD when subordination is
demanded. Just compensation is not an arbitrary amount, but an amount not greater than the cost of
replacing the power which would be generated by the water so acquired. LPPD has set amounts for
irrigators to take water out of priority. The rate for those irrigators taking water from the canal
between the diversion on the Loup River and the power plants at Monroe and Columbus is different
than the rate charged for those irrigators taking water upstream of the diversion. How does LPPD
figure “just compensation”? The Power Interference Agreement states that the amount charged
irrigators is not just compensation.
Discussion:
o The just compensation amount has been developed and adjusted by LPPD over the 70 years of
operation;
o DNR would like to know how the rate was determined, and what the current rate is;
o LPPD is currently reviewing the just compensation policy.
2. Why does LPPD allow farmers to irrigate out of its canal? The Nebraska Department of Natural
Resources knows of no easements in place for those irrigators taking from the canal. LPPD appears
to operate as an irrigation district, rather than a power district.
o There are surface water appropriators that have water rights along the canal. LPPD has pump
irrigation agreements and easements with adjacent property owners.
o There was lengthy discussion on how to distinguish between a canal appropriator and a downstream
or bypass reach appropriator. Several scenarios were discussed.
3. At times LPPD diverts most or all of the Loup River, in effect changing the channel of the river. What
if an irrigator requests water be delivered out of the river downstream of the diversion point and
upstream of the discharge into the Platte River, willing to pay LPPD just compensation?
o LPPD will follow Nebraska law and allow the necessary water to be diverted for just compensation.
o To LPPD’s knowledge there were no subordination agreements on the bypass reach.
o No one on the call was aware of any preference calls on the bypass reach.
4. Has LPPD considered its response in the event irrigation development continued in areas upstream
of LPPD’s plants to the point of making the manufacturing of electricity no longer feasible?
o Historically, high flows on the Loup River occur in the spring during the non irrigation season, which
historically is LPPD's highest power generating months. If LPPD were unable to divert due to
irrigation preference, assuming the irrigation season lasted 3 months, they would receive just
compensation under the preference system, and would continue generating during the remainder of
the year.
o It was noted that speculation regarding future scenarios is not part of the re-licensing process.
o DNR noted that preference also applies to the canal water, and that LPPD has a responsibility to
deliver the water.
o LPPD noted that it would be the same as if there was no water in the river for them divert.
5. Should LPPD be allowed to divert their entire appropriation when making power with less than the
entire appropriation, given that LPPD has no storage permit?
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 3

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Conference Call – July 17, 2008
o LPPD diverts water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If the Columbus Powerhouse has to shut down,
LPPD would soon curtail or halt diversion from the Loup River because they do not have the reservoir
capacity to pond more than approximately two feet of water.
Next Steps
July 24, 2008 Meeting – Review aerial photo of irrigators and present summary of conference call.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 3

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Agency Meeting
Meeting Date: July 22, 2008
Notes by: HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Loup District Office, Columbus, NE
Attendees:
Bob Harms – USFWS; Neil Suess - LPPD; Matt Pillard – HDR; Dick Gorton - HDR
Meeting Agenda:
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the correlation between the ILP and ESA processes, discuss the
baseline that would be used to establish impacts, and discuss potential studies that would be needed.
Discussion:
1) Process
o Bob inquired about Loup's experience with ESA. Neil said they hadn't needed to go through it. Bob
said his goal for the day was to discuss the ESA process and what it means. He said that everyone
wishes to have a smooth and efficient process.
o Bob asked if FERC had a representative yet. George said that Kim Winn is current point of contact
and once the PAD is submitted she would likely be the licensing coordinator assigned after the PAD
is submitted.
o Bob said he had reviewed FERC's guidance on ESA and it was useful. Matt pointed out there was
another document, the Interagency....that was also done that provides some additional information.
Bob asked if we could send that to him.
o Bob discussed that a Technical Assistance letter was sent to Neil's attention on July 21. This letter
provides the parameters of their authority for Section 7, provides list of species that could be present,
and identifies their list of concerns that were previously provided.
o Bob said that we are currently in informal consultations. This is a give and take and information
sharing period. Bob explained that there are two requirements on Federal agencies:
1) identify that no jeopardy (extinction) of species or modification of critical habitat be found; and
2) enter into formal Section 7 consultations on finding of may affect of T&E species.
o Bob said that there is no critical habitat in this area as it has been rescinded, but identified it anyway
as part of the federal agency requirement.
o Bob explained that the biological opinion (BO) could result in a jeopardy, but with inclusion of
reasonable and prudent measures, jeopardy could be eliminated. Reasonable and prudent measures
address a specific species, like individual nests.
o In the BO, the whole and complete project is considered. That is the reason for their inquiries of
elements that may seem outside of the project, such as upstream irrigation. It is important for them to
have an understanding of the whole project.
o An example of US 34 project for the Iowa DOT was provided in that USFWS wished to have impacts
relative to potential development discussed that were outside of that project's footprint. FHWA
declined to include it, and it became an issue in the BO.
o George asked how this affects water rights and the relationship between questions relative to water
rights and relicensing. Dick provided that the US 34 project, the issue of development was related to
indirect effects and that USFWS must consider indirect and cumulative effects.
o Bob agreed and provided their guidelines reference to inter-related and inter-dependant actions and
they don't need to be in the District's control to be considered. If the Project enables something else
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 2

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 22, 2008
to happen, it must be looked at. Dick provided that this is commonly call the "but for" the project
approach. This terminology is no longer used due to a recent court case, but the theory is still applied.
2) Baseline
o Bob explained that a whole and complete project is important in establishing the baseline for the
project to determine effects. The effects analysis will use a with project/without the project
comparison to determine effects.
o Neil asked how other effects are considered under this approach. Bob said they need to consider
cumulative effects. Bob said the baseline is tied to what would happen if the FERC license is not
renewed.
o A scenario of no relicensing was discussed and that factors such as water rights and facilities need to
be considered to determine what would reasonably happen under this scenario. It was discussed that
this is just used to establish the baseline and that the Service is not suggesting this as an alternative.
A discussion on the water right occurred based on what might reasonably occur. No conclusion was
developed, but Dick pointed out that this type of discussion is necessary to identify what would
happen under this scenario and to have all agree to this outcome.
3) Studies
o Bob discussed that the NGPC, USGS and the USFWS meet to discuss issues. Bob said it is FERC
and Loup's responsibility to develop studies to address issues. They are not obligated to fill out a form
that follows the 7 steps to make a study request, but they are open to discuss potential studies and
provide technical assistance in getting studies developed. It was discussed that in the ESA process, it
is Loup's job, on behalf of FERC, to develop the BA. The closer we are on issues in the BA, from
baseline to studies, the easier the process will be in development of the BO and the reasonable and
prudent measures.
o Bob suggested we engage the USGS, as they are technical experts and can provide insight on data
gaps and study formulation.
o Bob also provided at that a one year study, depending on the study, is not a lot of time. There is an
effort to identify a cause and effect, and that we may need to study design and/or operations changes
as part of that and evaluate the effect of these changes.
4) It was decided that after Thursday's meeting, another small group meeting be scheduled to discuss
elements of the baseline condition.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Agency Follow-up Meeting – Study Needs
Meeting Date: July 24, 2008, 9:00 am – 1:30 pm
Notes by: HDR
Attendees: See Attached
Meeting Agenda:
1. Welcome/Introductions
2. Summary of June 25 th Meeting
• Overview of Key Issues
• Workgroups
3. Discussion of Potential Studies
4. Next Steps
Discussion:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Express, Columbus, NE
1. Welcome/Introductions
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential studies to be performed to address Project related
issues. Introductions were made and the two NGO’s present at the meeting provided a description of their
group’s mission and activities:
• The Tern and Plover Partnership provided that they are advocates for the species and look for
ways for industry and bird populations to co-exist.
• The Nebraska Off-Highway Vehicle Association (NOHVA) is a 3500 member organization that
manages 5 facilities. The Headworks Park property that they manage in association with the
District is an important destination and their organization values this facility.
2. Summary of June 25 th Meeting
The issues identified at the meeting on June 25 th were presented in summarized form (see attached). This
was used to frame the discussion of the days meeting. The question was asked if there were any new
issues to add or issues to table/eliminate.
• The NGPC asked that the river otter be added to the list, noting that there is little information
available about the river otter in this reach of the Loup River.
• The DNR added that an expansion of the Just Compensation issue is that compensation to the
district from irrigators for lost power generation should depend on where the withdrawal point is
located within the system.
• It was noted that threatened and endangered species issues are threaded through many of the issue
groupings.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
• NPPD added that another key issue is the economic value of the established load following aspect
of project operation (hydrocycling). They are also interested in any future limitations on project
operations as might result from the relicensing process.
Recreation Work Group Report
Dave Tunink (NGPC) provided a summary of the Recreation Workgroup discussions:
• The workgroup discussed issues and possible studies related to recreation, land use, and aesthetics.
Recreational components included outdoor recreation, trails, fishing, boating/canoeing, and access.
Land use issues involved conflicting land uses and access conflicts. The group noted that aesthetics
can be a difficult item to address.
• The workgroup identified the following potential studies/data needs:
• Recreation: review of existing resources, recreational user survey, evaluation of hunting
opportunities, coordination with CART, angler and creel survey, and development of an overall
recreation plan.
• Fisheries: develop a fisheries plan and provide for improved fisheries at Lake North via jetties or
brush piles. Fish passage at the diversion may also be an issue.
• Land use: evaluate location of access points and identify any conflicting land uses.
• Aesthetics: there are multiple ways to study aesthetics, but there may not need to be a study for
this project.
NGPC asked if coordination with agencies would be beneficial through the FERC licensing process. HDR
responded that yes, coordination is absolutely beneficial.
NGPC would like access to the canal to do fish surveys. The purpose is to sample species distribution,
densities, and other details. The District is working with them to find locations.
NGPC also noted that the economic impacts associated with recreation could also be evaluated. This
information could be gathered from the recreation use survey. NOHVA added that they did an economic
survey in 2003 and could do another one. They can also get input from their national organization
regarding economic impacts.
From a land use perspective, one potential conflict is that the Headworks OHV Park may provide access
to exposed sand areas in the Loup River. Beyond the District property line, this constitutes trespass on
private property. NOHVA noted that there is a sign at east end of the park noting that riding on private
property is trespassing to discourage this practice. As organization policy, NOHVA does not encourage
trespass and tries to inform/educate others. The Tern & Plover Conservation Partnership noted that offroad
vehicles, in general, are believed to account for the largest loss of tern and plover nests.
Water Rights Report
Jean Angell (NDNR) provided a summary of the Water Rights Workgroup discussions:
• DNR and the District have been providing information to the group relative to the issues identified,
including: a map of local irrigators, list of appropriators, irrigation agreements, relevant state statutes,
information from the current license. The group discussed this information and will be sharing more
information in the future.
• Issues still under discussion and research include:
• How much water can be used for irrigation and still have the Project be economically viable.
The group discussed this and it was noted that irrigation would only affect operations for part of
the year, the cost of replacement power will continue to increase, and it would require irrigation
of approximately 300,000 acres of land to utilize all the District’s water (based on 1 cfs/70 acres).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
• Does the lake need to be full to provide head for operating only one turbine? The district will
provide this information.
• Overall the Water Rights Workgroup feels that these issues can be addressed through information
exchange over the next couple of months.
A question was asked about how the cost of replacement power is figured to establish just compensation.
NPPD position is that the cost of replacement is the value of the cost to purchase replacement power,
which may or may not cover actual operational costs. The District’s determination of the cost of
replacement may be different.
3. Discussion of Potential Studies
HDR provided clarification on how the study request process works. The District is not requesting
Formal Study Requests at this time. That request will be made by FERC as part of scoping. Process for
developing final study plan:
• District will identify a preliminary list of requested and proposed studies in the PAD (based on
input from 2008 agency discussions)
• FERC will issue Scoping Document which asks agencies to submit formal study requests.
• FERC will conduct scoping meetings (and receive comments).
• Agencies provide comments on scoping document and PAD and submit formal study requests.
• FERC may issue second Scoping Document if needed based on comments
• District prepares Proposed Study Plan
• District conducts Study Plan meeting (and receives comments)
• Agencies provide comments on Proposed Study Plan
• District may develop Revised Study Plan if needed
• FERC issues a Study Plan Determination, noting final list of studies District will be required to
perform for relicensing.
• Agencies may submit formal study disputes if there are concerns about proposed studies
• Study Plan will be approved if there are no disputes.
It was noted that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) process is a separate process in which Loup will be
working with the USFWS and that the information needs and studies related to various issues will apply
to the ESA process as well as the ILP process.
The group discussed possible studies for the following issues. These discussions focused on identifying
elements to be considered relative to the issue , resources that are affected by the issue, what question
about that resource would a study answer, how could it be studied, what data is available, and what data is
needed? For each issue, it was discussed that identifying the Project’s effect to the issue will be important
to determine.
Water Temperature
Elements of consideration for Project-effects to temperature:
• Flow
• Ambient air temperature
• Water temperature
• Season of interest is June to September
• Critical reach is bypass reach from headgates to Beaver Creek confluence
Resources potentially affected:
• Fisheries
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
• Tern and plover food sources
• Pallid sturgeon spawning
Possible ways to study:
• Monitor water temperature, air temperature and flow rate. Develop thermographs and
temperature modeling for the Loup River bypass reach and the Platte River below the tailrace
outlet weir.
Questions to be answered:
• When (combination of air & water temperature and flow) will Loup River temperatures
downstream of the headworks diversion point reach critical thermal max thresholds for
species?
• Do water pulses associated with hydrocycling change downstream water temperatures
enough to affect pallid sturgeon spawning?
Data Needed:
• Temperature & flow data
• Species critical thermal max & pallid sturgeon spawning temperature range
Discussion:
• Dewatering of the Loup River system downstream of the headgates to the mouth and the
Platte River system from the Loup River confluence to the District tailrace increases water
temperatures which affects the fish community and macroinvertebrates.
• Hydropower cycling will affect temperatures in the Platte River from the District tailrace to
the mouth which affects the fish community (including pallid sturgeon) and
macroinvertebrates.
• Macroinvertebrates are likely to be more affected by flow than temperature.
• NGPC would prefer to see Lake North full of water for fisheries resources.
• NHHS noted that public water wells could be affected by increased temperature of surface
water in areas where there is a direct interconnection.
• There has been at least one documented fish kill in the power canal. This resulted from
reduced DO levels that occurred during a reduced flow period for turbine refurbishment at
Monroe Powerhouse. The District has made operational modifications to avoid future issues.
• NGPC discussed fisheries in the canal as a good fisheries area. The need to understand the
temperature change compared with species critical thermal max thresholds is needed.
• What will temperature affects be in the future considering NDNR estimates ( 1,536 cfs
decline in 25 years at the North Bend streamgage and a 2,768 cfs decline in 25 years at the
Louisville streamgage)?
• How much of the temperature impacts are related to hydro project operation?
Sediment Budget, Sandbars, Sediment deprived flow into Platte River system
Elements of consideration for Project-effects to sediment:
• Flow
• Duration
• Sediment supply
• Sediment composition (grain distribution)
• Sandbar formation
• Sandbar erosion
• Bank erosion
• Sediment carrying capacity
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
Resources potentially affected:
• Tern and plover food source
• Tern and plover nesting habitat
• Fisheries
• Invertebrates
• Macro invertebrates
Possible ways to study:
• Sediment budget
• Review rating curves
• Establish relationship between stage/discharge and elevation of sandbars
• Timing of potential re-suspension of sediment
• Aggregation/degradation analysis
Question to be answered:
• How do Project operations affect sediment budget (current sediment load from the tailrace)?
• To what degree does current and future sediment supplies affect habitat for terns and plovers?
• Will the possible studies answer these questions?
Data Needed:
• Aerial photographs
• Flow information
• Sediment sampling (grain size distribution)
• Bed elevation changes
• Water quality information
Discussion:
• Need to isolate cause and effect related to hydro project operation.
• Affects of bank stabilization on sediment load.
• Review of aerial photos may not be helpful for review of historical sandbar formation and
channel erosion because high flows have a major affect on channel formation.
• Channel entrenchment
• Less moist soil interface
• Prevalence of invasive plant species (includes exoctics and expansion of native plants) –
stabilizes soil and diminishes native vegetation diversity
• Natural vegetation can be affected
• Can sediment removed at the settling basin be put back into the river during high flows?
Hydrocycling
Elements of consideration for Project-effects to hydrocycling:
• Temperature
• Flow and timing of flow
• Change of stage
• Sediment carrying capacity
• Ramp up and ramp down rates
Resources potentially affected:
• Tern and plover food source
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
• Tern and plover habitat
• Fisheries
• Invertebrates
• Macro invertebrates
• Pallid sturgeon
• River otter
• Power generation operations and economics
Possible ways to study:
• Hydraulic model
• Difference of flooding nests relative to natural flows in comparison to flows with
hydrocycling
Question to be answered:
• How does flow affect physical habitat (bar formation, foundation, erosion)
• Effects of operation on hydrocycle stage
• Effects of hydrocycling on erosion of sandbars
• Evaluation of peak flows compared to hydrocycling – effect on sandbars
• Effects on stage to pallid issue – how it effects physical habitat
Data Needed:
• Additional flow information (more gauges)
• Sandbar elevations
• Cross sections
• Determination of bed degradation (hydraulic modeling or physical studies) would help
determine physical habitat needed for pallid
Discussion:
• Hydrocycling has less proportional effect with higher flows.
• Wetness of sand and how it affects macro invertebrate drift densities
• Flow magnitude affects sandbar formation – by itself apart from sediment flows
• The proportion of tern & plover nests are lowest in the upstream portions of the lower Platte
River, and numbers generally increase towards Plattsmouth (thus more habitat exists further
down stream on the Platte River).
• Does hydrocycling actually benefit terns & plovers by prompting them to build their nests on
higher sandbars?
• There is always some flow in the tailrace due to leakage and inflow from Lost Creek storm
control project
• Can information from other studies provide information relevant to the Project (ex. Platte
River stage change study)
• How does hydrocycling affect vegetation on sandbars and shoreline?
• Historic high flows in late May/ early June aid in regenerating barren sandbars through
erosion and sediment mobilization.
• Hydrocycling may facilitate sandbar erosion later in the nesting period (late June through
August).
4. Next Steps
Work Groups will continue to meet to discuss studies and resolve issues. The Tern and Plover Partnership
and NOHVA would like to be added to the Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Workgroup. Gene Zuerline
(NGPC) would like to be added to the Water Rights Workgroup.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – July 24, 2008
The need for another group meeting was discussed. It was decided that anther group meeting would be
needed to discuss the remaining issues to identify potential study needs. Those issues are:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
• Flow depletions on the Loup River bypass reach (below the diversion)
• Flow depletions on the Loup river above the diversion
• Flow depletions on the Platte River system
• Dredging and discharge at the settling basin
• Hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution
• Vegetation species composition and distribution
The meeting will be held on August 19. Time and place to be determined.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 7

The following are USGS Questions related to FERC relicensing and operations of LPD.
The questions are not intended to imply known effects of LPD operations on the Loup-
Platte river systems, but rather to suggest some questions that my be relevant to LPD and
agencies interested understanding the LPD operations for the purposes of FERC
relicensing. The core subject of each series of questions is in bold, italics, and underlined.
1. LPD operations have the potential to affect water temperature in several
ways, some of which are listed below:
a) Diversion of Loup River water has potential to affect temperature by:
i. increasing temperatures in the Loup River below LPD
headworks by decreasing flow depths and, potentially turbidity;
the LPD effects on the lower Loup may have an effect on water
temperature in the Platte River below the confluence.
ii. water in the LPD canal, holding basins, and reservoirs
undergoes temperature alterations that are subject to water
depth and time/surface area in contact with atmosphere; thus
temperature of tailrace water may have an effect on water
temperature on the lower Platte River.
b) Hydrocycling has the potential to affect water temperatures in the
lower Platte. The lower Platte is a wide and shallow river (very high
width to depth ratio), and as such is more sensitive to air temperature
fluctuations than a river with equivalent hydrology, but lower width to
depth ratios. As a result, hydropower operations have the potential to
affect especially the daily maximum water temperature by changing
water depths in the channel over a power cycle. This is of special
concern during the mid to late-summer season when large percentages
of the discharge of the lower Platte River are from the Loup River and
LPD tailrace, and when daily maximum temperatures are most likely
to reach levels causing maximum stress to aquatic biota. The
biological stress may be direct effects of high water temperatures or by
indirect effects as water temperature affects dissolved oxygen
concentrations and stream metabolism processes.
2. Diversion of the Loup River at LPD headworks diverts sediment and water.
The sediment must be removed for maintenance of the power canal, and
protection of the turbines. This has the potential to affect the sediment budget
of the Loup-Platte river system in several ways, some of which are:
a) Reduction of sediment supply in Loup River below LPD headworks.
The reduction in supply may be less important when both water and
sediment supply are reduced, but possibly more important during
larger magnitude annual channel maintenance floods, when sediment
would be more likely to be mobilized from bar and bank storage,
which consequently may become depleted over longer time scales.

) Reduction of sediment supply in Platte River below Loup River
confluence. Water from the LPD tailrace canal enters the lower Platte
River essentially as ‘clear’ water, and as such contributes energy for
transporting sediment, but virtually no sediment. The clearwater
contribution from the LPD tailrace may create a sediment deficit
similar to the J2 return from NPPD on the Central Platte. A sediment
deficit may be expected to result in channel bed, bar, and bank
degradation.
c) Alteration of sediment particle-size distributions by:
i. Alteration of sediment supply from headworks diversion and
sediment trapping of coarse fraction, ultimately affecting bed
sediment particle sizes in lower Platte River below Loup River
confluence and LPD tailrace.
ii. Potentially reduced sediment supply, may have effects on
sediment transport rates during seasonal floods. For example,
increased daily transport rates from hydrocycling may cause
the sediment supply on the bed of the river to coarsen
downstream, which may decrease overall transport rates.
3. LPD hydropeaking (hydrocycling) from the Loup tailrace canal may affect
sandbars in the lower Platte by:
a) Wave action on bars may increase bar degradation by scalloping
banks, increasing bank slopes, and subsequent increased sloughing of
sediment from bars into deeper portions of the channel; this ultimately
may reduce elevation differential between bar and bed elevation
(implications for bird and fish habitat respectively).
b) Rapidly changing sediment transport rates from hydropeaking
(sometimes in conjunction with seasonal floods) may affect the type,
size, and distribution of bar and bedforms (implications for distribution
and abundance of types of hydraulic habitat).
4. LPD operations may affect hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution in
several ways, including:
a) At times of the year when LPD headworks are diverting large
proportions of the Loup River discharge, reduction of flows in the
LPD headworks may cause disconnection of channel habitats between
and within channels of the lower Platte and Loup Rivers.
b) LPD hydrocycling may change hydraulic habitat (combinations of
water depth and velocity) connectivity and distribution by:
i. Reduced flows in the Loup and Lower Platte during times of
water storage in LPD canals and reservoirs may cause deep
thalwegs to become discontinuous habitats or patch habitats to
disconnect from the main flow. Some organisms may become

stranded and unable to reach refugia where they can survive the
low-flow condition.
ii. Altering the bed configuration (types and distributions of
bedforms) of the Lower Platte during ramping operations, may
have an effect on the spatial and temporal distribution and
abundance of some specific hydraulic habitats preferred by or
critical for aquatic species.
5. LPD operations may affect vegetation species composition and distribution
in the Loup-Platte River system in several ways, some of which are:
a) Alteration of bar substrate moisture content through hydrocycling
(alteration of the hydroperiod).
b) Alteration of vegetation establishment success through alteration of
growth substrate resulting from potential alteration of the sediment
supply and particle size distribution.
c) Disturbance of vegetation hydrochory due to hydrocycling.
d) Alteration of plant seedling and sapling population survival due to
potential alteration of bank and bar erosion patterns and scalloping and
sloughing of banks.

Attendance by Meeting
Hydroelectric Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Meeting Type: Agency
Meeting Name: Agency Meeting
Date: 7 /24/2008
Time: 09:00 AM
Location: Holiday Inn Express
Name Organization Contact Type
Jean Angell Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Agency - Local
Brian Barels Nebraska Public Power District Agency - Local
Mary Bomberger Brown Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership NGOs & Stakeholders
Ben Dietsch U.S. Geologic Survey Agency - Federal
Pat Engelbert HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jim Frear Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Dennis Grennan HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Robert Harms U.S. Fish and Wildife Service Agency - Federal
David Jundt Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services;
Agency - Local
Robert Mohler Lower Loup Natural Resources District Agency - Local
Dan Nitzel NOHVA NGOs & Stakeholders
Page 1 of 3

Name Organization Contact Type
Matt Pillard HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Lisa Richardson HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jeff Runge U.S. Fish and Wildife Service Agency - Federal
Henry Santin Jr. Nance County Agency - Local
Jeff Schuckman Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
John Shadle Nebraska Public Power District Agency - Local
Bill Sigler HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Phil Soenksen U.S. Geologic Survey Agency - Federal
Kristal Stoner Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Neal Suess Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Martha Tacha U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency - Federal
Dave Tunink Nebraska Game and Parks Commision Agency - Local
George Waldow HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Stephanie White HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Page 2 of 3

Name Organization Contact Type
Gene Zuerlein Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Page 3 of 3

Thompson, Wendy
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:43 AM
To: King, Wendy
Subject: FW: Hill Farm Bypass reach
Please add to PW - do NOT mark this comment as closed. Thanks.
From: Neal Suess [mailto:nsuess@loup.com]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:36 AM
To:
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); rziola@loup.com
Subject: RE: Hill Farm Bypass reach
Dear Mr. Gates:
Thank you for your comment regarding your property along the Loup River bypass reach. We are looking into the issue
that you have raised. Can you tell me specifically where your property is located so we can review your concern?
Thanks.
Neal Suess, P.E.
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988 (2404 15th Street)
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone: 402-564-3171
Fax: 402-564-0970
Cell: 402-910-8979
E-Mail: nsuess@loup.com
From: Jim Gates [mailto:JGates@ci.visalia.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:15 PM
To: RelicenseGroup
Cc:
Dear Mr. Suess,
I would like some more information prior to seeing the re-licensing being conducted.
As a landowner on part of the bypass reach. I have noted for several years how the water flow near my property has been
eroding and taking more of the land into the by pass. Where as the landowner on the other side of the bypass is
increasing in land size. What is to be done to reverse this process and gain back our property?
Also what measures are to be used to stop or reduce flooding and ice flows from eroding future lands?
Regards
James Gates
1

From: Pillard, Matt
To: Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Bobbie Kriz-Wickham; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms; Dan Nitzel; David Jundt;
Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jean Angell; Jeff Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe Cothern; John
Bender; John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli; Justin Lavene; Lacie Andreason; Mark Czaplewski; Mary Bomberger-
Brown; Randy Thoreson; Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Robert Puschendorf; Rodney
Verhoeff; Stacy Stupka-Burda; Steve Chick
Subject: Loup Hydro Project - Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:44:40 PM
Attachments: image002.jpg
Hello all.
It was decided at our last agency meeting (July 24, 2008) that another meeting was needed to
continue our discussion on study needs for the remaining issues. The logistics for that meeting are:
Date: August 19, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (lunch will be provided)
Location: New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., Columbus, NE
Please RSVP to me by August 14 so that we can get an accurate count of the number of attendees.
The remaining issues to be discussed relative to identification of study needs are:
Flow depletions on the Loup River bypass reach below the diversion
Flow depletions on the Loup River above the diversion
Flow depletions on the Platte River system
Dredging and discharge at the settling basin
Hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution
Vegetation species composition and distribution
If you have any thoughts on potential studies prior to this meeting please let me know.
Thanks and please contact me at your convenience with any questions you may have.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com

Thompson, Wendy
From: hw1371@cpweb17.idig.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:30 AM
To: arobak@loup.com; King, Wendy
Subject: Loup Comments/Mailing List
Salutation Mr.
Last Name: Mohler
First Name: Robert
Affiliation: Lower Loup Natural Resources District
Phone: 308‐728‐3221
Email: mohler@nctc.net
Address1: P.O. Box 210
Address2: 2620 Airport Drive
City: Ord
State: NE
Zip: 68862
Mailing List:
Comments: At the July 24th meeting, we were talking about Sediment Budget. To access
existing information on how the Loup River has changed over the years, I suggest contacting
the Nebr Natural Resources Commission who took valley cross‐sections in 1992 in order to
prepare for the revised Flood Insurance Study for Columbus.
At the same time I suggest contacting the City of Columbus regarding data used at the time
the Loup River Levee was constructed. Step‐backwater runs were made and extensively reviewed
when this levee was litigated a few years later with opponents from the south overbank area.
In terms of studies that could be conducted now, it would be very do‐able to survey the river
channel now at similar cross‐section locations to see how the channel had changed from 1964
to 1992 to the present.
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Henry Santin [santin@hamilton.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:38 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: Re: Loup Hydro Project & Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
matt i think the up stream flow would be of interest especially since the twin loups irrigation canal was put into operation
this elimated many senior and junior water permits it also means a more constant flow during irrigation season. the lower
loup nrd at ord should be able to provide the info i will let you know for sure about the next meeting right know i should
be able to make it thanks henry santin
&&&&& Original Message &&&&&
From: Pillard, Matt
To: Anna Baum ; Barb Friskopp ; Bobbie Kriz&Wickham ; Butch Koehlmoos ; Curt Alms ; Dan Nitzel ; David Jundt ; Frank
Albrecht ; Henry Santin ; Jason Alexander ; Jean Angell ; Jeff Schuckman ; Jerry Kenny ; Joe Cothern ; John Bender ;
John Shadle ; Joseph Mangiamelli ; Justin Lavene ; Lacie Andreason ; Mark Czaplewski ; Mary Bomberger&Brown ;
Randy Thoreson ; Richard Hadenfeldt ; Robert Harms ; Robert Mohler ; Robert Puschendorf ; Rodney Verhoeff ; Stacy
Stupka&Burda ; Steve Chick
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:44 PM
Subject: Loup Hydro Project & Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Hello all.
It was decided at our last agency meeting (July 24, 2008) that another meeting was needed to continue our discussion
on study needs for the remaining issues. The logistics for that meeting are:
Date: August 19, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m. " 2:00 p.m. (lunch will be provided)
Location: New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., Columbus, NE
Please RSVP to me by August 14 so that we can get an accurate count of the number of attendees.
The remaining issues to be discussed relative to identification of study needs are:
• Flow depletions on the Loup River bypass reach below the diversion
• Flow depletions on the Loup River above the diversion
• Flow depletions on the Platte River system
• Dredging and discharge at the settling basin
• Hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution
• Vegetation species composition and distribution
If you have any thoughts on potential studies prior to this meeting please let me know.
Thanks and please contact me at your convenience with any questions you may have.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114&4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jeff Schuckman [jeff.schuckman@ngpc.ne.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Dave Tunink
Subject: Re: Loup Hydro Project . Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Matt,
One study need NGPC has is concerning fish passage upstream through the Loup diversion. A
tagging/sampling study is needed to determine the extent of fish passage. This does tie in to the dewatering
issues of the Loup River below the diversion and should be considered as an integral part of the project
evaluation during various flow scenarios. Tagged fish (sonic or conventional tagging) can be followed through
the LPPD project area to evaluate upstream migration success and/or fish species assemblages above and below
should be sampled for relative abundance and size stucture.
Jeff Schuckman
District III Fish Mgt Supv
Norfolk, NE
00000Original Message00000
From: "Pillard, Matt"
To: "Anna Baum" , "Barb Friskopp" ,
"Bobbie Kriz0Wickham" , "Butch Koehlmoos" , "Curt
Alms" , "Dan Nitzel" , "David Jundt"
, "Frank Albrecht" , "Henry Santin"
, "Jason Alexander" , "Jean Angell" , "Jeff
Schuckman" , "Jerry Kenny" , "Joe Cothern"
, "John Bender" , "John Shadle" ,
"Joseph Mangiamelli" , "Justin Lavene" , "Lacie
Andreason" , "Mark Czaplewski" , "Mary Bomberger0Brown"
, "Randy Thoreson" , "Richard Hadenfeldt"
, "Robert Harms" , "Robert Mohler" ,
"Robert Puschendorf" , "Rodney Verhoeff" ,
"Stacy Stupka0Burda" , "Steve Chick"
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:44:37 00500
Subject: Loup Hydro Project 0 Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Hello all.
It was decided at our last agency meeting (July 24, 2008) that another meeting was needed to continue our discussion
on study needs for the remaining issues. The logistics for that meeting are:
Date: August 19, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m. # 2:00 p.m. (lunch will be provided)
Location: New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., Columbus, NE
Please RSVP to me by August 14 so that we can get an accurate count of the number of attendees.
The remaining issues to be discussed relative to identification of study needs are:
1

• Flow depletions on the Loup River bypass reach below the diversion
• Flow depletions on the Loup River above the diversion
• Flow depletions on the Platte River system
• Dredging and discharge at the settling basin
• Hydraulic habitat connectivity and distribution
• Vegetation species composition and distribution
If you have any thoughts on potential studies prior to this meeting please let me know.
Thanks and please contact me at your convenience with any questions you may have.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114.4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

From: Pillard, Matt
To: David Jundt; Curt Alms; Barb Friskopp; Mary Bomberger-Brown; Robert Mohler; Frank Albrecht; Jean Angell;
Robert Harms; Steve Chick; Anna Baum; Henry Santin; Rodney Verhoeff; John Bender; Robert Puschendorf;
Dan Nitzel; Butch Koehlmoos; Jeff Schuckman; Bobbie Kriz-Wickham; Richard Hadenfeldt; John Shadle; Lacie
Andreason; Stacy Stupka-Burda; Mark Czaplewski; Randy Thoreson; Justin Lavene; Jason Alexander; Joe
Cothern; Joseph Mangiamelli; Jerry Kenny
Subject: Loup Hydro Project - Draft 7/24/08 Agnecy Meeting Notes
Date: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:32:48 AM
Attachments: image002.jpg
nAgency_080724_studyneeds.doc
Good morning.
Please find attached a draft of the agency meeting notes from the July 24, 2008 agency meeting on
Study Needs. Please take a moment to review these notes. If you have comments, corrections, or
additions relatative to the discussion that took place at the meeting, please send them to me by August
8. We will incorporate comments and post the final meeting notes to the project web site.
As a reminder, past agency meeting agendas and notes, work group meeting notes, and future
meeting agendas can be found on the project web site at
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/meetings.html.
An agenda is being developed for our meeting on August 19 and will be posted as soon as it is
completed. If you haven't already, please let me know if you or representative from your
agency/organization will be able to attend. The meeting will be from 10:00 to 2:00 (lunch will be
provided) in the Seven Seas Room at the New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave.,
Columbus, NE.
Thanks and please contact me if you have any questions.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com

August 4, 2008
Jim Gates
Re: Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Dear Jim,
Thank you again for your comment regarding your property along the Loup River bypass reach. We have looked into the
issue of erosion caused by the river and whether anything can be done to stop or reverse this process.
Erosion and accretion are natural occurrences caused by the flow of a river. Erosion is the wearing away of the land
surface by water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents, while accretion is the increase of land by gradual deposit of water
borne solid materials. The extent of erosion and accretion depends on various channel characteristics and flows in the
river.
The bypassed reach of the Loup River is a sand and gravel bed channel which displays braided and meandering
characteristics. The river bed of a braided system is typically divided into a series of channels divided by islands and
sandbars while a meandering system is characterized by a series of alternating changes in channel direction, or bends.
Both conditions are formed by natural erosion and accretion. Because erosion and accretion are natural occurrences, the
District cannot control these processes. However, there is a process to account for erosion and accretion related to
property taxes.
Nebraska state law allows for re-evaluation of the boundary of properties adjacent to rivers. Platte County is currently
revising their process to review properties adjacent to rivers to account for erosion and accretion. Please contact the
Platte County assessor for additional information related to property taxes.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess, P.E.
President/CEO

August 4, 2008
Robert Mohler
Lower Loup Natural Resources District
P.O. Box 210
Ord, NE 68862
Re: Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Dear Robert
Thank you for your comment on the Loup Power District Hydro Project. You raised some good points in your 7/30/08 email.
We have the 1992 revised cross-sections for the revised Flood Insurance Study for Columbus. However, we do not
have the step-backwater runs from the Loup River Levee construction and will contact the City to get them.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ron Ziola or myself at (402) 564-3171. Again,
we appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess, P.E.
President/CEO

From: Pillard, Matt
To: King, Wendy
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: Re: Loup Hydro Project - Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Date: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:19:37 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeff Schuckman"
To: "Pillard, Matt"
Cc: "Dave Tunink"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:48:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Loup Hydro Project - Agency Meeting: Study Needs Continued
Matt,
One study need NGPC has is concerning fish passage upstream through the Loup diversion. A
tagging/sampling study is needed to determine the extent of fish passage. This does tie in to the
dewatering issues of the Loup River below the diversion and should be considered as an integral part
of the project evaluation during various flow scenarios. Tagged fish (sonic or conventional tagging)
can be followed through the LPPD project area to evaluate upstream migration success and/or fish
species assemblages above and below should be sampled for relative abundance and size stucture.
Jeff Schuckman
District III Fish Mgt Supv
Norfolk, NE

From: Pillard, Matt
To: Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Bobbie Kriz-Wickham; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms; Dan Nitzel; Dave Tunink;
David Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jean Angell; Jeff Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe
Cothern; John Bender; John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli; Justin Lavene; Lacie Andreason; Mark Czaplewski;
Mary Bomberger-Brown; Randy Thoreson; Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Robert
Puschendorf; Rodney Verhoeff; Stacy Stupka-Burda; Steve Chick
Subject: Loup Hydro Project - 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:40:11 AM
Good morning.
The meeting minutes for the July 24th meeting will be posted to the project web site today. In addition,
the agenda for our August 19 meeting has also been posted. See the address below:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/meetings.html.
As a reminder, the August 19 meeting will be from 10:00 to 2:00 (lunch will be provided) in the Seven
Seas Room at the New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., in Columbus.
If you haven't already, please let me know today or tomorrow if you and/or other representatives from
your agency/organization will be able to attend. Thank you to all of you who have already replied.
Thanks and please contact me if you have any questions.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com

Selzle, Lydia
From: Shadle, John J. [jjshadl@nppd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:11 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro Project ) 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
I took a quick looks at the June 25th meeting notes. I think you captured NPPD issue pretty well (page 2), however we
are also interested in any future limitations on project operations as might results from the relicensing process. Maybe
that is implied in your notes (page 6)? Also I believe Dave Tunick of the NGPC reported back form the Recreation group,
not Gene Zurline?
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:40 AM
To: Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Bobbie Kriz+Wickham; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms; Dan Nitzel; Dave Tunink; David
Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jean Angell; Jeff Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe Cothern; John
Bender; Shadle, John J.; Joseph Mangiamelli; Justin Lavene; Lacie Andreason; Czaplewski,, Mark+ CPNRD; Mary
Bomberger+Brown; Randy Thoreson; Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Robert Puschendorf; Rodney
Verhoeff; Stacy Stupka+Burda; Steve Chick
Subject: Loup Hydro Project + 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
Good morning.
The meeting minutes for the July 24th meeting will be posted to the project web site today. In addition, the agenda for our
August 19 meeting has also been posted. See the address below:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/meetings.html.
As a reminder, the August 19 meeting will be from 10:00 to 2:00 (lunch will be provided) in the Seven Seas Room at the
New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., in Columbus.
If you haven't already, please let me know today or tomorrow if you and/or other representatives from your
agency/organization will be able to attend. Thank you to all of you who have already replied.
Thanks and please contact me if you have any questions.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114)4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

August 13, 2008
Mary Bomberger Brown
Program Coordinator
Temand Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
3310 Holdredge Street
Lincoln, NE 68503-0931
Subject: Request for interior least tern and piping plover data
Dear Ms. Bomberger Brown: .
Loup Power District (LPD) intends to file a Notice ofIntent with the Federal
EnergyRegulatory Commission (FERC) in October 2008 to begin the relicensing
process for the hydroelectric facilities located near Columbus, Nebraska.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is acting on behalf ofthe Loup Public Power
District in gathering information on potential issues of concern regarding the
reIicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectic Project. Based on Melissa
Marinovich's discussion with you, HDR requests the following information on
interior least terns and piping plovers which may be applicable to the project:
Loup Power District settling basin and sand pile:
1. Population counts for all years available, dating back to ·1999
2. Arrival/departure dates for the birds from 1999-2008
3. Estimated nesting dates for all nests recorded at this site from 1999-2008
4. Nesting success for all nests recorded at this site from 1999-2008
Loup River bypass (from diversion structure/canal entrance to confluence with the
Platte River):
1. Population counts for all years available, dating back to 1999
2. Arrival/departure dates for the birds from 1999-2008
3. Estimated nesting dates for all nests recorded at this site from 1999-2008
4. Nesting success for all nests recorded at this site from 1999-2008
Platte River from Loup Canal confluence to North Bend:
1. Population counts for all years available, dating back to 1999 .
2. Arrival/departure dates for the birds from 1999-2008
HDR Engineering. Inc. 8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax: i402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com

Selzle, Lydia
From: Marinovich, Melissa
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:02 PM
To: 'mbrown9@unl.edu'
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Pillard, Matt
Subject: Request for tern and plover data
Attachments: LT&PCP.081308.MaryBomberger_request4data.pdf
Hi Mary,
I just wanted to thank you again for taking the time to meet with me a few weeks ago. It was excellent to learn more about
what your organization does, as well as discuss information on the terns and plovers and how it relates to the Loup Power
District’s operations. I also hope I can be of some assistance to your organization next year on a volunteer basis. As per
our discussion, I have attached a letter from HDR requesting your assistance in obtaining some specific data and survey
information. We are copying this letter to Joel Jorgenson at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, as we realize
that much of the data we are requesting is shared with and collected by this state agency in cooperation with your
organization. We are sending a paper copy of this letter through U.S. Postal Service for your files. If there is any way that I
can be of assistance in the compilation of this data or if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me. Thanks again!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114D4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
1

Concern to be addressed in the FERC relicensing of Loup Public Power District
Presented by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
The suspension of diversion out of the Loup River into the Loup River Power Canal
when frazil ice is present may cause flooding in the Lower Platte River basins.
Background
In March of 1993, severe flooding occurred along the south side of the Loup River at
Columbus, due to an ice jam, causing millions of dollars worth of damage. In response,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region VII, formed an
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team to review this event and others, and suggest
measures which might be implemented to mitigate similar events in the future. The US
Corps of Engineers (USCE) studied ice jam flooding in the Lower Platte River basins and
published a report* for the State of Nebraska Civil Defense Agency and Natural
Resources Commission in July of 1994.
The USCE noted that recurring ice jams take place on the Loup River between Genoa
and Columbus. Local residents expressed the opinion that the fluctuations in the Loup
River Power Canal diversions cause or exacerbate ice jams downstream of the canal
diversion. The USCE would not definitively conclude that diversion fluctuations cause
ice jam flooding because of the lack of detailed historical data. However, the USCE
suggested an ice data collection program for input into a predictive ice jam model. Since
that time, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources has collected ice data for an ice
jam prediction model.
Besides the collection of ice data, the USCE recommended a study to evaluate the impact
of the operation of the Loup Power Canal on downstream ice conditions. Such study has
not been conducted.
* USCE published a subsequent report on the subject in 1996
which can be found on the Department of Natural Resources
website at http://dnr.ne.gov/floodplain/flood/SR96_01.pdf.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Angell, Jean [jean.angell@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:56 PM
To: Pillard, Matt; Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Wickham, Bobbie; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms;
Dan Nitzel; Dave Tunink; David Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jeff
Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe Cothern; Bender, John; John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli;
Lavene, Justin; Lacie Andreason; Mark Czaplewski; Mary Bomberger8Brown; Randy
Thoreson; Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Bob Puschendorf Jr; Rodney
Verhoeff; Stacy Stupka8Burda; Steve Chick
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro Project 8 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
Attachments: ConcernFlooding issue.doc
The Department of Natural Resources wishes to present an additional issue at the August 19, 2008 meeting.
Please see the attached memo. Thank you.
Jean Angell
Legal Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
471(3931
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:40 AM
To: Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Wickham, Bobbie; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms; Dan Nitzel; Dave Tunink; David Jundt;
Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Angell, Jean; Jeff Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe Cothern; Bender, John;
John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli; Lavene, Justin; Lacie Andreason; Mark Czaplewski; Mary Bomberger7Brown; Randy
Thoreson; Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Bob Puschendorf Jr; Rodney Verhoeff; Stacy Stupka7Burda;
Steve Chick
Subject: Loup Hydro Project 7 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
Good morning.
The meeting minutes for the July 24th meeting will be posted to the project web site today. In addition, the agenda for our
August 19 meeting has also been posted. See the address below:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/meetings.html.
As a reminder, the August 19 meeting will be from 10:00 to 2:00 (lunch will be provided) in the Seven Seas Room at the
New World Inn & Conference Center, 265 33rd Ave., in Columbus.
If you haven't already, please let me know today or tomorrow if you and/or other representatives from your
agency/organization will be able to attend. Thank you to all of you who have already replied.
Thanks and please contact me if you have any questions.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811484098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Engelbert, Pat; Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George
Subject: FW: Loup Hydro Project 0 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert_Harms@fws.gov [mailto:Robert_Harms@fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:24 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: frank.albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
Donald_Anderson@fws.gov; Martha_Tacha@fws.gov
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro Project - 7/24 Meeting minutes and 8/19 Meeting Agenda
Matt:
I agree that as we become familiar with Loup Power District operations, additional affects on
fish and wildlife resources may become apparent. For example, the following are items I
would like to discuss at the next meeting as concerns:
Lost Creek siphon and changes in hydrology in Lost Creek due to tail
race flows
Powerlines and their potential to result in electrocution and/or
collisions of migratory birds
PCBs
Changes in sediment/flow discharge below the canal diversion and its
affects on ice jam development on the Loup and Platte rivers.
I also request that an additional item be put on the agenda: Agency Information Needs.
Additional information needs include the FERC project boundaries, original license articles,
number of subordinate agreements, acre-feet of water provided by subordinate agreements, etc.
Jean Angel (DNR), leader of the water rights work group (of which the FWS is a member) has
several information requests which are essential in order for the work group to make
progress.
If you have any questions or need clarifications, please contact me on my cell phone (308)
390-0871. Thanks.
Bob
Robert R. Harms
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
Phone: 308-382-6468, Extension 17
Fax: 308-384-8835
robert_harms@fws.gov
"Pillard, Matt"

Concern to be addressed in the FERC relicensing of Loup Public Power District
Presented by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
The suspension of diversion out of the Loup River into the Loup River Power Canal
when frazil ice is present may cause flooding in the Lower Platte River basins.
Background
In March of 1993, severe flooding occurred along the south side of the Loup River at
Columbus, due to an ice jam, causing millions of dollars worth of damage. In response,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region VII, formed an
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team to review this event and others, and suggest
measures which might be implemented to mitigate similar events in the future. The US
Corps of Engineers (USCE) studied ice jam flooding in the Lower Platte River basins and
published a report* for the State of Nebraska Civil Defense Agency and Natural
Resources Commission in July of 1994.
The USCE noted that recurring ice jams take place on the Loup River between Genoa
and Columbus. Local residents expressed the opinion that the fluctuations in the Loup
River Power Canal diversions cause or exacerbate ice jams downstream of the canal
diversion. The USCE would not definitively conclude that diversion fluctuations cause
ice jam flooding because of the lack of detailed historical data. However, the USCE
suggested an ice data collection program for input into a predictive ice jam model. Since
that time, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources has collected ice data for an ice
jam prediction model.
Besides the collection of ice data, the USCE recommended a study to evaluate the impact
of the operation of the Loup Power Canal on downstream ice conditions. Such study has
not been conducted.
* USCE published a subsequent report on the subject in 1996
which can be found on the Department of Natural Resources
website at http://dnr.ne.gov/floodplain/flood/SR96_01.pdf.

Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject:
Meeting
Agency Follow-up Meeting – Study Needs Continued
August 19, 2008, 10:00 am – 2:00 pm Meeting Location: New World Inn, Columbus, NE
Date:
Notes by: HDR
Attendees: See Attached
Meeting Agenda:
1. Welcome/Introductions
2. Workgroup Reports
3. Continuation of Issues and Potential Study Discussion
4. Supplementary Issues Discussion
5. Agency Information Needs
6. Next Steps
Discussion:
1. Welcome/Introductions
All in attendance introduced themselves. Project notebooks were distributed to new attendees, the
meeting packet of information was explained, and the agenda for the meeting was discussed.
2. Workgroup Reports
HDR explained that neither workgroup had met since the July 24 th agency meeting. The Water Rights
Workgroup intends to reconvene when the workgroup receives requested water rights information from
Loup Power District (District) (see Section 5 - Agency Information Needs). The National Park Service
(NPS) asked if the workgroups could have some time at the meeting to meet and it was decided that some
time would be set aside during the day’s meeting. The District asked to be included on all workgroup
correspondence as a member of those workgroups. Although workgroups are encouraged to meet into the
future, input to the relicensing process would occur after the PAD is available for agency review.
3. Continuation of Issues and Potential Studies Discussion
Flow Depletion in the By-Pass Reach
It was discussed that the amount of flow going past the diversion could affect river morphology and
temperature. The first step is to analyze the data to determine the effects of the District’s operations on
river flows and sediment supply. The next step in the process after evaluating sediment and flow is to
identify the corresponding biological response. It was added that the effect of future depletions, while not
a direct Project effect, needs to be considered (reference the DNR Fully Appropriated Basin Report).
USFWS added that, under the Endangered Species Act, the District/FERC will need to consider direct
and indirect effects as well as future trends and reference effects to the baseline. It was added that
seasonal quantification of flow is also important, such as flows depleted during irrigation season.
It was discussed that flow affects multiple items, such as sediment transport, and a fundamental
understanding of flow may help evaluate the effects to other resources, such as sand bar development and
erosion. Again, it was noted that the first step is to analyze the data to determine the effects of the
District’s operations on river flows and sediment supply. If operational effects are minimal, then the
habitat/biology issues may go away.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
It was suggested that evaluation of issues related to the project is moving toward a modeling exercise to
be able to evaluate how the system responds to changes in flows. The USFWS added that a simple model
can be used to evaluate a river system before more detailed modeling is required, the key being to
understand the system at the reach level under past and present flow regimes.
Information relative to how the Headworks Structures work was discussed. In general, diversion is
affected by river flows and existing capacity in the settling basin (dredged verses not-dredged). It is a
manual process requiring certain activities to admit flow, but minimize sedimentation in the basin. It is a
variable process relative to how much and how often the gates can be open. In this particular year, it was
discussed that due to mechanical issues, not as much was dredged as the District would have liked before
they had to shut down due to presence of terns and plovers. Therefore, although flows were high in the
Loup, the District was not able to divert commensurate flow due to too much sediment in the settling
basin.
The availability of data was discussed. It was noted that gage data and rating curves have been requested
from the USGS. This information can be analyzed to help gain an understanding of flow. USGS noted
that they have information on sediment and grain size. It was added that some historical cross-sections
from the 1970s and 1990s are available from the Corps and/or NDNR to assist with understanding
historical river morphology.
Flow Depletion Above the Diversion at Genoa
It was noted that the District’s intent for relicensing is to maintain their existing water right of 3,500 cfs
and thus they would not sell their water right to upstream users. The USFWS noted that flow depletion
above the diversion is not a direct project effect, but it affects the future baseline for consideration of
future project effects and needs to be considered when evaluating future conditions. The group agreed
that flow depletions due to upstream use would be part of the baseline for future conditions, and this issue
can be folded into the evaluation of flow depletion of the bypass reach and flow depletion downstream of
the tailrace. The DNR noted that they would like to continue discussions with the District for clarification
on this issue.
Flow Depletion on the Platte River System
HDR provided information regarding the water budget for the canal system based on gage and irrigation
data from the last five years:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
• 8 th Street Gage (1.5 miles upstream of re-entry) – ~1.1 million ac-ft/year
• Loup withdrawal at Diversion (skimming weir gage)– ~1.1 million ac-ft/year
• Irrigation withdrawals – 2,000 ac/ft year
• Canal, lake, and settling basin evaporation – 6,000 to 7,000 ac-ft/year
It was noted that there are two commercial withdrawals from the canal [ADM (downstream of 8 th Street)
& Preferred Rocks of Genoa (Preferred) of Genoa (upstream of the skimming wier gage)]; however,
commercial uses are non-consumptive. It was also noted that the evaporative losses are likely less in the
canal than in the bypass reach, based on an average of 120 ft width verses the much wider bypass reach.
The water budget analysis included Lake North/Lake Babcock.
Seepage from the system is estimated at 4 to 5 percent; however, the seepage is likely intercepted by the
Lost Creek flood control project and returned to the canal system as seen by the increases in the flows at
the 8 th Street gauge. It was noted that the total irrigation and evaporation is within the level of accuracy of
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
the gages. Overall, HDR’s initial studies suggest that the canal is a relatively closed system with
essentially no net loss.
Other inflows were asked about. It was provided that there are a few locations where small local drainage
areas drain to the canal. The District is getting those quantified, but the canal system is pretty close to
flow-through system.
It was noted by the USFWS that based on this preliminary discussion, the data used for determining the
water budget may be sufficient but, as USFWS has not yet reviewed the methodology, they are not yet
prepared to endorse HDR’s conclusions. The USFWS asked if the water budget report would be made
available for review prior to issuing the PAD. It was discussed that while it would be more efficient to
have agency input on the report prior to the PAD being issued, there would likely not be time for a
preliminary review. It was understood that USFWS may have comments that would need to be addressed
after the PAD has been submitted.
Although HDR’ initial studies suggest that the water budget shows that the canal system does not
contribute to flow depletions on the Platte River, USFWS does not yet endorse this conclusion and also
noted that Project operations may have a more pronounced affect on the Platte River as flows on the
Platte are reduced over time.
Hydraulic Habitat Connectivity & Distribution and Vegetation Species Composition and
Distribution
These items were discussed as sub-sets of the broader issues of sediment budgets and flows. A conceptual
understanding of sediment budget and the impacts on morphology are needed as a framework for further
evaluation of habitat issues.
Dredging and Discharge at the Settling Basin
It was discussed that there are two main categories associated with this issue: overcovering of tern and
plover nests and fish entrainment/entrapment.
Overcovering of Nests
HDR provided details on District protocols relative to dredging and the birds.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
• Dredging has no impact on the birds unless Loup is discharging on the north side of the Settling
Basin
• District personnel watch closely for the arrival of the first birds of the season
• When the District personnel are checking the dredge discharge pipe lines, and the birds simulate
being injured, the District will contact the USFWS or the Tern and Plover Partnership. At this
time the District will also begin to make plans to stop dredging very soon because they know this
is a nesting sign. Typically this is early June when dredging is stopped for bird nesting.
• Dredging is stopped until mid-late August with start-up resuming on the south side of the Settling
Basin.
• Nesting areas are protected prior to stoppage of dredging by establishing a sand berm/cut trees
positioned to divert the dredge water and protect the nesting colonies. This has worked well for
the District over the years.
• This Bird Protection process has been in place prior to the current headwork’s supervisor’s
employment, which was the late 90’s and he believes the protection was initiated in the early
1990’s.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
The Tern and Plover Partnership added that sediment size is the key for nesting locations. They primarily
nest between outlet pipes 9 and 14. This is the area that is bermed for protection. In addition, the slurry
and resultant mud flats from dredging operations are good foraging areas. Bird numbers were fairly good
this year. It was noted that there were no nests on the Loup River due to extended high water and that the
sand pile provided a critical area for nesting.
USFWS asked about the MOU with Preferred. It was provided that the participating members of the
MOU are Preferred, NGPC, and USFWS. The District and the Tern and Plover Partnership, are
cooperating parties to the MOU. The USFWS stated that as a signatory, they were OK with all conditions
in the MOU.
USFWS agreed that there doesn’t appear to be anything to study regarding overcovering of nests.
However, there may be ways to improve the situation through the Adaptive Management Plan. The
USFWS noted that the management plan may be discussed as part of the section 7 consultation.
Fish Entrainment/Entrapment
NGPC asked if any monitoring has been done to identify the types or quantity of species that dredging
operations affect – no studies have been done, but the majority of fish observed on the sandpile are small
minnows and shiners. The Tern and Plover Partnership noted that the birds like beak length food or
longer and that the dredging operations provide a good food source for the birds.
The Tern and Plover Partnership asked why dredging must occur the way it does. The District explained
that in the spring, the southeast corner of the settling basin is the only place deep enough to start the
dredge and they work upstream towards the intake structure. They dredge a section on the south side and
then move to the north side as they move west up the settling basin.
It was discussed that as there were no indications that dredging activities are depleting the fish population
or negatively affecting the birds; therefore, entrainment and entrapment of fish may not be an issue.
Economic Value
NPPD noted that the District sells all of the power produced by the hydroelectric project to NPPD. It was
discussed that the following items were important for consideration:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
• Changes in operations and effect on economics
• Value of water bypassed for species protection verses used for Project purposes
• Value of peaking ability
• Value of irrigation from the canal
• Recreational value to Platte & Nance counties and Columbus
• Aesthetic value
• Employment value of the hydroelectric project
• Incremental effects on the economy
• Cost of operations compared to net value of benefits
Fish Passage
The NGPC noted that the question relative to fish passage is how much of a barrier is the diversion
structure. The goal of a study would be to determine the extent of the barrier to fish passage.
They elaborated that one way to do this was through tagging. Specifically, they are interested in channel
catfish and flathead catfish as highly valued sport fish, smaller species may also be a concern. If the
diversion is determined to be a barrier, a bypass may be needed.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
HDR asked if a distribution sample of species above and below would identify if species are equally
distributed above and below the diversion. NGPC said that would be a starting point. However, there
could be an isolating effect on catfish because they migrate upstream to spawn. If the diversion is a
barrier to this, there may be a decline in the species upstream.
Types of fish passages were discussed. NGPC added that it is important to focus on a species when
considering fish passage and it is too early to speculate on the type or probable success of fish passages.
4. Supplementary Issues
Prior to the meeting, USFWS had provided a list that included the following supplementary issues for
discussion. The USFWS indicated that they would provide a supplement to their Technical Advisory
Letter to include these issues.
Power Lines and Migratory Birds
It was noted that all transmission lines connecting with the Project are owned by NPPD. USFWS asked
about past work orders that were discussed at District board meetings regarding replacement of power
poles. The District provided that it sells the hydropower to NPPD, and the District then buys power back
from NPPD to distribute to their customers. The power lines that the District has are not part of the
relicensing. It was noted that NPPD has an easement for its transmission lines on District property.
Therefore, power lines would remain with or without the relicensing project.
The USFWS provided that the issue would be listed in their Technical Advisory letter for the District to
respond to, but may not be an issue.
Water Quality
The USFWS provided that as they learn more about the Project, new issues may arise and the need to
supplement the Technical Advisory letter may occur. The USFWS’ questions about water quality,
especially Project area waterbody impairments by E coli, nutrients, and PCBs and reasons for concern
were discussed.
It was discussed that the source for nutrient impairment in Lake North/Lake Babcock was unknown but
NDEQ is working with the District to identify other potential in-flows to the canal system.
The data available for PCBs is fish tissue data from the power canal. The USFWS noted that the District
had issued a work order to replace a transformer containing insulating oil with PCBs and noted that PCBs
had been found in fish caught in the canal. Although no source has been identified, the District canal
system is the furthest known upstream location in the lower Platte River/Loup River basin with PCB
contamination. There is no history of sediment sampling for PCBs in the Project area. It was noted by
USFWS that either: 1) the source of the contamination is located within the Project area, or b)
contaminated fish migrated from the lower Platte River into the canal system. It was noted that both the
USGS and NDEQ have sampled water and fish tissue for PCBs either within or near the Project area. The
District provided that no information has been requested from them.
It was discussed that PCBs were prevalent in the use of transformers 1940-1970. The NDEQ added that
PCBs are a legacy contaminant that will be around for decades. However, overall, there is a decreasing
trend in PCB level in the environment.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
The USFWS provided that PCBs are a concern because they can be toxic to humans and wildlife,
including threatened & endangered species. They added that fish tissue samples are good indicators of
PCBs. Specifically, PCBs are a concern for pallid sturgeon all the way down in the lower Platte River. A
study conducted by the Service identified PCBs as a contaminant of concern in shovelnose sturgeon from
the lower Platte River and it is presumed that pallid sturgeon life history characteristics likely place them
at greater risk than shovelnose sturgeon to reproductive effects from exposure to PCBs. Terns and
plovers may also be impacted by PCBs because of their foraging habits. The USFWS provided that
segments of the Platte River downstream from the Project are also listed for PCBs. However, it is
unknown whether the power canal is a possible source.
Possible ways to study this issue would be to identify all possible sources of PCBs and perform sediment
sampling of the canal to determine if the canal is a source.
Ice Jams
The DNR and USFWS both noted that the District’s operations may affect ice jams. The DNR cited a
report from the Corps of Engineers regarding the March 1993 flood on the Loup River that indicated that
the affect of the District’s operation on ice jams is unknown and that a study of this affect would be
beneficial. It was provided by DNR that in past studies performed by the Corps, it was decided that there
was not good information. The DNR has 12 years of data on the river and the Corps suggested models be
developed to help determine the occurrence and location of ice jams. The report suggested that frazil ice
combined with river morphology of the bypass reach is creating problems. The report suggested that the
District look at maintenance issues and operations. It was also discussed that the report notes (page 15)
that the Project may affect the flow and sediment regime which may also have impacted ice formation
and transport processes.
Information relative to the formation of frazil ice was provided and the District’s experience was that it
was more prevalent at Columbus. Frazil ice is formed underwater on District structures when subzero air
temperatures, wind & turbulence create super cooled water which then forms needle shaped crystals of
ice. This crystal slush is not particularly buoyant and can extend throughout the water column. It can
attach to metal screens and very quickly close off flow at pump stations, hydros, and water intakes.
The USFWS noted that ice jams and habitat forming flows are good for terns and plovers because they
scrub vegetation off of sandbars used for nesting and foraging. However, destruction of property is not
desirable. The DNR noted that their concern with ice jams revolves around floodplain management and
potential loss of human life.
Lost Creek
USFWS requested information relative to hydrology of Lost Creek. The District noted that there is a drain
in the tailrace in which the District discharges water for cattle based on a landowner agreement from
when the canal was built. It was noted that the hydrology of Lost Creek changed dramatically after the
Corps constructed the Lost Creek flood control ditch.
5. Agency Information Needs
Several agencies have requested additional information to assist with their understanding of the Loup
River Hydroelectric project. The agency information needs discussed at the meeting were:
• USFWS & NPS requested a map showing FERC boundaries for the Project (digital format if
possible) – It was discussed that this information is currently being prepared for inclusion in the
PAD. HDR and the District will investigate if these can be posted separately on the website but
would not be available prior to the PAD.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 7

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Agency Meeting – August 19, 2008
• USFWS requested a copy of the existing license articles
• USFWS requested information relative to hydrology of Lost Creek at the tailrace including: a)
when water is released into lost creek, b) purpose for releasing water, c) quantities of water
released.
• USFWS requested locations where small local drainage areas drain to the Project’s canal system.
• DNR and USFWS requested information from the District relative to calculation of Just
Compensation agreements which include: a) number of agreements, b) points of diversion, c)
times of diversion, d) quantity of water diverted e) compensation costs on a per acre-foot basis, f)
estimated power produced per acre-foot
• DNR requested the agreement between NGPC and the District to release water for protection of
species in the Loup River bypass reach – it was noted that there is no formal agreement for this
practice.
• DNR and USFWS requested copies of all of the District’s agreements with entities made since
the inception of the project, particularly agreements pertaining to irrigation or water. (DNR
provided a list of known irrigators with water rights at the diversion).
• DNR requested information on what FERC does if a new license isn’t granted. HDR will furnish
regulation references.
6. Next Steps
HDR provided that all of the information gathered during the agency meetings will be used to develop the
PAD. The PAD will include study concepts for studies that the District proposes to conduct. Upon
submittal to FERC, the PAD will be made available to agencies for review. While the PAD is being
reviewed, the District will begin development of detailed studies and may contact various agencies for
input. HDR and the District noted that it is their intention to continue to meet with agencies and provide
information as needed after the PAD is submitted in order to continue to work through issues and develop
detailed study plans.
Within 90 days after the PAD is submitted, FERC will issue a scoping document and request comments
on the PAD and scoping document. A draft study plan (with details of each study) will be submitted after
the formal comment period ends. Agencies will have several opportunities to comment on the study plan
which will be finalized in 3 rd quarter 2009. HDR re-iterated that the PAD is a starting point in the process
and that there are multiple opportunities for review and there would likely be the need for coordination
throughout the rest of the project.
It was added that when the PAD is filed, the FERC “clock” starts and locks in milestone dates. We will
all know the dates for these milestones and that we will be locked into meeting those milestone dates. The
deadlines will be firm and are driven from the FERC process.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 7

Attendance by Meeting
Hydroelectric Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Meeting Type: Agency
Meeting Name: Study Needs Continued
Date: 8 /19/2008
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: New World Inn & Conference Center
Name Organization Contact Type
Frank Albrecht Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Don Anderson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency - Federal
Jean Angell Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Agency - Local
John Bender Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Agency - Local
Ryan Bjerke Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance NGOs & Stakeholders
Mary Bomberger Brown Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership NGOs & Stakeholders
Pat Engelbert HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jim Frear Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Dennis Grennan HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Robert Harms U.S. Fish and Wildife Service Agency - Federal
David Jundt Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services;
Agency - Local
Page 1 of 3

Name Organization Contact Type
Jerry Kenny Platte River Recovery Implementation Program NGOs & Stakeholders
Joseph Mangiamelli City of Columbus Agency - Local
Robert Mohler Lower Loup Natural Resources District Agency - Local
Matt Pillard HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Lisa Richardson HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jeff Runge U.S. Fish and Wildife Service Agency - Federal
Jeff Schuckman Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Matt Schwarz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency - Federal
John Shadle Nebraska Public Power District Agency - Local
Bill Sigler HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Kristal Stoner Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Neal Suess Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Robert Swanson U.S. Geological Survey Agency - Federal
Randy Thoreson National Park Service Field Office Agency - Federal
Page 2 of 3

Name Organization Contact Type
Dave Tunink Nebraska Game and Parks Commision Agency - Local
George Waldow HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Mark Weekley National Park Service Agency - Federal
Stephanie White HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Ron Ziola Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Gene Zuerlein Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - Local
Page 3 of 3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mary B Brown [mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:07 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: More tern and plover photos
Attachments: 2008 season 019.jpg; 2008 season 022.jpg; 2008 season 025.jpg; 2008 season 046.jpg; 2008
season 052.jpg
2008 season 019.jpg is what the windrowing looked like.
2008 season 022.jpg is what the berm looked like with the limbs and branches used to re-enforce it.
2008 season 025.jpg is 2 of our technicians floating eggs to date the nest (the plover nest in between the 2 people--hard
to see).
2008 season 046.jpg is another view of the berm.
2008 season 052.jpg shows the slurry pipe with the extension attached to it so the water was directed around the top end
of the berm. The berm is directly in front of the pipe. If the water had not been diverted, it would have washed out the
berm and the entire nesting area.
Hope these are useful. Let me know if you'd like more elaborate descriptions.
Mary
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0931 USA
telephone: (402) 472-8878
fax: (402) 472-3461
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mary B Brown [mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:10 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: one more photo
Attachments: tern pair with fish.tif
This is just that***a tern pair with a fish.
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583*0931 USA
telephone: (402) 472*8878
fax: (402) 472*3461
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mary B Brown [mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:09 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: tern and plover photos
Attachments: P1010061.JPG; piping plover at nest.JPG; 2008 season 014.jpg
Hello Melissa,
Here are some photos.
Piping plover at nest.jpg is exactly that.
P1010061.jpg is what the sandpile looked like in 2007 (before the berm).
2008 season 014.jpg is the berm behind a slurry pipe discharging water (the berm is the ridge of lighter colored sand).
Please acknowledge the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership as the owner of these photos (ie., Photos provided by
the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership or Photos courtesy of the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership)
whenever you reproduce them
Mary
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583;0931 USA
telephone: (402) 472;8878
fax: (402) 472;3461
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
1

September 5, 2008
Mr. Tony Provost
NAGPRA Coordinator
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, Nebraska 68039
Re: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing
Platte and Colfax Counties, Nebraska
Dear Mr. Provost:
The Loup River Public Power District has retained HDR Engineering to assist with FERC
relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. This will be a multi-year endeavor since the
new license application is not due for submittal until April of 2012. Preliminary work is being
initiated at this time because industry experience has shown that thorough planning, an early start,
and focused communication are vitally important to the interests of all participants in the relicensing
process.
Enclosed for your information is a brief introduction to the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and the
FERC relicensing process. Also enclosed are copies of two recent FERC publications which will
help to explain the relatively new Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) that the District intends to
utilize. The U.S. government regulations related to the ILP relicensing process are also enclosed (18
CFR 5).
FERC is required to consult with Native American Tribes throughout the relicensing effort. The
consultation process is firmly rooted in the responsibilities given to FERC through Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the guiding regulations found in 36 CFR 800, as
well as other preservation and federal trust requirements. According to FERC protocols, FERC will
initiate consultation with the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and other Native American Tribes once Loup
Power District submits the initial filing, known as the Pre-Application Document (PAD). We expect
the PAD to be filed with FERC in the coming months.
In the meantime, we would like to take this opportunity to coordinate with you, share project
information, and provide some context for the Loup Power District’s FERC filings. Once
consultation begins, we expect to play an active and integral role in the FERC consultation process
as a consulting party.

Although we have been unable to coordinate a time for an in-person meeting, we appreciate your
willingness to meet and discuss this project. Should schedules allow, we extend an invitation to you
to come to the Loup Power District facility to better acquaint you with the existing facility and the
specifics of the relicensing effort. After reviewing the enclosed information, if you have any
questions or would like to meet with Loup Power District prior to the FERC Tribal Consultation
Meeting, please contact me at (402) 926-7026 or Mr. Neal Suess, CEO, Loup Power District (402)
564-3171.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Program Manager
Enclosures
Cc: Neal Suess, Loup Power District

September 5, 2008
Mr. Francis Morris
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
PO Box 470
Pawnee, OK 74058
Re: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing
Platte and Colfax Counties, Nebraska
Dear Mr. Morris:
The Loup River Public Power District has retained HDR Engineering to assist with FERC
relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. This will be a multi-year endeavor since the
new license application is not due for submittal until April of 2012. Preliminary work is being
initiated at this time because industry experience has shown that thorough planning, an early start,
and focused communication are vitally important to the interests of all participants in the relicensing
process.
Enclosed for your information is a brief introduction to the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and the
FERC relicensing process. Also enclosed are copies of two recent FERC publications which will
help to explain the relatively new Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) that the District intends to
utilize. The U.S. government regulations related to the ILP relicensing process are also enclosed (18
CFR 5).
FERC is required to consult with Native American Tribes throughout the relicensing effort. The
consultation process is firmly rooted in the responsibilities given to FERC through Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the guiding regulations found in 36 CFR 800, as
well as other preservation and federal trust requirements. According to FERC protocols, FERC will
initiate consultation with the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and other Native American Tribes once Loup
Power District submits the initial filing, known as the Pre-Application Document (PAD). We expect
the PAD to be filed with FERC in the coming months.
In the meantime, we would like to take this opportunity to coordinate with you, share project
information, and provide some context for the Loup Power District’s FERC filings. Once
consultation begins, we expect to play an active and integral role in the FERC consultation process
as a consulting party.

Should schedules allow, we extend an invitation to you to come to the Loup Power District facility to
better acquaint you with the existing facility and the specifics of the relicensing effort. After
reviewing the enclosed information, if you have any questions or would like to meet with Loup
Power District prior to the FERC Tribal Consultation Meeting, please contact me at (402) 926-7026
or Mr. Neal Suess, CEO, Loup Power District (402) 564-3171.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Program Manager
Enclosures
Cc: Neal Suess, Loup Power District

20081023-3047 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Ansley Griffin, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NE 68039
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower

20081023-3047 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska,
Pawnee Tribe, and the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma.

20081023-3047 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3047 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755811.DOC..........................................................1-3

20081023-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
George Howell, President
Pawnee Tribal Business Council
P.O. Box 470
Pawnee, OK 74058
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Pawnee Tribe
Dear Mr. Howell:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;

20081023-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma,
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

20081023-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755386.DOC..........................................................1-3

20081023-3048 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Larry Wright, Jr., Chairperson
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 288
Niobrara, NE 68760
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
Dear Mr. Wright:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;

20081023-3048 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma,
Pawnee Tribe, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

20081023-3048 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3048 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755490.DOC..........................................................1-3

20081023-3046 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Trey Howe, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 2, White Eagle Drive
Ponca City, OK 74601
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
Dear Mr. Howe:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;

20081023-3046 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska,
Pawnee Tribe, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

20081023-3046 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3046 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755893.DOC..........................................................1-3

20081023-3045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Roger Trudell, Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribal Council
Route 2
Niobrara, NE 68760
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Santee Sioux Tribe
Dear Mr. Trudell:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal

20081023-3045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Winnebago Tribe, Pawnee Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca
Tribe of Nebraska, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

20081023-3045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755596.DOC..........................................................1-3

20081023-3050 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
John Blackhawk, Chairman
Winnebago Tribal Council
P.O. Box 687
Winnebago, NE 68071
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 23, 2008
Reference: Consultation with the Winnebago Tribe
Dear Mr. Blackhawk:
Project No. 1256-029--Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites your
participation in the relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project located
on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. Loup River Public Power
District (Loup Power District) owns and operates the project under a license issued by the
Commission and is using the Commission’s new Integrated Licensing Process to
relicense the project. Loup Power District’s current license for the project expires April
15, 2014, and an application for a new license must be filed by April 15, 2012.
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) 11 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located on
the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 megawatts (MW); (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower
Power Canal with 2 siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock;
(8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal
enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage

20081023-3050 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
2
capacity of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
The Commission staff is interested in meeting with you to discuss the
Commission’s relicensing process, how the tribe can participate to the fullest extent
possible, your interests and concerns in the affected area, and how to establish procedures
to ensure appropriate communication between Commission and tribal staffs. The
meeting can be limited to Commission and your tribal staff or can be open to other
tribes, 1 Loup Power District, or any other relicensing participants you wish. Please note
that any sensitive tribal information discussed at the meeting, and likewise discussed
throughout the entire relicensing process, can be kept strictly confidential.
Please tell us within 30 days from the date of this letter whether or not you would
like to participate in relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and whether you
would like to meet with Commission staff to discuss the project. You may respond by
letter or contact the relicensing coordinator listed below by phone or email. All
correspondence with the Commission regarding this project should be sent to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Please put the project name “Loup River Hydroelectric Project” and number
“P-1256-029” on the front cover of all correspondence.
1 Commission staff is inviting the following other tribes to participate in the
relicensing process: Santee Sioux Tribe, Pawnee Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca
Tribe of Nebraska, and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

20081023-3050 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
3
If you have any questions, the Commission’s relicensing coordinator for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project is: Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Commission staff will contact your office shortly to followup on this letter.
cc: Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup River Public Power District
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Mailing List
Service List
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing

20081023-3050 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/23/2008
Document Content(s)
19755753.DOC..........................................................1-3

~0081107-0075 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/05/2008
Kim Nguyen
From: Gary Roblnette [garyr@poncatribe-ne.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Kim Nguyen
Subject: Project No. 1256-029-Loup River
Ann;
The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska has no comment on the approval of the new permit.
Gary Robinette
Director of Cultural Affairs/THPO
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
10/29/2008
ORIGINAL
r~
Ez--r I ~:~
ri~1 co
"~-~ z c~.'~ ~,
--~ Vvl ¢Z~ C ,-vf
- "~ "--" ¢J'l "=':-:"~" "
"~ .'-n, ~ "

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
Date: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:13:00 AM
Gail - FYI - a POC change for the DB.
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:12 PM
To: Shadle, John J.
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
Sorry for the confusion John. We'll get you a copy ASAP.
Thanks.
Matt
From: Shadle, John J. [mailto:jjshadl@nppd.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:00 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
I am not sure which list you are/were working from. Attached is a letter from NPPD designating
our representative to the LPPD relicensing. Please send me a hard copy of the information
recently distributed. If you have any questions let me know.
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:21 PM
To: Shadle, John J.
Subject: RE: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
John,
Yes it was. Jon is our point of contact for NPPD, so he did receive a copy. There are electronic copies
on the web site, or we can mail you one. Let me know.
Also, for future reference, should you be our point of contact or should we copy both of you on
pertinent correspondence?
Thanks.
Matt
From: Shadle, John J. [mailto:jjshadl@nppd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: FW: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
Was the PAD (I assume this was the document that Jon Sunneberg is refereeing to below?) mailed
to FERC? What ever document was sent can I get a copy for my records? Thanks.

From: Sunneberg, Jon M.
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Resource Planning & Risk Department List; Shadle, John J.
Subject: Loup Hydro FERC Relicensing Project
All, I have received a hard copy of the Loup Hydro Relicensing documentation that was submitted
to FERC. I you want to read through it, it is on the table in my office, but let me know you took it so
it doesn’t get lost.
Thanks
Jon

Selzle, Lydia
From: Angell, Jean [jean.angell@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:43 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: Dunnigan, Brian; Andersen, Pamela; Thompson, Mike
Subject: RE: Loup Power District 2 Relicensing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for your prompt response to our concerns.
Ice records can be found on our website at http://dnrdata.dnr.ne.gov/Icejam/index.asp. You may contact Mr.
Bill Jones in our office at 402&471&3932 for more information about the records. The records will likely have
meaning only to experts such as those associated with CRREL (Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory), a division of the US Army Corp of Engineers located in Hanover, NH.
Jean Angell
Legal Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
471&3931
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha) [mailto:Lisa.Richardson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Angell, Jean
Subject: Loup Power District . Relicensing
Jean,
Attached please find the following information per our discussion this afternoon:
• PDF of letter from Loup Power District to NGPC agreeing to release additional water in the bypass reach of the
Loup River per NGPC request.
• PDF of the original agreement from 1935 between the District and Freda and C.H. Newman regarding a gate to
release water from the tailrace into Lost Creek.
Also, in reviewing notes from our previous agency meetings I identified the following questions that the District is does
not track the information you have requested:
• times water is taken from the power canal by irrigators 2 the District meters the water by volume and periodically
checks to see that the meters are working, they do not have records of when an irrigator takes the water.
• amount of water released into Lost Creek from the tailrace 2 there is not a gage at the gate into Lost Creek.
I believe the following information was provided to you directly or is contained within the PAD. Please let me know if you
need additional information related to these items:
• number of agreements with irrigators
• points of diversion
• quantity of water taken by irrigators
• estimated power produced per acre2foot (120 kWh/acre2foot)
1

• operation of Columbus Powerhouse when one or more turbines is not operating (i.e., what happens with
diversion)
To my knowledge you still need the following information:
• Information on how just compensation is calculated
• Agreement from 1972 suspending collection of compensation from pre21972 irrigators
• Other agreements related to water and operation of the project during the period of initial construction
• Information on what happens to the project if a FERC license is not granted
• Break2even point for amount of water below which power production would not be economical
Please let me know if there is additional information you need. We will work with the District to provide the remaining
information as soon as possible and we will provide a letter requesting the ice data that has been collected by DNR since
1994.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 6811424049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:27 PM
To: 'jangell@dnr.ne.gov'
Subject: Loup Power District + Relicensing
Attachments: LPD.Dredging Lost Creek Agreement.pdf; LNGPC.030823.Nelson_Minimum_Flows.pdf
Jean,
Attached please find the following information per our discussion this afternoon:
• PDF of letter from Loup Power District to NGPC agreeing to release additional water in the bypass reach of the
Loup River per NGPC request.
• PDF of the original agreement from 1935 between the District and Freda and C.H. Newman regarding a gate to
release water from the tailrace into Lost Creek.
Also, in reviewing notes from our previous agency meetings I identified the following questions that the District is does
not track the information you have requested:
• times water is taken from the power canal by irrigators + the District meters the water by volume and periodically
checks to see that the meters are working, they do not have records of when an irrigator takes the water.
• amount of water released into Lost Creek from the tailrace + there is not a gage at the gate into Lost Creek.
I believe the following information was provided to you directly or is contained within the PAD. Please let me know if you
need additional information related to these items:
• number of agreements with irrigators
• points of diversion
• quantity of water taken by irrigators
• estimated power produced per acre+foot (120 kWh/acre+foot)
• operation of Columbus Powerhouse when one or more turbines is not operating (i.e., what happens with
diversion)
To my knowledge you still need the following information:
• Information on how just compensation is calculated
• Agreement from 1972 suspending collection of compensation from pre+1972 irrigators
• Other agreements related to water and operation of the project during the period of initial construction
• Information on what happens to the project if a FERC license is not granted
• Break+even point for amount of water below which power production would not be economical
Please let me know if there is additional information you need. We will work with the District to provide the remaining
information as soon as possible and we will provide a letter requesting the ice data that has been collected by DNR since
1994.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:32 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: LPPD FERC relicensing PAD
From: Angell, Jean [mailto:jean.angell@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:24 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Dunnigan, Brian; Andersen, Pamela; Thompson, Mike
Subject: LPPD FERC relicensing PAD
I received your phone call about the LPPD PAD. I feel it’s pretty much a waste to even respond, and
here’s why: I don’t think I could have been much clearer about what study NDNR would like
conducted. I asked at the last meeting that there be a study on what contribution, if any, LPPD’s power
production procedures have on ice jam flooding, given the horrendous flooding in the past and the
United States Army Corp of Engineers’ suggestion that this be studied once ice records were kept. I
related that NDNR has been keeping ice records ever since the suggestion. I followed this up by
mailing HDR another copy of the 1994 USACE report with a request that it be included in the PAD, and
wrote, “The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources asks that studies be conducted on what
contributions the operation of the LPPD canal have on ice jam flooding as well as what measures
could be taken to mitigate ice jam flooding and resulting damages.” Apparently my communication
skills are lacking as the PAD states that NDNR didn’t provide enough information for such study to be
conducted? It was also noted in the PAD that LPPD “will continue to discuss this issue with NDNR to
determine study needs.” Well LPPD hasn’t discussed anything with NDNR. Not this issue or the
previous issues we’ve brought up. We have been promised information by LPPD, as well as HDR, that
has not been forthcoming.
Therefore, it seems a waste to continue with you in this procedure. If NDNR communicates with
anyone on this relicensing, it will likely be FERC. NDNR does not wish for you to set up another
meeting.
Jean Angell
Legal Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
47153931
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Bender, John [john.bender@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:13 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Michl, Greg
Subject: FW: Loup Power Canal . Fish Tissue Info
Attachments: LoupPowerPCBHistoricData.xls
Matt,
This is the information Greg Michl was able to put together. NDEQ will be following up on this site next summer as part
of the Lower Platte Basin monitoring effort. Feel free to call either me or Greg if you need more of an explanation. Greg
can supply you with our protocol on fish tissue monitoring if that would help.
Please note my email address has changed to john.bender@nebraska.gov
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Phone: 402/471-4201
From: Michl, Greg
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Bender, John; O'Brien, Patrick
Subject: Loup Power Canal + Fish Tissue Info
John and Pat:
The PCB fish (carp) tissue consumption advisory for the Loup Power Canal came about through the following monitoring
and assessment efforts:
Year 1: 1993 - Single fillet sample collected and PCB levels triggered follow-up triplicate sampling in 1994.
Year 2: 1994 - Triplicate fillet sample collected and levels supported issuing a consumption advisory.
Year 3: 1995 - Consumption advisory issued; scheduled for re-sample in 3 years.
Year 6: 1998 - Follow-up single fillet sample collected, and levels triggered triplicate fillet sampling in 1999.
Year 7: 1999 - Triplicate fillet sample collected, levels supported maintaining consumption advisory.
Year 12: 2004 - Single fillet sample collected and PCB levels were below trigger level for consumption advisory; triplicate
resample scheduled for 2005 anyway.
Year 13: 2005 - Triplicate fillet sample collected, levels supported maintaining consumption advisory.
Year 17: 2009 - Single fillet sample is scheduled to be collected in 2009 as part of our Basin Rotation - advisory site
follow-up sampling in the Lower Platte Basin.
1

I've attached an EXCEL spreadsheet with the raw PCB data for each sampling date for your use. If I can be of more help
let me know, Greg
2

December 2, 2008
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33 rd Street
Lincoln, NE 68503-0931
RE: Information request for piping plover and least tern population trends in Nebraska
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
Loup Power District (the District) filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Pre-Application
Document (PAD) in October 2008 to begin the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) relicensing process for its hydroelectric facilities located on the Loup River near
Columbus, Nebraska.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), on behalf of the District would like to take this opportunity to
thank you for your response to our first request for information received on
September 6, 2008. We realize compiling that data took staff time and effort and it is greatly
appreciated.
HDR continues to gather information on potential issues of concern related to the relicensing
effort for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. Our next task is to develop detailed plans for
studies that will be conducted to gather additional information relative to the issues raised by
agencies. We have reviewed the information previously provided and would like to request
the following additional information to help with further study plan development and to gain
a better understanding of trends and factors affecting the interior least tern and piping plover
populations in Nebraska:
1. We have a 2001 write-up discussing the trends in Nebraska from the 1991, 1996 and
2001 census data written by John Dinan. What types of trends have been documented
for least terns and piping plovers within the last 7 years on Nebraska rivers
(specifically the Loup, Niobrara, Missouri, and Platte rivers)? Is a Nebraska summary
of the 2006 census data for terns and plovers available?

2. On a National level, what types of trends have been recorded for U.S. northern Great
Plains piping plover population and Interior population of least terns in the last 20
years? We currently have the published census data for piping plovers from 1991,
1996, and 2001, do you know the current status of the 2006 national census data?
3. In the meeting with Melissa Marinovich in August, you briefly described the general
protocol and methods for your surveys. In an effort to gain a better understanding of
how these surveys are conducted, could you please provide in greater detail the
methodology and protocol for the surveys? Are the same protocols followed by other
agencies that are also conducting surveys? Are the protocols the same for all the
rivers as well as sand and gravel pits? Are there specific data forms that are filled out
for each site surveyed?
4. It was our understanding, based on the August meeting, that the Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission is charged with keeping and summarizing census data for the state
of Nebraska. Does the Commission have all information relative to these species or
is some information kept separately by other agencies? How does the Commission
receive data from other agencies? In summary form or in raw form?
5. What types of tern and plover habitat trends, regarding suitability and availability of
habitat, are the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and other agencies observing
on Nebraska rivers?
6. What is believed to have the greatest overall effect on piping plover and least tern
populations in Nebraska?
7. What types of conservation efforts have the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
and other agencies implemented to protect and enhance the species?
8. Has the Commission or its partners developed any hypotheses related to the causes
for the recent trends in Nebraska? Are reasons for trends different for each river
basin? Have the factors affecting population trends changed since the initial listing of
the species? Have conservation efforts in Nebraska made an impact on the
population?
In addition to the above, please provide any additional information, studies, reports, etc.
related to the species that would be helpful in analyzing trends and potential impacts related
to the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. We appreciate your assistance in providing
information to assist us with the relicensing effort. The information provided will be used for
analytical purposes and the only information that will be published is information related to
general trends and observations. Location specific information will not be published without
the consent of the Commission.

Please feel free to contact Melissa Marinovich (402-399-1317) or me (402-926-7026) if you
have any questions regarding this request. Once we have had a chance to review the
information requested, we would like arrange a meeting with you to discuss any further
questions we may have. As the relicensing process continues, we anticipate that we may
have additional information requests. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
Lisa M. Richardson
Project Manager
cc: Neal Suess, Loup Power District
Mary Bomberger-Brown, Tern & Plover Conservation Partnership

December 2, 2008
Ms. Jean Angell
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94676
Lincoln, NE 68509-4676
RE: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Relicensing – Data Request
Dear Jean:
During agency discussions held earlier this year, you requested several pieces of information
related to the District’s water rights and operation of the Loup River Hydroelectric facility.
The District and HDR have previously provided the majority of the information requested.
Enclosed please find the remaining outstanding items. I want to apologize for the length of time
it has taken to get this information to you; however the District has been extremely busy with
several other matters over the past several months. The material attached is as follows:
Information related to calculation of “just compensation” for canal irrigators.
Note: The District charges the same rate no matter where in the canal an irrigator
takes their water – although water taken by some irrigators may already have been
used for power production at the Monroe powerhouse and thus has less potential
to produce power; charging a single rate for all canal irrigators is consistent with
how electric utilities charge their customers – the rate is the same regardless of
where on the system a customer resides. Additionally, please note that the District
has historically charged upstream irrigators $1 per acre-foot of water used – this
value was determined by the District’s Board of Directors many years ago and no
information is available on how this figure was calculated.
The 1972 agreement suspending collection of payment from irrigators who had
water rights prior to 1972.
Agreements dealing with water rights and operation of the project during the
period of initial construction. The following agreements are enclosed:
o MOA between the District and Nebraska Game and Parks
regarding waived power interference compensation for water usage
at the fish hatchery at the Calamus reservoir.
o Agreement between the District and the Bureau of Reclamation
regarding replacement power for water usage on the Loup and
Calamus rivers.
o Agreements between the District and Bureau of Reclamation
regarding replacement power for the Farwell and Sargent projects.

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20426
December 12, 2008
Project No. 1256-029 – Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Subject: Scoping of environmental issues for relicensing the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project
To the Parties Addressed:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing the Preapplication
Document (PAD) submitted to the Commission by the Loup River Public
Power District (Loup Power District) on October 16, 2008 for relicensing the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1256-029). The project is located on the Loup River
and occupies lands and waters in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. The Loup Power
District will use the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to relicense the
project. Under the ILP, the Loup Power District must file their preliminary licensing
proposal or a draft license application for the continued operation of the project by
August 15, 2011. The final license application must be filed with the Commission on or
before April 16, 2012. The current license for the project expires on April 15, 2014.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the
Commission staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA would be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what
conditions, to issue a new license. To support and assist our environmental review, we
are conducting a scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and
analyzed and that the EA is thorough and balanced.
We invite your participation in the scoping process and are circulating the
enclosed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the project and
to solicit comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to
be addressed in the EA. Please review this scoping document and, if you wish to provide
comments, follow the instructions included in section 5.0 Request for Information and
Studies. Besides our request for information in section 5.0 of the scoping document, the
Commission’s ILP regulations require that parties wishing to submit comments on the

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
PAD or staff’s scoping document, or wishing to request studies, do so on or before
February 10, 2009. 1
2
As part of our scoping process and in an effort to identify issues, concerns, and
opportunities associated with the proposed action, we will hold two scoping meetings on
Monday and Tuesday, January 12 and 13, 2009, to receive input on the scope of the EA.
A daytime meeting on Tuesday focused on resource agencies, Indian tribes, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGO’s), will begin at 9:00 a.m. An evening meeting on
Monday, primarily for the public, will start at 7:00 p.m. Both meetings will be held at the
Holiday Inn Express, 524 E. 23 rd Street, Columbus, Nebraska. The public, agencies,
Indian tribes, and NGOs may attend either or both meetings. Further, the Loup Power
District and Commission staff will conduct a site visit of the project on Monday, January
12, 2009, starting at 9:00 a.m. Those wishing to participate should meet at 8:45 a.m. at
the Loup Power District Main Office, 2404 15 th Street, Columbus, Nebraska. To
appropriately accommodate persons interested in attending the site visit, participants
should contact Ron Ziola at (402) 564-3171 or e-mail rziola@loup.com by January 5,
2009. More information about the scoping meetings and site visit is available in the
scoping document.
The SD1 is being distributed to the Commission’s official mailing list (see section
9.0). If you wish to be added to or removed from the Commission’s official mailing list,
please send your request by mail to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. All
written, electronic filings, or e-mailed requests must specify your wish to be removed or
added to the mailing list and must clearly identify the following on the first page: Loup
River Project No. 1256-029. For assistance with electronic filing or e-mail notification
registration, please refer to the instructions in section 5.0 of the scoping document.
Please review this SD1 and, if you wish to provide comments, follow the
instructions in section 5.0. For questions about the SD1, the scoping process, or how
Commission staff will develop the EA for this project, please contact Kim Nguyen at
(202) 502-6105 or e-mail kim.nguyen@ferc.gov. Additional information about the
Commission’s licensing process and the Loup River Project may be obtained from our
website, http://www.ferc.gov or Loup Power District’s relicensing website,
http://www.loup.com/relicense.
Enclosure: Scoping Document 1
cc: Mailing List
Public Files
1 CFR 18 Section 5.9 Comments and information or study requests

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
SCOPING DOCUMENT
LOUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NEBRASKA
PROJECT NO. 1256-029
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Washington, DC
December 2008

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SCOPING.................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Purposes of Scoping ...................................................................................... 6
2.2 Comments and Scoping Meetings and Site Visit.......................................... 6
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 8
3.1 Loup Power District’s Proposed Action............................................................ 8
3.1.1 Description of Existing and Proposed Project Facilities...................... 8
3.1.2 Existing and Proposed Project Operation............................................ 9
3.2 Staff's Modification of the Proposed Action............................................... 10
3.3 No-action Alternative.................................................................................. 10
3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................... 10
3.4.1 Federal Government Takeover.......................................................... 10
3.4.2 Nonpower License............................................................................. 11
3.4.3 Project Decommissioning ................................................................. 11
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES .............. 11
4.1 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected ............................ 12
4.1.2 Geographic Scope.............................................................................. 12
4.1.3 Temporal Scope................................................................................. 12
4.2 Resource Issues ............................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Geology and Soil Resources ............................................................. 13
4.2.2 Aquatic Resources............................................................................. 13
4.2.3 Terrestrial Resources......................................................................... 13
4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species................................................. 14
4.2.5 Recreation and Land Use .................................................................. 14
4.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetics ................................................................... 14
4.2.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 15
4.2.8 Developmental Resources ................................................................. 15
4.3 Proposed Protection and Enhancement Measures and Potential Studies........ 15
5.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES............................................. 16
6.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 18
7.0 EA OUTLINE ........................................................................................................... 19
8.0 LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.................................................................. 20
9.0 MAILING LIST........................................................................................................ 21
APPENDIX A - PROCESS PLANS AND SCHEDULES............................................ 25
APPENDIX B- STUDY PLAN CRITERIA.................................................................. 27
2

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Loup River Project No. 1256-029......................................... 5
3

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
1. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), under the authority of
the Federal Power Act (FPA), 2 may issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric projects. On October 16, 2008,
the Loup River Public Power District (Loup Power District), the current licensee, filed a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to seek a new license 3 and a Pre-application Document (PAD) for
the 53.46-megawatt (MW) Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256-
029). The Loup River Project is located on the Loup River and occupies lands and
waters in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska (figure 1). The Loup Power District is
using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and intends to file its application for a new
license for the project with the Commission on or before April 16, 2012.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 4 the Commission’s
regulations, and other applicable laws require that we independently evaluate the
environmental effects of licensing the project as proposed, as well as consider reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action. Based on our review of the PAD and preliminary
analysis of the issues, we propose to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that
describes and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific
and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives considered. This
scoping process will help us to identify the pertinent issues that we will need to analyze
in the EA.
2.0 SCOPING
This scoping document is intended to advise all participants about the proposed
scope of the EA and to seek additional information pertinent to this analysis. This
document contains a brief description of: (1) the scoping process and schedule for
developing the EA; (2) a description of the proposed action and alternatives; (3) a
preliminary identification of environmental issues and proposed studies; (4) a request for
comments and information; (5) a proposed EA outline; and (6) a preliminary list of
comprehensive plans that are applicable to the project.
2 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r) (2000).
3 The current license for the Loup River Project was issued on December 29, 1982
(21 FERC 62,535), for a term of 30 years with an effective date of December 1, 1982; the
license expires on April 15, 2012.
4 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-70(f) (2000).
4

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Figure 1. Location of the Loup River Project No. 1256-029 (Source: Loup Power
District, 2008, PAD).
5

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
2.1 Purposes of Scoping
Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities
associated with a proposed action. The process, according to NEPA, should be
conducted early in the planning stage of a project.
The purposes of the scoping process are as follows:
Invite participation of federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other interested persons to help
us identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the
proposed action
Determine the resource areas, depth of analysis, and significance of issues to
be addressed in the EA
Identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative impacts
in the project area
Identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be evaluated
in the EA
Solicit from participants available information on the resources at issue
Determine the resource areas and potential issues that do no require detailed
analysis during review of the project
2.2 Comments and Scoping Meetings and Site Visit
Between now and the Commission’s licensing decision, there will be three
opportunities for the public and resource agencies to comment on the scope and contents
of the EA:
During the public scoping process and study plan meetings, prior to
preparation of the EA, so Commission staff can receive written comments
regarding scope and content
In response to the Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice
After issuance of the EA, so that staff can receive written comments on the EA
Scoping Meetings
In addition to written comments solicited by this scoping document, Commission
staff will hold two public scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project. A daytime
meeting will focus on resource agency concerns and an evening meeting will focus on
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs,
and individuals to attend one or both of the meetings to assist staff in identifying
6

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and locations of the
meetings are listed below.
Daytime Scoping Meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: Holiday Inn Express
524 E. 23 rd Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
(402) 564-2566
Evening Scoping Meeting
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: same as daytime meeting
The scoping meetings will be recorded by a court reporter, and both written and
verbal statements will become part of the Commission’s public record for the project.
Individuals presenting statements at the meetings will be asked to clearly identify
themselves for the record. Interested parties who choose not to speak or who are unable
to attend any of the scoping meetings may provide written comments and information to
the Commission as described in section 5.0 of this scoping document. These meetings
will be posted on the Commission’s calendar, located on the internet at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx, along with other related
information.
Meeting participants are encouraged to come to the scoping meetings prepared to
discuss their issues and/or concerns as they pertain to relicensing the Loup River Project.
To prepare for the scoping meetings, we ask that participants review the PAD. A copy of
the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may
be viewed on the Commission’s website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link.
Enter the docket number, P-1256, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov or call toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
Following the scoping meetings and comment period, all issues raised will be
reviewed and decisions will be made about the level of analysis needed. If our
preliminary analysis shows that any issues presented in this scoping document have little
potential for causing significant effects, the issue(s) will be identified and the reasons for
not providing a more detailed analysis will be noted in the EA.
If we receive no substantive comments on this scoping document, then we will not
prepare a Scoping Document 2 (SD2). If we issue an SD2, it will be for informational
7

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
use only and will not require a response from any participant in the process. The EA will
address the major issues identified during the scoping process.
Site Visit
The Loup Power District and Commission staff will conduct a site visit of the key
project facilities on Monday, January 12, 2009, starting at 9:00 a.m. Those wishing to
participate should meet at 8:45 a.m. at:
Loup Power District Main Office
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68602
To appropriately accommodate persons interested in attending the site visit,
participants should contact Ron Ziola at (402) 564-3171 or e-mail rziola@loup.com by
January 5, 2009. The Loup Power District will provide transportation from their Main
Office to the project site and lunch for the site visit. Participants should dress
appropriately for outdoor, winter elements. In the event of inclement weather,
participants can check the Loup Power District’s Relicensing Hotline at (866) 869-2087
for updates on the site visit.
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with NEPA, our environmental analysis will consider, at a
minimum, the following alternatives: (1) Loup Power District’s proposed action; (2)
alternatives to the proposed action; and (3) no action.
3.1 Loup Power District’s Proposed Action
The Loup Power District is seeking a new license for the continued operation and
maintenance of the Loup River Project. The Commission will consider whether, and
under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project.
3.1.1 Description of Existing and Proposed Project Facilities
The headworks for the Loup River Project are located on the Loup River
approximately 34 miles upstream of the confluence of the Loup and Platt Rivers. Water
is diverted at the headworks into the Upper Power Canal to the Monroe Powerhouse.
From this powerhouse, water then flows into the Lower Power Canal to Lakes Babcock
and North (regulating reservoirs). From these lakes, flow is then diverted into the Intake
Canal to the Columbus Powerhouse. From this powerhouse, flow is then diverted back to
the Platte River via the Tailrace Canal.
8

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
The Loup River Project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an
elevation of 1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest
elevation of 1,576 feet; (2) eleven 24-foot-long and 5-foot-wide steel intake gates located
on the north bank of the river at elevation 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6-footwide
steel sluice gates at elevation 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river flowing
between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting water
into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot wide, and 16-foot-deep settling basin
with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end of the settling
basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-wide, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper Power Canal with
inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the Monroe Powerhouse
containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of
2.621 MW; (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-wide, and 19.5-foot-deep Lower Power Canal
with two siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to Lake Babcock; (8) a
concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower Power Canal enters
Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock, with storage capacity
of 11,000 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200-acre second
regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at an elevation
of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the two regulating
reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-wide, and 17.2- to 22.2-foot-deep intake
canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus Powerhouse; (13) a 60-footlong,
104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with trashracks; (14) three 20-footdiameter
and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the inlet structure with the
powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbinegenerating
units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5-mile, 42-foot-wide,
and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river; and (17) appurtenant
facilities.
3.1.2 Existing and Proposed Project Operation
From the headworks to the regulating reservoirs (Lakes Babcock and North), the
project is operated run-of-river. From the regulating reservoirs to the Columbus
Powerhouse, the project operates in an on-and-off mode called hydrocycling. Using the
storage capacity of the Lakes and the Nebraska Public Power District’s need for power on
a daily basis, power is generated for one, or sometime, two, periods of several hours
during the day.
The hydraulic capacity for the project is 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 6,930
acre-feet per day, so all flows above this must be bypassed into the Loup River.
Typically, during normal project operations, the long-term average amount of flow
diverted for the project is 1,610 cfs, or 3,180 acre-feet per day. During cold weather
operations, the entire 35-mile length of the project must be monitored for heavy slush,
frazil ice formation, ice floes, and ice jams. Any of these conditions may create an
emergency situation where flow diversion must be quickly adjusted or curtailed. During
9

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
high flows operations, typically during the spring freshet, the diversion of flows for the
project would reduce or curtail as needed. During the hot summer months when flows in
the Loup River are impacted by upstream irrigation withdrawals, the project operates by
releasing a minimum of 50 to 75 cfs in the Loup River bypass reach when conditions
warrant.
The project generates about 134,192 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy per year.
The Loup Power District proposes no changes to the operation of the project.
3.2 Staff's Modification of the Proposed Action
We will consider various alternatives, including environmental measures not
proposed by the Loup Power District. We will consider and assess all alternative
recommendations for operational or facility modifications, as well as protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures identified by us (the Commission staff), the
agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and the general public. To the extent that modifications
would reduce power production from the project, we will evaluate the costs of providing
an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled power generation.
3.3 No-action Alternative
Under no action, the Loup River Project would continue to operate as required by
the current project license (i.e., there would be no change to the existing environment).
No new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be
implemented. We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for
comparison with other alternatives.
3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
At present, we propose to eliminate the following alternatives from detailed and
comprehensive analyses in the EIS.
3.4.1 Federal Government Takeover
In accordance with § 16.14 of the Commission’s regulations, a federal department
or agency may file a recommendation that the United States exercise its right to take over
a hydroelectric power project with a license that is subject to sections 14 and 15 of the
FPA. 5 We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal
takeover of the project would require congressional approval. While that fact alone
would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is currently no evidence
5 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r).
10

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
showing that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has
suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate and no federal agency has expressed
interest in operating the project.
3.4.2 Nonpower License
A non-power license is a temporary license which the Commission would
terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency will assume
regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the nonpower
license. Hence, issuing a non-power license for the project would not provide a
long-term solution to the issues presented. To date, no party has sought a non-power
license, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to
produce power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license to be a reasonable
alternative to some form of new license with enhancement measures.
3.4.3 Project Decommissioning
Decommissioning of the projects could be accomplished with or without dam
removal. Either alternative would require denying the relicense applications and
surrender or termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions. There would
be significant costs involved with decommissioning the projects and/or removing any
project facilities. The projects provide a viable, safe, and clean renewable source of
power (about 134,192 MWh annually) to the region. With decommissioning, the projects
would no longer be authorized to generate power.
At this time, no party has suggested that project decommissioning would be
appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. Thus, we do not
consider project decommissioning a reasonable alternative to relicensing the projects with
appropriate environmental enhancement measures.
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES
4.1 Cumulative Effects
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1508.7), a cumulative effect is an impact on the
environment resulting from the incremental impacts 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, including
hydropower and other land and water development activities.
11

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
4.1.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected
We have reviewed the information provided in the PAD, and based on our review
and preliminary analysis, we have identified threatened and endangered species,
specifically the federally listed piping plover, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon as
resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed continued operation of the
Loup River Project.
Water depletions and diversions associated with evaporative losses, irrigation
diversions, human disturbances, channelization, encroaching vegetation, and
introductions of non-native species have led to degradation of habitat and reduced
populations of the above federally listed species in the lower Platte River. Depletions of
water (evaporative losses) and flow alterations associated with Loup River Project
operations may contribute to the adverse effects on these species.
4.1.2 Geographic Scope
Our geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by
the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action's effect on the resources, and
(2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the
Loup River basin and the lower Platte River basin. Because the proposed action would
affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.
At this time, we have tentatively identified the Loup River basin and the lower
Platte River to its confluence with the Missouri River as our geographic scope of analysis
for the federally listed species.
4.1.3 Temporal Scope
The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EA will include a
discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource. Based
on the potential term of a new license, the temporal scope will look 30-50 years into the
future, concentrating on the effect to the resources from reasonably foreseeable future
actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available
information for each resource.
We are seeking further information from federal and state resource agencies,
Indian tribes, and any other sources pertaining to past, present, and future actions and
their effects on the aforementioned resources (in the form of previous studies; present
plans; and future plans, goals, or forecasts) in the Loup River basin and the lower Platter
River, especially those areas where we will focus our analysis (see section 5 for
submitting information).
12

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
4.2 Resource Issues
In this section, we present the preliminary list of environmental issues and
concerns to be addressed in the EA. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but
is an initial listing of issues we have identified to date associated with relicensing the
project. We may modify or add to the list of issues based on comments received during
scoping. After scoping is completed, we will review this list and determine the
appropriate level of analysis needed to address each issue in the EA. For convenience,
the issues have been listed by resource area. Those issues identified by an asterisk (*)
will be analyzed for both cumulative and site-specific effects.
4.2.1 Geology and Soil Resources
Effects of continued project operation and maintenance and recreational
boating on shoreline erosion.
4.2.2 Aquatic Resources
Effects of the project diversions on water temperatures in the bypass reach
below Genoa, Nebraska.
Effects of the project diversions on bacteria levels in public water wells
adjacent to the bypass reach.
Effects of project operations on water quality (dissolved oxygen [DO], E. coli,
pH, and temperature) in the power canal and regulating reservoirs.
Effects of the project diversions and flow fluctuations on aquatic habitat
(including habitat connectivity and distribution) and aquatic species in the
Loup River below the project diversion structure and in the lower Platte
River.*
Effects of peaking (hydrocycling) operations on aquatic habitat and aquatic
species below tailrace and in the lower Platte River.*
Effects of intermittent flow releases from the tailrace canal into Lost Creek on
aquatic resources and aquatic habitat in Lost Creek.
Effects of the diversion weir on fish passage and aquatic species distribution
and life histories in the Loup River.
Effects of peaking (hydrocycling) operations on fish stranding and mortality in
the tailrace canal and the lower Platte River.
4.2.3 Terrestrial Resources
Effects of the project diversions and flow fluctuations on wetland and riparian
vegetation establishment and composition in the Loup River below the project
diversion structure and in the lower Platte River.
13

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Effects of project operation and maintenance activities and project-related
recreation have on wintering and nesting bald eagles, and migratory birds
(bank and cliff swallows), and small white lady’s slipper.
4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential effects of continued project operations (timing and amount of flow
diversion for generation, sediment management, and flow fluctuations from
peaking (hydrocycling) operations) on the federally listed pallid sturgeon in the
Loup River and lower Platte River.*
Effects of continued project operations (timing and amount of flow diversion
for generation, sediment management, and flow fluctuations from peaking
(hydrocycling) operations) and project-related recreation (use of off-road
vehicles) on the federally listed interior least tern and piping plover in the
bypass reach of the Loup River, the sand management areas, and in the lower
Platte River, specifically considering: (1) creation, longevity, and quality of
nesting habitat (sandbar formation, foundation, erosion); (2) availability of
food and the quality of foraging habitat; (3) species composition and
establishment of invasive species and woody vegetation; (4) susceptibility of
land-based predation and human disturbance on nesting terns and piping
plovers; and (5) nesting initiation and success (inundation effects).*
Effects of flow fluctuations from peaking (hydrocycling) operations on ice jam
formations in the lower Platte River including associated effects (ice scouring)
on nesting and foraging habitat for the least tern and piping plover.
Effects of continued project operations on the federally listed Western prairie
fringed orchid.
4.2.5 Recreation and Land Use
Effects of existing recreation facilities (fishing areas, hunting areas, camping
sites, boat launches, trails, playgrounds and swimming areas) and public access
within the project boundary on current and future (over the term of a new
license) recreation demand, including barrier-free access.
Effects of water quality on recreational fisheries, swimming, canoeing, and
boating.
Effects of the project diversion on the recreational use within the bypass reach
of the Loup River.
4.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetics
Effects of current project operation, maintenance, and recreation on adjacent
land uses.
14

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Effects of encroaching vegetation and bank stabilization measures along
shoreline areas on aesthetic resources within the project area.
4.2.7 Cultural Resources
Effects of continued project operations and maintenance on cultural, historic,
archeological, and traditional resources in the project area of potential effect
and their eligibility to be included in the National Register of Historic Places
4.2.8 Developmental Resources
The effects of the proposed project and alternatives, including any
recommended environmental measures on the power economic of the project.
4.3 Proposed Protection and Enhancement Measures and Potential Studies
Depending upon the findings of studies completed by Loup Power District and the
recommendations of the consulted entities, Loup Power District will consider, and may
propose certain other measures to enhance environmental resources affected by the
project as part of the proposed action. The following are Loup Power District’s initial
study proposals to fill information gaps to address the above issues and determine
appropriate environmental measures. Further studies may need to be added to this list
based on comments provided to the Commission from interested participants, including
Indian tribes. Loup Power District proposes the following studies:
Sedimentation - Determine if project operations materially affect sediment
transport within the Loup River bypass reach and the Platte River downstream
of the Tailrace Canal.
Hydrocycling - Determine the effect of Project operations on the sub-daily
hydrograph and stage of the Platte River downstream of the Tailrace Canal.
Water Temperature in the Platte River - Determine if Project operations
materially affect water temperature in the Lower Platte River.
Water Temperature in the Loup River bypass reach - Determine if Project
operations materially affect water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach.
Flow Depletion in the Loup River bypass reach - Determine the effect on
riverine habitat of reduced flows in the Loup River bypass reach resulting from
project operations.
Fish Sampling - Determine the species abundance, composition, and
distribution of sport fisheries in the Loup Power Canals.
Fish Passage - Determine if the diversion weir is a barrier to fish movement
upstream.
Recreational User Survey - Determine the public awareness, usage, and
15

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
demand of the project’s existing recreational facilities to determine if potential
improvements are needed.
Creel Survey - Determine the status of project fisheries and how the fisheries
are used by anglers.
Land Use Inventory - Determine specific land use of properties that abut the
project boundary to identify potential conflicts and/or opportunities.
Section 106 Compliance - Programmatic approach - Achieve NHPA section
106 compliance through a programmatic, ongoing relationship between the
Loup Power District and the Nebraska SHPO
Additional studies may be needed based on comments provided by the
Commission, federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, and interested
participants.
The Commission recommends the following measures at this time:
Aquatic and Fishery Resources
Continue to defer non-emergency maintenance procedures that require
substantial curtailment of power canal flows to prevent low DO levels in the
power canal.
Terrestrial Resources
Continue to implement the protocols for cessation of dredging activities in the
north sand management area during the least tern and piping plover nesting
season.
Recreation and Land Use
Recreational User Survey to determine public awareness, usage, and demand
of existing project recreational facilities, to determine if improvements are
needed.
Land use Inventory to determine specific land use of properties that are within
the project area, to identify potential conflicts and/or opportunities.
5.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES
We are asking federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and
other entities and individuals to forward to the Commission any information that will
assist us in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the site-specific and
cumulative effects of relicensing the Loup River Project. The types of requested
16

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
information that we seek include, but are not limited to:
Information, quantified data, or professional opinion that may contribute to
defining the geographic scope of the analysis, including the analysis of
cumulative effects, and identifying significant environmental issues
Identification of, and information from, any other environmental document or
similar study (previous, ongoing, or planned) relevant to the proposed licensing
of the project
Existing information and any data that would help to describe the past, present,
and future actions and the effects of the project and other developmental
activities on environmental and socioeconomic resources
Information that would help characterize the existing environmental conditions
and habitats
Identification of any federal, state, or local agency or Indian tribe resource
plans and future project proposals in the affected resource area, such as
proposals to construct or operate water treatment facilities, recreation areas,
water diversions, timber harvest activities, or fish management programs
Documentation of any cumulative effects associated with basin-wide activities,
including any such effects to resources that may be attributed to relicensing the
Loup River Project
Documentation showing why any resources should be excluded from further
consideration
The requested information and study requests should be submitted in writing to the
Commission no later than February 20, 2009. All filings must clearly identify the
following on the first page: Loup River Project (P-1256-029). Address all
communications to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
All filings sent to the Secretary of the Commission should contain an original and
eight copies. Failure to file an original and eight copies may result in appropriate staff
not receiving the benefit of your comments in a timely manner. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s website (http://www.ferc.gov) under the “efiling” link.
Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified
via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
17

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
In addition, there is a “Quick Comment” option available, which is an easy
method for interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The Quick-
Comment User Guide can be viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quickcomment-guide.pdf.
Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account;
however, you will be asked to provide a valid email address. All comments submitted
under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the
specified docket.
For assistance with electronic filing, quick comment, or e-mail notification
registration, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or
toll-free at 1-(866) 208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. Any questions concerning
scoping or preparation of the EA for this proposed action should be directed to Kim
Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or e-mail kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
6.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE
At this time, we do not anticipate the need for preparing a draft EA. We will
prepare a “single EA” for these projects, which will be sent to all persons and entities on
the Commission’s service and mailing lists for the Loup River Project. The EA will
include our recommendations for operating procedures, as well as environmental
protection and enhancement measures that should be part of any license issued by the
Commission. All recipients (and stakeholders) will then have 45 days to review the EA
and file written comments with the Commission. All comments on the EA, filed with the
Commission, will be considered in any Commission order rendering a decision on a new
license for the project. 6
Appendix A contains the Process Plan and schedule for pre-application activity.
Our preliminary schedule for processing the license application is as follows:
ACTION TARGET DATE
Scoping Meetings January 2009
License Applications Filed April 2012
Issue Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice July 2012
Deadline for Filing Comments, Recommendations and September 2012
Agency Terms and Conditions/Prescriptions
Single EA Issued May 2013
Deadline for Filing Modified Agency Recommendations July 2013
6
Should substantive comments requiring reanalysis be received on the EA, we
would consider preparing a subsequent EA.
18

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
SUMMARY
7.0 EA OUTLINE
The preliminary outline for the Loup River Project EA is as follows:
1.0 APPLICATION
2.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER
2.1 Purpose of Action
2.2 Need for Power
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Project Facilities and Operation
3.2 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
3.3 Additional Staff-recommended Measures
3.4 No-action
3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE
4.1 Scoping
4.2 Interventions
4.3 Comments on the Application
4.4 Compliance
4.4.1 Water Quality Certification
4.4.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescription
4.4.3 Endangered Species Act
4.4.4 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination
4.4.5 Section 106 Consultation
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5.1 General Description of the Loup River Basin
5.2 Cumulative Effects
5.2.1 Geographic Scope
5.2.2 Temporal Scope
5.3 Environmental Analysis
5.3.1 Geology and Soils
5.3.2 Water Resources
5.3.3 Fisheries and Aquatics
5.3.4 Terrestrial Resources
5.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
5.3.6 Recreational Resources
5.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources
5.3.8 Archeological and Historic Resources
5.4 No Action
6.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Power and Economic Benefits
19

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
6.2 Cost of Environmental Measures
6.3 Economic Comparison of the Alternatives
7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
10.0 FINDING OF [OR NO] SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
11.0 LITERATURE CITED
LIST OF PREPARES
APPENDICES (As Needed)
8.0 LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires us to consider whether or not, and under what
conditions, relicensing the project would be consistent with relevant comprehensive plans
on the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan List. Those plans currently listed on the
Commission’s Comprehensive Plan List which we consider to be relevant to this project
are listed below. We ask agencies to review this list and to inform us of any changes
(additions/subtractions) that are needed. If there are plans that should be added to the list,
agencies should file the plans according to 18 CFR 2.19.
National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. January 1982.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1980. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP). Lincoln, Nebraska. June 1980.
Platte River Report Management Joint Study. 1990. Biology workgroup final report.
Denver, Colorado. July 20, 1990. 131 pp. 4 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered resources in the Platte River
ecosystem: description, human influences and management options. Department of the
Interior, Denver, Colorado. July 20, 1990. 52 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Fish and wildlife resources of interest to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on the Platte River, Nebraska. Department of the Interior,
Grand Island, Nebraska. May 15, 1987. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Great Lake and Northern Great Plains Piping
Plover recovery plan. Department of the Interior, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
May 12, 1988.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American
waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May
20

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
1986.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
9.0 MAILING LIST
The list below is the Commission’s official mailing list for the Loup River Project.
If you want to receive future mailings for the Loup River Project and are not included in
the list below, please send your request by email to efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. All written and emailed requests to be added to
the mailing list must clearly identify the following on the first page: Loup River Project
No. 1256-029. You may use the same method if requesting removal from the mailing list
shown below.
Commission’s Mailing List for the Loup River Project
Environmental Protection Agency
901 N 5th St
Kansas City, NEBRASKA 66101-2907
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE - FEDERAL BLDG.
230 S Dearborn St Ste 3130
Chicago, NEBRASKA 60604-1695
Forest Service
PO Box 25127
Denver, NEBRASKA 80225-0127
Regional Hydropower Coordinator
FOREST SERVICE
125 S State St
Salt Lake City, NEBRASKA 84138
ROBERT E WHITE, GEN. MANAGER
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
PO Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
OWEN LLOYD, ENGR. MANAGER
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
PO Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
21

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Neal Suess, President/CEO
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
Prescott Brownell, Regional FERC Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, NEBRASKA 29412
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PO Box 94947
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-4947
Director
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 94676
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-4676
Director
NEBRASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PO Box 98922
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-8922
Frank Albrecht, Director
NEBRASKA GAME & PARKS COMMISSION
PO Box 30370
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68503-0370
ATTY. GENERAL
NEBRASKA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN.
STATE CAPITOL
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68509
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
1500 R St
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68508-1651
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
PO Box 36900
Billings, NEBRASKA 59107-6900
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FEDERAL BUILDING
203 W 2nd St
Grand Island, NEBRASKA 68801-5907
22

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director
PO Box 25486
Denver, NEBRASKA 80225-0486
Angela M Tornes
U.S. National Park Service
626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 100
Milwaukee, NEBRASKA 53202-4609
Nick Chevance, Environmental Coordinator
U.S. National Park Service
601 Riverfront Drive
Planning And Compliance Office
Omaha, NEBRASKA 68102
Honorable Chuck Hagel
United States Senate
Washington, NEBRASKA 20510
Honorable Ben Nelson
United States Senate
Washington, NEBRASKA 20510
US Army Corps of Engineers
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION
12565 W Center Road
Omaha, NEBRASKA 68144-3869
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE
115 4th Ave SE
Aberdeen, NEBRASKA 57401-4310
Bob Dach, Hydropower Program Manager
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
Natural Resources
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, NEBRASKA 97232
US Bureau of Land Management
PO Box 1828
Cheyenne, NEBRASKA 82003-1828
US Department of Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
1849 C St NW # ROOM 2353
Washington, DC 20240-0001
23

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Roger Trudell, Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribal Council
Route 2
Niobrara, NEBRASKA 68760
Trey Howe, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 2, White Eagle Drive
Ponca City, OKLAHOMA 74601
Amen Sheridan, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NEBRAKSA 68039
George Howell, President
Pawnee Tribal Business Council
P.O. Box 470
Pawnee, OKLAHOMA 74058
Robert F Stewart, Director
US Department of Interior
PO Box 25007
Denver, NEBRASKA 0007
24

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
APPENDIX A - PROCESS PLANS AND SCHEDULES
LOUP RIVER ILP PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Responsible Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date
FERC
Regulation
Loup Power District File NOI/PAD with FERC 10/16/08 5.5, 5.6
FERC Tribal Meeting 5.7
FERC
Notice of Commencement of
Proceeding and SD1 issued
12/12/08 5.8
FERC
Scoping and Site Visit (approximate
date)
1/12/09 5.8(b)(viii)
All stakeholders
NOI/PAD/SD1 comments and Study
Requests
2/10/09 5.9
FERC Issue SD2 if needed 3/27/09 5.1
Loup Power District File Proposed Study Plan 3/27/09 5.11(a)
All stakeholders Study Plan Meeting 4/27/09 5.11(e)
All stakeholders Study Plan Comments Due 6/26/09 5.12
Loup Power District File Revised Study Plan 7/27/09 5.13(a)
All stakeholders Revised Study Plan Comments Due 8/11/09 5.13(b)
FERC Director’s Study Plan Determination 8/26/09 5.13(c)
USFS, USFWS,
NDEQ
Any Study Disputes Due 1
9/15/09 5.14(a)
Study D. Panel Third Panel Member Selected 10/5/09 5.14(d)(3)
Study D. Panel Panel Convenes 10/5/09 5.14(d)
Loup Power District
Applicant Comments on Study
Dispute Due
10/9/09 5.14(i)
Study D. Panel Technical Conference Held 10/15/09 5.14(j)
Study D. Panel Panel Finding Issued 11/4/09 5.14(k)
FERC
Director’s Study Dispute
Determination
11/24/09 5.14(l)
Loup Power District First Study Season
Sum/Fall
09
5.15(a)
Loup Power District Initial Study Report 8/26/10 5.15(c)(1)
All stakeholders Initial Study Report Meeting 9/10/10 5.15(c)(2)
Loup Power District
Initial Study Report Meeting
summary
9/24/10 5.15(c)(3)
All stakeholders
Study Disputes/Request to Modify
Study Plan Due
10/25/10 5.15(c)(4)
All stakeholders
Responses to Disputes/Study
Requests
11/24/10 5.15(c)(5)
FERC Directors Study Plan Determination 12/27/10 5.15(c)(6)
25

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Responsible Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date
FERC
Regulation
Loup Power District Second Study Season
Spr/Sum
10
5.15(a)
Loup Power District Updated Study Report Due 8/26/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting 9/9/11 5.15(f)
Loup Power District
Updated Study Report Meeting
Summary
9/23/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders
Study Disputes/Request to Modify
Study Plan Due
10/24/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders
Responses to Disputes/Study
Requests
11/23/11 5.15(f)
FERC Directors Study Plan Determination 12/23/11 5.15(f)
Loup Power District Preliminary Licensing Proposal File 8/15/11 5.16(a)
All stakeholders
Comments on Preliminary Licensing
Proposal
11/14/11 5.16(e)
Loup Power District License Application Filed 4/16/12 5.17
1
Shaded milestones are unnecessary if there are no study disputes.
26

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
APPENDIX B- STUDY PLAN CRITERIA [18 CFR Section 5.9(b)]
Any information or study request must contain the following:
1. Describe of the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to
be obtained;
2. If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or
Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
3. If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
4. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and
the need for additional information;
5. Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform
the development of license requirements;
6. Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data
collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a
schedule including appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with
generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate,
considers relevant tribal values and knowledge; and
7. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any
proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information
needs.
27

20081212-3009 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Document Content(s)
P-1256-029Letter.DOC..................................................1-29

Subject: Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Work Group Study Plans
Client: Loup Power District
Project: FERC Relicensing
Meeting Date: 12/19/08
Notes by: Ellen Fitzsimmons
Attendees:
Mary Brown, Stern and Plover Conservation Partnership
Jim Frear, Loup Power District
Randy Thoreson, National Parks Service
Dave Tunink, NE Game and Parks
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Quinn Damgaard, HDR
Ellen Fitzsimmons, HDR
Matt Pillard, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Topics Discussed:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Project No:
Meeting Location: conference call
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098
Meeting Notes
Update on Relicensing Process
• FERC has scheduled the scoping visit for Jan. 12 th and 13 th .
• On the 12 th , Loup will offer a tour of the Project from 9 AM to 3 PM. Those interested in attending
should contact Ron Ziola.
• The public scoping meeting will be held in Columbus on the 12 th at 7 PM.
• The agency scoping meeting will be held in Columbus on the 13 th at 9 AM. (The public may
attend, but this meeting will be structured for agency input.)
• Study requests are due to FERC on February 20 th .
Creel Survey
• It is important to conduct the creel survey May through September. FERC will not issue official
approval of study plans until Sept 2009. The study must be completed by 2011 at the latest.
• There is some risk in continuing with the study prior to final FERC approval, but due to seasonal
constraints and the relative importance of the creel study, it may be worth conducting the survey
in 2009.
• Study timing should be discussed with FERC during the scoping meetings.
• The creel survey and recreation survey are closely related. The timing of the studies should be
coordinated to maximize efficiency.
Land Use Inventory
• Land ownership is not as important as land use.
• Land uses can be identified with aerial photography and then field checked.
• Land uses surrounding public access points to the Project Boundary will be inventoried and
assessed to identify any access issues, conflicts or opportunities.
• The Project Boundary scale used in Figure 4-1 in the PAD can be used for the inventory.
• Conventional land use designations will be used except where additional detail is needed to
explain a land use conflict or opportunity. More specific land uses inside the Project Boundary
will also be identified in detail when a single designation of “Project Boundary” is not adequate to
describe the type of use or potential conflict or opportunity.
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402-399-1111
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 2

[Subject]
[Date]
Recreation Survey
• Is a recreation survey adequate at this point in the relicensing process or is an entire recreation
plan needed?
• Loup believes they have provided recreation facilities to meet the perceived demand. The survey
will allow Loup to test this assumption. Loup is planning to complete a Form 80 recreation
inventory in 2009.
• It is likely that FERC will require a complete recreation plan be completed as part of the
relicensing. In order to complete a recreation plan, findings from other studies will also be
needed (creel, environmental, etc.). Carrying out a recreation plan without other study findings
may be premature. The survey findings will be used to identify key topics for a future recreation
plan.
• Scoping discussions with FERC should address these questions of recreation survey topics and
timing.
• Other important issues to be covered in the recreation survey are: type of use (bird watching,
hiking, camping, boating, etc.), frequency of use, most commonly used facilities, distance
traveled, improvement, key locations, and condition of facilities.
Aesthetics
• In general, the Project is considered attractive and well maintained. It creates a natural greenway
through Nance and Platte Counties.
• The few identified issues are: cut banks along canal, rip-rap, vandalism, littering.
• Aesthetic issues may emerge as part of the historic designation.
• During the scoping meetings FERC should be asked which study would be the appropriate
vehicle for approaching aesthetics issues.
Other Items
• The corrected Section 6 was sent to Randy and Mary.
• A potential conflict between Off-Road Vehicle Park and the birds in the North Sand Management
Area.
• Cut bank use at borrow sites will be evaluated to avoid disrupting nesting swallows.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-4979
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:02 AM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Relicensing ( Notice of Scoping Information
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Barb Friskopp; David Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jean Angell; Joe Cothern; John Bender;
John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli; Randy Thoreson; Robert Harms; Robert Puschendorf; Stacy Stupka,Burda;
pcclerk@megavision.com
Cc: Neal Suess; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing , Notice of Scoping Information
Good Morning.
We recently checked in with FERC regarding timeframes for the next steps in the process and I wanted to make sure that
a few important dates were passed your way.
FERC has indicated they will issue their scoping document by December 15. According to the ILP process, comments on
the PAD and study requests are due 60 days after the scoping document is issued. In addition, FERC is planning to have
scoping meetings on January 12 and 13 (in Columbus, location unknown at this time). Preliminarily, a site visit will be held
on the 12th with a public scoping meeting in the evening. The agency scoping meeting is planned for the morning of the
13th.
We are passing this information on as an FYI ( the District is not responsible for setting the date for the scoping document
release nor for the coordination of the scoping meetings (dates, schedule, content) but we wanted to give you a heads up
since the schedule moves very quickly and we have the holidays squeezed in the middle. This information is what we
have received from FERC at this time and is subject to change. Once FERC finalizes their schedule, they should notify
you. We will also post the information on the web site as soon as we get it.
Thanks again and hope to see you in January.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114(4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

o Applications and subsequent filings related to the District’s Power
Lease (application numbers 2287 & 2573).
There are two additional pieces of information that you requested for which the District does not
have information:
What happens if the FERC license is not granted? This is something that FERC
would have to answer. The District is not aware of a situation where this has
happened before, but FERC would decide what happens to the project.
What is the break-even point for the amount of water needed to produce power,
below which it would not be economical? The District is compensated by
upstream water users that have water rights and agreements with the District.
If water users have no agreement with the District, the DNR would shut off their
rights when the District makes a call on the Loup River. This is what should be
currently happening, given that the District put a call on the Loup River in 1955
and renewed the call in 2008.
As you can see, there is a lot of information and it may be difficult to track how everything fits
together. Due to the complexity of this information and the likelihood that you and others in the
Department would have additional questions regarding the materials provided, I would like to
suggest a meeting with the District, our consultants, HDR, and representatives from the DNR,
specifically you and Brain Dunnegan, as well as any others you may identify to talk about the
District’s water rights, what we have done in the past and our project operation, as well as to
discuss which of the Department’s questions will be addressed during FERC relicensing and
which ones will be addressed separately.
Let me know some dates that work for you and we will try to arrange a meeting. If it needs to be
in Lincoln we can accommodate that, but it might be easier to meet in Columbus, since we have
all our files here and could provide additional information as needed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (402-564-3171 ext. 268) or Lisa
Richardson of HDR (402-926-7026) at your convenience.
Regards,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
c: Lisa Richardson, HDR
Ron Ziola
s:\Relicensing\DNR-angell_letter-Dec08

~0081211-0208 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/10/2008
Kim Nguyen
From:
Sent:
To"
Cc:
Ichoughton@hotmail.com on behalf of Loule Houghton [houghton(~innebagotribe.com]
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:46 AM
Kim Nguyen
JBH; Ken
Subject: Hydroelectric Project
Page 1 o
Kim,
In review of your correspondence of October 23rd this year; the Tribal Council has determined that the
Winnebago Tribe will not participate In the Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing Process. The Winnebag~
Tribe does not have property located In Nance and Platte Counties.
Thank you for contacting us on this matter.
Louis C. Houghton, Jr., Secretary
Winnebago Tribal Council
You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. Learn more about Windows Live
12/9/2008
• ' 7.~

Selzle, Lydia
From: Bob Puschendorf [bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Pillard, Matt; Barb Friskopp; David Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander;
Jean Angell; Joe Cothern; John Bender; John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli; Randy Thoreson;
Robert Harms; Stacy Stupka0Burda; pcclerk@megavision.com
Cc: Neal Suess; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George
Subject: Re: Loup Power District Relicensing 0 Notice of Scoping Information
I want to inform you and the other coordinators that Stacy Stupka0Burda has left our office. I will be the contact for this
project in the interim and we will pursue a person to take her place.
00000 Original Message 00000
From: Pillard, Matt
To: Barb Friskopp ; David Jundt ; Frank Albrecht ; Henry Santin ; Jason Alexander ; Jean Angell ; Joe Cothern ; John
Bender ; John Shadle ; Joseph Mangiamelli ; Randy Thoreson ; Robert Harms ; Robert Puschendorf ; Stacy Stupka0
Burda ; pcclerk@megavision.com
Cc: Neal Suess ; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha) ; Waldow, George
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:22 AM
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing 0 Notice of Scoping Information
Good Morning.
We recently checked in with FERC regarding timeframes for the next steps in the process and I wanted to make sure that
a few important dates were passed your way.
FERC has indicated they will issue their scoping document by December 15. According to the ILP process, comments on
the PAD and study requests are due 60 days after the scoping document is issued. In addition, FERC is planning to
have scoping meetings on January 12 and 13 (in Columbus, location unknown at this time). Preliminarily, a site visit will
be held on the 12th with a public scoping meeting in the evening. The agency scoping meeting is planned for the morning
of the 13th.
We are passing this information on as an FYI 0 the District is not responsible for setting the date for the scoping
document release nor for the coordination of the scoping meetings (dates, schedule, content) but we wanted to give you
a heads up since the schedule moves very quickly and we have the holidays squeezed in the middle. This information is
what we have received from FERC at this time and is subject to change. Once FERC finalizes their schedule,
they should notify you. We will also post the information on the web site as soon as we get it.
Thanks again and hope to see you in January.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811404098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

20081212-4007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Loup River Public Power District Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETINGS AND SITE VISITS
(December 12, 2008)
a. Type of Filings: Notice of Intent to File License Applications for New
Licenses; Pre-Application Documents; Commencement of Licensing
Proceedings.
b. Project No.: 1256-029
c. Dated Filed: October 16, 2008
d. Submitted By: Loup River Public Power District (Loup Power District)
e. Name of Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256
f. Location: The Loup River Hydroelectric Project is located on the Loup River
in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska.
g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission’s Regulations
h. Potential Applicant Contact: Neal Suess, President/CEO, Loup Power District,
P.O. Box 988, 2404 15 th Street, Columbus, Nebraska 68602 (866) 869-2087.
i. FERC Contact: Kim Nguyen (202) 502-6015 or via e-mail at
kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
j. Loup Power District filed Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the Loup
River Project, including proposed process plan and schedule, with the
Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission’s regulations.
k. Copies of the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) are available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission’s website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter
the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

20081212-4007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Project No. 1256-029 2
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in paragraph h.
Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via e-mail
of new filings and issuances related to these or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
l. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on SD1. All comments on SD1
should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments
on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status,
and all communications to Commission staff related to the merits of the
potential applications (original and eight copies) must be filed with the
Commission at the following address: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. All filings with
the Commission relevant to the Loup River Hydroelectric Project must include
on the first page, the project name, (Loup River Project) and number (P-1256-
029), and bear the heading, as appropriate, “Comments on Scoping Document
1.” Any individual or entity interested in commenting on SD1 must do so by
February 10, 2009.
Comments on SD1 and other permissible forms of communications with the
Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the “e-filing” link.
m. At this time, Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment for the project, in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.

20081212-4007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Project No. 1256-029 3
Scoping Meetings
We will hold two scoping meetings for each project at the times and places
noted below. The daytime meetings will focus on resource agency, Indian
tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening
meetings are primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all
interested individuals, organizations, Indian tribes, and agencies to attend one
or all of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs,
as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the
environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as
follows:
Daytime Scoping Meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: Holiday Inn Express
524 E. 23 rd Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
(402) 564-2566
Evening Scoping Meeting
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: same as daytime meeting
SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental
document, has been mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission’s
mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link.
Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph k. Depending on
the extent of comments received, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may or may
not be issued.
Site Visits
The Loup Power District and Commission staff will conduct a site visit of the
key project facilities on Monday, January 12, 2009, starting at 9:00 a.m. Those
wishing to participate should meet at 8:45 a.m. at:
Loup Power District Main Office
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68602

20081212-4007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Project No. 1256-029 4
To appropriately accommodate persons interested in attending the site visit,
participants should contact Ron Ziola at (402) 564-3171 or e-mail
rziola@loup.com by January 5, 2009. The Loup Power District will provide
transportation from their Main Office to the project site and lunch for the site
visit. Participants should dress appropriately for outdoor, winter elements. In
the event of inclement weather, participants can check the Loup Power
District’s Relicensing Hotline at (866) 869-2087 for updates on the site visit.
Scoping Meeting Objectives
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) present the proposed list of issues to be
addressed in the EA; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
agency management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information
and identify preliminary information and study needs;
(4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission’s
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal,
state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss requests
by any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency
for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or
concerns. Please review the Pre-Application Document in preparation for the
scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item k of this notice.
Scoping Meeting Procedures
The scoping meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become part
of the formal Commission records for the projects.
n. A notice of intent to file license application, filing PAD, solicitation of comments
on the PAD and SD1, solicitation of study requests, and commencement of
proceedings will be issued by December 19, 2008, setting the date for filing
comments on the PAD and study requests in accordance with Commission
regulations and the proposed process plan.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

20081212-4007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/12/2008
Document Content(s)
P-1256-029Notice.DOC..................................................1-4

Postcard Mailer
Actual will be printed half page on light blue cardstock.
Loup Relicensing - January 09 Scoping Materials
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Announces Public Meeting
On December 12, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
issued its first Scoping Document for the relicensing of the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project. This document identifies issues to be
addressed in the environmental analysis as well as possible protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures to be considered.
To further identify issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with the relicensing, FERC
will hold a public scoping meeting in January:
Public Scoping Meeting
January 12, 2009, 7:00 PM
Holiday Inn Express
524 E. 23 rd Street, Columbus, NE
An additional Project tour and scoping meeting are scheduled for resource agency
participants. To request more information, please call (866) 869-2087. The public is
welcome to attend any or all events.
FERC’s Scoping Document and additional information on the Loup River Hydroelectric
Project can be found on the project website:
www.loup.com/relicense
HDR Page 1 10/27/2011

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:24 AM
To: 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'bczoning@frontiernet.net';
'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov'; 'bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net';
'caalms@megavision.com'; 'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com';
'cothern.joe@epa.gov'; 'danno@nohva.com'; 'dave_carlson@fws.gov';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'dtunink@ngpc.state.ne.us'; 'frank.albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jangell@dnr.ne.gov'; 'jeff.schuckman@ngpc.ne.gov';
'jmangi@columbusne.us'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'monroe@megavision.com';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'robert_harms@fws.gov';
'santin@hamilton.net'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov'; 'Meghan Sittler'; 'Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov'
Cc: 'nsuess@loup.com'; 'rziola@loup.com'; 'jfrear@loup.com'; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); White,
Stephanie; Waldow, George; Sigler, Bill; Grennan, Dennis E.; Engelbert, Pat
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing 9 Project Information
Good Morning.
As you know, the relicensing effort for the Loup Power District reached a milestone with the submittal of the Pre9
Application Document to FERC on October 16, 2008. If you haven't received notice of availability of this document, it is
available for viewing or download on the District's website at http://www.loup.com/relicense.
On December 12, 2008 FERC issued its Notice of Commencement for relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
and its first Scoping Document, which describes the Project and identifies the proposed action (to continue to operate the
Project as it operates today), alternatives to the proposed action, and protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures
that will be considered during relicensing. Additionally, the Scoping Document identifies the issues to be evaluated under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during relicensing. This document is also available on the District's
webpage.
If you would like to register with FERC for notification of availability of relicensing documents, please go to
http://www.ferc.gov/docs9filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e9mail of new filings and issuances related to this
project.
There are a few other milestones the District wanted all of you to be aware of:
First, FERC is hosting scoping meetings in January:
Public Scoping Meeting Agency Scoping Meeting
January 12, 2009 January 13, 2009
7:00 PM 9:00 AM
Holiday Inn Express Holiday Inn Express
524 E. 23rd Street 524 E. 23rd Street
Columbus, NE Columbus, NE
A site visit is also being offered on Monday, January 12, at 9:00 a.m. The District will provide transportation for the site
visit, so please RSVP to Ron Ziola by January 5 at (402) 56493171 or e9mail rziola@loup.com if you plan to attend.
Please plan to arrive at the District's office at 2404 15th Street by 8:45 a.m. Participants should dress for winter weather
and in the event of inclement weather, participants can check the District's Hotline at (866) 86992087 for updates on the
site visit.
Finally, comments and study requests are due to FERC no later than February 20, 2009. Information necessary for this
submittal can be found in FERC's Scoping Document (page 17). FERC has a "quick comment" option available, which is
an easy method to submit text only comments. The Quick9Comment User Guide can be viewed at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs9filing/efiling/quick9comment9guide.pdf.
Thanks for your continued interest in this project and please contact me at any time should you have additional questions
or concerns.
1

December 24, 2008
Lisa M. Richardson
HDR
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33 rd St. / po. Box 30370 / Lincoln , N E 68503-0370
Phone: 402-471 -064 1/ Fax: 402-471 -5528 / www.OutdoorNebraska.org
Re: request for information for piping plover and least tern population trends in Nebraska
Dear Ms. Richardson,
Please make reference to your letter dated December 2, 2008 requesting information about for
piping plover and interior least tern current population trends in Nebraska. It is our
understanding that this information will be used during the relicensing process of Loup Public
Power.
Your questions requested detail and analysis beyond current Commission resources. To assist
you as much as possible, reports and references were provided where information may be
obtained that will allow HDR to conduct the necessary analysis and data accumulation necessary
to fully answer your questions.
1. Regarding trends as seen in the census data from 1991 , 1996,2001 and 2006.
The Commission has not conducted significant further analysis beyond the data available
in these reports. The data provided in these reports should allow analysis to address your
question.
For question regarding release of 2006 International Piping Plover Census report, please
contact the national coordinator,
Sue Haig or Elise Elliott-Smith (541-750-7390 or eelliott-smith@usgs.gov
USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC)
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
Ph: 541 -750-7482
Fax: 541 -758-8806
susan haig@usgs.gov
2. Trends at a national level.
The Commission has not conducted significant further analysis beyond the data available
in these reports. The data provided in these reports should allow analysis to address your
question.
Printed on recycled paper with SQJ ink.

For question regarding release of2006 International Piping Plover Census report, please
contact the national coordinator,
Sue Haig or Elise Elliott-Smith (541-750-7390 or eelliott-smith@usgs.gov
USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC)
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
Ph: 541-750-7482
Fax: 541-758-8806
susan haig@usgs.gov
3. General protocol and methods for surveys.
The protocols we follow during our surveys are as follow:
• All potential nesting habitat (dry, non- or sparsely vegetated expanses of sand
relatively near water) is surveyed for the presence of birds.
• To ensure accuracy, a minimum of2 observers are used to survey off-river sites
and river habitat.
• Off-river sites are surveyed from a vehicle and/or by foot.
• River habitat is surveyed from an airboat
• Standardized data formats are used to ensure accuracy
• Data are evaluated and entered into computerized databases soon after the surveys
are completed.
• Additional information in available in reports that are available to you.
The Commission does provide a survey protocol for agencies and consultants that have a
particular project that may permanently or temporarily disrupt an area with least terns and
piping plovers. This survey protocol has limitations as it typically only describes a
method of detection, not necessarily for data collection and analysis over the short or
long term. This survey protocol is enclosed.
There is standardization among data collection and between sand and gravel pits between
geographic areas of Nebraska, but individual site characteristics and circumstances often
require adjustments in protocols to ensure data is collected that is comparable. IfHDR is
designing a survey protocol, we recommend that you schedule time to meet with the
Commission biologists and US Fish and Wildlife Service to design surveys that will
ensure that your objectives are obtained.
4. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission data responsibilities
The Nebraska Heritage Program is housed within the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission. The Nebraska Natural Heritage Program tracks occurrences of "at-risk"
species and native plant communities within the state. The mission of the Nebraska
Natural Heritage Program is to: (1) collect information on the status, distribution and
ecology of ecological communities and rare, threatened and endangered species in
Nebraska, (2) analyze and manage this information using standardized methods, (3)
2

disseminate this information to a wide array of conservation decision makers, and (4) use
this information to actively promote the conservation of Nebraska's natural heritage. The
Commission maintains databases to insure that survey information is maintained in a
standardized manner consistent with other states. This information is only "summarized"
or "analyzed" as needed for specific projects. Data is maintained in raw format. Our
database does contain information collected by workers outside the Commission. The
Heritage database is among the most complete and comprehensive available, but it does not
contain all records for all at-risk species.
For additional records, we recommend that you contact Stephen K. Wilson
(Stephen_K_ Wilson@nps.gov;402 6675524) National Park Service, for inquiries
pertaining to the Niobrara system. Also, we do not maintain recent data from the Missouri
River. Please contact Greg Pavelka (Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil) with the U.S.
States Army Corps of Engineers for inquiries pertaining to that system.
5. Tern and plover trends regarding suitability and availability of habitat
The most recent trend information for select areas of Nebraska is available in the 2008
Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover Monitoring, Research, Management and Outreach for
the lower Platte River.
6. Greatest overall effect on piping plover and least tern populations in Nebraska
There are a myriad of factors that influence piping plover and least tern populations in
Nebraska and individual locations may have different factors that have the greatest
impact. I would refer you to the
• 2008 Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover Monitoring, Research, Management and
Outreach for the lower Platte River,
• References such as the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC),
2005. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Platte River. The National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 247 pp.
• See enclosed reference list
7. Conservation efforts
The Commission is the state agency responsible for stewardship of the state's wildlife
resources. Moreover, the Commission administers the Nebraska Nongame and
Endangered Species Conservation Act, the statute that authorizes that a species is
designated as "threatened" or "endangered". The Commission is directly involved in
planning, monitoring, research, education, outreach, law enforcement and management
activities and the coordination and/or advising of planning, monitoring, research, law
enforcement and management activities with other agencies and/or entities.
8. The final question has several very good inquiries related to hypotheses and the effectiveness
of conservation actions. We suggest that you utilize available literature. There are hypotheses
developed by the Commission for some areas such as the lower Platte River, and other large
scale conservation efforts are underway in the Central Platte. In the Central Platte River,
3

January 5, 2009
Mr. Robert Puschendorf
State Historic Preservation Office
1500 R Street
P.O. Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554
Re: Area of Potential Effects for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256; Docket No. 1256-029
Dear Mr. Puschendorf:
In October 2008 Loup Power District (the District) initiated the process to relicense the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). On
December 12, 2008 the Commission issued Scoping Document 1 (SD1) and requested your
agency’s participation in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping process and to
provide initial comments and suggestions regarding preliminary issues and alternatives. On
December 16, 2008, under a Notice of Intent to File License Application for this project, the
Commission initiated Section 106 consultation with your office and designated Loup Power
District as the Commission’s non-federal representative for informal consultation. Copies of these
communications are attached for reference and we encourage your office to provide the
Commission with comments by the February 10, 2009 deadline.
As outlined in these documents, Loup Power District has been tasked by the Commission to
develop study plans to better understand the environmental issues and concerns to be addressed
through the NEPA process, including issues related to cultural resources, namely:
Effects of continued project operations and maintenance on cultural, historic,
archaeological, and traditional resources in the project area of potential effect and their
eligibility to be included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (from Section
4.2.7 of attached).
As recommended by the Commission, the District proposes to establish the project area of
potential effects (APE) as required under 36 CFR 800.4 and defined in 36 CFR 800.16 as the area
shown in the PAD document (See attached from the PAD: Figure 4-1, 14 sheets) and labeled as the
Approximate Project Boundary. The area within that boundary encompasses the entirety of the
District’s holdings that are subject to the relicensing effort described in the PAD. Depending on
other possible project-related effects, or based on the results of any of the studies associated with
this relicensing, the APE would be adjusted accordingly.

At this time we are seeking concurrence from your office regarding the proposed area of potential
effects (APE).
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 if you have any questions about this
request. We look forward to working with your office throughout the relicensing effort and
beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc: Kim Nguyen, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Frank Winchell, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Scoping Document 1, Letter from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to multiple
parties, December 12, 2008
(2) Notice of Commencement, Letter from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to multiple
parties, December 16, 2008
(3) Figure 4-1, Loup River Hydroelectric Project Pre-Application Document (PAD)

Project: Loup Public Power FERC Relicense
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098
Telephone Record
Project No: 000000000037139
Date: 01/09/09 Subject: Hotline Message
Call to: Loup Hotline Phone Number
Call from: Ryan Bjerke
Phone No: ext. 6964
Phone No: (402) 476-2729
Discussion, Agreement and/or Action:
I’m with the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance out of Lincoln. My email address is rbjerke@lpsnrd.org.
Phone (402) 399-1098
Fax (402) 399-1111
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1

Project: Loup Public Power FERC Relicense
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098
Telephone Record
Project No: 000000000037139
Date: 01/12/09 Subject: Hotline Message
Call to: Loup Hotline Phone Number
Call from: Mary Brown
Phone No: ext. 6961
Phone No: (402) 310-0355
Discussion, Agreement and/or Action:
I’m calling to make sure the site visit this morning is still on. It’s starting to snow a bit here in Lincoln and I’m
leaving for Columbus now to join the trip, but if you guys have cancelled it I would appreciate if you would let
me know as soon as you can before I get too much farther down the road. Thank you
Phone (402) 399-1098
Fax (402) 399-1111
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1

20090116-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/16/2009 10:12:51 AM
Regarding the Loup River Project. There has been talk of closing the riding area to the motorcycle and
atv riders do to disturbing of wildlife. I dont see a problem with wildlife habitats, the reason is because
since the farm crisis of the 1980's there have been thousands of acres of land that have not been farmed
and these areas have caused wildlife numbers to skyrocket. Our auto body shops are full of cars that
have hit dear and animals on the hyways.
So I doubt that headworks park in genoa is going to cause all of the wild life to die out. Considering the
amount of set aside farmland acers we have in the area?? Wildlife has plenty of places to reproduce in
Nebraska do to the government set aside programs. Therefore I would conclude that closing the
headworks park would be a "drop in the bucket" as far as wildlife conservation.
Many of my customers and friends and family attend the atv events anualy, people are safe, courtious
and pick up after themselves when they leave the area. It is a great place for family and friends to gather
and enjoy the weekend, and all of us spend money in genoa for food supply, and fuel, so the genoa
businesses have never complained. We dont interfear with the operations of the electric plant and I've
never heard any complaints from them.
Thank you for letting our voices be heard to keep the park open to Atv riding. Gregg Schuetz

20090116-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/16/2009 10:12:51 AM
Document Content(s)
1781.TXT..............................................................1-1

0090202-0336 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/28/2009
ORIGINAL
January 16, 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E. Room IA
Washington, DC 20426
RE: Loup River Project No. 1256-029
Dear Kimbefly:
.L'J
it:: THE
"'/r
:.~,(Y
lP q JAil 2 8 I
I am writing this letter as a member of the Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association in
an effort to help the Loup Power District continue its licensing for the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project and the associated recreation area.
My family uses the recreation area and A'IV area several times during the year. We very
much enjoy the camping, swimming, fishing and ATV areas. We have met many
families from all over Nebraska who also enjoy the area.
While camping and ATV riding, we pick up trash we find on the trails and take it hack to
the garbage collection area. Some of this trash is washed up out of the river, so we help
maintain the habitat for wildlife in this manner.
We ate licensed foster parents and have utilized the ATV riding as a good consequence
for the boys we have fostered. They come from broken homes and have alcohol or drug
related issues. The A'IV riding has proven to be very therapeutic to them and shows
them they can have fun without the use of chemicals. It also helps them to bond with our
family and feel loved, that we would give them that opportunity.
My grown children join us for camping and ATV riding and we find it is a very family
oriented sport. If the Headworks OHV Park near Genoa were to close, we would not
have this opportunity because the next nearest ATV park is not within an achievable
distance range for us.
While in Genoa, we support the businesses of the region by purchasing parts, gasoline,
food etc. I believe the town would suffer from loss of revenue if the park were closed.
Please take my letter into consideration in your decision process.
Thank You

~0090227-0071 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/24/2009
Loup River Project No. 1256-029 January, 16, 2009
To Whom It Nay Concern:
ORIGINAL
I am writing to maintain our freedom to ride at the Headworks OHV Park near
Genoa, Nebraska. My son and I have been going there for several years and tt is one of
the few places where we can actually go to explore nature while maintaining our safety.
Almost every trip, we are able to see Bald Eagles soaring over the lake and river, or
eagles and hawks swooping down trying to catch rodents and fish. We really enjoy
camping out and swimming in the lake that is available to us also. When I heard that
our father and son riding area might be taken away, I was greatly saddened. Please
reconsider. There are not too many places as beautiful or and as dose to Council
Bluffs as this is.
Twice a year, NOHVA puts on the Jamboree, an event that has trail rides,
sanctioned races, ATV pulls (like a tractor pull), and many other events. At these two
times a year, NOHVA is able to raise funds to help Improve the areas to ride and
maintain the park area. Hundreds of people arrive for the weekend to see old friends
and to make new ones. People from all over Iowa, Nebraska and even other bordering
states come to Jamboree events. These people end up buying gas, food and other
provisions while there, which in bum helps local economy. Dirt Bike and ATV
enthusiasts need a place to get together and have some good clean fun. Please don't
take this away!
I sincerely hope and pray that you will continue to allow all of us to utilize this
area to have good clean fun!
.'2
, .J -~
r,o
: ".~
j
• °

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:09 PM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Project map
From: Bender, John [mailto:john.bender@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Ron Ziola
Subject: Project map
Is there a way we could obtain the GIS layers Loup used to prepare the project map (Fig. 3-3). The "Local Drainage
Basins" and "Culvert Inlet Locations" would be of great help in writing the bacteria TMDLs for Babcock and the lower 1/4
mile of the canal. Having the siphon locations would be nice too.
Thanks.
Please note my email address has changed to john.bender@nebraska.gov
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Phone: 402/471-4201
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:07 PM
To: john.bender@nebraska.gov
Cc: rziola@loup.com; Frame, Gail
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Attachments: LPD_Stream_Drainage_Basins_GIS_Shapefiles.zip; LPD_PAD_Figure 363.081016.pdf
John,
Per your request to Ron Ziola, the attached .zip file contains shape files for the data from Figure 363 (also attached) of the
Pre6Application Document for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256). Specifically, the following
data is included:
1. Canal_Local_Drainage_Basins 6 Source: USGS 7.5' Topographic Maps
2. Canal_Siphons 6 Source: Field Maps and Field Visits
3. Loup_Drainage_Inlets 6 Source: Loup Staff Field Visits
All the files are projected in Nebraska State Plane Feet NAD 83 coordinate system.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (402) 92667026.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 6811464049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
1

20090120-5001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/17/2009 6:05:17 PM
To whom this may concern,
My name is Ryan Shea and I would like to show my concern about the Loup River Project No. 1256-029.
From what I understand ATV and dirt bike riding may be put to an end by 2014. I would just like to say
how myself, my friends and annually 1400+ people, at least two weekends of the year, enjoy riding at the
Headworks near Genoa. My friends and I have been attending the Jamborees, that are held at the
Headworks, for the past 6 years. We have had many memories there, which we still talk about every time
we get together.
We are from the Omaha area and drive about 2 hours to get there and it has always been worth it. Most
years its our only vacation that we take and believe me we hear about it from our girlfriends. We love
being outdoors and really appreciate the free camping area that is provided at the Jamboree. Since this is
the only area in the eastern part of Nebraska that is public to ride, I think taking it away would be a
mistake. So taking this away would be tough for many people in this area because I know that we
probably would not go to Halsey Forest to ride since its so far away. Each Jamboree has to have a strong
economic boost the town of Genoa, so by taking the land away from us would also be taking away from
there added revenue each year.
In closing I would just like to thank you for your time and thank you for allowing me and the many others
the opportunity to voice our opinions. Once again I would really like to see the Headworks stay open to
the public. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Ryan Shea

20090120-5001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/17/2009 6:05:17 PM
Document Content(s)
1788.TXT..............................................................1-1

20090120-5085 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/19/2009 2:04:09 PM
.
“Loup River Project No. 1256-029” January 16, 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing this letter today to express to you how important it is for our entire family to
have the opportunity to participate in ATV trips to the Headworks OHV Park.
We have two teenagers that truly enjoy and appreciate the beauty of the park and the
nature that they experience down every trail and path.
Our family enjoys the togetherness and the new friends that we have made.
The solitude of Nature and the peacefulness is a natural stress reliever.
It is difficult to find family activities that keep your kids away from DRUGS and Gangs.
Every individual that we pass on the trails truly respect and appreciate the nature that
exists in the park
Around every corner in this park is an exciting path to burn off some if the energy that
builds of during the work week.
We would like to see more RV hook ups so we could stay longer, The area that has the
hook ups fills so fast that those of us that can’t leave work until 5 on Fridays have to
dry camp which isn’t as nice.
We love the Jamborees that are help at the park. They are great weekends to meet
new people, see all the activities that you can do with an ATV and spend time in
nature.
When we arrive at the town of Genoa, we fill up our RV with 100 gallons of gasoline,
ATV’s need another 30 gallons of gasoline, ice and snacks, and one of the nights we
visit one of the town’s restaurants.
Our trip from Plattsmouth Nebraska to Genoa is about 200 miles one way. We stay for
three days. Our family alone spends an estimated $500 each weekend that we visit.
Our family members strive to keep the park clean, plastic litter bags are carried in our
ATV compartments and we make every effort to pick up any trash that we may find
during our rides and pick our campground up before we leave for home.
Our son had never had many friends until he got involved with the NOHVA club. He is
more outgoing, has better self esteem and has built friendships with some of the kids
that he has met. Now he has friends that live by us that come over to ride atvs with
him and has invited his friends to go to the next jamboree.
The last thing I would like you to know, We have a place that is by our home that is
about 20 miles from our home. We prefer to ride at the Headworks park, we feel safe,
we feel that the individuals that we ride along with care and respect for the park as
much as we do. Everyone looks out for each other. If I have a problem, I feel
comfortable to stop any person on the trail and ask for help. Interestingly enough,
they are glad to stop and HELP.
Please continue to allow us to ride at the Headworks Park!
Sincerely,
The Bradbury Family,
Mark, Sheryl, Elizabeth, Mark Jr., Lisa Cook
Mark and Sheryl Bradbury
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20090120-5085 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/19/2009 2:04:09 PM
Document Content(s)
Genoa Headworks letter.DOC............................................1-1

~0090129-0199 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/26/2009
Klmbedy D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
Subject: Loup River Project No. 1256-029
Dear Commissioners:
/:;y
January 19, 2009
We understand that the Loup River Hydroelectric Project w~lt be reviewed for relicenslng In 2014.
As you prepare for this process, we kindly submit for your co~lderattoc that many safe and
conscientious AW dders truly enjoy the recreational benefits of the area. With reUcensing, we
hope to be afforded conUnued access to the area well Into the future.
At this Ume, my wife and I would tlke to take a few moments of your time to express how much
we aomc, clate the ability to utilize HEADWORKS, the OHV park which is part of the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project. We are avid ATV riders, and HEADWORKS is one of a very, very, few areas
in NEBRASKA where we can gather wtth our friends and family to enjoy this activity. In addition,
HEADWORKS is the oetv public area with AW and dirt-bike traits In the eastern half of Nebraska.
F~ease note, my wife and I are members of the Nebraska Off H~hway Vehicle AssoctaUon
(NOHVA); as members we donate time and money to maintain, Improve, and protect the dding
areas In our State. NOHVA is aLso Invested In the education of safe, and environmentally-fdendly,
ATV and dirt-bike riders. We are very aware that we share the HEADWORKS area with other
Interest groups and with the area's native plants and wildlife. As we wish to preserve the present
befleflts, we ride with care.
We are very concerned about the future of HEADWORKS. HEADWORKS is the I~Jblic riding area we
most often travel to; we have utilized the park countless times over the past nine yea~. We very
much enjoy riding our ATVs in the park, but also enjoy the camping, fishing, and scenic benefits of
the area also.
HEADWORKS is approximately two hours from our home, and is a fun and economical weekend
destination. Several Urnes a year, we plan tong weekends with our friends and family. These
8roup ouUngs can be 12-20+ people strong and create many tasting memories of fun, fettow~tp,
and outdoor recreaUon. By no means are we the only famlly/~mJp uUl~dng the area; when the
area is open for use, U~=re are always day-use and overn~ht guests making use of the park.
ATV/dirt-blke use/Interest in the park brings tourism dollars to Genoa, NE and the surrounding
towns.
In closing, we would like to thank the FERC for this opportunity to express our views and opinions
regarding the HEADWORK5 area/Loup River Hydroelectric Project. It is very Important to us that
the area remain open upon reticensing, and that the OHV park continue to be operated tn a similar
fashion.
Jne end Charyt Smisek

~0090205-0092 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2009
ORIGINAL
January 19, 2009
Loup River Project No. 1256029
I am writing this letter in hope of keeping the public ATV and Dirt bike riding area open. have
been a member of the Nebraska Off Hishway Vehicle Association since 1993 and have been riding at the
head works park since then. The riding area is a very nice area and the club I belong to (NOHVA) has
worked very hard on maintaining it, improving it, and keeping it open.
I have tausht all three of my children to ride there. My father, age 70 and father-n-law age 65
also enjoy riding there with us and their 8randchlldren. It is the closest leRal place for us to ride since we
live in town, and we don't mind the 88 mile drive from our house to do so. We try to go there as much
as pos.dble and spend a 8ood deal of money in the small towns between our home and the rldin8 area
on 8as and food.
I would like to see some improvements to the area such as, modern bath rooms and electrical
hookups for campers in the riding area but that is not as important as just hein E able to have a nice
place to ride with my family and friends. All my children want to do is go and have a good time and it
keeps them out of trouble. They talk about ricllng to everyone and anyone who will listen; I know they
will take their children to this riding area when they grow up and start a family of their own. Please
don't take this away from them.
I would like to thank the FERC for the opportunity to express my views and concerns for the
area. Thank you.
Sincerely,
William T. Larson
C,J
4-, C~
(~,
?. •
~T C,rl
C~
.[: ,..
1.7

~0090213-0081 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/11/2009
ORI61NA[_
January 20, 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room IA
Washington, D.C. 20426
Loup River Project No. 1256-029
.L.J
7 ' i : C -'i,.--
7aq[[B I I P
The intent of this letter is to let you know that my
family would very much llke to continue to ride our ATV's
at Headworks OHV Park. We would like to continue to ride
in the current time frame or possibly more, if allowed.
The most important reason for my letter is to state
that this area provides outdoor recreation for my family,
including my grandsons.
At this time, this is the only recreation area for
ATV's in Eastern Nebraska. I believe it is very important
to involve my grandsons in the outdoors. They have the
opportunity to be outside and enjoy nature and the fresh
air in the Headworks recreation area. This would be a far
better benefit to my grandsons than playing computer games
on home computers.
Businesses in the surrounding community greatly benefit
from Headworks recreation. Last summer we had the opportunity
to spend the whole weekend, which benefited a local motel and
restaurants. This, in turn, is a win, win situation for the
local economy.
Please consider the importance of Headworks OHV park to
my family and many others in Nebraska. To lose this area
would be a loss to local businesses in the surrounding
communities also.
I wish to thank the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
for providing me the opportunity to state my concerns on the
upcoming new operating license.
Randall Nelson
y

t0090202-0320 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/28/2009
From: John S. Brooke
To: Kimberty D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Loup River Project No. 1256-029
21 January2009
Ms. Bose,
'.:.: . C:- ";';tE
' :_T,'~.RY
• * I R
' i/ L
7ooq JAN 28 P Is,, 3~
I write this letter today to voice my opinion IN FAVOR of re-licensing the Loup
Power District Hydroelectric Project officially known as: Loup River Project No.
1256-029.
In writing this letter in favor of the re-licensing, my ultimate goal Is to ensure the
continued recreational opportunities available to All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and
Dirt Bike riders at the Headworks Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park located on
Loup Power District property, along the Loup Canal. I also must state that I am
quite proud and thankful to live in a Public Power state. I urge you to approve the
re-licensing of Loup River Project No. 1256-029 on behalf of the nearly 50,000
Nebraskans who live in the Loup Power District service area. By approving the
re-licensing, all Nebraskans will benefit by not having to subsidize the Loup
Power District customer's electrical needs currently filled by the Loup Power
Districts Hydroelectric Plants. The Loup Power Districts customer's currently
enjoy the many benefits of clean, cheap and reliable hydroelectric power and
have for over 70 years.
As mentioned earlier, my ultimate goal for re-licensing the Loup Power District is
to ensure the continued recreational opportunities available to All Terrain Vehicle
(ATV) and Dirt Bike riders at the Headworks Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park.
The Headworks OHV Park is located along the Loup Canal on Loup Power
District property. Headworks OHV Park is owned by Loup Power District and
managed by same, in cooperation with the Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle
Association (NOHVA). The park is maintained by the Loup Power District and
volunteers from NOHVA.
The OHV park is open everyday of the year (free of charge to the public) except
for scheduled shutdowns twice a year when the Loup Power District dredges the
settling basin/canal and pumps the water and dredged material into the OHV
park creating an unsafe condition in the park. The terrain the Headworks OHV

~0090202-0320 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/28/2009
Park rests on, was created by the dredging/pumping of the settling basin/canal
over the past 70 years.
I am a dues paying and volunteering member of NOHVA. The volunteers of
NOHVA provide numerous hours of labor keeping the Headworks OHV Park
clean, safe and operational. Twice a year NOHVA (with the help of their
volunteers) hosts an OHV Jamboree weekend at the park. These weekend
events attract over 1,500 ATV and Dirt Bike enthusiasts and families to the park
for the weekend. Many of the attendees travel over 50 miles (one way) to attend
the event. The influx of this many people into the rural area (where the park is
located) has a positive economic impact on the small communities located
nearby. I personally travel over 80 miles (one way) to attend these events. I
spend money in the nearby towns for lodging, meals, supplies & fuel. The same
is true when I recreate at the OHV on non-Jamboree days.
I feel that the Loup Power District has done a tremendous service for the Off
Highway Vehicle users of Nebraska by creating and maintaining the Headworks
OHV Park on their property. Headworks OHV Park is the only public ATV & Dirt
Bike trail system in the Eastern half of Nebraska.
In closing, I again urge you and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
approve the re-licensing of the Loup Power District Hydroelectric Project officially
known as: Loup River Project No. 1256-029.
With the approval of the re-licensing of the Hydroelectric Project and the
continued operation of the Headworks Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park, many of
my friends and myseff can look forward to years of enjoyable recreation, right
here in the great state of Nebraska.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my request.
Respectfully submitted,
,,~~John ~S. Brooke

~0090212-0045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/30/2009
I- ~g.-- 0:~
%~x~ ~',~'~, ~'.
,~,.. ~,-,. ~,~ .~ ~ ~-~ .,~,,
~,~sk,~-'k: ~- ~ ~ ,~ ~.
~c ~..~ %~.. ~,~ f~-~-~

?0090213-0083 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/11/2009
January 25, 2009
Loup River Project No. 1256-029
The Simons Family
Lincoln, NE.
Dear Sirs,
• :-r.;
77,?,¥
ZO0~ ~'I:'B I I P 3: I'l
:.. ......... ,. ,,. 2,13,,
I would like to thank you all for the opportunity for all to voice our thoughts and
concerns, about any happenings at the Headworks OHVA park in Genoa, NE.
My self and three children have found very few places to ride as fun as Headworks park.
The trails, sand bars, water, sand dunes all are very easy for experienced and amateur
riders of all ages.
Any time we have gone to Headworks we take and or meet 7 - 10 atvs and motorcycles.
We have met many people from other areas of the state that enjoy the same sport and
outdoors activities as us. Making it that much more fun.
Living in Lincoln we have to find places to ride that are within a few hours drive to be
able for us to enjoy a good day of riding. There are a few other places inside the state and
out of state that one has to pay, or be registered with the state in order to ride in there
facilities. We have never seen as many people in these other riding places as we have at
Headworks Park.
All activities that are held by NOHVA are manned by volunteers and members that pay
dues in order to help maintain any activities, clean up and maintenance of trails. These
are paid by people who enjoy the offroad sports that facilities like Headworks offer.
The offroad sport of ATVing and motorcycling would suffer severely with the closing
of the only public riding area in the eastern half of Nebraska. There are families from all
walks of life that use this facility for fun and to just get away from the hectic city life.
Again, I would like to thank you and all involved with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, for taking concerns and comments on this issue. I want to reassure you
how the public, business, and families will suffer with the closing of Headworks park.
Barry Simons

_~0090128-0249 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/26/2009
Kimberly D. Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St. N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
Dear Ms. Bose:
: . .: . r
• ..:-~ ~ ....... ._. ....
~ ,: ~.~--.i;i~ !..-;~, !~_ , .- '~ ~ '.! ,- . "
:-:..~. r - . ,
....... • .ii0--. :i -
-. : ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 ~; ~ i ._~ , " ~:. o '~ .... ~ U ....
~_7 :.;, ~.~ _, 7-- : ! ~_--- ' ' :~. i "- ~ "
The licensing for Loup River Project No. 1256-029 is now being considered by your
office. Please allow me a short moment of your time to explain why I think this is a vital
opportunity for the State of Nebraska and our recreation future. With the economy being
what it is, many folks are wanting to stay closer to home when vacationing or looking for
a weekend outing. The Loup River Headworks Park is one area where this can be done.
With there being a very limited amount of these places available in Nebraska, I ask that
this Project be allowed to continue to provide both electricity and recreation to our state. I
have spent countless days and nights at the park and enjoy its solitude & scenery
immensely. I also believe we have minimal impact on the area. There is no charge for
the services there (fishing, camping, hiking, ATVing, etc) and the area is kept clean and
orderly by Loup Power and The Nebraska Off Highway Association, which I am a proud
member of. As you know, the area is closed for 2- 6 week periods each year. The
dredging that occurs there changes the topography of the area slightly and makes for a
more enjoyable reopening of the park when completed each May and October. Also, this
is the only free public access area of its kind in the state! And our local economy benefits
greatly from this park being open as food and fuel are purchased nearby in Genoa just
east of the park. People often travel from neighboring states to visit our area and provide
much needed monies to help us keep the park recreation level what it is- First Class! In
closing, I would like to thank you for letting me state my points for the park. Have a nice
day!
Respectfully yours,
Timothy ~art
Off Road Enthusiast
Member of NOHVA

~0090213-0084 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/11/2009
January 26, 2009 "] !\
Loup River Project No. 1256-029
i t... • { ,¢~ " ...
" ~.~,P,y
lgO~ FEB I I D 3: I "/
I am writing this letter to say how much my friends, family, and myself en'}oy ¢~m. E'm8 :~..
and riding ATV's at the Headwork's riding area near Genoa Nebraska. It is one of v~';) '~ ":~
few public places we have leR to ride ATV's here in Nebraska. I could go on and on
about countless things that I love about the Headwork's riding area but in this letter l just
want to express how much I would hate to see this privilege taken away from us.
Thank you for listening,
Jason.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:14 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: FW: 2006 Nebr. report
Attachments: PIPL_NE.doc
Melissa:
, Joel
See attached.
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Elise Elliott Smith [mailto:eelliott smith@usgs.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:50 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Subject: Re: 2006 Nebr. report
1

t0090223-0039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2009
January 26, 2009
LOUP RIVER HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC No. 1256-029
Re: re-licensing of Loup River Hydro-Electric Project
To whom it may concern:
< "', ~ L:..',:c~?,~
I am writing this letter to let you know how beneFmial the Loup River
Hydro-Electric Project is to the four county area that it serves and to the State of
Nebraska.
I have lived by the Loup River canal for 50 years. I have enjoyed fishing in
the canal & camping by their lakes. The Loup River Hydro-Electric Project also
serves the community very well by providing inexpensive amen electric power to
the surrounding four county area. Loup Public Power District also supplies water
for irrigation. Irrigation is very important to the farmers that live by the Loup River
canal. I think it is vital that the Loup Public Power Disb'ict gets their license
renewed without any changes in the way they operate their facilities. I also think
the irrigators should be able to keep irrigating their farmland from the Loup canal.
Sincerely, ..~
Francis Shanle

The 2006 International Piping
Plover Breeding Census in
Nebraska (off-Missouri River)
Joel Jorgensen
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
P.O. Box 30370
Lincoln, NE 68503
402-471-5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
Long-term drought conditions greatly affected
the 2006 International Piping Plover Census in
Nebraska both by limiting habitat and access at
certain sites and by concentrating and increasing
birds elsewhere. The 2006 survey was
conducted in a similar fashion to earlier IPPCs.
All surveys were conducted 5-19 June.
Survey participants included personnel from the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Public
Power District, Central Nebraska Public Power
and Irrigation District, the Tern and Plover
Conservation Partnership, National Park
Service, and several volunteers. A total of 423
kilometers of river were surveyed by airboat,
132 kilometers by canoe. A total of 61 sand and
gravel pits and one large reservoir were
surveyed. Two other large reservoirs (Lake
Minatare and Calamus Reservoir) were
monitored but not formally surveyed because it
was determined that both lacked suitable
habitat.
In 2006, 718 adult Piping Plovers were counted
in Nebraska. This total reverses the trend of
decreases recorded during previous International
Piping Plover Censuses and represents increases
of 133% from 2001 (308 adults), 96% from
1996 (366), and 80% (398) from 1991. The
overall increase is likely both the result of an
actual increase of birds at certain sites and better
coverage at others.
The most notable increase in birds was at Lake
McConaughy, Keith County, where 358 adults
were counted. Lake McConaughy has
consistently been at record or near record low
water levels for the past several years as the
result of long-term drought, exposing large
expanses of suitable habitat. The reservoir,
whose water is primarily used for irrigation, was
markedly lower in 2006 than during the
previous three IPPCs when 60, 69, and 73 adults
were recorded in 1991, 1996, and 2001
respectively. It was not until 1978 that Piping
Plover were even recorded at this western
Nebraska reservoir and the previous high count
was 143 in 1993 (Sharpe et al. 2001).
Plover numbers were also higher on the
Niobrara River. The 204 total tallied this year is
notably higher than previous years when 79,
107, and 87 were recorded in 1991, 1996, and
2001, respectively. Away from the Niobrara, on
the Platte, Elkhorn, and Loup Rivers, only 27
adults were counted. Furthermore, 78% (562)
of all plovers recorded in Nebraska during the
2006 Census were recorded on the Niobrara
River and at Lake McConaughy.
Low water levels have positively affected
Piping Plover numbers at Lake McConaughy,
but the impacts of low water flows on bird
numbers on the central Platte River have been
negative. In fact, this year’s scheduled airboat
surveys for almost all of the central Platte were
cancelled because of a lack of water. Only 2
adults were tallied on the 29 km stretch that was
surveyed. Previous Censuses yielded totals of
46 in 1991, 25 in 1996, and 4 in 2001. Numbers
recorded at sand and gravel pits that are
associated with and often located adjacent to
rivers, such as the Platte, appear to have
remained relatively stable with 129 adults
recorded this year.
In Nebraska, it appears that the vast majority of
suitable Piping Plover habitat was surveyed. A

number of areas that possess very limited or
marginal habitat were not included in the
survey. These sites have generally been
surveyed in the past and it has been determined
that there is a low likelihood of birds occupying
them. They include some isolated sandpits and
minor river systems, such as the Little Blue
River. It is believed that inclusion of these areas
would have had minimal impact on totals
recorded during the 2006 Census.
While it serves as a useful baseline, it is difficult
to know whether the survey results represent the
actual number of birds in Nebraska. While this
year’s effort to determine detection probability
is a positive step forward, there is perhaps the
need to standardize other portions of the survey
so that long-term inferences can be made from
the data. This may be difficult, given
Nebraska’s varied habitat types and the various
methods (e.g. airboat, foot, canoe) used to
survey areas. Standardization of some aspects
would be useful, however, particularly when
there are personnel changes.
All survey participants deserve a great deal of
credit for the effort and time that they put into
the 2006 survey. Participants include: Kari
Andresen, Diane Beachly, Mark Czaplewski,
Kathy DeLara, Leslie Farnham, Kristy Hajny,
Robert Harms, Michael Hart, Renae Held, Jim
Jenniges, Joel Jorgensen, Justin King, Elizabeth
Murray, Sean O’Brien, Dan Roberts, Soren
Rundquist, Matt Schwartz, Robin Smith, Dugan
Smith, Martha Tacha, Chris Thody, Gareth
Welke, Erica Wilson, Gabriel Wilson, and
Stephen Wilson.
Comparison of Census Numbers 1
1991 1996 2001 2006
Total
398 375 308 893 2
Adults
1 Missouri River data are included in all totals.
2 This is the total from a single survey at each site; if more than
one survey was conducted, we count only results from the first
survey during the census window.
Detectability Study
Sites Included
First
Count
Second
Count
Central Platte River, Sandy
Channels/Johnson Pit
6 6
Central Platte (RM 230-235) 2 2
Lower Platte River, Cullom
(New Pit)
0 0
Lower Platte River,
Plattsmouth Pit 1
0 0
Lower Platte River, Arps
East Pit
0 0
Lower Platte River, Arps
West Pit
0 0
Lower Platte River,
Lux S&G 1
6 6
Lower Platte River, Western
Fremont Pit 1
6 5
Lower Platte River, Ginger
Cove Pit (Valley #11) 1 3 3
Lower Platte River, Mallard
Pit at Valley 1
1 2
Central Platte River, Central
S&G, Grand Island
0 0
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Dam to Vans E
North Platte River, Lake
127 107
McConaughy, Cedar View to
W end
North Platte River, Lake
0 0
McConaughy, S side Vans to
W end
3 33
Elkhorn River, Central S&G
Norfolk #92
2 2
Elkhorn River, Pilger S&G,
Norfolk Pit
0 0
Central Platte River, Grigsby
Pit
7 4
Lower Platte River, Dolezal
Pit East
0 0
1 Replicate survey was conducted first (outside of Census
window) so second survey was used to calculate official state
total.

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
Boyd/Holt
Boyd/Holt/
Knox
Boyd/Holt/
Knox
Brown/Rock/
Keya Paha
Brown/Rock/
Keya Paha
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
Niobrara River, Spencer Dam to
Redbird Bridge
Niobrara River, Pischelville to
3 6/12 10 21 8.8 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Highway 12
Niobrara River, Redbird
5 6/14 26 54 12.5 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes n.r.
Bridge to Pischelville Bridge 4 6/15 10 23 9.3 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Niobrara River, Norden Dam to
Hwy 137 Bridge 1 6/13 5 11 49.8 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Niobrara River, Spencer Dam to
hwy 137 2 6/13 32 95 64.4 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Broadfoot's
North of Minden - (Newark) 54 6/14 0 4 2.7 VII I 1 9 12
Central Platte River, Broadfoot's
West (Kearney South) 53 6/14 0 11 3.9 VII I 1 10 13
VII I 1 9
12 No Yes Yes p
VII I 1 9
12 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Elm Creek-
Paulson/Bluehole Sandpit 50 6/14 5 7 2.0 VII I 2 9 VII I 2 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Mid-
Nebraska Aggregate-Minden 55 6/14 0 0 0.3 VII I 1 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Sandy
Channels/Johnson Pit 51 6/15 3 6 1.0 VII I 2 VII I 2 No Yes Yes p
Buffalo
Central Platte River, T&F Elm
Creek 49 6/15 0 0 0.4 VII I 2 10 No No No p
Buffalo Wells Pit 52 6/15 0 0 0.8 No No No p
Buffalo/
Dawson
Butler
Cass
Cass/Sarpy
Central Platte River (RM 229-
247) 48 6/9 0 2 29.0 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Lower Platte River, Bellwood
Central S&G 67 6/12 0 4 n.r. VII A 9 VII A 9 No No No p
Lower Platte River, Cullom (New
Pit) 85 6/19 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Lower Platte River, Plattsmouth
Pit 86 6/19 0 0 1.0 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Cass/Sarpy
Lower Platte River, Plattsmouth
to Salt Creek Mouth 87 6/12 0 2 41.9 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Colfax Lower Platte River, Arps East Pit 70 6/12 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
(Continued)
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
Colfax Lower Platte River, Arps Pit 69 6/12 0 10 n.r. VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Colfax Lower Platte River, Arps West Pit 68 6/12 0 0 n.r. VII A 10 Yes Yes Yes p
Cuming Elkhorn River, West Point (Stalp) 10 6/5 0 9 n.r. VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Dawson
Dawson
Dawson
Dawson
Dawson
Central Platte River, Lexington
Sandpit 45 6/15 2 7 0.5 VII A I 2 0 VII I 2 No No Yes p
Central Platte River, Overton S&G,
Overton Pit 47 6/15 0 0 0.5 VII I 2 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Paulsen Pit -
Lexington 46 6/15 1 1 0.5 VII I 2 10 VII I 2 Yes Yes Yes p
Upper Platte River, Kirkpatrick's
Sanpit 41 6/8 0 0 3.2 VIII E 1 Yes Yes Yes p
Upper Platte River, Koch's South -
Cozad Pit 43 6/7 3 6 n.r. VIII E 1 Yes Yes Yes p
Dawson
Upper Platte River, Overton S&G,
Lexington Pit 44 6/15 0 0 0.8 VIII Yes Yes Yes p
Dawson Upper Platte River, Potter Pond 40 6/8 0 0 n.r. VIII E 2 Yes Yes Yes p
Dawson
Deuel
Upper Platte River, Willow Island
Sandpitt 42 6/7 0 0 n.r. VIII E 1 No Yes No p
South Platte River, Big Springs
Gravel pit 20 6/3 0 0 n.r. n.r. No Yes Yes p
Dodge
Elkhorn River, Lyman Richey
Fremont Pit (#47) 11 6/13 0 1 0.2 VII A 9 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Dodge Lower Platte River, Lux S&G 71 6/12 1 6 0.2 VII A 9 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Dodge
Douglas
Douglas
Lower Platte River, Western
Fremont Pit 74 6/1 0 6 0.8 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Lower Platte River, All Spec
(Venice Pit) 78 6/14 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No No Yes p
Lower Platte River, Ginger Cove Pit
(Valley #11) 75 6/14 0 3 0.9 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
Douglas
Douglas
Garden
Hall
Hall
Hall
Hall
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
(Continued)
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
Lower Platte River, Lyman Richie
S&G (Waterloo #40 Pit) 77 6/14 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Lower Platte River, Mallard Pit at
Valley 76 6/14 1 2 0.6 VII A 9 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
North Platte River, Lewellen Gravel
Pit 19 6/14 0 0 0.8 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Central S&G,
Grand Island 61 6/14 0 0 1.4 VII I 1 9 No No Yes p
Central Platte River, Hooker Bros.
S&G, Grand Island (South) 59 6/12 0 0 1.4 VII A I 1 9 No Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Hooker Bros.
S&G, Grand Island (West) 58 6/12 0 0 1.0 VII A I 1 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Central Platte River, Island S&G,
Grand Island 60 6/12 0 0 0.8 VII A I 1 9 No Yes Yes p
Hall
Central Platte River, Lilley's in
Prosser 56 6/14 0 0 1.0 VIII I 1 No No Yes p
Hall Deweese- Alda 57 6/14 0 0 0.8 VII I 1 No No No p
Hamilton Central Platte River, Mowitz Pit 65 6/8 0 6 n.r. VII A 9 VII A 9 No No No p
Howard North Loup River, St. Paul Pit 14 6/5 0 10 0.8 VII A 9 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Howard
Howard/
North Loup River, Tri-County S&G 13 6/5 0 0 0.5 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Nance/ Loup River, Loup Diversion to
Merrick North Loup Mouth
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Arthur Bay to Sandy
15 6/6 3 6 54.8 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Keith Beach 21 6/12 10 32 6.4 VI A 1 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
Keith
Keith
Keith
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Cedar Vue to W end 22 6/5 0 0 6.4 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Dam to Arthur Bay 23 6/5 30 63 6.4 VI A 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Dam to Vans E 24 6/5 48 127 16.1 VI A VI A Yes Yes Yes p

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
Keith
Keith
Keith
Keith
Keith
Keith
Keith
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
(Continued)
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Lemoyne to Spring
Park
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, S Dam to Ogallala
25 6/13 27 52 8.0 VI A 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
Beach 26 6/7 0 0 11.3 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, S side Vans to W end
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Sandy Beach to
27 6/7 16 33 5.3 VI A 1 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
Lemoyne
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Spring Park to Cedar
28 6/12 13 31 6.4 VI A 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
Vue
North Platte River, Lake
McConaughy, Spring Park to
29 6/13 13 25 8.0 VI A 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
Sandpit 30 6/13 7 25 5.6 VI A 12 VI A Yes Yes Yes p
South Platte River, Anderson S&G,
Paxton Pit 35 6/8 0 0 0.3 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Keith
South Platte River, Anderson S&G,
Roscoe Pit 34 6/8 0 0 0.3 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Keith South Platte River, Brule Sand Pit 32 6/3 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Keith South Platte River, Brule to Roscoe 31 6/3 0 0 24.1 III F 5 No Yes Yes p
Keith
Lincoln
Lincoln
South Platte River, Ogallala Ready
Mix/Paulson's S&G 33 6/6 0 0 0.3 VII A 9 No No Yes p
South Platte River, Sutherland Pit
(Anderson S&G) 37 6/8 0 0 0.4 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
South Platte River, Whitney S&G,
Sutherland Pit 36 6/8 0 0 0.4 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Lincoln
Upper Platte River, Lexington
Bridge to N. Platte Diversion 38 6/8 1 2 1.6 III E 2 Yes Yes Yes s(p)
Lincoln Upper Platte River, Maxwell Pit 39 6/8 0 0 0.2 VIII E 2 Yes Yes Yes p

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
Madison
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
(Continued)
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
Elkhorn River, Central S&G
Norfolk #92 6 6/5 1 2 1.4 VII A 9 VII A 9 No Yes Yes p
Madison
Elkhorn River, Pilger S&G,
Norfolk Pit 7 6/5 0 0 1.2 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Merrick Central Platte River, Clarks Pit 66 6/12 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No No No p
Merrick Central Platte River, Grigsby Pit 63 6/6 0 7 0.6 VII A 9 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Merrick
Central Platte River, Hamilton
County S&G 64 6/6 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No No No p
Merrick
Central Platte River, Hooker
Bros. S&G, Grand Island (East) 62 6/12 0 0 1.6 VII I 1 9 No No No p
Nance Loup River, Loup Diversion 16 6/6 0 4 1.6 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Platte
Loup River, Central S&G,
Genoa Pit 17 6/6 0 9 1.6 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes s/p
Platte Loup River, Stempek Pit 18 6/6 0 0 0.1 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Sarpy
Lower Platte River, Linoma
Beach Pit 82 6/14 0 0 n.r. VII A 9 No No No p
Sarpy
Lower Platte River, Western
S&G at Louisville Pit 84 6/13 0 4 0.4 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Sarpy/Saunders/ Lower Platte River, Elkhorn
Dodge/Colflax/ River Mouth to Loup River
Douglas/Platte Mouth 81 6/12 0 8 112.6 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes p
Saunders Lower Platte River, Bluff Pit 73 6/12 0 0 0.2 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes s/p
Saunders
Saunders
Saunders/Sarpy/
Cass
Saunders
Stanton
Lower Platte River, Dolezal Pit
East
Lower Platte River, Lyman-
Ritchey S&G, Western Ashland
72 6/12 0 0 0.5 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Pit 80 6/13 0 0 2.0 VII A 9 No No Yes p
Lower Platte River, Salt Creek
Mouth to Elkhorn River Mouth 83 6/12 0 4 11.3 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes n.r.
Lower Platte River, Western
North Pit (Big Sandy) 79 6/12 0 3 4.0 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Elkhorn River, Pilger S&G,
Pilger Pit 8 6/19 0 0 0.8 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p

COUNTY/
REGION SITE NAME
Valley
Washington/
Douglas/Sarpy/
Stanton/Dodge/
Cuming
The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census in Nebraska
(Continued)
MAP
# DATE
BR
PAIRS
TOTAL
ADULTS KM
SITE
DESCRIPTION
PIPL
HABITAT
91
CENSUS
96
CENSUS
01
CENSUS OWN
North Loup River, Ulrich S&G
(East) 12 6/8 0 2 0.5 VII A 9 VII A 9 Yes Yes Yes p
Elkhorn River, Mouth to N
Fork Elkhorn River Mouth 9 6/5 0 3 148.4 III F 5 III F 5 Yes Yes Yes s/p
Off-Missouri River Subtotal 267 749 1 695.6
Missouri River Subtotal 66 180 1 14.2
Total 333 929 1 709.8
1 This total is the “high count”; since two surveys were conducted at some sites for the detectability study, this total includes the highest count at each site.

0090212-0203 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/10/2009
01/27/2009
RE: LOUP RIVER PROJECT NO. 1256-029
To whom it may concern. I am writing this letter in reference to the Genoa riding area at
the Headworks OHV Park. This place has given my family, friends, and myself, some of
the most fun and lasting memories to date, and it would be devastating to us if it was to
be closed. At this area, people can fish, camp, cool off in the river, and ride ATV's.
There is such a diverse amount of nature to explore there, and just have some good clean
fun. The old saying "The family that plays together .... stays together" is our motto. This
is the type of good clean fun that kept me out of trouble as a youngster, and is helping to
keep my own children out of trouble. Showing our kids that there is an alternative to
getting involved with the wrong groups, and trying drugs is so important, and the diverse
activity of the Headworks OHV Park is abig part in this. We support the Genoa
community when we go riding. My kids love the hot dogs at the local gas station, where
we also purchase gas and other supplies. We travel about lhour and 20 minutes from our
home to the riding area. It is an activity that is anxiously looked forward to on the
weekends. The Jamborees that are held are proof as to how popular this sport is.
Headworks Park is the only public place for ATV trails in the eastern half of Nebraska.
With our suffering economic situation, closing this area would have a ripple effect,
income for the community from visitors, repair shops, ATV dealers, and so on. Money
that is spent on this recreation will simply go away. To the FERC, please keep this
wonderful area open for recreation, the area within the boundaries of the OHV park is
such a small portion in the Big Picture of things, and it can be shared with the wildlife,
our impact with the fish and birds is little, if any, and there is plenty of room for both of
us to share.
In closing, I would like to thank the FERC for allowing my the chance to state my views
and opinions, and I would like to say one more time how important it is to my friends, my
family, and myself that this riding area remain open when the new operating license is
approved, so the OHV park can continue to be operated and used, as it has been in the
past, and for future generations of outdoor recreational seekers. We would TRULY
suffer if this area is closed more than it is now, or for good.
Respectfully yours,
Michael E. Kroeger.
~i!,ji!iii(~ /::~i!ii ~/~i~ • :~ ::/ ~ ...... ' ~ ..... ~ ' ..... • • :
;~;~L~I/ i:~i ik:::~ ' :~: :ii~71,~ : i:: :!~ ~ ..... i .... ..... L
: ~ .... ~ ~ ~j :i:i : ~, •~il; i:~ i! ~ '~' ~ i:: .... ~/ ....
U~ ~-~ r-_
~i~ ~- ........ -==
CI-~ ~:5 ~ ~-~

Selzle, Lydia
From: Christine Thody [cthody2@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:23 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: data sheet
Attachments: Census sheet 2007 (data).xls
Hi Melissa,
I'm glad you'll be able to come to the meeting. I'll send you a full agenda about a week before the meeting.
I have attached a simple data sheet that we use, particularly for volunteers.
See you soon.
Chris
(See attached file: Census sheet 2007 (data).xls)
Chris Thody, Outreach Coordinator
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153D Hardin Hall
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583-0931
402-472-8741
Visit our website at http://ternandplover.unl.edu
1

PIT NAME:
DATE Observer's name Adults
LEAST TERN & PIPING PLOVER COLONY DATA SHEET - YEAR 2008
Pit supervisor:
Least Terns Piping Plovers
Nests
Chicks newly hatched
Smaller Chicks
Larger Chicks
*Fledged
Adults
Nests
Chicks newly hatched
Smaller Chicks
Larger Chicks
*Fledged
COMMENTS

t0090227-0166 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/23/2009
Loup River Project - No. 1256-029
" " - -~ 1-27-09
"" " T V
To Whom It May Concern: IOU~ FEB 23 P L~: Ob
We are writing to voice our support ofk..eep'm.g the;Headworks OHV
Park located near Genoa, NE open to the ~ public. Our main
concerd~e availability of the numerous trails and open areas for ATV's
to ride for miles for the pure enjoyment of this sport
The close proximity of this park to our home, within 45 miles,
allows our friends and ourselves to be riding in the area in about an hour.
The next closest area is Halsey State Park, which is three hours away.
That, too, is a wonderful area, but requires a two or three day commitment.
Headworks Park is a one day excursion, which for the average working
eastern Nebraskan is an absolute positive.
Every time we ride the area we always meet someone we know or
meet someone new we get to know. The conversation eventually turns to
how much we all enjoy the Headwork's Park ~ how concerned everyone
is to the poss~ility of closure.
We've been riding there for about five years now and we have never
wimessed any disrespectful behavior. We've met all ages ofpeople, from
families with young children, to teenagers, to the older generation like
ourselves. Everyone waves, stops to let another pass by or stops to visit.
It' s like one big family and it's very heartening to witness such fellowship.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to share our concerns and
wishes with you. Please do all that you can~ to en~mre Headworks OHV
Park remains open for the recreational ATV riders, the campers, the
fishermen and the public in general.
This park is a tremendous asset to the Eastern Nebraska and it would
be a shame if no one was allowed to enjoy it.
Respectfully yours,
, , q
Yealand Widga
Susan Petersc~
) '

~0090220-0058 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/17/2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 Fist Street, N.E., Room IA
Washington, D.C. 20426
RE: Loup River Project No. 1256-029
Dear Madame Secretary:
January 27, 2009
Tim Hinlde
1305 Plum Ridge Rd.
Lincoln, NE 68527
c~ "-.'., k~c""
I am writing to express my views and opinions regarding the Headwaters OHV Park near
Genoa, Nebraska. This park is located on land owned by the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
licensed by your organization. My wife and I together with family and friends have enjoyed
riding our ATVs at the park and desire it to remain open for use by offhighway vehicles in the
future. ..
There are very few locatiohs in Nebraska where the public is permitted to ride OH'Vs and
the Genoa park is the closest to Nebraska's ~ major cities, Lincoln and Omaha. Genoa is by
far the nearest even th6ugh it is 1 ½ and to 2 hours from our home in Lincoln. The next closest
location in Nebraska is more than 4 hours away. The Genoa location is near enough that we can
take our grandchildren for a day of fun in the outdoors without having to spend the majority of a
day traveling to and from a riding area. Allowing our grandchildren to.enjoy riding in this area is
one way to get them away from their computer games and enjoy the great outdoors.
My wife and I are in our 60s and love to spend time in the outdoors. Our ATVs allow us
to enjoy the outdoors and feel that we are very environmentally conscious. We are members of
the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Association. We believe that by providing a
few locations like the Headwaters OHV Park allows people who enjoy riding and wildlife a place
to do both. The park is a relatively small area but provides a significant number of people a legal
place to get outdoors and enjoy their OHVs.
Like any other activity there are those who abuse the privilege of their access to this area.
However, the vast majority of riders in this area are responsible users. We are also members of
the Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association (NOHVA). This is a wonderfifl organization
which assists in maintaining and improving the Genoa area as well as riding areas in the Halsey
National Forest. Not only to they perform maintenance at these areas they have also donated
monies to local rescue services which benefit not only users of the area but the general public in
the vicinity. Additionally, they hire offduty law enforcement to assist in supervising the Genoa
area. They are very responsible individuals who realize that if riders want access to public areas
to ride they must show that they can use the area without causing undo harm to the environment
=2 :~

~0090220-0058 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/17/2009
and wildlife.
The one concern I have about the use of this area is that there are no restrictions regarding
the kinds of ATVs and motorcycles allowed. I think consideration should be given to requiring
at minimum mufflers and spark an-esters. I have had the unpleasant experience of having to put
up with vehicles that have straight exhaust, which on these types of vehicles creates ear
shattering noise. Simply requiring mufflers on all vehicles would greatly reduce this excessive
noise.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this letter. I hope that you will
agree that keeping this area open for recreational use is a good idea and merits serious
cortsidcration.

~0090211-0064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/09/2009
To whom it may concern, : '.,
: ' . " .' .. • Lou p River Project No . 1256-O29
January 28, 2009
It has been brought to my attention that there people meeting to decide on the renewal license
of the Loup River Project. This park is where my family goes to ride our ATV's. It would be a real shame
to see this park be closed for AI~/ridin R.
This is the only place in eastern Nebraska that is close enough for my family to be able to ride.
WIth the price of gas now days there are not a whole lot of places where a person can go and not have
to spend a lot of money to have a 8ood time with family. This is the perfect place for all of us to go ride
our A'l~/'s. I have children of all ages in the family and there is somethin 8 for everyone to do. We can
ride trails with the Rids or if the boys want to ramp on the sand hills they can do that• My husband and I
can ride alon 8 the river and enjoy the scenery and peacefulness that comes with it. We have been
members of NOHVA for as long as we have been ridin 8 Al~/'s.
The NOHVA is a great association to be a member of and the things they do at the park are
entertainin 8 for our family. The Jamboree is the most excitin R with all the events they have going on and
the people who run the event are very careful to check in on all the campers and make sure everythinR
is okay. They were there to distribute trash bags to everyone, checking to make sure everyone had a
wrist band before they entered the park, and patrollin 8 the grounds to make sure everyone was drivin R
at a slow pace.
The park is kept up very well with clean port-a-potties and nice campgrounds. There is plenty of
room for everyone when the Jamboree is going on. The only thing that I miRht like to see more of is
electrical hook ups for more campers to camp. I am sure people would be willin 8 to pay extra for It.
Our family went down to the fall Jamboree in 2008. This was the most relaxing fun time that we
all had the whole year. We could just sit around the campfire and listen to the Nebraska football game
or we could hop on the 4 wheeler when the Rame Rot to stressful and Ro for a ride• If this area was to be
closed it would be missed by everyone. The park is located in an ideal location for nature lover's,
peacefulness and quietness surround it alon R with the blue color of the Loup River. You really can't ask
for anythin 8 more living in Nebraska.
Thank you for allowing me the chance to express my thoughts and opinions on keeping the area
open. I hope that when the time comes for the renewal of the license at the park that it will be allowed
to remain open for AI~/riders. I also would like it to be run in the efficient manner that it is now.
The Ladehof~
Randi, Vicki, Colby,
Jamie, Kyle & Nicole

~0090223-0045 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2009
January 29, 2009
LOUP RIVER HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC No. 1256-029
Re: re-licensing of Loup River Hydro-Electric Project
To whom it may concom:
, , t '
.... ...... ..,,v .. Or - fEE
:+ ! • ?~',ON
Zt]OCl FEB 19 P L~: 2b
FE~;~? % E ,. ', E ;'; ,3 Y
C.,E~UL;-'TSR~, ' C(;~.IHISSTC::
I am writing this letter to let you know how beneficial the Loup River
Hydro-Electric Project is to the four county area that it serves and to the State of
Nebraska.
I have lived by the Loup River canal for 45 years. I have enjoyed fishing in
the canal, swimming and boating in Lake North and riding four wheelers at the
Genoa headworks. The Loup River Hydro-Electric Project also serves the
farming community very well by providing water for irrigation. Irrigation is very
important to the farmers that live by the Loup River canal.
That is why I am very concomed about a statement made by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service representative. The representative stated, "We know that
the farmers in the area have water rights with the State of Nebraska to use
water out of the power canal, but that does not mean you have to allow them
access on the Loup River property." If you deny the farmer's access, they will
not be able to install their irrigation equipment. In tum, that means all the water
they are permitted to use for irrigation can stay in the canal and eventually flow
back into the Platte River. I think the farming community would be very upset with
the personnel at Loup River Public Power Disbict if that was allowed to happen.
At the present time the relationship between Loup Power District end the
whole community is very good. That is why I hated to hear that comment made
by someone from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should understand that there is limited
public hunting areas in the State of Nebraska. If the farmers cannot get irrigation
water for their crops, the farmers will stop allowing the public to hunt on their
property.
In closing, I feel it would be very beneficial if Loup Public Power District
was granted a new license to keep running their facilities as they are at the
present time. You have to remember there is no greener power than hydro-
electric power.
S i n c a m ~
Ji~m Sha'nle

~0090224-0027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2009
January 30, 2009
Relicemlng of Loup River Hydm-Ele~c Project
Loup River Hydro-Electdc Project
FERC No 1256-029
To whom it may con¢em:
;...., ~ ...... ,~ C:, ~,,c
"C s
2, -;c ,c.A3h
I arn writing this to let you know how importard the Lo~ River Hy~o-
Eiecb'ic Project is to the area and to the State of Nebrask&
I grow up i. Platte County by the Loup River canoL I have lived neer it for
50 yearn The Loup RNer Hyclro-Electric Project also sefvos the community with
inexpensive electric power. Loup Public Power DiMdct also supplies water for
irrigation. I n ~ is ext~ impodant to the farmem that live by the Loup
River canal. I hnk it is imperative that the LPPD gets their I m renewed
without any changes in the way they operate their faciliS~. I also think the
farmers who irdgate should be able to keep irrigating their fan~land from the
Loup c~"ml. WRho~ lhe use of Ihe conal, my community m'KI surrounding
counties will not be able to irdgate their farmland and this would be devastating.
I ask that you grant Loup Power District a new license without any changes.
Bill Shanle

~0090224-0028 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2009
.+
• i + - . . . .
" :-J'~ .* " + T~'~ \¢ + • _ ~ _ _ .+~
FE.#~c,,, ,L Ci,._~',G, J-,

~0090227-0171 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/23/2009
*. , .x
. ~.-.
i
JASON BIORN
1-31-09
I AM WRITING THIS LETTER IN REGARDS TO ' LOUP RIVER PROJECT #
1256-029 "THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO EFFECT HEADWORKS PARK IN
GENOA, NE. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE FRIENDS AND I RIDE ATV'S AND
DIRT BIKES OFTEN, WE AS A GROUP OF RIDERS ENJOY CAMPING AND
RIDING A'I'V~S AT THIS FACILITY. I DONT BELIVE THAT ATV'S ARE
HURTING THE AREA AND I BELIVE THAT IT IS A FUN FAMILY ACTIVITY
THAT SOMEONE MIGHT BE TRING TO TAKE AWAY. I ENJOY THE
OUTDOORS AND WHAT THE AREA HAS TO OFFER, THERE REALLY IS
NOT A PLACE LIKE GENOA WITHIN 250 MILESOR SO FROM THE AREA
WE LIVE SO THIS PLACE IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND ALSO ALL THE
LOCAL A'I'V RIDERS. THIS AREA HAS A COUPLE OF BIG EVENTS THAT
BRING ALOT OF PEOPLE TO THE TOWN AND RIDING AREA A COUPLE
TIMES A YEAR( THE JAMBOREE).LIKE ANY WILDLIFE AREA THERE
ALWAYS IS THE PROBLEM OF PEOPLE AND FAMILIES HAVING FUN AND A
GOOD TIMES TO CLOSE OR WITHIN AN AREA WHERE ENDANGERED
SPECIES LIVE,I DO NOT BELIVE THAT THE ATV AND OR PEOPLE USING
THE HEADWORKS AREA ARE DOING ANY HARM TO THE AREA,REALLY
PEOPLE TRY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AREA PRETTY GOOD. SO IN THE
END I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU TAKE TO READ THIS
LETTER AND THAT YOU CONSIDER MY REQUEST TO KEEP THE AREA
OPEN TO CAMPING AND RIDING A'I'V'S AT THE HEADWORKS PARK IN
GENOA, NE.
SINCERLY YOURS:
JASON
O
Q_
M
i
~J

600~/61/~0 (TETDT~OUN) ~Qd 0~ 8~00-~0600~
l

20090202-5001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/1/2009 1:22:21 PM
I would like to thank all of you for allowing my family & myself to enjoy the headwater park.
It's a beautiful, safe place for all of us to enjoy quality time together.
We have enjoyed many rides & camping outings with family & friends.
We've spent many weekends @ the park & wait until we are in the area to stock our coolers, & refill our
tanks. We always seem to forget things & are helping to support the local community when we head back
in to town to fill our needs while we're at the park.
I hope you will renew the license to allow us to continue to use the park for camping & atv usage.
Thanks again for allowing us such a beautiful area to enjoy or recreation & weekends in the past & your
time for reconsidering to allow us to use it in the future.
Sincerley,
Kevin A. Kersten
Fremont, Ne.

20090202-5001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/1/2009 1:22:21 PM
Document Content(s)
2140.TXT..............................................................1-1

~0090227-0164 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/23/2009
2/01/2009
K~bedy O. Bo~ ~
Feder~ Ene~ Reg~y C~nn~s~on
888 First SUeet, N.E., Room IA
Lo~p PJver l~roje:t No. 1256-029
I/ I V,,,
J
+%:.1
2~Dl FF'j 2:) 1.3 k: O'l
I am w.ung t~ le~er m regards to the di~t bilge and ATV t:alls riding area near Genoa
Nebraska. We would like t~ ask you ~ i~ease keep ttzls open as our family gaes b%ere a lot to
ride. My husband and I have three dlildren and t~ds Is a farnlly Ume where we camp and ride,
but rnalflly ride. Eye,one In our rarely really enjoys It because It Is the ma~ t~te we ~
t~jether as a family and ag havea ~of fun and a rela~ng t~me.
~ere are not ~ many p~es In Nebraska ~o r~e and w~out Headwo~s we wouU
have t~ go a long ways to go ride(like o~er states). As It Is now we drive two hours m get there
and usury s~y for three ~o four days. This Is also Ule only Ume we rea~/get to see sorr~ of our
htends t~at rkle as well, as it is a half way i~nt ~ us ~ me~ and ricl~ We have made ~
friends out at ~ OHV park because they erdoy tJle same t~lr~ as we ck~
Our ~amlly and friends also e~oy the Ot'ganlzed ~'~ IIl~e t~ Jan~bomes t:here are a lot
o~ fun ~ ~ adu~s arm chndren m have a fun Urne. These events bdr~ in a Ira: m' revenue
for ttte ~ l n g eommunltles, because when people come ~- t~0se everm It ts hard ~ I~i~
enou~ gas arm enou~ ~od ~r the mmn~ Ume we an~ U~n~. ~ ,'or. ~'rv~ ~ ~ ~
go get pa~. so we and a kX or oee~ ma~e ~ps m Ue surroun~g ~owns rot gas, ~ood, ~
whatever else we need ~ may have ~rgotten to bring.
In short ff you da~e Headworks v~ w~ld tx'uly suffer as we wo~ld hardly ever get ~ ~,
o~r fa~ly Ume wo~d beo0me non exlslmX as t~Is Is what o~r fatally and many frlends enjoy
doing all summer long,
Thank you for your t~)e to look at thls lel~r and mad It, my fatally and fr~nds really
appmea~ It and ix)pc that you v~ll true/consider keeping Headworks OHV park open,
Sinu.'ely.
• 00 vt r'~
D ah ney
Daphney, & Hannah
Nichols

Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association NOHVA
TBQ Sport Club, Incorporated
A Non-Profit Association For All Terrain Vehicle and Off Road Motorcycle Users - Established 1987
Business Office: 2231 West 10 th Street, Grand Island, Nebraska 68803
Web site: www.nohva.com Telephone: 308-381-2143 Email: danno@nohva.com
February 2, 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
RE: Loup River Project No. 1256-029
Dear Secretary Bose,
I am writing you today on behalf of the approximately 3,200 members of the Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle
Association (NOHVA). Since 1990, our organization has been active with one of the recreation areas involving the
Loup River Project. The area that our organization is associated with is the All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and off-road
motorcycle (dirtbike) park located at the Headworks area approximately three miles west of Genoa Nebraska.
Concerning Loup River Project No. 1256-029, the interests of our organization is limited to the land contained within
the boundaries of the Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) area owned by the Loup Power District, known as the Headworks
OHV Park. As far as enthusiasts using ATVs and dirtbikes outside the boundaries of the Headworks OHV area, being
an organization that promotes responsible use of ATVs and dirtbikes, we encourage riders to always ask permission
from a land owner prior to accessing their land.
The area has a long history of public access dating back to the 1930’s. Public interest in the area became more
prominent during the early 1980’s with the advent of the all terrain vehicle. Over the years the Headworks OHV Park
area or commonly referred to many people simply as “Genoa”, has become a popular recreational designation for
thousands of young adults and families.
As I mentioned earlier in this letter, our organization has been involved in the Loup River Project at the Headworks
since 1990. During this time, we are proud of our involvement by helping provide funding for the area via volunteer
membership fees and donations contributed by our members. Additionally, we organize volunteers who use the area
to provide 1,000’s of man hours a year to help keep the riding area clean and safe. Volunteers help educate the
public who use the area concerning the importance of riding responsibly and following the riding rules.
One of our prime concerns involves insuring that the area remains open through the warm parts of year as much as
possible. We call the time from April into November as the “prime riding season”. The Headworks OHV Park is the
only public area open for recreational ATV and dirtbike riding in the eastern one-third of Nebraska.
Today, the Headworks OHV Park temporarily closes for three to four months each year to accommodate two settling
basin dredging periods. In 1991 the riding area remained open year round, including the time that the dredge was
operating in the spring and early fall. In 1992, Loup Power and our organization decided to close the ATV and dirtbike
riding area from March 15 to about May 15 and from August 15 until about October 1 while dredging operations took
place on the south side of the settling basin. This decision occurred because of concerns involving riders being able to
safely forge the dredge run off on the south side of the dredging basin. The dredge run off created a swift current
that many ATV and dirtbike riders did not easily negotiate. Additionally the run off created pockets of soft sand and
silt where ATVs and dirtbikes became stuck, thus causing riders to become uncomfortably close to dredge equipment
to avoid the run off. While we did not relish the idea that the area would be closed during three or four months of
prime riding season, we thought that it would be a good idea to proceed with the temporary closure to ensure the
smooth and safe operation of the area.
Considering that the area is now temporarily closed three or four months a year, our organization is extremely
concerned that as part of the re-licensing agreement, the time that the riding area is closed during the prime riding
season may be extended to include the summer period between the current temporary closures. We are opposed to a
new closure period during the summer months.

NOHVA Comment to FERC for Loup Power Project
In the past, state and federal wildlife agencies have publically stated that the ATV and dirtbike riding area should be
closed during the summer to protect nesting least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon. Considering the results of
previous nesting site studies involving least tern and piping plover, we believe that continuing the tradition of leaving
the sand area owned by Loup Power on the south side open during the months of June, July and part of August to
recreational ATV and dirtbike use would have little if any impact to these species. Furthermore, people need to have
a developed area to recreate. Allowing the Headworks OHV Park area to remain open during the summer months
would provide an location that is controlled with boundaries for ATV and dirtbike enthusiasts to enjoy.
Nebraska offers only three developed public areas for ATVs and dirtbikes. These areas include the Headworks OHV
Park near Genoa, a trail system in west central Nebraska at the Nebraska National Forest Bessey Ranger District near
Halsey and a developing 500 acre OHV park in south central Nebraska at the Army Corps of Engineers Harlan County
Reservoir complex near Republican City. Several less developed areas exist for ATV and dirtbike riders at the
McKelvie National Forest near Valentine and the Nebraska National Forest Pine Ridge Ranger District near Chadron.
The U.S. Forest Service is in the process of finalizing plans for travel management at the Bessey, Pine Ridge and
McKelvie units. Our organization is concerned that existing recreational access for ATVs and dirtbikes will be
dramatically reduced on U. S. Forest Service managed lands once the travel plan is implemented. There are no
future plans for additional public recreational ATV and dirtbike areas or trails in Nebraska. With these factors in
mind, the need for recreational ATV and dirtbike areas in our state is even more important.
Riding ATVs and dirtbikes at the Headworks OHV Park is a popular family based recreational activity. We estimate
that approximately 1,000 ATV and dirtbike riders enjoy the area during any given week from Memorial Day weekend
into mid August, and during the month of October. We base this number on a survey that we conducted in 2003.
The survey was distributed to 1,270 members of our organization, and the total number of responses returned was
312.
The results of our survey indicated that 78.6% of the people who visited the Headworks OHV Park rode ATVs and
16.3% rode dirtbikes. Groups of people who visited the area drove an average of 137.9 miles round trip per group
and spent an average of $68.05 per trip in Genoa involving an average group size of 3.5 people per trip. Members of
our organization visited the Headworks OHV Park an average of 11.3 days a year
When the survey was completed in 2003, the main parking area was nearly full. In 2005, the size of the parking area
was cleared of brush and approximately doubled in size. Today, on any given weekend during the prime riding
season, the parking area is again nearly full. Headworks is open a average of 253 days a year, or 36 weeks.
In 2004, we calculated the average visits as:
2003 estimated attendance on an average Saturday is 200 riders a day, 7,200 riders a year.
2003 estimated attendance on an average Sunday is 300 riders a day, 10,800 riders a year.
2003 estimated attendance on an average weekday is 20 riders a day, 3,620 riders a year.
2003 estimated total for year is 21,620 riders.
For 2008, using the concept that the main parking area has doubled in size since 2003 and that the existing area is at
least 75% full, we have conservatively increased the above rider day numbers by a factor of 50% to reflect increased
participation:
2008 estimated attendance on an average Saturday is 300 riders a day, 10,800 riders a year.
2008 estimated attendance on an average Sunday is 450 riders a day, 16,200 riders a year.
2008 estimated attendance on an average weekday is 30 riders a day, 5,430 riders a year.
2008 estimated total for year is 32,430 riders.
Because of the Headworks OHV Park, visitors to the area have a positive economic impact to the local area which has
historically been economically depressed. According to Davis Moore, Nance County Sheriff, events held by our
organization at the Headworks OHV Park attract more people to the county than the county fair does.
Often times a recreational ATV and dirtbike area is perceived as a high risk operation. However, the Headworks OHV
Park area typically sees very few calls a year for assistance from the local emergency services. Vandalism seldom if
ever occurs. ATV and dirtbike riders often self police other riders. Contrary to what occurs at other un-supervised
public ATV and dirtbike areas in other parts of the nation, ATV and dirtbike rider conduct reflect Nebraska’s history of
personal self reliance and responsible conduct in public. On an almost weekly basis, volunteers police the parking
and riding area for trash. In order to keep the area sanitary, NOHVA rents portable toilets that are serviced weekly
and provides trash receptacles for the area.
Page 2 of 3

NOHVA Comment to FERC for Loup Power Project
In closing, we are asking that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission consider granting a license that leaves the
current operating arrangement of the ATV and dirtbike area at Headworks OHV Park unchanged. The ATV and
dirtbike park is a truly special place for many of us and our families. Considering the amount of access that
recreational ATV and dirtbike riders now have in Nebraska, and the benefit we offer for the local community, any
changes that would decrease the amount of time we now have to the area would have a very negative impact for
many who live in Nebraska.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can help provide further information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Dan Nitzel, Business Manager and Co-founder
Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association
Page 3 of 3

20090202-5073 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 12:26:19 PM
Headworks OHV park is a really great place to ride, spend time with good friends, and just enjoy the
outdoors. It would be a such a shame to loose all that space to ride. I realize there are probably a small
percentage of people making a stink about how ATVs do this and do that to the environment. It seems
like almost every hobby has someone out there that's against it, but that doesn't mean the place should
just shut down. With today's clean burning 4 stroke ATVs and Dirtbikes I can't see how we could be
hurting the place. No more than any farmer hurts their land. I see way worse things in the city. Both times
I was there I was impressed with how well litter was kept picked up.
With so few areas available in the Council Bluffs/Omaha area to ride I could see loosing Headworks Park
causing a lot of shops to loose much needed business. I live in Council Bluffs, so I can say without
Headworks Park and the ATV Jamborees I probably wouldn't come to Nebraska to ride my ATV and
spend money. The way so many small towns are receding in size I think it'd be a shame to hurt the
economy of Genoa and other surrounding towns by closing the park. Our group alone probably spent
over $1000 at each Jamboree just covering our gas, food, and snacks.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to ride in the past and ask you to please keep the park open.
Thanks,
Seth

20090202-5073 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 12:26:19 PM
Document Content(s)
2141.TXT..............................................................1-1

20090202-5080 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 2:32:24 PM
I think the Headgates park near Genoa needs to stay open!! It is a great place to ride to keep people
from riding where they aint suppose to and keep them outta trouble. Further more, as far as the belives
of the activist about it scaring away wild life, every road in the world now goes through some part where
there use to be wild life, and they dont bitch about having good roads, highways and interstates to drive
on. So, keeping it open is a vital part of our riding community and needs to remain open!!!

20090202-5080 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 2:32:24 PM
Document Content(s)
2148.TXT..............................................................1-1

20090203-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 7:49:07 PM
Loup River Project Docket No. 1256-029 2/2/2009
Just a note related to the re-licensing with direct reference to the headworkâs portion of the system and
related river-frontage. I am 50 years old, married - 2 children; daughter 18 and son - 20 all with atvâs.
We travel to headworkâs, which is a 1 hr drive an average of 1 to three times a month - year round. My
sister and family come from Denver to ride over the 4th of July each year, which ends up being 14 to 15
family members. Headworkâs always makes for a great family outing for us, getting some of the best
one day trips we have as a family. It fulfills everyoneâs desires; open sand and river frontage for; my
son who likes to be around numerous persons doing basic straight line sand racing to my daughter who
prefers dune and trail riding, to my wife and I who like a mixture of both.
Coming from a combination farm / city background, I feel I am a conservationist with a
realistic attitude. One that enjoys utilizing the outdoors without damaging it. We have never condoned the
killing, injuring or in any way harming living things or disruption of their habitat. In all of my hours spent
there I have not seen any sand / beach nesting species of bird in the area. Normally we see deer and
turkeys. I feel that Headworks and itâs approximate 2.5 X 5 mile area is managed quite well by LPPD
-(Loup Public Power District) as well as self managed and maintained by those of us that ride there. Take
for instance on NOHVA - (Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Assoc) cleanup days as well as other times, we
commonly pick up non - natural occurring debris that is in the area. The most numerous things to pick up
are water bottles with very few aluminum cans with a variety of stuff appearing to have come from
upstream.
Another way to look at the impact to wild life is that if this area was not available it would
probably lead to persons to riding numerous other river areas. There is a good chance they would ride
more miles of river, potentially impacting a far greater quantity of wildlife not to mention adjoining property
owners. In addition you would not have the coordinated efforts of LPPD or NOHVA - (Nebraska Off
Highway Vehicle Assoc.) to oversee and maintain the areas. This management of Headworks includes;
limitations of vehicle size, garbage dumpsters and restroom facilities.
It appears to me the keeping Headworkâs the way it is, if not even greater promotion
linked with an equal effort to improve the area would do nothing but be an overall benefit the region
including wildlife. It adds to the economics across the state when you consider the area draws persons for
hundreds of miles and that these families / riders spend some serious consumer dollars both local, state
and surrounding states. With atvâs costing in the range of $3,000 to $8,000 with thousands more
spent on maintenance and upgrades, fuel to get to the areas, related trailers and tow vehicles, campers,
motels and other various supplies.
Sincerely, Randy Leiser & family - Grand Island NE.

20090203-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/2/2009 7:49:07 PM
Document Content(s)
2145.TXT..............................................................1-1

20090204-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/3/2009 7:48:55 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing today on Docket P-1256-029 to ensure the future use of the "Loup River Hydroelectric
Project" for future OHV use. The area around the "Project" in Genoa, NE is currently being utilized for
OHV use.
This is an area that is extremely important for off-road motorcycle and ATV riders in Nebraska. It is one
of the few area's in the state available for such activities. If this OHV park would close, it would bring
great financial harm to many businesses that base their sales off of this area.
Some of those businesses include tourism in Nebraska and the Genoa area. Also many Motorcycle
dealers rely on having an outlet for their products to be used. Not everyone that buys and ATV or
off-road motorcycle owns ground to ride on.
The Genoa OHV area is the only riding area in the Eastern half of Nebraska. I personally travel nearly
100 miles each way to ride at the area. I personally have a great interest in keeping the riding area open.
I have several off-road ATV's and motorcycles. The Genoa riding area is one of the few places that I can
ride. Off-roading is my main hobby, and a terrific family sport. My wife and two kids also ride off-road.
I know that in the past there has been some discussion of closing the area during the mating season for
the Piping Plover. I believe that riding within the confines of the designated area has no impact on the
birds.
Currently the area is operated by FERC. This license is set to expire in 2014. Currently the terms for the
new application process is taking place. I would like to ensure that the area remains open for OHV use.
If you would like to discuss further, please contact me by email at or by phone at
.
Thank you,
Alan Feller
Wisner, NE

20090204-5000 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/3/2009 7:48:55 PM
Document Content(s)
2156.TXT..............................................................1-1

~0090304-0023 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/02/2009
February 3 'e, 2009
C.A.R.T.
Columbus Area Recreational Trails
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretazy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Loup River Project P-1256-029
De~ Ms. Bo~
ORIGINAL
L
- . g%~
PO
i
t~. r.,
I am writing on behalf of and as President of Columbus Area Recreational Trails (C.A.KT.). We
are a ram-profit Columbus, Nebraska group founded in 1997 for the purpose of helping to promote
and develop recreational trails in and around Columbus.
The successful development of trails in our area has gone beyond our initial expectations, and that
is due in large pert to Loup River Public Power Districtl
With Loup's help and cooperation, we were able to oons~ct the first trail, the Two Lakes Trail on
their property. This was just the impetus we needed to help fill a recreational void, a void that
became evea more obvious by the amount of usage the trail received and continues to receivel
In addition, Loup has also helped immensely in the construction of the Bob Lake Trail and the
Robert White Trail, both situated on their propenyt
All three of these trails are in a beautiful setting and offer a wonderful outdoor experience and
exercise benefits for the merst
The success of the initial trail on Loup property helped us with gaining the necessary rapport to
complete a much used in-town trail known as the W'dderness Park Trail. And subsequent to that,
we have received the funding for a new trail, the Monastery Trail, to be con,~'u~ed this year, that
will connect the in-town trail to those on Loup lm3perty, resulting in several miles ofcontinuow
trails for the public's en~ymentl

~0090304-0023 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/02/2009
I can't stress evough how important we think Loup Power District is to the recreational needs of
Columbus and the surrounding areal It is also a benefit to the area to have these recreational
oppommities available as a destination for touristsl
On a personal note, but still in the realm of recreation. I have been a Columbus resident for 45
years and could fill many more pages with details on how much I and my family have, over the
years, enjoyed the other recreational activities provided by Loup, like fishing and the parksl Plus,
there are numerous other activities available to the public like campins, boating and morel
I would be very happy to tny to answ~ any questions you might have regarding trails in the
Columbus areal
Thank youl
Sincc~ly,
Mary Peterson
President

~0090304-0018 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/02/2009
VlSHAY
February4~,2008
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room IA
Washington, DC 20426
Board of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
ORIF)k) ,)
• 2Y
I00'I II. -2 R P 3:30
I am writing this letter in support of the Loup Power District's Loup River Hydroelectric Project
relicenslng.
I am a Sr. liP, Manager working in a local Manufacturing company and also the Secretary for
the Columbus Area Recreational Trails group (C.A.R.T.).
Loup Power DisU-ict and specifically their Canal system for Hydroelectric power provide the
community with valuable green space for recreation. They have been a constant support of
recreational trail projects in the community, many of which are built nearby or on Loup Power
district land. The recreational areas that Loup conl]'ibutes provide our employees and the
community as a whole with valuable wellness and recreational opportunities.
Columbus's motto is "The City of Power and Progress" and Loup's clean Hydroelectric energy
has long played a key role in the foundation of our community.
We thank the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in advance for their support of the Loup
Power District recertification.
Hy,
Human Resources Manager
Vbhr/Dale
p.O.B(~609, C~N~aK NF.,(I~-~09,U.SX Ph~e(4O2) N4-3131 F~({4~M~I-6~04 u~,.vW~ey.com
MANUFAC'n.)RER OF THE WORLD'S BROADEST LtNE OF Dt$CRETE SEMtCONOUCTOR$ AND PA$$t~flE COMPONENTS
"I

?0090304-0019 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/02/2009
February 4, 2009
Kimbcrly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Loup River Project P-1256-029
Dear Ms. Bose,
tl i
'I
ORIGINAL
I am the former President of CART and residing Board Member. I was
President of the trails group when the first trail was put in place in 1999. We
had very good cooperation from the staff of Loup Public Power all the way
from the CEO, Robert White, Dwayne Smith Business Promotion, Owcn
Lloyd head engineer and Jim Frcar assistant engineer. Their enthusiasm and
dedication to the completion of the Two Lakes Trail made the process so
much more enjoyable and successful.
Since the original 2.5 mile concrete trail there has been two crushed rock
trail additions, one flamed the Bob Lake trail aRcr a good friend of mine and
the Robert White ~'ail after the i'&ired CEO, Robert White. These two trails
added about three more miles to the system.
t - . ,.
What has always impressed me about the people of Loup Publ~/~wcr and
their work with the trails system arc details like two additional trail heads
when they saw the need for them. I have worked with over twelve boys find
Eagle Scout projects along the trail system that sits on Loup Public Power
land. This process included these young scouts meeting with a
representative from Loup to have their project approved and going back to
make sure it met with Loup~s approval aRcr completion. Loup's'willingness
to work with these young men meant a great deal.
t

~0090304-0019 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/02/2009
The experience I have had working with Loup on the various projects
mentioned has always been positive. They take their need to provide
recreational opportunities seriously. I have talked to numerous service
organizations that enjoy the trails as well as many, many individuals; the
opportunity for exercise, family time, the opportunity to commune with
nature is priceless.
The trails that traverse the property of Loup Public Power have been a great
amenity to the Columbus, NE area. There arc not too many land owners that
will allow such a thing as trails so wc arc very grateful.
If you have any questions regarding the trails and the association of Loup
Public Power please contact me at the following phone numbers.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Randall R. Haskell
Board Member of CART
P.S. One of my cycling buddies is Rick Bose; he is from eastern Iowa
originally. Hc and his family have lived in Columbus now for three years,
he is a Doctor in down. I thought it was interesting when I saw your last
name.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:54 PM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: HP#0804&127&01 & FERC Relicensing of Loup Power District
From: Dolberg, Jill [mailto:jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Madson, Michael J.
Subject: RE: HP#0804,127,01 , FERC Relicensing of Loup Power District
Mike,
I agree that the APE for this project is, in our opinion, the area within the licensed Project Boundary. I apologize for the
confusion.
Jill Dolberg
Review and Compliance Coordinator
Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office
From: Madson, Michael J. [mailto:Michael.Madson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:38 PM
To: Dolberg, Jill
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: HP#0804,127,01 , FERC Relicensing of Loup Power District
Jill Thank you for sending your letter of January 23 agreeing to the APE proposed in a letter from Loup Power
District President Neal Suess on January 5. I think some clarification is in order however to avoid any future
misunderstanding regarding the extent of the APE.
Mr. Suess' letter stated that "As recommended by the Commission, the District proposes to establish the project
area of potential effects (APE) as required under 36 CFR 800.4 and defined in 36 CFR 800.16 as the area shown
in the PAD document (See attached from the PAD: Figure 4 1, 14 sheets) and labeled as the Approximate
Project Boundary. The area within that boundary encompasses the entirety of the District’s holdings that are
subject to the relicensing effort described in the PAD." We specifically targeted the area within the footprint
shown on the attached figures (to the January 5 letter) as the Project Boundary currently licensed by FERC.
The District holds other properties outside of this area that are not related to the current FERC license or the
relicensing effort, including economic development properties and an administrative building in Columbus.
Your response stated that SHPO agreed "that the APE correctly encompasses all of the District's holdings"
without specifically targeting the area subject to the relicensing effort. Please clarify that the APE for this
project is, in the opinion of the SHPO, the area within the licensed Project Boundary. This clarification is
necessary to avoid future misunderstanding about need for historic property identification on District properties
that are not related to the relicensing effort.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael J. Madson, M.S., RPA
Professional Associate
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Robert_Harms@fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Pillard, Matt; Waldow, George
Subject: Loup PAD and SD
Importance: High
George/Matt:
The FWS is in the process of preparing written comments on the Preapplication Document (PAD)
and Scoping Document (SD) for the Loup relicensing action. We have also provided some study
suggestions/comments
in our letter. 2 questions for you--we are planning to submit our written
comments on the PAD and SD to Kimberly Bose of FERC by February 10--is that the deadline or
is February 20 the deadline for comments? Also, I was under the impression that Loup, HDR,
and the agencies were going to meet in February/March 2009 time frame to further discuss
study plans including how the study requests meet the 7 FERC criteria. At this point, I had
not planned to discuss how the study plans discussed in the PAD and SD meet the
7 FERC criteria in our current letter.
Bob
Robert R. Harms
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
Phone: 308-382-6468, Extension 17
Fax: 308-384-8835
robert_harms@fws.gov
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:42 AM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Relicensing * SD1 Errata Notice
Attachments: FERC.090204.errata_notice.pdf
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:48 PM
To: Mike_LeValley@fws.gov; mark_weekley@nps.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; gene.zuerlein@nebraska.gov;
kristal.stoner@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; marty.link@ndeq.state.ne.us; NeDoJ@ago.ne.gov;
jeff.schuckman@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil;
abaum@upperloupnrd.org; angie_tornes@nps.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org;
Rex.Amack@nebraska.gov; lori.moore@nema.ne.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; agr.webmaster@nebraska.gov;
jay.ringenberg@ndeq.state.ne.us; mike.linder@ndeq.state.ne.us; pjsoenks@usgs.gov; rswanson@usgs.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; dozman@usgs.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; pchwy@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
cityadmin@cablene.com; rbishop@cpnrd.org; mark@cpnrd.org; jhdnfldt@inebraska.com; jwinkler@papionrd.org;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmmoser@megavision.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com; cgenoa@cablene.com;
monroe@megavision.com; monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu;
provost@huntel.net; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com; pawneenationpres@hotmail.com;
omndn@yahoo.com; CoraJones@bia.gov; rverhoeff@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; mohler@nctc.net;
jmsunne@nppd.com; dave.tunink@nebraska.gov; rbzelt@usgs.gov; John_Cochnar@fws.gov; Martha_Tacha@fws.gov;
jalexand@usgs.gov; Engelbert, Pat; Engel, John; Pillard, Matt; jjshadl@nppd.com; rziola@loup.com;
Greg_Wingfield@fws.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
santin@hamilton.net; tpetr@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; nsuess@loup.com; arobak@loup.com; jfrear@loup.com;
Waldow, George; Grennan, Dennis E.; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; King, Wendy; bdietsch@usgs.gov;
mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; athompson@gp.usbr.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com;
mdrain@cnppid.com; donald_anderson@fws.gov; rswanson@usgs.gov; matt_schwarz@fws.gov; jeddins@achp.gov;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; dave_carlson@fws.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov; White, Stephanie; houghton@winnebagotribe.com; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; June_Deweese@fws.gov; don_simpson@blm.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; jdolberg@nebraskahistory.org; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
Nicholas_Chevance@nps.gov; Robert.Dach@noaa.gov; cox@columbusne.us
Cc: Neal Suess; Ron Ziola; Jim Frear (jfrear@loup.com); Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat;
Sigler, Bill
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing > SD1 Errata Notice
Loup Power District wanted to inform you that FERC is issuing an errata to SD1 that clarifies the deadline for comments
on the PAD, SD1 and for study requests is February 10. See the attached notice.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114*4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:31 AM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Relicensing ) Notice of Meetings
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:52 PM
To: tprovost@omahatribeepd.com; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com; omndn@yahoo.com;
mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; Mike_LeValley@fws.gov; mark_weekley@nps.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; angie_tornes@nps.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
pjsoenks@usgs.gov; dozman@usgs.gov; CoraJones@bia.gov; rbzelt@usgs.gov; John_Cochnar@fws.gov;
Martha_Tacha@fws.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; Greg_Wingfield@fws.gov; bdietsch@usgs.gov;
athompson@gp.usbr.gov; donald_anderson@fws.gov; matt_schwarz@fws.gov; rswanson@usgs.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
dave_carlson@fws.gov; June_Deweese@fws.gov; don_simpson@blm.gov; rldach@yahoo.com;
Nicholas_Chevance@nps.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; pchwy@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
bczoning@frontiernet.net; cityadmin@cablene.com; jmmoser@megavision.com; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; monroe@megavision.com;
santin@hamilton.net; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; cox@columbusne.us; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov;
gene.zuerlein@nebraska.gov; rick.sneider@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; marty.link@nebraska.gov;
jeff.schuckman@nebraska.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; Rex.Amack@nebraska.gov;
lori.moore@nema.ne.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; agr.webmaster@nebraska.gov; jay.ringenberg@ndeq.state.ne.us;
mike.linder@ndeq.state.ne.us; rswanson@usgs.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; dave.tunink@nebraska.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; jdolberg@nebraskahistory.org; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; rbishop@cpnrd.org; mark@cpnrd.org; jhdnfldt@inebraska.com; jwinkler@papionrd.org;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; rverhoeff@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; mohler@nctc.net; jmsunne@nppd.com; jjshadl@nppd.com;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mdrain@cnppid.com; jon.bruning@ago.ne.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov
Cc: Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov;
mark.ivy@ferc.gov; rziola@loup.com; tpetr@loup.com; nsuess@loup.com; arobak@loup.com; jfrear@loup.com;
Engelbert, Pat; Engel, John; Waldow, George; Grennan, Dennis E.; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; White,
Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing = Notice of Meetings
Good Afternoon.
Loup Power District has identified date(s) for the Study Plan Meeting(s) to discuss and seek consensus on the
proposed study plan for relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256). The Districts’
Proposed Study Plan will be issued by March 27, 2009 and will provide details of the studies proposed by the
District in the PAD as well as details of any studies requested by stakeholders.
Study Plan Meeting Details:
April 21, 2009
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23 rd St, Columbus
FERC representatives will be in attendance at the meeting. The meeting will also be available by
teleconference.
1

Lunch will be provided so we ask that you let us know how many people to expect from your agency. Please
RSVP to Angell Robak, Loup Power District at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
If needed, follow-up meetings will be held in Columbus on May 28 and July 1 from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM to
continue study plan issue resolution. Please mark your calendars.
If you do not wish to receive future emails regarding the Loup Power District Relicensing effort, plus let me
know and we'll get you removed from this distribution list.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114)4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Relicensing % SD1 Errata Notice
From: Stoner, kristal [mailto:kristal.stoner@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:47 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: Loup Power District Relicensing - SD1 Errata Notice
Matt,
Please take me off the mailing list. I switched jobs, so the Loup Relicensing is no longer my responsibility. You should
probably add Rick Schneider as the new contact in my place.
Kristal Stoner
Wildlife Diversity Program Manager
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N 33rd Street, Lincoln, NE 68503
kristal.stoner@nebraska.gov
402-471-5444
***Note new email address***
From: Pillard, Matt [Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:47 PM
To: Mike_LeValley@fws.gov; Weekley, Mark; Albrecht, Frank; Zuerlein, Gene; Stoner, kristal; Bender, John; Link, Marty;
AGO - Department of Justice; Schuckman, Jeff; jeff_runge@fws.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org; angie_tornes@nps.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; Amack, Rex; lori.moore@nema.ne.gov; Angell, Jean; Nebraska Department of
Agriculture; Ringenberg, Jay; Linder, Mike; pjsoenks@usgs.gov; rswanson@usgs.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu; Jundt, David;
dozman@usgs.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; Platte County Hwy Supt -
Liss; cityadmin@cablene.com; bczoning@frontiernet.net; cityadmin@cablene.com; rbishop@cpnrd.org; mark@cpnrd.org;
jhdnfldt@inebraska.com; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmmoser@megavision.com;
jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com;
monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; provost@huntel.net;
rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com; pawneenationpres@hotmail.com; omndn@yahoo.com;
CoraJones@bia.gov; rverhoeff@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; mohler@nctc.net; jmsunne@nppd.com; Tunink, Dave;
rbzelt@usgs.gov; John_Cochnar@fws.gov; Martha_Tacha@fws.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; Engelbert, Pat; Engel, John;
Pillard, Matt; jjshadl@nppd.com; rziola@loup.com; Greg_Wingfield@fws.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; Lavene, Justin;
Wickham, Bobbie; santin@hamilton.net; tpetr@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; nsuess@loup.com; arobak@loup.com;
jfrear@loup.com; Waldow, George; Grennan, Dennis E.; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; King, Wendy;
bdietsch@usgs.gov; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; athompson@gp.usbr.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mdrain@cnppid.com; donald_anderson@fws.gov; rswanson@usgs.gov;
matt_schwarz@fws.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; Berndt, Al; dave_carlson@fws.gov;
Arnie Stuthman; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; Chris Langemeier; Annette Dubas; White, Stephanie;
houghton@winnebagotribe.com; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; June_Deweese@fws.gov;
don_simpson@blm.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
jdolberg@nebraskahistory.org; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; Nicholas_Chevance@nps.gov; Robert.Dach@noaa.gov;
cox@columbusne.us
Cc: Neal Suess; Ron Ziola; Jim Frear (jfrear@loup.com); Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat;
1

Sigler, Bill
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing - SD1 Errata Notice
Loup Power District wanted to inform you that FERC is issuing an errata to SD1 that clarifies the deadline for comments
on the PAD, SD1 and for study requests is February 10. See the attached notice.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114%4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

February 5, 2009
Judy Trautwein
Columbus Area Recreational Trails
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D C 20426
Re: Loup River Project P-1256-029
Dear Ms. Base,
I am writing to inform you of the support Loup Power District gives to trails in our
area. Several years ago our Columbus Area Recreational Trail group was able to
build a biking-walking trail on Loup Power District property around Lake North
because of Loup Power District support through sponsorship. Since then, Loup
has built two more trails around the lake. This support from Loup Power District
was just the beginning of a trail network in Columbus.
In addition to providing land, Loup Power District maintains the trails around Lake
North. Officials at Loup Power District are always willing to listen to our group
about new trail ideas.
Other communities have been building trails for years because their cities have
placed trail funding in their budgets. Columbus must depend on private efforts to
write grants to receive money for the trails.
We do not have a trail-user counter on the trails. However, I can tell you that the
trails are used extensively. On the trails, you can see skateboarders, bikers,
walkers, runners, and parents with strollers and wheelchair users.
When people are considering moving to Columbus, recreation is important. The
trails are an economic development tool when giving reasons to live in
Columbus.
Sincerely,
Judy Trautwein
C.A.R.T. Board Member

February 6, 2009
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Ms. Bose,
Please accept the following comments regarding the Scoping Document and Pre-Application
Document (PAD) forthe Loup River Hydroelectric Project, Nebraska, FERC Project No.
1256.
The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission (NGPC) has been involved with this re-licensing
effort early on in the process. We have attended several meetings and provided letters which
outlined a number ofconcerns and questions as well. In the PAD, please reference a letter dated
September 23, 2008 (Kristal Stoner to Melissa Marinovich) and a joint letter developed by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NGPC (letter dated July 21,2008) for a detailed
description ofour earlier comments.
In reference to the PAD, Section 5.3.2 Potential Impacts on Fish and Aquatic Communities, the
first paragraph on page 5-46 ofthe PAD discusses past fish kills that have occurred in the both
the Loup River below the headgate structure at the Loup Canal diversion and in the Loup Canal
proper. The PAD document states that only the August 12, 2005 fish kills were the result of
Project operations. We contend that the Loup River fish kills that occurred from July 1995 to
July 2004 were the result ofthermal stress due to low water levels in the Loup River because of
water diversion into the Loup Canal. The fish kills were the reason for the development ofthe
voluntary agreement between the Loup Power District and the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission. The agreement outlined a release of50 to 75 cfs into the Loup River below the
headgates, during time periods ofhigh air temperatures, to alleviate conditions that exceed
critical thermal maximum water temperature for fish species that have resulted in past fish kills.
Now that the District has suspended the water releases, the study request to determine effects of
the project diversions on the water temperatures in the bypass reach (4.2.2 page 13 ofthe
Scoping Document) becomes even more critical in an effort to avoid additional Loup River fish
kills. Studies should be designed and data gathered to determine the relationships between river
flows, channel depth, ambient air temperature, and water temperature both above and below the
headgates diversion on the Loup River. An effort should be made to collect sufficient data to
produce a predictive model using the above variables to determine conditions under which fish
kills may occur. This data can then be used to determine ifand when increased flows may be
necessary in the bypass reach ofthe Loup River to prevent fish kills due to thermal stress.

20090209-5003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/7/2009 12:59:39 PM
Altogether my wife and I have been members of NOHVA for 15 years. Headworks is the closest place for
us to ride our atv's. It is a gathering place for atv and dirt bike enthusiasts to ride. If the place is closed to
us we will be forced to find other places to ride and may cause more harm to the enviroment because we
would have to make trails and such. This place is a beautiful place to ride and we have seen all kinds of
wildlife there while riding even on jamboree weekends! We hope and pray for the sake of those that enjoy
riding that this wonderful place does not get shut down!
Sincerely,
Erik and Sarah Sprague
Madison, Nebraska

20090209-5003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/7/2009 12:59:39 PM
Document Content(s)
2283.TXT..............................................................1-1

)_0090212-0201 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/10/2009 "
: -_.
February 8, 2009 ,7) ` ozf
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
RE: Loup Power Hydroelectric Project
Dear Ms. Bose:
i
i "
~_. .--:
..... --:-!
....
.. ........
._.
..... .~..~
-.
. . . . . . :::,
..
_
-
. ...... ....
I-~.)
CA:t
- ..--~
.
.-~
CD
..... . { j
I am writing you in support of the proposed licensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. I am an
agriculture producer, landowner, and irrigation in which I receive water from the Loup Canal System.
My family has surface water rights from the State of Nebraska which are private property rights dating
back to 1956 in which we irrigate land next to the Loup Canal. We currently have five farms in which
we irrigate from the Loup canal totalling approximately 338 acres.
I strongly encourage you to approve the proposed licensing project. The economic impact in the
immediate area from the crops grown with irn'gation has the trickle down effect for the area
businesses. I think of this as an "area economic stimulus plan ~. Area businesses as well as area
schools benefit from the additional income which we derive from the irrigated crops.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you regarding your decision.
Jim Donoghue
" 7:
.'-.)
i

~0090212-0201 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/10/2009
Seoping Meeting Registration Form
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 1256-029
Scoping Meetings convened and conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission staff for the purpose of gathering information and comments from interested
individuals and government agencies for the proposed licensing of the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project.
Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Express
524 E. 23 ~ Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
Meeting Day and Time: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Name of Participant:
Email Address:
Address:
Phone No.:
Representing (Agency, self, etc.):
Nature of Participation in Meeting: (Please check)
Oral Testimony __ Written Statement __ Observer/Discussion Participant __
If providing a written statement, please submit to the Meeting Recorder or mail by
February 10, 2009 to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Prominently indicate on the first page, the following caption:
Loup River Project, FERC No. 1256-029

February 9, 2009
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Scoping Document Comments
Dear Secretary Bose,
Via Electronic Filing
Loup Power District (the District) has reviewed Scoping Document 1 for relicensing the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project issued by the Commission on December 12, 2008. The District respectfully
submits the attached comments for consideration by the Commission in developing the
environmental assessment for relicensing the project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
Attachments: Loup Power District Comments on Scoping Document 1

Loup Power District Comments on Scoping Document 1:
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Scoping Document 1 Comments
1. Platte River is misspelled in a couple locations; correct spelling is “Platte River.”
2. Pg. 4, footnote 3 – Date that the District’s license expires is listed incorrectly as April 15,
2012. The correct date is April 15, 2014.
3. Pg. 6, Section 2.1, last bullet – the word “no” should be “not.”
4. Pg. 8, Section 3.1.1, - Lake Babcock and Lake North are manmade regulating reservoirs
and should be noted as regulating reservoirs rather than lakes. Additionally, suggest the
following changes to the last 2 sentences:
“From these lakes regulating reservoirs, flow is then diverted into enters the Intake Canal
to the Columbus Powerhouse. From this powerhouse, flow is then diverted routed back
to the Platte River via the Tailrace Canal.”
5. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.1, item (2) – the intake gates should be noted as having openings that
are 24-foot long and 5-foot-high rather than 5-foot-wide. Additionally, it should be noted
that the 1,569.5 foot elevation is of the gate sill.
6. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.1, item (3) – the sluice gates should be noted as having openings that
are 20-foot long and 6-foot-high rather than 6-foot-wide. Additionally, it should be noted
that the 1,568 foot elevation is of the gate sill.
7. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.1, item (6) – rated capacity of the Monroe Powerhouse is 2.612 MW,
not 2.621 MW.
8. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.1, item (9) – 11,000 acre-feet was the original capacity of Lake
Babcock. As noted in the PAD, due to siltation, the capacity of Lake Babcock is
currently estimated as 2,270 acre-feet.
9. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.1, items (4)(5)(7)(12)(16) – the power canal cross-section is a
trapezoidal shape, therefore, all of the widths noted, should be noted as the bottom width.
10. Pg. 9, Section 3.1.2, 2 nd paragraph – suggest the following changes to the description of
project operations:
The hydraulic capacity for the project is 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 6,930 acrefeet
per day, so all flows above this continue must be bypassed into the Loup River
Bypass Reach. Typically, during normal project operations, The long-term average
amount of flow diverted for the project is 1,610 cfs, or 3,180 acre-feet per day. During
cold weather operations, the entire 35-mile length of the project must be monitored for
heavy slush, frazil ice formation, ice floes, and ice jams. Any of these conditions may
create an emergency situation where flow diversion must be quickly adjusted or curtailed.
During high flows operations, typically during the spring freshet, the diversion of flows
for the project would be reduced or curtailed as needed to keep debris and excess
sediment from entering the Project. In the past, during the hot summer months days
when flows in the Loup River are impacted by upstream irrigation withdrawals, the
project operates by releasing maintaining a minimum flow of 50 to 75 cfs in the Loup
River bypass reach when conditions warrant. However, in 2008 the practice of

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Scoping Document 1 Comments
maintaining minimum flows was discontinued due to water accounting issues raised by
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR).
11. Pg. 10, Section 3.1.2, last sentence – The District has ceased maintaining minimum flows
of 50-75 cfs due to water accounting issues raised by Nebraska Department of Natural
Resources (NDNR). The District is working with NDNR to resolve these issues.
12. Pg. 10, Section 3.4 – Section notes “…detailed and comprehensive analyses in the EIS.”
EIS should be changed to EA.
13. Pg. 11, Section 3.4.3 – The license for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project includes
both powerhouses, therefore, the reference to decommissioning should refer to the project
as singular. Additionally, it should be noted that the Project has a diversion weir rather
than a dam.
14. Pg. 12, Section 4.1.1, second paragraph – The District provided information in the PAD
documenting that the Project does not deplete flows in the lower Platte River (PAD
Section 5.2.2, Water Budget, Pg. 5-18 & PAD Section 6. 3, Pg. 6-20). Since the Project
does not affect flow depletion, the District believes that water depletions should not be
considered for cumulative effects.
15. Pg. 12, Section 4.1.1 – The District notes that there are several initiatives associated with
the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program that are currently being implemented
to improve habitat in the Platte River which are expected to result in a net improvement
of the Platte River ecosystem in the future. In addition, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has several conservation programs to retire irrigated acres
and reduce depletions to the Platte River and other rivers. The effects of these other
programs on the Platte River ecosystem should be considered in the cumulative effects
analysis.
Additionally, the District notes that on December 16, 2008 (after PAD submittal), the
NDNR made a preliminary determination that the lower Platte River is fully
appropriated. If this designation becomes final, proposed new consumptive uses within
and upstream of the basin will have to be offset by retiring an equivalent amount of a
current use within the basin. This action by the NDNR should ensure that depletion of
flows in the lower Platte River does not continue into the future.
16. Pg. 12, Section 4.1.2 – The geographic scope of other programs and projects considered
for the cumulative effects analysis should include activities in the entire Platte River
basin, not just the lower Platte River basin.
17. Pg. 12, Section 4.1.2 – The geographic scope of analysis for effects to federally listed
species should be limited to the Loup River bypass reach (rather than the Loup River
Basin) and the lower Platte River to its confluence with the Missouri River for the listed
interior least tern and piping plover since the District’s Project and operations have no
effect on the Loup River or the species upstream of the Project diversion weir.
18. Additionally, the geographic scope of analysis for effects to the pallid sturgeon should be
limited to the lower Platte River from the confluence with the Elkhorn River to the
confluence with the Missouri River since the pallid sturgeon is not known to inhabit the

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Scoping Document 1 Comments
Platte River above the Elkhorn River (Peters, Edward J., and James E. Parham. 2007.
“Draft Ecology and Management of Sturgeon in the Lower Platte River, Nebraska.”
Nebraska Technical Series No. 18. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln,
Nebraska.)
19. Pg. 13, Section 4.2.1 – evaluation of effects of shoreline erosion due to operation,
maintenance and recreational boating should be limited to the shoreline within the Project
Boundary.
20. Pg. 13, Section 4.2.2, 2 nd bullet – As discussed at the scoping meeting on January 13,
2009, during development of the PAD, the District researched potential impacts of
project operations on bacteria levels in public water wells along the Loup River bypass
reach. It was determined that there is no apparent linkage between project operations
(and resulting low flows in the Loup River bypass reach) and bacteria levels (see LPD
PAD, Pg. 6-21). Therefore, the District suggests that this issue be eliminated.
21. Pg. 13, Section 4.2.2, 7 th bullet – During pre-PAD consultation with the District, the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) indicated that their primary concerns
related to fish passage were for sport fish, namely the channel catfish. Therefore, the
District requests that the scope of analysis for effects on fish passage and aquatic species
distribution in the Loup River be limited to the channel catfish.
22. Pg. 13, Section 4.2.2, 8 th bullet – The District notes that when no water is being released
from the Columbus Powerhouse, water is flowing into the tailrace canal from the Lost
Creek Flood Control Channel. Therefore, hydrocycling operations do not result in flows
in the tailrace that would result in fish stranding or mortality. The District requests that
evaluation of fish stranding and mortality due to hydrocycling be limited to the lower
Platte River below the tailrace.
23. Pg. 14, Section 4.2.4, 1 st bullet – the pallid sturgeon is not known to inhabit the Loup
River and it is only known to inhabit the Platte River below the confluence with the
Elkhorn River. Therefore, the District requests that the scope of analysis regarding
effects to pallid sturgeon be limited to effects below the Elkhorn River.
24. Pg. 15, Section 4.2.6, 2 nd bullet – The District requests clarification of the term “project
area.” Review of aesthetics should be limited to those areas within the Project Boundary.
25. Pg. 16, Section 4.3, last 2 bullets – these two data collection efforts were proposed as
studies by the District; what is the Commission’s intent by “recommend(ing) [them] at
this time?” There is no compelling reason that the Recreation User Survey and the Land
Use Inventory should be done immediately since there are no high value or irreplaceable
resources to be protected. The District maintains that these measures should be done in
conjunction with the other study efforts listed at the beginning of section 4.3.
26. Pg. 17, Section 5.0, 5 th bullet – projects to benefit fish and wildlife (including T&E
species) should be added to this list.
27. Pg. 20, Section 8.0 – The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program cooperative
agreement should be included in the list of Comprehensive Plans.

Loup Power District Comments related to the Scoping Meetings:
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Scoping Document 1 Comments
28. At the January 13, 2009 scoping meeting, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife suggested that the
District is contributing to water depletions on the Platte River by allowing irrigators with
a Nebraska water right to withdraw water from the canal rather than at the point of
diversion (which is the location where the water right is granted by the Nebraska
Department of Natural Resources). The District’s actions, allowing irrigators to access
and withdraw water from the canal, are consistent with Articles 13 and 18 of the
District’s current operating license (issued December 29, 1982).

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
February 10, 2009
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Neal Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68602
Project No. 1256-029 – Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Reference: Staff comments on Loup River Hydroelectric Project Preapplication
Document and Study Request
Dear Mr. Suess:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff, after
reviewing the Loup River Public Power District’s (Loup Power District) Pre-
Application Document (PAD) for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (project)
and the transcripts of our January 12 and 13, 2009, scoping meetings, have no
comments on the PAD. We do have one study request at this time (attached in
schedule A). Please note that staff may determine a need for additional studies or
information upon receipt and review of scoping comments, study requests, and the
applicant’s proposed study plan.
If you have any questions, please contact Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105,
or via e-mail at kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
cc: Mailing List
Public Files
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hill, Chief
Hydro West Branch 1

Schedule A
Study Request #1
Recreation Use Within Project Boundary & Along Bypassed Reach
After reviewing the information provided in the PAD as well as the
comments provided during the scoping meetings held on January 12 & 13, 2009,
two information gaps have been identified. Current recreational use along the
Loup River bypassed reach as well as use within the project boundary along the
Loup Canal is not well documented. The extent of the information gap and
relative scope of the study can be established during the study plan meetings after
reviewing all available information.
The following study request addresses each of the seven study criteria as
required in 18 C.F.R. §5.9(b):
§5.9(b)(1) — Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the
information to be obtained.
The goal of this study is to determine the demand for and existing use of
the recreational facilities provided at the following areas:
1) Headworks Park
2) Headworks Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park
3) Monroe Powerhouse
4) Lake North
5) Lake Babcock (Loup Park)
6) Powerhouse Park at the Columbus Powerhouse
7) Tailrace Park
8) Loup Lands Wildlife Management Areas
9) Along the bypassed reach of the Loup River
10) Within the Loup Canal
11) On the Loup Canal access roads
The objectives of the study are to:
1) Quantify existing recreation use levels at all locations identified above.
2) Document the types of recreational use occurring by season at each
location.
3) Identify user perceptions regarding the operation and management of
outdoor recreation facilities at each location.
4) Assess the impact of project operations on recreation experiences.
5) Document public awareness of existing recreation facilities.
6) Identify potential measures to alleviate any negative impacts as well as
2

to enhance existing recreational opportunities.
7) Develop a recreation plan for the project.
§5.9(b)(2) — If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the
agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied.
Not Applicable
§5.9(b)(3) — If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public
interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.
Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act require the Commission
to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is
located. When reviewing a proposed action, the Commission must consider the
environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values
of the project, as well as power and developmental values.
Comments provided during the scoping process by representatives of the
Nebraska OHV Associate indicate a strong interest in the continued provision of
recreation facilities in general and specifically for off-road vehicle and camping
opportunities in and around Headworks Park. In order to document existing use of
the Headworks Park and other recreation amenities as well as to provide insight
regarding the needs of recreationists at project facilities, a study of recreation use
is relevant to the Commission’s public interest determination.
It was also noted during the scoping process that no assessment of
recreational use in the bypassed reach has been undertaken to date. To fully
evaluate the project’s impact on boating and fishing in the bypassed reach and to
balance potential recreation enhancement opportunities with their costs, a study of
recreation use is needed.
§5.9(b)(4) — Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study
proposal, and the need for additional information.
When comparing historic visitation as reported via Recreation Reports
(Form 80) filed with the Commission to the more recent estimates made in the
PAD, it appears that recreational use is increasing. The Form 80 also indicated
that camping facilities were at 90% capacity without consideration of peak use and
trails were at 85%. Since the submission of this document, trail mileage has been
added to address capacity needs, but no additional campsites have been
documented. Other facilities receiving high levels of use (70% capacity during
non-peak weekends) included parks, playgrounds, picnic areas, tent/trailer/RV
sites, and group camping areas. With the large increase is recreational visitors,
3

some of these facilities may be experiencing use levels that exceed their design
capacity. To better understand the types of recreational use that occurs on Loup
Power District’s facilities, as well as to quantify that use, a visitor use study should
be conducted.
Regarding the bypassed reach, no information was provided in the PAD
regarding recreational use. During the public scoping meetings, it was noted that
“people canoe and kayak on the bypass reach on a regular basis between Monroe
and Columbus.” The existing level of recreation use should be documented so that
the information may be used to inform future management recommendations.
Initially, existing hydrology data should be reviewed to identify daily flow levels
in the bypassed reach. This information should be augmented with an assessment
of local knowledge regarding existing recreational activity within the bypassed
reach to ascertain a range of flow levels that facilitates recreational use.
Depending upon the level of existing use as well as latent demand identified for
recreation in the bypassed reach, a controlled flow study may be warranted.
§5.9(b)(5) — Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct,
indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study
results would inform the development of license requirements.
Recreation has been identified as a legitimate project purpose by the
Commission. Applicants are encouraged to develop recreation resources in such a
matter that is “consistent with the needs of the area to the extent that such
development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project” (18
C.F.R. §2.7). The Loup Power District has established a precedent over the
previous 80 years of providing a wide array of outdoor recreation opportunities.
An assessment of the current level of recreational use should be conducted to
provide Loup Power District personnel with the knowledge to manage the
recreational components of the project efficiently and effectively over the life of
the next license.
Project operation affects available instream flows for boating and fishing in
the bypassed reach of the Loup River by diverting flows from the 31 mile reach
between the headworks for the canal and the confluence of the Loup and Platte
Rivers. No minimum instream flow has been established that meets the needs of
all interested parties. An analysis of existing recreational use of the bypassed
reach (canoes and kayaks) would help form the basis for determining the project’s
ability to enhance boating opportunities.
§5.9(b)(6) — Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any
preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified
information, and a schedule including appropriate field seasons(s) and the
4

duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific
community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge.
As stated in the PAD, the recreation user survey shall “determine the public
awareness, usage, and demand of the project’s existing recreational facilities to
determine if potential improvements are needed.” The most efficient way to count
visitors to a recreation site is to install mechanical counters at an entrance to the
parking lots at each facility. An infra-red beam counter will track hourly counts
for each 24 hour time period up to one month. Data can be easily downloaded
from the counter to a personal computer. Mechanical counters should be installed
for 12 months in order to capture seasonal use variations.
In addition to the mechanical counts, a visitor intercept study should be
conducted in order to determine use patterns at each recreational facility.
Conducting an on-site study also would provide a method to validate the
mechanical count numbers by tracking the number of vehicles that enter the park
during the time period when onsite interviews are conducted. The group size
encountered will also provide an estimate of the number of individuals entering
the facility per car. Sampling visitors to each site should be stratified by day of
the week and time of day to ensure that the spectrum of visitors to each site are
included in the survey. Similar to the mechanical counters, interviews should be
conducted over a 12 month period in order to capture seasonality.
The most appropriate method to assess public awareness would be to
conduct a telephone or mail survey of potential users within the Loup Power
District’s service area. A one page questionnaire would inform the Loup Power
District regarding public awareness of existing facilities and provide the
opportunity to gather information from former users and potential users. This
study would also allow an assessment of latent demand for additional recreation
opportunities.
§5.9(b)(7) — Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable,
and why any proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the
stated information needs.
The cost for preparing the study plan, conducting the studies and preparing
the report is estimated to be between $90,000 and $125,000. Three sub-studies
would be conducted in order to gather all of the needed information: a visitor
count study; a visitor intercept study; and a potential user study.
The first study would include the installation of mechanical counters (for a
period of 12 months) at all established recreational sites within the project
boundary [Headworks Park, Headworks OHV Park, Monroe Powerhouse, Lake
5

North, Lake Babcock (aka Loup Park), Powerhouse Park, Tailrace Park, and Loup
Lands Wildlife Management Areas]. The count data would provide information
on the distribution of use throughout the project boundary as well as document
seasonal fluctuations in use. In addition to purchasing the counting devices, staff
would need to learn how to operate and install them. On a monthly basis staff
would need to download data from the counters and save it in a master data file.
This portion of the study should cost between $10,000 and $15,000 depending
upon the number of counters purchased and installed in the field.
Individuals pursuing recreational activities would be interviewed in the
second study. A stratified sample of visitors (across days of the week and time of
day) would be contacted over a 12 month period. While on site, the interview
staff would also be responsible for counting the number of vehicles and people
using the location during the sampling time frame. These numbers would be used
to validate the mechanical counters. Visitors at the established recreation sites
[Headworks Park, Headworks OHV Park, Monroe Powerhouse, Lake North, Lake
Babcock (aka Loup Park), Powerhouse Park, Tailrace Park, and Loup Lands
Wildlife Management Areas] would be sampled on two week days and two
weekend days per month as well as on one summer holiday (Memorial Day, July
4 th , or Labor Day). Disbursed recreationists using the canal or the canal banks
would be sampled on a similar schedule by having interview staff drive the canal
bank on scheduled days to contact visitors and count users and vehicles. Paddlers
using the bypassed reach of the Loup River would be sampled during high water
events at put-in or take-out locations. This study would provide information on
visitor use patterns as well as user perceptions of facilities, operations strategies,
and management regulations. This portion of the study should cost between
$60,000 and $80,000 assuming that interviewing is done in pairs for safety
reasons.
The final component of the study is a mail survey of households within the
service area of the Loup Power District. Following the methods recommended by
Dillman (2000), each household selected to participate in the mail study should be
contacted multiple times to increase the chances of an individual completing and
returning the survey. This portion of the study should cost between $20,000 and
$30,000 assuming a desired sample size of 400 and a 20% response rate.
References Cited
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method, 2 nd
Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Form 80 (2003). Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report
submitted by Loup Power District for the year 2002.
6

PAD (2008). Pre-application document submitted by the Loup Power District on
October 16, 2008 for project number 1256.
Loup Power District (2009). http://www.loup.com/RECREATE.asp, accessed on
January 26, 2009.
7

February 10, 2009
William McDonald
US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear McDonald;
Loup Power District has identified date(s) for the Study Plan Meeting(s) to discuss and seek consensus
on the proposed study plan for relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No.
1256). The Districts’ Proposed Study Plan will be issued by March 27, 2009 and will provide details of
the studies proposed by the District in the PAD as well as details of any studies requested by
stakeholders.
Study Plan Meeting Details:
April 21, 2009
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St, Columbus
FERC representatives will be in attendance at the meeting. The meeting will also be available by
teleconference.
Lunch will be provided so we ask that you let us know how many people to expect from your agency.
Please RSVP to Angell Robak, Loup Power District at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
If needed, follow-up meetings will be held in Columbus on May 28 and July 1 from 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM to continue study plan issue resolution. Please mark your calendars.
The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is a very fast moving process with strict deadlines; to minimize
delay in transmitting information to Relicensing Participants the District is requesting e-mail addresses
from all participants to expedite the flow of information. Please send an email to
matt.pillard@hdrinc.com to receive future communication via e-mail. If you do not wish to receive
future mailings, please respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Richardson
Project Manager

February 19, 2009
Mr. Brian Dunnigan
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94676
Lincoln, NE 68509-4676
RE: Loup Power District Hydroelectric Project
Dear Brian:
I am writing to request a one-on-one meeting with you to discuss unresolved issues related to the
District’s hydroelectric relicensing as well as other water rights administration issues that the
District and the DNR staff have previously discussed. To date, our efforts to schedule a meeting
and resolve these issues have been unsuccessful and I would like to meet with you to discuss
how the District and the DNR can work together to get these issues resolved. After our one-onone
meeting, I propose a meeting between our respective staffs to work out the details on the
issues.
The District is committed to working with all agencies to resolve issues related to relicensing as
well as non-relicensing issues. Further, we have a long-standing relationship with the DNR and
we will be working with your agency well beyond the relicensing effort. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me (402) 564-3171, ext. 268.
Regards,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
cc: Lisa Richardson, HDR
Ron Ziola, LPD
s:\Hydro Relicensing\DNR-dunnigan_letter-Feb09

~0090227-0077 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/24/2009
L~-p ,a..~., p.

~0090227-0077 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/24/2009
r~..~ o.,-,. ~,,tJ.. ja.~..., /z. ,, --
f ;~" " ~'~'- ~ "~-'- o-,,--, ~7~"',. 7/-,., ,,..,_,..~
• ~ c.-

~0090227-0075 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/24/2009
La~p '9,b~- ,%,/-~-~ fF~'c A& lq~:K-o.:9
Z . # I
~

~0090227-0074 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/27/2009
To: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission From: Brad L Wells
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, D.C. 20426
In Regards to the Loup River Project No. 1256-029
, I ~--3
• . _.°
i i First ~want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the re-licensing
process of~ Loep river Hydroelectric Project located near Genoa, Nebraska.
Our particular interest in the area is the OHV Park located at the
Headworks. For the most part we are off season riders. Our machines are the
bigger utility type. But we still like to play in the sand. We live within a half hour
of the park and it makes for a nice area for an evening outing, or just a spur of the
moment decision to go ride.
Several things make it a very attractive area for us. There are good roads to
it and it is well maintained. It's close to home and there are good services offered
in the nearby towns of Genoa or Fullerton. There are very nice camping areas,
good fishing, and swimming.
And if for nothing else, and ability to see this side of the Hydroelectric operation
is fascinating. It's basically a no impact area as far as disturbing wildlife and or
other users.
In fact, even at the busier times, a multitude a wildlife can be observed.
Bottom line, it seems like a good marriage of a clean efficient established
power source, a sizable economic benefit to the area, and a popular recreation area
for many different interest that coexist well together.
A quick note to share before closing, while shopping at the Bass Pro shop in
Council Bluffs, Iowa I was chatting with ATV rep and we found we had common
interest in the Headworks park. It seems that even though he was a distance away,
the area is popular with his family and friends.
Near or far it's an important place to many and we take this oppommity to
ask for its Continuation.
Again, for my family and the other users
Thank Yon.
Brad L Wells

A5627 (MWR-P/RTCA
March 9, 2009
Ms. Kimberly Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: National Park Service comments on Pre-Application Document (PAD) and
Scoping Document (SD1); Loup River Hydroelectric Project; Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Project Number 1256-029; Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska.
Dear Ms. Bose:
The National Park Service (NPS) reviews and comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) hydroelectric power projects based on the authority given to us through the
Federal Power Act (18 CFR 4.38 (a), 18 CFR 16.8(a), and 18 CFR 4.51(f) (4)(5) & (6)); the
Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963; and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.
Pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, FERC must consider recreational
opportunities and environmental resource protection when considering licensing decisions. In
addition, FERC requires that applicants consult with the NPS in preparing their license
applications (section 4.38(a)). Public Law 88-29, the Outdoor Recreation Act, was enacted to
promote coordination of activities generally relating to outdoor recreation resources including
rivers and trails. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 11(b), also directs us to
assist, advise, and cooperate with governments, landowners, or individuals to plan, protect, and
manage river and river-related resources. Consequently, the NPS provides technical assistance
in hydroelectric power project licensing in compliance with these laws.
The primary interests of NPS in this project, as well as many other hydroelectric relicensing
projects, are recreation, land use, and aesthetics. Relating to these interests, environmental
resources and project operations also are of importance. The NPS has reviewed the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project Pre.-Application Document (PAD) as well as the FERC Scoping
Document (SD1). Prior to this review, the NPS provided input and participated in initial
meetings conducted by the licensee (Loup Power District) relating to project overview and
identification of key issues. The NPS is appreciative of this effort and believes early review and
involvement of applicable resource agencies and interest groups is valuable for the project
analysis and participation process. Following are NPS comments relating to the PAD and SD1.

Pre-Application Document (PAD)
Recreation inventory and opportunities are well documented. This information will be valuable
in studies and analysis within the Environmental Assessment (EA) to be undertaken as part of
the FERC relicensing process.
Current recreational use of project lands and waters compared to facility or resource capacity” 18
CFR 5.6(d) (3)(viii)(B) Although a description and brief analysis of project related recreation is
given, further study and specific measures relating to recreational needs ,opportunities, and
capacity is necessary. Reference is made to section 6.2 of the document listing a Recreational
User Survey study to be undertaken. The NPS believes it is premature in the PAD to state that
“Therefore, potential increases in future recreation facility demand could be accommodated by
the existing facilities” (last sentence subsection 5.7.2).
In relation to Non-Recreational Land Use and Land Management, a more detailed map is
recommended that, in addition to figure 5-9, identifies and shows all lands/land uses within and
adjacent to the Loup Power District boundary (subsection 5.7.9). This map would provide
additional information for the Land Use Inventory (listed within section 6.2) and assist in
locating any existing conflicts and/or opportunities for future recreational access area(s).
Through site review and discussions, the NPS has noted that Tailrace Park is in need of further
maintenance and upgrading. A plan for this park should be discussed as part of the Loup Power
District recreation facilities analysis and identified as a potential Protection, Mitigation and
Enhancement (P,M&E) measure. An upgrade of this park relates to recreation, land use, and
aesthetics.
Scoping Document (SD1)
The NPS is in agreement with the SDI pertaining to analysis of existing recreational facilities
within the project boundary to current and futures recreation demand, including barrier-free
access. Said analysis to be addressed within the EA.
The Recreational User Survey should be developed to incorporate both visitor use as well as
facilities analysis in relation to recreational opportunities, demand, and capacity. The survey
instrument(s) should be reviewed by applicable resources agencies for input and discussion prior
to use.
The NPS is in agreement with the SD1 pertaining to analysis of encroaching vegetation and bank
stabilization measures along shoreline areas on aesthetic resources within the project area.
Existing and future shoreline protection and enhancement measures should be identified and
discussed in the EA.
2

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the PAD and SD1 for the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project. If you have any questions or need clarification, feel free to contact Randy
Thoreson at (651) 290-3004 or randy_thoreson @nps.gov.
cc:
Loup Power District (Attn: Neil Suess)
FERC (Attn: Kim Nguyen and Mark Ivy)
HDR; Minneapolis, MN (Attn: George Waldo)
FWS; Grand Island, NE (Attn: Robert Harms)
Sincerely,
/S/ Randall R. Thoreson
Randall R. Thoreson
Outdoor Recreation Planner/Hydro
Midwest Region
National Park Service
3

March 13, 2009
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Dear Secretary Bose,
Via Electronic Filing
Loup Power District (the District) has researched additional information relative to whooping
cranes and the potential for impacts to these species associated with the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project. The District respectfully submits the attached information for
consideration by the Commission in developing Scoping Document 2 and the environmental
assessment for relicensing the project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
Attachment

WHOOPING CRANE POWER LINE IMPACT EVALUATION
Based on the following factors, the District proposes that the transmission and
distribution line impact evaluation, as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), is not necessary to facilitate Project relicensing:
1. The District does not own any overhead transmission voltage lines (lines
with a voltage above 115 kilovolts [kV]). The sub-transmission and
distribution lines that the District owns are independent of the Project (are
not interrelated or interdependent). These power lines would remain in use
regardless of Project relicensing. The District’s only overhead subtransmission
and distribution lines interrelated to Project operations are
those located within the Project Boundary1 that are used to provide power
to the Project Headworks and developed recreation areas.
2. No whooping crane sightings have been documented within the Project
Boundary. The nearest point of the Project Boundary is located
approximately 35 miles east of the whooping crane’s primary migration
corridor, 2 as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS,
August 3, 2006), the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
(NGPC, November 2002), and USFWS (Stehn, June 1, 2007). This
primary migration corridor is also referred to as the 100-mile-wide
migration corridor by USFWS (Stehn, June 1, 2007). Maps showing these
corridors are included at the end of this response.
3. Throughout the entire 100-mile-wide migration corridor, which spans from
northern Alberta Canada to southern Texas, the USFWS report has not
documented any whooping crane collisions with power lines east of the
USFWS-delineated 100-mile-wide migration corridor (Stehn, June 1,
2007). The Project Boundary is located east of the migration corridor.
1. USFWS STUDY REQUEST
In response to the District’s Pre-Application Document (PAD) (Loup Power District,
October 16, 2008) and FERC’s Scoping Document 1 (FERC, December 12, 2008),
USFWS issued comments on these documents on February 9, 2009. On page 2 of its
comment letter, USFWS recommended that the District evaluate all transmission and
distribution lines owned and maintained by the District and/or power lines that are
1 The Project Boundary is defined and shown in Figure 4-1, Sheets 1-14, in the PAD.
2 All references in this document to whooping cranes and the whooping crane migration corridor
are specific to the Aransas-Wood Buffalo National Park population, which migrates between
Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta Canada and the Aransas Wildlife Refuge in
southeast Texas (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS, March 2007).
Loup River Public Power District 1 March 2009
FERC Project No. 1256

located within the Project Boundary for their potential to impact migrating whooping
cranes.
2. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO STUDY REQUEST
The following sections detail the District’s justification for proposing that the
transmission and distribution line impact evaluation as proposed by USFWS is not
necessary to facilitate Project relicensing.
2.1 Project-Associated Transmission Lines
Consistent with the following excerpt from Section 4.2.21 of the PAD, no overhead
transmission voltage lines are included in the Project or contingent upon relicensing:
All power produced at the Monroe and Columbus powerhouses is sold
at the on-site substations to NPPD. For this reason, no overhead
transmission voltage lines are associated with the Project license. The
District does own and maintain extensive overhead distribution voltage
lines to serve customers throughout its four-county service area.
However, none of these lines are directly associated with the Project.
FERC defines transmission lines as being 115 kV and above. According to this
definition, the District does not own any transmission lines. All transmission lines
previously owned by the District were sold to the Nebraska Public Power District
(NPPD) in November 1981. All lines currently owned by the District are subtransmission
or distribution lines.
The overhead sub-transmission and distribution lines associated with the District’s
four-county service area are independent of Project relicensing. These lines distribute
power purchased from NPPD to the four-county area regardless of whether the power
is generated at the Project or another power generating facility.
The only overhead power lines directly related to Project relicensing are the subtransmission
and distribution lines that provide power to the Project Headworks and
developed recreation areas that are located inside the Project Boundary.
2.2 Whooping Crane Occurrences in the Project Boundary
There are no documented whooping crane sightings in the Project Boundary (NGPC,
October 2, 2008).
The nearest point of the Project Boundary lays approximately 35 miles east of the
USGS-delineated whooping crane primary migration corridor, an area in which
82 percent of all confirmed post-1949 sightings in Nebraska occur (USGS, August 3,
Loup River Public Power District 2 March 2009
FERC Project No. 1256

2006) 3 . USGS determined the primary migration corridor through Nebraska to be
between 100 and 120 miles wide by plotting all of the confirmed sightings in the state
during the last 30 years and drawing straight lines to enclose 70 to 100 percent of the
sightings at each latitude (USGS, August 3, 2006). USGS goes on to state that “the
remaining sightings [outside of the primary migration corridor] are primarily to the
west [of the primary migration corridor].” As stated previously, the Project Boundary
is 35 miles east of the primary migration corridor.
In its February 9, 2009, comment letter, USFWS states that the Project Diversion
Weir lies within the migration corridor of the whooping crane. USFWS then provides
the three whooping crane sightings nearest, but not within, the Project Boundary. The
District provides the following clarifications to these statements:
• Concerning the USFWS definition of whooping crane migration corridor,
USFWS is consistent with USGS and NGPC in assigning a 100-mile-wide
migration corridor in which USFWS states that 82 percent of all known
sightings have occurred (Stehn, June 1, 2007). The Project Boundary is
approximately 35 miles east of this 100-mile-wide migration corridor, as
defined by USFWS. Beyond the 100-mile-wide migration corridor agreed
upon by multiple agencies, USFWS also defines a more liberal 200-milewide
corridor in which an additional 12 percent of all known sightings have
occurred (total of 94 percent of all known sightings) (Stehn, June 1, 2007).
The Project is located within this expanded, 200-mile-wide corridor.
• The three documented sightings noted by USFWS represent isolated
occurrences that span a 12-year time frame. The closest sighting was
3 miles west of the Project Boundary.
2.3 Whooping Crane Power Line Collisions
In a draft document by Mr. Tom Stehn, USFWS Whooping Crane Coordinator, titled
“Whooping Cranes and Wind Farms – Guidance for Assessment of Impacts,”dated
June 1, 2007, Mr. Stehn not only discusses the potential for whooping crane collisions
with wind turbines, but also the potential for collisions with associated power lines
(Stehn, June 1, 2007). Mr. Stehn states that along the entire 200-mile-wide migration
corridor (Alberta to Texas), there are nine documented whooping crane collisions
with power lines. Based on the location of the documented collisions in relation to
the 100- and 200-mile-wide corridors, Mr. Stehn states that “The chance for a
whooping crane colliding with a [wind] turbine or associated power line is much
greater within the main 100-mile whooping crane migration corridor, less in the
3 NGPC has delineated a primary migration corridor which is very consistent with that delineated
by USGS. NGPC also states that 80 percent of confirmed sightings occur within this corridor
(NGPC, February 2002).
Loup River Public Power District 3 March 2009
FERC Project No. 1256

100 to 200 mile-wide corridor, and negligible outside the 200-mile corridor” (Stehn,
June 1, 2007). More specifically, the document provides the following collision data:
• Seven of the nine collisions (77 percent) occurred within the 100-mile-wide
corridor.
• One of the nine collisions (11 percent) occurred within the 200-mile-wide
corridor, west of the 100-mile-wide corridor.
• One of the nine collisions (11 percent) occurred west of the 200-mile-wide
corridor.
In summary, over the entire length of the primary migration corridor, there are no
documented whooping crane collisions with power lines east of that corridor. The
Project is located 35 miles east of the primary migration corridor.
3. REFERENCES
Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS. March 2007. International Recovery Plan
for the Whooping Crane (Grus americana). Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally
Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available online at
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070604_v4.pdf.
FERC. December 12, 2008. Scoping of Environmental Issues for Relicensing the
Loup River Hydroelectric Project. Office of Energy Projects. Washington
D.C.
Loup Power District. October 16, 2008. Pre-Application Document. Volume 1.
Loup River Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 1256.
NGPC. November 2002. Whooping crane (Grus americana): Migration Distribution
in Nebraska – February 2002. NE T.G. Notice 522, Section II, NRCS.
NGPC. October 2, 2008. Personal communication (email) from Krystal Stoner,
Environmental Analyst Supervisor, Nebraska Natural Heritage Program,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, to Melissa Marinovich,
Environmental Scientist, HDR.
Stehn, Tom. June 1, 2007. “Whooping Cranes and Wind Farms – Guidance for
Assessment of Impacts.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Whooping Crane
Coordinator. Available online at http://www.neo.ne.gov/renew/wind-workinggroup/wind-whoopingcranes.pdf.
USFWS. February 9, 2009. Letter from June M. DeWeese, Nebraska Field
Supervisor, to Ms. Kimberly Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
regarding comments on the Pre-Application and Scoping Documents for the
Loup River Hydroelectric Project.
Loup River Public Power District 4 March 2009
FERC Project No. 1256

USGS. August 3, 2006. “Platte River Ecology Study: Whooping Cranes.” Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/plriveco/wcranes.htm.
Loup River Public Power District 5 March 2009
FERC Project No. 1256

Loup River Hydroelectric Project location relative to whooping crane migration corridor
and conrmed sightings (1950-spring 1980) in Nebraska.
0 10 20 30
MILES
Niobrara River
North Pla te River
South Platte River
North Loup River
Dismal River
Critical Habitat
Rainwater Basin Area
Migration Corridor
Conrmed Whooping Crane Sighting
Republican River
Platte River
Calamus River
Middle Loup River
South Loup River
Source: Basemap - USGS Platte River Ecology Study, Figure 13, accessed from
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/plriveco/gures/g13.htm
Mud Creek
Cedar River
Oak Creek
Elkhorn River
Beaver Creek
Platte River
Loup River
Hydroelectric
Project
Columbus
Missouri River

NOTE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project has been superimposed on whooping crane migration
corridor base map from Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
Loup River
Hydroelectric
Project

Selzle, Lydia
From: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
To: John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US
Cc: Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: Request: LPD Fish Kill Individual Reporting Sheets
John:
In the text you provided Mr. Matt Pillard in July 2008 (below) you referenced individual
reporting sheets concerning project-related fish kills. To my knowledge, neither HDR nor LPD
has requested these to date. This information may now prove valuable and your transmittal of
this info would be appreciated at your earliest convenience.
Thanks for your continued assistance on the LPD Relicensing Project.
Quinn Damgaard
Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone: 402.399.1041
Fax: 402.399.1111
-----Original Message-----
From: John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US [mailto:John.Bender@NDEQ.State.NE.US]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:46 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: Re: Loup Power District Hydro Project - June 25 Agency Meeting Notes
Matt,
Here is the information I promised. The file with fish kill info is just a summary of those
involving the Power Canal, the Loup River below the diversion, Tail Race, and Lakes Babcock
and North. Not included is info on kills in the Platte River around Columbus because all of
them were above the Tail Race confluence. There are individual reporting sheets on each kill
if you need them.
I have also included the Integrated Reports from 2004, 2006 and 2008. They are prepared
every other year to satisfy both our 305b and 303d obligations. The 303d (list of impaired
waters ) is included within this
report. Listings of Part 4 or 5 are waters with problems. Note that the
most recent approved Report as far as EPA is concerned is our 2004 submittal. They have yet
to take action on the 2006 and 2008 submittals.
However for our purposes, we view the 2008 Report as the one that guides our actions. Look
for the following entries:
LO1-L0060, LO1-L0070, LO1-L0080, LO1-L0090, LO1-L0100; these are the Headgate ponds 1 thru 5
(they may have been combined so that there are only two in existence, but this is how they
are listed).
LO1-10000, LO1-20000; Loup River segments below the diversion LO1-20200; this is the Power
canal within the Loup Basin LP1-L0440, LP1-L0450; Lakes North and Babcock LP1-21800; Power
canal within the Lower Platte Basin (include a portion of the tail race) MP1-10200; Power
canal within the Middle Platte Basin (lower end of tail
1

ace)
(See attached file: LoupFishKills.xls)(See attached file: 2008 final IR.pdf)(See attached
file: Draft 2006 Integrated Report.pdf)(See attached
file: 2004 Integrated Report-final.pdf)
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
402/471-4201
"Pillard, Matt"
To
"Anna Baum"
07/02/2008 04:00 , "Barb
PM Friskopp"
, "Bobbie Kriz-Wickham"
,
"Butch Koehlmoos"
, "David Jundt"
, "Frank
Albreicht"
,
"Henry Santin"
, "Jason
Alexander" ,
"Jean Angell" ,
"Joe Cothern"
, "John
Bender"
,
"Justin Lavene"
,
"Lacie Andreason"
, "Mark
Czaplewski" ,
"Randy Thoreson"
, "Richard
Hadenfeldt"
, "Robert
Harms" ,
"Robert Puschendorf"
cc
Subject
Loup Power District Hydro Project -
June 25 Agency Meeting Notes
2

Good afternoon!
As the point of contact for your respective agency for the Loup Power District Hydro Project,
please find attached a draft copy of the meeting notes and associated attachments. Please
distribute as needed to your fellow agency representatives.
If you have questions or comments on the meeting notes and/or attachments to the notes,
please consolidate your agency's comments and send them to my attention on or before 12:00
p.m. on Friday July 11, 2008. You can make your comments in track changes directly to the
Microsoft Word document if you choose. A final version of the meeting notes will be placed on
the Project web site (http://www.loup.com/relicense/) by Monday July 14, 2008.
Also, for your information, I have attached two examples of final study requests from other
relicensing projects.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
[attachment "nAgency.080625.Issues.doc" deleted by John Bender/NDEQ] [attachment
"nAgency.080625_Attachments.pdf" deleted by John Bender/NDEQ] [attachment
"Mystic.StudyRequest14.Recreation_Counts.pdf" deleted by John Bender/NDEQ] [attachment
"Mystic.StudyRequest7_Temperature_Monitoring.pdf"
deleted by John Bender/NDEQ] (Embedded image moved to file: pic15144.jpg)
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Neal Suess [nsuess@loup.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:26 PM
To: brian.dunnigan@nebraska.gov
Subject: Potential Meeting between Loup Power District Staff and DNR Staff
Brian:
It has been several weeks since we had our meeting and I wanted to go ahead try to set up a meeting between our
respective staffs (including you and I) to discuss various issues that we talked about in late February. As I have
said previously, it is my belief that the DNR and the District have many common goals and a meeting of our staff's
could go along way to understanding our issues that we have. These issues would include:
1. water rights on the Loup River
2. DNR concerns with the District's relicensing effort
3. other issues that have developed over the past several years
We have looked at our calendars here at the District and we offer up the following dates for a potential meeting
between us.
April 6, Monday
April 24, Friday
April 27, Monday
We would be willing to meet either here at our offices in Columbus or in Lincoln at your offices, whichever is most
convenient for you. If none of these dates work, we would be happy to look and see if we can find a convenient
date that works for us in May.
Thanks for your time in meeting with me the other day and I look forward to hearing from you on when we might be
able to get together and discuss these issues.
Neal Suess, P.E.
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988 (2404 15th Street)
Columbus, NE 6860290988
Phone: 402956493171
Fax: 402956490970
Cell: 402991098979
E9Mail: nsuess@loup.com
1

March 26, 2009
Ansley Griffin, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NE 68039
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Griffin:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). With this letter, I
wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in development and
implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District submitted its
Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes details on all of the
studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural and water
resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including places of
traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

March 26, 2009
George Howell, President
Pawnee Tribal Business Council
P.O. Box 470
Pawnee, OK 74058
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Howell:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). With this letter, I
wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in development and
implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District submitted its
Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes details on all of the
studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural and water
resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including places of
traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

March 26, 2009
Larry Wright, Jr., Chairperson
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 288
Niobrara, NE 68760
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Wright:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). We understand that
you previously declined in writing on 10/29/08 to participate in the project. However,
with this letter, I wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in
development and implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District
submitted its Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes
details on all of the studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural
and water resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including
places of traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built
environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

March 26, 2009
Trey Howe, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 2, White Eagle Drive
Ponca City, OK 74601
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Howe:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). With this letter, I
wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in development and
implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District submitted its
Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes details on all of the
studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural and water
resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including places of
traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

March 26, 2009
Roger Trudell, Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribal Council
Route 2
Niobrara, NE 68760
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Trudell:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). With this letter, I
wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in development and
implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District submitted its
Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes details on all of the
studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural and water
resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including places of
traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

March 26, 2009
John Blackhawk, Chairman
Winnebago Tribal Council
P.O. Box 687
Winnebago, NE 68071
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Blackhawk:
On October 23, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notified you
about the Loup River Hydroelectric Project and invited you to participate in the
relicensing process. The Loup River Public Power District (District) has been tasked by
FERC to develop various documents and studies that will assist their consideration of the
relicensing application. The District is also tasked to help coordinate consultation with
interested parties and ensure appropriate communication with tribal staff; particularly
with regard to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). We understand that
you previously declined in writing on 12/09/08 to participate in the project. However,
with this letter, I wish to extend to you the District’s invitation to participate in
development and implementation of the studies to evaluate Project effects. The District
submitted its Proposed Study Plan to FERC on March 27, 2009. This plan includes
details on all of the studies the District plans to conduct, including studies related natural
and water resources, recreation and other land uses and cultural resources (including
places of traditional cultural value, archaeological sites, and the historic built
environment).
Please notify me of your interest in participating in the studies. If you have comments
about the project, please notify me at your earliest convenience so that we may arrange
for the kinds of communication and review procedures needed to fully accommodate
your participation. With your statement of participation, we can inform you of new
developments and study products produced for the relicensing review, and we can
provide opportunities to you to participate in meetings and the development of
information leading to FERC’s decisions.

If you have any questions about the project or the FERC-led review process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or nsuess@loup.com. We look
forward to working with you throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
CC: Kim Nguyen, FERC

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20426
March 27, 2009
Project No. 1256-029 – Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Subject: Scoping Document 2 for the Relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric
Project
To the Parties Addressed:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing the Preapplication
Document (PAD) submitted to the Commission by the Loup River Public
Power District (Loup Power District) on October 16, 2008 for relicensing the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1256-029). The project is located on the Loup River
and occupies lands and waters in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska. The Loup Power
District will use the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to relicense the
project. Under the ILP, the Loup Power District must file their preliminary licensing
proposal or a draft license application for the continued operation of the project by
August 15, 2011. The final license application must be filed with the Commission on or
before April 16, 2012. The current license for the project expires on April 15, 2014.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the
Commission staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA would be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what
conditions, to issue a new license. To support and assist our environmental review, we
are conducting a scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and
analyzed and that the EA is thorough and balanced.
In our December 12, 2008, Scoping Document (SD1), we disclosed our
preliminary view of the scope of environmental issues associated with the Loup River
Project. Based on the verbal comments that we received at the scoping meetings held on
January 12 and 13, 2009, in Columbus, Nebraska, and written comments we received
throughout the scoping process, we prepared the enclosed Scoping Document 2 (SD2).
We appreciate the participation of governmental agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and the general public in the scoping process. The enclosed SD2 for the
project serve as a guide to the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EA. Key
changes from SD1 to SD2 are identified in bold, italicized type.

SD2 is distributed to entities on the Commission’s Mailing List. No response is
required. SD2 is also available from our Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371. It
also can be accessed online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.
If you have any questions about the scoping process, please contact Kim Nguyen
at (202) 502-6105 or kim.nguyen@ferc.gov. Additional information about the
Commission’s licensing process and the Loup River Project may be obtained from our
website, http://www.ferc.gov.
Enclosure: Scoping Document 2 for the Loup River Project
cc: Mailing List
Public Files
2

SCOPING DOCUMENT 2
LOUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NEBRASKA
PROJECT NO. 1256-029
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Washington, DC
March 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................4
2.0 SCOPING....................................................................................................................4
2.1 Purposes of Scoping ......................................................................................6
2.2 Comments and Scoping Meetings.................................................................6
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...................................................15
3.1 Loup Power District’s Proposed Action..........................................................15
3.1.1 Description of Existing and Proposed Project Facilities....................15
3.1.2 Existing and Proposed Project Operation..........................................16
3.2 Staff's Modification of the Proposed Action...............................................17
3.3 No-action Alternative..................................................................................17
3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study....................17
3.4.1 Federal Government Takeover..........................................................17
3.4.2 Nonpower License.............................................................................18
3.4.3 Project Decommissioning .................................................................18
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES ..............18
4.1 Cumulative Effects ..........................................................................................18
4.1.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected ............................18
4.1.2 Geographic Scope..............................................................................19
4.1.3 Temporal Scope.................................................................................19
4.2 Resource Issues ...............................................................................................19
4.2.1 Geology and Soil Resources .............................................................20
4.2.2 Aquatic Resources.............................................................................20
4.2.3 Terrestrial Resources.........................................................................20
4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................21
4.2.5 Recreation and Land Use ..................................................................21
4.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetics ...................................................................21
4.2.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................22
4.2.8 Developmental Resources.................................................................22
4.3 Proposed Protection and Enhancement Measures and Potential Studies........22
6.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE .........................................................................23
7.0 EA OUTLINE ...........................................................................................................24
8.0 LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS..................................................................25
9.0 MAILING LIST........................................................................................................26
APPENDIX A - PROCESS PLANS AND SCHEDULES............................................30
2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Loup River Project No. 1256-029.........................................5
3

1. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), under the authority of
the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 may issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric projects. On October 16, 2008,
the Loup River Public Power District (District), the current licensee, filed a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to seek a new license 2 and a Pre-application Document (PAD) for the 53.46megawatt
(MW) Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256-029). The
Loup River Project is located on the Loup River and occupies lands and waters in Nance
and Platte Counties, Nebraska (figure 1). The Loup Power District is using the Integrated
Licensing Process (ILP) and intends to file its application for a new license for the project
with the Commission on or before April 16, 2012.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 3 the Commission’s
regulations, and other applicable laws require that we independently evaluate the
environmental effects of licensing the project as proposed, as well as consider reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action. Based on our review of the PAD and preliminary
analysis of the issues, we propose to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that
describes and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific
and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives considered. This
scoping process will help us to identify the pertinent issues that we will need to analyze
in the EA.
2.0 SCOPING
This Scoping Document 2 (SD2) is intended to advise all participants about the
proposed scope of the EA and to seek additional information pertinent to this analysis.
This document contains a brief description of: (1) the scoping process and schedule for
developing the EA; (2) a description of the proposed action and alternatives; (3) a
preliminary identification of environmental issues and proposed studies; (4) a request for
comments and information; (5) a proposed EA outline; and (6) a preliminary list of
comprehensive plans that are applicable to the project.
1 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r) (2000).
2 The current license for the Loup River Project was issued on December 29, 1982
(21 FERC 62,535), with an effective date of December 1, 1982; the license expires on
April 15, 2014.
3 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-70(f) (2000).
4

Figure 1. Location of the Loup River Project No. 1256-029 (Source: Loup Power
District, 2008, PAD).
5

2.1 Purposes of Scoping
Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities
associated with a proposed action. The process, according to NEPA, should be
conducted early in the planning stage of a project.
The purposes of the scoping process are as follows:
Invite participation of federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other interested persons to help
us identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the
proposed action
Determine the resource areas, depth of analysis, and significance of issues to
be addressed in the EA
Identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative impacts
in the project area
Identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be evaluated
in the EA
Solicit from participants available information on the resources at issue
Determine the resource areas and potential issues that do not require detailed
analysis during review of the project
We issued Scoping Document 1 (SD1) for the project on December 12, 2008, to
enable appropriate resource agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties to
more effectively participate in and contribute to the scoping process. In SD1, we
requested clarification of preliminary issues concerning the Loup River Project and
identification of any new issues that need to be addressed in the EA. We revised SD1
following the scoping meetings and after reviewing comments filed during the scoping
comment period. SD2 presents our current view of issues and alternatives to be
considered in the EA. Major changes to SD1 are shown in bold and italic type in this
SD2.
2.2 Comments and Scoping Meetings
In addition to written comments solicited by SD1, we held two public scoping
meetings on January 12 and 13, 2009, in Columbus, Nebraska. We also had a site visit
of the project area on January 12, 2009. Notice of the scoping meetings and site visit
was published in local newspapers and in the Federal Register. A court reporter
recorded the scoping meetings.
In addition to the comments received at the scoping meetings, the following
6

entities filed written comments on SD1:
Entity Date Filed
Trent Hurley Jan. 16, 2009
Gregg Schuetz Jan. 16, 2009
The Bradbury Family Jan. 20, 2009
Ryan Shea Jan. 20, 2009
Joe & Cheryl Smisek Jan. 26, 2009
Timothy Leinart Jan. 26, 2009
Kim Sothan Jan. 28, 2009
John Brook Jan. 28, 2009
Dave & Jackie Lewis Jan. 30, 2009
William Larson Jan. 30, 2009
Adam Benson Feb. 2, 2009
Seth Wilson Feb. 2, 2009
Kevin Kersten Feb. 2, 2009
Nebraska Off Road Vehicle Association (NORVA) Feb. 2, 2009
Randy Leiser Feb. 3, 2009
Tern & Plover Conservation Partnership Feb. 4, 2009
Allan Feller Feb. 4, 2009
Vicki Ladoff Feb. 9, 2009
Erik & Sarah Sprague Feb. 9, 2009
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Nebraska DNR) Feb. 10, 2009
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Feb. 10, 2009
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (Nebraska GPC) Feb. 10, 2009
Michael Kroeger Feb. 10, 2009
Jim Donaghue Feb. 10, 2009
Loup Public Power District (District)
Feb. 10, 2009 &
Mar. 16, 2009
Jason Feb. 11, 2009
Barry Simons Feb. 11, 2009
Randall Nelson Feb. 11, 2009
7

Tim Hinkle Feb. 17, 2009
Barry & Lisa Borgeson Feb. 19, 2009
Bill Shanle Feb. 19, 2009
Jim Shanle Feb. 19, 2009
Frankie Shanle Feb. 19, 2009
Ron & Patsy Mellen Feb. 23, 2009
Tom Walters Feb. 23, 2009
Dan & Deb Maurer Feb. 23, 2009
Justin Sibert Feb. 23, 2009
Roger Castor Feb. 23, 2009
Jason Biorn Feb. 23, 2009
Josh ???? Feb. 23, 2009
Juanita Bowersox Feb. 23, 2009
Glenn Bowersox Feb. 23, 2009
Carrie Heesacker Feb. 23, 2009
Verland Widga & Susan Peterson Feb. 23, 2009
Tim & Susan Zabka Feb. 23, 2009
Dennis Taylor Feb. 23, 2009
Craig Nichols Feb. 24, 2009
Mike Engle Feb. 24, 2009
Judy Trautwein Feb. 24, 2009
Tim Rodehurst Feb. 25, 2009
Monica Lee-Buss Feb. 25, 2009
Van Wurst Feb. 25, 2009
Monte Swantek Feb. 25, 2009
Brad Wells Feb 27, 2009
Arthur Spenner Feb. 27, 2009
Columbus Area Recreation Trails (CART) Mar. 2, 2009
Randall Haskell Mar. 2, 2009
Jason Buss Mar. 2, 2009
U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Mar. 13, 2009
8

2.2.1 Issues Raised During Scoping
The general concerns raised by participants in the scoping process are
summarized below by subject area. Both oral and written comments are addressed in
the summary. The summary does not include every oral and written comment made
during the scoping process. For instance, we do not address comments that are
recommendations for schedule changes, or minor editorial corrections. We also have
not included comments that are recommendations for license conditions. Such
recommendations will be addressed in the EA.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Comment: The District recommends that the geographic scope of the cumulative
effects analysis for the least tern and piping plover be limited to the Loup River
bypassed reach to the confluence with the Missouri River because the project and its
operations have no effect on the Loup River or the species upstream of the project’s
diversion weir.
Response: Just because the project might not affect flow or resources upstream of the
project, it does not reduce the needed geographic scope of the cumulative effects
analysis. The area defined by the District would better represent the likely projectspecific
impact zone, which will be considered. As stated in section 4.1, a cumulative
effect is an impact on the resource resulting from the incremental effects of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Thus,
cumulative effects must be added to effects (past, present, and future) caused by all
other actions that affect the same resource. Other actions (i.e., flow diversions and
depletions) occurring within the Loup River basin above the project may contribute to
or interact with the effects of the project on these species and their habitat, and thus,
should be weighed and disclosed by the Commission in its environmental analysis.
Therefore, we are not modifying our geographic scope.
Comment: The District states that we should limit the geographic scope of analysis for
cumulative effects to pallid sturgeon to the lower Platte River from the Elkhorn River
confluence to the Missouri River confluence, because pallid sturgeon do not inhabit
the Platte River upstream of the Elkhorn River confluence.
Response: We included the Loup River basin and the Platte River mainstem upstream
of the Elkhorn River confluence within our geographic scope, because such project
and non-project related actions as sediment management, flow depletions, flow
diversions, and flow fluctuations occurring upstream of the confluence of the Elkhorn
River with the Platte River could potentially affect pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte
River. In other words, the geographic scope includes not only the location of the
affected resource, but also the location of the action or actions affecting the resource.
9

We, therefore, make no change to our geographic scope identified in SD1.
Comment: The District notes that it reviewed the Nebraska Department of Health and
Human Service’s September 2008 “Total Coliform History Report” for public water
supplies for Genoa and Monroe, Nebraska, and based on that review, concluded that
there is no connection between project diversions and bacteria levels in public water
wells located in the vicinity of the bypassed reach of the Loup River. The District,
therefore, suggests that we eliminate the issue of project effects on the quality of
nearby public water wells.
Response: We agree. At the January 13, 2009, scoping meeting, we suggested
eliminating this issue from SD2, stating that we included in SD1 primarily to foster
discussion of the issue through the scoping process. A District representative present
at the meeting clarified that the concern identified during preparation of the PAD was
that project diversions could potentially lead to higher water temperatures in the
bypassed reach during the summer, which in turn could raise the water temperature of
adjacent water wells sufficiently to allow bacteria to grow. However, the District
representative noted that although there were isolated reports of bacteria growing in
some adjacent wells, the instances occurred in May and October when water
temperatures are not high. We’ve identified no other possible connection between
project operations and the isolated cases of bacteria growth in adjacent wells;
therefore, we no longer include the issue in SD2.
Comment: The District identifies a number of actions that would affect flow depletions
in the Platte River including initiatives associated with Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program, Natural Resources Conservation Service programs to retire
irrigated acres, and the Nebraska DNR preliminary determination that the lower Platte
is fully appropriated. The District suggests that the geographic scope of other
programs and projects considered for the cumulative effects analysis should include
activities in the entire Platte River basin, not just the lower Platte River basin.
Response: All of the above initiatives, measures, and proclamations will be considered
in the cumulative effects analysis as it relates to flow and flow processes in the lower
Platte River. For the cumulative effects analysis to help a decision-maker and inform
interested parties, it must be limited to scoping effects that can be evaluated
meaningfully; in other words, the geographic bounds are limited to the area where
there are actions that have the potential to have a significant and measurable affect on
the targeted resource. In the case of the Loup River project, expanding the geographic
scope to include the entire Platte River basin would extend the analysis beyond the
point of providing a meaningful analysis of the project’s and other action’s combined
potential influences on resources in the lower Platte River. However, as the
relicensing proceeding progresses, we will consider modifying the geographic scope of
analysis as needed based on our identification of any new relevant information.
10

Comment: The District does not believe that the project results in flow depletions in
the Loup River, thus flow depletions should not be considered for cumulative effects.
Response: Although the District has assessed whether there are flow depletions in the
lower Platte River owing to the project, Commission staff must conduct its own
independent assessment of this issue, and will do so in the NEPA document. We,
therefore, will retain the issue in SD2.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Comment: The District notes that with respect to fish passage at the diversion weir, the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission expressed interest in providing passage for
channel catfish, but no other fish species. The District requests that we limit the issue
of fish passage to only channel catfish.
Response: Our preference is to not limit the issue to just channel catfish, because
although channel catfish may be the primary target species, other fish species could be
affected (beneficially or adversely) by fish passage at the project. Further, should a
relicensing participant ultimately recommend fish passage at the project, we would
identify all species that would likely use the fish passage, not just those that the
recommending entity targets. In addition, the Meeting Notes for August 19, 2008, in
Volume 2 of the PAD states that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission “are
interested in channel catfish and flathead catfish….smaller species may also be a
concern [with respect to fish passage].”
Comment: The District notes that hydrocycling operations do not cause conditions in
the tailrace canal conducive to fish stranding or mortality, and therefore, the issue of
project operational effects on fish stranding and mortality should be limited to just the
Platte River downstream of its confluence with the tailrace canal. The District notes
that the canal is continuously watered through project operations and flow inputs via
the Lost Creek Flood Control Channel.
Response: We agree. As noted in the PAD, the FWS and Nebraska DNR expressed
concerns with how hydrocycling operations might affect aquatic resources, specifically
in the Platte River downstream of the confluence with the tailrace canal. We,
therefore, have modified the issue in SD2 to specifically target the Platte River.
Comment: The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission notes that the main area
within the Loup River bypassed reach where fish kills may occur during the summer
months is from the diversion weir downstream to the Loup River confluence with
Beaver Creek. They request that as part of our analysis of project effects on bypassed
reach water temperature, we specifically target the area of the bypassed reach between
the diversion weir and the confluence with Beaver Creek.
11

Response: We agree and have made the modification in SD2.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Comment: The FWS requests that we analyze project operational affects on
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) transport within the project area and associated
effects on federally listed species, including piping plover, least term, and pallid
sturgeon. They also request an analysis of non-point sources of atrazine, nutrients,
and bacteria to the project canal system with the goal of identifying strategies to reduce
these pollutant inputs to the project area.
Response: Inputs of atrazine, nutrients, and bacteria to the project canal system from
non-point sources are unrelated to the project or operations, and therefore, the
requested issue is not included as an issue for analysis in our NEPA document.
The potential exists for dredging operations to mobilize PCB-laden sediments if present
in the settling basin. In addition, small fish discharged onto the North Sand
Management Area with sediments during dredging activities could potentially contain
PCBs. Such fish could be ingested by federally listed least terns nesting and feeding in
the North Sand Management Area. Therefore, we have modified SD2 to show that we
will assess the effects of project operations on PCB transport within the project area.
At this time, we are not including pallid sturgeon as part of our analysis of PCBs,
because pallid sturgeon are not located in the project area where the project has the
potential to expose pallid sturgeon or their prey to any PCB-laden sediments disrupted
by project operations or maintenance.
Comment: The FWS recommends that the scoping document indicate that the project
lies in one of Nebraska’s Biologically Unique landscapes as described by the Nebraska
Natural Legacy Project. The rare, threatened and endangered species found on or in
the vicinity of the project are identified as Tier 1 At-Risk Species by the Legacy Project,
indicating the critical need to implement measures to promote their conservation and
recovery.
Response: The Commission’s analysis will consider the need for conservation and
management actions to assist in the recovery of the Tier 1 species identified by the
Legacy Project.
Comment: The FWS insists that for its Section 7 consultation that the analysis must
examine the effects of the project operation using a baseline of with compared to
without the project.
Response: The environmental baseline on relicensing is the environment as it exists at
12

the time of relicensing, not pre-project conditions. 4 Nonetheless, this does not prevent
the FWS from using a different baseline for its analysis. 5
Comment: The FWS recommends that all transmission and distribution lines owned
and maintained by the District and/or power lines that are located within the project
boundary be evaluated for potential adverse impact to migrating whooping cranes.
The FWS says that such transmission and distribution lines are an interrelated
component of the project operations and subject to Section 7 consultation and
evaluation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FWS states that
transmission and distribution lines located in the vicinity of roost sites represent a
collision hazard to whooping cranes.
Response: An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and
depends on the proposed action for its justification (underline added). 6 The
transmission and distribution lines referenced by the FWS are unrelated to the
Commission’s licensing action. The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to primary
transmission lines, that is the primary line or lines transmitting power from the project
to the point of junction with the distribution system or with the interconnected primary
transmission system (FPA section 3(11)). The project does not have any primary
transmission lines and the Commission has no authority to require any modifications
to the lines to reduce or mitigate any potential adverse affect to whopping cranes.
Moreover, the transmission and distribution lines would continue to transmit and
distribute power regardless of whether the project exists or would continue to operate
under a new license; therefore, they are independent of the Commission’s action.
Thus, we have not added this as an issue to SD2.
Comment: The District submitted additional information regarding the documented
4 The Commission's choice of current environmental conditions as the baseline
for environmental analysis in relicense cases was affirmed in American Rivers v.
FERC, 187 F.3d 1007, amended and rehearing denied, 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir., 1999);
Conservation Law Foundation v. FERC, 216 F.3d 41 (D. C. Cir. 2000).
5 PG&E, 107 FERC 61,232 at 19-21 (2004 ) ), order on reconsideration, 108
FERC 61,266 (2004) (P-77, Potter Valley), appeal filed, Friends of the Eel River v.
FERC, 9 th Cir. No. 04-73862 (8-5-04), Cal. Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. FERC,
9 th Cir. No. 04-73498 (rejecting argument that reliance on Biological Opinion was
arbitrary and capricious because Joint Regulations require ESA agencies to use a
“current conditions” baseline).
6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1988.
Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook.
13

sightings of whooping cranes as well as documented collisions with power lines as
justification for not conducting the transmission and distribution line impact
evaluation recommended by the FWS.
Response: As stated in the previous response, we agree that an assessment of
transmission and distribution lines are beyond the scope of this project since the
Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to primary transmission lines, and there are no
such lines within the project boundary.
RECREATION AND LAND USE
Comment: Several citizens (37 letters) as well as NORVA expressed support for the
continued operation of the off-road vehicle area in Headworks Park. Most
respondents noted the lack of alternative places to ride in the state and the high quality
experience provided through a partnership between the District and NORVA.
Response: We have identified the issue of providing opportunities for off-road vehicle
use on lands within the project boundary and will provide our assessment in the EA.
Comment: A number of individuals (6 letters) as well as CART supported efforts by
the District to develop trails and to provide recreational opportunities on project lands.
Response: We have identified the issue of providing trail opportunities on lands within
the project boundary and will provide our assessment in the EA.
Comment: The District notes that the two bullets recommending a recreational survey
and a land use inventory were proposed by the Commission and asks what the
Commission’s intent is by recommending them at this time.
Response: All the measures identified in section 4.3 were proposed by the District in
the PAD, which was incorrectly reflected as Commission recommendations. We have
rephrased the introduction to the bullets and removed the reference to the studies from
the list of environmental measures.
Comment: Several neighboring landowners (8 letters) have voiced concern over a
comment made by FWS staff during one of the scoping meetings that the District does
not have to allow irrigators access to their water rights on Loup River Power District
property. These landowners want assurances that they will continue to be allowed to
access their water rights from the canal to irrigate crops.
Response: Administration of water rights is a state legal matter beyond the purview of
our environmental analysis. However, we will assess the effects of any changes to
project diversions on irrigation use of Loup power canal waters.
14

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES
Comment: The District recommends adding the Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program cooperative agreement to the list of comprehensive plans.
Response: To be included on the list of comprehensive plans and accorded FPA
section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status, the plan must be developed by a federal
or state resource agency and filed with the Commission for approval. Because this
plan has not been filed for consideration as a comprehensive plan, we will consider this
program’s objectives, but not under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA.
Comment: The Nebraska DNR requests a study to evaluate the effects the project has
on ice jam flooding. They would like the study to include a predictive model of the
project’s effects on ice jam flooding, and ways to prevent, alleviate and mitigate for ice
jam flooding caused by the project.
Response: This study request will be discussed under the study plan process.
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with NEPA, our environmental analysis will consider, at a
minimum, the following alternatives: (1) the District’s proposed action; (2) alternatives
to the proposed action; and (3) no action.
3.1 Loup Power District’s Proposed Action
The District is seeking a new license for the continued operation and maintenance
of the Loup River Project. The Commission will consider whether, and under what
conditions, to issue a new license for the project.
3.1.1 Description of Existing and Proposed Project Facilities
The headworks for the Loup River Project are located on the Loup River
approximately 34 miles upstream of the confluence of the Loup and Platte Rivers. Water
is diverted at the headworks into the Upper Power Canal to the Monroe Powerhouse.
From this powerhouse, water then flows into the Lower Power Canal to Lakes Babcock
and North (regulating reservoirs). From these regulating reservoirs, flow is then diverted
into the Intake Canal to the Columbus Powerhouse. From this powerhouse, flow is then
diverted back to the Platte River via the Tailrace Canal.
The project consists of: (1) a diversion weir on the Loup River at an elevation of
1,574 feet with wooden flashboards (or planks) to create an effective crest elevation of
1,576 feet; (2) eleven 24-foot-long and 5-foot-high steel intake gates located on the north
15

ank of the river with gate sill elevation of 1,569.5 feet; (3) three 20-foot-long and 6foot-high
steel sluice gates with sill elevation of 1,568 feet spanning the portion of river
flowing between the downstream leg of the diversion weir and the intake gates diverting
water into a settling basin; (4) a 2-mile-long, 200-foot bottom width, and 16-foot-deep
settling basin with a floating hydraulic dredge and skimming weir at the downstream end
of the settling basin; (5) a 10-mile-long, 73-foot-bottom width, and 14.3-foot-deep Upper
Power Canal with inverted siphons bringing water to the Monroe Powerhouse; (6) the
Monroe Powerhouse containing three Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a
rated capacity of 2.612 MW; (7) a 13-mile-long, 39-foot-bottom width, and 19.5-footdeep
Lower Power Canal with two siphons extending from the Monroe Powerhouse to
Lake Babcock; (8) a concrete weir structure (Sawtooth Weir) located where the Lower
Power Canal enters Lake Babcock; (9) a 760-acre regulating reservoir, Lake Babcock,
with storage capacity of 2,270 acre-feet at its full pool elevation of 1,531 feet; (10) a 200acre
second regulating reservoir, Lake North, with storage capacity of 2,080 acre-feet at
an elevation of 1,531 feet; (11) a concrete control structure in the south dike linking the
two regulating reservoirs; (12) a 1.5-mile-long, 94- to 108-foot-bottom width, and 17.2-
to 22.2-foot-deep intake canal bringing water from the reservoirs to the Columbus
Powerhouse; (13) a 60-foot-long, 104-foot-wide, and 40-foot-high inlet structure with
trashracks; (14) three 20-foot-diameter and 385-foot-long steel penstocks connecting the
inlet structure with the powerhouse; (15) the Columbus Powerhouse containing three
Francis-type, turbine-generating units each with a rated capacity of 15.2 MW; (16) a 5.5mile,
42-foot-bottom width, and 19-foot-deep tailrace canal returning water to the river;
and (17) appurtenant facilities.
3.1.2 Existing and Proposed Project Operation
From the headworks to the regulating reservoirs (Lakes Babcock and North), the
project is operated run-of-river. From the regulating reservoirs to the Columbus
Powerhouse, the project operates in an on-and-off mode called hydrocycling. Using the
storage capacity of the Lakes and the Nebraska Public Power District’s need for power on
a daily basis, power is generated for one, or sometime, two, periods of several hours
during the day.
The hydraulic capacity for the project is 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 6,930
acre-feet per day, so all flows above this must be bypassed into the Loup River.
Typically, during normal project operations, the long-term average amount of flow
diverted for the project is 1,610 cfs, or 3,180 acre-feet per day. During cold weather
operations, the entire 35-mile length of the project must be monitored for heavy slush,
frazil ice formation, ice floes, and ice jams. Any of these conditions may create an
emergency situation where flow diversion must be quickly adjusted or curtailed. During
high flows operations, typically during the spring freshet, the diversion of flows for the
project would reduce or curtail as needed. During the hot summer months when flows in
the Loup River are impacted by upstream irrigation withdrawals, the project operates by
16

eleasing a minimum of 50 to 75 cfs in the Loup River bypassed reach when conditions
warrant.
The project generates about 134,192 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy per year.
The District proposes no changes to the operation of the project.
3.2 Staff's Modification of the Proposed Action
We will consider various alternatives, including environmental measures not
proposed by the District. We will consider and assess all alternative recommendations
for operational or facility modifications, as well as protection, mitigation, and
enhancement measures identified by us (the Commission staff), the agencies, Indian
tribes, NGOs, and the general public. To the extent that modifications would reduce
power production from the project, we will evaluate the costs of providing an equivalent
amount of fossil-fueled power generation.
3.3 No-action Alternative
Under no action, the Loup River Project would continue to operate as required by
the current project license. No new environmental protection, mitigation, or
enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to establish
baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives.
3.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
At present, we propose to eliminate the following alternatives from detailed and
comprehensive analyses in the EA.
3.4.1 Federal Government Takeover
In accordance with § 16.14 of the Commission’s regulations, a federal department
or agency may file a recommendation that the United States exercise its right to take over
a hydroelectric power project with a license that is subject to sections 14 and 15 of the
FPA. 7 We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal
takeover of the project would require congressional approval. While that fact alone
would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is currently no evidence
showing that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has
suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate and no federal agency has expressed
interest in operating the project.
7 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a)-825(r).
17

3.4.2 Nonpower License
A non-power license is a temporary license which the Commission would
terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency will assume
regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the nonpower
license. Hence, issuing a non-power license for the project would not provide a
long-term solution to the issues presented. To date, no party has sought a non-power
license, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to
produce power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license to be a reasonable
alternative to some form of new license with enhancement measures.
3.4.3 Project Decommissioning
Decommissioning of the project could be accomplished with or without diversion
weir removal. Either alternative would require denying the relicense application and
surrender or termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions. There would
be significant costs involved with decommissioning the project and/or removing any
project facilities. The project provides a viable, safe, and clean renewable source of
power (about 134,192 MWh annually) to the region. With decommissioning, the project
would no longer be authorized to generate power.
At this time, no party has suggested that project decommissioning would be
appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. Thus, we do not
consider project decommissioning a reasonable alternative to relicensing the project with
appropriate environmental enhancement measures.
4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE ISSUES
4.1 Cumulative Effects
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1508.7), a cumulative effect is an impact on the
environment resulting from the incremental impacts 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, including
hydropower and other land and water development activities.
4.1.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected
We have reviewed the information provided in the PAD, and based on our review
and preliminary analysis, we have identified threatened and endangered species,
specifically the federally listed piping plover, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon as
18

esources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed continued operation of the
Loup River Project.
Water depletions and diversions associated with evaporative losses, irrigation
diversions, human disturbances, channelization, encroaching vegetation, and
introductions of non-native species may have led to degradation of habitat and reduced
populations of the above federally listed species in the lower Platte River. Potential
depletions of water (evaporative losses) and flow alterations associated with Loup River
Project operations may contribute to the adverse effects on these species.
4.1.2 Geographic Scope
Our geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by
the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action's effect on the resources, and
(2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the
Loup River basin and the lower Platte River basin. Because the proposed action would
affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.
At this time, we have tentatively identified the Loup River basin and the lower
Platte River from the Loup River confluence to the Missouri River confluence as our
geographic scope of analysis for the federally listed species.
4.1.3 Temporal Scope
The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EA will include a
discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource. Based
on the potential term of a new license, the temporal scope will look 30-50 years into the
future, concentrating on the effect to the resources from reasonably foreseeable future
actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available
information for each resource.
We are seeking further information from federal and state resource agencies,
Indian tribes, and any other sources pertaining to past, present, and future actions and
their effects on the aforementioned resources (in the form of previous studies; present
plans; and future plans, goals, or forecasts) in the Loup River basin and the lower Platte
River, especially those areas where we will focus our analysis (see section 5 for
submitting information).
4.2 Resource Issues
In this section, we present the preliminary list of environmental issues and
concerns to be addressed in the EA. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but
is an initial listing of issues we have identified to date associated with relicensing the
19

project. We may modify or add to the list of issues based on comments received during
scoping. After scoping is completed, we will review this list and determine the
appropriate level of analysis needed to address each issue in the EA. For convenience,
the issues have been listed by resource area. Those issues identified by an asterisk (*)
will be analyzed for both cumulative and site-specific effects.
4.2.1 Geology and Soil Resources
Effects of continued project operation and maintenance and recreational
boating on shoreline erosion.
4.2.2 Aquatic Resources
Effects of the project diversions on water temperatures in the Loup River
bypassed reach with particular emphasis between the diversion weir and the
confluence of the Loup River with Beaver Creek.
Effects of any changes to project diversions on irrigation use of Loup power
canal waters.
Effects of project operations on water quality (dissolved oxygen [DO], E. coli,
pH, PCBs, and temperature) in the Loup power canal and regulating reservoirs.
Effects of the project diversions and flow fluctuations on aquatic habitat
(including habitat connectivity and distribution) and aquatic species in the
Loup River below the project diversion structure and in the lower Platte
River.*
Effects of peaking (hydrocycling) operations on aquatic habitat and aquatic
species in the Platte River downstream of the confluence with the tailrace
canal.*
Effects of intermittent flow releases from the tailrace canal into Lost Creek on
aquatic resources and aquatic habitat in Lost Creek.
Effects of the diversion weir on fish passage and aquatic species distribution
and life histories in the Loup River.
Effects of peaking (hydrocycling) operations on fish stranding and mortality in
the tailrace canal and the lower Platte River.
4.2.3 Terrestrial Resources
Effects of the project diversions and flow fluctuations on wetland and riparian
vegetation establishment and composition in the Loup River below the project
diversion structure and in the lower Platte River.
Effects of project operation and maintenance activities and project-related
recreation on wintering and nesting bald eagles, migratory birds (bank and cliff
swallows), small white lady’s slipper, and Tier 1 At-Risk Species by the
20

Nebraska Natural Legacy Project.
4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential effects of continued project operations (timing and amount of flow
diversion for generation, sediment management, and flow fluctuations from
hydrocycling on the federally listed pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River.*
Effects of continued project operations (timing and amount of flow diversion
for generation, sediment management, and flow fluctuations from hydrocycling
and project-related recreation (use of off-road vehicles) on the federally listed
interior least tern and piping plover in the bypassed reach of the Loup River,
the sand management areas, and in the lower Platte River, specifically
considering: (1) creation, longevity, and quality of nesting habitat (sandbar
formation, foundation, erosion); (2) availability of food and the quality of
foraging habitat; (3) species composition and establishment of invasive species
and woody vegetation; (4) susceptibility of land-based predation and human
disturbance on nesting terns and piping plovers; and (5) nesting initiation and
success (inundation effects).*
Effects of flow fluctuations from hydrocycling on ice jam formations in the
lower Platte River including associated effects (ice scouring) on nesting and
foraging habitat for the least tern and piping plover.
Effects of continued project operations on the federally listed Western prairie
fringed orchid.
Effects of project operations on whooping crane foraging habitat in the
bypassed reach of the Loup River.
Effect of project operations (e.g., dredging) on PCB dispersal and the
associated effect on the least tern.
4.2.5 Recreation and Land Use
Effects of existing recreation facilities (fishing areas, hunting areas, camping
sites, boat launches, trails, playgrounds and swimming areas) and public access
within the project boundary on current and future (over the term of a new
license) recreation demand, including barrier-free access.
Effects of water quality on recreational fisheries, swimming, canoeing, and
boating.
Effects of the project diversion on the recreational use within the bypassed
reach of the Loup River.
4.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetics
Effects of current project operation, maintenance, and recreation on adjacent
21

land uses.
Effects of encroaching vegetation and bank stabilization measures along
shoreline areas on aesthetic resources within the project area.
4.2.7 Cultural Resources
Effects of continued project operations and maintenance on cultural, historic,
archeological, and traditional resources in the project area of potential effect
and their eligibility to be included in the National Register of Historic Places
4.2.8 Developmental Resources
The effects of the proposed project and alternatives, including any
recommended environmental measures on the power economic of the project.
4.3 Proposed Protection and Enhancement Measures and Potential Studies
Depending upon the findings of studies completed by the District and the
recommendations of the consulted entities, the District will consider, and may propose
certain other measures to enhance environmental resources affected by the project as part
of the proposed action. The following are the District’s initial study proposals to fill
information gaps to address the above issues and determine appropriate environmental
measures. Further studies may need to be added to this list based on comments provided
to the Commission from interested participants, including Indian tribes. The District
proposes the following studies:
Sedimentation - Determine if project operations materially affect sediment
transport within the Loup River bypassed reach and the Platte River
downstream of the Tailrace Canal.
Hydrocycling - Determine the effect of Project operations on the sub-daily
hydrograph and stage of the Platte River downstream of the Tailrace Canal.
Water Temperature in the Platte River - Determine if Project operations
materially affect water temperature in the Lower Platte River.
Water Temperature in the Loup River bypassed reach - Determine if Project
operations materially affect water temperature in the Loup River bypassed
reach.
Flow Depletion in the Loup River bypassed reach - Determine the effect on
riverine habitat of reduced flows in the Loup River bypassed reach resulting
from project operations.
Fish Sampling - Determine the species abundance, composition, and
distribution of sport fisheries in the Loup Power Canals.
Fish Passage - Determine if the diversion weir is a barrier to fish movement
22

upstream.
Recreational User Survey - Determine the public awareness, usage, and
demand of the project’s existing recreational facilities to determine if potential
improvements are needed.
Creel Survey - Determine the status of project fisheries and how the fisheries
are used by anglers.
Land Use Inventory - Determine specific land use of properties that abut the
project boundary to identify potential conflicts and/or opportunities.
Section 106 Compliance - Programmatic approach - Achieve NHPA section
106 compliance through a programmatic, ongoing relationship between the
Loup Power District and the Nebraska SHPO
6.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE
At this time, we do not anticipate the need for preparing a draft EA. We will
prepare a “single EA” for these projects, which will be sent to all persons and entities on
the Commission’s service and mailing lists for the Loup River Project. The EA will
include our recommendations for operating procedures, as well as environmental
protection and enhancement measures that should be part of any license issued by the
Commission. All recipients (and stakeholders) will then have 45 days to review the EA
and file written comments with the Commission. All comments on the EA, filed with the
Commission, will be considered in any Commission order rendering a decision on a new
license for the project. 8
Appendix A contains the Process Plan and schedule for pre-application activity.
Our preliminary schedule for processing the license application is as follows:
ACTION TARGET DATE
Scoping Meetings January 2009
License Applications Filed April 2012
Issue Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice July 2012
Deadline for Filing Comments, Recommendations and September 2012
Agency Terms and Conditions/Prescriptions
Single EA Issued May 2013
Deadline for Filing Modified Agency Recommendations July 2013
8
Should substantive comments requiring reanalysis be received on the EA, we
would consider preparing a subsequent EA.
23

SUMMARY
7.0 EA OUTLINE
The preliminary outline for the Loup River Project EA is as follows:
1.0 APPLICATION
2.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER
2.1 Purpose of Action
2.2 Need for Power
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Project Facilities and Operation
3.2 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
3.3 Additional Staff-recommended Measures
3.4 No-action
3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE
4.1 Scoping
4.2 Interventions
4.3 Comments on the Application
4.4 Compliance
4.4.1 Water Quality Certification
4.4.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescription
4.4.3 Endangered Species Act
4.4.4 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination
4.4.5 Section 106 Consultation
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5.1 General Description of the Loup River Basin
5.2 Cumulative Effects
5.2.1 Geographic Scope
5.2.2 Temporal Scope
5.3 Environmental Analysis
5.3.1 Geology and Soils
5.3.2 Water Resources
5.3.3 Fisheries and Aquatics
5.3.4 Terrestrial Resources
5.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
5.3.6 Recreational Resources
5.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources
5.3.8 Archeological and Historic Resources
5.4 No Action
6.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Power and Economic Benefits
24

6.2 Cost of Environmental Measures
6.3 Economic Comparison of the Alternatives
7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
9.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
10.0 FINDING OF [OR NO] SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
11.0 LITERATURE CITED
LIST OF PREPARES
APPENDICES (As Needed)
8.0 LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires us to consider whether or not, and under what
conditions, relicensing the project would be consistent with relevant comprehensive plans
on the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan List. Those plans currently listed on the
Commission’s Comprehensive Plan List which we consider to be relevant to this project
are listed below. We ask agencies to review this list and to inform us of any changes
(additions/subtractions) that are needed. If there are plans that should be added to the list,
agencies should file the plans according to 18 CFR 2.19.
Brown, MB & Jorgensen, JG (2008). 2008 Interior least tern and piping plover
monitoring, research, management, and outreach report for the Lower Platte River,
Nebraska. Joint report of the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership and the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. January 1982.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 2006-2010. State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP). Lincoln, Nebraska. 104 pp.
Platte River Report Management Joint Study. 1990. Biology workgroup final report.
Denver, Colorado. July 20, 1990. 131 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered resources in the Platte River
ecosystem: description, human influences and management options. Department of the
Interior, Denver, Colorado. July 20, 1990. 52 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Fish and wildlife resources of interest to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on the Platte River, Nebraska. Department of the Interior,
Grand Island, Nebraska. May 15, 1987. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Great Lake and Northern Great Plains Piping
25

Plover recovery plan. Department of the Interior, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
May 12, 1988.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American
waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May
1986.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
9.0 MAILING LIST
The list below is the Commission’s official mailing list for the Loup River Project.
If you want to receive future mailings for the Loup River Project and are not included in
the list below, please send your request by email to efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. All written and emailed requests to be added to
the mailing list must clearly identify the following on the first page: Loup River Project
No. 1256-029. You may use the same method if requesting removal from the mailing list
shown below.
Commission’s Mailing List for the Loup River Project
Environmental Protection Agency
901 N 5th St
Kansas City, NEBRASKA 66101-2907
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE - FEDERAL BLDG.
230 S Dearborn St Ste 3130
Chicago, NEBRASKA 60604-1695
Forest Service
PO Box 25127
Denver, NEBRASKA 80225-0127
Regional Hydropower Coordinator
FOREST SERVICE
125 S State St
Salt Lake City, NEBRASKA 84138
26

ROBERT E WHITE, GEN. MANAGER
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
PO Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
OWEN LLOYD, ENGR. MANAGER
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
PO Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
Neal Suess, President/CEO
LOUP RIVER PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
2404 15th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NEBRASKA 68602-0988
Prescott Brownell, Regional FERC Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, NEBRASKA 29412
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PO Box 94947
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-4947
Director
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 94676
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-4676
Director
NEBRASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PO Box 98922
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68509-8922
Frank Albrecht, Director
NEBRASKA GAME & PARKS COMMISSION
PO Box 30370
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68503-0370
ATTY. GENERAL
NEBRASKA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN.
STATE CAPITOL
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68509
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
1500 R St
Lincoln, NEBRASKA 68508-1651
27

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
PO Box 36900
Billings, NEBRASKA 59107-6900
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FEDERAL BUILDING
203 W 2nd St
Grand Island, NEBRASKA 68801-5907
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director
PO Box 25486
Denver, NEBRASKA 80225-0486
Angela M Tornes
U.S. National Park Service
626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 100
Milwaukee, NEBRASKA 53202-4609
Nick Chevance, Environmental Coordinator
U.S. National Park Service
601 Riverfront Drive
Planning And Compliance Office
Omaha, NEBRASKA 68102
Honorable Chuck Hagel
United States Senate
Washington, NEBRASKA 20510
Honorable Ben Nelson
United States Senate
Washington, NEBRASKA 20510
US Army Corps of Engineers
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION
12565 W Center Road
Omaha, NEBRASKA 68144-3869
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
ABERDEEN AREA OFFICE
115 4th Ave SE
Aberdeen, NEBRASKA 57401-4310
Bob Dach, Hydropower Program Manager
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
Natural Resources
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, NEBRASKA 97232
28

US Bureau of Land Management
PO Box 1828
Cheyenne, NEBRASKA 82003-1828
US Department of Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
1849 C St NW # ROOM 2353
Washington, DC 20240-0001
Roger Trudell, Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribal Council
Route 2
Niobrara, NEBRASKA 68760
Trey Howe, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 2, White Eagle Drive
Ponca City, OKLAHOMA 74601
Amen Sheridan, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NEBRAKSA 68039
George Howell, President
Pawnee Tribal Business Council
P.O. Box 470
Pawnee, OKLAHOMA 74058
Robert F Stewart, Director
US Department of Interior
PO Box 25007
Denver, NEBRASKA 0007
29

APPENDIX A - PROCESS PLANS AND SCHEDULES
LOUP RIVER ILP PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Responsible Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date
FERC
Regulation
Loup Power District File NOI/PAD with FERC 10/16/08 5.5, 5.6
FERC Tribal Meeting 5.7
FERC
Notice of Commencement of
Proceeding and SD1 issued
12/12/08 5.8
FERC
Scoping and Site Visit
(approximate date)
1/12/09 5.8(b)(viii)
All stakeholders
NOI/PAD/SD1 comments and
Study Requests
2/10/09 5.9
FERC Issue SD2 if needed 3/27/09 5.1
Loup Power District File Proposed Study Plan 3/27/09 5.11(a)
All stakeholders Study Plan Meeting 4/21/09 5.11(e)
All stakeholders Study Plan Comments Due 6/25/09 5.12
Loup Power District File Revised Study Plan 7/27/09 5.13(a)
All stakeholders Revised Study Plan Comments Due 8/11/09 5.13(b)
FERC
Director’s Study Plan
Determination
8/26/09 5.13(c)
USFS, USFWS,
NDEQ
Any Study Disputes Due 1 9/15/09 5.14(a)
Study D. Panel Third Panel Member Selected 10/5/09 5.14(d)(3)
Study D. Panel Panel Convenes 10/5/09 5.14(d)
Loup Power District
Applicant Comments on Study
Dispute Due
10/9/09 5.14(i)
Study D. Panel Technical Conference Held 10/15/09 5.14(j)
Study D. Panel Panel Finding Issued 11/4/09 5.14(k)
FERC
Director’s Study Dispute
Determination
11/24/09 5.14(l)
Loup Power District First Study Season Sum/Fall 09 5.15(a)
Loup Power District Initial Study Report 8/26/10 5.15(c)(1)
All stakeholders Initial Study Report Meeting 9/10/10 5.15(c)(2)
Loup Power District
Initial Study Report Meeting
summary
9/24/10 5.15(c)(3)
All stakeholders
Study Disputes/Request to Modify
Study Plan Due
10/25/10 5.15(c)(4)
All stakeholders
Responses to Disputes/Study
Requests
11/24/10 5.15(c)(5)
FERC Directors Study Plan Determination 12/27/10 5.15(c)(6)
Loup Power District Second Study Season Spr/Sum 10 5.15(a)
30

Responsible Party Pre-Filing Milestone Date
FERC
Regulation
Loup Power District Updated Study Report Due 8/26/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders Updated Study Report Meeting 9/9/11 5.15(f)
Loup Power District
Updated Study Report Meeting
Summary
9/23/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders
Study Disputes/Request to Modify
Study Plan Due
10/24/11 5.15(f)
All stakeholders
Responses to Disputes/Study
Requests
11/23/11 5.15(f)
FERC Directors Study Plan Determination 12/23/11 5.15(f)
Loup Power District
Preliminary Licensing Proposal
File
11/18/11 5.16(a)
All stakeholders
Comments on Preliminary
2/16/12 5.16(e)
Licensing Proposal
Loup Power District License Application Filed 4/16/12 5.17
1 Shaded milestones are unnecessary if there are no study disputes.
31

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:37 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover data and habitat
Attachments: FRLCGP.XLW.xls
Dear Melissa,
Billings was cold and snowy, but on the drive home through southeast Montana we were rewarded with views of lots of
pronghorns and mule deer feeding down in the valleys. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet with tern and plover data for the
Fort Randall, Lewis & Clark Lake and Gavins Point Sergments for 1986:2008. The spreadsheets are divided by segment
and species. Kelly Crane, the Omaha District Emergent Sandbar Habitat Coordinator, will be able to provide you with data
and designs for our ESH work. I have CCed her on this e:mail. Kelly's phone number is 402:995:2505. If you have any
questions, please e:mail me or call me at 402:667:2581.
Greg
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:06 AM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover data and habitat
No problem. Enjoy your time in Montana. It’s my favorite state!
Melissa
From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [mailto:Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:44 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover data and habitat
Hi Melissa,
I will be out of town all next week attending a conference in Billings. I will get the data to you on Monday, March 30.
Thanks for your patience.
Greg
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:07 AM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: Tern and Plover data and habitat
Hi Greg,
I received your name from the NE Game and Parks Commission with regards to tern and plover data on the Missouri
River. I also introduced myself to you at the Tern and Plover Meeting in February. I am currently involved in two projects
1

with potential tern and plover issues. The Nebraska Highway N:12 USACE EIS (Niobrara east and west) and the Loup
Hydroelectric FERC Relicensing Project. A portion of my involvement in both of these projects is to develop biological
assessments for the projects. I am also helping to develop study plans on the Loup project. We are currently in the
process of collecting tern and plover census/bird/nest count data for the last 22 years on all of the Nebraska rivers and
was told you were the keeper of all data from the Missouri River. Could you please share the nest/bird count data for terns
and plovers that has been collected on the Missouri River between Fort Randall to below Gavins Point from 1987:2008?
We are also attempting to collect as much information as possible on available/suitable tern and plover habitat. I know the
USACE has been working to mechanically create/restore habitat in the Missouri River. Are there any papers or is there
any information that you could provide regarding habitat measurements, requirements and amount of habitat available in
the afore mentioned reaches of the Missouri River?
We hope to develop meaningful studies based on the most recent and best available information. Your assistance in
these endeavors is much appreciated. I understand the sensitive nature of the information and would like to assure you
that this information will be used for analytical purposes only and location specific data will not be published without the
permission of the USACE.
Thank you for taking some time to talk with me at the meeting in February and I look forward to speaking with you again.
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114:4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:39 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; calms@neb.rr.com;
cgenoa@cablene.com; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org; mbrown9
@unl.edu; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov;
adubas@leg.ne.gov; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; CoraJones@bia.gov; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; butchk@nctc.net; cityadmin@cablene.com;
monroe@megavision.com; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
pcclerk@megavision.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jeddins@achp.gov;
danno@nohva.com; tprovost@omahatribeepd.com; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; don_simpson@blm.gov;
msittler@lpsnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; jmsunne@nppd.com; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org
Cc: Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; nsuess@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; jfrear@loup.com; Richardson,
Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat; Sigler, Bill; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing : Agency Meeting Reminder
Good afternoon. This e mail is a reminder of the upcoming Study Plan Meeting. Please note that the start time has been
changed to 8:30 AM.
April 21, 2009
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23 rd St, Columbus
This is the first study plan meeting designed to facilitate agreement between the District and participating agencies on what
studies are needed, how studies will be conducted, and how the data from each study will be used (e.g., to evaluate species
impacts, etc). This information will be incorporated into the revised study plan to be submitted July 27 th to FERC.
The Proposed Study Plan was submitted to FERC on March 27, 2009. An electronic copy of the document can be found at
the following location: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
In order to streamline and maximize study plan discussions, the 12 study plans will be divided into the following discussion
topics:
Discussion Topic Associated Study Plans Discussion Forum
Aquatic Resources • Sedimentation
• Hydrocycling
• Water Temperature in the Platte
River
• Water Temperature in the Loup
River Bypass Reach
• Flow Depletion and Flow
Diversion
• Fish Passage
• Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup
1
April 21 Meeting in
Columbus.

River*
Cultural Resources • Section 106 Compliance Separate meeting with
State Historical
Recreation, Land Use, and
Aesthetics
• Recreation User Survey
• Creel Survey / Fish Sampling
• Land Use Inventory
2
Preservation Office
*Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River will be discussed at a separate meeting with DNR.
Conference call meeting
with the existing
Recreation Workgroup &
appropriate local partners
such as CART and
NOHVA
As the following agenda shows, the first half of the meeting will review the study plan process and highlight all proposed
study plans; the afternoon will focus exclusively on Aquatic Resources with the exception of Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup
River. Ice will be discussed at a separate meeting with DNR that will be open to broader participation by others interested in
this topic. Similarly, Cultural Resources and Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics will be discussed in alternate forums as
indicated, but will also be open to others interested in this topic.
3/21/09 Meeting Agenda
8:30 AM Welcome and Introductions
8:45 AM Review Study Plan Process & Study Criteria
9:00 AM Study Plan Collaboration & Discussion Topic Activities
9:15 AM Study Plan Overview
• Sedimentation
• Hydrocycling
• Water Temperature in the Platte River
• Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Fish Sampling
• Fish Passage
• Recreation User Survey
• Creel Survey
• Land Use Inventory
• Section 106 Compliance
• Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
• Studies Not Included
11:30 AM Discussion of Study Baseline
Noon Lunch
12:30 PM Facilitated Aquatic Resources Discussion by Study
• Flow Depletion and Diversion
• Sedimentation
• Hydrocycling
• Water Temperature in the Platte River
• Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Fish Passage
4:45 Discussion of Future Meetings & Next Steps
5:00 PM Adjourn
Please bring your own copies of the Proposed Study Plans as working materials.

RSVP for lunch no later than April 14, 2009 to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com
(402) 564 3171, ext. 275.
FERC representatives will be in attendance at the meeting. Participants are welcome to participate via conference call.
Call in details follow:
Conference Call 1 866 994 6437
Conference Code: 4023994909
If needed, follow-up meetings will be held in Columbus on May 28 and July 1 from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM to
continue study plan issue resolution.
If you do not wish to receive emails regarding the Loup Power District Relicensing effort, please let me know and you will
be removed from future distributions.
3

April 2, 2009
Mr. George Howell
Pawnee Tribal Business Council
PO Box 470
Pawnee, OK 74058
Dear Mr. Howell:
This letter is a reminder of the upcoming Study Plan Meeting for the Loup Hydroelectric Plant Relicensing
Project. Please note that the start time has been changed to 8:30 AM.
April 21, 2009 , 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM
Holiday Inn Express, 524 E 23 rd St, Columbus
This is the first study plan meeting designed to facilitate agreement between the District and participating
agencies on what studies are needed, how studies will be conducted, and how the data from each study will be
used (e.g., to evaluate species impacts, etc). This information will be incorporated into the revised study plan to be
submitted July 27 th to FERC.
The Proposed Study Plan was submitted to FERC on March 27, 2009. An electronic copy of the document can be
found at http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
In order to streamline and maximize study plan discussions, the 12 study plans will be divided into the following
discussion topics:
Discussion Topic Associated Study Plans Discussion Forum
Aquatic Resources Sedimentation
April 21 Meeting in Columbus.
Hydrocycling
Water Temperature in the Platte River
Water Temperature in the Loup River
Bypass Reach
Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Fish Passage
Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River*
Cultural Resources Section 106 Compliance Separate meeting with State
Recreation, Land
Use, and Aesthetics
Recreation User Survey
Creel Survey / Fish Sampling
Land Use Inventory
Historical Preservation Office
Conference call meeting with the
existing Recreation Workgroup &
appropriate local partners such as
CART and NOHVA
*Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River will be discussed at a separate meeting with DNR.
As the following agenda shows, the first half of the meeting will review the study plan process and highlight all
proposed study plans; the afternoon will focus exclusively on Aquatic Resources with the exception of Ice Jam
Flooding on the Loup River. Ice will be discussed at a separate meeting with DNR that will be open to broader
participation by others interested in this topic. Similarly, Cultural Resources and Recreation, Land Use, and
Aesthetics will be discussed in alternate forums as indicated, but will also be open to others interested in this
topic.

3/21/09 Meeting Agenda
8:30 AM Welcome and Introductions
8:45 AM Review Study Plan Process & Study Criteria
9:00 AM Study Plan Collaboration & Discussion Topic Activities
9:15 AM Study Plan Overview
Sedimentation
Hydrocycling
Water Temperature in the Platte River
Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Fish Sampling
Fish Passage
Recreation User Survey
Creel Survey
Land Use Inventory
Section 106 Compliance
Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Studies Not Included
11:30 AM Discussion of Study Baseline
Noon Lunch
12:30 PM Facilitated Aquatic Resources Discussion by Study
Flow Depletion and Diversion
Sedimentation
Hydrocycling
Water Temperature in the Platte River
Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Fish Passage
4:45 Discussion of Future Meetings & Next Steps
5:00 PM Adjourn
Please bring your own copies of the Proposed Study Plans as working materials.
RSVP for lunch no later than April 14, 2009 to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com (402) 564-3171 ext. 275
FERC representatives will be in attendance at the meeting. Participants are welcome to participate via conference
call. Call-in details follow:
Conference Call 1-866-994-6437 Conference Code: 4023994909
If needed, follow-up meetings will be held in Columbus on May 28 and July 1 from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM to
continue study plan issue resolution.
The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is a very fast moving process with strict deadlines; to minimize delay in
transmitting information to Relicensing Participants the District is requesting e-mail addresses from all
participants to expedite the flow of information. Please send an email to matt.pillard@hdrinc.com to receive
future communication via e-mail. If you do not wish to receive future mailings, please respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Lisa Richardson
Project Manager

Lisa Richardson
Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Ne 68114-4098
Dear Ms. Richardson,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33 rd St. / P.O. Box 30370 / Lincoln, NE 68503-0370
Phone: 402-471-0641 / Fax: 402-471-5528 /
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us
April 7, 2009
This letter is in response to your letter to Frank Albrecht at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(NGPC) on March 2, requesting species occurrence data in the area of the Loup River hydroelectric
facilities. You requested information on occurrences of Small White Lady’s Slipper, Whooping Crane,
Interior Least Tern, Piping Plover, Bald Eagle, River Otter, Pallid Sturgeon, and Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid. This letter was forwarded to the Nebraska Natural Heritage Program here at NGPC.
The Nebraska Natural Heritage Program tracks occurrences of “at-risk” species within the state. “Atrisk”
species are defined as those that are rare or declining in Nebraska, unique to Nebraska, or
declining globally. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species are among those
tracked by the Natural Heritage Program. The Program also tracks occurrences of the various types of
natural plant communities in the state, both rare and common. Conservation of these communities
serves as a “coarse filter” to help conserve the majority of species and preclude their decline to “atrisk”
status. All “at-risk” species and natural communities are considered a valuable state resource
worthy of ensuring their continued existence in Nebraska. Below is a summary of the information we
have provided in response to your request.
I am sending you as an e-mail attachment a table (‘LPD Species Occurrence Request.xls’) with
information on the species’ occurrences within 2 miles of the hydroelectric facilities. For descriptions
of the fields in the table see the attached ‘Field Definitions.xls.’ Occurrence data were tabulated by
polygons (or ‘blocks’) representing five-mile portions of the buffered route (using a 2-mile buffer from
the perimeter of the shapefile your company sent). Each polygon was then given a unique identifier or
‘block number.’ There are 11 blocks. The attached shapefile (‘LPD_boundary_buffer’) shows the

lock locations.
Each species occurrence was assigned the number of the block it fell in. A species occurrence which
fell across block boundaries is listed for each of the blocks it overlapped with. If a species or
community is listed more than once for a block it indicates that we have documented more than one
occurrence of that species or community within that block.
You will notice that we do not have any occurrences recorded for Bald Eagle, Pallid Sturgeon, or
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid in the area of interest. Be aware that we have not surveyed the entire
study area so there are likely to be more occurrences of listed species, including these three, in
locations in the area which have suitable habitat. Thus the data should be interpreted with caution and
an “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” philosophy followed.
An additional resource that may be useful to you is a set of range maps we have developed for
Nebraska’s listed species. A document which includes these range maps is freely downloadable from
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Digital Commons. Also in the document is a table of species by
county and the metadata for the shapefile used to create the range maps. To get the document, go to
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebgamewhitepap/30 and click on 'Download.' It takes a few moments
to download so be patient. I am attaching to this e-mail the shapefile used to create the maps.
Please note that this correspondence does not satisfy requirements of the Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act. Under the authority Neb.Rev.Stat. §37-807 (3) of the Nebraska Nongame
and Endangered Species Conservation Act, all Nebraska state agencies are required to consult with the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to ensure that any actions authorized, funded or carried out by
them do not jeopardize the continued existence of a state listed species. This requirement would extend
to any state permit issued. Please contact Rick Schneider (Rick.Schneider@nebraska.gov, 402-471-
5569) for assistance with determining the potential of an action to affect listed species.
Thank you for your inquiry. Please let me know if you have questions concerning the data or the
attached invoice.
Sincerely,
Rachel Simpson
Data Manager
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Rachel.Simpson@nebraska.gov
402-471-5427

Selzle, Lydia
From: Simpson, rachel [rachel.simpson@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:37 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: Loup River hydroelectric facilities ( your request for information from Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission
Attachments: NGPC Loup River data request.zip
Dear Melissa,
Attached is a zip file with material in response to Lisa Richardson's request for information
regarding occurrences of specific listed species in the area of the Loup River hydroelectric
facilities. The cover letter 'NGPC Data Request...' explains what material is included.
If you would send me a quick e-mail to confirm you have received the file I would appreciate
it.
Thank you.
Best,
Rachel
Rachel Simpson
Data Manager
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St.
Lincoln, NE 68503
rachel.simpson@nebraska.gov
402-471-5427
1

Lisa Richardson
Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Ne 68114-4098
Dear Ms. Richardson,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33 rd St. / P.O. Box 30370 / Lincoln, NE 68503-0370
Phone: 402-471-0641 / Fax: 402-471-5528 /
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us
April 7, 2009
This letter is in response to your letter to Frank Albrecht at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(NGPC) on March 2, requesting species occurrence data in the area of the Loup River hydroelectric
facilities. You requested information on occurrences of Small White Lady’s Slipper, Whooping Crane,
Interior Least Tern, Piping Plover, Bald Eagle, River Otter, Pallid Sturgeon, and Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid. This letter was forwarded to the Nebraska Natural Heritage Program here at NGPC.
The Nebraska Natural Heritage Program tracks occurrences of “at-risk” species within the state. “Atrisk”
species are defined as those that are rare or declining in Nebraska, unique to Nebraska, or
declining globally. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species are among those
tracked by the Natural Heritage Program. The Program also tracks occurrences of the various types of
natural plant communities in the state, both rare and common. Conservation of these communities
serves as a “coarse filter” to help conserve the majority of species and preclude their decline to “atrisk”
status. All “at-risk” species and natural communities are considered a valuable state resource
worthy of ensuring their continued existence in Nebraska. Below is a summary of the information we
have provided in response to your request.
I am sending you as an e-mail attachment a table (‘LPD Species Occurrence Request.xls’) with
information on the species’ occurrences within 2 miles of the hydroelectric facilities. For descriptions
of the fields in the table see the attached ‘Field Definitions.xls.’ Occurrence data were tabulated by
polygons (or ‘blocks’) representing five-mile portions of the buffered route (using a 2-mile buffer from
the perimeter of the shapefile your company sent). Each polygon was then given a unique identifier or
‘block number.’ There are 11 blocks. The attached shapefile (‘LPD_boundary_buffer’) shows the

lock locations.
Each species occurrence was assigned the number of the block it fell in. A species occurrence which
fell across block boundaries is listed for each of the blocks it overlapped with. If a species or
community is listed more than once for a block it indicates that we have documented more than one
occurrence of that species or community within that block.
You will notice that we do not have any occurrences recorded for Bald Eagle, Pallid Sturgeon, or
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid in the area of interest. Be aware that we have not surveyed the entire
study area so there are likely to be more occurrences of listed species, including these three, in
locations in the area which have suitable habitat. Thus the data should be interpreted with caution and
an “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” philosophy followed.
An additional resource that may be useful to you is a set of range maps we have developed for
Nebraska’s listed species. A document which includes these range maps is freely downloadable from
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Digital Commons. Also in the document is a table of species by
county and the metadata for the shapefile used to create the range maps. To get the document, go to
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebgamewhitepap/30 and click on 'Download.' It takes a few moments
to download so be patient. I am attaching to this e-mail the shapefile used to create the maps.
Please note that this correspondence does not satisfy requirements of the Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act. Under the authority Neb.Rev.Stat. §37-807 (3) of the Nebraska Nongame
and Endangered Species Conservation Act, all Nebraska state agencies are required to consult with the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to ensure that any actions authorized, funded or carried out by
them do not jeopardize the continued existence of a state listed species. This requirement would extend
to any state permit issued. Please contact Rick Schneider (Rick.Schneider@nebraska.gov, 402-471-
5569) for assistance with determining the potential of an action to affect listed species.
Thank you for your inquiry. Please let me know if you have questions concerning the data or the
attached invoice.
Sincerely,
Rachel Simpson
Data Manager
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Rachel.Simpson@nebraska.gov
402-471-5427

HERITAGE DATA FIELD DEFINITIONS
Note in Heritage terminology: an “element” refers to an element of conservation interest. It can be a subspecies,
species, ecological community or ecological system.
Element_ty: Element type. Broad taxonomic group (e.g. bird, fish, plant, insect, etc.)
Eo_id, Eoid: Element occurrence identification. Unique number identifying each
element occurrence record. Can be used when requesting additional
information about a particular record.
Eorank_cd: Element occurrence rank code. A comparative evaluation summarizing
the estimated viability of the occurrence.
A = excellent B = good C = marginal D = poor E = extant H =
historical X = extirpated blank = unknown.
Fed_stat: Federal status. Status under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Gname: Global name. Scientific name of species element or the ecological
community name derived from the National Vegetation Classification.
Gcomname: Global common name of an element.
G_rank: Global rank of an element (species or community). Refer to separate
handout defining Heritage ranks.
Lgcy_stat: Legacy status. At-risk status of a species as designated in the Nebraska
Natural Legacy Plan. Tier I species are those that are globally or
nationally most at-risk of extinction and which occur in Nebraska. Tier II
species are typically those that are not at-risk from a global or national
perspective but are rare or imperiled within Nebraska.
Obs_date: Date the element was last observed at the site.
Rank_desc: Rank description. Brief description of the assigned element occurrence
rank (Eorank).
Scomname: State common name of an element.
Sname: State scientific name of species element or state name of ecological
community element.
S_rank: State rank of element. Refer to separate handout defining Heritage ranks.

State_stat: State status. Status under the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act.

Heritage Element Occurrence Ranks
In the Heritage terminology, an Element is an element of biodiversity. It can be a
species, subspecies or ecological community.
An Element Occurrence (EO) is an area of land and/or water in which a species or
ecological community is, or was, present. An EO should have practical conservation
value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or
regular recurrence at a given location. For species, an EO is generally a local population,
but in some cases may be a portion of a population. For vertebrates, EO’s typically
consist of nesting, roosting, denning, or other sites important to the life history of the
species. For plants and invertebrates, an EO is typically a site where a population occurs.
For communities, an EO may represent a stand or patch, or a cluster of stands or patches,
of an ecological community.
EO ranks provide a succinct assessment of estimated viability, or probability of
persistence of occurrences of a given element. In other words, EO ranks provide an
assessment of the likelihood that, if current conditions prevail, an occurrence will persist
for a defined period of time, typically 20 – 100 years. EO ranks are considered in
assigning global and state element ranks and are a critical tool for conservation planning.
An EO rank represents the relative value of an EO with respect to others for that element,
defined according to criteria derived from specific EO rank factors. There are three rank
factors, each reflecting what is currently known about an EO: size of the population or
ecological community, condition of the population or community, and the landscape
context within which the population or community is set. EO ranks are assigned on the
basis of data obtained from recent field surveys (except for historical occurrences) by
knowledgeable individuals.
EO Rank
A = Excellent estimated viability
B = Good estimated viability
C = Fair estimated viability
D = Poor estimated viability
E = Verified extant (viability not assessed)
F = Failed to find
H = Historical
X = Extirpated

Selzle, Lydia
From: Bender, John [john.bender@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:45 AM
To: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Cc: Bubb, Dave
Subject: FW: Loup Power canal fish kill a few years ago.
Attachments: Loup Canal fish kill notification and report August 2005.doc; supplement to the loup canal fish
kill 8312305.wpd; Loup Power Canal.doc
Quinn,
I am forwarding you the information Dave Bubb put together regarding fish kills in the vicinity of the Loup Power
project. There are three attachments. One of the files is a WordPerfect document, but Word will open it. If you have
questions, let me or Dave know.
Please note my email address has changed to john.bender@nebraska.gov
John F. Bender
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Phone: 402/471-4201
From: Bubb, Dave
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Bender, John
Subject: FW: Loup Power canal fish kill a few years ago.
John, these are the two that I know of. There's only one fish kill, the other is a complaint.
Thanks, Dave.
From: Schuckman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:57 AM
To: Bubb, Dave
Subject: RE: Loup Power canal fish kill a few years ago.
Dave,
I remember it well and it came up recently at some meetings for FERC relicensing for the canal system. I sent this
information to the consultants and LPPD this winter. Here it is for you.
Jeff Schuckman
Northeast Region Fish Mgt Supv
Norfolk, NE 68701
402637063374
Please note new email address!
jeff.schuckman@nebraska.gov
1

From: Bubb, Dave
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Schuckman, Jeff
Subject: Loup Power canal fish kill a few years ago.
Jeff, do you recall a fish kill in the Loup Power canal several years ago? They'd shut the water off in the canal because of
work at Monroe, and it had become stagnant. Seems like it may have been in '05 or around there. If you have a copy of
that report would you please send it to me. We had a request for information and can't seem to find mine anywhere.
Hope things are going well.
Have a good afternoon.
Dave Bubb
2

STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/GAME & PARKS COMMISSION
FISH KILL NOTIFICATION FORM
(Revised Nov. 2002)
Incident #:
(County (FIPS Code)/ MM/DD/YY)
Date Reported: August 12, 2005 Time: 0815
Received By: Dave Tunink Agency: NGPC
REPORTING PARTY
Name: Bill Rombach Home Phone: 402-246-2010
Address: Platte Center, NE Work Phone:
OBSERVATIONS: (Species, Numbers, Sizes, Present Status, Age of Kill, Stressed Fish, Gasping, Water Quality, etc.)
(Date/Time: 8-12-05/0930) Dave Tunink received the call of a fish kill, Jeff Schuckman and
Dave Bubb investigated. Upon arriving at the Loup Canal at the 48 th street bridge, hundreds of
stressed and dying/dead fish were observed. Stressed fish were at the surface gasping for air.
Water quality sampling followed and water samples were taken near the 48 th street bridge. Dave
Bubb took the water samples to the lab in Lincoln for processing. Dissolved oxygen levels in
the canal were extremely low, down to 0.25 ppm. A more details report on the fish kill
investigation is attached.
NAME OF WATER BODY: Loup Canal TOWN: Columbus
LOCATION/DIRECTIONS: Loup Canal from north of Columbus to Genoa. About 17 miles
of canal were affected in Platte County.
LEGAL: ¼ of ¼ of Section ; T. N; R. E/W; County
BASIN: STEAM SEGMENT (WQ Standards.):
NOTIFICATIONS (Name/Date)
NDEQ: Lincoln (471-4239) G & P: Lincoln (471-5553)Tunink/8-12-05
Field Office: Dist. Office: Schuckman/ 8-12-05
Other: Dave Bubb/8-12-05 Cons. Officer: Oberg/8-12-05
INVESTIGATION
If not required, explain why not:
Investigation (Name/Date):
Schuckman, Bubb/ 8-12-05
Results of Investigation:
See attached report.
Additional Comments:

POST INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
FISH KILLED
Species Size Range Number $ Value
CAUSE OF KILL:
Low dissolved oxygen.
Total # Total Value $
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Name: Phone:
Address:
LEGAL ACTION
Notice of Violation Issued (Date): Request for Enforcement (Who/Date):
Fine (Amount/Date) Reimbursement (Amount/Date):
Compliance Order Issued (Describe):
Other (Describe):
Additional Comments:
CORRESPONDENCE
Reporting Party Notified:
Copy of Report to NDEQ: Copies of Report to G & P:
Other:

MEMORANDUM
To: Fish Kill File
From: Dave Bubb
Date: February 22, 2005
Subject: Loup Public Power Canal
On February 17, 2005 I received a phone call from Greg Michl regarding a
potential fish kill in the Loup Public Power Canal below the power generation station at
Columbus. I had taken the afternoon off but had left word with Greg to contact me at
home if there was a need. During our conversation he indicated that Marty Link had
been contacted by Malcolm Sutherland who was reporting the fish kill.
I had spoken with Mr. Sutherland several years ago about the sluicing activities.
He explained that the canal gets flushed of the sediment by rapidly dropping the water
level and this causes the silt to flush out of the canal and eventually to the Platte River.
Lake Babcock is basically drained and has only the canal running through it. He said that
he notices dead fish when this activity occurs. I spoke with John Cieloha, Loup Public
Power, after the first complaint from Mr. Sutherland several years ago. Mr. Cieloha said
he would contact us when they were planning to sluice the canal, he also said that he was
not aware of any significant fish kills caused by the sluicing.
Because of the flow in the canal any dead fish would likely be well into the Platte
River by morning and would be hard to find so I decided to conduct an investigation that
evening.
When I arrived at Columbus at approximately 1930 I made observations of the
canal just prior to where it flows into the Platte River and saw no dead fish. After
making observation at this area I started to make my way upstream along the canal. I
used a spotlight and flashlight to make observations of the canal at various locations. I
did not see any dead fish at any location along the canal. It is possible that some were
missed because it was dark and the spotlight would not be as effective as during the
daylight but I’m confident that if there was a significant fish kill I would have seen some
of them.
After spending approximately an hour and a half looking for fish and not seeing any I
decided to conclude my investigation and return home.

From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 12:49 PM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov;
al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org;
butchk@nctc.net; calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com;
cityadmin@cablene.com; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov;
cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jangell@dnr.ne.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; jmangi@columbusne.us;
jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov
Cc: nsuess@loup.com; jfrear@loup.com; rziola@loup.com;
arobak@loup.com; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George;
Engelbert, Pat; Sigler, Bill; White, Stephanie; King, Wendy; Damgaard,
Quinn V.
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing - Study Plan Meeting Reminder
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Flagged
Relicensing Participants
This e mail is to remind you of the Study Plan meeting scheduled for April 21 at the Holiday Inn Express,
524 E 23rd St, in Columbus, Nebraska. If you have not yet done so, please RSVP to Angell Robak by the
end of the day tomorrow (Tuesday, 4/14/09). She can be reached at arobak@loup.com or (402)
564‐3171, ext. 275.
For those of you not able to attend in person but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials
will be posted to http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the
meeting (by end of day 4/17/09). Dial in information is as follows:
1 866 994 6437
Passcode: 4023994909
Here are a few reminders:

• The meeting time has been moved up to 8:30 AM We have a lot of material to cover and will start
promptly at 8:30 AM.
• The overpass on Highway 81 is closed for construction if you are coming from the south or west,
you will have to take a detour which includes several at grade rail crossings. Please allow extra
time for travel and train delays. Train traffic tends to be heavy in the mornings between 7:30 and
8:15 AM.
• Please bring your own copy of the Study Plan. It can be found on line at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documentsPSP.html
• We will focus the afternoon's discussion on the goals and objectives of Study Plans 1 7 only.
Please come ready to discuss.
Future Meetings and Discussions
Please let me know if you would like to participate in any of the following:
• May 5: Cultural Resources; Study 11
• May 11: Recreational Resources; Studies 8, 9, 10
• May 27 28: Aquatic Resources (continued); Studies 1 7, 12
• July 1: Additional discussion as needed
We look forward to seeing you on April 21st.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114 4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image
and then insert it again.
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804 127 01

Selzle, Lydia
From: Simpson, rachel [rachel.simpson@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:45 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Schneider, Rick
Subject: Re: Species Occurrence Data Request + Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Dear Melissa,
This is in response to your question about the Small White Lady's Slipper in the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project area. We do not have any element occurrences from inside the boundary
you sent. However, as stated in the letter, the species could occur anywhere in its range in
which there is suitable habitat.
If you have additional questions regarding specific location information please contact Rick
Schneider at 402-471-5569.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Rachel
Rachel Simpson
Data Manager
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St.
Lincoln, NE 68503
rachel.simpson@nebraska.gov
402-471-5427
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Martha_Tacha@fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:35 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: NE whooping crane migration corridor and observation data
Attachments: StateSpecific_NE_Flyway.zip; Confirmed_NE_w_crane_sightings_thru_Spring_2008.zip;
Required Reading for Users of the Whooping Crane Migration GIS.doc
Melissa
Here are the GIS files you requested the required files for a layer are zipped together. I apologize for the slow
response. These will hopefully be updated within the coming month to reflect a recalculation of the migration
corridor and to include the Fall 2008 confirmed sightings. You might contact me again in about a month to get
the updates.
The migration corridor layer depicts 5 bands (sub corridors) that include 75 , 80 , 85 , 90 , and 95 percent of
sightings in Nebraska and within 25 miles of the north and south borders in adjoining states. The point data of
confirmed sightings is current through Spring 2008.
Please read the "Required reading...." document that discusses some of the limitations and potential
misinterpretations of the data. This document needs to accompany any redistribution of the data set or
products derived from the dataset.
Thanks for your patience, Melissa.
Martha
Martha C. Tacha
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
Phone: 308.382.6468, ext 19
Fax: 308.384.8835
(See attached file: StateSpecific_NE_Flyway.zip) (See attached file:
Confirmed_NE_w_crane_sightings_thru_Spring_2008.zip) (See attached file: Required Reading for Users of
the Whooping Crane Migration GIS.doc)
1

Required Reading for Users of the Whooping Crane Tracking Project Database
CWCTP-GIS data or derivatives thereof (e.g., shape files, jpegs) may not be distributed or
posted on the Internet without inclusion of this explanatory document.
The Cooperative Whooping Crane Tracking Project (CWCTP) was initiated in 1975 to collect a
variety of information on whooping crane migration through the U.S. portion of the Central
Flyway. Since its inception in 1975, a network of Federal and State cooperating agencies has
collected information on whooping crane stopovers and funneled it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Nebraska Field Office where a database of sighting information is maintained.
The WCTP database includes a hardcopy file of whooping crane sighting reports and a digital
database in various formats based on those sighting reports. A subset of the database along with
sight evaluation (habitat) information collected between 1975 and 1999 was summarized by
Austin and Richert (2001).*
In the Fall of 2007, the CWCTP database was converted to a GIS format (ArcGIS 9.2) to
facilitate input, updates, and provide output options in a spatial context. During this process,
inconsistencies between the digital database and sighting report forms were identified and
corrected. Location information in various formats was derived from data in the corrected
database, and new fields were added to the corrected database (e.g., latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees, an accuracy field, and location comment field). The attached file contains
observation data through the 2008 Spring migration and is referred to as the CWCTP-GIS
(2008a).
The appropriate use of the CWCTP-GIS is constrained by limitations inherent in both the GIS
technology and bias inherent in any database comprised of incidental observations. Without an
understanding of the assumptions and limitations of the data, analyses and output from the
spatial database can result in faulty conclusions. The following assumptions and characteristics
of the database are crucial to interpreting output correctly. Other, unknown biases also may exist
in the data.
First and foremost, the database is comprised of incidental sightings of whooping cranes
during migration. Whooping cranes are largely opportunistic in their use of stopover
sites along the Central Flyway, and will use sites with available habitat when weather or
diurnal conditions require a break in migration. Because much of the Central Flyway is
sparsely populated, only a small percent of stopovers are observed, those observed may
not be identified, those identified may not be reported, and those reported may not be
confirmed (only confirmed sightings are included in the database). Based on the crane
population and average flight distances, as little as 4 percent of crane stopovers are
reported. Therefore, absence of documented whooping crane use of a given area in the
Central Flyway does NOT mean that whooping cranes do not use that area or that
various projects in the vicinity will not potentially adversely affect the species.
In the database, the location of each sighting is based on the first observation of the crane
group even though, in many cases, the group was observed at multiple locations in a local
area. For this and other reasons described below, only broad-scale analyses of whooping
crane occurrences are appropriate. GIS cannot be legitimately used with this database
for measurements of distance of whooping crane groups from various habitat types or

geographic entities (i.e., using various available GIS data layers). In addition, point
locations of whooping crane groups known to roost in various wetlands or rivers may not
coincide with those wetlands. The user needs to refer to the attribute table or contact the
Nebraska Field Office, USFWS, for more specific information on individual
observations.
Precision of the data: When a “Cadastral” location (Township, Range, Section, ¼-
Section) was provided on the original sighting form, the geographic point representing
that sighting was placed in the center of the indicated Section or ¼-Section and the
latitude and longitude of that point were recorded in degrees, minutes, and seconds
(DMS). These records are indicated by “Cadastral” in the accuracy field. When
Cadastral information was lacking, DMS latitude and longitude were derived by adding
seconds (00) to the degrees and minutes of latitude and longitude originally estimated and
recorded on the observation form. These observations are identified by “Historic” in the
accuracy field. GPS latitude and longitude were used when available, but when none of
the above were reported, the point was placed based on text description of location (e.g.,
3 miles N of Denton), and identified in the accuracy field with “Landmark”. DMS
latitude and longitude were converted to decimal degrees, which were used to populate
the GIS data layer.
Bias: Bias is an inherent characteristic of any data obtained through incidental sightings.
That is, for the subset of crane use that is recorded, relatively more sightings are recorded
in areas such as national wildlife refuges where knowledgeable observers are available to
look for cranes and report their presence. Conversely, areas of high use may not be
documented due to the absence of observers. However, use of areas such as national
wildlife refuges is also determined to some extent by habitat management on the areas
and availability of alternative habitat in the region. For these reasons, representations of
the crane migration corridor based on percent of confirmed sightings should be
interpreted conservatively, particularly in Oklahoma and Kansas where a high percent of
sightings occur on a few national wildlife refuges. Whooping crane migration patterns
and subsequent observations were also likely influenced by regional weather patterns
such as wind and precipitation, as well as local farming practices which influence food
availability. Factors such as these vary among regions and years and were not considered
in this database.
The CWCTP-GIS will be updated annually following the Fall migration and distributed to State
cooperators and Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Offices in the Central
Flyway. Contact information for these offices can be found at http://www.fws.gov. Federal
regulatory agencies and project proponents should contact the appropriate Fish and Wildlife
Service for help in evaluating potential project impacts to the endangered whooping crane.
* Austin, E.A. and A.L. Richert. 2001. A comprehensive review of observational and site
evaluation data of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 1943-99. U.S. Geological
Survey. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota, and State
Museum, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 157 pp.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Crane, Kelly A NWO [Kelly.A.Crane@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover created habitat
Hi Melissa. Sorry for the delay. The ftp site listed below contains designs for emergent
sandbars below Gavins Point at river miles 775, 781, and 795.
775 and 795 construction was completed fall of 08 and 781 is ready to go out for bid in the
next few weeks.
Please call me with any questions or if you have difficulty getting to any of the files.
ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/nwo/ESH_Plans/
Look forward to hearing from you.
Kelly
995.2505
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:32 AM
To: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: Tern and Plover created habitat
Hi Kelly,
I just wanted to check in with you. I haven't received anything from you yet and just wanted
to make sure you had the correct email address (hopefully I have the correct address for
you:-)). Let me know if you receive this so I know I have the correct address. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Crane, Kelly A NWO [Kelly.A.Crane@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:58 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover created habitat
Hi Melissa!
My answers in the body of your message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover created habitat
Hi Kelly,
I didn't have any problems accessing the files. Just to clarify, I have a few more questions:
- Did the USFWS determine how many hectares/acres (minimum or maximum) the
sandbars needed to be or did USACE determine this? The BiOp stated a
minimum of 10 acres. Since then they have agreed that smaller than 10 acres would be
acceptable especially if we could maximize plover forage by making several smaller vs. one
large one.
- What was the basis for deciding how big (area) the sandbars needed to be to create
suitable habitat? We have made our bars as big as 130 acres (in Lewis & Clark Lake) and as
small as 10. FWS is on all of our design teams.
They really don't seem concerned with the total size when we build in some inner channel
features that will be "wet" at least and preferably hold some water during normal flow
scenarios. Main size determination is the size of the existing shallowly submerged bar.
- Were these decisions based on studies that USACE conducted? Did area also depend on
minimum/maximum/average flows, like height did? The min, max flows, etc did not influence
the size as much as height. The size is usually determined by the size of the existing
shallowly submerged bar more than some pre determined criteria.
I know you'd probably rather get theses comments in writing, but I could probably talk to
some of these questions better than I am conveying in writing...so give me a call if you need
or want.
Thanks for all your help and as more questions crop up in the future, I may call you. Thanks
again!
Melissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Crane, Kelly A NWO [mailto:Kelly.A.Crane@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover created habitat
1

Hi Melissa. Sorry for the delay. The ftp site listed below contains designs for emergent
sandbars below Gavins Point at river miles 775, 781, and 795.
775 and 795 construction was completed fall of 08 and 781 is ready to go out for bid in the
next few weeks.
Please call me with any questions or if you have difficulty getting to any of the files.
ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/nwo/ESH_Plans/
Look forward to hearing from you.
Kelly
995.2505
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:32 AM
To: Crane, Kelly A NWO
Subject: Tern and Plover created habitat
Hi Kelly,
I just wanted to check in with you. I haven't received anything from you yet and just wanted
to make sure you had the correct email address (hopefully I have the correct address for
you:-)). Let me know if you receive this so I know I have the correct address. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Consensus on Study Plan Goals & Objectives
Meeting
Date:
Revisions
Noted by: HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
April 21, 2009, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Study Plan Meeting
Outcomes
Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Express, Columbus, NE
The Study Plan Meeting held on April 21, 2009 included discussion of the specific goals and objectives for
Studies 1-5 and 7 from the District’s Proposed Study Plan. During those discussions, the agencies and
organizations in attendance discussed whether or not the goals and objectives, as stated in the Proposed Study
Plan, met the needs for data collection related to each study resource, including information needed for
evaluation of impacts to species (both aquatic species and threatened and endangered species).
Through discussion and revision, consensus was reached on the Goals and Objectives listed below for Studies
1-5 & 7; items not fully accepted by all parties are not included in this memo and will be discussed at the
meeting on May 27/28. As each goal and objective was reviewed, some objectives from the Proposed Study
Plan were identified as being more appropriately listed as tasks or activities. The final goals and objectives
for Studies 1-5 & 7 are stated below; objectives which have been changed to tasks are also noted. These
revised goals and objectives will be incorporated into the Revised Study Plan.
Details of the discussion can be found in the Study Plan Meeting transcript which will be posted to the Project
website at: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html.
Detailed discussion of the tasks and activities for each study will occur at future meetings.
Study Plan 1: Sedimentation
Goal(s):
The goal of the sedimentation study is to determine the effect, if any, that Project operations have on stream
morphology and sediment transport in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River. In addition,
the goal is to compare the availability of sandbar nesting habitat for interior least terns (Sterna antillarum)
and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) to their respective populations and to compare the general habitat
characteristics of the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) in multiple locations.
Objectives:
1. To characterize sediment transport in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River
through effective discharge calculations (Former Objective 2).
2. To characterize stream morphology in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River by
reviewing existing literature on channel aggradation/degradation and cross sectional changes over
time (former Objective 3).
3. To determine if a relationship can be detected between sediment transport parameters and interior
least tern and piping plover nest counts (as provided by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission’s
Natural Heritage Database) (revision to former Objective 4).
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 4

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – April 21, 2009
4. To evaluate whether sandbar availability is limiting interior least tern and piping plover numbers on
the lower Platte River (revision to former Objective 5).
5. To determine if sediment transport is a limiting factor for pallid sturgeon habitat in the lower Platte
River below the Elkhorn River (former Objective 6). [Note: There was not full consensus on this
objective – to be discussed at the May 27/28 meeting.]
6. To investigate the relationship between sedimentation and ice jam flooding (former Objective 7).
Objectives Converted to Tasks:
• Develop a sediment budget from existing data sources (former Objective 1).
• Compare the availability of sandbar nesting habitat to interior least tern and piping plover nest counts
on the lower Platte River and to compare these results to the relationship of interior least tern and
piping plover nest counts and the availability of sandbar habitat in the Missouri River downstream of
Gavins Point Dam (former Objective 5).
Study Plan 2: Hydrocycling
Goal(s):
The goal of the hydrocycling study is to determine if Project hydrocycling operations benefit or adversely
affect the habitat used by interior least terns, piping plovers, and pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River.
The physical effects of hydrocycling will be quantified and compared to alternative conditions.
Objectives:
1. To compare the sub-daily Project hydrocycling operation values (maximum and minimum flow and
stage) to daily values (mean flow and stage). In addition to same-day comparisons, periods of weeks,
months, and specific seasons of interest to protected species will be evaluated to characterize the
relative degrees of variance between hydrocycling (actual) and alternative conditions in the study area
(former Objective 2).
2. To determine the potential for nest inundation due to both hydrocycling and alternative conditions
(revision to former Objective 3).
3. To assess effects, if any, of hydrocycling on sediment transport parameters (see Study 1.0,
Sedimentation) (former Objective 4).
4. To identify material differences in potential effects on nesting habitat of the interior least tern, piping
plover, and pallid sturgeon (revision to former Objective 5).
Objectives Converted to Tasks:
• Conduct a gage analysis using existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NDNR flow and stage
data to accurately determine the timing, frequency, rate of change, travel time, and magnitude of subdaily
flow and stage changes attributable to Project hydrocycling at established gage locations in the
Tailrace Canal and the lower Platte River (former Objective 1).
• Determine the flow characteristics (magnitude and occurrence) during the interior least tern and
piping plover nesting season compared to a maximum (benchmark) flow event occurring just prior to,
or during, initiation of the nesting season (portion of former Objective 3).
• Compare river stage variations of Project hydrocycling with flow and stage variations of the everythird-day
cycling program on the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam (or another relevant
example) (portion of former Objective 5).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 4

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – April 21, 2009
Study Plan 3: Water Temperature in the Platte River
Study Plan 3 was determined to be unnecessary for Project relicensing and will not be included in the Revised
Study Plan.
Study Plan 4: Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Goal(s):
The goal of the study of water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach is to determine if project
operations (flow diversion) materially affect water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach with particular
emphasis between the diversion weir and the confluence of Beaver Creek with the Loup River (revised).
Objectives:
1. To estimate the relationship between flow in the Loup River bypass reach, ambient air temperature,
water temperature, relative humidity, and cloud cover (revision to former Objective 5).
2. To describe and quantify the relationship, if any, between diversion of water into the Loup Power
Canal and water temperature in the Study Reach of the Loup River bypass reach (former Objective 6).
Objectives Converted to Tasks:
• Coordinate with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to install temperature sensors in the Loup River
at the Diversion Weir and in the Loup River bypass reach at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near
Genoa, NE (former Objective 1).
• Collect and review ambient air temperature data at the National Weather Service (NWS) atmospheric
station located at Genoa (former Objective 2).
• Collect and review flow data at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near Genoa, NE, and USGS Gage
06792500, Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, NE (former Objective 3).
• Analyze the collected ambient air and water temperature and flow data (former Objective 4).
Study Plan 5: Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Goal(s):
The goals of the flow depletion and flow diversion study are to determine if Project operations result in a flow
depletion on the lower Platte River and to what extent the magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing of
flows affect the Loup River bypass reach. The results will be used to determine if the Project operations
relative to flow depletion and flow diversion adversely affect the habitat used by interior least tern and piping
plover populations, the fisheries, and the riverine habitat in the Loup River bypass reach and the lower Platte
River.
Objectives:
1. To determine the net consumptive losses associated with Project operations compared to alternative
conditions (former Objective 2).
2. To use current and historic USGS gage rating curves to evaluate change in stage in the Loup River
bypass reach during Project operations and compare against alternative hydrographs (former
Objective 4).
3. To evaluate historic flow trends on the Loup and Platte rivers since Project inception (former
Objective 5). [Note: There was not full consensus on this objective – to be discussed at the May
27/28 meeting.]
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 4

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – April 21, 2009
4. To determine the extent of interior least tern and piping plover nesting on the Loup River above and
below the Diversion Weir (former Objective 6).
5. To determine Project effects, if any, of consumptive use on fisheries and habitat on the lower Platte
River downstream of the tailrace canal (new objective).
6. To determine the relative significance of the Loup River bypass reach to the overall Loup River
fishery (former Objective 7).
Objectives Converted to Tasks:
• Quantify flow depletion in the Loup Power Canal, regulating reservoirs, and Loup River bypass reach
by calculating consumptive use and making a comparison to alternative conditions (former Objective
1).
• Use existing gage data to develop flood frequency and flow duration curves in the Loup River bypass
reach for current Project operations and for alternative operations (former Objective 3).
Study Plan 7: Fish Passage
Goal(s):
The goal of the fish passage study is to determine if a useable pathway exists for fish movement upstream and
downstream of the diversion weir (revised).
Objectives:
1. To evaluate the hydraulic flow, velocity, and stage parameters at the Diversion Weir and Sluice Gate
Structure.
2. To determine whether fish pathways exist over the Diversion Weir, through the Sluice Gate Structure,
or by other means (former Objective 7).
Objectives Converted to Tasks:
• Review stage and discharge data available at nearby U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage stations
(USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near Genoa, NE, and USGS Gage 06792500, Loup River Power
Canal near Genoa, NE) (former Objective 2).
• Collect hydraulic information, including surveying river cross sections at the upstream and
downstream face of the Headworks and recording headwater and tailwater elevations at the Diversion
Weir (former Objective 3).
• Review literature to determine velocity and depth criteria for upstream fish passage at the Diversion
Weir (former Objective 4).
• Review flow duration curves at the Diversion Weir (former Objective 5).
• Develop a hydraulic model to determine the flow split between the Diversion Weir and sluice gates
for a range of flows (former Objective 6).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 4

Attendance by Meeting
Hydroelectric Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Meeting Type: Agency
Meeting Name: Study Plan Meeting
Date: 4 /21/2009
Time: 8 :30 AM
Location: Holiday Inn Express
Name Organization Contact Type
Frank Albrecht Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - State
John Bender Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Agency - State
Mary Bomberger Brown Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership NGOs & Stakeholders
Robert Clausen Loup Power District LPD Board Member
Quinn Damgaard HDR HDR
John Engel HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Pat Engelbert HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jim Frear Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Gayle Goering Cornhusker Public Power District NGOs & Stakeholders
Charles Gonka Loup Power District LPD Board Member
Michael Gutzmer New Century Environmental Public
Richard Holland Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Agency - State
Mark Ivy FERC FERC
Nick Jayjack FERC FERC
Thomas Kumpf Loup Power District LPD Board Member
Gary Lewis HDR HDR
Joseph Mangiamelli City of Columbus Agency - Local
Page 1 of 2

Name Organization Contact Type
Robert Mohler Lower Loup Natural Resources District Agency - Local
Zach Nelson US Senate Elected Official
Kim Nguyen FERC FERC
Dan Nitzel Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Association NGOs & Stakeholders
Theresa Petr Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Matt Pillard HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Lisa Richardson HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Jeff Runge US Fish and Wildlife Service Agency - Federal
Julia Sage Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Tribal
John Shadle Nebraska Public Power District Agency - Local
Scott Stuewe HDR HDR
Neal Suess Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Randy Thoreson National Park Service Agency - Federal
David Turner FERC FERC
George Waldow HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Stephanie White HDR Engineering, Inc. HDR
Ron Ziola Loup Power District LPD Project Team
Page 2 of 2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Engelbert, Pat
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:23 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: Requested paper on sandbar studies in lower Platte
Not sure where this belongs on PW. Can you file this, or direct me to where it should be filed?
_____
From: Lewis, Gary
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:38 AM
To: Engelbert, Pat; Waldow, George
Cc: Hunt, George
Subject: FW: Requested paper on sandbar studies in lower Platte
FYI, this should probably go in the project correspondence files.
_____
From: Mary B Brown [mailto:mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Lewis, Gary
Subject: Re: Requested paper on sandbar studies in lower Platte
Thanks, Gary. I enjoyed (and certainly benefitted from) our conversation at the Columbus meeting. Conversations like
that, and the information in the article, are what we need to help make better decisions for the terns and plovers. If you
are aware of any similar publications, please let me know.
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583;0931 USA
telephone: (402) 472;8878
fax: (402) 472;2946
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
"Lewis, Gary"
04/23/2009 10:21 AM
To
"MBROWN9@UNL.EDU"
cc
1

"Engelbert, Pat"
Subject
Requested paper on sandbar studies in lower Platte
Mary,
Thanks for attending the meeting in Columbus and for visiting about the subject. Here is a not;so;great copy of the GSA
Bulletin paper by Smith that I mentioned, explaining his observations of the evolution and dissection of sandbars in the
lower Platte. I think someone told me he was a Professor at Kearney State when he did this work, but the paper lists his
affiliation in 1971 as the University of Illinois. I’ve never attempted to contact him. I am not aware of any other study
where someone actually observed these processes on site versus remotely.
Regards,
Gary Lewis
Gary L. Lewis, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
303 East 17th Avenue | Suite 700 | Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.764.1562 | Fax: 303.860.7139 | Cell: 303.619.9021
Email: gary.lewis@hdrinc.com
www.hdrinc.com
[attachment "Transverse Bars and Braiding in the Lower Platte River, Nebraska.pdf" deleted by Mary
B Brown/SNR/IANR/UNEBR]
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:56 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov
Cc: jeff.schuckman@nebraska.gov; dave.tunink@nebraska.gov; richard.holland@nebraska.gov;
Marinovich, Melissa; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: Loup Power District Relicensing - data needs meeting
Frank,
As we discussed, HDR would like to meet with you to discuss the following:
• Data (tern and plover, Heritage Program Database, etc) we have obtained and our intended use of that data
relative to meeting study objectives
• Discuss other data that may exist, or existing data in other formats, that will help in meeting study objectives (such
as the Loup River fisheries 1971 Report?)
• Discuss the data gaps that exist relative to aiding in addressing study objectives
• Discuss the Nebraska Heritage Program Database and the data we may still need from this source to supplement
the data we already have
I have copied Jeff, Dave, and Rick on this e-mail for their potential involvement as warranted. I would not anticipated this
meeting lasting longer than 2 hours.
We are available to meet any time on May 4, 5, or 6, May 7 (8:30 to 10:30), or May 8. We would plan to come to your
offices in Lincoln.
Please let me know if any of these times work for you.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:14 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; arobak@loup.com;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net; Sigler,
Bill; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
don_simpson@blm.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; Waldow, George;
jalexand@usgs.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com;
jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe4ne.org; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; Pillard, Matt; mbrown9
@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu; mohler@nctc.net;
monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov;
nsuess@loup.com; Engelbert, Pat; pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; Damgaard, Quinn V.; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
rziola@loup.com; White, Stephanie; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; King, Wendy;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing 4 Study Plan Meetings
Thank you for the information Lisa. At the April 21 meeting, our office had identified discrepancies between
the Proposed Study Plan and SD2. Will there be a revision or supplement to the Proposed Study Plan that will
include objectives and methods for all key resource needs identified in SD2? Our office would like to address
the objectives and methods for these key resource needs at the May 27(28 meeting.
Jeff Runge
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 382(6468, Ext. 22
(308) 379(8553 Cell
(308) 384(8835 Fax
********************************
"Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)"
"Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)"
04/28/09 10:40 AM
1
To "abaum@upperloupnrd.org"
, "adubas@leg.ne.gov"
, "al.berndt@nebraska.gov"
,
"astuthman@leg.ne.gov" ,
"barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil"

2
,
"bczoning@frontiernet.net"
,
"bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov"
,
"bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org"
,
"butchk@nctc.net" ,
"calms@neb.rr.com" ,
"cgenoa@cablene.com" ,
"cityadmin@cablene.com"
,
"clangemeier@leg.ne.gov"
, "cothern.joe@epa.gov"
, "danno@nohva.com"
, "david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov"
,
"djjarecke@clarkswb.net"
,
"don_simpson@blm.gov"
,
"frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov"
,
"jalexand@usgs.gov" ,
"jangell@dnr.ne.gov" ,
"jeddins@achp.gov" ,
"jmangi@columbusne.us"
, "jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org"
, "jmsunne@nppd.com"
,
"john.bender@nebraska.gov"
,
"justin.lavene@nebraska.gov"
,
"jwinkler@papionrd.org" ,
"kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov"
,
"kennyj@headwaterscorp.com"
,
"ksullivan@leg.ne.gov" ,
"lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org" ,
"mbrown9@unl.edu" ,
"mferguson@gp.usbr.gov"
, "mkuzila1@unl.edu"
, "monroe@megavision.com"
, "msittler@lpsnrd.org"
, "pcclerk@megavision.com"
,
"peggy.harding@ferc.gov"
,
"prescott.brownell@noaa.gov"
,
"randy_thoreson@nps.gov"
, "rbishop@cpnrd.org"
,
"Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov"
,
"robert_harms@fws.gov"
,
"steve.chick@ne.usda.gov"
,

Relicensing Participants,
3
"Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov"
,
"david.turner@ferc.gov" ,
"nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov"
, "mark.ivy@ferc.gov"
, "julias@poncatribe(ne.org"
, "jeff_runge@fws.gov"
, "mohler@nctc.net"
, "jjshadl@nppd.com"
,
"zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov"
cc "nsuess@loup.com" ,
"rziola@loup.com" ,
"arobak@loup.com" ,
"Waldow, George"
, "Engelbert, Pat"
, "Sigler, Bill"
, "White, Stephanie"
, "King, Wendy"
, "Damgaard, Quinn
V." , "Pillard,
Matt"
Subject Loup Power District FERC Relicensing ( Study Plan
Meetings
Thanks to those of you who attended the study plan meeting on Tuesday, April 21 st in Columbus. A transcript
of the discussion will be available by May 8 on the project website at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html.
Several additional meetings are planned for the month of May to continue discussions on what studies are
needed, how studies will be conducted, and how the data from each study will be used (e.g., to evaluate
species impacts, etc). These meetings include:
Date and Time Topic Location*
Tuesday, May 5
10:00 AM - 2:00 PM
Monday, May 11
10:30 AM – 3:00 PM
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Section 106 Compliance (Study 11) Conference Call
Recreation (Studies 8-10)
Continued Discussion As Needed
(Studies 1-12)
District Office
2404 15th St.
Columbus, NE
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
*All meetings are also available by conference call. Please note that you will be calling in when you RSVP.

RSVP 48 hours in advance of each meeting to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
The consensus derived at these meetings will guide the revised study plan to be submitted July 27 th to FERC.
The Proposed Study Plan was submitted to FERC on March 27, 2009. An electronic copy of the document can
be found at the following location: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804-127-01
Thanks again,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Project Manager
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
4

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:40 AM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; jangell@dnr.ne.gov; jeddins@achp.gov;
jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; pcclerk@megavision.com;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; julias@poncatribe2ne.org;
jeff_runge@fws.gov; mohler@nctc.net; jjshadl@nppd.com;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: nsuess@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; arobak@loup.com; Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat;
Sigler, Bill; White, Stephanie; King, Wendy; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Pillard, Matt
Subject: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing 2 Study Plan Meetings
Relicensing Participants,
Thanks to those of you who attended the study plan meeting on Tuesday, April 21 st in Columbus. A transcript of the
discussion will be available by May 8 on the project website at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html.
Several additional meetings are planned for the month of May to continue discussions on what studies are needed, how
studies will be conducted, and how the data from each study will be used (e.g., to evaluate species impacts, etc). These
meetings include:
Date and Time Topic Location*
Tuesday, May 5
10:00 AM 2:00 PM
Monday, May 11
10:30 AM – 3:00 PM
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Section 106 Compliance (Study 11) Conference Call
Recreation (Studies 8 10)
Continued Discussion As Needed
(Studies 1 12)
1
District Office
2404 15th St.
Columbus, NE
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
*All meetings are also available by conference call. Please note that you will be calling in when you RSVP.
RSVP 48 hours in advance of each meeting to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
The consensus derived at these meetings will guide the revised study plan to be submitted July 27 th to FERC.
The Proposed Study Plan was submitted to FERC on March 27, 2009. An electronic copy of the document can be found
at the following location: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html

SHPO Project reference: HP#0804 127 01
Thanks again,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Project Manager
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 6811424049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Study 11 – Section 106 Compliance
Meeting Date: May 5, 2009
10:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Jessie Nunn, NSHS
Jill Dolberg, HSHS
Neal Suess, LPD
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Ron Ziola, LPD
Mike Madson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Loup Power District Offices –
Columbus, NE
Lisa Richardson, HDR
A meeting was held between Loup Power District and the Nebraska State Historical Society (Nebraska
SHPO) to discuss Study 11.0 – Section 106 Compliance from the District’s Proposed Study Plan associated
with relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. Discussion is summarized by agenda topic below.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Relicensing Process
2. Project Background
3. Study Plan
• Study Goals & Objectives
• Study Tasks
• Phase Ia Report
• Phase I Archaeological Inventory
• Historic District Documentation Package
4. Consultation Products
5. Pawnee Dredge Replacement
6. Tour of Hydroelectric System
Discussion:
1. Relicensing Process
HDR provided a brief overview of the relicensing process (see attached graphic). Key points in the
process related to Section 106 compliance:
• Discuss study plan and determine if it meets the needs of SHPO for Section 106 compliance
(5/5/09).
• Opportunity for SHPO to file formal comments on proposed study plan (6/26/09)
• District revise as needed and submit with Revised Study Plan (7/27/09).
• Conduct study and prepare reports (Fall 2009 to Summer 2010).
• Incorporate information from studies into the License Application (application submitted
4/16/2012)
It was noted that FERC has sent letters to tribes regarding consultation for Project relicensing; however,
FERC also expects applicants to coordinate separately with the tribes. There are six tribes with potential
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
SHPO Meeting – May 5, 2009
interest in this project: Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, Pawnee Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Ponca Tribe
of Oklahoma, Santee Sioux Tribe, and Winnebago Tribe. FERC has received correspondence from the
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska and the Winnebago Tribe indicating they have no comment or will not
participate in the relicensing. The District has sent letters to the six tribes and has not received any
responses regarding interest in the reliensing; however, they will keep trying to contact the tribes.
2. Project Background
The District provided a brief overview of the Project, including descriptions of the following: project
headworks (diversion weir, sluice gates, intake structure), settling basin & Pawnee Dredge, Monroe
Powerhouse, Lake Babcock & Lake North, Columbus Powerhouse, and the tailrace. The District noted
that they are not proposing any operational changes or construction as part of the relicensing.
HDR provided a summary of the historic context of the Project: It was constructed in the early 1930s as a
PWA project and is considered to be a district eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Additionally, there are 13 archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project that have been
recorded since the 1930s. Pre-contact and historic-period sites were encountered during the project
construction; some were excavated by archaeologists from the University of Nebraska. The sites are
related to the historic-period settlement of the vicinity by the Pawnee, who lived in and around Genoa in
the latter half of the 19 th century. One of the sites is listed on the NRHP, and another appears to be
eligible.
3. Study Plan
Study Goals & Objectives
The group reviewed the Goals and Objectives as described in Study 11. The SHPO agreed that the goals
and objectives are appropriate and no revisions are needed.
Study Tasks
HDR identified the major tasks identified in Study 11:
Phase IA Archaeological Overview
Conduct archaeological overview to document the known resources in the vicinity of the Project and
provide recommendations for additional archaeological fieldwork within the Project Boundary. HDR
indicated that there appear to be few areas that are undisturbed and thus fit for archaeological survey.
Phase I Archaeological Inventory
Conduct archaeological field studies for the areas within the APE identified in the Phase IA investigation
and document the results.
Ethnographic Documentation
In coordination with Native American tribes, document any known places of traditional religious or
cultural importance within the APE.
Historic District Documentation Package
Prepare an inventory and evaluate the potential historic district in accordance with federal and state
guidelines and prepare a documentation package. It is anticipated that the package would include 35mm
photos documenting the representative features as well as some of the original engineering drawings. The
District noted that they have prepared a book, Power and Progress, documenting the history of the Project
and they also have videotaped interviews with local residents recounting their memories of construction
of the Project.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
SHPO Meeting – May 5, 2009
SHPO asked if the District had considered getting the project listed on the NRHP and noted the potential
benefits as:
• Publicity
• Education tool
• Federal tax breaks (does not apply to the District)
• National recognition
The District indicated that they have not considered listing the project in the NRHP.
It was noted that the studies would be completed between August 2009 and August 2011. SHPO agreed
that the study tasks are appropriate. SHPO will provide the District with an example documentation
package from the NPPD project listing and will also look for an example documenting a linear district.
4. Consultation Products
Two consultation products will be prepared as part of Project relicensing:
• Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP)
• Programmatic Agreement (PA)
The HPMP will outline the activities that would require future consultation with SHPO and will be
prepared and submitted with the license application. FERC uses a standard PA that will also be prepared
and submitted with the license application.
5. Pawnee Dredge Replacement
The District indicated that they are planning to replace the Pawnee dredge with the intent of having a new
dredge operational by spring or fall 2011. The District indicated that the existing dredge requires constant
maintenance, that the exterior housing is essentially the only original equipment on the dredge, and the
dredge has probably already exceeded its useful life. In addition, a new dredge is needed to be able to
continue to pump sand onto the North Sand Management Area, as the height of this area increases every
year.
The District provided a brief description of the current dredge and dredging operation:
• Dredge is a “dustpan” dredge which uses jets of water to loosen sediment rather than a cutter
head
• Dredging occurs in the spring (March – June) and fall (August-October)
• During the dredging season, the dredge operates 24 hours a day/7 days a week
• Dredge currently discharged 80% water and 20% solids
• Dredge discharges sand onto the North Sand Management Area where the sand disperses
according to gradation.
• Dredge discharges sand onto the South Sand Management Area where the sand and water
return to the Loup River.
The District noted that it is considering both dustpan and cutter head dredges as replacement for the
Pawnee; currently a dustpan dredge appears to be preferred. The District plans to scrap the Pawnee once
a new dredge is operational. SHPO indicated it would be their preference to replace the Pawnee with a
dustpan type dredge to be consistent with the original equipment; however, they noted it is not their
intention to force a specific type.
The SHPO asked if the District has considered putting the Pawnee on display in permanent dry dock. The
District noted that they are not interested in putting it in dry dock on their property because it would be a
safety and maintenance problem. There would likely be significant vandalism and the dredge itself would
pose a potential safety hazard to the general public. The District noted that they would be willing to
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 4

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
SHPO Meeting – May 5, 2009
donate the dredge to anyone who wanted to display it, but the District is not planning to do anything.
SHPO noted that they understand the need to replace the dredge and the reasons for not planning to dry
dock and display it.
HDR noted that the intent is to document the dredge as the first piece of the documentation package for
the historic district prior to it being taken out of service.
Action Items:
Who
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Task
SHPO Provide example documentation package for historic districts
(NPPD and a linear district).
LPD Document Pawnee dredge as part of the historic district
documentation package prior to taking it out of service.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Date
Assigned
5/5/09
5/5/09
Page 4 of 4

Subject: Proposed Study Plan – Fish and Wildlife Data Gathering
Client: Loup Power District
Project: Loup FERC Re-Licensing
Meeting Date: May 5, 2009
Notes by: Melissa Marinovich
Project No: 13704
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: 2200 N. 33 rd Street, Lincoln, NE
N:\!users\Gail\Stationery & Forms\Forms\MeetingNotes.doc
Attendees:
Rich Holland (NGPC), Frank Albrecht (NGPC), Dave Tunink (NGPC), Rick Schneider (NGPC), George
Waldow (HDR), Melissa Marinovich (HDR), Matt Pillard (HDR)
Topics Discussed:
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the data available at the NGPC for use in developing study plans,
to identify any significant data gaps, and to gain an understanding of NGPC process for requesting data and
the cost of the data. Copies of the NDEQ fish kill reports that HDR has collected were distributed. The
meeting began at 1:30pm.
I. Introductions
II. HDR Acquired Data
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Melissa began by outlining all threatened and endangered species data that the Project has
collected to date and from which sources this data has been obtained.
HDR asked what data would be best to use for evaluating effects to terns and plovers. Nest
counts? Fledge ratios?
o NGPC suggested that Joel Jorgensen (Nongame Bird Program Manager) would be the
best contact for discussing appropriate metrics to be used when developing a study
regarding the terns and plovers.
o Rich Holland suggested that looking at the “whole picture” would be better than
comparing to one individual metric such as fledge ratio or nest counts. These are all
parts of a reproductive success measurement. However, what to use depends on what
you are looking for.
HDR currently has adult census numbers for only a few select years on the Loup River. Are nest
count numbers or fledge ratios there?
o Joel would also know the answer to this too. There just isn’t that much data on the Loup
River because there are not that many birds there.
o George Waldow posed the question: Why are/aren’t birds on the Loup River bypass
reach?
Rich Holland speculated that it was likely due to human activity
Sampling protocols between agencies were discussed
o Rick Schneider agreed that there are likely some differences in protocols between all the
different agencies that collect data and this can affect the accuracy of the data
o Joel Jorgensen started using a detectability technique to identify error and for
consistency for the lower Platte River and sandpits within the last two years that should
help with the accuracy of that data
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 3

HDR Engineering, Inc.
o Nebraska Natural Heritage Database (NNHD) staff runs checks on data before entering
into database and Joel checks over data before entering it into the tern and plover
database that is kept by the NGPC
Melissa outlined what fish sampling and fish kill data HDR has collected to date and handed out
the most recent NDEQ fish kill reports from 2005
o Rich Holland said NGPC had 2 additional sampling reports on the Loup River from 1996
and 1997. He gave copies to Melissa for the Project file.
o A statewide inventory was completed in 2005 by Schainost that tried to mimic an
inventory that was done long ago (Johnson study, 1940’s) – tried to sample at same
spots as previous reports
III. Other Existing Data
IV. Data Gaps
How is data, from other agencies, students, and volunteers, collected and integrated into the
NGPC databases?
o Data in the NNHD has records dating back to the late 1800’s
o Data collected by students doing graduate work goes to the database as it is completed
o Once a year, the NNHD is synced with graduate student work and other NGPC
databases (such as Joel’s tern and plover database).
o Reports and data from other agencies are entered into the NNHD as soon as possible.
o Volunteer sightings and records of T&E Species are verified, if possible, by NGPC
personnel and recorded into NNHD as soon as possible. Omaha Orchid Club is one
example.
o Rick Schneider indicated that UNL students working on a graduate project just caught
another pallid sturgeon last week and it was upstream of Leshara, NE (where the last
pallid was documented a few weeks ago)
Rick clarified that this incident had not yet been released to the press, but would
be entered into the database as soon as possible. (as of the May 27 and 28
agency meetings this pallid sturgeon occurrence had not been verified)
When asked about the recent occurrences of pallid upstream of the Elkhorn
River confluence, Rich offered that overall, catch efficiency has improved and
the effort has increased.
o Tier 1 species – of the 80 Tier 1 species, 27 are Federally- and/or State-listed. We
discussed the mapping and that we would also want occurrences for the Loup River
bypass reach.
Any additional fish kill or fish sampling data that the Project has not yet collected in the Loup
River bypass reach, downstream on the lower Platte River, or in the power canal?
o 2004 was the big one on the bypass reach that had many flathead catfish kills. The
question was asked about what effect does Beaver Creek have on water temperature
downstream
o There might be some sampling notes/reports from the 1940’s that Johnson collected –
Steve Schainost would have copies of those.
o Steve Schainost would also have copies of statewide surveys done in 2005
Contact information for Steve: (308) 763-2940
o Rich Holland and Dave Tunink did not know of any other fish kill reports than what HDR
has collected to date.
None downstream of the tailrace in the lower Platte River
Rich observed some dead fish in 1988 in tailrace park – no written reports
• Observed isolated pockets of fish right at tailrace park due to the water
being “turned off” for maintenance to the canal – mostly strandings
o Rich mentioned that Gene Zurlein might know of some additional fish kill data
Any additional data on terns and plovers that can fill in the gaping holes between years and
types of data?
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 3

HDR Engineering, Inc.
o Need to check with Joel Jorgensen on this question
Asked about fish passage and the rock ramp at Milburn
o Rich Holland clarified that Milburn dam has a fishway – not a rock ramp
Fishway is a channel just west of the diversion – on the Middle Loup River
o Sargent diversion is using a rock ramp design for fish passage, but has not been
constructed yet
o Belmont diversion is using a denil fish ladder for passage – this option wouldn’t likely
work for LPPD
V. NGPC Process for Requesting Data
VI. Cost of Data
Letters are best, but would need time to respond to a large data request
HDR/LPPD has been requesting data in the correct way – need to be specific on what data is
requested/needed
If a data request comes from a state or federal agency (such as FERC) – there is no charge for
the data
If a data request comes from a for-profit entity (such as HDR), even if they are working on behalf
of a federal, state or nonprofit agency – there is a standard charge for data
o Standard charge for data collection and compilation is $60.00 per hour
The Loup Public Power District is a not-for-profit entity – what if the request came from them?
o Rick Schneider said there would likely be no charge because they are not-for-profit
o Rick pointed out that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows NGPC to recover
costs for the data
VII. Action Items
Action
Contact Joel Jorgensen (Non-Game Bird Program
Responsible Party Due Date
Manager NGPC) to discuss bird metrics and available
data
Melissa Marinovich, HDR May 19, 2009
Draft data request letter to Joel Jorgensen, NGPC,
requesting additional tern and plover data
Contact Steven Shainost, NGPC, regarding Johnson
Melissa Marinovich, HDR May 29, 2009
1940’s fish sampling reports and 2005 statewide
inventory reports
Melissa Marinovich, HDR May 15, 2009
Follow-up with Steve Shainost and Rich Holland
regarding rock ramp issues
Bill Sigler, HDR June 5, 2009
VIII. Adjorn
Meeting concluded at 3:30pm.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 3 of 3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:12 AM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; jean.angell@nebraska.gov;
jeddins@achp.gov; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; pcclerk@megavision.com;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; julias@poncatribe.ne.org;
jeff_runge@fws.gov; mohler@nctc.net; jjshadl@nppd.com;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: nsuess@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; arobak@loup.com; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow,
George; Engelbert, Pat; Sigler, Bill; White, Stephanie; King, Wendy; Damgaard, Quinn V.
Subject: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing . Study Plan Meeting Information
Attachments: Directions to Loup Power District Main Office .pdf
Relicensing Participants,
The following materials will be posted by 12:00 PM today on the project website at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html :
• April 21 Study Plan Meeting Transcript
• Agenda and Handout for May 11 th Discussion of Recreation Studies (8-10)
Reminders:
Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting
The Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan meeting is on May 11. Meeting materials are available on the
project website. Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 8 th at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275. Due
to local road construction, please see the attached directions to the Loup District Offices.
Aquatic Resources Study Plan Meetings
Also, as a reminder, we will continue our discussion of Aquatic Resources (and other studies as needed) on Wednesday,
May 27 and Thursday, May 28. The consensus derived at these meetings will guide the revised study plan to be
submitted July 27 th to FERC. Please RSVP to Angell by noon on May 22 nd .
Also, please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the meeting
on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing. We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.
See below for details for both meetings:
Date and Time Topic Location* RSVP
Monday, May 11 Recreation (Studies 8 10) District Office May 8 th , 12:00 p.m.
1

10:30 AM – 3:00 PM 2404 15th St.
Columbus, NE
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and Objectives
(as needed) and New Discussion on
Methodologies
(Studies 1 12)
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
May 22nd , 12:00 p.m.
*These meetings are also available by conference call. Please note that you will be calling in when you RSVP.
RSVP to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804 127 01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114.4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:57 PM
To: King, Wendy
Subject: FW:
Attachments: Agenda.090505.SHPO.doc
From: Madson, Michael J.
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:35 AM
To: Dolberg, Jill; Robert Puschendorf
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject:
Looking forward to Tuesday.
Please see the attached agenda. Call me ahead of time if you have any comments, questions or additions.
Mike
Michael J. Madson, M.S., RPA
Professional Associate
Senior Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Project Manager
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 600 | Minneapolis, MN | 55416
Phone: 763527855921 | Fax: 763559155413 | Mobile: 612550156237 | Email: michael.madson@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:01 PM
To: julias@poncatribe ne.org
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Frame, Gail; King, Wendy
Subject: FW: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing Study Plan Meeting Information
Attachments: Directions to Loup Power District Main Office .pdf
Good Afternoon Julia.
Please see the information below regarding upcoming meetings on the Loup Power District Relicensing project. Please
let me know if you have any questions. We’ll add you to our database for future emails.
Thanks!
Matt
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:12 AM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
bpuschendorf@nebraskahistory.org; butchk@nctc.net; calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com;
cityadmin@cablene.com; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov;
'jean.angell@nebraska.gov'; jeddins@achp.gov; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; julias@poncatribe/ne.org; jeff_runge@fws.gov; mohler@nctc.net;
jjshadl@nppd.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: nsuess@loup.com; rziola@loup.com; arobak@loup.com; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat;
Sigler, Bill; White, Stephanie; King, Wendy; Damgaard, Quinn V.
Subject: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing / Study Plan Meeting Information
Relicensing Participants,
The following materials will be posted by 12:00 PM today on the project website at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html :
• April 21 Study Plan Meeting Transcript
• Agenda and Handout for May 11 th Discussion of Recreation Studies (8-10)
Reminders:
Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting
The Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan meeting is on May 11. Meeting materials are available on the
project website. Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 8 th at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275. Due
to local road construction, please see the attached directions to the Loup District Offices.
Aquatic Resources Study Plan Meetings
1

Also, as a reminder, we will continue our discussion of Aquatic Resources (and other studies as needed) on Wednesday,
May 27 and Thursday, May 28. The consensus derived at these meetings will guide the revised study plan to be
submitted July 27 th to FERC. Please RSVP to Angell by noon on May 22 nd .
Also, please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the meeting
on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing. We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.
See below for details for both meetings:
Date and Time Topic Location* RSVP
Monday, May 11
10:30 AM – 3:00 PM
Recreation (Studies 8"10)
District Office
2404 15th St.
Columbus, NE
May 8th , 12:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and Objectives
(as needed) and New Discussion on
Methodologies
(Studies 1"12)
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
May 22nd , 12:00 p.m.
*These meetings are also available by conference call. Please note that you will be calling in when you RSVP.
RSVP to:
Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804/127/01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114 4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

From: Pillard, Matt
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Relicensing email correspondence
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:33:18 PM
FYI
From: Dolberg, Jill [mailto:jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: Loup Relicensing email correspondence
That would be perfect Matt. Thanks so much!
Jill Dolberg
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 1:47 PM
To: Dolberg, Jill
Cc: Lisa.Richards@hdrinc.com; Frame, Gail
Subject: RE: Loup Relicensing email correspondence
Jill,
Thanks for the note. Yes, we can do that. Will all correspondence go to you, but when/if we need
to address SHPO formally, should that go to Bob?
Matt
From: Dolberg, Jill [mailto:jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 1:08 PM
To: Pillard, Matt; Lisa.Richards@hdrinc.com
Subject: Loup Relicensing email correspondence
Hello! Bob Puschendorf has been receiving all the emails regarding the Loup Relicensing project, but
wonders if you could put me on the email mailing list instead. We appreciate all the information you
send, but he ends up forwarding it to me in any case. We would appreciate it! My email is below...
Jill Dolberg
Jill E. Dolberg
Review and Compliance Coordinator
Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office
Nebraska State Historical Society
1420 P Street
P. O. Box 82554
Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-2554
(402) 471-4773 office
(402) 471-3316 fax

1-800-833-6747
Jill.Dolberg@nebraska.gov
To learn more about the history we all share, visit our website at www.nebraskahistory.org.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 8:59 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Melissa,
The extensive study I mentioned is the pre-decisional EIS for ESH. It probably won't be
released until the spring of 2010 at the earliest. The plovers are back and have been seen as
far north as Fort Peck Lake in eastern Montana. Our crew at Gavins Point is just now starting
to find nests. We have been seeing common terns, but least terns have not been verified yet.
I would expect they will start showing up next week. It is a long flight from South America.
Have a good weekend.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:00 PM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Greg,
Have the birds returned to the river yet? I know the plovers are milling around the Platte
and sandpits, but the terns have not been spotted yet. I am currently helping gather
additional information on sandbar habitat availability for terns and plovers in different
river systems. In one of our phone conversations, you had mentioned that an extensive study
was done (in preparation of the pre-decision EIS on Emergent Sandbar Habitat) that looked at
digital photography of all the habitat in the Missouri River from 1998 to 2008. I haven't
been able to find any information on this study and was wondering if you could send me either
a link, copy of the report, or any additional information on this study. Thanks for all your
help! Happy spring!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Schainost, Steve [steve.schainost@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:24 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
The Sargent "will be" a rock ramp when it is done. I believe they are purchasing and
stockpiling rock right now and will do the work in the fall. Belmont is a denil fish ladder.
At Milburn Dam, they built a new supplemental spillway. The main spillway is a triple box
culvert through the dam that can handle up to 700 cfs. The fishway is a single box culvert
that is set 6 feet (?) higher, again through the dam, and is designed to handle a maximum of
100 cfs. The gates on all four are vertical slide gates that are computer controlled. I can
provide photos when I get back to the office. I believe a rock ramp would be the most
suitable and cost effective for the Loup Diversion which, if memory serves, is only a few
feet high.
Steve Schainost
Note: new email address - steve.schainost@nebraska.gov
________________________________________
From: Marinovich, Melissa [Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:09
To: Schainost, Steve
Cc: Sigler, Bill
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
Dear Mr. Schainost
Thank you for the quick reply! Later this week would be great. Also, we've been looking a lot
at fish passage possibilities for the diversion structure (I think you talked to Bill Sigler
about this a while ago) and I just wanted to clarify - I was told that there were three
different fish passage designs at Sargent, Milburn, and Belmont (?). Is this correct? And if
so, do you have any design plans for these structures with regards to the different types of
fish passage used at each one? I was under the impression that the Sargent structure is a
"rock ramp", the Milburn structure is a side channel, and the Belmont structure is a fish
ladder. I really appreciate your help in this and look forward to hearing from you again
later in the week. Thanks again!
Melissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Schainost, Steve [mailto:steve.schainost@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:10 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
Dear Ms. Marinovich:
I'm out of town right now but can send you the Loup fish collection info later this week. I
don't have anything for the Power Canal.
Steve Schainost
1

Note: new email address - steve.schainost@nebraska.gov
________________________________________
From: Marinovich, Melissa [Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:40
To: Schainost, Steve
Subject: Johnson Fish reports?
Hi Steve,
I am working on the Loup Hydroelectric FERC Relicensing Project. I was recently in a meeting
with Rich Holland discussing fish sampling in the Loup River and Loup Power Canal. He
mentioned a few different fish survey resources that we had not yet come across and said that
you would likely have these resources. He mentioned a Johnson survey(s) from the 1940's and
some statewide surveys from 2005. He told me to contact you about those resources and gave me
your contact information. If you have copies of these reports or any fish survey/sampling
information on the Loup River or Loup Power Canal, could you possibly send me a copy of these
reports/survey information? I will also attempt to contact you by phone. Thanks for your help
and if you have any questions, please email or call. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:41 PM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; CoraJones@bia.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
don_simpson@blm.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jangell@nebraska.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com; jeddins@achp.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe+ne.org;
justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; mohler@nctc.net; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Teresa Petr; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat;
Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha);
Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District + Study Plan Meeting Reminder
STUDY PLAN MEETING REMINDER
Date and Time Topic Location*
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and
Objectives (as needed) and New
Discussion on Methodologies (Studies
1-12)
1
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
*Instructions to help navigate summer road construction can be found at the end of this e-mail.
Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 22nd
arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
Supporting materials can be found on line:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html
• 4/21 Study Plan Meeting Outcomes Memo
• Agenda for next week’s meeting
• Transcript of the 5/11/09 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting (posted by Friday,
May 22nd)
• Handouts for next week’s meeting (posted by Friday, May 22nd)
This meeting will be available by conference call for those of you unable to travel: 866-994-6437 Passcode:
4023994909
Please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the
meeting on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing.
We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.

SHPO Project reference: HP#0804-127-01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114+4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
Directions to Holiday Inn Express with 30/81 Viaduct out of service:
For those coming from the west on Highway 30 or coming from the south on Highway 81, when you get to 8 th
Street (south end of closed viaduct) turn right or east onto 8 th Street and go 2 miles east until you get to 3 rd
Avenue. Turn left or north, go one mile north to 23 rd Street or Highway 30. At Highway 30 or 23 rd Street turn right
or east go about 3 blocks, turn left or north at Applebee’s and you will be able to access Holiday Inn Express from
their north entrance.
In addition to rail traffic, there is a heavy amount of local traffic taking students to school and employees going to
the east industrial area for work.
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:41 PM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bczoning@frontiernet.net;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; CoraJones@bia.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
don_simpson@blm.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jangell@nebraska.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com; jeddins@achp.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe+ne.org;
justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mark.ivy@ferc.gov; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; mohler@nctc.net; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Teresa Petr; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat;
Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha);
Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District + Study Plan Meeting Reminder
STUDY PLAN MEETING REMINDER
Date and Time Topic Location*
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and
Objectives (as needed) and New
Discussion on Methodologies (Studies
1-12)
1
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
*Instructions to help navigate summer road construction can be found at the end of this e-mail.
Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 22nd
arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
Supporting materials can be found on line:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html
• 4/21 Study Plan Meeting Outcomes Memo
• Agenda for next week’s meeting
• Transcript of the 5/11/09 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting (posted by Friday,
May 22nd)
• Handouts for next week’s meeting (posted by Friday, May 22nd)
This meeting will be available by conference call for those of you unable to travel: 866-994-6437 Passcode:
4023994909
Please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the
meeting on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing.
We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.

SHPO Project reference: HP#0804-127-01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114+4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
Directions to Holiday Inn Express with 30/81 Viaduct out of service:
For those coming from the west on Highway 30 or coming from the south on Highway 81, when you get to 8 th
Street (south end of closed viaduct) turn right or east onto 8 th Street and go 2 miles east until you get to 3 rd
Avenue. Turn left or north, go one mile north to 23 rd Street or Highway 30. At Highway 30 or 23 rd Street turn right
or east go about 3 blocks, turn left or north at Applebee’s and you will be able to access Holiday Inn Express from
their north entrance.
In addition to rail traffic, there is a heavy amount of local traffic taking students to school and employees going to
the east industrial area for work.
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:24 PM
To: todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis.pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Frame, Gail; King, Wendy
Subject: FW: Loup Power District / Study Plan Meeting Reminder
Good afternoon.
The email below was sent to a variety of Federal, state, local entities, and citizens regarding an upcoming meeting that
is integral in the Loup Power District’s FERC relicensing process. We thought you would want to be aware of this meeting
and the coordination that has occurred and will be occurring by the Loup Power District for this effort. If you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114/4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:41 PM
To: 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org'; 'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov'; 'astuthman@leg.ne.gov';
'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'bczoning@frontiernet.net'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov';
'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'calms@neb.rr.com'; 'cgenoa@cablene.com';
'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov'; 'CoraJones@bia.gov'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov'; 'danno@nohva.com';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'david.turner@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'don_simpson@blm.gov';
'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jangell@nebraska.gov'; 'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'jeddins@achp.gov';
'jeff_runge@fws.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org';
'jmsunne@nppd.com'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe,ne.org'; 'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov';
'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov'; 'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov';
'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'mark.ivy@ferc.gov'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov';
'mkuzila1@unl.edu'; 'mohler@nctc.net'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'
Cc: 'Angel Robak'; 'Neil Suess'; 'Ron Ziola'; 'Teresa Petr'; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan,
Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District , Study Plan Meeting Reminder
STUDY PLAN MEETING REMINDER
Date and Time Topic Location*
1

Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and
Objectives (as needed) and New
Discussion on Methodologies (Studies
1-12)
2
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE
*Instructions to help navigate summer road construction can be found at the end of this e-mail.
Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 22nd
arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
Supporting materials can be found on line:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html
• 4/21 Study Plan Meeting Outcomes Memo
• Agenda for next week’s meeting
• Transcript of the 5/11/09 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting (posted by Friday,
May 22nd)
• Handouts for next week’s meeting (posted by Friday, May 22nd)
This meeting will be available by conference call for those of you unable to travel: 866-994-6437 Passcode:
4023994909
Please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the
meeting on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing.
We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804-127-01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114/4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
Directions to Holiday Inn Express with 30/81 Viaduct out of service:
For those coming from the west on Highway 30 or coming from the south on Highway 81, when you get to 8 th
Street (south end of closed viaduct) turn right or east onto 8 th Street and go 2 miles east until you get to 3 rd
Avenue. Turn left or north, go one mile north to 23 rd Street or Highway 30. At Highway 30 or 23 rd Street turn right
or east go about 3 blocks, turn left or north at Applebee’s and you will be able to access Holiday Inn Express from
their north entrance.
In addition to rail traffic, there is a heavy amount of local traffic taking students to school and employees going to
the east industrial area for work.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:22 PM
To: ncpza@hamilton.net
Cc: King, Wendy; Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Loup Power District & Study Plan Meeting Reminder
Mary,
Please see message below relative to the Loup Power District FERC relicensing process. We updated our database to
include Hamilton County Planning and Zoning. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114&4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:41 PM
To: 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org'; 'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov'; 'astuthman@leg.ne.gov';
'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'bczoning@frontiernet.net'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov';
'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'calms@neb.rr.com'; 'cgenoa@cablene.com';
'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov'; 'CoraJones@bia.gov'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov'; 'danno@nohva.com';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'david.turner@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'don_simpson@blm.gov';
'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jangell@nebraska.gov'; 'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'jeddins@achp.gov';
'jeff_runge@fws.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org';
'jmsunne@nppd.com'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe,ne.org'; 'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov';
'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov'; 'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov';
'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'mark.ivy@ferc.gov'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov';
'mkuzila1@unl.edu'; 'mohler@nctc.net'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'
Cc: 'Angel Robak'; 'Neil Suess'; 'Ron Ziola'; 'Teresa Petr'; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan,
Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District , Study Plan Meeting Reminder
STUDY PLAN MEETING REMINDER
Date and Time Topic Location*
Wednesday, May 27
Thursday, May 28
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM both days
Continued Discussion on Goals and
Objectives (as needed) and New
Discussion on Methodologies (Studies
1
Holiday Inn Express
524 E 23rd St
Columbus, NE

1-12)
*Instructions to help navigate summer road construction can be found at the end of this e-mail.
Please RSVP to Angell Robak by noon on May 22nd
arobak@loup.com
(402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
Supporting materials can be found on line:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html
• 4/21 Study Plan Meeting Outcomes Memo
• Agenda for next week’s meeting
• Transcript of the 5/11/09 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics Study Plan Meeting (posted by Friday,
May 22nd)
• Handouts for next week’s meeting (posted by Friday, May 22nd)
This meeting will be available by conference call for those of you unable to travel: 866-994-6437 Passcode:
4023994909
Please let Angell or myself know if you would be interested in gathering at the Powerhouse Park after the
meeting on Wednesday, May 27 for a picnic dinner and socializing.
We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort.
SHPO Project reference: HP#0804-127-01
Thanks again,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114&4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
Directions to Holiday Inn Express with 30/81 Viaduct out of service:
For those coming from the west on Highway 30 or coming from the south on Highway 81, when you get to 8 th
Street (south end of closed viaduct) turn right or east onto 8 th Street and go 2 miles east until you get to 3 rd
Avenue. Turn left or north, go one mile north to 23 rd Street or Highway 30. At Highway 30 or 23 rd Street turn right
or east go about 3 blocks, turn left or north at Applebee’s and you will be able to access Holiday Inn Express from
their north entrance.
In addition to rail traffic, there is a heavy amount of local traffic taking students to school and employees going to
the east industrial area for work.
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Schainost, Steve [steve.schainost@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
Attachments: Loup River fishes.xls
Dear Ms. Marinovich:
I have attached an excel spreadsheet with the data that I have for fish collections from the
Loup River, proper, and the Loup Power Canal. I didn't realize that I had data from the
Canal but we did collect there in the early 70's.
I did not include any tributary data or anything from above the forks. If you need/want this
data, let me know.
Steve Schainost
Note: new email address - steve.schainost@nebraska.gov
________________________________________
From: Marinovich, Melissa [Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:09
To: Schainost, Steve
Cc: Sigler, Bill
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
Dear Mr. Schainost
Thank you for the quick reply! Later this week would be great. Also, we've been looking a lot
at fish passage possibilities for the diversion structure (I think you talked to Bill Sigler
about this a while ago) and I just wanted to clarify - I was told that there were three
different fish passage designs at Sargent, Milburn, and Belmont (?). Is this correct? And if
so, do you have any design plans for these structures with regards to the different types of
fish passage used at each one? I was under the impression that the Sargent structure is a
"rock ramp", the Milburn structure is a side channel, and the Belmont structure is a fish
ladder. I really appreciate your help in this and look forward to hearing from you again
later in the week. Thanks again!
Melissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Schainost, Steve [mailto:steve.schainost@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:10 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Johnson Fish reports?
Dear Ms. Marinovich:
I'm out of town right now but can send you the Loup fish collection info later this week. I
don't have anything for the Power Canal.
Steve Schainost
1

Note: new email address - steve.schainost@nebraska.gov
________________________________________
From: Marinovich, Melissa [Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:40
To: Schainost, Steve
Subject: Johnson Fish reports?
Hi Steve,
I am working on the Loup Hydroelectric FERC Relicensing Project. I was recently in a meeting
with Rich Holland discussing fish sampling in the Loup River and Loup Power Canal. He
mentioned a few different fish survey resources that we had not yet come across and said that
you would likely have these resources. He mentioned a Johnson survey(s) from the 1940's and
some statewide surveys from 2005. He told me to contact you about those resources and gave me
your contact information. If you have copies of these reports or any fish survey/sampling
information on the Loup River or Loup Power Canal, could you possibly send me a copy of these
reports/survey information? I will also attempt to contact you by phone. Thanks for your help
and if you have any questions, please email or call. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Study Plan Goals, Objectives, and Activities
Meeting
Date:
Revisions
Noted by: HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
May 27-28, 2009, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Study Plan Meeting
Outcomes
Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Express, Columbus, NE
The Study Plan Meeting held on May 27-28, 2009, included the following discussions:
• Review of progress related to Studies 8-11 (for which the study activities were discussed in preceding
meetings);
• Review of the previously agreed upon (during the April 21, 2009, Study Plan Meeting) study goals
and objectives for Studies 1-5 and 7;
• Detailed discussion of the activities for Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7;
• Introduction and comprehensive discussion of Studies 12 and 13.
During meeting discussions, the agencies and organizations in attendance discussed whether the goals,
objectives, and activities, as stated in the Proposed Study Plan (PSP), along with applicable updates presented
by the District, met the needs for data collection related to each study resource, including information needed
for evaluation of impacts on species (both aquatic species and threatened and endangered species). Through
discussion and revision, consensus was reached on the majority of the goals, objectives, and activities for the
Studies listed below. Based on these discussions and revisions, the goals, objectives, and activities, as
proposed by the District, are stated below and will be incorporated into the District’s Revised Study Plan.
Details of the discussion can be found in the Study Plan Meeting transcript, which is posted to the Project
website at: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html.
Study Plan 1: Sedimentation
Goal(s):
The goal of the sedimentation study is to determine the effect, if any, that Project operations have on stream
morphology and sediment transport in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River. In addition,
the goal is to compare the availability of sandbar nesting habitat for interior least terns (Sterna antillarum)
and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) to their respective populations and to compare the general habitat
characteristics of the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) in multiple locations (unchanged from PSP).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To characterize sediment transport in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River
through effective discharge calculations (PSP Objective 2).
Activities:
• Update sediment budget utilizing existing data sources (PSP Objective 1).
• Generate collective sediment discharge curves at gage stations (unchanged activity from PSP).
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
• Determine Sediment Transport Indicators: Effective Discharge and Total Sediment Transport
[including sub-daily calculations and evaluation of wet and dry cycles (dependent on available data)]
(revised activity 5/27-28).
Objective 2: To characterize stream morphology in the Loup River bypass reach and in the lower Platte River
by reviewing existing literature on channel aggradation/degradation and cross sectional changes over time
(PSP Objective 3).
Activities:
• Utilize existing literature to characterize stream morphology (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Compare effective discharges, cross sectional changes, and associated stream characteristics
(unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 3: To determine if a relationship can be detected between sediment transport parameters and
interior least tern and piping plover nest counts (as provided by NGPC) and productivity measures (as
provided by TPCP) (5/27-28 revision to PSP Objective 4).
Activities:
• Plot and evaluate nest count and productivity data (number of fledglings per adult pair) against
sediment transport indicators [including evaluation of wet and dry cycles (dependent on available
data)] (5/27-28 revised activity).
• Perform a regression analysis on plotted data (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Examine trends (unchanged from PSP).
Objective 4: To evaluate whether sandbar availability is limiting interior least tern and piping plover numbers
on the lower Platte River (4/21 revision to PSP Objective 5).
During the May 27, 2009, Study Plan Meeting, it was determined that this objective, and all associated
activities, is not required for Project relicensing and will not be included in the District’s Revised Study
Plan.
Objective 5: To determine if sediment transport is a limiting factor for pallid sturgeon habitat in the lower
Platte River below the Elkhorn River (PSP Objective 6).
Activities:
• Determine if the Project is affecting sediment transport (unchanged activity from PSP).
• If the Project is affecting sediment transport: Determine extent using effective discharge calculations
and aggradation/degradation analysis (unchanged activity from PSP).
• If the Project is affecting sediment transport: Compare to habitat characteristics of other rivers used
by the pallid sturgeon, channel catfish, and flathead catfish to determine if changes in sediment
transport would affect species use of the lower Platte River (5/27-28 revised activity).
Objective 6: To investigate the relationship between sedimentation and ice jam flooding (PSP Objective 7).
During the May 27, 2009, Study Plan Meeting, it was determined that this objective, and all associated
activities, is not required as part of Study 1, as these items will be addressed under Study 12, Ice Jam
Flooding on the Loup River, Objective 2.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 2: Hydrocycling
Goal(s):
The goal of the hydrocycling study is to determine if Project hydrocycling operations benefit or adversely
affect the habitat used by interior least terns, piping plovers, and pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River.
The physical effects of hydrocycling will be quantified and compared to alternative conditions (unchanged
from PSP).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To compare the sub-daily Project hydrocycling operation values (maximum and minimum flow
and stage) to daily values (mean flow and stage). In addition to same-day comparisons, periods of weeks,
months, and specific seasons of interest to protected species will be evaluated to characterize the relative
degrees of variance between hydrocycling (actual) and alternative conditions in the study area (PSP Objective
2).
Activities:
• Conduct a gage analysis using existing USGS and NDNR flow and stage data to accurately determine
the timing, frequency, rate of change, travel time, and magnitude of sub-daily flow and stage changes
attributable to Project hydrocycling at established gage locations in the Tailrace Canal and the lower
Platte River (PSP Objective 1).
• Develop and plot hydrographs for the Project and alternative conditions (unchanged activity from
PSP).
Objective 2: To determine the potential for nest inundation due to both hydrocycling and alternative
conditions (4/21 revision to PSP Objective 3).
Activities:
• Determine highest flow event (primary benchmark event) occurring each spring between interior least
tern and piping plover arrival and the initiation of egg laying for both species (revised activity).
• Identify subsequent flow events that are equal to or greater than the primary benchmark event and
occur after initiation of egg laying and before the re-nesting period for both species (secondary
benchmark events) (revised activity).
• Identify subsequent flow events that are equal to or greater than the largest secondary benchmark
event and occur after initiation of egg laying in the re-nesting period for both species (tertiary
benchmark events) (revised activity).
• Identify subsequent flow events that are equal to or greater than the largest tertiary benchmark event
that occur during the second re-nesting period for both species (quaternary benchmark events)
(revised activity).
• Evaluate frequency of occurrence of flow events that equal or exceed the primary, secondary, and
tertiary benchmark flow events for each nesting and re-nesting season for both species (revised
activity).
• Evaluate Project operations relative to benchmark flows (unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 3: To assess effects, if any, of hydrocycling on sediment transport parameters (see Study 1.0,
Sedimentation) (PSP Objective 4).
Activities:
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
• Determine sediment transport indicators (effective discharge and total sediment transport) for Project
and alternative condition sub-daily hydrographs (unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 4: To identify material differences in potential effects on habitat of the interior least tern, piping
plover, and pallid sturgeon (PSP Objective 5; revised 4/21 and 5/27-28).
Activities:
• Examine effects of hydrocycling/pulsing operations to tern and plover nesting sites on other rivers
and compare to conditions resulting from District operations (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Review conditions on other rivers with hydrocycling/pulsing operations and compare to the lower
Platte River below the Elkhorn River confluence to determine potential differences in pallid sturgeon
habitat and use (revised activity).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 3: Water Temperature in the Platte River
During the April 21, 2009, Study Plan Meeting, Study Plan 3 was determined to be unnecessary for Project
relicensing and will not be included in the District’s Revised Study Plan.
Study Plan 4: Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Goal(s):
The goal of the study of water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach is to determine if Project
operations (flow diversion) materially affect water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach with particular
emphasis between the Diversion Weir and the confluence of Beaver Creek with the Loup River (4/21 revision
from PSP; unchanged 5/27-28).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To estimate the relationship between flow in the Loup River bypass reach, ambient air
temperature, water temperature, relative humidity, and cloud cover (4/21 revision to PSP Objective 5;
unchanged 5/27-28).
Activities:
• Coordinate with USGS to install temperature sensors in the Loup River at the Diversion Weir and in
the Loup River bypass reach at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near Genoa, NE (PSP Objective
1).
• Collect and review ambient air temperature data at the National Weather Service (NWS) atmospheric
station located at Genoa (PSP Objective 2).
• Collect and review relative humidity and solar radiation at the weather station at Mead, Nebraska
(4/21 new activity; unchanged 5/27-28).
• Collect and review flow data at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near Genoa, NE, and USGS Gage
06792500, Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, NE (PSP Objective 3).
• Obtain a short-term sampling (3-7 days) of water temperature data in the bypass reach near Columbus
to confirm that temperatures are not significantly higher than in the primary study reach (diversion to
Beaver Creek) (5/27-28 new activity).
• Develop plots and identify general patterns and distinguish trends (revision to PSP Objective 4).
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
Objective 2: To describe and quantify the relationship, if any, between diversion of water into the Loup Power
Canal and water temperature in the Study Reach of the Loup River bypass reach (PSP Objective 6).
Activities:
• Perform regression analyses on each described plot to determine relationships between water
temperature, ambient air temperature, flow, relative humidity, and solar radiation (unchanged activity
from PSP).
• Establish a predictive relationship that can be used to predict during what conditions the water quality
temperature standard may be exceeded (unchanged activity from PSP).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 5: Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Goal(s):
The goals of the flow depletion and flow diversion study are to determine if Project operations result in a flow
depletion on the lower Platte River and to what extent the magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing of
flows affect the Loup River bypass reach. The results will be used to determine if the Project operations
relative to flow depletion and flow diversion adversely affect the habitat used by interior least tern and piping
plover populations, the fisheries, and the riverine habitat in the Loup River bypass reach and the lower Platte
River (unchanged from PSP).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To determine the net consumptive losses associated with Project operations compared to
alternative conditions (PSP Objective 2).
Activities:
• Collect gage and atmospheric data (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Quantify flow depletion in the Loup Power Canal, regulating reservoirs, and Loup River bypass reach
by calculating consumptive use (using evaporation and evapotranspiration) and making a comparison
to alternative conditions (PSP Objective 1).
Objective 2: To use current and historic USGS gage rating curves to evaluate change in stage in the Loup
River bypass reach during Project operations and compare against alternative hydrographs (PSP Objective 4).
Activities:
• Use existing gage data to develop flood frequency and flow duration curves in the Loup River bypass
reach for current Project operations and for alternative operations (PSP Objective 3).
• Quantify the stage in the Loup River bypass reach at Genoa and Columbus (unchanged activity from
PSP).
Objective 3: To evaluate historic flow trends on the Loup and Platte rivers since Project inception (PSP
Objective 5).
Activities:
• USGS gages on the Loup River at Genoa and Columbus and USGS gages on the Platte River at
Duncan and North Bend will be evaluated to determine if there has been a general decline of flows in
the Loup and Platte rivers (unchanged activity from PSP).
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
• A USGS report (Ginting, Zelt, and Linard, 2008) will be used to assess flow depletions in the Platte
River (unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 4: To determine the extent of interior least tern and piping plover nesting on the Loup River above
and below the Diversion Weir (PSP Objective 6).
Activities:
• Compare nest counts and productivity measures for the Loup River upstream and downstream of the
diversion and identify significant differences (5/27-28 revised activity).
• Examine aerial images for appropriate reaches of the Loup River, both upstream and downstream of
the diversion, to identify and compare habitat parameters following methodology utilized by Kirsch
in 1996 (5/27-28 revised activity).
• Plot recorded nesting sites (from given years) and productivity measures above and below the
diversion (5/27-28 revised activity).
• Identify habitat requirements from habitat study reports (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Compare observed conditions to habitat requirements (unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 5: To determine Project effects, if any, of consumptive use on fisheries and habitat on the lower
Platte River downstream of the Tailrace Canal (4/21 new objective; unchanged 5/27-28).
Activities:
• Use net consumptive use analysis from Objectives 1 and 2 to determine if the Project results in
depletions to the lower Platte River (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Correlate these findings with effects (adverse or beneficial) on fisheries and riverine habitat
(unchanged activity from PSP).
Objective 6: To determine the relative significance of the Loup River bypass reach to the overall Loup River
fishery (PSP Objective 7).
Activities:
• Use existing NGPC fish sampling data to compare seasonal fishery dynamics in the Loup River both
above and below the Diversion Weir (5/27-28 revised activity).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 6: Fish Sampling
During the May 27-28, 2009, Study Plan Meeting, the District stated that it does not intend to perform fish
sampling in the Loup Power Canal for the following reasons:
• Canal fishery has previously been identified by NGPC as excellent ;
• No concerns have been raised related to the quality of the canal fishery;
• No issues were identified in Scoping Document 2 related to canal fisheries;
• Specific canal fish sampling information is not needed for the license application.
However, the District will cooperate with NGPC to provide access for future NGPC-performed sampling,
independent of Project relicensing. All attendees were agreeable to this approach. Study Plan 6 will not be
included in the District’s Revised Study Plan.
Goal(s):
Study Plan 7: Fish Passage
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
The goal of the fish passage study is to determine if a useable pathway exists for fish movement upstream and
downstream of the Diversion Weir (4/21 revised; unchanged 5/27-28).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To evaluate the hydraulic flow, velocity, and stage parameters at the Diversion Weir and Sluice
Gate Structure (unchanged from PSP).
Activities:
• Review stage and discharge data available at nearby USGS gage stations (USGS Gage 06793000,
Loup River near Genoa, NE, and USGS Gage 06792500, Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, NE)
(PSP Objective 2).
• Collect hydraulic information, including surveying river cross sections at the upstream and
downstream face of the Headworks and recording headwater and tailwater elevations at the Diversion
Weir (PSP Objective 3).
• Review flow duration curves at the Diversion Weir (PSP Objective 5).
Objective 2: To determine whether fish pathways exist over the Diversion Weir, through the Sluice Gate
Structure, or by other means (PSP Objective 7).
Activities:
• Review literature to determine velocity and depth criteria for upstream fish passage at the Diversion
Weir (PSP Objective 4).
• Develop a hydraulic model to determine the flow split between the Diversion Weir and sluice gates
for a range of flows (PSP Objective 6).
• Calculate the percent of time during the migration season that the Diversion Weir is a barrier to
upstream fish movement (5/27-28 new activity).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 12: Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Goal(s):
The goal of the study of ice jam flooding on the Loup River is to determine if the operation of the Loup
Power Canal has a material effect on the formation of ice jams or a material effect on the severity of flooding
caused by ice jams in the Loup River bypass reach (5/27-28 revised from PSP).
Objectives and Associated Activities:
Objective 1: To characterize the available information and its relevance to performing a quantitative or
qualitative analysis (5/27-28 revised from PSP).
Activities:
• Collect and review NDNR ice reports for the Loup River (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Collect flow and temperature data (water and air) (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Review historic ice jam and related flood information (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Review Project operations relative to ice jam flood events (unchanged activity from PSP).
• Coordinate with USACE (or other) regarding the suitability of the available data for performing a
quantitative or qualitative analysis (new activity established subsequent to PSP and agreed upon
5/27-28).
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 8

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Revisions
Study Plan Meeting – May 27-28, 2009
• Research existing literature on stream morphology in the Loup River Bypass Reach and review
literature on the link between sediment and frazil ice transport and incorporate the results of the
Sedimentation Study in making that analysis (5/27-28 new activity)
Objective 2: Use available information to determine if a relationship can be found between Project operations
and the occurrence or severity of ice jam flooding in the Loup River bypass reach (5/27-28 revised).
Activities:
• Update July 1994 USACE report tables and graphs relative to the Loup River bypass reach
(unchanged activity from PSP).
• Plot flows in the Loup Power Canal and Loup River bypass reach from November to April of each
year and compare them to ice observation records (5/27-28 revised).
• Incorporate the results of the sedimentation study relative to river morphology changes to assess
potential effects if any on ice and water transport (5/27-28 new activity).
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Study Plan 13: PCB Sampling at the Settling Basin
In response to USFWS scoping comments requesting PCB sampling in the Loup Power Canal, the District
provided Response 3.0 – Water Quality Evaluation in its PSP. In Response 3.0, the District stated its
intention not to perform any PCB sampling and provided appropriate justification, including the stated
support of NDEQ in this decision.
In Scoping Document 2, and based on USFWS comment, FERC identified dredging in the Settling Basin as
the only Project operation that could potentially result in the resuspension and transport of PCBs or as a
potential pathway for exposure to interior least terns (via forage fish discharged on the North Sand
Management Area and assuming that PCBs are present in the Settling Basin sediment and/or forage fish
tissue).
In response to Scoping Document 2 and subsequent to submittal of the PSP, the District prepared a study plan
specific to PCB sampling in the Settling Basin. The goals, objectives, and activities associated with this study
plan were presented during the May 28, 2009, Study Plan Meeting. Based on meeting discussion, and overall
lack of support for the study, the District has rescinded the study as presented on May 28, 2009. Instead, the
District will coordinate with NDEQ, and provide funding as necessary, to perform fish tissue PCB sampling
upstream of the Columbus Powerhouse, in addition to NDEQ’s regularly scheduled fish tissue PCB sampling
of the Tailrace Canal at the U.S. Highway 30 bridge.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 8 of 8

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:39 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Melissa,
Sorry it has taken so long for me to respond to your e-mail. I do not know if the USFWS
had any concerns about how cycling would effect the pallid sturgeon. Mike Olson, 701-250-
4481, would be the person at the USFWS to contact. I am not sure when cycling began; it may
have been in 2004. I know that it was not done in 2007 and 2008 because low releases out of
Gavins Point made it unnecessary. We have no real data to tell if cycling caused the birds to
avoid nesting in low areas. Cycling is done every third day and the Gavins Point crew
normally surveys the sandbars every seventh day. (Our permit requires a minimum of five days
between nest visits and the Gavins Point crew is normally on a weekly rotation.) Therefore
there is no way for us to determine if a tern or plover initiated a nest in a low spot on one
of the low days and then lost the nest during the high day cycle. Virginia Tech conducted a
piping plover study from 2005-2007 and the USGS conducted a least tern study from 2006-2008,
which may answer this question as both studies included much shorter return nest visit
periods. Neither study has been published yet. The Virginia Tech study is to be published
later this summer and the USGS I believe will be published in 2010. Cycling was terminated
when it was determined that chicks had hatched out below Gavins Point. This was done to
eliminate the possibility that chicks feeding in low areas could be lost or cut off from the
main sandbar as flows increased with the high cycle.
I hope this has been helpful to you.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:03 AM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Thanks, Greg!
I have a few new questions for you (they just keep coming). Regarding the "every third day
cycling" at Gavins Point - just a clarification - this was not mentioned in the 2003 BiOp,
but was developed through meetings with USFWS to not only coax the birds to nest higher, but
also to conserve water during the drought years, correct? Prior to this "cycling" the USACE
was using the Steady Release and/or Flow-to-target release methods to help the birds nest
higher and/or conserve water? My question is, when this method of cycling was developed, were
there any concerns that the USFWS voiced on how this "cycling" might affect the Pallid
Sturgeon? Since the initial "every third day cycling" began in May 2004 (correct me if this
is incorrect), has it proven to have helped the birds avoid nest inundation? Is it proving to
be a positive measure, or are you finding detrimental effects such as overcrowding or chicks
later in the season being too far away from food sources? We're just trying to gain a better
understanding of how the daily cycling that the LPPD does (on a much smaller scale than
Gavins) may have an effect on the terns, plovers, and pallid sturgeon. Thanks again for all
your knowledge and help.
Melissa
-----Original Message-----
1

From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [mailto:Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Melissa,
The contractor was David Miller and Associates. I don't have any contact information on
them, but you could contact Brad Thompson at our Omaha District office and he could get the
information to you. Brad's phone number is 402-995-2678. Have a good weekend.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:52 AM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Thanks for the quick reply! One more question - who did the study? I may have some questions
on their methodology as we may be looking at designing a similar study on the Platte River.
Glad to hear the birds are beginning their return. I also saw the common terns passing
through on the Platte River about a week ago.
Melissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO [mailto:Gregory.A.Pavelka@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 8:59 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Melissa,
The extensive study I mentioned is the pre-decisional EIS for ESH. It probably won't be
released until the spring of 2010 at the earliest. The plovers are back and have been seen as
far north as Fort Peck Lake in eastern Montana. Our crew at Gavins Point is just now starting
to find nests. We have been seeing common terns, but least terns have not been verified yet.
I would expect they will start showing up next week. It is a long flight from South America.
Have a good weekend.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:00 PM
To: Pavelka, Gregory A NWO
Subject: Another Missouri River Habitat Question
Hi Greg,
Have the birds returned to the river yet? I know the plovers are milling around the Platte
and sandpits, but the terns have not been spotted yet. I am currently helping gather
additional information on sandbar habitat availability for terns and plovers in different
river systems. In one of our phone conversations, you had mentioned that an extensive study
was done (in preparation of the pre-decision EIS on Emergent Sandbar Habitat) that looked at
2

digital photography of all the habitat in the Missouri River from 1998 to 2008. I haven't
been able to find any information on this study and was wondering if you could send me either
a link, copy of the report, or any additional information on this study. Thanks for all your
help! Happy spring!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:42 AM
To: King, Wendy
Subject: FW: FERC Relicensing & May 5 Meeting Notes
From: Dolberg, Jill [mailto:jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:47 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: Nunn, Jessie
Subject: RE: FERC Relicensing 0 May 5 Meeting Notes
Hi Lisa,
The notes look great. I don't have any comments. I am glad you included that I promised an example of documentation
for such a district. I'd forgotten! I'll get on that...
Jill Dolberg
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha) [mailto:Lisa.Richardson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:56 AM
To: Dolberg, Jill; Nunn, Jessie
Cc: Madson, Michael J.; Waldow, George; Neal Suess; rziola@loup.com
Subject: FERC Relicensing 0 May 5 Meeting Notes
RE: HP#08040127001
Jill & Jessie,
Attached are notes from our May 5 meeting to discuss Loup Power District’s FERC relicensing and the proposed Study
for Section 106 compliance. Please let me know if you have any comments on the notes. We would like to post them to
the project website by the end of the week if possible.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114&4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
1

June 4, 2009
Mr. Rick Schneider
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 North 33 rd Street
P.O. Box 30370
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503-0370
Re: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project Number 1256
Species Occurrence Data Request
Dear Mr. Schneider:
As you are aware, Loup Power District (the District) filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Pre-Application
Document (PAD) in October 2008 to begin the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing
process for its hydroelectric facilities located on the Loup River near Columbus, Nebraska (Project). In
FERC’s Notice of Commencement on December 16, 2008, FERC initiated informal consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and designated Loup Power District (District) as the non-federal
representative to conduct Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) section 7 consultation.
In compliance with the ESA, the District is gathering information to assist with the development of a
Biological Assessment on behalf of FERC. In a letter dated September 23, 2008, the Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission (Commission) identified the following protected species as having occurrence data around
the Loup River, Loup Diversion Canal, and the Platte River in Nance, Platte and Butler counties:
Small White Lady’s Slipper
Whooping Crane
Interior Least Tern
Piping Plover
Bald Eagle
River Otter
In a letter dated July 21, 2008 and September 18, 2008, the USFWS provided technical assistance to the
District in determining the potential issues related to threatened or endangered species. In accordance with
section 7 of the ESA, USFWS developed a list of federally-protected species that may occur in the Project
area or may be affected by the proposed relicensing of the Project. These species were:
Pallid Sturgeon
Least Tern
Piping Plover
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid
In response to a letter requesting species occurrence data for the Project area (Figure 1) (dated March 2,
2009), the Commission conducted a search of Nebraska Heritage Database records for a 2-mile buffer area

surrounding the Project area. The Commission emailed the requested records in an excel spreadsheet and a
shapefile format. HDR translated this data into the attached figure (Figure 2). Due to the phrasing of the
original request, no records were received for the Loup River paralleling the Project Area (Loup River Bypass
Reach).
The District would like to request Nebraska Heritage Database species occurrence data for the species listed
in the aforementioned letters as well as any Tier I At-Risk Species (as defined in the Nebraska Natural Legacy
Project) that may be found within a 1-mile buffer of the lower Loup River from the diversion at Genoa
downstream to the confluence with the Platte River. The District also requests any occurrence data for Tier I
At-Risk Species that may be found within a 1-mile buffer of the Project area. Included in this data, please
provide the date of the occurrence (if available) and/or whether or not the record is considered historical. If
feasible, the District would prefer information provided as points in a GIS shapefile format; however, due to
the sensitive nature of the information requested, paper maps would be sufficient.
I appreciate your continued assistance in providing information to assist us with the relicensing effort for the
Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The information provided will be used for analytical purposes only. This
information will not be published or shared without the express consent of the Commission.
If you require any additional information or have any questions concerning this request please contact me at
(402) 564-3171 ext. 268 or Matt Pillard at (402) 399-1186.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Public Power District
cc: Matt Pillard, HDR
Kim Nguyen, FERC
June DeWeese, USFWS

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover Data question
Melissa:
We are having some internal discussions as to best address your requests. I need to touch base with a couple people
and then I hope to get back to you shortly. I can forward the raw count data (used in the graphics) from 198722008 early
next week.
In addition to the data that Mary Brown and I summarized and prepared, it is my understanding the Heritage Program also
provided HDR with data. While the data that has been provided can be deconstructed to provide a greater level of
precision, I do not believe a large amount of additional data remains unprovided. Nonetheless, we hope we can provide
the all data that is available while ensuring that is done in a way that does not compromise our obligations and
responsibilities.
2Joel
=======================================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402&471&5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
***NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS***
From: Marinovich, Melissa [Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Subject: FW: Tern and Plover Data question
Joel,
Just following up. I’m sure you’ve been very busy with field work. Did you get a chance to look over the data we have?
Specifically we are looking for nest counts and any reproductive success data on the Loup and lower Platte Rivers from
1987-2008. We need specific numbers so we are able to do our analysis. What data do you have and for which years?
Melissa
From: Marinovich, Melissa
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:05 AM
To: 'Jorgensen, Joel'
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover Data question
Hi Joel,
1

Sorry about that. We just got Microsoft 2007 and I’m still trying to figure out all the quirks (including how to make the
files easily transferable). I attached it in a PDF format. Let me know if you are unable to open this for any reason.
Thanks!.
Melissa
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:33 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Tern and Plover Data question
Melissa:
I am unable to open the file (need an .xls rather than .xlsx). If you can resend that would be great.
2Joel
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402247125440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
WATCH MORE: NONGAME BIRD PROGRAM TELEVISION
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Subject: Tern and Plover Data question
Hi Joel,
Hope bird migration season is going well so far for you. I heard that the plovers have been spotted, but still waiting on
the return of the least terns. I saw quite a few common terns on the river in the last two weeks, so I would assume the
least terns are not too far behind, although it’s a long flight from South America ☺ I have a few questions for you
regarding the tern and plover data you have collected in the database.
In an attempt to further develop the studies in the study plans for Loup, I need to get a better handle on what tern and
plover data is available on some of the different river reaches. I know we’ve talked about this before, but I have a few
more questions. Attached is a spreadsheet of all the data we have accumulated from NGPC and International Piping
Plover Census data (please let me know if you are unable to open it). Could you please take a moment to look this over
and let me know if there is additional data that you have on these two river reaches and specify whether it is river or
sandpit data? I guess I am specifically interested in more than just adult census information, such as nest counts, egg
counts, fledge ratios, etc. Do they exist for the Loup River? Sandpits adjacent to Loup River?
Also, in response to a previous data request (NGPC letter dated 9/5/08) you provided us with some bar graphs depicting
numbers of piping plovers and least terns on the lower Platte River and on sandpits adjacent to the lower Platte River
(Columbus to Plattsmouth). We may need to use these numbers for a comparison study we are developing and was
2

wondering if you have access to actual number counts for the years of 1987-2008, rather than just trying to guesstimate
based on the charts.
Once I get a better handle on what you have and what we need, I will be sending another, more specific data request
letter to you.
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811424098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
3

Subject: Proposed Study Plan – Tern and Plover Data Gathering
Client: Loup Power District
Project: Loup FERC Re-Licensing
Meeting Date: June 9, 2009
Notes by: Melissa Marinovich
Project No: 13704
Attendees:
Joel Jorgensen (NGPC), Melissa Marinovich (HDR), Quinn Damgaard (HDR)
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: 2200 N. 33 rd Street, Lincoln, NE
N:\!users\Gail\Stationery & Forms\Forms\MeetingNotes.doc
Topics Discussed:
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the tern and plover data LPD has already gathered, to request the
tern and plover data still needed from the NGPC for use in conducting the revised studies, to explain the
proposed study plans to Joel Jorgensen, and to request feedback on the best metrics (bird numbers) to be
using when conducting the studies as proposed. The meeting began at 2:00pm in the 3 rd Floor Conference
Room at NGPC.
I. Introductions
II. LPD Acquired Data
Outline of all Tern and Plover data that the Project has collected to date for the Loup and lower
Platte Rivers and from which sources this data has been obtained.
Is there any nesting or reproductive success data available for the Loup River that the Project is
missing?
o Some data is available for plovers on the Loup from the early 90’s – limited years
o Most of the data consisted of 1 day of survey for a given year
o There is not much information from the last 10 years other than the piping plover census
years
o Very little, if any, reproductive success data
o NGPC cautions LPD in using this data to draw conclusions, as the data is very scarse,
incomplete, and was not collected with the intent of using it for future analysis
III. LPD Data Needs
HDR Engineering, Inc.
All available nest counts and reproductive success data (if available) on the Loup River and
lower Platte River (1986-2008?)
o Some data available, but limited
o Most data from earlier years was collected by John Dinan and may have consisted of a
few days of survey in late June and a few days of follow-up survey in early July
o Caution using this information as there are a lot of variables not figured into the
numbers, such as nest success (generally wasn’t documented), re-nesting, detectability,
double-counting, etc.
o HDR asked for further clarification on where to go for the data? Should some data be
collected from Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership (Partnership)?
NGPC has all of the data. They sync their database with all other agencies as
soon as data has been internally reviewed by the other agencies and the
Partnership.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 3

HDR Engineering, Inc.
Nest location data (or nest counts) on the lower Platte River (by river segment) for all years
available. Segments are:
Loup/Platte Confluence to North Bend
North Bend to Leshara
Leshara to Ashland
Ashland to Louisville
Louisville to Missouri confluence
o The data that NGPC has on the lower Platte River is segmented by river mile
HDR asked what source NGPC uses to identify the river miles on the Platte
River
• NGPC uses an older version of a USACE map
• Jeff Runge, USFWS, may have a river mile shapefile for the Platte
o The NGPC data is kept in a Microsoft access database – will have to look into how to
best provide the data to HDR/LPD
Nest location data on Loup River for all years available
o Once again, very limited data on the Loup – especially nesting data
o Joel will talk to Rick Schneider (NE Heritage Database Supervisor) about how best to
provide data
o NGPC may have HDR/LPD sign a data use agreement
IV. Explanation of Proposed Study Plans
HDR outlined the tern and plover related objectives and activities for Studies 1.0
(sedimentation), 2.0 (hydrocycling), and 5.0 (flow depletion/flow diversion)
o Joel expressed concern in using the nesting data for drawing conclusions in Study 1.0.
HDR asked what metric would be best to use for evaluating effects to terns and
plovers? Nest counts? Fledge ratios?
• All metrics have their flaws.
o Nest counts may not be the best reflection of the success of a
population because there may be nests that were counted that
did not produce chicks or may have missed nests.
o Fledge ratio is a difficult metric to collect accurately. This metric
is often collected observationally, leaving the door open for
several flaws, such as detectability issues, double-counting,
other factors not taken into account.
o Caution in relying too much on the limited amounts and limited
accuracy of the data – may not be enough data to see a
relationship, but doesn’t mean it’s not there
o For Study 2.0, when making river comparisons, Casey Lott, USACE, may be a good
contact to discuss the Red and Arkansas Rivers – he has done a lot of work on those
river systems with terns
o For Study 5.0, Joel expressed concern with the use of limited data on the Loup River
There is extremely limited data on the Loup River
Terns are colonial so there may be some major flaws with limiting the analysis
of the Loup River to 5 miles upstream of the diversion
V. Deadlines for Receiving Data from NGPC
HDR asked how long it may take to receive the requested data from NGPC
o Joel will talk with Rick Schneider about the requested data and get it too HDR/LPD as
soon as possible
o Melissa made the point that the revised study plan is to be submitted on the 27 th of July
and there is a need for the data prior to this date. Can NGPC let HDR/LPD know what of
the requested data is available by July 3 at the latest, with the actual data to follow
ASAP?
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 3

VI. Action Items
HDR Engineering, Inc.
NGPC committed to at least letting HDR know exactly what data will be made
available by July 3
NGPC will get the data to HDR/LPD as soon as possible and will try to move
quickly on this, but unable to set an exact date – Joel will be out of the office for
the next two weeks, but will discuss with Rick Schneider
Action Responsible Party Due Date
Contact Jeff Runge (USFWS) to request the river
miles shapefile for the Platte River
Melissa Marinovich, HDR June 10, 2009
Discuss providing NGPC data with Rick Schneider Joel Jorgensen, NGPC June 10, 2009
Provide information on the availability of requested
data
Joel Jorgensen, NGPC July 3, 2009
Provide NGPC requested tern and plover data Joel Jorgensen, NGPC As soon as possible
VII. Adjorn
Meeting concluded at 3:18pm.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 3 of 3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Marinovich, Melissa
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:43 AM
To: 'Jorgensen, Joel'
Cc: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Subject: Tern and Plover Data meeting on 6/9/09
Attachments: 090609_NGPC_Meeting_Notes.pdf
Joel:
I just wanted to thank you again for taking the time to meet with Quinn and I last Tuesday (June 9) regarding the Tern
and Plover data needs for the Loup Relicensing Project - Proposed Study Plan. Attached are my notes from our meeting.
Please look them over and let me know if you have any questions, comments or revisions by the end of next week (June
19, 2009). Thanks again!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811454098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
1

Subject: Proposed Study Plan – Tern and Plover Data Gathering
Client: Loup Power District
Project: Loup FERC Re-Licensing
Meeting Date: June 9, 2009
Notes by: Melissa Marinovich
Project No: 13704
Attendees:
Joel Jorgensen (NGPC), Melissa Marinovich (HDR), Quinn Damgaard (HDR)
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: 2200 N. 33 rd Street, Lincoln, NE
N:\!users\Gail\Stationery & Forms\Forms\MeetingNotes.doc
Topics Discussed:
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the tern and plover data LPD has already gathered, to request the
tern and plover data still needed from the NGPC for use in conducting the revised studies, to explain the
proposed study plans to Joel Jorgensen, and to request feedback on the best metrics (bird numbers) to be
using when conducting the studies as proposed. The meeting began at 2:00pm in the 3 rd Floor Conference
Room at NGPC.
I. Introductions
II. LPD Acquired Data
Outline of all Tern and Plover data that the Project has collected to date for the Loup and lower
Platte Rivers and from which sources this data has been obtained.
Is there any nesting or reproductive success data available for the Loup River that the Project is
missing?
o Some data is available for plovers on the Loup from the early 90’s – limited years
o Most of the data consisted of 1 day of survey for a given year
o There is not much information from the last 10 years other than the piping plover census
years
o Very little, if any, reproductive success data
o NGPC cautions LPD in using this data to draw conclusions, as the data is very scarse,
incomplete, and was not collected with the intent of using it for future analysis
III. LPD Data Needs
HDR Engineering, Inc.
All available nest counts and reproductive success data (if available) on the Loup River and
lower Platte River (1986-2008?)
o Some data available, but limited
o Most data from earlier years was collected by John Dinan and may have consisted of a
few days of survey in late June and a few days of follow-up survey in early July
o Caution using this information as there are a lot of variables not figured into the
numbers, such as nest success (generally wasn’t documented), re-nesting, detectability,
double-counting, etc.
o HDR asked for further clarification on where to go for the data? Should some data be
collected from Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership (Partnership)?
NGPC has all of the data. They sync their database with all other agencies as
soon as data has been internally reviewed by the other agencies and the
Partnership.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 3

HDR Engineering, Inc.
Nest location data (or nest counts) on the lower Platte River (by river segment) for all years
available. Segments are:
Loup/Platte Confluence to North Bend
North Bend to Leshara
Leshara to Ashland
Ashland to Louisville
Louisville to Missouri confluence
o The data that NGPC has on the lower Platte River is segmented by river mile
HDR asked what source NGPC uses to identify the river miles on the Platte
River
• NGPC uses an older version of a USACE map
• Jeff Runge, USFWS, may have a river mile shapefile for the Platte
o The NGPC data is kept in a Microsoft access database – will have to look into how to
best provide the data to HDR/LPD
Nest location data on Loup River for all years available
o Once again, very limited data on the Loup – especially nesting data
o Joel will talk to Rick Schneider (NE Heritage Database Supervisor) about how best to
provide data
o NGPC may have HDR/LPD sign a data use agreement
IV. Explanation of Proposed Study Plans
HDR outlined the tern and plover related objectives and activities for Studies 1.0
(sedimentation), 2.0 (hydrocycling), and 5.0 (flow depletion/flow diversion)
o Joel expressed concern in using the nesting data for drawing conclusions in Study 1.0.
HDR asked what metric would be best to use for evaluating effects to terns and
plovers? Nest counts? Fledge ratios?
• All metrics have their flaws.
o Nest counts may not be the best reflection of the success of a
population because there may be nests that were counted that
did not produce chicks or may have missed nests.
o Fledge ratio is a difficult metric to collect accurately. This metric
is often collected observationally, leaving the door open for
several flaws, such as detectability issues, double-counting,
other factors not taken into account.
o Caution in relying too much on the limited amounts and limited
accuracy of the data – may not be enough data to see a
relationship, but doesn’t mean it’s not there
o For Study 2.0, when making river comparisons, Casey Lott, USACE, may be a good
contact to discuss the Red and Arkansas Rivers – he has done a lot of work on those
river systems with terns
o For Study 5.0, Joel expressed concern with the use of limited data on the Loup River
There is extremely limited data on the Loup River
Terns are colonial so there may be some major flaws with limiting the analysis
of the Loup River to 5 miles upstream of the diversion
V. Deadlines for Receiving Data from NGPC
HDR asked how long it may take to receive the requested data from NGPC
o Joel will talk with Rick Schneider about the requested data and get it too HDR/LPD as
soon as possible
o Melissa made the point that the revised study plan is to be submitted on the 27 th of July
and there is a need for the data prior to this date. Can NGPC let HDR/LPD know what of
the requested data is available by July 3 at the latest, with the actual data to follow
ASAP?
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 3

VI. Action Items
HDR Engineering, Inc.
NGPC committed to at least letting HDR know exactly what data will be made
available by July 3
NGPC will get the data to HDR/LPD as soon as possible and will try to move
quickly on this, but unable to set an exact date – Joel will be out of the office for
the next two weeks, but will discuss with Rick Schneider
Action Responsible Party Due Date
Contact Jeff Runge (USFWS) to request the river
miles shapefile for the Platte River
Melissa Marinovich, HDR June 10, 2009
Discuss providing NGPC data with Rick Schneider Joel Jorgensen, NGPC June 10, 2009
Provide information on the availability of requested
data
Joel Jorgensen, NGPC July 3, 2009
Provide NGPC requested tern and plover data Joel Jorgensen, NGPC As soon as possible
VII. Adjorn
Meeting concluded at 3:18pm.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4098
Phone (402) 399-1000
Fax (402) 399-1238
www.hdrinc.com
Page 3 of 3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:14 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; jean.angell@nebraska.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
ncpza@hamilton.net; rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org;
jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com;
calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org;
jblackhawk@aol.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; CoraJones@bia.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
butchk@nctc.net; mohler@nctc.net; jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov;
david.turner@ferc.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; mark.ivy@ferc.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; lewrightjr@gmail.com;
thowe@ponca.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; julias@poncatribe2ne.org;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis2pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov;
patricia.leppert@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Teresa Petr; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert,
Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha);
Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing 2 Study Plan Information
Relicensing Participants,
Thanks to those of you who attended the study plan meetings on May 27 th & 28 th in Columbus. Transcripts of the
discussion for each day have been posted on the project website at:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html.
Additionally, the District has prepared a memo documenting the outcomes of the meeting and outlining the District’s
intended approach related to the Goals, Objectives, and Activities for each of the aquatic resources studies (1 through 7
and 12) based on the discussion from the meetings. This memo is also posted to the project website.
I would also like to remind you that comments on the District’s Proposed Study Plan are due on June 26, 2009. Please
submit your comments to the District at the following:
Neal Suess, President/CEO
Attn: Relicensing
Loup Power District
PO Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602
Fax: (402) 564-0970
relicense@loup.com
Comments are due on June 26 th , in the interest of time, please fax your comments in addition to sending via mail or email.
1

If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811424098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

FWS-NE: 2009-594
Ms. Kimberly Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room IA
Washington, DC 20426
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Nebraska Field Office
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
June 24, 2009
RE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Review of the Proposed Study Plan for Loup River
Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Project Number
1256)
Dear Ms. Bose:
The following comments provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) apply to the
Proposed Study Plan (PSP) for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Project), Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), Project Number 1256 as revised at the PSP agency meetings
on May 27 and 28, 2009. A Service letter dated February 9,2009, addressed the scope ofour
review and identified resource management objectives for the PSP.
The following comments on the current version ofthe PSP are structured to address the seven
study request criteria as defined in the FERC document: Understanding the Study Criteria.
Integrated Licensing Process dated April 6, 2005. The seven study criteria are as follows:
(I) Describe the goals and objectives ofeach study proposal and the information to be
obtained;
(2) If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals ofthe agencies or
[ndian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
(3) If the requester is a not resource agency, explain any relevant public interest
considerations in regard to the proposed study;
(4) Describe existing infol111ation concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the
need for additional info1111ation;
(5) Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the
development of license requirements;
(6) Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any prefelTed data
collection ane! analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a

schedule including appropriate filed season(s) and the duration) is consistent with
generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers
relevant tribal values and knowledge; and
(7) Describe considerations of level ofeffort and cost, as applicable, and why any
proposed altel11ative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated infonnation
needs.
The Service has applied specific comments under shldy criteria I through 7 toward each
respective study objective. We do not intend to provide comments under study critelia 3
because the Service is a nahlral resource agency.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the PSP study objectives and
methods and look forward to working with FERC and Loup Power District on the relicensing
project. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Robel1
Hanns or Jeff Runge within our office at (308) 382-6468, extension 17 or 22, respectively.
Enclosure
cc: FERC; Chicago, IL (Attn: Kim Nguyen)
DNR; Lincoln, NE (Attn: Jean Angell)
EPA; Kansas City, KS (Attn: Aim Lavel1y)
EPA; Kansas City, KS (Attn: LaITy Shepard)
EPA; Kansas City, KS (Attn: Joe Cothel11)
FWS; Denver, CO (Attn: Dave Carlson)
FWS; Denver, CO (Attn: Don Anderson)
HDR; Milmeapolis, MN (Attn: George Waldow)
LPD; Columbus, NE (Attn: Neil Suess)
NDEQ; Lincoln, NE (Attn: JOIUl Bender)
NGPC; Lincoln, NE (Attn: Frank Albrecht)
NPS; St. Paul, MN (Attn: Randall Thorson)
Sincerely,
June M. DeWeese
Nebraska Field Supervisor
2

General Comments - Proposed Studv Plan for LOUD River Hvdroelectric Project
Comment I. The Service does not SUppOl1 the Sedimentation Objective 4: To evaluate
whether sandbar availability is limiting interior least tern and piping plover numbers on the
lower Platte River. It would be difficult to associate tem and plover nesting on the lower Platte
River to available sandbar habitat because the Platte River does not represent a discrete
population segment for either species. As you know, these birds are wide-ranging species and
can utilize habitats in several river systems in Nebraska, South Dakota, orth Dakota and
elsewhere when its available. Habitat can be available on the Platte River, but not be utilized
because the species is utilizing sandbar habitats along other areas such as the Lake Sakakawea
shoreline in NOl1h Dakota. Once shoreline habitats disappear due to rising lake levels or
vegetation encroachment, the species may utilize sandbar habitats on the Platte River. For the
above reasons, an understanding of nesting habitat availability and selection at the population
level is needed to determine iflower Platte River nesting habitat is limiting. Such an
evaluation would appear to be outside the scope of this relicensing project. FUl1henllore, the
CUlTent definition of"limiting" is based on existing populations which does not address
population objectives as defined in species recovery plans (USFWS 1988; USFWS 1990). The
Service believes that the methods in Sedimentation Objective 3 will serve as an adequate
surrogate for proposed methods under the CUlTent objective because methods in Objective 3
avoid the above study limitations.
Comment 2. The Service does not support the Sedimentation Objective 5: To determine if
sediment transpol1 is a limiting factor for pallid sturgeon habitat in the lower Platte River
below the Elkhom River. It would be difficult to segTegate factors associated with sediment
supply effects to pallid sturgeon habitat from other potential effects. We recommend a
cautious approach when comparing sediment transport on other rivers used by the pallid
sturgeon. The two most obvious choices of rivers possibly considered for comparison are the
Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. However, sediment transport varies widely on the Missouri
River due to the effect of the six mainstem dams above Sioux City, Iowa and the bank
stabilization and navigation project from Sioux City to Saint Louis, Missouri. FUl1her, the
Missouri River flows through a diversity of parent materials from its mouth to its headwaters in
Montana. The Yellowstone River is also heavily influenced by a large quantity of bank
stabilization and an ilTigation diversion weir. Finally, little is known about the availability of
spawning habitat for the pallid sturgeon on any of the aforementioned rivers; a critical factor
when making comparisons of pallid sturgeons on other river systems. The Service considers
tasks under Sedimentation Objectives I and 2.
Comment 3. The Service proposes modifications to Hydrocycling Objective 4 to include
hydrocycling affects to fish community habitat.
Comment 4. The Service does not support Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 3 as
written. This objective should not only evaluate net consumptive losses associated with action
alternatives, but the objective should also address how these net consumptive losses affect a
representative hydrograph that would be used to compare the flow-related effects ofaction
al ternati ves.
3

Comment S. The Service does not support Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 4
because the objective summarizes Interior least tern and piping plover nesting under present
conditions. As stated in Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 2, action altemative
affects to river stage at USGS streamgage sites is not an appropriate sun'ogate for flow-related
affects to habitat. As such this infOimation does not reflect changes to sandbar habitats found
in areas where the chaIUlei is generally broad and unconstricted. The Service proposes
modifications to Objective 4 to include an evaluation flow-related effect ofaction altematives
to Interior least tem and piping plover nesting for: a) the Loup River above and below the
diversion weir; and b) the Platte River above and below the Project tailrace. The Service also
recommends the addition ofthe whooping crane (Crus americalla) as a resource management
species for Objective 4. Since flow-related habitat suitability criteria are similar, proposed
methods to evaluate Project effects to least tern and piping plover would also be sufficient for
the whooping crane.
Comment 6. The Service does not support the objectives identified for Study 13 (PCBs).
Limiting a PCB evaluation just to the Settlement Basin is inadequate and possibly unnecessary.
The Settlement Basin is located in Loup River Canal segment LO 1-20200, a segment that has
not been previously listed as impaired with PCBs. However, the middle segm nt of the Loup
River Canal (segment LP 1-21800) has been previously listed as impaired by PCBs (NDEQ,
2004,2006,2008). Ifpast use of PCBs in hydro-electric generation (e.g., PCB oil in
transformers) has resulted in PCB contamination ofsediment, such contamination would more
likely exist downstream from the Monroe and Columbus powerhouses. For this reason, we
recommend sediment sampling in the canals below the Monroe Powerhouse
Study objectives for a PCB assessment should not be limited to evaluating exposure pathways
to least terns. The PCB study should evaluate PCB exposure pathways to piping plovers, pallid
sturgeon and other aquatic and terrestrial receptors as previously stated in our September 18,
2008, letter to Loup Power District and our February 9, 2009, letter to FERC. PCB sampling
should also include recreational fish to screen for human health risk. We appreciate the
commitment made by Mr. John Bender ofthe Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
to collect fish tissue for further PCB study in the Loup Power Canal. However, sampling of
sediments as opposed to just fish tissues may allow for the identification of PCB source areas.
Concentrations of PCBs in fish or suspended sediments can depend on the dispersal of PCBs
ft'om sediment, which can vary greatly depending on changes in river flow (McCat1y, 2003).
F1\I1hermore, fish tissue alone may not provide clear results because sampling can be
influenced by collection success, fish age class, and use ofhabitats.
The primary objective ofthe PCB study should be to detennine if sediments in the Loup Power
Canal are contaminated by PCBs. If PCBs are detected in sediments at concentrations of
concern, then fUl1her study may be needed to evaluate risk to fish, wildlife, and human health.
Comment 7. The Project does not provide adequate detail in regards to a schedule for
conducting the study, and provisions for periodic progress rep0I1s, including manner for
technical review and results. The Service requests that all study plan deliverables to include
description of study methods and a summarization ofstudy results. Raw data should be
4

supplied with study result summaries. The Service requests that an independent scientific
review is conducted for any study implications or applications produced by Project contractors.
Specific Comments - Proposed Studv Plan for Loup River Hvdroelectric Project
Study 1.0 Sedimentation
Objective 1. To characterize sediment transport in the Loup River bypass reach and in the
lower Platte River through effective discharge calculations.
Sllldv Criteria J. The Service supports the CUITent Objective I as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Stlldv Criteria 2. The Service supp0l1S the inclusion ofthis study because potential Project
effects to: a) least tem and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers;
b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Loup and
Platte rivers.
Stlldv Criteria 4.
Recol?ll1lendations:
a) Develop methods that would directly measure in-stream sediment supply contributions from
the Project tailrace.
b) Sediment supply estimates upstream of the Project diversion should be calibrated based on
actual sediment dredged from the settling basin. Sediment supply contributions from small
tributaries downstream of the Project diversion (e.g., Beaver Creek, Looking Glass Creek, etc.)
should also be calibrated using similar methods.
c) Implement methods to quantify the grain-size distribution ofsediment contributed from
Beaver Creek, Looking Glass Creek, Chen·y/Dry Creek, and the Project tailrace. Tributaries
with dominant grain sizes in the silt-to-clay range (less than 0.0625 mm) would not provide
material that would contribute appreciably to bed-load, and therefore would not be important
as sediment sources for sandbar construction in the lower Platte (Jason Alexander, U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS]-Lincoln, Personal Communication, 2009). Sediment supply
estimates from these tributaries should be adjusted based on information from grain-size
distribution sampling.
d) Quantify the volume ofdredged material that is deposited on the South Sand Management
Area that contributes to the sediment supply in the Loup River below the Project diversion,
e) Include Beaver Creek as one ofthe study sites. The USGS operates stream gage for Beaver
Creek at Genoa. The streamgage has a long period of record and would better represent
conditions for this sub-basin.
5

Stlldv Criteria 5. An update ofthe Missouri River Basin Commission (MRBC) sediment
budget would provide an adequate representation of the present condition. Sediment transport
rates derived from effective discharge calculations will provide a generalized view ofsediment
balance within the Project area for each ofthe action alternatives.
Stlldv Criteria 6. While the calculation ofeffective discharge is conceptually straightforward,
the estimate ofthis value is dependent upon the calculation procedure adopted (ASCE, 2007).
Tlu'ee components that can effect the results include the time base (using mean daily vs. subdaily
discharge), the selection ofclass intervals (e.g., ASCE recommends equal-width,
arithmetic intervals ofless than y,; sample standard deviation), and the period ofrecord (ASCE
recommends a period of record "sufficiently long enough to include a wide range of
morphologically-significant flows). [n addition, the PSP references the use ofthe Unit Stream
Power method and the Einstein method to predict sediment discharge in the Middle Loup
River. The Service is concerned about the mixing ofmethods without understanding the
uncertainty associated with these methods.
Recommelldatiolls:
a) Apply different methods ofsediment discharge estimation that would quantify the range of
uncertainty associated with these types ofcalculations. Estimates from developed sediment
discharge rating curves could be compared against results developed by the MRBC and the
USBR (2003).
b) Effective discharge estimates of sediment transpol1 should be calculated for each node for a
period ofrecord that includes wet and drought periods. Sediment transp0l1 estimates should
assess the cumulative effects ofsediment surplus or deficit through wet and drought periods.
c) Effective discharge calculations should include an evaluation ofsub-daily discharge effects
to sediment transpol1 for nodes downstream ofthe Project tailrace. Evaluation ofsub-daily
flows would reflect the intraday effects of hydrocycling.
d) Effective discharge calculations needed to account for reasonably foreseeable effects to the
hydrograph that would apply toward all action alternatives.
Stlldv Criteria 7.
The MRBC sediment budget would provide an adequate representation of sediment balance at
a Missouri River sub-basin spatial scale. Estimating sediment yields from sub-watersheds by
estimating the amount of sediment delivered from various erosion processes (sheet and rill,
gully, and streambank) to create a river sediment budget has its limits as such estimates are
notoriously unreliable (Kaspersen 2008).
However, an improved level of precision is needed when evaluating Project effects of Loup
and Platte River sub-basin scale. Improved methods should be applied to better quantify
sediment supply from the Loup River below the Project diversion and small tributaries within
6

it (Beaver Creek, Looking Glass Creek, etc.). These tributaries were reported to be as large as
the entire yield of the Platte River upstream ofthe confluence with the Loup River, and the
total yield ofthe Loup River at Columbus was reported to be four times the sediment yield of
the Platte upstream ofthe confluence. Service recommendations employing more refined
method to calculate the sediment budget for the Project.
Objective 2. To characterize stream morphology in the Loup River bypass reach and in the
lower Platte River by reviewing existing literature on chalmel aggradation/degradation and
cross sectional changes over time.
Siudy Criteria J. The Service supports the current Objective 2 as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Study Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion ofthis study because potential Project
effects to: a) least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers;
b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Loup and
Platte rivers.
Study Criteria 4. The Service suggests supplementing existing data from USGS gage sites with
additional cross section measurements located at selected study sites. Ginting and Zeit (2008)
characterized channel cross-sections as near-bridge sites, and the authors identified limitations
when extrapolating cross-sections hydraulic information to beyond-bridge sites. Each study
site would have systematic spaced channel cross-sections for the following locations: a) the
Loup River upstream of the Project diversion; b) Loup River immediately downstream ofthe
Project diversion; c) the Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above the Project
tailrace; d) immediately downstream ofthe Project tailrace to approximately River Mile 96;
and e) near the North Bend streamgage [River Mile 80 to 85]. The cross-sections could be
sampled at locations where chaImel width and slope are relatively constant to reduce
hydraulics-related variability.
SllId\! Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on: a) least tern and piping plover nesting
sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers; b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and
c) fish community habitat in the Loup and Platte Rivers.
Study Criteria 6. Responses ofchannel downstream ofdams or diversions can include channel
bed degradation or incision, textural changes such as coarsening or fining ofsurface grain-size
distributions, and lateral adjustments, including both expansion and contraction ofchannel
width (Grant et al. 2003). A comparative approach ofgeomorphic indices, such as channel
width, velocity, and cumulative depth distributions, should be conducted across study sites
(e.g., compare stur!)'site d with sIudV siles c and e, or compare study site b against stue!v site a).
Additionally, a longitudinal comparison of transects within a study site (e.g., study site c) could
identify longitudinal trends in geomorphic indices.
Stud\! Criteria 7. Inclusion of Service proposed methods are critical to the understanding direct
effects of the Project on sediment transpolt. It might presume that bars would have lower top
7

elevations, and be less extensive near the return, as compared with downstream bars because
the local supply of sediment might be limiting relative to the transport capacity (Jason
Alexander, USGS-Lincoln, personal communication, 2009; Grant et a!. 2003). More
importantly, it also is expected that bars would erode at a faster rate over a season than those
upstream ofthe tailrace, and the seasonal rate of bar erosion would diminish in the downstream
direction below the tailrace as the river entrains sediment from the bed, bars, tributaries, and
banks (although the banks of the Platte segment between the tailrace and orth Bend are
extensively protected by liprap, which likely limits their erosion) (Jason Alexander, USGS­
Lincoln, personal communication, 2009). The opposite effect may be in effect below the
Project diversion where sediment transport varies seasonally and temporally.
The highest erosion ofchannel bed, bars, and banks within the Project area are likely to occur
at the tailrace where the clear water returns enter the Platte River. Similar clear water returns
enter the central Platte River from the 12 return (USBR 2006). Effects ofthe clear water retUIl1
are pronounced within the first 10 miles downstream ofthe retUIl1 with substantial reduction in
impacts 30 miles downstream. This similar effect has been documented in other publications
(Alexander et a!. 2009; Choi et a!. 2005; Elliot and Jacobson 2006; Grant et a!. 2003; Williams
and Wolman, 1984). A statistically adequate sample would be needed to implement Service
proposed methods and would not require the sampling ofevery bar.
Objective 3. To determine if a relationship can be detected between sediment transp0l1
parameters and Interior least tell1 and piping plover nest counts (as provided by NGPC).
Study Criteria 1. The Service supports the CUtTent Objective I as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Study Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion ofthis study because of potential Project
effects to least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers.
Studv Criteria 4. The Service proposes the application for the following information to replace
information proposed for the PSP. All known nest records for least tern and piping plover for
the Loup River (Highway 61 Bridge to its confluence with the Platte River) and the Platte
Rivcr (Highway 81 Bridge to Highway 79 Bridge) shall be summarized by river mile. River
miles with more than one year of nesting should be separated from river miles with one or zero
years ofdocumented nesting. Documented nesting should be subdivided into the following
stream reaches: a) the Loup River from the Highway 61 Bridge to the Project diversion; b)
Loup River below the Project diversion to its confluence with the Platte River; c) the Platte
River below the Loup River confluence and above the Project tailrace; d) immediately
downstream ofthe Project tailrace to approximately River Mile 96; and e) near the North Bend
streamgage [River Mile 80 to 85].
Additional information needed for this study would include Service proposed data collected
under Sedimentation Objective 2.
8

Studv Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on sediment supply in the bypass reach ofthe
Loup and Platte rivers and a direct effect on sediment supply in the Platte River at and below
the tailrace. Project effect to sediment supply may indirectly affect nesting habitat for the least
tern and piping plover.
Studv Criteria 6. The Service proposes the application for the following methods to replace
information proposed for the PSP. Geomorphic indices collected from Sedimentation
Objective 2 (i.e., channel width, velocity, and cumulative depth distributions) will be compared
against the prop0l1ion of nesting frequency per river mile through ordination, discriminant
fi.mction analysis or similar method.
Studv Criteria 7. By definition, an effective discharge (or "dominant discharge") analysis, if
properly implemented, identifies the river discharge that, on average during the period(s)
evaluated, trctusported the greatest amount ofsediment. This is not the same as characterizing
river morphology and habitat. It was identified at the May 27 and 28 study plan meeting that
the application ofeffective discharge calculations could not be applied in a manner to
effectively understand sandbar formation. Given the above uncertainties about effective
discharge, it would be difficult to identify any relationship between effective discharge results
to least tem and piping plover nesting. However, Service proposed methods under
Sedimentation Objective 2 has shown that the long-telm effects ofdams and diversions on
sediment transp0l1 can be documented (Alexander et at. 2009; Choi et at. 2005; Elliot and
Jacobson 2006; Grant et at. 2003; USBR 2006; Williams and Wolman, 1984). The Service
recognizes that study results under this objective will only provide a baseline description of
nesting habitat and can not compare action alternatives. A comparison of nesting history with
Sedimentation Objective 2 should provide a more rigorous evaluation of Project-related
sediment effects to least tern and piping plover nesting.
Objective 4. To evaluate whether sandbar availability is limiting Interior least tern and piping
plover numbers on the lower Platte River.
Studv Criteria J. The Service suggests the elimination of Objective 4. Please reference
General Comment I for additional info1111ation.
Objective 5. To determine if sediment transport is a limiting factor for pallid sturgeon habitat
in the lower Platte River below the Elkhorn River.
Studv Criteria J. The Service suggests the elimination ofObjective 4. Please reference
General Comment 2 for additional information.
Study 2.0 Hydl'ocycling
Objective 1. To compare the sub-daily Project hydrocycling operation values (maximum and
minimum flow and stage) to daily values (mean flow and stage). In addition to same-day
9

comparisons, periods of weeks, months. and specific seasons of interest to protected species
will be evaluated to characterize the relative degrees of variance between hydrocycling (actual)
and alternative conditions in the study area.
SlIidy Criteria I. The Service supports the CUITent Objective I as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Study Criteria 2. The Service SUppOitS the inclusion ofthis study because potential Project
effects to: a) least tem and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Platte River; b) pallid
sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Platte River.
Study Criteria 4. The Service recommends additional infonnation to supplement the PSP.
Results from the Bypass Reach Objective 2 would be needed to account for reasonably
foreseeable effects to the hydrograph that would apply toward all action aitelllatives.
Study Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on subdaily streamflow ofthe Platte River.
Project effects to the Platte River hydrograph are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non­
Project effects to the hydrograph.
Study Criteria 6. This PSP evaluation should not be based on CUlTent hydrologic baseline, but
on projected hydrology derived from reasonably foreseeable effects to the hydrograph using
results from Water Temperature in the Bypass Reach Objective 2.
Study Criteria 7. Service proposed recommendations to Study Criteria 4 and 6 would only
require additional work associated with Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 3.
Objective 2. To detelllline the potential for nest inundation due to both hydrocycling and
alternative conditions.
Study Criteria J. The Service SUppOltS the CUtTent Objective 2 as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Study Criteria 2. The Service suPPOtts the inclusion ofthis study because potential Project
effects to least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Platte River.
,
Study Criteria 4. CUtTent infollllation USGS streamgage infollllation identified in the PSD is
sufficient to fi.illy address Objective 2.
SlIidt· Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on subdaily streamflow in the Platte River.
Project effects to the Platte River hydrograph are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non­
Project effects to the hydrograph.
SlIidy Criteria 6. This PSP evaluation should not be based on current hydrologic baseline, but
on projected hydrology derived from reasonably foreseeable effects to the hydrograph using
results from Water Temperature in the Bypass Reach Objective 2. It is recommended that
10

FERC subdivide the evaluation of potential for nest inundation using the following time
periods: a) prenesting from April 25 to May 31, and b) renesting is from June I through July
IS.
Stud!' Criteria 7. The only require additional work associated with Service proposed
recommendations to Study Criteria 4 and 6 would be associated with Flow Depletion and Flow
Diversion Objective 3. Restructuring the analysis to consider prenesting and renesting time
periods would provide better insight regarding potential Project effects to nest inundation.
Objective 3. To assess effects, ifany, ofhydrocycling on sediment transport parameters.
Stud!' Criteria J. The Service supports the CUITent Objective 3 as revised in the May 28 and 29
study plan meeting.
Stud!' Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion of this study because potential Project
effects to: a) least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Platte River; b) pallid
sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Platte River.
Stud!' Criteria 4. ClIITent infonnation USGS stream gage identified in the PSD is sufficient to
fully address Objective 3.
Stud!' Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on: a) least tern and piping plover nesting
sandbar habitat in the Platte Rivers; b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish
community habitat in the Platte Rivers.
Stud)! Criteria 6. This PSP evaluation should not be based on CUITent hydrologic baseline, but
on projected hydrology derived from reasonably foreseeable effects to the hydrograph using
results fi'om Water Temperature in the Bypass Reach Objective 2. Service recommendations
for Sedimentation Objective I (i.e., Effective discharge calculations should include an
evaluation ofsub-daily discharge effects to sediment transport for nodes downstream of the
Project tailrace) would also help to identify effects of hydrocycling on sediment transport
parameters.
Stud!' Criteria 7. The only additional work associated with Service proposed recommendations
to Study Criteria 4 and 6 would be associated with Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Objective 3.
Objective 4. To identify material differences in potential effects on habitat ofthe fnterior least
tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon.
Stud!' Criteria J. The Service proposes modifications to Objective 4. Please review Service
General Comment 3 for additional information.
11

Stlldv Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion of this study because potential Project
effects to least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Platte River. The Service
also recognizes the potential Project effects to habitats for the pallid sturgeon and fish
community.
Stlldv Criteria 4. The Service recommends additional infonnation to supplement the PSP. The
Service recommends that FERC include several study sites located at several locations from
above the Project tailrace to Plattsmouth. Proposed study sites include reaches with
documented least tern and piping plover nesting history near USGS streamgage sites.
Proposed study sites include: a) the Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above
the Project tailrace; b) immediately downstream of the Project tailrace; c) near the North Bend
streamgage [River Mile 80 to 85); d) near the Leshara streamgage [River Mile 35 to 41]; and e)
near the Louisville streamgage [River Mile 7 to 13]. Configuration of survey transects and
data collection within each study segment should be similar to that ofthe Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program's stage change study (HDR 2008). Habitat parameters
collected across each transect should include: flow quantity, depth, velocity, sandbar
elevation, and bed fonns (HDR 2008). Data collected within each study segment should be
able to quantify parameters of least tem and piping plover nesting suitability including: a) area
of bare sand per unit area; b) size distribution of sandbars; and c) position of sandbars [i.e.,
point bars or mid-channel bars); d) depth and velocity (Kirsch 1996; Ziewitz et al. 1992).
Stlldv Criteria 5. Project hydrocycling may have a direct effect on erosion of least tern and
piping plover nesting sandbars by saturating the bars and banks during the daily high,
increasing positive pore-water stresses on the material, then reducing the confining pressure
during the daily low, causing the material slough (Jason Alexander, USGS-Lincoln, personal
communication,2009). Project hydrocycling has a direct effect on pallid sturgeon and fish
community habitat as a result of the intraday changes in river stage. Project effects to the
Platte River hydrograph are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the
hydrograph.
Stlldv Criteria 6. The Service recommends additional infonnation to supplement the PSP.
Additional methods should include the ability to collect and analyze data in Study Criteria 4.
Configuration of survey transects and data collection within each study segment should be
similar to that ofthe Platte River Recovery Implementation Program's stage change study
(HDR 2008). Time frames for data collection would include: a) 1 st week March, b) 1 st week
May, c) Ist week July, and d) Ist week August. Habitat parameters collected across each
transect should include the following at a minimum: flow quantity, depth, velocity, sandbars,
and bed forms (HDR 2008). Service also recommends that the PSP document changes to
mesohabitat similarly to that of Peters and Parham (2008), HDR (2009) and provide a means to
directly measure intraday effects of Project operations on pallid sturgeon and fish community
habitat. Data collection should occur several times within a day to capture intraday effects of
hydrocycling peaks and troughs. Collected information should evaluate: a) intraday Project
hydrocycling effects to fish habitat at the microscale [i.e., depth and velocity] or mesoscale; b)
intraday Project hydrocycling effects to least tern and piping plover suitability criteria; c)
longitudinal effects of Project hydrocycling to fish habitat as the hydrocycle attenuates
12

downstream; and d) longitudinal effects of Project hydrocycling on sandbar erosion as the
hydrocycle attenuates downstream.
Study Criteria 7. CUlTent USGS stream gage information identified in the PSD is insufficient to
address Objective 4 because all proposed methods provide an indirect measure ofhydrocycling
effects to least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, and fish community habitat. Service
recommends that the PSP apply microhabitat andmesohabitat similarly to that of Peters and
Parham (2008), HDR (2009) and provide a means to directly measure intraday effects of
Project operations on pallid sturgeon and fish community habitat. Similar methods have been
implemented in the lower Platte River by the Project's consultant (H DR 2008; HDR 2009).
Proposed Service methods also provide a means to assess longihldinal effects of least tern and
piping plover sandbar erosion. [n absence of Service proposed methods, there is no means to
directly measure direct effects of Project hydrocycling to habitat.
Study 4.0 Water Temperature in the Bypass Reach
Objective 1. To investigate the relationships between flow in the Loup River bypass reach,
ambient air temperature, water temperature, relative humidity, and cloud cover.
Study Criteria 1. The Service suppolis Objective I as revised in the May 28 and 29 study plan
tneeting.
Study Criteria 2. The Service sUppOliS the inclusion ofthis objective because potential Project
effects to: a) temperature-related effects to least tern forage in the Loup and Platte rivers; and
b) temperature-related effects to fish community in the Loup and Platte rivers.
Study Criteria 4. The Service recommends additional infonnation to supplement the PSP.
The Service supports the collect and review flow data at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River
near Genoa, NE, and USGS Gage 06792500, Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, NE. The
Service recommends the addition of the USGS Gage 06792500, Beaver Creek at Genoa, NE,
and USGS Gage 06774000, Platte River near Duncan, NE. The additional streamgage
infonnation will assist FERC in segregating Project temperature-related effects on streamflow
in the bypass reach from effects to streamflow not related to the Project.
The Service supports the installation oftemperature sensors in the Loup River upstream ofthe
Diversion Weir and in the Loup River bypass reach at USGS Gage 06793000, Loup River near
Genoa, NE. The Service recommends that the temperature sensor above the Project diversion
be located at an upstream segment of the river that is not affected by pooling from the
diversion weir. The Service also recommends additional temperature gages for the following
locations: a) the Loup River from the Beaver Creek confluence to the Loup mouth; and b)
Platte River li'om the Loup River confluence to the Project tailrace. Service rationale for the
additional water temperature sensors is provided in Study Criteria 6.
Study Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach of the Loup
and Platte rivers. As written, the associated studies under Objective I will provide a baseline
13

evaluation ofstreamflow and water temperature. Objective 2 will evaluate different action
alternative streamflow affects to temperature.
Stud)! Criteria 6. The Service views the Projects bypass reach as three separate and discrete
study reaches. This first study reach is from the Loup River downstream of the Project
diversion to the Beaver Creek confluence. Because Beaver Creek provides inflows that may
confound the statistical relationship between Project effects and temperature, it is
recommended that the Loup River from the Beaver Creek confluence to the Loup mouth be
evaluated as a discrete study reach where temperature-related effects of Beaver Creek
streamflow is accounted for when evaluating action alternative streamflow-related effects on
temperature. The Platte River from the Loup River confluence to the Project tailrace would be
the third discrete study reach. Project-related effects to streamflow in this study segment are
confounded by the inflows from the Beaver Creek and the Platte River. The separation of the
bypass reach into tlu'ee study reaches will provide a better understanding of streamflow effects
to temperature because each segment has different hydrology for which to compare
temperature responses against.
Cun'ent methods described in the study plan do not directly test effects of streamflow bypass
on temperature. It may be difficult to evaluate altematives to the existing minimum bypass of
50 to 75 cfs ifexceedences of these minimum bypass flows rarely occur. Therefore, the
Service strongly suggests changes in Project diversions to directly test the effects of bypassed
flows on temperature. If changes in Project operations are not supported by FERC, then the
Service proposed supplements to stream gages and temperature sensors would be critical
components in evaluating how different flow regimes in each respective study reach will affect
water temperature.
The Service supports concepts in Task 3 of the PSP and recommends that applied methods to
implement Task 3 should also include methods applied to the central Platte River (Sinokrot and
Gulli ver 2000). Methods should include percent probability of exceedence of the NOEQ
temperature standard and should be applied to all three study reaches. The Service also
recommends that the PSP include an evaluation ofexceedences of35 0 C which represents a
critical thermal maximum applied by Sinokrot and Gulliver (2000).
Stud)! Criteria 7. Methods proposed in the PSP do not adequately characterize the Project
effects to temperature within the bypass reach. Beaver Creek and the Platte River add flow
variability within the Project bypass reach. Service proposed study reaches will segregate the
effects ofadditional Beaver Creek and Platte River effects on streamflow. Service suggested
additions to methods are reflective of published, peer reviewed methods for the central Platte
River.
Objective 2. To describe and quantify the relationship, ifany, between diversion of water into
the Loup Power Canal and water temperature in the Study Reach ofthe Loup River bypass
reach.
14

Swdv Criteria J. The Service supports Objective 2 as revised in the May 18 and 29 study plan
meeting.
Swdl' Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion of this study because of potential Project
effects to: a) least tem and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers;
b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River: and c) fish community habitat in the Loup and
Platte rivers.
Stlldv Criteria 4. The Service recommends additional infomlation to supplement the PSP.
Results from the Bypass Reach Objective 2 would be needed to account for reasonably
foreseeable effects to the hydrograph that would apply toward all action altematives.
Stlld)" Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach ofthe Loup
and Platte rivers which may affect nesting habitat for the least tem and piping plover in
addition to affecting habitat for the fish community. lnfonnation collected under Objective I
should help to differentiate temperature-related effects ofaction alternatives that have diffeling
streamflow regimes in the bypass reach ofthe Loup and Platte rivers.
Stlldv Criteria 6. The Service recommends that the bypass reach be subdivided into three
separate and discrete study reaches. Service also suppOl1S changes in Project diversions to
directly test the effects of bypassed flows on temperature. It is also recommended that the PSP
compare action alternatives effects on temperature in the bypass reach. A comparison of action
alternatives should not be based on current hydrology, but on projected hydrology derived
from Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 3.
Stlldv Criteria 7. Methods proposed in the PSP do not adequately characterize the Project
effects to temperature within the bypass reach. Beaver Creek and the Platte River add flow
variability within the Project bypass reach. Service proposed study reaches will segregate the
effects ofadditional Beaver Creek and Platte River effects on streamflow.
Study 5.0 Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Objective 1. To detemline the net consumptive losses associated with Project operations
compared to altemative conditions.
Swdv Criteria J. The Service suppOl1S Objective I as revised in the May 28 and 29 study plan
meeting.
Swdv Criteria 2. The Service suppOl1S the inclusion of this study because of potential Project
effects to: a) least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers;
b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Loup and
Platte ri verso
Studv Criteria 4. Current information identified in the PSP is sufficient to fully address
Objective I.
15

Stud" Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach ofthe Loup
and Platte livers, and the Platte River below the tailrace. Project effects to the Loup and Platte
river hydrograph are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the
hydrograph. It was not specifically stated in the PSP ifcanal diversions for ilTigators or
diversions into Lost Creek were discretionary Project actions that were subject to review in the
relicensing process.
Stud" Criteria 6. The proposed Objective I methods as described in the Study Plan would be
sufficient in characterizing the present condition. However, the methods section does not
describe in detail how this information will be used to evaluate alternative conditions.
Objective 2. To use current and historic USGS gage rating curves to evaluate change in stage
in the Loup River bypass reach during Project operations and compare against alternative
hydrographs.
Stud" Crireria 1. The Service supports Objective 2 as revised in the May 28 and 29 study plan
tneeting.
Stud" Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion ofthis study because of potential Project
effects to: a) least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and Platte rivers;
b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in the Loup and
Platte ri verso
Stud" Criteria 4. Current information identified in the PSP is sufficient to fully address
Service's proposed modifications to Objective 2.
Stud" Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on river stage in the bypass reach of the Loup
and Platte rivers and the Platte River below the tailrace. Project effects to the Loup and Platte
river hydrograph are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the
hydrograph.
Stud" Criteria 6. The proposed Objective 2 methods as described in the Study Plan would be
sufficient in characterizing the present condition. However, the methods section does not
describe in detail how this infoll11ation will be used to evaluate alternative conditions. A
comparison action alternatives effects to river stage should not be based on CUITent hydrology,
but on projected hydrology derived from reasonably foreseeable effects to hydrology
developed by Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion Objective 3.
Objective 3. To evaluate historic flow trends on the Loup and Platte rivers since Project
inception.
Stud" Criteria 1. The Service proposes modifications to Objective 3. Please review Service
General Comment 4 for additional information.
16

Study Criteria 2. The Service suppOl1S the inclusion ofthis study objective because of
potential Project effects to: a) least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup
and Platte rivers; b) pallid sturgeon habitat in the Platte River; and c) fish community habitat in
the Loup and Platte ri verso
Study Criteria 4. The Service recommends additional infonnation to supplement the PSP. In
addition to Ginting et al. (2007), it is recommended that FERC consider historic flow trend
infonnation in Parham (2007). Service recommended a modification to the study objective
that would evaluate how these net consumptive losses would affect a representative
hydrograph for each ofthe action altematives. This evaluation should not be based on current
hydrology, but on projected hydrology derived fi'om non-Project reasonably foreseeable effects
to hydrology. Documents that would quantify reasonably foreseeable effects to hydrology
would include the NDNR (2009) and USDOI (2006).
SllIdy Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach ofthe Loup
and Platte rivers. Project effects to the Loup and Platte river hydrograph are cumulative to
reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the hydrograph. It was not specifically stated in
the PSP ifcanal diversions for irrigators or diversions into Lost Creek were discretionary
Project actions that were subject to review in the relicensing process.
SllIdy Criteria 6. The proposed methods as described in the Study Plan would not be sufficient
in addressing Objective 3. Service recommends additional methods that would evaluate how
these net consumptive losses affect a representative hydrograph for each ofthe action
alternatives. This evaluation should not be based on current hydrologic baseline, but on
projected hydrology derived from reasonably foreseeable effects to the hydrograph.
Study Criteria 7. Since the representative hydrographs will be applied to methods addressing
other study objectives, it is critical that representative hydrographs are developed to evaluate
flow-related effects of action alternatives.
Objective 4. To detemline the extent of Interior least tem and piping plover nesting on the
Loup River above and below the Diversion Weir.
SllIdy Criteria J. The Service proposes modifications to Objective 4. Please review Service
General Comment 5 for additional information.
Stuc!l' Criteria 2. The Service suppOl1S the inclusion ofthis study objective because of
potential Project effects to least tern and piping plover nesting sandbar habitat in the Loup and
Platte rivers and whooping crane migration habitat in the Loup River.
SllIdy Crit, "ia 4. The Service recommends that FERC include several study sites located along
the Loup and Platte rivers. Proposed study sites include: a) the Loup River upstream ofthe
Project diversion; b) the Loup River immediately downstream of the Project tailrace; and c) the
Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above the Project tailrace. Data collected
17

within each study segment should be able to quantify parameters of least tern and piping plover
nesting suitability and whooping crane roost suitability, including: a) area of bare sand per unit
area; b) size distribution ofsandbars; and c) position ofsandbars [i.e., point bars or midchannel
bars]; d) depth and velocity; e) wetted width; d) unobstructed width (Farmer et al.
2004; Kirsch 1996; Ziewitz et al. 1992).
Studv Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach ofthe Loup
River which would directly affect habitats for the fish community. Project effects to the Loup
River streamflow are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the
hydrograph.
Studv Criteria 6. The Service supports existing methods in the PSP to develop a baseline for
least tem and piping plover nesting history. Photo interpretation of land cover changes over
time can show long-term, large-scale changes in active channel area (Johnson 1994, Eschner
1983). However, the PSP should also address the direct relationship between flow and nesting
habitat suitability criteria. The Service also suggests collection ofdata when flows exceed
minimum bypass of 50 to 75 cfs to test the effects ofdifferent Project bypass alternatives on
species' suitability indices. A comparative approach of microscale or mesoscale indices should
be conducted across study sites (e.g., compare study site a with study site b, or study site c with
stuc!)! site e).
Studv Criteria 7. The PSP does not provide a direct comparison between streamflow in the
bypass reach and habitat suitability criteria for least tern and piping plover nesting or for
whooping crane roosting habitat. The currently proposed evaluation of nesting on the Loup
River above and below the Diversion Weir provides an indirect measure of habitat suitability.
Nesting information for the Loup River above and below the Project diversion weir will not
provide an understanding ofaction alternative flow-related impacts to least tem and piping
plover habitat suitability. Proposed Service methods should provide a direct comparison for
areas impacted by the Project diversion versus areas not impacted. This understanding
between discharge and nesting/roosting habitat can then be applied to evaluate action
alternatives.
The Service recognizes that it may be difficult to evaluate alternatives to the existing minimum
bypass of 50 to 75 cfs if exceedences of these minimum bypass flows rarely occur. Therefore,
the Service strongly suggests that the PSP prioritize data collection during times when
minimum bypass diversions are exceeded. The Service also suggests changes in Project
diversions to directly test the effects of bypassed flows on fish community habitat.
Objective 6. Determine the relative significance ofthe Loup River bypass reach to the overall
Loup Ri vel' fishery.
Studv Criteria I. The Service supports Objective 2 as revised in the May 28 and 29 study plan
meeting.
SlUdv Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion ofthis study objective because potential
Project affects to the fish community habitats in the Loup and Platte rivers.
18

Swdv Criteria 4. The Service suggests supplementing data proposed on the PSP with
additional cross section measurements located at selected study sites. Each study site would
have systematic spaced channel cross-sections for the following locations: a) the Loup River
upstream ofthe Project diversion; b) Loup River immediately downstream ofthe Project
diversion; c) the Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above the Project tailrace;
d) immediately downstream of the Project tailrace to approximately River Mile 96; and e) near
the I orth Bend streamgage [River Mile 80 to 85]. Time frames for data collection would
include: a) I"week March, b) I"week May, c) I"week July, and d) I"week August. Habitat
parameters collected across each transect should include the following at a minimum: flow
quantity, depth, velocity, sandbars, and bed f0ll11S (Ginting and Zeit 2008; HDR 2008). Service
also recommends that the PSP delineate mesohabitat similarly to that of HDR (2009).
Studv Criteria 5. The Project has a direct effect on streamflow in the bypass reach ofthe Loup
River which would directly affect habitats for the fish community. Project effects to the Loup
River streamflow are cumulative to reasonably foreseeable non-Project effects to the
hydrograph.
Studv Criteria 6. The Service recommends that the PSP should address the direct relationship
between streamflow in the bypass reach and habitat suitability criteria for the fish community.
The Service also suggests collection ofdata when flows exceed minimum bypass of 50 to 75
cfs to test the effects of Project bypass to fish habitat at the microscale [i.e., depth and velocity]
and mesoscale. A comparative approach ofmicroscale or mesoscale indices should be
conducted across study sites (e.g., compare swdy site a with study site b, or study site c with
study site e).
Studv Criteria 7. CllITently, the PSP does not provide a direct comparison between streamflow
in the bypass reach and habitat suitability criteria for the fish community. Proposed Service
methods should provide a direct comparison for areas impacted by the Project diversion versus
areas not impacted. This understanding between discharge and fish habitat can then be applied
to evaluate action altematives. Similar methods have been implemented in the lower Platte
River by the Project's consultant (HDR 2008; HDR 2009).
The Service recognizes that it may be difficult to evaluate alternatives to the existing minimum
bypass of50 to 75 cfs ifexceedences ofthese minimum bypass flows rarely occur. Therefore,
the Service strongly suggests that the PSP prioritize data collection during times when
minimum bypass diversions are exceeded. The Service also suggests changes in Project
diversions to directly test the effects of bypassed flows on fish community habitat.
Study 13,0 PCBs
Objective L To determine if PCBs are present in the Settling Basin.
Objective 2, To detennine if small fish discharged to the North Sand Management Area
contain PCBs.
Objective 3. If PCBs are detected in small fish dredged onto the North Sand
19

Management Area, detelmine the potential effect on least terns.
Studv Objective 1. Study Objective I limits the PCB assessment to the upper end ofthe Loup
Power Canal (Settlement Basin). Objective I does not identify what matrix (i.e., sediment,
fish, invertebrates, eggs) are to be evaluated for the presence ofPCBs.
Recommendation. Change Objective I to read as follows: "To measure PCBs in sediment and
biota present in the Project Area."
Study Objectives I and 2 limit the PCB assessment to forage fish for least terns and would not
include other species ofconcern such as piping plover, pallid sturgeon, and recreational fishes.
Furthermore, the least tern prey assessment would focus on the upper Loup River Canal which
is not impaired by PCBs. The current study objectives for a PCB assessment would not
adequately evaluate exposure pathways to species ofconcern.
Recommendation. Combine Objectives I and 2 to read as follows: "To evaluate Loup River
Canal PCB exposure pathways and effects to least tern, piping plovers, pallid sturgeon and
other aquatic and terrestrial receptors ofmanagement importance.
Studv Criteria 2. The Service supports the inclusion ofa PCB assessment that includes
analysis ofsediments because ofpotential Project effects to: a) least tem and piping plover in
the Loup and Platte rivers; b) pallid sturgeon in the Platte River; and c) aquatic and aquaticdependent
fish and wildlife communities in the Loup and Platte rivers.
Studv Criteria 4. Existing data indicates PCB contamination in the Project area. Pages 5-36 ­
5-38 ofthe PAD indicate that three ofthe most recent 303(d) reports (i.e., 2004, 2006, and
2008) identify PCBs as an aquatic life impainnent for two stream segments within the Project
area. The two PCB impaired segments are the Loup River Canal middle segment (LP 1-21800)
and the lower Platte River segment (LP 1-20000). Three of8 samples collected from 1993 ­
1998 had PCB concentrations above the 110 micrograms per kilogram (llg/kg) guideline for
fish-eating wildlife (Newell et al. 1987). Most recently, two composite fish samples collected
from LPI-21800 in 2005 had PCB concentrations of61 llg/kg and 4211g/kg. EPA's
recommended screening value for recreational fishers is 20 llg/kg (USEPA, 2000).
Recreational fishing is important in the area and Loup Power District's persolUlel maintain
recreational parks throughout the year (http://www.loup.com/recreate.asp). Many of these
parks advertise fishing and fishing opportunities also exist in areas with public access to the
canals and lakes. Channel catfish and flathead catfish are identified as recreationally important
aquatic species associated with the Loup River Canal segment LP J-21800 (NDEQ, 2009).
Existing data is limited to only fish tissue concentrations ofPCBs and does not include all of
the surface water segments in the Project area. Additional fish tissue data are needed for
segments ofthe Project area that have not been previously evaluated. Data on concentrations
of PCBs in sediment are needed to adequately evaluate PCB contamination in the Project area.
20

ReCOl1l111 elIdati 0115:
I) Obtain more fish tissue residue data to evaluate PCB exposure and effects from
recreational fishing in the Project area. Fish species that are likely targeted by anglers
should be considered for PCB analysis to evaluate risk to human health.
2) Sample for PCBs in sediment. Measuring PCBs in sediment have an advantage over
measuring PCBs in fish tissue and water by allowing for the potential identification of
PCB contaminated hot spots or source areas. Fish and other biota do not always reflect
localized PCB source conditions and concentrations of PCBs in fish decrease with
distance away from the source (Sloan et aI., 2002). Proposed PCB sampling in
sediment will not result in a large-scale release of PCB in the water column.
If PCB source areas exist within the canal and are not sufficiently addressed, it could result in
unnecessarily prolonged exposure to sensitive species as well as recreational fish and
subsequent detrimental human health effects.
Studv Criteria 5. PCB contaminated sediments in the Project area could result in direct effects
to fish and wildlife species within the Project area and downstream. PCBs have a tendency to
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and can adversely affect fish and avian reproduction.
Fish-eating predators may be especially at risk ofexposure to PCBs from bioaccumulation
across food-chain pathways; therefore, the Service is especially concerned with PCB exposure
and effects to federally endangered least terns and pallid sturgeon. Adverse reproductive
effects in fish exposed to PCBs are well documented and include ovarian atresia, decreased egg
viability, and reduced growth of larvae (Niimi, 1996). A study conducted by the Service to
evaluate contaminant exposure and effects to shovelnose sturgeon and pallid sturgeon in the
lower Platte River identified PCBs as a contaminant ofconcern (Schwarz et aI., 2006).
If the Project area has PCB contaminated sediments, then action alternatives under EPA
could represent: a) change in Project operations by Loup Power District would be instrumental
in how PCBs are dispersed, removed, and otherwise managed transpOit of PCBs from sediment
to the water column, b) changes in hydrocycling that minimizes sediment removal from PCB
contaminated sites, or c) direct removal of PCB contaminated sediments. Human health
advisories may need to be posted in areas that offer public access to recreational fishing.
Swdv Criteria 6. Numerous studies have measured PCBs in sediment to identify PCB sources
and evaluate risk to fish and wildlife (Ashley and Baker, 1999, Howell et aI., 2008, Kim et aI.,
2008; Moon et aI., 2009; Pozo et aI., 2009). Sediment removal has been perfoll11ed at many
river sites contaminated by PCBs, including the Hudson River, NY; Fox River and Sheboygan
River, WI; Kalamazoo River, MI; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and more. Removing residual PCB
contaminated sediments has provided net environmental benefits at the PCB contaminated
Hudson River site (Sloan, 2002).
PCBs in sediment can continue to be transported downstream in the water column; however,
the amount of PCB transported varies greatly with location and among locations depending on
seasonal and inter-annual changes in river flow (McCarty, 2003). Such changes may not be
21

evident ifa PCB assessment is limited to grab sample collections of suspended sediments in
the water column or fish tissues.
Freshwater sediment quality guidelines and benchmarks for PCBs have been developed by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 1991 and 2008).
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME, 1992), and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA, 2000 and 2001). These guidelines can be used to evaluate PCB
concentrations in sediments from the Project area and risk to aquatic-dependent species.
Stud\! Criteria 7. According to the Service's Analytical Control Facility, the 2009 cost for
measuring PCBs in a sediment sample is $315 - $360 per sample (depending on which contract
lab is selected) compared to $340 - $416 for tissue samples (ACF, 2009). Therefore, a mixed
sampling design that includes sediment and fish tissue could actually cost less. Sediment
sampling costs less and would likely require a lower level of effol1 than biotic sampling.
If the PCB study objectives are left unchanged, data on PCBs would be limited to small fish
from the upper canal segment and would not allow for source determination or screening for
the protection of human health. The CUITent study objectives would not evaluate PCB exposure
pathways to pallid sturgeon, least tems or piping plovers in the downstream lower Platte River
segment (LP 1-20000), a segment currently listed as impaired by PCBs.
22

Literature Cited
Alexander, J.S., Zeit, R.B., and Schaepe, N.J., 2009. Geomorphic segmentation, hydraulic
geometry, and hydraulic microhabitats ofthe Niobrara River, Nebraska-Methods and
initial results: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5008,
51 p.
American Society ofCivil Engineers (ASCE), 2007, Sedimentation Engineering, Updated
Manual 54, Marcelo H. Garcia (ed.), 1132 pages.
Analytical Control Facility (ACF). 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of
Environmental Quality. Shepherdstown, West Virginia. http://chemistry.fws.gov/
Ashley JTF, Baker JE. 1999. Hydrophobic organic contaminants in surficial sediments of
Baltimore Harbor: Inventories and sources. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
18(5):838-849.
Choi, S., B. Yoon, and H. Woo. 2005. Effects ofdam-induced flow regime change on
downstream river morphology and vegetation cover in the Hwang River, Korea. River
Research and Applications. 21: 315-325.
Elliot, C.M., and Jacobson, R.B., 2006, Geomorphic classification and assessment ofcharmel
dynamics in the Missouri National Recreation River, South Dakota and Nebraska: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5313, 66 p.
Escluler, T.R., R.F. Hadley and K.D. Crowley. 1983. Hydrologic and morphologic changes in
channels ofthe Platte River basin in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska: a historical
perspective. IN: Hydrologic and Geomorphic Studies ofthe Platte River Basin. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1277-A. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Fanner, A.H., Cade, B.S., Terrell, J.W., Henriksen, J.H., and Runge, J.T., 2005. Evaluation of
models and data for assessing Whooping Crane habitat in the Central Platte River,
Nebraska: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Scientific
Investigations Report 2005-5123, 64 p.
Ginting, Daniel, Zeit, R.B., and Linard, J.T. , 2008, Temporal Differences in the Hydrologic
Regime ofthe Lower Platte River, Nebraska, 1895-2006: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Repori 2007-5267, 43 p.
Ginting, D., and Zeit, R.B., 2008, Temporal differences in flow depth and velocity distributions
and hydraulic microhabitats near bridges ofthe lower Platte River, Nebraska, 1934­
2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 2008-5054, 98p.
23

Grant, G.E., J.e. Sclunidt, and S.L. Lewis. 2003. A geological framework for interpreting
downstream effects ofdams on rivers. Water Science and Application 7: A Unique
River. Pages 209 to 225.
HDR. 2008. Lower Platte River Stage Change Study Draft Protocol Development. Report to
the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. Version 1.0. 16 pages.
HDR. 2009. Platte River Stage Change Study Summary. Unpublished document. June 16,
2009. 2 pages.
Howell NL, Suarez MP, Rifai HS, Koenig L. 2008. Concentrations ofpolychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in water, sediment, and aquatic biota in the Houston Ship Channel,
Texas. Chemosphere (Oxford) 70(4):593-606.
Johnson, W.C. 1994. Woodland expansion in the Platte River, Nebraska: Patterns and causes.
Ecological Monographs 64: 45-84.
Kaspersen, J. 2008. Questioning the basics. Erosion Control. I page.
http://www.erosioncontrol.com/may-2008/universal-soil-equation.aspx
Kim Y, Eun HKatase T. 2008. Historical Distribution ofPCDDs, PCDFs, and Coplanar PCBs
in Sediment Core ofAriake Bay, Japan. Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and
Toxicology 54(3):395-405.
Kirsch, E.M. 1996. Habitat selection and productivity of least terns on the Lower Platte River,
Nebraska. Wildlife Monograph no. 132.48 pp.
McCat1y JP. 2003. The Hudson River PCB case study. In Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, B1Il10n
GA Jr, Cairns J Jr., eds. Handbook of Ecotoxicology 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers pp
813-831.
Moon HB, Choi M, Choi HG, Ok GKannan K. 2009. Historical trends ofPCDDs, PCDFs,
dioxin-like PCBs and nonylphenols in dated sediment cores from a semi-enclosed bay
in Korea: Tracking the sources. Chemosphere 75(5):565-571.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991. The potential for
biological effects ofsediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the national status and
trends program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Screening quick reference
tables (SQuiRTs). http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/index.php
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). 2004. 2004 surface water quality
integrated repOt1. Water Quality Division. http://www.deg.state.ne.us/
24

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). 2006. 2006 surface water quality
integrated report. Water Quality Division. http://www.deg.state.ne.us/
Nebraska Depat1ment of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). 2008. 2008 surface water quality
integrated rep0l1. Water Quality Division. http://www.deg.state.ne.us/
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). 2009. Title 117 Nebraska Water
Quality Standards. http://www.deg.state.ne.us/
Nebraska Department ofNatural Resources. 2009. 2009 Annual Evaluation ofAvailability of
Hydrologically COIU1ected Water Supplies, Nebraska Department of Natural
Resources. Lincoln, NE.
Newell, A.J, Johnson D.W, Allen LK. 1987. Niagara River biota contamination project: fish
flesh criteria for piscivorous wildlife: New York State Department ofEnvironmental
Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Environmental Protection,
Technical Report 87-3, 180 p.
Niimi, A.J. PCBs in aquatic organisms. 1996. In Beyer W.N., Heinz G.H., Redmon-Norwood
A.W., eds. Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations.
Boca Raton, FL, Lewis Publishers, pp 117-152.
Ontario Ministry ofthe Environment (OME). 1992. Development ofthe Ontario provincial
sediment quality guidelines for PCBs and the organochlorine pesticides. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch Log 92-2309-068 PIBS 1965.
Parham, J. E., 2007. Hydrologic Analysis ofthe lower Platte River from 1954 - 2004, with
special emphasis on habitat ofthe endangered least tern, piping plover and pallid
sturgeon. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI.
Peters, E.J. and Parham, J.E. (2008). Ecology and Management of Sturgeon in the Lower Platte
River. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission - Nebraska Technical Series No. 18.
Lincoln, NE.
Pozo K, Lazzerini 0, Perra G, Volpi V, Corsolini SFocardi S. 2009. Levels and spatial
distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in superficial sediment from 15 Italian
Marine Protected Areas (MPA). Marine pollution bulletin 58(5):773-776.
Schwarz M.S., Lydick C.D., Tillett D.E., Papoulias D.M., Gross T.S. 2006. A health risk
evaluation for pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus a/bus) on the lower Platte River using
shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus p/atOlynchus) as a surrogate. US Fish and
Wildlife Service Contaminant Report, Grand Island, NE. 105 pp.
Sinokrot, B. A. and J. S. Gulliver. 2000. In-stream flow impact on river water temperatures.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 38(5):339-349.
25

Sloan RJ, Kane MW, Skinner LC. 2002. 1999 as a special spatial year for PCBs in Hudson
River Fish. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,
New York.
u.s. Department ofthe Intelior-Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2003. Platte River flow and
sediment transport between North Platte and Grand Island, Nebraska: 1895 - 1999u.s.
Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center,
Denver, Colorado, 83 p.
u.s. Department ofthe Interior-Bureau of Reclamation. 2006. Trends of aggradation and
degradation along the central Platte River: 1985 to 2005-U.S. Department ofthe
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado, 180p.
U. S. Department ofthe Interior (USDOI). 2006. Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). V 1-3.
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical
contaminant data for lise in fish advisories. Office ofWater. EPA 823-B-00-008.
u.s. EnvirolUnental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Ecological screening values. USEPA
Region 4. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm#tbI3
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Great Lakes and northern Great Plains piping
plover recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 160pp.
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population ofthe least
tern (Sterna antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN.
Ziewitz, J.W., J.G. Sidle, and U. Dinan. 1992. Habitat conservation for least terns and piping
plovers on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 24(1): 1-20.
26

Selzle, Lydia
From: Albrecht, Frank [frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Neil Suess; relicense@loup.com
Cc: Tunink, Dave; Holland, Richard; Koch, Michelle; Pillard, Matt; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.;
Engelbert, Pat; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Waldow, George; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; Jorgensen, Joel; Albrecht, Frank; Nelson, Kirk; Grell, Carey;
Schuckman, Jeff
Subject: Loup Power District FERC Relicensing = Study Plan Information
Dear Mr Suess,
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission staff members would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with
you on the development of the Study Plan associated with the Loup Power District! FERC relicensing.
Recently, we were able to contribute information for the proposed studies at several meetings held in Columbus
(May 11, May 27!28, 2009). Also, please reference letters dated September 23, 2008 (Kristal Stoner to Melissa
Marinovich), a joint letter developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NGPC (letter dated July 21,
2008), and a letter dated February 6, 2009 (Frank Albrecht to Kimberly Bose, FERC) for a detailed description
of our earlier comments and concerns.
During the May 11 th meeting, one of the proposed studies, a Recreational User Survey, was discussed in detail.
There was a recommendation to modify the survey to include the Loup Power District Wildlife Management
Area which is managed by the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission. Including this Wildlife Management
Area in the survey would provide some interesting information. However, we believe that it is not necessary to
include the area in the survey at this time. If FERC requires the modification, we would be happy to assist any
way we can.
The other studies outlined in the plan will address Sedimentation, Hydrocycling, Water Temperature in the
Loup River Bypass Reach, Flow Depletion and Diversion, Fish Passage, Land Use Inventory, Section 106
Compliance, and Ice Jam Flooding. Fish Sampling (Study #6) will not be included as a part of the Project
relicensing. Rather, the District will cooperate with the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission to provide access
for future NGPC!performed sampling.
Staff members pointed out other concerns and recommendations to the study goals and objectives at the May,
2009 meetings. Our comments on the studies can be viewed in the Meeting Transcripts which are located on
the LPD website. Overall, we believe that the proposed studies will provide valuable information to help
manage the public!trust fish and wildlife resources of the state.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, feel free to call or email me. Thank you again
for the opportunity to provide additional comments.
Sincerely,
Frank Albrecht
Assistant Division Administrator
Realty and Environmental Services Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St.
Lincoln, NE 68503
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: New Email Address
From: Robert Mohler [mailto:robertm@llnrd.org]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Charles E. Kokes; Chuck Wagner; 'Kelsy Moses'; Pillard, Matt; jmangi@columbusne.us; 'Ann Mohler'
Subject: New Email Address
Please be advised that in the course of progress, the email address for the office, and consequently
my email address, will be changed. My current address is robertm@llnrd.org The previous address
including “nctc” will not work in the near future. Please change your address book if you want to stay
in touch with me.
Thanks,
Robert T. Mohler
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: Fw: Platte River mile marker shape file
Attachments: Platte_River_Mile.shp.xml; Platte_River_Mile.dbf; Platte_River_Mile.sbx;
Platte_River_Mile.shx; Platte_River_Mile.prj; Platte_River_Mile.sbn; Platte_River_Mile.shp
Forwarded by Jeff Runge/R6/FWS/DOI on 06/30/09 04:39 PM
Melissa,
Jeff
Runge/R6/FWS/DOI
06/30/09 04:37 PM
To melissa.marinovich@hdr.inc.com
cc Matt Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS
Subject Re: Platte River mile marker shape file
The attached shapefile has the river miles from Plattsmouth to the North/South Platte confluence. I believe the
projection is NAD 83 Zone 14.
I can be reached at the number below if you have any questions.
Jeff
(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.shp.xml)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.dbf)(See attached file:
Platte_River_Mile.sbx)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.shx)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.prj)(See
attached file: Platte_River_Mile.sbn)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.shp)
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 382 6468, Ext. 22
(308) 379 8553 Cell
(308) 384 8835 Fax
********************************
Matt Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI
Matt
Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI
06/25/09 04:38 PM
1
To melissa.marinovich@hdr.inc.com
cc Jeff Runge/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS

Melissa,
SubjectPlatte River mile marker shape file
I looked for the subject file but could not locate it. I talked with Jeff and he will be able to provide you with the
file upon his return next week.
Matthew S. Schwarz
Environmental Toxicologist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Field Office
203 West 2nd Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
P: 308 382 6468 x21
F: 308 384 8835
matt_schwarz@fws.gov
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:53 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: Re: Just checking in again
Attachments: LTPP_NiobraraRiver_Census03,09_NPS.xlsx; 022309_niobraraltpp.ppt
HI Melissa, I pulled the Census numbers together, but need to pull the nesting numbers, site distribution, fledglings etc.,
together. I have put my powerpoint as an attachment which you can look at. I know you can see the data that was used
to create the figures/tables but I consider these data provisional as I am in the process of writing a 2003,2009 status
report on least terns and piping plovers on the Niobrara River.
Please clarify the use of these data.
Stephen
Stephen K. Wilson
Resource Management/GIS Specialist
Missouri National Recreational River
P.O. Box 666
Yankton, SD 57078
605 665 0209 phone
605 237 3160 cell
605 665 4183 fax
"Marinovich, Melissa"
05/20/2009 04:02 PM
Hi Stephen,
To "Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov"
cc
Subject Just checking in again
Bird season is kicking off and our project timelines have started running quite a bit faster than the last time I contacted you. Below is
the last correspondence I sent you and received from you. Could you please revisit my requests as soon as possible? For the N-12
project we are hoping produce a Draft EIS by August, which means I really have to kick it into high gear with the BA and biological
status sections. Thanks again!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
Sent: 4/16/09
Thanks a lot, Stephen, and congratulations on the new baby! With respect to the N,12 project, we are only interested in
the information for the 15 mile segment (Pischelville Bridge to Missouri) at this time for analysis in the BA. I am especially
interested in the section of the river from the Verdigre Creek confluence to the Missouri confluence, if any nesting or
foraging occurs there. Also, for the Loup FERC re,licensing project, we are interested in overall population trends on the
Niobrara River and what management practices have been enacted to improve population status. Thanks again for your
help. Let me know if you have any additional questions.
1

Melissa
From: Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov [mailto:Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:28 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: Re: FW: Tern and Plover Niobrara River data
Sorry for the delay. I actually haven't been in the office much with a new baby at home. I will work on the numbers for
you next week, but quickly the NPS completes weekly nesting/productivity surveys on the lower 15 miles of the Niobrara
River (Pischelville Bridge to Missouri River). Nests are located and followed until hatch, and then broods are followed
until fledging. An adult census is completed in mid,June. The aforementioned survey began in 2003 and continues
today.
Beginning in 2005, we began censusing the lower 40 miles of Niobrara River and continue today. The Nebraska Public
Power District completes a census upstream from Spencer Dam to HWY 137, at which point the NPS continues the
census to Norden Bridge. I am not sure if you want this detail that far up from HWY 12... If you do let me know.
Stephen
Stephen K. Wilson
Resource Management/GIS Specialist
Missouri National Recreational River
P.O. Box 666
Yankton, SD 57078
402 667 5524 phone
402 667 5536 fax
"Marinovich, Melissa"
04/15/2009 12:10 PM
Dear Stephen,
2
To "Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov"
cc
Subject FW: Tern and Plover Niobrara River data
I sent you the attached email back in March and hadn’t heard back from you. I’m sure you’ve been extremely busy with
bird migration season fired up and a slough of other tasks. I have a few questions, just to clarify what is available. What
types of tern and plover count information does NPS collect/have on the Niobrara River (eg. Adult counts, nest counts,
fledge ratios, etc.)? For which segments of the river are you responsible to survey? For which years do you have data
collected? I am trying to collect information on the Niobrara River to discuss the status and distribution of these species in
biological assessments I am preparing for the afore mentioned projects. Your assistance in this collection of data would
be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again!

Melissa
From: Marinovich, Melissa
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:13 AM
To: 'Stephen_K_Wilson@nps.gov'
Subject: Tern and Plover Niobrara River data
Hi Stephen,
I received your name from the NE Game and Parks Commission with regards to tern and plover data on the Niobrara
River. I am currently involved in two projects with potential tern and plover issues. The Nebraska Highway N,12 USACE
EIS (Niobrara east and west) and the Loup Hydroelectric FERC Relicensing Project. A portion of my involvement in both
of these projects is to develop biological assessments for the projects. I am also helping to develop study plans on the
Loup project. We are currently in the process of collecting tern and plover census/bird/nest count data for the last 22 years
on all of the Nebraska rivers and was told you were the keeper of all data from the Niobrara River. Could you please
share the nest/bird count data for terns and plovers that has been collected on the Niobrara River from 1987,2008?
We hope to develop meaningful studies based on the most recent and best available information. Your assistance in
these endeavors is much appreciated. I understand the sensitive nature of the information and would like to assure you
that this information will be used for analytical purposes only and location specific data will not be published without the
permission of the National Park Service.
Thank you for your time and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114,4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Platte River mile marker shape file
I don't have a shapefile for the Loup. You may want to contact Rich Kern of the Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources. He has a hardcopy list of river miles per certain landmarks such as river confluences. You
can create a shapefile and verify the work with Rich's data.
Jeff
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 38246468, Ext. 22
(308) 37948553 Cell
(308) 38448835 Fax
********************************
Jeff,
"Marinovich, Melissa"
"Marinovich, Melissa"
07/02/09 07:09 AM
1
To "Jeff_Runge@fws.gov"
cc
Subject RE: Platte River mile marker shape file
Thanks again for the river mile info on the Platte. Do you also have any river mile files for the Loup River?
Anything you can provide would be helpful. Thanks again!
Melissa
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov [mailto:Jeff_Runge@fws.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: Fw: Platte River mile marker shape file
44444 Forwarded by Jeff Runge/R6/FWS/DOI on 06/30/09 04:39 PM 44444
Jeff
Runge/R6/FWS/DOI
To
melissa.marinovich@hdr.inc.c

Melissa,
2
06/30/09 04:37 PM
cc
Matt
Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS
Subject
Re: Platte River mile marker
shape file
The attached shapefile has the river miles from Plattsmouth to the North/South Platte confluence. I
believe the projection is NAD 83 Zone 14.
I can be reached at the number below if you have any questions.
Jeff
(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.shp.xml)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.dbf)(See
attached file: Platte_River_Mile.sbx)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.shx)(See attached file:
Platte_River_Mile.prj)(See attached file: Platte_River_Mile.sbn)(See attached file:
Platte_River_Mile.shp)
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 38246468, Ext. 22
(308) 37948553 Cell
(308) 38448835 Fax
********************************
Matt Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI
Matt
To
Schwarz/R6/FWS/DOI melissa.marinovich@hdr.inc
cc
06/25/09 04:38 PM
Jeff Runge/R6/FWS/DOI@F
Subject
Platte River mile marker sha
file

Melissa,
I looked for the subject file but could not locate it. I talked with Jeff and he will be able to provide
you with the file upon his return next week.
Matthew S. Schwarz
Environmental Toxicologist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Field Office
203 West 2nd Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
P: 308 382 6468 x21
F: 308 384 8835
matt_schwarz@fws.gov
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:34 PM
To: King, Wendy
Subject: FW: revised study plan
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 5:11 PM
To: 'Angell, Jean'; relicense@loup.com
Cc: Dunnigan, Brian; Thompson, Mike; Schneider, Jim; Neal Suess; Waldow, George; Engelbert, Pat
Subject: RE: revised study plan
Jean,
The District will respond to the study plan you submitted in June as part of the Revised Study Plan. As you are
aware, we coordinated with the Omaha District regarding assistance developing an ice study prior to the May 27 th
meeting. At that time they indicated that they did not have time to assist us and referred us directly to CRREL. Since
that time we have been coordinating with CRREL and will be receiving a proposal from them next week on
appropriate methods to determine if, and to what extent, do hydro project operations exacerbate ice jam formation
and related flooding in the Loup River bypass reach? Once we receive CRREL’s proposal we will compare it with the
study submitted by the DNR and identify which elements to incorporate into our Revised Study Plan.
We will provide a response to the DNR’s study request as part of the Revised Study Plan that will be submitted to
FERC on July 27 th , but we will not be providing a separate response to the DNR prior to then.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Regards,
Lisa
From: Angell, Jean [mailto:jean.angell@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); relicense@loup.com
Cc: Dunnigan, Brian; Thompson, Mike; Schneider, Jim
Subject: revised study plan
The Department of Natural Resources and LPD attempted to create a plan to study the effect, if any, of LPD’s
operation on ice jam flooding in the Lower Platte River Basin. Because of the inability of the Department and LPD to
jointly devise a satisfactory plan, the Department enlisted the services of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
submitted a plan created by them to you on June 25, 2009. The schedule of pre=application activity for the LPD FERC
relicensing provides for creation of a revised study plan by July 27, 2009. The Department wishes to know if it is
LPD’s intent to respond to the study plan submitted by us. Thank you for your attention to this.
1

Jean Angell
Legal Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
471 3931
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Data questions
Melissa:
Just letting you know I have read your email and I am working to address these questions in the limited time I have been
in the office recently. I can respond that data for the Lower Platte River includes only river data.
,Joel
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402,471,5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:44 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: Data questions
Hi Joel,
After beginning to sift through the tern and plover data you provided recently (thanks again), I’ve started to come up
with a few questions.
First – the lower platte river data – does this data include both river sites and sandpits adjacent to the river?
Second – looking at the Loup River data – I noted that data from 1996 was absent. Since this was a PP census year, is
there data available for this year? Also, with regards to PP Census numbers for 2001 – the adult census numbers and
locations differ greatly between John Dinan’s summary and the numbers and location listed in the data we received for
these years. My question is – where did the numbers on the Loup River for the PP census years come from? Did John use
a formula to estimate number of birds? Is the tern and plover database missing some of the data used from the census
years?
Any help you could lend in answering these questions would be great. I just want to make sure we are using the most
correct numbers. Thanks again!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mary B Brown [mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov; martha_tacha@fws.gov
Subject: RE: phone message
Hello Melissa,
We (the TPCP) work with Peter Melcher at Preferred Rocks of Genoa, the USFWS, and NGPC to design and implement
the management plan for the sand management zone (sandpile). Since the TPCP does the routine monitoring of the birds
on the sandpile, we (the TPCP) have the most direct contact with Preferred Rocks. Over the winter and early spring, we
meet with Preferred Rocks and discuss their work plans for the coming season and construct an adaptive management
plan to protect the birds. We define a "bird management area" on top of the sandpile and Preferred Rocks (using their
equipment and employees) constructs a sand berm around the "bird management area". They also construct a couple of
small pond;wetland areas for the birds to use. Preferred Rocks windrows the sand outside of the bermed area to deter the
birds from nesting there. Within the bermed area, Preferred removes all of the woody vegetation (cottonwood trees, etc).
Preferred Rocks also has 2 employees that regularly tour the sandpile to help us locate nests and monitor the birds. Last
year, water flowing from a LPPD slurry pipe washed out one end of the protective berm, nearly flooding several nests.
LPPD helped rebuild and reinforce the berm, along with adding an extension tube to the slurry pipe. This extension tube
diverted the slurry water around the sand berm. After the nesting season is over, I discuss, with Mr. Melcher and the 2
Preferred Rocks employees that monitor the birds, what procedures worked well for the birds and how we can improve on
our procedures.
Hope this is helpful, Mary
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 68583;0931 USA
telephone: (402) 472;8878
fax: (402) 472;2946
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
"Marinovich, Melissa"
07/13/2009 07:20 AM
Good morning, Mary!
To Mary B Brown
cc
Subject RE: phone message
Thanks for the quick response! I didn’t get the chance to check my email over the weekend, so I’m sorry it took so long to get back to
you. I am writing some background text on the tern and plover management practices that have recently been employed at the sand
management area and I wanted to make sure I had the information correct.
The current practices that are in effect to protect the birds under the agreement with Preferred Rocks of Genoa are: sand berm,
diverting dredge discharge (with pipe extensions as needed), directing nest site selection (using wind rowing in the sand and Mylar
flagging), and monitoring birds – Correct?
1

Also – did the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership develop the management practices for this site or was it a group effort with
TPCP, USFWS, and NGPC?
That was all I had. I just wanted to make sure I had the correct information on tern and plover management at the sand pile. Hope
your bird season is going well. It’s been some high water on the Platte (from what I’ve noticed driving over the interstate bridge in
the mornings ☺). I would love the opportunity to get out and help the Partnership in any way that I can this season. Thanks again!
Melissa
From: Mary B Brown [mailto:mbrown9@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:18 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: phone message
Hello Melissa,
Chris said that you phoned on Friday with a question about the Loup relicensing project. What can I do for
you?
Let me know, Mary
Mary Bomberger Brown
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
153C Hardin Hall
University of Nebraska
3310 Holdrege Street
Lincoln, NE 6858310931 USA
telephone: (402) 47218878
fax: (402) 47212946
email: mbrown9@unl.edu
http://ternandplover.unl.edu
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: 1996 Loup Data
Attachments: Loup_1996_hert_output.dbf
Melissa:
I believe the 1996 Loup data presents a similar situation as the 2001 data. I have been unable to locate an additional file
containing the data. I requested that the Heritage Program provide their data and an output is attached containing Loup
River data for 1996. I hope this is helpful.
0 Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: 2001 Loup Data
Attachments: 1930_001.pdf
Melissa:
I reviewed this matter. It appears in the database that I sent provided data from one pit (Columbus #71) and I assume this
is because an original file and/or documents containing field data has not been located. Nonetheless, I did find a
summary from the 2001 IPPC. Attached you will find a summary that includes terns. I hope this is helpful and it should
correspond with data in the 2001 IPPC report.
Thanks for bringing this omission to my attention. Our tern and plover database continues to be a work in progress. It is
my understanding that as recently as 2005706 data was entered into an electronic format from years of surveys. We
continue to make advancements but there our are omissions and also data that has not been entered.
I will follow up with additional information shortly.
7Joel
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402747175440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Kern, Rich [rich.kern@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:26 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: River Miles for the Loup River
I guess I didn’t send a message with those attachments.
I don’t think they were self.explanatory so you will probably have to call me at (402) 471.3948. I am a part.timer so am
just here Mon & Thur from 7.11 and Tue & Wed from 7.1.
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:54 AM
To: Kern, Rich
Subject: RE: River Miles for the Loup River
Thanks for all your help, Rich!
Melissa
From: Kern, Rich [mailto:rich.kern@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: River Miles for the Loup River
Hi Melissa,
I found the paper copies and will get those scanned and send them to you tomorrow. We will probably have to talk once I
send them because they may not be self.explanatory.
Rich
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Kern, Rich
Subject: River Miles for the Loup River
Hi Rich,
Last week I contacted Jeff Runge (USFWS) regarding a river mile file for the Loup River (he has provided us with river
mile information for the Platte River in the past). He referred me to you. I am am trying to track down information on
river miles for the Loup River. Jeff said you had a hardcopy list of river miles per certain landmarks such as river
confluences. Could you please provide any information you might have on the Loup River System (North, Middle, South,
Lower Loup Rivers)? If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks!
Melissa Marinovich
Environmental Scientist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114.4098
Phone: 402.399.1317 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: melissa.marinovich@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:39 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; calms@neb.rr.com;
cgenoa@cablene.com; jean.angell@nebraska.gov; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org;
jblackhawk@aol.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov;
mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; thowe@ponca.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; mark.ivy@ferc.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; CoraJones@bia.gov;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; butchk@nctc.net;
cityadmin@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
patricia.leppert@ferc.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; ncpza@hamilton.net;
jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; robertm@llnrd.org; jeddins@achp.gov;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; danno@nohva.com;
marvp@megavision.com; louis-pofahl@mail.house.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; jeff_runge@fws.gov; julias@poncatribe-ne.org;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com;
don_simpson@blm.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; jmsunne@nppd.com;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org;
david.turner@ferc.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org;
lewrightjr@gmail.com
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Teresa Petr; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert,
Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; King, Wendy; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha);
Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Revised Study Plan filed
Loup Power District has electronically filed its Revised Study Plan with FERC. The document is available on FERC’s elibrary
and on the Loup Hydroelectric Relicensing Project web site.
The Revised Study Plan is the result of many hours of discussion and evaluation. The District would like to thank all those
who participated.”
1

From: user-submission@response-o-matic.com
To: King, Wendy
Cc: arobak@loup.com; Brimmer, Michelle; Frame, Gail
Subject: Loup Comments/Mailing List (adb)
Date: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:05:04 PM
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Geren
First Name: Michael
Affilitation: Educator at Columbus Public Schools
Phone: 308-940-2906
Complete Email Address: mrgeren@hotmail.com
Address 1: 2010 12th Avenue
Address 2:
City: Central City
State: NE
Zip Code: 68826
Put me on the mailing list? Yes
Comments: I am a science teacher at Columbus High School. I currently teach science courses that look
at how the City of Columbus uses energy. I would like to know more information about this project to
incorporate into my curriculum.
--
Date/Time: 2009-08-06 15:05:00 PDT
Sender IP: 75.163.107.42 [United States] | vskj4j0ojxbf4gl0
Referrer: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/commentform.html

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: King, Wendy
Cc: White, Stephanie; Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: Energy Use in Columbus Area
Date: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:50:09 AM
Wendy – please add to the DB and PW and mark this comment closed.
From: Ron Ziola [mailto:rziola@loup.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:40 AM
To: mrgeren@hotmail.com
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Neal Suess; Jim Frear
Subject: Energy Use in Columbus Area
Dear Mr. Geren;
Regarding power use in the Columbus area, you can contact me at the phone number or e-mail
address listed below to make an appointment to discuss power usage in the Columbus Area. In the
Columbus HS library there should also be a copy of Loup Power District’s 75 th Anniversary history
book which should also have a DVD that discusses power in the Columbus area. If you cannot find
this or would want a copy for your classroom please let me know.
In addition we do provide tours of the Columbus Hydro electric plant with an appointment. If you keep
in contact there may be a time when we have one of the penstocks empty this fall doing maintenance
that would allow the students to see the turbine (water wheel) and possibly go inside the 20 foot
diameter penstock.
Ron Ziola
Loup River PPD
Ph: 402-564-3171, x-254
rziola@loup.com

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)
For consideration in the relicensing of Loup River Hydroelectric Project #1256, as
prepared by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Ice Jam Flooding resulting from the operation of the Loup River Public Power
District project
The Loup River Public Power District (LRPPD) project (the Project) is located in the Lower
Platte River basin in eastern Nebraska. Water is diverted from the Loup River, routed through a
35-mile long manmade canal and discharged into the Platte River near the city of Columbus.
The portion of the Loup River from the diversion weir to the confluence with the Platte River is
termed the Loup River “bypass reach” by the LRPPD.
At the point of diversion, a low weir across the Loup River creates sufficient head to divert up to
3,500 cubic feet per second. The diverted water flows through adjustable gates and is routed
through the Loup Power Canal on which a settling basin, two power houses, and two regulating
reservoirs are located. As the water exits the latter power house, it is carried along a tailrace
and discharged into the Platte River. According to the LRPPD, an average of only 31 per cent
of the total Loup River flow is allowed to remain in the Loup River and in varying amounts; at
times the LRPPD project diverts the entire Loup River, leaving in the stream bed only the small
amount which leaks through their weir.
Winter Project operations include procedures to deal with cold temperatures and ice conditions.
When frazil ice (a slushy ice formed in turbulent supercooled water) occurs, the Project
procedures require closure of the intake gates, barring water from the Canal and diverting the
water into the “bypass reach” of the Loup River instead.
Ice jam flooding in the Lower Platte River basin, including the Loup River, has been a recurrent
problem at a number of sites. Severe flooding occurred within the basin in March 1993, notably
near the city of Columbus where the river threatened the levee on the north bank of the Loup
River. The event caused widespread damage including road closures and failures, damage to
bridge abutments and water supplies; flooding of residential, agricultural, industrial, and
commercial areas; and damage to levees, dikes, and other river training structures.
Following the 1993 flood event, a team was formed to review the event and suggest measures
which might be implemented to mitigate similar events in the future. A comprehensive
investigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was performed at the request of
NDNR. A Section 22 study report (1994 USACE Report) was issued, which noted the Project
operations and recommended a future study to evaluate the impact, if any, of the Project
operations on ice conditions downstream. The USACE Report acknowledged that little data
was then available on ice jams which occurred upstream from Columbus, so a comprehensive
ice data collection plan was designed by the USACE and implemented with an eye toward the
usage of the data in future studies so that ice jam occurrences could be detected and
forewarned, including the effect of the Project operations on discharge, ice formation and ice
transport in the Loup River below the diversion structure. The USACE 1994 Report suggested
that a quantitative analysis using more ice records could be conducted and that a qualitative
analysis could address such issues as the potential effects of fluctuating water levels on the
FERC Project No. 1256 1 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
formation of border ice, frazil ice transport, and the effects of sudden decreases in river flow on
ice movement. The USACE 1994 Report suggested that changes in the sediment regime of the
river resulting from LRPPD Project operations may have impacted ice formation and transport
processes. The USACE 1994 Report also addressed implementation of a number of mitigation
options including permanent, advance and emergency.
IN 2009 NDNR engaged the Omaha office of the USACE to develop methodologies to study the
impact of Project operations on ice jam flooding. After reviewing the version of the Revised
Study Plan 12.0 submitted by LRPPD, NDNR believes that that study plan will not answer
whether the Project operations impact ice jam flooding. Therefore NDNR incorporated the 2009
Corps proposal into this Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2) and hereby submits Revised Study
Plan 12.0 (version 2) for review and requests issuance of a Study Plan Determination adopting
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2).
1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:
The goals of the study of ice jam flooding are to determine the impact of Project operations on
ice jam flooding and develop methods to prevent and mitigate any ice jam flooding impacts of
Project operations.
The objectives of the study of ice jam flooding are as follows:
a. Evaluate the impact of Project operations on hydrology, sediment transport, and
channel hydraulics in the Lower Platte River basin.
b. Evaluate the combined impact of Project operations on hydrology, sediment
transport, and channel hydraulics on ice processes in the Lower Platte River basin
c. Develop an ice jam and/or breakup predictive model.
d. Identify structural and nonstructural methods for the prevention and mitigation of ice
jams, should it be demonstrated that Project operations materially impact ice jam
formation of the Loup and Platte Rivers.
2. STUDY AREA
The geographic scope of the proposed study is the lower Platte River basin, between Fullerton,
NE and the confluence of the Loup and Platte Rivers, including the LRPPD canal, continuing
down to the confluence of the Platte and Missouri Rivers.
3. RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS OR PUBLIC INTEREST
CONSIDERATIONS
The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) is the official state agency for all
matters pertaining to floodplain management, the home of the Nebraska Ice Report data base
and all known flood data within the state, and has jurisdiction over all matter pertaining to
surface water rights. Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 61-206 (Reissue 2003) and 31-1017
(Reissue 2008) (Attachment A).
The public interest consideration of Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2) as submitted by NDNR
is to prevent or mitigate destruction to roads, structures, residences, commerce and loss of life.
4. EXISTING INFORMATION
The methodologies and data sources for studying whether the operation of the LRPPD project
contributes to ice jam flooding are detailed in the document entitled “Methodology to Assess Ice-
Affected Impacts Due to Loup Power District Operations, Loup and Platte Rivers, Fullerton, NE
FERC Project No. 1256 2 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
to Plattsmouth, NE” prepared by the Omaha office of the USACE and that is marked Attachment
B and made a part of this NDNR version two of the Revised Study Plan 12.0.
Data sources include the USACE 1994 Report, and notably its review of the history of ice jams
and flooding downstream of the Project; a comprehensive collection of flow, state, and
temperature information; and the completion of a predictive model to indicate when conditions
existed to support ice jam formation, and ice jam prevention and mitigation methods. As part of
the USACE Study, a comprehensive ice reporting program was implemented to collect detailed
information to allow for better future studies. This ice data is housed at NDNR and will be used
in this study. The USGS has records of hydrologic data. Details of the existing information and
data sources needed for this study are as follows:
a. Hydrology Study. Two models will be created for comparison to determine the Project
operations’ impacts to the Loup and Platte River hydrology. Several sources of data will be
required for the hydrology analysis including daily stream flow records at ten gage sites
within the study area. (See Attachment B, page two for a map and page three for a listing.)
Several other discontinued gages may also be required to either extend the period of record
at a nearby gage or used as a check on computed flows at various critical locations with the
models to be created. Gage heights will also be required to properly calibrate the unsteady
routing model to historic flows at each of the gage locations. Because the period of record
of gage heights is likely to be much shorter than for the stream flow records, channel crosssection
geometry will be required throughout all of the stream reaches with the unsteady
routing model to be created. Some geometry is available from an hydraulic model created in
the USACE Study, but some new cross-section geometry will need to be collected to ensure
model stability and robustness. Overbank channel geometry can be collected from digital
terrain models through the use of a GIS preprocessor, such as HEC-GeoRAS. The channel
and overbank geometries can be marched with the HES-RAS. Field data will be required to
verify various parameters, such as channel and overbank roughness, for the unsteady flow
model
b. Sediment Transport study. To assess sediment transport in the Loup and Platte
Rivers, data sources required include the aforementioned data and models developed for
the study of the hydrology of the basin. The gages used in the study of the hydrology will
also be utilized to collect bed load and suspended sediment load (and total sediment load, if
not available separately), as available. Bed material gradation data, as available from
USGS, will also be utilized. Additional field collection of bed material data may also be
required if lacking in various reaches. Suspended load gradations, as available from the
USGS, will also be utilized.
c. Ice Formation study. Flow data developed from the Hydrology section above will be
used. All available data will be collected from meteorologic reporting stations within and
near the study area from the National Climatic Data Center for those stations with records
deemed to be complete or near-compete concurrent with the period of record modeled in
the Hydrology section above. All field observation from the Nebraska Ice Report database
within the study reach will be collected. All pertinent information from the Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory (such as at CRREL) Ice Jam Data base for the study
reach will all be collected.
FERC Project No. 1256 3 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
d. Ice Transport During Freezeup and Breakup study. In addition to the flow and
geometry data and ice information developed in the Hydrology, Sediment Transport and Ice
Formation studies above, detailed channel bathymetry in the locations of interest for
DynaRICE modeling will be collected to create an appropriate 2-D model geometry.
Engineers with DynaRice modeling experience (such as at CRREL) will be needed to model
the various reaches.
e. Ice-Affected Hydraulics study. Data developed as part of all studies referred to above
will be needed for the Ice-Affected Hydraulics analysis. Additionally, high water marks
during ice jam events will be obtained from the USACE and other agencies’ records to use
for ice jam model calibration. Additional high water marks, such as tree scars, will be
collected in the field throughout the study reach near known ice jam locations for additional
model calibration of ice jams.
f. Ice Jam/Breakup Predictive Model. Data collected in all studies shown above will be
utilized to develop the predictive mode. No other data is likely needed.
g. Identification of Methods for Prevention and Mitigation of Ice Jams. If it is
demonstrated with the above studies that operation of the Project increases flood risk in any
part of the study reach, it would be prudent to investigate all viable operational measures as
well as structural and nonstructural measures that can be taken to prevent and mitigate the
flood risk.
5. NEXUS BETWEEN PROJECT OPERATIONS AND EFFECTS FOR THE RESOURCE TO
BE STUDIED
a. Direct effects: The winter operations of the LRPPD Project may directly affect ice jam
flooding through the changes in diversion of the Loup River at the time of frazil ice
formation, a study of which was suggested in the USACE Report.
b. Indirect and cumulative effects: The operations of the Project may impact the
hydrology, hydraulics and sediment transport of the Loup and Platte Rivers. The
combination of these impacts may also impact ice processes on the Loup and Platte rivers,
including, but not limited to, the production and formation of an ice cover and the
subsequent breakup of the ice cover. The operations may change the river contours, cause
channel degradation, allow vegetative encroachment and otherwise impact the river’s ability
to carry the entire flow during those infrequent frazil ice event when diversion into the canal
is interrupted.
6. PROPOSED STUDY METHODOLOGY, LEVEL OF EFFORT, AND COST
a. Methodology and Level of Effort: The proposed study methodology and level of effort
is set forth in “Methodology to Assess Ice-Affected Impacts Due to Loup Power District
Operations, Loup and Platte rivers, Fullerton, NE to Plattsmouth, NE” which is Attachment B
of this version of the Revised Study Plan. The methodology includes the development of a
number of models. The scope of the study set forth in Attachment B, was determined by the
Omaha office of the USACE without limitation or designation of geographic area, input or
methodology by the requester, NDNR. The specificity of NDNR’s request was to develop
methodology to study the impact of Project operations on ice jam flooding.
FERC Project No. 1256 4 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
b. Level of Cost: The expected level of cost to perform the study of the effects of the
operation of the LRPPD project on ice jam flooding, as outlined in this plan, is $200,000.
7. NDNR Response to the Revised Study Plan 12.0 submitted by the Loup River Public
Power District
NDNR worked with LRPPD toward the development of a study plan which would determine
whether the operation of the Project contributes to ice jam flooding. Because of the failure of
the parties to design a satisfactory study, the NDNR engaged the USACE to develop
methodologies to study the issue. Specifically, the NDNR requested development of study
methodologies from the Omaha office of the USACE because of their expertise relating to the
lower Platte River Basin and their personal involvement in the 1994 Corps study.
NDNR put no geographic, data, or methodology restraints on the request, believing that the
expertise of the USACE should be used to determine the scope of the study, rather than rely on
the lack of ice jam expertise held by NDNR and the LRPPD. It is NDNR’s technical opinion that
LRPPD’s arbitrary limitation of the study area to the power canal (where no flooding has been
noted) and the short section of the lower Platte River basin between the LRPPD diversion and
tail race would result in little useful information. The goal of this study is to understand the
LRPPD project’s operational effects in the context of the river system. Those effects cannot be
identified by simply studying a small reach of the river. Though this relatively small area might
“be more readily analyzed because it experiences the maximum incremental effects of Project
operations” and “is subjected to only a limited number of non-Project ice jam influences, such as
from tributaries, confluences, bridges, levees, and shore protection measures”, as proffered by
the LRPPD, NDNR has full confidence in the ability of the USACE to study the area they have
designated in their methodology, taking into consideration all possible influences.
The LRPPD’s argument that hydrologic and sediment transport analyses not be included in the
study of ice jam flooding because similar analyses are proposed in other studies is flawed in
that those analyses are not tailored for ice jam flooding and there is no vehicle by which the
analyses could be incorporated into this study, regardless of their questionable value if they
were incorporated here. The LRPPD’s reasoning that analysis of impacts as far back as Project
construction in the 1930s should not be considered is also flawed; an analysis of the present
impact of the operation cannot be complete without an analysis of the basin without the Project
and through the life of the Project.
It is NDNR’s technical opinion that conducting the study as contained in Revised Study Plan
12.0 as submitted by the LRPPD would result in a very limited and ineffective qualitative
assessment only, ignoring the vast amount of data and methodologies available to determine
the important question of whether the operation of the Project impacts ice jam flooding and
endangers life and property.
NDNR disagrees with the LRPPD’s opinion that their Revised Study Plan 12.0 is technically
similar to that devised by the Omaha office of the USACE in 2009 for the reasons enumerated
above.
LRPPD maintains in the Revised Study Plan 12.0 they submitted that it is not their responsibility
to refine or develop a model to predict ice events in the river basin of their Project. If it is
demonstrated that the operation of the LRPPD project contributes to ice jam flooding, LRPPD
should possess and use the tools necessary to mitigate the consequences of the project.
FERC Project No. 1256 5 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
In conclusion, the NDNR argues that the study submitted by LRPPD should not be adopted for
the following reasons;
• The scope and methodologies were developed by non-experts.
• The scope is flawed because it is too narrow.
• The proposed subset of methodologies is too narrow.
• There is no demonstration of the appropriateness of those sediment transport studies
that may be included other study plans.
• There is no proposed mechanism by which those studies can be incorporated in an
appropriate manner.
• Limiting the geographic area to the canal and bypass is inappropriate.
• There is no provision for prediction, prevention or mitigation of any ice jam flooding.
• Therefore the question raised by NDNR is not addressed.
The NDNR proposes adoption of the attached version of the study for the following reasons:
• NDNR does not have ice jam flooding expertise; however NDNR engaged the
assistance of ice jam flooding experts
• Ice jam flooding experts determined the scope of the study
• Ice jam flooding experts determined the methodology of the study
• The ice jam flooding experts engaged by NDNR to design the study have studied ice jam
flooding in the lower Platte River basin.
• The NDNR proposal evaluates the question within an appropriate geographic area
• The NDNR proposal evaluates project operations in the context of hydrology, sediment
transport and channel morphology.
• The NDNR proposal provides a predictive model and methods for mitigation and
prevention of ice jam flooding.
• Only the NDNR proposal addresses the question raised, “Whether the operation of the
Loup River Public Power District project impacts ice jam flooding.”
NDNR hereby submits Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2) for review and requests issuance of
a Study Plan Determination adopting Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2).
FERC Project No. 1256 6 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Comments on Revised Study Plan 12.0/
Revised Study Plan 12.0 (version 2)

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
ATTACHMENT A
Nebraska Revised Statute 61-206
Department of Natural Resources; jurisdiction; rules; hearings; orders; powers and duties.
(1) The Department of Natural Resources is given jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to
water rights for irrigation, power, or other useful purposes except as such jurisdiction is
specifically limited by statute. Such department shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations
governing matters coming before it. It may refuse to allow any water to be used by claimants
until their rights have been determined and made of record. It may request information relative to
irrigation and water power works from any county, irrigation, or power officers and from any
other persons. It may have hearings on complaints, petitions, or applications in connection with
any of such matters. Such hearings shall be had at the time and place designated by the
department. The department shall have power to certify official acts, compel attendance of
witnesses, take testimony by deposition as in suits at law, and examine books, papers,
documents, and records of any county, party, or parties interested in any of the matters
mentioned in this section or have such examinations made by its qualified representative and
shall make and preserve a true and complete transcript of its proceedings and hearings. If a final
decision is made without a hearing, a hearing shall be held at the request of any party to the
proceeding if the request is made within thirty days after the decision is rendered. If a hearing is
held at the request of one or more parties, the department may require each such requesting party
and each person who requests to be made a party to such hearing to pay the proportional share of
the cost of such transcript. Upon any hearing, the department shall receive any evidence relevant
to the matter under investigation and the burden of proof shall be upon the person making the
complaint, petition, and application. After such hearing and investigation, the department shall
render a decision in the premises in writing and shall issue such order or orders duly certified as
it may deem necessary.
(2) The department shall serve as the official agency of the state in connection with water
resources development, soil and water conservation, flood prevention, watershed protection, and
flood control.
(3) The department shall:
(a) Offer assistance as appropriate to the supervisors or directors of any subdivision of
government with responsibilities in the area of natural resources conservation, development, and
use in the carrying out of any of their powers and programs;
(b) Keep the supervisors or directors of each such subdivision informed of the activities and
experience of all other such subdivisions and facilitate cooperation and an interchange of advice
and experience between such subdivisions;
(c) Coordinate the programs of such subdivisions so far as this may be done by advice and
consultation;
FERC Project No. 1256 1 of 3 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
(d) Secure the cooperation and assistance of the United States, any of its agencies, and agencies
of this state in the work of such subdivisions;
(e) Disseminate information throughout the state concerning the activities and programs of such
subdivisions;
(f) Plan, develop, and promote the implementation of a comprehensive program of resource
development, conservation, and utilization for the soil and water resources of this state in
cooperation with other local, state, and federal agencies and organizations;
(g) When necessary for the proper administration of the functions of the department, rent or lease
space outside the State Capitol; and
(h) Assist such local governmental organizations as villages, cities, counties, and natural
resources districts in securing, planning, and developing information on flood plains to be used
in developing regulations and ordinances on proper use of these flood plains.
Nebraska Revised Statute 31-1017
Department; flood plain management; powers and duties.
The department shall be the official state agency for all matters pertaining to flood plain
management. In carrying out that function, the department shall have the power and authority to:
(1) Coordinate flood plain management activities of local, state, and federal agencies;
(2) Receive federal funds intended to accomplish flood plain management objectives;
(3) Prepare and distribute information and conduct educational activities which will aid the
public and local units of government in complying with the purposes of sections 31-1001 to 31-
1023;
(4) Provide local governments having jurisdiction over flood-prone lands with technical data and
maps adequate to develop or support reasonable flood plain management regulation;
(5) Adopt and promulgate rules and regulations establishing minimum standards for local flood
plain management regulation. In addition to the public notice requirement in the Administrative
Procedure Act, the department shall, at least twenty days in advance, notify by mail the clerks of
all cities, villages, and counties which might be affected of any hearing to consider the adoption,
amendment, or repeal of such minimum standards. Such minimum standards shall be designed to
protect human life, health, and property and to preserve the capacity of the flood plain to
discharge the waters of the base flood and shall take into consideration (a) the danger to life and
property by water which may be backed up or diverted by proposed obstructions and land uses,
FERC Project No. 1256 2 of 3 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
(b) the danger that proposed obstructions or land uses will be swept downstream to the injury of
others, (c) the availability of alternate locations for proposed obstructions and land uses, (d) the
opportunities for construction or alteration of proposed obstructions in such a manner as to lessen
the danger, (e) the permanence of proposed obstructions or land uses, (f) the anticipated
development in the foreseeable future of areas which may be affected by proposed obstructions
or land uses, (g) hardship factors which may result from approval or denial of proposed
obstructions or land uses, and (h) such other factors as are in harmony with the purposes of
sections 31-1001 to 31-1023. Such minimum standards may, when required by law, distinguish
between farm and nonfarm activities and shall provide for anticipated developments and
gradations in flood hazards. If deemed necessary by the department to adequately accomplish the
purposes of such sections, such standards may be more restrictive than those contained in the
national flood insurance program standards, except that the department shall not adopt standards
which conflict with those of the national flood insurance program in such a way that compliance
with both sets of standards is not possible;
(6) Provide local governments and other state and local agencies with technical assistance,
engineering assistance, model ordinances, assistance in evaluating permit applications and
possible violations of flood plain management regulations, assistance in personnel training, and
assistance in monitoring administration and enforcement activities;
(7) Serve as a repository for all known flood data within the state;
(8) Assist federal, state, or local agencies in the planning and implementation of flood plain
management activities, such as flood warning systems, land acquisition programs, and relocation
programs;
(9) Enter upon any lands and waters in the state for the purpose of making any investigation or
survey or as otherwise necessary to carry out the purposes of such sections. Such right of entry
shall extend to all employees, surveyors, or other agents of the department in the official
performance of their duties, and such persons shall not be liable to prosecution for trespass when
performing their official duties;
(10) Enter into contracts or other arrangements with any state or federal agency or person as
defined in section 49-801 as necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 31-1001 to 31-1023;
and
(11) Adopt and enforce such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the duties and
responsibilities of such sections.
FERC Project No. 1256 3 of 3 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
ATTACHMENT B
Methodology to Assess Ice-Affected Impacts Due to Loup Power District Operations
Loup and Platte Rivers
Fullerton, NE to Plattsmouth, NE
The operation of the Project may impact the hydrology, hydraulics and sediment
transport of the lower Loup and Platte Rivers. The combination of these impacts may
also impact ice processes on the Loup and Platte Rivers, including, but not limited to, the
production and formation of an ice cover and the subsequent breakup of the ice cover.
The purpose of these proposed studies would be to evaluate the impact of Project
operation on hydrology, sediment transport, and channel hydraulics, and the combined
impact on ice processes. The study would also propose to develop an ice jam and/or
breakup predictive model, as well as identify structural and nonstructural methods for the
prevention and mitigation of ice jams, should it be demonstrated that operation of the
Project materially impacts ice jam formation on the Loup and Platte Rivers. The study
area would include the Loup River from just above the power canal headworks on the
Loup River to the mouth of the Loup River, the Platte River from just upstream of the
Loup-Platte confluence to the mouth of the Platte River and the Loup Power Canal from
the headworks to the tailrace confluence with the Platte River below the Loup-Platte
confluence. Several of the studies listed below require specialized experience and/or
knowledge of the river systems and ice processes in question.
Hydrology. Historic flows within the study area will be needed to derive what flows
would be in the study area if there were no diversions to the power canal. The with and
without power canal diversions daily flow sets will be analyzed to determine the
differences in flow regime at select locations within the study area. The differences will
allow for determining the impacts on the power canal diversion on sediment transport and
ice processes throughout the study reach.
Methodology. An unsteady hydraulic routing model (e.g. HEC-RAS) will be
developed to determine daily mean flows at various points within the Loup and Platte
Rivers. Historic observed flows from several U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) stream
gaging sites (shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 below) will be obtained from the USGS
database. All gages except the Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, Loup River near
Genoa, Platte River at North Bend, and Platte River at Louisville will be used as flow
sources for the unsteady hydraulic routing model. The Loup River Power Canal near
Genoa will be used to replicate the flow diversions from the Loup River to the power
canal and routed downstream to the tailrace location below the Loup-Platte confluence.
The Loup River near Genoa, Platte River at North Bend, and Platte River at Louisville
gages will be used to compute ungaged local inflows based on historic flows. Once the
historic ungaged local inflows are computed, the historic diversions to the canal will be
routed through the Loup River as if the power canal did not exist to produce a daily flow
record for that scenario. Results from the two models will then be compared to determine
the impacts to the Loup and Platte River hydrology. Statistical analysis of annual and
seasonal peak flows at various locations will be computed for both scenarios; volume-
FERC Project No. 125 1 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
duration analysis will also be computed for annual and seasonal flows. Statistical
analysis of flow durations for annual, seasonal and monthly flows will also be computed
for both scenarios. The flow frequencies and volume-duration analysis will be needed to
construct balanced hydrographs for the Ice-Affected Hydraulic analysis, and the flow
durations will be needed for ice analysis. The daily flow records for both scenarios will
be needed for the Sediment Transport analysis.
Figure 1. USGS Stream Gage Sites in Study Area.
Data Sources. Several sources of data will be required for the analysis. Daily
stream flow records at several gage sites will be required, as shown in Table 1 below.
Several other discontinued gages may also be required to either extend the period of
record at a nearby gage or used as a check on computed flows at various critical locations
within the model (e.g. Loup River at Columbus gage or Platte River at Ashland gage).
Gage heights will also be required to properly calibrate the unsteady routing model to
historic flows at each of the gage locations, but the period of record of gage heights is
likely to be much shorter than for the stream flow records. Channel cross-section
geometry will be required throughout all of the stream reaches within the unsteady
routing model. Some geometry will be available from existing hydraulic models, but
some new cross-section geometry will need to be collected to ensure model stability and
robustness. Overbank channel geometry can be collected from digital terrain models
through use of a GIS preprocessor, such as HEC-GeoRAS. The channel and overbank
geometries can be merged within HEC-RAS. Field data will be required to verify various
parameters, such as channel and overbank roughness, for the unsteady flow model.
FERC Project No. 125 2 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
Table 1. List of USGS Stream Gage Locations within Study Area
Site Name USGS Gage Number Period of Record
Platte River near Duncan, NE 06774000 5/3/1895 – Present
South Loup River at Saint Michael, NE 06784000 10/1/1943 – Present
Middle Loup River at Saint Paul, NE 06785000 9/1/1928 – Present
North Loup River near Saint Paul, NE 06790500 9/1/1928 – Present
Loup River Power Canal near Genoa, NE 06792500 1/1/1937 – Present
Loup River near Genoa, NE 06793000 4/1/1929 – Present
Beaver Creek at Genoa, NE 06794000 10/1/1940 – Present
Platte River at North Bend, NE 06796000 4/1/1949 – Present
Elkhorn River at Waterloo, NE 06800500 4/28/1899 – Present
Platte River at Louisville, NE 06805500 6/1/1953 - Present
Sediment Transport (Loup and Platte Rivers). Sediment transport will be assessed by
use of a sediment transport model in HEC-RAS. With and without power canal diversion
flow sets will be used to asses the differences in sediment transport capacity and to
determine the potential changes in channel geometry for both scenarios. The differing
channel geometries will be further used to assess the differences in hydraulic conveyance
under ice conditions.
Methodology. A sediment transport model will used in HEC-RAS using the
channel geometries utilized for the unsteady flow routing model in the Hydrology section
above. Prior to use for sediment transport, the model will be properly calibrated for open
water conditions as specified in the Ice-Affected Hydraulics section below. Historic
sediment load data from the USGS and other sources will be used as model inputs, as
well as historic records of sediment removed from the power canal settling basin.
Historic conditions will be simulated to verify the relative stability of the current channel
geometries throughout the study reach. Once the sediment transport model is deemed
sufficiently calibrated to existing conditions, the model will be modified to preclude
power canal diversions and reintroducing the sediment removed in the settling basin to
the channel at point of diversion. Changes in ultimate channel geometry will then be
assessed. No changes in channel planform will be considered, however. The existing
geometry and the without diversion geometry will then be used to assess the differences
in ice-affected hydraulics.
Data Sources. Data sources required include the data and models developed in
the Hydrology section above, as well as sediment data. The USGS gages shown in Table
1 above will be utilized to collect bed load and suspended sediment load (and total
sediment load, if not available separately), as available. Bed material gradation data, as
available from the USGS and other sources, will also be collected. Additional field
collection of bed material data may be required if information is lacking in various
reaches. Suspended load gradations, as available from the USGS, will also be utilized.
FERC Project No. 125 3 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
Ice Formation (Loup and Platte Rivers). The mechanics of ice formation on the study
area rivers will be examined. Hydrometeorlogic data will be utilized to determine ice
production, in conjunction with field observations from the Nebraska Ice Reports (NIR)
database. The total volume of ice produced within the study reach will be estimated for
the with and without power canal diversion flow and channel regimes for use in the Ice-
Affected Hydraulics computations.
Methodology. Hydrometeorologic data, such as air temperature and precipitation,
will be collected from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) at various stations
within and near the study area. Statistical analysis will be performed to determine the
correlation between formation of frazil ice and hydrometeorologic conditions and
discharge, and correlated with actual field observations as noted in the NIR database and
power canal shutdowns during periods of frazil production. The total volume of frazil ice
produced can be estimated through a deterministic mathematical model. Ice cover
thickness growth will be estimated through use of the modified Stefan equation and
corroborated against field measurements of average ice thickness. The values for ice
production and thickness will be used as part of the Ice-Affected Hydraulics
computations. If a difference in ice production can be attributed to differences in
discharge, those differences will be utilized in assessing the Ice-Affected Hydraulics for
the with and without diversion conditions (flow and geometry) as appropriate.
Data Sources. Flow data developed from the Hydrology section above will be
needed. All available data will be collected from meteorologic reporting stations within
and near the study area from the NCDC for those stations with records deemed to be
complete or near-complete concurrent with the period of record modeled in the
Hydrology section above. All field observations from the Nebraska Ice Report database
within the study reach will be collected. All pertinent information from the Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Ice Jam Database (IJDB) for the study
reach will also be collected.
Ice Transport During Freezeup and Breakup. The transport of ice floes is beyond the
capability of a one-dimensional model such as HEC-RAS. However, a two-dimensional
model such as the DynaRICE ice-hydraulic numerical model has been successfully used
to model ice transport through various channels and hydraulic structures as well as ice
jam initiation. Modeling of select reaches of interest may demonstrate differences in the
formation of ice under with and without power canal conditions.
Methodology. A DynaRICE hydraulic model will be constructed in several areas
of interest, such as downstream of the power canal headworks on the Loup River, the
Loup River at Columbus, the Platte River downstream of the Loup Power Canal tailrace,
and the Platte River at North Bend. The Columbus and North Bend sites would be
modeled due to historic ice jam occurrences (both freezeup and breakup), while the Loup
River downstream of the headworks would be modeled as it would presumably have the
greatest difference in flow and geometry regimes. The reach downstream of the tailrace
would be modeled to determine if the elevated water temperatures and hydrocycling from
the power canal increase areas of open-water downstream, which in turn may lead to
FERC Project No. 125 4 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
greater formation of frazil ice. If differences in ice cover formation and/or jam formation
can be demonstrated with the DynaRICE model, those differences will be utilized in the
Ice-Affected Hydraulics analysis as appropriate. An algorithm would need to be
developed to convert existing channel bathymetry based on differences in channel
geometry developed in the Sediment Transport study above.
Data Sources. The flow and geometry data and ice information developed in the
Hydrology, Sediment Transport and Ice Formation studies above would be needed.
Detailed channel bathymetry in the locations of interest for DynaRICE modeling would
need to be collected to enable creation of an appropriate 2-D model geometry. Engineers
with DynaRICE modeling experience (such as at CRREL) would be needed to model the
various reaches.
Ice-Affected Hydraulics. Differences in flow and channel regimes between the with and
without flow diversions may lead to differences in water surface profiles in the study
reach. If the flow and channel regime differences lead to differences in ice cover and ice
jam formation, these may lead to additional differences in water surface profiles. These
differences may lead to an increase (or decrease) in flood risk to floodplain infrastructure.
Methodology. The unsteady routing model developed as part of the Hydrology
study would be utilized for computing the ice-affected hydraulics of the study area. The
first step would be to develop an open-water model, however, as a stable, robust
hydraulic model would be needed for both the Hydrology and Sediment Transport
studies. The model geometry predicted from the without diversion Sediment Transport
study would also need to be modeled under open-water conditions to verify model
robustness. Once the with and without diversion geometries are suitable for modeling,
various steady flows would be modeled with a solid ice cover, using ice thicknesses
developed in the Ice Formation study as appropriate. Ice jams would be modeled for
freezeup and breakup conditions for the existing conditions geometry, utilizing HEC-
RAS’s capability to predict ice jam formation location, coupled with knowledge of
historic jam locations and results from the Ice Transport During Freezeup and Breakup
analysis above, to verify model accuracy for jam formation computations. HEC-RAS
would then be used to predict where ice jams form in the without flow diversion model,
utilizing ice jam parameters similar to the with flow diversion (i.e. existing) conditions
model, unless the Ice Formation and Ice Transport During Freezeup and Breakup
demonstrate that different parameters should be utilized. Differences in water surface
profiles for similar conditions (e.g. use the 2-, 5-, and 10-year flows for with and without
diversions, which may be different at certain locations) would then be computed to
determine if power canal operations increase or decrease flood risk to overbank
infrastructure.
Data Sources. Data developed as part of all studies shown above would be
needed for the Ice-Affected Hydraulics analysis. Additionally, high water marks during
ice jam events would be obtained from USACE and other agencies’ records to use for ice
jam model calibration. Additional high water marks, such as tree scars, would be
FERC Project No. 125 5 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
collected in the field throughout the study reach near known ice jam locations for
additional model calibration of ice jams.
Ice Jam/Breakup Predictive Model. Empirical models have been previously developed
by CRREL and USACE-Omaha for the Platte River at North Bend to predict the
formation of ice jams and the date of ice breakup based upon climatic and hydrologic
parameters for input. Similar model development could be used to predict formation of
ice jams and/or breakup of ice on the Loup River.
Methodology. Climatic and hydrologic data collected as part of other studies
listed above would be obtained. The NIR and CRREL IJDB would also be used to
retrieve information on dates of jam formation. Multi-regression equations would be
used to correlate various climatic and hydrologic data with known ice jams to develop a
hindcast model that could be used for future predictive purposes. If ice jam development
can be linked to geometry differences, the model could be used to synthesize a record of
potential ice jam occurrences under the without diversion condition.
Data Sources. Data collected in all studies shown above will be utilized to
develop the predictive model. No other data is likely needed.
Identification of Methods for Prevention and Mitigation of Ice Jams. If it is
demonstrated that operation of the Loup Power Canal increases flood risk in any part of
the study reach, it would be prudent to identify those structural and nonstructural means
that may prevent and/or mitigate the impacts of ice jams. Structural means may include
structural alterations to the canal headworks to reduce ice volume or construction of a
flood control project. Nonstructural means may include alteration of canal operations or
relocation of at-risk structures. These options are merely examples, and do not constitute
the full range of possible prevention/mitigation options.
Methodology. Based upon the results of the above studies, all viable structural
and nonstructural measures for prevention and/or mitigation of ice jams would be
investigated. Development of a list of measures to be considered may be garnered
through public and power district input and an elicitation of experts in ice jams and flood
risk reduction and mitigation. A screening process would be enacted to carry forward
those measures deemed most feasible by a panel consisting of individuals representing
the power district, and local and state governments. Each measure carried forward would
be evaluated as to its technical merit and cost, among other parameters. A scoring matrix
could then be created to weigh each alternative as to how well it meets various criteria,
and the top scoring alternatives determined for further consideration and/or
implementation.
FERC Project No. 125 6 of 6 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

20090807-5090 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/7/2009 4:17:10 PM
Document Content(s)
Brians letter.PDF.....................................................1-2
Revised_Study_Plan_by_DNR07312009.DOC.................................3-8
Statutes.DOC..........................................................9-11
Loup Power Ice Effects Scope.DOC......................................12-17

August 17, 2009
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Dear Secretary Bose,
Via Electronic Filing
On August 7, 2009, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) submitted a letter
requesting that the Commission reject Loup Power District’s Revised Study Plan for Study 12.0,
Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River. The District to provides the following clarifications
regarding Study 12.0 that address NDNR’s expressed concerns:
• NDNR has expressed concern regarding the geographic area proposed for study in the
District’s Revised Study Plan. As stated on page 12-7 of Study 12.0, the District’s
proposed study area includes the Loup River bypass reach and the Loup Power Canal.
The study area proposed by the District focuses on the exact area of concern identified in
NDNR’s February 9 and August 7, 2009, letters. NDNR states that one of the areas most
affected by the March 1993 flooding caused by ice jams and rapid snowmelt was along
the Loup River at Columbus, NE, downstream of the Project. As such, the District
maintains that the proposed study area defined in Study 12.0 is appropriate.
Additionally, on page 12-7 of Study 12.0, the District’s Revised Study Plan clearly states
that if a definitive incremental relationship is discovered in the Loup River bypass reach
(which would include the 2-mile bypassed reach of the Platte River, as noted above), that
an expanded study area may be appropriate.
• NDNR also expressed concern that the District’s Revised Study Plan includes only a
qualitative analysis and would limit or preclude a quantitative analysis as requested by
NDNR. As agreed to at the May 27-28, 2009, Study Plan Meeting, the District’s Revised
Study Plan includes performing a quantitative analysis if available data can support such

an analysis. As noted on page 12-9 of Study 12.0, the District has proposed a two-phase
approach:
o Phase 1 – Evaluation of available data by the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and a qualitative analysis of relationships
between Project operations and ice jam flooding; and
o Phase 2 – A quantitative ice jam flooding analysis (to be performed if the
available data evaluated in Phase 1 is sufficient for such an analysis)
The District’s Revised Study Plan specifically includes a quantitative analysis to be
performed by CRREL based on CRREL’s assessment of the available data.
• The District maintains that it cannot be expected to agree to a quantitative study which
may not be possible to conduct because of insufficient data. Regardless of NDNR’s
desire for a detailed quantitative analysis, it may need to accept the previous CRREL and
Corps conclusion that such an analysis cannot be performed if the available data will not
support it.
Additionally, the District would like to note that although the possibility of a meeting to discuss
the Revised Study Plan was mentioned by NDNR on July 7, 2009, there was not sufficient time
to arrange such a meeting prior to submittal of the Revised Study Plan.
The District respectfully submits the above information for consideration by the Commission in
developing the Study Plan Determination for relicensing Project No. 1256.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District

August 17, 2009
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Dear Secretary Bose,
Via Electronic Filing
On August 10, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) submitted a letter
commenting on the Loup Power District’s Revised Study Plan (RSP) for the relicensing action.
The District provides the following clarifications for the Commission’s consideration:
• Numerous additions suggested by USFWS were submitted in previous letters dated
February 9, 2009, and June 24, 2009. The District maintains that the RSP adequately
responded to those comments; consequently, further response is not needed here.
• USFWS recommended in General Comment 1 that FERC place constraints on the
District regarding the development of conclusions after collecting and analyzing data.
The reasoning for its recommendation is that these conclusions would somehow
undermine FERC’s ability to exercise its independent judgment. USFWS also implied
that these conclusions would conflict with USFWS’s authority under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The District strongly objects to USFWS’s recommendation.
First, it is inconceivable that anything the District includes in its application could in any
way restrict FERC’s ability to exert independent judgment over the application. It is also
inconceivable that any conclusions the District would make concerning impacts on
threatened or endangered species would somehow usurp USFWS’s authority.
Second, the District maintains that the entire relicensing process would benefit from the
data analysis that the District would conduct in the development of any conclusions
relating to project impacts. The District is expending considerable effort and resources to

Page 2
gather this data and will be extremely familiar with its use and limitations. Allowing the
District to use this knowledge to analyze and develop conclusions concerning project
impacts would seem to be of benefit to both FERC and USFWS by providing them the
benefit of additional information for consideration in the agencies’ respective decisions.
Third, the District maintains that USFWS’s recommendation is inconsistent with
established FERC licensing procedures. Because USFWS has participated in previous
relicensing efforts and is therefore familiar with FERC’s relicensing procedures, the
District is concerned that USFWS would make a recommendation that is inconsistent
with these procedures and attempt to restrict the District’s application.
• In its General Comment 2, USFWS reiterated the request made in its June 24, 2009,
comment letter on the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) to have FERC use the hydrology
developed as part of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) and
developed by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) for its 2009
annual appropriation report. The District wants to ensure that FERC understands that use
of this information is inconsistent with the ESA and may be inconsistent with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
First, USFWS wants to use a baseline that reflects a projection of future conditions. This
is inconsistent with USFWS’s cumulative effects procedures, which require that future
conditions be based on specific actions that have completed Section 7 consultation. In its
August 10, 2009, letter, USFWS points out that the PRRIP has completed Section 7
consultation.
While this is true, the District’s understanding of the PRRIP is that it is a program that
has specific objectives and 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet of water to use to help achieve
these objectives. How that water is managed is at the discretion of the PRRIP and the
Environmental Account Manager, who is an employee of USFWS. Because of this
discretion, the District does not believe that the PRRIP has detailed hydrology for the
District to use in its analysis of cumulative effects. However, the District recognizes that
analysis was done for the PRRIP Section 7 consultation based on assumptions of how
water would be managed; if USFWS persists in its request, the District requests that
FERC have USFWS provide the detailed hydrology and what assumptions are made
about that data that would allow the District to incorporate it into its analysis.
Furthermore, based on USFWS’s reference to “USDOI 2006,” the District maintains that
including the PRRIP would have essentially no effect on the analysis of the relicensing.
In reference to the Lower Platte River, the USDOI 2006 reference states on page 5-148
that “The Governance Committee Alternative does not provide significant benefits to the
pallid sturgeon; that is, it does not create conditions significantly different from the
Present Condition.” In addition, it is the District’s understanding that USFWS was a part
of the team who did the hydrologic analysis and came to the conclusion on page 5-149 of
the same report that states, “The effects may or may not be detectible, given the very
small magnitude of the changes.”

Second, USFWS’s recommendation to use the baseline from the NDNR study is
inconsistent with the ESA and could be inconsistent with NEPA. It is inconsistent with
the ESA because the report has not gone through Section 7 consultation and, therefore,
cannot be included as a reasonably foreseeable future action. Also, the baseline in this
report is a future projection of depletions based on past trends. The District maintains
that this is inconsistent with USFWS’s ESA procedures, which use an existing baseline.
Page 3
Third, the use of the hydrology in the NDNR report could be inconsistent with NEPA.
The use of the hydrology as a baseline is inconsistent with NEPA, which has as a
standard the use of existing conditions for a baseline. The District has not conducted an
analysis of the projections within the NDNR report to determine if they are based on
actions that meet the NEPA standard for a reasonably foreseeable future action. If they
do and they have sufficient detailed hydrology that their inclusion is compatible with the
District’s proposed analysis, then these actions will be included in the cumulative effects
analysis. If they do not meet this standard or do not have sufficient detail to be included
in the analysis, then these future actions from the NDNR report will not be included in
the cumulative effects analysis.
• The District also has concerns related to the attachment to the USFWS’s August 10,
2009, letter, “a critical review of the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), Nebraska Water Science Center (NEWSC).” First, the District notes
that this comment document compiled by USGS on the PSP was submitted by USFWS
far out of time with respect to the PSP comment period, which ended on June 25, 2009,
per ILP regulations.
Second, the District further notes that this document clearly addresses only the nowsuperseded
PSP and not the RSP, which was distributed on July 27, 2009, in accordance
with ILP regulations. As a result of diligent consultation efforts by the District, there are
numerous and substantive differences between the PSP and the RSP. These range from
completely revised study objectives and major changes in study approaches to subtle
changes of task or report wording. Because the USGS review is based on a superseded
document, addressing its comments would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
Third, because the USGS review document was submitted entirely out of time with
respect to the PSP, and because it clearly does not address the RSP submitted on
July 27, 2009, the District respectfully requests that the USGS review document either be
disallowed from these proceedings in its entirety or given minimal consideration by
FERC. Many of the items addressed in the USGS review have already been changed or
elaborated on in the RSP, so the review is irrelevant in many regards, and it is not the
burden of the District or FERC to sort out the relevance of comments that were submitted
after the closing date.

Page 4
• Finally, the District wishes to clarify information cited on page 5 of the USFWS letter
regarding Parsons’ 2003 studies. The referenced paragraph does not appear in the
Task A3 report as suggested. The list of references cited at the end of the letter includes
Parsons’ Task B1 report, but the paragraph is not contained in that source either. The
context of the paragraph, which appears in another Parsons’ report, is clearly about
contraction scour, which is always temporary in live-bed transport streams. The mention
of antecedent flows is a reference to flows that are sufficiently high to contact the bridge
abutments and cause contraction scour, and that any such effects would be short-lived
because the bed material being transported by the river would quickly fill the temporarily
scoured zones.
The District respectfully submits the above information for consideration by the Commission in
developing the Study Plan Determination for relicensing Project No. 1256.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District

'Dave Heineman
Governor
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
September 1, 2009
RE: Relicensing of Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Project)
PERC project number 1256
Final Study Plan Determination, Study Plan Number 12
Dear Secretary Bose:
STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Brian P. Dunnigan, P .E.
Director
The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources wishes to thank you for your thorough analysis
of the Revised Study Plan Number 12. We accept the final study determination with one
exception: it appears a scrivenor's error occurred in the second paragraph of the Conclusions
section of Final Study Plan Number 12.
Paragraph two of the Conclusions section of Study Plan Number 12 suggests that the Project's
effects on stream morphology and hydrology should be studied on a portion of the Platte River
basin which includes the Loup River bypass, continuing downstream to a point not influenced by
the Elkhorn River. To accomplish this, the Department suggests it was the intent of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to modify the methodology developed by the Corps of
Engineers so as to study a foreshortened portion of the Platte River: from Fullerton to the USGS
North Bend gaging station. Sentence four of paragraph two of Study Plan Number 12 is contrary
to this presumed geographic area. The sentence presently reads that the study would " ... include
the Loup River from Fremont, Nebraska to the Platte River at the USGS North Bend gaging
station." Fremont is not located on the Loup River; Fremont is located north of the Platte River,
downstream of North Bend. North Bend is located approximately 65.4 river miles downstream
of the Project's diversion of the Loup River. A reach from a point near Fremont to the USGS
North Bend gaging station would include no portion of the Loup River and, therefore, no portion
of the diversion of the Loup, the "bypass" portion of the Loup, or the confluence of the Project
tail race with the Platte River. To accomplish the presumed goals set forth by the Commission,
the Department proposes that the second paragraph of the Conclusions section of Study Plan
Number 12 state as follows:
IN REPLY TO:
admin-directorsJDunnigan/2009
301 Centennial Mali South. 4th Roor • roo Box 94676 • Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4676 • Phone (402) 471-2363 • Tele!ax (402) 471-2900
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
@ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper'

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
August 26, 2009
Project No. 1256-029─Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Reference: Study Plan Determination for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Suess:
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.13(c) of the Commission’s regulations, this letter includes
my study plan determination for the Loup River Public Power District’s (Loup Power
District or District) Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Project). This determination is
based on the staff’s review of the revised study plan, comments on the proposed and
revised study plan, and other elements of the record.
While many issues associated with your proposed and revised study plans have
been resolved, some unresolved issues remain. This letter includes modifications to your
revised study plan necessary to resolve the outstanding issues, which are discussed in
Appendix A.
Background
On March 27, 2009, the District filed its proposed study plan that included 12
study plans on fish, water quality, cultural, recreation, land use, terrestrial, and
developmental resources.
On April 21, 2009, May 5, 2009, May 11, 2009, and May 27 & 28, 2009, the
District held study plan meetings with the relicensing participants, some of which
included Commission staff, to discuss its proposed study plans. The District filed a
revised study plan on July 27, 2009, which included:

P-1256-029 - 2 -
Leaving three study plans unchanged: Fish Passage, Land Use Inventory, and
Section 106 Compliance.
Modifying six study plans: Sedimentation, Hydrocycling, Water Temperature for
the Loup River Bypassed Reach, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion, Recreation
Use, and Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River.
Deleting two study plans: Water Temperature in the Platte River and Fish
Inventory.
Comments on the revised study plan were filed by the Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources (Nebraska DNR) on August 7, 2009, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) on August 11, 2009. The District filed responses to the Nebraska DNR
and FWS letters on August 18, 2009.
Study Plan Determination
Commission staff reviewed the District’s revised study plan, comments on the
plan, and other elements of the record. Based on that review, I am: (1) approving the
Fish Passage, Land Use Inventory, and Section 106 Compliance study plans as filed; (2)
approving the Sedimentation, Hydrocycling, Water Temperature for the Loup River
Bypassed Reach, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion, Recreation Use, and Ice Jam
Flooding on the Loup River study plans with further modifications; and (3) approving the
removal of the Water Temperature in the Platte River and the Fish Inventory study plans.
I am not requiring the District to conduct sediment sampling for polychlorinated
biphenyls in the Loup Power Canal as requested by the FWS. My reasons for modifying
the District’s revised study plan are explained in detail in Appendix A.
If you have any questions, please contact Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or email
at kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
Enclosures: Appendix A – Study Request Issues
cc: Mailing List
Public File
Sincerely,
Jeff C. Wright
Director
Office of Energy Projects

P-1256-029 - 3 -
APPENDIX A
STUDY REQUEST ISSUES
The following discusses staff’s findings on the revised study plan proposed by the
District and comments on those plans based on criteria outlined in the Commission’s
regulations [18 CFR sections 5.9(b)(1)-(7)]. Except as explained below, we concur with
the District’s conclusions and bases for its proposed study plans and conclude that the
revised study plan, as modified below, adequately addresses all study needs at this time.
This includes the deletion of the Water Temperature in the Platte River (Study 3.0) and
the Fish Inventory (Study 6) study plans; no comments opposing their removal were
filed.
Approved Study Plans As Filed in the Revised Study Plan
Study No. 7 – Fish Passage
Study No. 10 – Land Use Inventory
Study No. 11 – Section 106 Compliance
Approved Study Plans with Modifications
General Comments Applicable to Various Studies
Determination of effects on federally listed species
In the Sedimentation Study (task 5), the District proposes that if it were to
determine that the project does not affect stream morphology in the Loup River bypassed
reach and the lower Platte River, or that the system is in dynamic equilibrium, it will be
inferred that the project does not affect interior least tern and piping plover nesting
habitat parameters related to sediment transport and stream morphology and that no
further analysis is warranted. Similar determinations of effect are implied in the Flow
Depletion and Flow Diversion Study (task 2, 4, and 6). The FWS asserts that such
determinations may limit the Commission’s sole discretion regarding a determination of
project effects on listed species. FWS recommends that this and other study plan
deliverables be limited to study methods, results, and raw data.
While the District is free to interpret the study results, nothing in the study plan
should be construed to limit the Commission’s ability to draw its own conclusions as to
adverse effects on listed species or to request additional studies or modifications to
studies as provided by our regulations.
Future projections of the lower Platte River hydrology

P-1256-029 - 4 -
In its comments on both the proposed study plan and revised study plan, FWS
recommended that the District create future, projected hydrographs for use in comparing
the benefits and costs among various, unspecified project operational alternatives. The
projected hydrographs would be based on future water depletions to the lower Platte
River “as demonstrated by Nebraska DNR (2009) and U.S. Department of Interior
[Interior] (2006).”
Nebraska DNR (2009) predicts that the cumulative effects on all present and
predicted well development in the basin over the next 25 years will result in a depletion
of flow on the lower Platte River at North Bend of about 255 cfs, which equates to a total
annual volume reduction of about 184,000 acre-feet. The current mean annual flow at the
site based on the U.S. Geological Survey’s [USGS] 2008 Water-Date Report is 4,506 cfs.
The projected reduction in flow over the next 25 years would reduce this mean annual
flow by 255 cfs or less than 6 percent.
Whether this reduction will actually occur is debatable. Nebraska DNR (2009)
bases this projection, in part, on speculations of future well development and a current
well appropriations “lag effect” defined as the “delayed effect that the consumptive use
of water associated with well pumping will have on hydrologically connected streamflow
and the associated impact on surface water appropriations.” The prediction also assumes
that precipitation and irrigation patterns will remain constant. Therefore, the result is a
very precise estimate (i.e., 255 cfs, not 250 cfs, or 300 cfs) but with a reasonably high
degree of uncertainty associated with its underlying assumptions.
Using a hydrograph that may or may not exist 25 years into the future would not
be adequate for assessing project effects in the early years of a license when the flows can
be predicted with the most certainty.
With regard to Interior (2006), FWS does not provide a methodology or explain
what specific information in the report would be used to predict future water depletions in
the lower Platte River. We note that Interior (2006) analyzes various flow management
alternatives well upstream of the project area in the Central Platte River subbasin for the
purpose of benefitting federally listed species; however, Interior (2006) at 3-15 concludes
that the various flow management alternatives that were analyzed “would result in only
small changes to these flow parameters in the Lower Platte River and, therefore, provide
marginal benefits to the pallid sturgeon.” It’s not clear to us how this information would
be translated into a projected hydrograph for the lower Platte River.
Our practice, which is widely accepted and utilized, is to use the current
hydrologic record as an approximation of future hydrology. This approach, like that used
by Nebraska DNR (2009), has many of the very same limitations in that the predicted
hydrology may be affected by changes in land use practices, water uses, precipitation
patterns, and other similar factors that affect flows decades in the future. However, the

P-1256-029 - 5 -
advantage of our approach is that we can more accurately predict project effects on river
hydrology early on when the flows can be predicted with the most certainty.
For the above reasons we will not require the District to synthesize a future
hydrograph based on Interior (2006) and Nebraska DNR (2009), and use that record to
assess project operational alternatives as recommended by FWS.
Study No. 1 – Sedimentation
In its revised study plan, the District proposes to conduct a sedimentation study
with the following objectives: (1) characterize sediment transport in the Loup River
bypassed reach and lower Platte River (i.e., Platte River extending from the Loup River
confluence downstream to the Missouri River); (2) characterize stream morphology in the
Loup River bypassed reach and in the lower Platte River through a data and literature
review; (3) determine if a relationship can be detected between sediment transport and
interior least term and piping plover nest counts and fledge success; and (4) determine if
sediment transport limits pallid sturgeon habitat in the lower Platte River downstream of
the Elkhorn River confluence.
Objective 1 – Characterizing sediment transport
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would conduct two “tasks” called Task 2 and
Task 3. Under Task 2, the District would update a sediment budget and sediment yield
analysis completed by the Missouri River Basin Commission (MRBC) in September
1975 using information generated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the Platte River
at Duncan (upstream of the Loup River confluence) and the District’s dredge records for
the project’s settling basin. Under Task 3, the District would calculate effective
discharge (i.e., the flow or range of flows that transport(s) the most sediment) and total
sediment transported at a total of nine USGS gage sites on the Loup River, Platte River,
and project’s power and tailrace canals and one additional non-USGS gage site on the
Loup River upstream of the project’s diversion dam. 1
In calculating effective discharge and total sediment transported at the USGS gage
sites, the District would utilize historic USGS gage discharge and river cross-sectional
rating curves along with existing sediment information sources. For the one site on the
Loup River upstream of the project’s diversion dam, the District would synthesize a
discharge record for the site presumably utilizing recorded hydrologic data from one or
more of the other sites and correcting for the drainage area of the Loup River at the site
transport.
1 Effective discharge and total sediment transported are indicators of sediment

P-1256-029 - 6 -
upstream of the diversion. The District does not state how it would obtain the
geomorphic indices (e.g., channel width, velocity, slope, gradation, etc.) for its
calculation of total sediment transported at the upstream site but presumably would
obtain them through a combination of field measurements and existing information
sources. Effective discharge and total sediment transported would be determined for
each study site for existing and alternative project operations using wet and drought year
flows.
In its revised study plan, the District notes that there has been limited
sedimentation and geomorphology study on the lower Platte and Loup Rivers, inferring
that their proposed study is needed to better understand project effects on sedimentation
and geomorphology in the project area.
Study Issues
In its July 1, 2009, filing commenting on the proposed study plan, the FWS
requested that, as part of the Task 2 sediment budget and sediment yield analysis, the
District should directly measure the sediment supply contributions to the lower Platte
River from the project’s tailrace channel and calibrate sediment supply estimates for the
Loup River based on actual sediment dredged from the canal and from the Loup River
immediately downstream of certain tributary confluences. The District responded in the
revised study plan that direct measurements of sediment supplies requires extensive
sampling both spatially and temporally in order to draw meaningful conclusions and that
the existing sediment estimates in the literature are sufficient to meet the study objective.
In its comments on the revised study plan, the FWS responded that the District should
instead adjust sediment yield estimates for tributaries to the Loup River downstream of
the diversion based on reductions in sediment documented in the project’s settling basin. 2
The FWS notes that the reductions in the Loup River subbasin sediment yield as reflected
in the dredge records is likely system-wide.
Conclusions
The FWS’s supposition that a system-wide reduction in sediment yield as
evidenced by the reduction in material dredged since 1975 is reasonable. Therefore, as
part of Task 2, the District shall adjust the sediment yield calculated for the Loup River
and its tributaries downstream of the project’s diversion dam as well as the project’s
2 In the PAD at 5-24, the District notes that its dredge records show that through
1975, average annual material dredged was 2.2 million tons. Since then, the average has
decreased to 1.2 million tons per year.

P-1256-029 - 7 -
tailrace 3 based on documented reductions in dredged material from the project’s settling
basin. This modification would require very little additional effort on the part of the
District while improving the quality of the data.
Objective 2 – Characterizing stream morphology
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would complete Tasks 2 and 3 as described
above for Objective 1. The District would also conduct an additional analysis (Task 4) in
which they would review measured and reported USGS stream morphology data,
presumably for the nine USGS gage sites identified above, and calculate the effective
discharges associated with each site’s stream morphology. The District would evaluate
the effective discharges for various time periods, and analyze the information for
substantive changes or trends over time. Based on this temporal review, the District
would make a determination for each site as to whether the Loup and lower Platte River’s
morphology is in dynamic equilibrium or transitioning to other forms (i.e., states of
aggradation or degradation). USGS morphology information would be reviewed to
confirm the finding.
Study Issues
In its July 1, 2009, filing commenting on the proposed study plan, the FWS stated
that in its view, the USGS’ cross-sectional data that would be used for Tasks 3 and 4
would not adequately represent the geomorphic indices of the Loup and Platte Rivers,
because the USGS gages are located near bridge crossings which are relatively narrow
and constricted as compared to the prevailing river morphology which is wide and
unrestricted. The FWS also added that the nearest proposed study site on the lower Platte
River (i.e., USGS gage site at North Bend) is too far downstream (about 30 miles) to
capture project effects on stream morphology closer to the tailrace canal. The FWS,
therefore, recommended that the District obtain additional cross-sectional information
and calculate effective discharges and total sediment transported for the following sites: 4
(1) Loup River upstream of the project’s diversion; (2) Loup River immediately
downstream of the project diversion; (3) lower Platte River between the Loup River and
the project tailrace canal confluences; (4) lower Platte River immediately downstream of
the tailrace canal to river mile 96 (a distance of about 5 miles); and (5) lower Platte River
3 The Missouri River Basin Commission’s 1975 sediment budget shows that the
cumulative sediment yield from the Loup River and its tributaries downstream of the
project’s diversion to be 1,860,300 tons per year and from the project’s tailrace to be
350,000 tons per year.
4 The FWS did not specify the specific number of cross-sections to study at any of
the sites.

P-1256-029 - 8 -
near the USGS gage site at North Bend. The FWS added that comparisons in the
geomorphic indices should be made between and among the sites.
In its revised study plan, the District responded that a characterization of stream
morphology cannot be done with one or several cross-sections measured over a 1- to 2year
period but that multiple cross-sections at the same location taken over many years,
like at the USGS gage sites, are needed in order to provide meaningful stream
morphology information. The District added that the existing cross-sections for the
USGS gage sites have been used multiple times by other unspecified entities for
establishing aggradation/degradation trends in the lower Platte River upstream of the
Elkhorn River confluence, and therefore, considers the USGS gage sites to be suitable for
characterization stream morphology.
In its comments on the revised study plan, FWS reiterated its former concerns and
added that field measurements of cross-sections of the aforementioned sites should be
done in place of using cross-sectional rating curve data recorded at the USGS gage sites.
The FWS also noted that the USGS cross-sectional data were only taken at points along
the cross-sections that were inundated at the time of the measurements, and therefore, did
not account for the geomorphic characteristics of above-water channel components (i.e.,
sand bars) important to federally listed interior least terns and plovers.
Conclusions
As noted above, Objective 2 is simply to characterize stream morphology in the
Loup River bypassed reach and in the lower Platte River through a determination on
whether the rivers at multiple locations are in a braided condition at dynamic equilibrium
or are in varying states of transition to aggrading or degrading, non-braided channel
forms. As to the FWS’ issue that the USGS cross-sectional data were only taken at
points that were inundated, we don’t see how this is relevant to the characterization of
stream morphology in the manner proposed by the District, which relies on a review of
hydraulic data and calculations.
As to the issue of the use of USGS gage sites at or near bridges, in an evaluation
of the effects of bridges on water depths, velocities, and fish habitats for median- and
low-flow conditions, Ginting and Zelt (2008) concluded that cross-sectional
measurements made near bridges can be used as a “primary data set in hydraulic-habitat
study, before embarking on a more spatially intensive but costly program of streamflowdepth
and –velocity data collection.” Our interpretation of the Ginting and Zelt (2008)
report, including a review of the aerial photographs of the near-bridge and adjacent
beyond-bridge sites provided in the report, is that near-bridge sites provide a reasonable
representation of beyond-bridge sites for purposes of evaluating the potential effects of
environmental stressors (like project operations or bridge piers) on flow and geomorphic
conditions. We, therefore, see no reason to adopt FWS’ recommendation for the District

P-1256-029 - 9 -
to dispense with the proposed USGS gage sites in favor of beyond-bridge sites where the
District would have to synthesize a flow record and obtain on-site field measurements of
geomorphic indices.
In regard to FWS’ recommendation that the District survey a point on the Loup
River upstream of the project’s diversion dam as part of the Objective 2 methodology, we
note that the District already proposes to do this, and therefore, no action is required on
our part (see revised study plan at 1-18).
In regard to the FWS’ recommendation that the District survey a point on the Loup
River downstream of the diversion dam and the lower Platte River downstream of the
project at North Bend in lieu of using information from the USGS gages in these reaches,
as noted above, we see no reason to dismiss historic data obtained at the USGS gages in
favor of nearby sites where the District would have to synthesize flow information and
survey geomorphic conditions.
In regard to the FWS’ issue that the North Bend gage site located about 30 miles
downstream of the project would not reliably represent the lower Platte River
immediately downstream of the project’s tailrace for purposes of assessing potential
project effects, we agree. Annual sediment yield from the project’s tailrace is about 10
percent of that which enters the canal from the Loup River; 5 therefore, flow in the tailrace
is relatively depleted of sediment. The sediment-depleted tailrace flow (i.e., the relatively
clear flow) has the capacity to mobilize sediment in the lower Platte River, with the most
pronounced effect likely occurring immediately downstream of the tailrace canal
confluence and a reduction in effect as the flow and its increasing sediment load
progresses downstream toward North Bend. This effect could result in the river
morphology in proximity to the tailrace being much different from that further
downstream at North Bend. We, therefore, find that there is a need to survey at least one
cross-section on the lower Platte River within the first 5 miles downstream of the project
tailrace canal confluence so that we can adequately assess the effects of project
operations, in terms of sediment removal, on the lower Platte River where any effects
would likely be most pronounced.
Similarly, we agree with the FWS that a cross-section is needed for the lower
Platte River between the Loup River and tailrace canal confluences (a distance of about 2
miles). This reach is part of the project’s bypassed reach. Flow and sediment transport to
this reach comes from both the Platte and Loup Rivers upstream; therefore, neither the
5 From figure 5-13 of the PAD, 1.9 million tons per year are removed from the
settling basin and 0.70 million tons per year continues down the Loup Canal for a total
sediment yield of 2.6 million tons per year from the Loup River. This compares to an
annual sediment yield from the tailrace canal of 0.35 million tons per year.

P-1256-029 - 10 -
Loup nor upstream Platte River USGS gage sites would reasonably represent channel
morphology in the Platte River portion of the bypassed reach.
We are unmoved by the District’s argument that meaningful information could not
be obtained through an analysis of cross-sectional surveys taken on the lower Platte River
upstream and downstream of the tailrace canal confluence. Although we agree with the
District that channel morphologic characteristics based on comparisons of effective
discharges between time periods (i.e., a temporal analysis) can not effectively be done for
these additional sites, a spatial analysis at a single point in time can be performed for
these and all of the other sites to determine if project operations, relative to sediment
removal, affects channel morphology and to what extent based on proximity to the
project’s diversion and to the project’s tailrace canal. We see no reason why such an
analysis could not be done meaningfully given that a very similar spatial analysis of
cross-sectional data taken at a single point in time at both USGS and non-USGS sites was
successfully done by Ginting and Zelt (2008) for representative low flow and median
flow conditions. The Ginting and Zelt (2008) study was conducted, in part, to document
the effects of a potential stressor (i.e., presence of bridge piers) at successively greater
distances away from its source.
Ginting and Zelt (2008) were able to survey bed elevations, water-surface
elevations, and streamflow velocities at five cross-sections on the lower Platte River near
North Bend over a 3-day period, or an average of about two cross-sections per day.
Therefore, the District should be able to survey the additional cross-sections on the lower
Platte River at about the same rate, which we find to be a small amount of additional
effort relative to the proposed scope of the study.
For the above reasons, we conclude that in addition to synthesizing a flow record
and surveying cross-sections on the Loup River upstream of the diversion dam, the
District shall also synthesize a flow record for and survey at least one cross-section in the
lower Platte River between the Loup River and tailrace canal confluences and at least one
for the lower Platte River within 5 miles downstream of the tailrace canal. Because this
analysis will be used to assess any project-induced sedimentation effects on interior least
tern and piping plover nesting and pallid sturgeon habitat, the District shall, to the extent
possible, survey the cross-sections in the late spring to early summer period (i.e., mid-
May to mid-June) to coincide with the beginning of the interior least tern and piping
plover nesting period. This time period would also coincide with the presumed pallid
sturgeon spawning period (NGPC 2008a).
At all sites (USGS gage and non-USGS gage sites), the District shall compare the
capacity of the flows for total bed material transport to the sediment budget updated
under Task 2 and make a determination as to whether the rivers at the sites are currently
in dynamic equilibrium (i.e., the capacity for total bed material transport is equal or about
equal to the sediment yield estimate for the site), degrading state (i.e., the capacity for

P-1256-029 - 11 -
total bed material transport exceeds the site’s sediment yield estimate), or aggraded state
(i.e., the sediment yield estimate exceeds capacity for total bed material transport).
Using the findings on the current state of river morphology at each site, the
District shall make longitudinal (spatial) comparisons of all sites on the Loup and lower
Platte Rivers starting at the most upstream site on each river, and progressing
downstream. In performing this spatial analysis, the District shall ensure that it uses
cross-sectional geomorphic data from the USGS gage sites that are reasonably
comparable to the cross-sectional geomorphic data taken at the non-USGS sites (i.e., the
data taken at both USGS gage and non-USGS gage sites shall be obtained as close in time
as possible).
We note on page 1-22 of the revised study plan, the District proposes that the
analyses in Tasks 3 and 4 will be performed for alternative conditions if it is determined
that either the Loup or Platte Rivers are not in dynamic equilibrium, and the results will
be compared to the results from the current condition analyses. The District shall
perform the same alternatives analyses for the current condition spatial determination
required above with the modification that the determination as to river state shall be done
for each river reach (as represented by each study site) rather than for the rivers as a
whole.
Objective 3 – Determining relationship between sediment transport and interior
least Tern and piping plover nest counts and fledge success
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would conduct a Task 5 in which they would
review the results of Tasks 3 and 4 to determine whether the project is affecting the
morphology in the lower Platte River. If the analysis shows that the project is affecting
the morphology of the lower Platte River, then the District would determine the
magnitude of the effect using the information acquired under Task 4. In addition, the
District would plot available interior least tern and piping plover annual nesting count
and productivity data versus effective discharge and versus total sediment transported for
both wet and dry cycles. The District would conduct a regression analysis of the plotted
parameters and examine the plots for trends to detect if a relationship can be established
between the sediment transport indicators (i.e., effective discharge and total sediment
transported) and bird nesting or productivity.
Study Issues
No one commented on the Objective 3 methodology as presented in the revised
study plan.

P-1256-029 - 12 -
Conclusions
We have modified Task 4 under Objective 2 to require that the District survey at
least two additional cross-sections on the lower Platte River and include these additional
sites as part of a spatial analysis of project effects on channel morphology. Accordingly,
Task 5 is modified such that in the review of the results of Tasks 3 and 4 in determining
whether the project is affecting morphology in the lower Platte River and whether
additional analysis on interior least tern and piping plover should be performed, the
District shall include the additional cross-sections and associated longitudinal analysis.
Objective 4 – Determining if sediment transport limits pallid sturgeon habitat
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would conduct a Task 6 in which they would
review the results of Tasks 3 and 4 to determine whether the project is affecting the
morphology in the lower Platte River downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence. If
the analysis shows that the project is affecting the morphology of the lower Platte River
downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence, then the District would determine the
magnitude of the effect using the information acquired under Task 4. Additionally, the
existing state of the Platte River below the Elkhorn River in terms of sediment transport
and braided river morphology would be qualitatively compared to pallid sturgeon habitat
characteristics of other rivers as cited in the literature to determine if changes in project
operations relative to sediment transport could affect sturgeon use of the lower Platte
River. If the differentiating factor is braided river morphology (i.e., if a qualitative
review of the literature shows that sturgeon use requires a braided river morphology and
the lower Platte River is shown to be transitioning away from that morphology), then the
District would analyze alternative project operations to determine whether the project
could restore a braided river morphology to the lower Platte River.
Study Issues
In it comments on the proposed study plan, FWS suggested eliminating this
objective, because in its view, the District would have difficulty segregating project
sediment supply effects from other factors. In it response, the District declined to
eliminate the objective from its sediment study plan, because in its view, the objective is
a viable means of qualitatively assessing the potential for the project to affect pallid
sturgeon habitat. The District adds that this qualitative comparison would only take place
if it were shown the project is affecting stream channel morphology of the lower Platte
River downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence. In its comments on the revised study
plan, FWS did not specifically respond to the District.

P-1256-029 - 13 -
Conclusions
We agree with the District that the study has value in that it would help us to
determine whether project operations related to sediment removal (and any associated
effects on site morphology such as a degraded condition) would be adversely affecting
pallid sturgeon use of the study reaches within the lower Platte River.
We note that pallid sturgeon habitat occurs on the lower Platte River upstream of
the Elkhorn River confluence to as far as Columbus, NE, and historically, pallid sturgeon
likely used this habitat (NGPC 2008a). Therefore, the District shall expand the
geographic scope of Objective 4, including the study methodology, to include all required
USGS gage and non-USGS gage study sites on the lower Platte River upstream of the
Elkhorn River confluence with the exception of the USGS gage site at Duncan, NE
(upstream of Columbus).
As noted above under Objective 3 – Conclusions, we have modified Task 4 under
Objective 2 to require that the District survey at least two additional cross-sections on the
lower Platte River and include these additional sites as part of a spatial analysis of project
effects on channel morphology. Accordingly, Task 6 is modified such that in the review
of the results of Tasks 3 and 4 in determining whether the project is affecting morphology
in the lower Platte River and whether additional analysis on sturgeon should be
performed, the District shall include the additional cross-sections and associated
longitudinal analysis.
Study No. 2 – Hydrocycling
In the revised study plan, the District proposes to evaluate the effects of
hydrocycling on interior least terns, piping plovers, and pallid sturgeon by : (1)
comparing sub-daily hydrocycling operation values (maximum and minimum flow and
stage) to daily values (mean flow and stage), over periods of weeks, months, and specific
seasons of interest to protected species; (2) determining potential for nest inundation due
to hydrocycling and from any alternative conditions; (3) assessing effects on sediment
transport parameters (primarily through Study 1); and (4) identifying material differences
in potential effects on habitat of the interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon.
Methodology
Under objective 4, the District would conduct a literature review of
hydrocycling/pulsing effects on interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon
habitat, such as backwaters and side channels, on other river systems and compare the
conditions on those systems with that on the lower Platte River as influenced by project
operations to determine if project operations contribute to habitat conditions outside the
spectrum of habitat used by these species on the other river systems. The comparative

P-1256-029 - 14 -
analysis would identify whether there are differences or similarities between project
operations and hydrocycling/pulsing operations on these other rivers to see if habitat
characteristics or species usage that result from their respective operations are similar or
different and if so, why. If differences are noted that would adversely affect interior least
tern and piping plover habitat on the lower Platte river below the project tailrace and on
the pallid sturgeon on the lower Platte River below Elkhorn, the District would determine
whether these limitations are the result of project hydrocycling or other factors. If they
are the result of hydrocycling the District would examine alternative conditions to
determine if any of these limitations could be reduced.
Study Issues
In its comments on the revised study plan, the FWS recommends that the literature
review be supplemented by including the following study sites on the lower Platte River
under Objective 4: (1) the 2-mile reach between the Loup River and tailrace canal
confluences; (2) immediately downstream of the tailrace canal confluence; (3) near the
North Bend USGS gage; (4) near the Leshara USGS gage; and (5) near the Louisville
USGS gage. Collected data would include: (1) intra-day project hydrocycling effects on
fish habitat (in terms of preferred depths and velocities); (2) longitudinal effects of
hydrocycling to fish habitat from upstream to downstream; (3) intra-day project
hydrocycling effects on interior least tern and piping plover suitability criteria; and (4)
longitudinal effects of project hydrocycling on sandbar erosion as the hydrocycling
attenuates downstream. The FWS notes that the specific methods are referenced in their
comments on the proposed study plan. In the proposed study plan, the FWS states that
the methodology should be “similar to that of the Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program’s stage change study (HDR 2008).” Specific habitat parameters to be sampled
would include: (1) flow quantity; (2) depth; (3) velocity; (4) sandbar elevation; and (5)
bed forms.
Conclusions
We have reviewed the HDR (2008) study and note that the methodology to be
utilized involves one- and two-dimensional modeling of depths and velocities, and based
on this information, predictions of resulting “bedforms.” The modeled depths, velocities,
and bedforms would be used to identify and quantify habitat types, presumably at river
flows of interest.
A similar, albeit less intensive, flow versus habitat study for shortnose and pallid
sturgeon has already been conducted on the lower Platte River (Peters and Parham 2008).
In addition, the District notes that the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
(Program) is currently studying the effects of Platte River stage changes on pallid
sturgeon habitat downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence and that the Program
should complete the study by December 2009. The District proposes to use the results of

P-1256-029 - 15 -
the Program’s study to assist in their hydrocycling effects analysis. For these reasons, we
see no need to require the District to conduct additional field work in order to establish
flow versus pallid sturgeon habitat relationships for the lower Platte River either
upstream or downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence.
However, pallid sturgeon habitat occurs on the lower Platte River upstream of the
Elkhorn River confluence to as far as Columbus, NE, and that historically, pallid sturgeon
likely used this habitat (NGPC 2008a). Therefore, the District shall expand the
geographic scope of the hydrocycling study for pallid sturgeon, including the associated
study methodology, upstream to also include the reach bounded by the Elkhorn River and
tailrace canal confluences.
Any effects of hydrocycling on pallid sturgeon habitat would likely be most
pronounced immediately downstream of the tailrace canal confluence. As part of the
hydrocycling study, the District proposes to develop synthetic hydrographs under existing
and alternative operating conditions for the Platte River downstream of the tailrace canal.
The District is vague as to the specific locations of the downstream sites. To ensure that
hydrocycling effects on Platte River aquatic resources, including pallid sturgeon habitat,
are adequately addressed, the District shall include a point on the lower Platte River
within 5 miles downstream of the tailrace canal confluence in their preparation of
synthetic hydrographs.
The District also proposes to plot synthetic hydrographs for each study site for
periods of weeks, months, and specific seasons of interest to the federally listed species.
The District proposes to review the results of this analysis “in the context of the life
requisites of the pallid sturgeon and its use of the lower Platte River below the confluence
of the Elkhorn River.”
We have concerns with the scope of the analysis and with the District’s vagueness
in describing exactly what will be measured or compared in terms of project operational
effects on pallid sturgeon habitat or “life requisites. ” Therefore, as noted above, we’re
expanding the scope to include as part of the analysis, the lower Platte River reach
between the tailrace canal and Elkhorn River confluences. In addition, to ensure that we
have the information that we need to assess project hydrocycling effects on pallid
sturgeon habitat, the District shall, at a minimum, for one representative low, normal, and
high flow year, tabulate and plot: (1) the minimum daily percent suitable pallid sturgeon
habitat under existing operations; (2) the maximum daily percent suitable sturgeon
habitat under existing operations; and (3) mean daily percent suitable sturgeon habitat
that would be observed if the project would continuously pass inflows through the
project’s canal system with no storage in either of the project reservoirs (run-of-river
operations). In quantifying the percent suitable sturgeon habitat, the District shall use
the discharge versus percent suitable pallid sturgeon habitat relationship established and
presented in Chapter 10 of Peters and Parham (2008). This analysis should be done at the

P-1256-029 - 16 -
required site within 5 miles downstream of the tailrace confluence as well as the
downstream Platte River USGS gage sites identified in section 3.2 of Study 2.0 –
Hydrocycling.
With regard to the interior least tern and piping plover, the FWS recommends
supplementing the proposed literature review in objective 4 with additional data to assess
the longitudinal effects of hydrocycling on interior least tern and piping plover nesting
habitat suitability and sandbar erosion. The FWS recommends that the District quantify
habitat changes important to nesting interior least terns and piping plovers—area of bare
sand per unit area; size distribution of sandbars; and position of sandbars 6 (i.e., point bars
or mid-channel bars)—within the following river reaches with documented interior least
tern and piping plover nesting history: (a) the Platte River below the Loup River
confluence and above the project tailrace; (b) immediately downstream of the project
tailrace; (c) near the USGS North Bend, (d) near the USGS Leshara stream gage; and (e)
near the USGS Louisville stream gage. The FWS recommends that the District collect
the above information by obtaining stream cross-section data and analyzing the data with
methods similar to those described in HDR (2008). The District asserts that the methods
would show erosion rates downstream, but they would not assess effects of project
hydrocycling or alternative conditions on tern and piping plover sandbar habitat
characteristics because the methods could not distinguish between project effects and
natural erosive properties of this highly dynamic system.
We disagree with the District. In order to assess the effects of hydrocycling on
interior least tern and piping plover nesting habitats, we need a means to compare
differences in alternative operations. The District’s proposed literature review would not
provide an adequate means to achieve this objective. Modeling is the only means of
effectively measuring the effects of existing operations and any operational changes on
interior least tern and piping plover habitat, short of measuring differences in sandbar
habitat characteristics under different actual operational scenarios.
Therefore, the District shall conduct a modeling study of the effects of
hydrocycling on interior least tern and piping plover nesting habitat using the HEC-RAS
1D steady state back-water model and associated methodology for model calibration
specified in HDR (2008). The District shall select a representative study site, in
consultation with the FWS and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (Nebraska GPC),
in the following reaches: (a) in the Plate River below the Loup River confluence and
above the project tailrace, (b) within five miles downstream of the project tailrace, and (c)
6 The FWS also identified depth and velocity as important parameters of interior
least tern and piping plover nesting suitability. While depth and velocity influence sand
bar erosion, these parameters do not represent habitat characteristics used by or selected
by these species. We assume that the FWS was also considering habitat characteristics
important to pallid sturgeon.

P-1256-029 - 17 -
near the USGS North Bend gage station. The selected study site would preferably
include areas where interior least terns and piping plovers have historically nested. Data
collected shall include flow quantity, depth, velocity, sandbar elevation, and bed form
(HDR 2008). Cross-sectional measurements to calibrate the model should be done
immediately prior to the nesting season (first week in May) and again at the end of the
nesting period (first week in August). The length of each cross-sectional measurement
should be of sufficient length to capture the full range of flow (based on historical records
for the area) expected at the each study site. The District shall photo document the crosssections.
After calibration, the model shall be run to model existing operations and runof-river
operations and any other operational alternative identified by the District. Each
model run should be conducted for a normal, dry and wet year.
We are not requiring the additional sites recommended by the FWS at this time
because any project effects would be most pronounced near the project tailrace. In
addition, HDR (2008) is conducting similar efforts near Louisville which would help
capture any attenuating flow effects. If modeling indicates that project hydrocycling is
causing extreme effects further downstream than the North Bend gage site, then
additional sampling may be required in year 2.
We estimate that the additional effort would add $150,000 to the study’s cost, but
is necessary because the District’s proposed methods would not provide sufficient
information for the Commission’s environmental analysis or section 7 Endangered
Species Act consultation with the FWS.
Study No. 4 – Water Temperature Study for the Loup River Bypassed Reach
Methodology
The District proposes to coordinate with the USGS and install and operate water
temperature sensors and recording devices from May 1 through September 30, 2010, on
the Loup River bypassed reach at Genoa and the Loup River immediately upstream of the
project diversion. The water temperature data will be analyzed to assess whether and to
what extent diversion of water away from the bypassed reach causes any exceedance of
Nebraska’s 90-degree Fahrenheit water temperature standards.
In order to address some early stakeholder concerns about the effects of Beaver
Creek tributary inflow to the bypassed reach downstream of the water temperature
sensor, the District proposes to record water temperatures for about 7 to 10 days in the
bypassed reach downstream at Columbus, NE, to confirm the underlying study
assumption that the bypassed reach at Genoa would likely have the highest water
temperatures in the bypassed reach due to limited flows.

P-1256-029 - 18 -
Study Issues
In its comments on the proposed study plan, the FWS noted that the lower Platte
River downstream of the Loup River confluence to the tailrace canal is also part of the
project’s total bypassed reach, and therefore, flow diversions could potentially cause
violations of the water temperature standard in the lower Platte River reach as well. The
FWS, therefore, recommended that additional water temperature sensors be installed in
the Loup River downstream of the Beaver Creek confluence and the Platte River between
the Loup River confluence and the tailrace canal.
In the revised study plan, the District responded that they modified the study plan
to include water temperature monitoring for a 7- to 10-day period in the Loup River
downstream of the Beaver Creek confluence to test the underlying assumption of the
study that the bypassed reach upstream of Beaver Creek is likely to have the highest
water temperatures due to having the lowest flows (i.e., no increases in water temperature
would likely be observed downstream of the Beaver Creek confluence). The District also
noted that it was not adopting the recommendation to record water temperature in the
lower Platte River because:
“…if water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach is consistently below the state
standard, then temperatures above the state standard occurring in the Platte River would
likely be due to non-Project related effects from other inputs such as the Platte River
upstream of the confluence with the Loup River or the Columbus wastewater treatment
plant outfall.”
In its comments on the revised study plan, FWS notes that “the Loup River at
Columbus study site adequately serves to monitor water temperatures below the Beaver
Creek confluence.” Therefore, we see this particular issue has having been resolved.
However, the FWS also notes that they do not agree with the District’s reasoning for not
monitoring water temperature in the lower Platte River portion of the bypassed reach,
because the lower Platte River bypassed reach is a separate, distinct portion of bypassed
reach given that it is influenced by flows from the Platte River upstream of the Loup
River confluence.
Conclusions
Although we agree that other inputs could be the cause of any water temperature
standard exceedances in the lower Platte River bypassed reach, we can not rule out the
project’s cumulative contribution to any exceedances. Therefore, we can not agree with
the District’s unsupported assumption that the project bypassed reach near the diversion
dam is likely to have a higher water temperature than the lower Platte River bypassed
reach, similar to the assumption described above regarding the Loup River bypassed
reach downstream of the Beaver Creek confluence.

P-1256-029 - 19 -
For this reason, the District shall also monitor water temperatures in the lower
Platte River bypassed reach at Columbus over the same 7- to 10-day period proposed for
the Loup River bypassed reach at Columbus. Similar to the District’s proposal for the
Loup River bypassed reach at Columbus (revised study plan at 4-8), if the monitoring
shows that the lower Platte River water temperature at Columbus is substantially higher
than in the Loup River bypassed reach at Genoa, then the District shall conduct additional
water temperature monitoring in the lower Platte River bypassed reach for use in
developing relationships between flow diversions, Platte River bypassed reach water
temperatures, and ambient weather conditions at Columbus.
The results of water temperature monitoring in the Loup River bypassed reach and
Platte River bypassed reach at Columbus along with all analyses shall be presented in the
Initial Study Report.
Study No. 5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
The District proposes to conduct a flow depletion and flow diversion study that
has the following objectives: (1) determine the net consumptive losses associated with
project operations compared to alternative conditions; (2) using current and historic
USGS gage rating curves, evaluate stage changes in the Loup River bypassed reach
during project operations and compare against alternative hydrographs; (3) evaluate
historic flow trends on the Loup and Platte Rivers since project inception; (4) determine
the extent of interior least tern and piping plover nesting on the Loup River above and
below the diversion weir; (5) determine project effects, if any, of consumptive use on
fisheries and habitat on the lower Platte River downstream of the tailrace canal; and (6)
determine the relative significance of the Loup River bypassed reach to the overall
fishery habitat for the Loup River. The FWS commented on tasks associated with
Objectives 1 and 4.
Objective 1 – Determining net consumptive losses associated with project
operations
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would calculate monthly and seasonal net
consumptive use for the years 1980 through 2009 for the Loup power canal and the Loup
River bypassed reach for current project operations and for alternative conditions.
Consumptive use in the power canal and associated regulating reservoirs would be
calculated on a monthly and seasonal basis by adding evapotranspiration (ET) losses
from agricultural crop irrigation and evaporation losses from surface waters. Evaporative
losses would be based on total surface area exposed to the atmosphere and the
relationship of the lakes to pan evaporation data collected from the National Weather

P-1256-029 - 20 -
Service. Likewise, consumptive uses in the Loup River bypassed reach would be
calculated by adding ET losses and evaporation. ET losses would be based on the length
of riparian vegetation bordering the Loup River bypass. Evaporation would be estimated
by using the surface area and evaporation data from the National Weather Service. The
surface area of the bypassed reach would be calculated from the channel cross section top
width and distance between USGS gages. Net consumptive use would be estimated by
taking the differences between the consumptive use losses in the power canal and
regulating reservoirs and the consumptive use losses in the Loup River bypassed reach.
Study Issues
The FWS states that if the Commission considers irrigation diversions from the
power canal and diversions into the Lost Creek siphon as discretionary project actions
subject to review in the relicensing process, then net consumptive losses of these
diversions should be evaluated. The District asserts that irrigation diversions are water
rights issued by the Nebraska DNR outside of the project; therefore, they must be
maintained. The District also argues that consumptive use from irrigation diversions
would be present and identical regardless of modifications to project operations.
Therefore, consumptive use from irrigation diversions should not be required as part of
the review process. Likewise, diversions into the Lost Creek siphon are required to keep
the siphon open for local drainage and would be required under any project operating
scenario, and thus would not be discretionary and subject to license review.
Conclusions
We have determined that project retirement is not a reasonable alternative that
would be considered in our environmental analysis (see Scoping Document 2 issued
March 27, 2009), thus irrigation diversions from the project canal would continue as they
have historically. Nonetheless, understanding the various inputs and depletions to the
project system would improve our analysis of how changes in project operations may
influence irrigation withdrawals and maintenance of the Lost Creek siphon. Therefore,
the District shall provide an accounting of the 78 irrigation water withdrawal points along
the length of the power canal, their associated water rights, and mean annual withdrawal
(acre-feet) and monthly average withdrawal rate (cfs) based on the District’s files of
irrigator meter records and shall include these consumptive uses in calculating the net
consumptive use at the project. As to flows discharged to maintain the Lost Creek
siphon, the District shall provide an estimate of the timing and consumptive losses, if
any, associated with these events.

P-1256-029 - 21 -
Objective 4 – Determining the extent of interior least tern and piping plover
nesting on the Loup River above and below the diversion weir.
Methodology
Under this objective, the District would compare historical nesting occurrences
from above the diversion to nesting occurrences from below the diversion weir to the
Loup River confluence. If no significant difference in nesting occurrences exists, the
District would conclude that project operations are not affecting stage in the Loup River
bypassed reach. The conclusion would assume natural nesting conditions above and
below the diversion weir are similar. If significant differences in occurrence are found,
then the District would examine aerial images of the riparian corridor five to ten miles
upstream and downstream of the diversion weir to identify and compare interior least tern
and piping plover nesting parameters (number, position, and average size of bare sand
areas within the banks of the river; channel width; percent un-vegetated sandbars; percent
vegetated sandbars (isolated and non-isolated); and presence and/or type of vegetation).
The District would use the same methods used by Kirsch (1996) to characterize and
quantify interior least tern nesting habitat on the lower Platte River. The observed
conditions for each year for these nesting parameters would be compared to determine
what extent flow diversion and the presence of the weir may result in different river and
riparian vegetation conditions. Observed conditions would also be compared to nesting
requirements to determine if any changes in the riparian corridor may have had an effect
on the occurrence of the species. These habitat parameters would then be compared to
the habitat associated with the alternative conditions to determine if any of the alternative
conditions would result in improvements to the habitat parameters.
Study Issues
The FWS recommends that the District supplement its study by comparing interior
least tern and piping plover suitability nesting criteria and whooping crane roosting
criteria (area of bare sand per unit area, size distribution of sandbars, position of sandbars
[i.e., point bars or mid-channel bars], depth and velocity; wetted width; and unobstructed
width) across different stream flows. To accomplish this, the FWS recommends that the
District take cross-sectional measurements at study sites in the following reaches: a) the
Loup River upstream of the diversion weir; b) the Loup River downstream of the
diversion weir; and the c) the Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above
the project tailrace. The FWS supports the use of aerial photo interpretation to document
land cover changes over time to show long-term, large-scale changes in active channel
area, but asserts that the proposed methods would not allow the development of a direct
relationship between flow and nesting and roosting suitability criteria. The FWS
recommends that cross-sectional data be gathered when flows exceed the minimum
bypass flow of 50 to 75 cfs to test the effects of different project bypass alternatives on
species’ suitability criteria.

P-1256-029 - 22 -
The District opposes including an assessment of flow-related roosting habitat
suitability for the whooping crane in the study because the whooping crane is not likely
to occur in the project area due to its migration corridor being well removed from the
project. The District also asserts that its indirect assessment of project effects on interior
least tern and piping plover habitat is sufficient for the Commission’s environmental
analysis and section ESA consultation.
Conclusions
Although the primary whooping crane migration corridor is located about 35 miles
west of the diversion works, the project is located within a much larger historical
migration corridor and historical sightings have been made much closer to the project (3
miles west). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider whooping crane roosting
habitat needs in the Commission’s assessment of environmental effects. Therefore, the
District’s study plan is modified to include the whooping crane’s roosting habitat criteria.
The principal difference between the habitat requirements that the FWS is requesting is
wetted width and unobstructed width. This should not add considerably to the District’s
study effort.
As discussed earlier for Hydrocycling (Study 2.0), we are not persuaded by the
District’s assertion that an indirect measurement of habitat will provide an adequate
means to assess project effects on interior least tern, piping plover, and whooping crane
habitat and alternatives to project operations. Therefore, the District shall supplement its
analysis by conducting a modeling study of the effects of diverted flows on interior least
tern and piping plover nesting habitat and whooping crane roosting habitat using the
HEC-RAS 1D steady state backwater model and associated methodology for model
calibration specified in HDR (2008). The District shall select a representative study site,
in consultation with the FWS and Nebraska GPC, in the reaches identified above by the
FWS. Data collected shall include flow quantity, depth, velocity, sandbar elevation, and
bed form (HDR 2008). Cross-sectional measurements to calibrate the model shall be
done during low flow conditions (50 to 75 cfs) and at a higher flow, selected in
consultation with the FWS and Nebraska GPC. The length of each cross-sectional
measurement should be of sufficient length to capture the full range of flow (based on
historical records for the area) expected at the each study site. The District shall photo
document the cross-sections. After calibration, the model shall be run to model existing
operations and without the project diverting any flow and any other flow diversion
alternative identified by the District. Each model run should be conducted for a normal,
dry and wet year.
We estimate that the additional effort would increase the cost of the study by
$60,000, but the costs are necessary to ensure we have sufficient information for our
environmental analysis and consult with the FWS under the ESA. Some economies of

P-1256-029 - 23 -
scale would be attained because cross-sections for the Loup River bypass above the
tailrace are also being done for the hydrocycling study.
Objective 6 – Determining the relative significance of the Loup River bypassed
reach to the overall Loup River fishery
Methodology
Under Objective 6 of this study, the District would review NGPC fish sampling
results for areas upstream and downstream of the project’s diversion dam and evaluate
whether significant differences exist between upstream and downstream with regard to
species diversity and species richness. Using the flow duration and flood frequency
curves developed under Objective 2, Task 3 of this study, the District would calculate the
ability of fish to migrate upstream of the project’s diversion during high flows when the
diversion is submerged and the sluice gates are in the open position.
Study Issues
In its comments on the proposed study plan, FWS recommended generally and
without much elaboration that the District should provide a direct comparison between
stream flow in the bypassed reach and fish habitat suitability criteria for the current
condition and action alternatives. 7 The District responds that a flow versus habitat study
for the bypassed reach would have limited value because stream morphology on a
braided river is dynamic, and therefore, a flow versus habitat relationship would only be
valid for a short time, and possibly only for a few days or a week at most.
We agree with the District that due to the variability of the stream morphology
inherent to the sandy, braided nature of the Loup and lower Platte Rivers, a flow versus
habitat study with direct measurements of depths and velocities like the Physical Habitat
Simulation System (PHABSIM) commonly used for the Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM) would be of little value. However, we agree with FWS that we
need information to allow us to address project flow diversion effects on fish and their
habitats in the Loup and lower Platte River bypassed reaches.
The Montana Method (Tennant 1976) has been used in Nebraska, including
various reaches on the Platte and Loup Rivers, in order to establish minimum instream
7 FWS also recommended that the District make a number of hydraulic
measurements across a series of cross-sections in the lower Platte River downstream of
the project’s bypassed reach. Considering that the study proposal applies to the bypassed
reach, it’s not clear what relevance the lower Platte River downstream of the project has
to the project’s bypassed reach. We, therefore, suspect that inclusion of this
recommendation in the bypassed reach study was an oversight on the part of FWS.

P-1256-029 - 24 -
flows. Under the method, various percentages of mean annual flow are classified as to
their value to fish, wildlife, recreation, or related environmental resources. NGPC
(2008b) used the following resource benefit characterizations for minimum flow releases
at various percentages of mean annual flow:
Flow Description April to September October to March
Flushing/maximum flow 200 percent from 48 to 72
hours
Optimum flow range 60-100 percent 60-100 percent
Outstanding habitat 60 percent 40 percent
Excellent habitat 50 percent 30 percent
Good habitat 40 percent 20 percent
Fair or degraded habitat 30 percent 10 percent
Poor or minimum habitat 10 percent 10 percent
Severe degradation

P-1256-029 - 25 -
Study Issues
The District proposes to exclude the Loup Lands Wildlife Management Area
(Loup Lands WMA) from the Recreation Use Study because the area is leased to the
NGPC and the District states that the agency is responsible for the management of Loup
Lands. The District also proposes to exclude the 35-mile-long bypassed reach (Loup
Power Canal) of the Loup River from the Recreation Use Study due to limited public
access to the river across adjacent private lands and its ability to implement the study due
to the limited access. At the May 11, 2009, recreation resources study plan meeting, the
National Park Service (NPS) stated that it supports the inclusion of the Loup River
bypassed reach in the Recreation Use Study in order to gain a better understanding of
regional recreation use and of potential project impacts on recreation within the bypassed
reach.
Conclusions
Combining the recreation use and creel survey
We agree that merging the two surveys would yield some economies of scale and
still allow the District to collect the data needed for our analysis.
Recreation use survey effort, study area, and sampling design
We tentatively agree that the District can reduce the length of the study period to
May 1 through October 31 because this coincides with the time period when the majority
of recreation use is expected at project facilities. However, modifications to the survey
effort will depend on the amount of recreation use that is identified as occurring outside
of the suggested survey period through the telephone survey and recreation use survey.
Thus, in order for the Commission to be able to determine if the survey period should be
extended, the District shall provide an Interim General Recreation Use Report on or
before September 15, 2010, and an Interim Telephone Survey Report on or before
October 15, 2010.
The Loup Lands WMA are located within the project boundary and the current
lease agreement includes a provision to provide public access to the land as well as to the
Loup River from Tract G (330 acres south of the Loup River bypassed reach) and Tract H
(145 acres north of the Loup River bypassed reach). For the third parcel on the Loup
Land WMA (Tract D, 10 acres), public access to the river is not specified in the lease.
Wildlife viewing and hunting occur on the Loup Lands WMA. Although NGPC is
tasked with developing a general management plan for all three tracts as part of the lease
agreement, we could not find such a plan. Because no recreation user data is available
for the Loup Lands WMA, these lands should be included in the Recreation Use Study so
that user data would be available to inform future planning for and management of the

P-1256-029 - 26 -
area. Therefore, the District shall include the Loup Lands WMA in the Recreation Use
Study.
With regard to studying the Loup River bypassed reach, the District stated at the
January 13, 2009, scoping meeting that boating (by canoe and kayak) and fishing occur
within the Loup River bypassed reach, but did not provide any recreational use data. The
public has access to the Loup River bypassed reach at several locations (Loup Lands
WMA, Prairie Wolf WMA, George Syas WMA, Looking Glass Creek WMA, Highway
81 bridge, Highway 39 bridge, Monroe Road bridge, and Pawnee Park in Columbus,
Nebraska), most of which have been used previously for creel studies by NGPC.
We need to understand existing use of the Loup River bypass and how project
diversions may be affecting recreational use for our environmental analysis. The record
does not contain sufficient data to complete our analysis. Further, because there is no
Commission-approved recreation plan for the project, the information collected for the
Recreation Use Study would be useful in developing such a plan. Therefore, the District
shall include the Loup River bypass in the recreation use survey. A survey method shall
be developed after consultation with the Nebraska GPC and NPS for the bypassed reach
of the Loup River which includes those access points which receive the highest
recreational use. A sampling schedule which includes the opportunity to sample selected
access points at various times during the day (between dawn and dusk) as well as on
weekdays and weekends is needed and shall be included.
In regard to sampling recreation during the holidays, we find the District’s effort
to be inadequate because the summer holidays are known to be the highest recreational
use days. Therefore, the District shall include three summer holiday weekends
(Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) in the sampling effort. The weekend
days associated with these holidays would count toward the four weekend days proposed.
The sampling schedule referenced in the study plan was developed for a creel
survey only; thus 2-hour sampling blocks were used to develop the schedule. Because
the creel study and the recreation user studies have been combined, survey proctors will
need to spend more time in the field. It may take eight hours or longer to traverse the
length of the Loup Canal and document recreational use at the five project parks
(Headworks, Lake Babcock (or Loup Park), Lake North, Columbus Powerhouse, and
Tailrace) as well as at Loup Lands WMA. Thus, multiple crews may be needed to
conduct the surveys.
The District states in the revised study plan that “during peak use periods, when it
is not practical to interview all recreation users, one proctor will count all users while the
other proctor interviews as many users as possible within a reasonable time period.” The
District shall develop an interview selection protocol (such as every seventh person
encountered) to enhance variability in the study population. Additionally, the District

P-1256-029 - 27 -
shall define a reasonable interview time period for each developed area, relative to the
amount of use each area receives, so that the proctors know how long to spend
interviewing at each location. Finally, an estimation protocol shall be created for each
developed area to ensure consistency among proctors when it is not possible to count all
users in a given location.
Some of the recreation forms in the revised study plan are in need of correction or
clarification. Clarify the questions on the In-Person Recreation Use Survey by
incorporating the following modifications:
Alter question 1 to read: “How many people are in your party today?”
Modify question 2 to ask how long it took the respondent to travel from their
home to the interview location.
Include a list of District facilities in question 5 so the survey proctor can check all
that apply and indicate the number of visits per facility.
Add hunting to the list of activities in questions 9 and 10.
Change the “good” option to “above average” to enhance consistency with the
other response options in question 11.
Reword question 12 to read “Did you or a member of your party experience
conflict with any other visitors today? If yes, please describe the nature of the
conflict.”
The Field Observation Form is confusing in its current format. Some of the
choices given the survey proctors do not make sense. For example the activity “fishing”
could occur in the following places: parking area; campground; picnic area; or
playground. This form shall be redesigned so that it is easy for survey proctors to
complete.
Clarify the questions on the Telephone Recreation Use Survey by incorporating
the following modifications:
Use the term sites in questions 1 through 3 to reduce respondent confusion
between parks and trails and other types of facilities in question 4.
Give respondents the opportunity to explain any “poor” ratings given in question
4A similar to question 11 on the In-Person Recreation Use Survey.
Include hunting in the list of recreational opportunities for question 5A, 4B, 2C,
and 5C.
Expand Question 6A to ask about facilities that the public would be interested in
using.
For question 3B, add to the list the lack of barrier-free accessible facilities.

P-1256-029 - 28 -
It appears that respondents who answer “no” to question 2C will not have their
demographic information recorded; therefore, please collect the following: (1)
gender, (2) age, and (3) zip code from all respondents.
Study No. 12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
In March 1993, severe flooding in the lower Platte River basin inundated over
74,000 acres of land causing damages exceeding $25 million. The probable cause of this
flooding was a combination of ice jams and rapid snowmelt. Ice jams are caused by
frazil ice formed in turbulent supercooled water, such as flows at the diversion weir and
intake gates of the project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted two
studies, resulting in two reports (July 1994 and January 1996), on ice jam flooding on the
lower Platte River basin.
Methodology
The District proposes a 2-phase approach to determining if project operations have
a material effect on the formation of ice jams or on the severity of flooding caused by ice
jams in the Loup River bypassed reach. The first phase would consists of gathering and
characterizing all available information, including Nebraska DNR Ice Reports,
performing a qualitative analysis of ice and hydro-meteorological data for relationships
between project operations and ice jam formation and flooding in the Loup River bypass,
and determining if the available information would support a more detailed quantitative
analysis of incremental project operation effects to the study reach. If the available data
are insufficient, the study would identify additional information needs. In the phase 1
analysis, daily discharge in the power canal and bypassed reach would be plotted from
November to April of each year (1994-2009) along with air temperature, precipitation,
and accumulated freezing degree day. Instances of observed flooding and historic ice
jams would be flagged on the plots. If no definitive correlation between project
operations and ice jam formation based on the accumulated ice observation records and
ice event data are found, then the District would conclude that project operations do not
contribute to ice jam formation and flooding (see Attachment C to Study 12—CRREL
[Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory] Ice Jam Flooding Study Proposal
(July 2009)).
If a definitive correlation exists and available data are sufficient, the District
would contract with the CRREL to perform the quantitative analysis. The quantitative
analysis would include estimating the severity and frequency of historic ice events using
hind-casting methods; developing a simple ice-hydraulic model of the bypassed reach
using available HEC-RAS, HEC-2 geometry or similar method and running a
representative range of flows in the model under open water conditions to calculate ice
cover profiles for selected design winters for both freeze-up and break-up cases;
comparing model-predicted ice covers with ice observation reports and satellite imagery;

P-1256-029 - 29 -
and calculating ice cover profiles for the 1993-94 worst case winter based on the historic
bypassed reach flows and diversions (current conditions) case and several selected (yet
unidentified) diversion cases and comparing any differences.
Study Issues
The Nebraska DNR asserts that the District’s proposed methods are too narrowly
described and are limited in such a way as to prevent a quantitative analysis, without
which the question as to whether project operations are contributing to ice jam flooding
cannot be answered. In response to the revised study plan, the Nebraska DNR re-filed an
alternative study plan that includes detailed methods that would be implemented
immediately to achieve the following objectives: (1) evaluate the effect of project
operations on hydrology, sediment transport, and channel hydraulics in the lower Platte
River basin; (2) evaluate the combined effects of project operations on hydrology,
sediment transport, and channel hydraulics on ice processes in the lower Platte River
basin; (3) develop an ice jam and/or break-up predictive model; and (4) identify structural
and nonstructural methods for the prevention and mitigation of ice jams, if the project
materially contributes to ice jam formation on the Loup and Platte Rivers.
Study area
The Nebraska DNR relied on the Corps to define the scope of the methods and
study area. The Nebraska DNR study area would extend from the Loup River at
Fullerton, Nebraska (about 4 miles upstream of the project diversion weir on the Loup
River) to the confluence of the of the Platte and Missouri Rivers. The District limits its
proposed study area to the bypass and power canal because (1) the area can be more
readily analyzed because it experiences the maximum incremental effects of project
operations; (2) this reach is subject to limited non-project influences on ice formation
(i.e., tributaries, bridges, confluences, levees, etc.); (3) there is increasing uncertainty
about the incremental effects of the project on icing events with increasing distance
downstream. The District asserts that if no incremental effects are found near the project,
it would not be justified to extend the study further downstream.
Methods
The Nebraska DNR included detailed study methods that included collection of
generally the same existing data as the District, but expanded on the methods by
including (1) a hydrology study that includes the development of an unsteady hydraulic
routing model (e.g., HEC-RAS) and modeling flows “with” and “without” project canal
flow diversions; (2) a sediment transport assessment using a sediment transport model in
HEC-RAS that includes modeling existing operations and operations without the removal
of sediment by the project; (3) an ice formation study that estimates the total volume of
ice produced within the study reach “with” and “without” power canal diversion of flow

P-1256-029 - 30 -
and channel regimes for use in computations of ice-affected hydraulics; (4) an ice
transport during freeze-up and break-up study that includes the use of a two-dimensional
model, such as DynaRICE ice-hydraulic numerical model, to model ice transport through
selected channels and hydraulic structures as well as ice initiation to demonstrate
differences in the formation of ice “with” and “without” power canal diversions; (5) an
ice-affected hydraulics analysis using HEC-RAS modeling to predict where ice jams
form under 2-, 5- and 10-year flows “with” and “without” power canal diversions; (6) the
development of ice jam/break-up predictive model, and (7) identification of structural and
non-structural means that may prevent and mitigate the impacts of ice jams if the project
is shown to increase flood risk in any part of the study reach.
The District does not propose to include the hydrologic and sediment transport
analysis proposed by the Nebraska DNR because it exceeds the information needs of the
Commission’s environmental analysis for assessing project effects. Much of the data
proposed to be collected by Nebraska DNR is being collected in other studies (i.e.,
Sedimentation Study, Hydrocycling Study, and Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Study). The District also opposes the use of the more refined predictive modeling of ice
events than is currently available and the development of a new predictive model for ice
events in the Platte River basin because the development of such a model is not the
responsibility of the District, but that of the Nebraska DNR. The District asserts that
Nebraska DNR’s proposed ice formation, ice transport during freeze-up and break-up,
and ice affected hydraulics is technically similar to its methods, but far broader in scope
than is required for assessing project effects.
Conclusions
Study area
Severe flooding due to the combination of ice jams and rapid snowmelt occurred
within the Lower Platte River basin in Nebraska during March 1993. The two areas most
affected were along the south side of the Loup River at Columbus and just downstream
from the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers near Ashland (White and Kay
1996). This event prompted the US Army Corp of Engineers ice jam flooding analyses in
2004 and 2006.
Ice formation and flooding are affected by stream morphology and hydrology. As
discussed in several studies above, we are approving studies with modifications that
would examine the project effects on stream morphology and hydrology. We expect that
those effects, if any, would be the greatest in the Loup River bypass and immediately
below the tailrace. Therefore, we are modifying the Districts icing study to include the
Loup River from Fremont, Nebraska to the Platte River at the USGS North Bend gaging
station. This area would cover one of the areas most affected by the March 1993 flood,
without confounding the results with inputs of the Elk Horn River, which also

P-1256-029 - 31 -
experienced severe flooding in the March 1993 flood. If the results of the study indicate
that the project may be influencing flooding further downstream, additional analyses
would be required in year 2 of the study period.
Methodology
The premise of the District’s phased approach is based on the need to evaluate
whether there is sufficient information to proceed with a detailed quantitative analysis.
The Nebraska DNR developed a program and began collecting additional icing
information based on the Corps’ recommendation in 1994. The Corps was able to
develop an ice jam predictive model on the existing information and recommend future
studies to examine the effects of project operations, if any, on ice formation based on less
data than are now available for the project area (White and Kay 1996). As keepers of the
icing data, the Nebraska DNR and Corps have a good understanding of what information
is available and what still needs to be collected to evaluate the effects of the project on
ice jam formation and flooding.
Given the Corp’s expertise and experience on this system and generally similar
approaches to the quantitative analyses and similar costs, we find that the approach
recommended by the Nebraska DNR, based on the Corps’ recommendation, will provide
the means by which the Commission can evaluate project influences on ice formation and
flooding and best achieve the objectives and goals of the icing study. In addition,
combining all data sources from the District and Nebraska DNR’s revised study plans
would ensure a complete record for the quantitative analysis. Therefore, we are requiring
that the District implement the Nebraska DNR icing study filed as Attachment B to its
August 7, 2009, comments on the revised study plan with the following modifications:
(1) the geographic scope of the study will be limited as explained above; (2) the
development of the predictive icing model shall be limited to the examination of project
effects; (3) the identification of mitigation measures shall also be limited to operational or
structural changes to minimize or mitigate project effects on ice jam formation and
subsequent flooding; and (4) the data to be gathered shall consist of a combination of
both studies to include: (a) all hydraulic data from USGS stream gage sites in Attachment
B of the Nebraska DNR’s plan; (b) sediment data including bed load and suspended
sediment load from the same gages or other sources; (c) hydrometerologic data such as
air temperature and precipitation from the National Climatic Data Center and the
National Weather Service station at Genoa; (d) all data from the Nebraska NDR Ice
Report database; (e) all needed data from the CRREL Ice Jam Database; and (f) high
water mark, such as tree scars, data from the Corps’ and other agencies’ records.
As to the District’s concern that it is being held responsible to develop a regional
model, we agree with the District that the development of a regional model to predict ice
events is not the responsibility of the project. Therefore, we are not requiring the District
to develop a regional model.

P-1256-029 - 32 -
Study Requests Not Approved
Sediment Sampling for PCB’s in the Loup Power Canal and Lake Babcock
In its comments on the revised study plan, the FWS recommended that the District
sample for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) from fish tissue and sediments from Lake
Babcock and the Loup Power Canal between Monroe and Columbus powerhouses. The
District proposes to conduct fish tissue sampling in 2009 cooperatively with the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality. One of the sample sites includes Lake Babcock,
which is located in the affected reach mentioned by FWS. This information, along with
the fish tissue sampling results presented in the PAD for the project area, will be
sufficient for our analysis. The District shall report the results of this analysis in their
Initial Study Report.
The relevant issue for any licensing decision is whether any PCB mobilization
caused by project operations affects fishery resources. To answer that question, it is most
appropriate to first sample fish tissue for PCB’s in the potentially affected reach (i.e.,
Lake Babcock) to determine if PCB’s are presently affecting fish, regardless of the source
(e.g, project-induced mobilization of canal sediments versus upstream Loup River flows
carrying PCB’s from other sources). Should elevated fish PCB levels be found in the fish
tissues, we may consider additional PCB monitoring in year 2.
Literature Cited
Ginting, D. and R.B. Zelt. 2008. Temporal differences in flow depth and velocity
distributions and hydraulic microhabitats near bridges of the Lower Platte River,
Nebraska, 1934-2006. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5054.
HDR. 2008. Lower Platte River stage change study final protocol development report.
Report to Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. Version 1.0. May
2008. 9 pages, plus appendices.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 2008a. Assessment of pallid sturgeon, least
tern, and piping plover in the Lower Platte River. NGPC Report. Lincoln,
Nebraska.
______. 2008b. Instream flow implementation in Nebraska. Federal Aid in Sport Fish
and Wildlife Restoration, FW-19-T-21 Performance Report Study 1. December 1,
2007 through November 30, 2008. Available at:
http://www.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/G1000/B046-2008.pdf

P-1256-029 - 33 -
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. 2009. 2009 Annual evaluation of
availability of hydrologically connected water supplies, Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources. Lincoln. NE.
Peters, E.J. and J.E. Parham. 2008. Ecology and management of sturgeon in the Lower
Platte River, Nebraska. Nebraska Technical Series No. 18. Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission. Lincoln, Nebraska.
U.S. Department of Interior. 2006. Platte River recovery implementation program final
environmental impact statement (FEIS). V 1-3.
Tennant, D.L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related
environmental resources. Fisheries 1(4): 6-10.
White, K.D. and R.L. Kay. 1996. Ice jam flooding and mitigation; Lower Platte River
Basin, Nebraska. Special Report 96-1. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska. January 1996.

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
October 14, 2009
Reference: Clarification of Study Plan Determination
Dear Mr. Suess:
Project No. 1256-029─Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.13(c) of the Commission’s regulations, this letter corrects
an error in the study plan determination for the Loup River Public Power District’s Loup
River Hydroelectric Project issued on August 26, 2009. This error was also brought to
our attention by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources in their filing on
September 1, 2009.
Under the Conclusions of Study No. 12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River on
page 28, second paragraph of the Study Plan Determination, we stated that “… we are
modifying the Districts icing study to include the Loup River from Fremont, Nebraska to
the Platte River at the USGS North Bend gaging station.” The sentence should read:
“Therefore, we are modifying the Districts icing study to include the Loup River from
Fullerton, Nebraska, to the Platte River at the USGS North Bend gaging station.”
If you have any questions, please contact Kim Nguyen at (202) 502-6105 or email
at kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.
cc: Mailing List
Public Files
Sincerely,
Ann F. Miles
Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensing

October 16, 2009
Mr. Robert Puschendorf
State Historic Preservation Office
1500 R Street
P.O. Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554
Re: HP#0804-127-01
Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
Phase Ia Archaeological Overview
FERC Project No. 1256; Docket No. 1256-029
Dear Mr. Puschendorf:
As we’ve discussed, Loup Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The existing
license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014. Loup Power District
is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to determine
whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic properties (any site, structure, or other
property listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and
allow interested parties the opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect
historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the information
needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. In May of this year, the District
met with staff from your office to discuss the proposed study plan and on August 26, 2009, FERC
approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the Revised Study Plan on
July 27, 2009. The first component of the District’s study related to Section 106 Compliance is
completion of a Phase Ia Archaeological Overview report. A copy of the Phase Ia Archaeological
Overview accompanies this letter and is being submitted to your office to further a dialogue
towards Section 106 compliance. Your comments on the adequacy and conclusions of the
overview are requested.
At this time we are seeking concurrence from your office regarding the areas within the Project
Boundary that are recommended for archaeological inventory. As outlined in the Phase Ia
Archaeological Overview, your office would be contacted for additional comment in the event that
additional areas should be identified for archaeological inventory.

Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson (HDR) at (763) 278-5921 or me at (402) 564-
3171 if you have any questions about the Phase Ia Archaeological Overview. We look forward to
working with your office throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc: Kim Nguyen, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Patricia Leppert, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase Ia Archaeological Overview

October 21, 2009
Ansley Griffin, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NE 68039
Reference: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Loup Power District is applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The existing license was effective on
December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014. Loup Power District is utilizing the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the opportunity
to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The first component of the District’s study related
to Section 106 Compliance is completion of a Phase Ia Archaeological Overview report.
The Phase Ia Archaeological Overview is available for your review to further a dialogue
towards Section 106 compliance.

If you would like to receive a copy of the overview, please contact:
Michael Madson
HDR Engineering, Inc.
701 Xenia Ave S., Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-278-5921
Michael.madson@hdrinc.com
Your comments on the adequacy and conclusions of the overview are welcome.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if you
have any questions about the Phase Ia Archaeological Overview.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc: Kim Nguyen, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Patricia Leppert, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR

November 2, 2009
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Loup River Public Power District (the District) has reviewed the proposed rulemaking (50 CFR Part 17)
to list the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) as a threatened species due to similarity of
appearance (SOA) with the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). The District operates a
hydroelectric project (project) on the Loup River, in Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska. This project diverts
water from the Loup River for power generation and returns the water to the Platte River, just downstream of
the confluence of the Loup and Platte rivers, near Columbus, Nebraska. The District is currently in the
process of relicensing our hydroelectric project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This relicensing
process is a federal action and requires Section 7 consultation.
As stated in the proposed rule, “take would only be prohibited where shovelnose and pallid sturgeons’ range
commonly overlap….Specifically this includes….the Platte River in Nebraska downstream of Elkhorn River
confluence.” It is our understanding that this proposed rule would only extend protections to shovelnose
sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids regarding take of this species when associated with or related
to commercial fishing operations. All other legal activities involving these species in accordance with
applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations would not be considered take under this
proposed regulation. Additionally, it is our understanding that the proposed rule would not require Federal
agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on activities authorized, funded, or
carried out that may affect shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid hybrids. As understood, this proposed
rule would have no effect on our Section 7 consultation for the relicensing of our hydroelectric project.
We request further clarification on this proposed rule, as it relates to Federally regulated activities, and
concurrence that our understanding of this proposed rule is accurate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this decision.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Public Power District
cc: Matt Pillard, HDR
Kim Nguyen, FERC
June DeWeese, USFWS

November 24, 2009
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33 rd Street
Lincoln, NE 68503-0931
RE: Information request for 2009 piping plover and least tern census and location data
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
As you are aware, Loup Power District (the District) is currently seeking a new operating license
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its hydroelectric facilities located on
the Loup River near Genoa and Columbus, Nebraska. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you for your response to our prior requests for information received in 2008 and early 2009. We
realize compiling that data took staff time and effort and it is greatly appreciated.
FERC has approved several studies related to species and habitat that the District must complete in
the next several months. At this time, I would like to request the 2009 interior least tern and piping
plover population, nesting, and productivity counts and locations for the Loup River and lower Platte
River. Additionally I would like to request any tern and plover habitat information collected during
the 2009 season. This information is critical to completion of the studies requested by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and approved by FERC.
I appreciate your assistance in providing information to assist with the relicensing effort as quickly
as possible; time is of the essence for these studies. The information requested will be used for
analytical purposes and the only information that will be published is information related to general
trends and observations. Location specific information will not be made available to the general
public without the consent of the NGPC. All stipulations on the use of this data, as per the
NGPC/HDR data use agreement (executed on June 24, 2009), will be followed.
Please submit the information to HDR Engineering, the District’s consultant completing the studies:
Matt Pillard
HDR Engineering
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114

Please feel free to contact Melissa Marinovich (402-399-1317) or Matt Pillard (402-399-1186) of
HDR if you have any questions regarding this request. As the relicensing process continues, we
anticipate that we may have additional information requests. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Public Power District
cc: Matt Pillard, HDR
Kim Nguyen, FERC
Frank Albrecht, NGPC
June DeWeese, USFWS

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:39 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Robert_Harms@fws.gov; Frank.Albrecht@nebraska.gov
Subject: LPD Study Plan / information needs
Attachments: LPD Study Determination Tasks.doc
Matt,
Earlier this fall, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership, and
our office met to discuss data needs requested by FERC in their Final Study Determination. The attached
document summarizes discussions from that day.
Let me know if you have any questions and feel free to forward this on to the larger group.
Jeff
(See attached file: LPD Study Determination Tasks.doc)
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 38266468, Ext. 22
(308) 37968553 Cell
(308) 38468835 Fax
********************************
1

Loup Power District Meeting – Final Study Determination Tasks
September 24, 2009
Library Conference Room, NGPC, Lincoln
Mary Bomberger Brown - Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
Bob Harms - USFWS
Rick Holland - NGPC
Joel Jorgensen - NGPC
Jeff Runge – USFWS
Dave Tunink - NGPC
Purpose
On August 26, 2009, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued their Final Study
Determination (FSD) for Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Project Number 1256). The
FSD identify modifications to the Loup River Public Power District’s (District) revised
study plan under the following sections: Sedimentation, Hydrocycling, Water
Temperature for the Loup River Bypassed Reach, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion,
Recreation Use, and Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River. The FSD identified certain
tasks that shall be performed by the District in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. The two tasks are
identified in the below text. The purpose of the meeting was to formalize agency
positions for these tasks. Meeting summaries for the two respective tasks are detailed in
the below text.
Task 1
As directed by the FSD, the District shall conduct a modeling study of the effects of
hydrocycling and flow bypass on interior least tern and piping plover nesting habitat
using the HEC-RAS 1D steady state back-water model and associated methodology for
model calibration specified in HDR (2008). The District shall select a representative
study site, in consultation with the resource agencies, for the following river segments:
(A) the Loup River upstream of the diversion weir; (B) the Loup River downstream of
the diversion weir; (C) the Platte River below the Loup River confluence and above the
project tailrace, (D) the Platte River within five miles downstream of the project tailrace,
and (E) near the USGS North Bend gage station. The selected study sites would
preferably include areas where interior least terns and piping plovers have historically
nested. Data collected shall include flow quantity, depth, velocity, sandbar elevation, and
bed form as described in the Lower Platte River Stage Change Study developed by HDR
Inc.
Task 2
Cross-sectional measurements to calibrate the model in the Loup River shall be done
during low flow conditions (50 to 75 cfs) and at a higher flow, selected in consultation
with the resource agencies.

Task 1 Summary
Study Site A represents a five-mile long segment of the Loup River whose midpoint is
the confluence of the Cedar River. This segment was selected because of recent nesting
activity has been documented in the segment [i.e., 2006]. More frequent nesting activity
was documented in the segment upstream of the Fullerton Bridge. However, it was not
known to what extent the Cedar River hydrology and sediment inputs influenced Loup
River channel morphology. The proposed study site addresses this ambiguity by
including reaches upstream and downstream of the Cedar River.

Study Site B represents a five-mile segment on the Loup River whose downstream
boundary is approximately one-mile above the US Highway 81 Bridge near Columbus.
This river segment was selected because of the frequent and most current nesting records
within the bypass reach of the Loup River.

Study Site C represents two-mile long segment of the Platte River between the Loup
River confluence and the District tailrace. Therefore, there was no need to select a study
site within this segment.
Study Site D represents a study segment located within 5-miles of the District tailrace.
Because of the requirement to locate the study site near the tailrace, identification of a
study site is not required.
Study Site E represents a five-mile segment immediately downstream of the NE
Highway 79 Bridge near North Bend. This river segment was selected because of the
frequent and most current nesting records in the Platte River near North Bend.
Task 2 Summary
Average monthly flows from in the nesting time period for the bypass reach of the Loup
River (measured at Genoa) ranges from 249 in August to 729 cfs in June. Average flow
diverted in the LPD canal ranges from 1,300 to 1,900 cfs for that same time period. The
group determined that model calibration should be collected at a flow within the 750-800
cfs range. This range was selected because it represents flow conditions that could be
reasonably collected across a range of dry to wet years.

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:57 AM
To: Anna Baum; Barb Friskopp; Bobbie Kriz&Wickham; Butch Koehlmoos; Curt Alms; Dan Nitzel;
Dave Tunink; David Jundt; Frank Albrecht; Henry Santin; Jason Alexander; Jean Angell; Jeff
Schuckman; Jerry Kenny; Joe Cothern; John Bender; John Shadle; Joseph Mangiamelli;
Justin Lavene; Lacie Andreason; Mark Czaplewski; Mary Bomberger&Brown; Randy Thoreson;
Richard Hadenfeldt; Robert Harms; Robert Mohler; Robert Puschendorf; Rodney Verhoeff;
Stacy Stupka&Burda; Steve Chick
Cc: Damgaard, Quinn V.; Dierking, Paul; Engel, John; Engelbert, Pat; Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Frame,
Gail; Gorton, Dick; Grennan, Dennis E.; Gust, Kimberly; Hunt, George; Kulik, Ann; Madson,
Michael J.; Marinovich, Melissa; McConville, Matt; Mertz, John; Pillard, Matt; Sigler, Bill;
Stanfill, Alan; Talbitzer, Travis; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie; Angel
Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Teresa Petr; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: Loup Power District & FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
For your information, Loup Power District has submitted the first quarterly study progress report to FERC and it has been
posted to the project website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114&4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:02 AM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: 2009 LPR nest data
Melissa:
These files only contain from on+river. I interpreted the request to be river only (P2, “1for the Loup and Lower Platte
River.”), please let me know if this is incorrect. I have no data for the Loup River (on+river) for 2009. I will probably be
sending another file or two today.
+ Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Marinovich, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Marinovich@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel; Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: 2009 LPR nest data
Thanks, Joel! Just a clarification, these are only “on-river” lower Platte locations, correct? This data does not include
“off-river” nesting locations? Also, nesting/chick/adult count location information for on/off river sites on the Loup
River, will these be included in a later email? Thanks again for your help and see you next week!
Melissa
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Pillard, Matt; Marinovich, Melissa
Cc: Jorgensen, Joel
Subject: 2009 LPR nest data
Matt, Melissa:
Attached is the 2009 lower Platte River nest data and metadata.
+ Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
1

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Loup Power District Study Plan Data Gathering
Meeting Date: January 5, 2010
9:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Frank Albrecht, NGPC
Richard Holland, NGPC
Joel Jorgensen, NGPC
Michelle Koch, NGPC
Dave Tunink, NGPC
Ron Ziola, LPD
Pat Engelbert, HDR
George Hunt, HDR
Melissa Marinovich, HDR
Matt Pillard, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Robert Harms, USFWS
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: HDR Lincoln Office, 301 South 13 th St.,
Cornhusker Plaza Suite 601 - Lincoln,
NE
Jeff Runge, USFWS
Nick Jayjack, FERC
Kim Nguyen, FERC
Dave Turner, FERC
Paul ??, FERC
A meeting was held between Loup Power District, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, HDR Engineering, the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss data collection for the
upcoming Relicensing Studies.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Review of Study Plan Determination Letter
• Study 1 - Sedimentation
• Study 2 - Hydrocycling
• Study 5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
2. Information to be determined from Study 2
3. Information to be determined from Study 5
4. Study 5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion – Aerial Imagery Review
• River Miles for Study – 5 miles above and below, randomly generated
• Years for photo interpretation
• Characteristics to be identified
Discussion:
Matt Pillard began the meeting with introductions and by providing a summary of the Study Plan Determination Letter and
the planned studies (1-Sedimentation, 2-Hydrocycling, and 5-Flow Depletion/Flow Diversion). Provided that while Study 1
– Sedimentation, did not require coordiantion with agencies per the Study Plan Determination, it was inlcuded to show the
data needs and overlap with other studies. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss when, what, how, and where data
collection for these studies. Discussion of issues is summarized by agenda topic below.
1. Review of Study Plan Determination Letter
HDR provided a brief summary of each study plan’s projected “where and when” with information from the Study Plan
Determination Letter.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
Study 1 – Sedimentation
Locations were determined for additional cross-sections to those originally stated in the Revised Study Plan (USGS
gages).
Data Gathering Summary: A flow record will be synthesized and one survey cross-section will be taken at: 1) Platte River
between the Loup River confluence and the tailrace return confluence, 2) Platte River within 5 miles downstream of the
tailrace return. Cross-sections shall be surveyed in the late spring to early summer period (mid-May to mid-June) to
coincide with the beginning of interior least tern and piping plover nesting period and the presumed pallid sturgeon
spawning period. The above data will be used for spatial analysis determining a relationship between sediment transport
and tern and plover nest counts and fledge success.
Study 2 – Hydrocycling
Per the Study Plan Determination letter, when selecting representative sites for analysis, an area where there has been
historic tern and plover nesting is preferred. A 1D steady state HEC-RAS model based on this May and August data will
be developed.
Data Gathering Summary: Reaches for the representative study sites for the HEC-RAS model are: 1) Platte River
between the Loup River confluence and the tailrace return confluence, 2) Platte River within 5 miles downstream of the
tailrace return, 3) Near the USGS North Bend gage station. These study sites should include (to the extent possible)
areas where terns and plovers have historically nested. This data would be collected prior to the first week in May and
near the first week in August (beginning and end of nesting season for terns and plovers).
Study 5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Data Gathering Summary: Reaches for the representative study sites for the HEC-RAS model are: 1) Loup River
upstream of the diversion weir, 2) Loup River downstream of the diversion weir, 3) Platte River between the Loup River
confluence and the tailrace return confluence. This data would be collected prior to the first week in May and near the first
week in August (beginning and end of nesting season for terns and plovers).
HDR presented a Field Collection Summary Matrix – displaying when data collection should occur for each of the studies
by river reach based on the Study Plan Determination Letter. The flow depletion/flow diversion data should be collected at
times of low flow and some higher flow, which corresponded with timeframes for the other studies, May (typically high
flow) and August (typically low flow).
The NGPC asked if HDR would be monitoring sediment transported during all months of the year. HDR responded that
the sediment transport information will be based on the amount of dredged material from the settling basin. NGPC also
asked if there was headcutting below the diversion. HDR stated that the gage at Genoa had not shown any signs of
degradation, nor has there been any sign of the diversion wall being undermined. . The sedimentation study will look at
seasonal and annual sediment transport, assuming transport capacity. HDR noted that for the sedimentation study, the
cross sections would be taken from the survey data obtained for the hydrocycling and flow depletion and flow diversion
studies.
The NGPC questioned the validity of only cutting one cross-section when gathering the data at each of the dates. HDR
noted that the study plan determination letter required only one cross-section at each time. HDR will also be looking at
data that the USGS collects (monthly). From this data a collective sediment discharge rating curve will be developed for
comparison to the USGS gage information.
HDR stated that one of the goals of this meeting is to identify what information the USFWS and NGPC would use from the
HEC-RAS models results to evaluate the effects on tern, plover, and whooping crane habitat.
USFWS asked if HDR would be applying Parker’s regime equations to the Effective Discharge results at the ungaged
sites (single cross section locations), as well as the gaged sites (USGS sites). HDR stated that a relationship between
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
width and depth would be based on the effective discharge and surveyed data, as suggested by Leopold. But HDR would
look into applying Parker’s regime equations.
The window of opportunity to get the data in the spring is narrow, as river levels must be monitored. HDR is hoping to look
for breaks in high water and weather for the early-mid May and early-mid August data collection efforts, as well as
coordinating with the USGS to collect field data. NGPC noted that HDR will need to be cognizant of the terns and plovers
and that they may be on the river at the time of data collection. HDR will plan on coordinating with NGPC to make sure
they are aware of bird locations.
NGPC questioned the lack of details regarding the studies at this juncture. Where is the line between HDR making
decisions and assumptions about the data and how studies should be conducted and getting input from agencies? HDR
noted that ultimately, LPD needs to satisfy FERC. FERC asked the resource agencies for their input on the information to
be studied. The study plans were discussed in a series of meetings, where goals and objectives were discussed on how
they should be accomplished. A comment period was opened and comments received. FERC released a decision on the
study plan (the study plan determination letter), requesting information needed for their environmental assessment. HDR
also noted that this information would be reviewed in the development of the biological assessment and making sure that
the USFWS would have all they need for the biological opinion. All told – it is FERC’s decision for acceptance or denial of
the information found in the studies.
The NGPC asked if there would be more detailed descriptions of the studies as to why something was done and what
assumptions were made. HDR needs to check on this, but is under the impression that this information could be included
in quarterly progress reports. USFWS pointed out that a lot of the information and assumptions are in the revised study
plan already. NGPC noted that a higher level of detail is needed to validate the information in the studies as to why
certain data was used and why certain assumptions are being made. NGPC asked who would be submitting the progress
reports and noted that the first report, submitted by LPD, was very general and did not include a lot of detail. HDR noted
that there is no required format for these quarterly progress reports; however, they are designed to convey the most
current information at the time. The first few reports will purely validate that the data collection process is working and
later reports will share results and conclusions. Some reports may just have raw data.
The USFWS asked when the agencies would be able to review these progress reports. The timeline is vague. The
progress reports are submitted to FERC and FERC will post them. There is no set submittal and posting time, although
there is a general guideline set forth – at this point, the next submittals are scheduled for February and May. HDR’s
understanding of the periodic reporting to FERC is to assure FERC that progress is being made. This way, if the study is
not addressing the issue, mid-course corrections may be implemented. There is nothing built into the proposed schedule
that allows for a comment-response exchange with the agencies on the quarterly reports. HDR noted, if there is
something that the agencies wish to see in the reports, they need to let HDR know and HDR will try to get the information
to them. It is important to keep monitoring the studies to make sure they are showing reasonable data.
2. Information to be determined from Study 2
Cross sections or topo data will be used to develop a 1D steady state HEC-RAS model within the reaches described
above. . From the model results, HDR asked what information the USFWS and NGPC would need from the model results
to determine effects on tern and plover habitat. NGPC would like to see whether or not fluctuations in elevation of water
level impacts exposed habitat. What happens if the fluctuations in water surface elevation go above the elevation of the
sandbars? USFWS noted that change in elevation and changes in size of habitat, cohesiveness of sand particles as it
relates to erosion could be important. Looking at the flooding aspect and sandbar erosion is important.
HDR explained that there were two parts to this study. Peak flow would be evaluated during nest initiation period and then
again later in the season. HDR noted that the 1D model would be based on a series of cross-sections or topo taken in
May and August (as previously discussed). They will compare how the cross-sections change and look at discharge and
how stage has changed. Width of exposed mid-channel features and height of these features will be looked at with
regards to how these variables change with a change in discharge for a typical wet, dry, and normal year.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
USFWS noted there is published literature regarding sandbar measurements. Mary Bomberger-Brown and Joel
Jorgensen have done a lot of research on this concept. USFWS asked what will be a representation of what is habitat.
Would need to look at a continuous variable, such as wetted area, and look at the changes.
HDR noted that the 1D model will not tell you whether the habitat is suitable or not. NGPC commented that the sandbar
area is challenging to quantify and may be important in some years and not in others. In addition, that tern and plover
habitat is variable and that what is considered “suitable” varies depending on what is available. NGPC made the following
points:
1. It is difficult to define habitat because it is not constant for these species
2. Conditions vary and birds respond to what is available
3. Trying to say that the birds nest in the same place every year is a false assumption
4. If hydrocycling increases the stage of the river during a pulse flow, there will be an affect at some point
5. It is challenging to quantify how important “sandbar area” is to the birds
6. Elevation appears to be more important
7. Although there may be sand above the surface water level, hydrocycling may not be allowing the sand to dry to a
sufficient level to become habitat for the birds
NGPC asked how wet/dry/normal water years are defined. . HDR noted that a volume duration analysis will be used to
determine a typical wet, dry and normal year.
NGPC asked if it would still be the practice to use the highest flow in a year would be the highest sandbar point. HDR
explained that highest flow would be used compare flows. How often are these high flows exceeded? Flow is used as a
surrogate for habitat. It is not assumed that the nesting occurs at this high flow, but simply a means to isolate how flows
are affected by hydrocycling as way to relate to potential effects to birds. USFWS added that all of this will be part of
FERC’s EA. It will all be relative and used for comparison. This method will not give an absolute species response, it will
only be a relative evaluation across alternatives. This type of study will not provide an analysis of good versus bad
habitat. NGPC requested additional detail on the assumptions that HDR is making regarding this study.
The output question was revisited: what HEC-RAS output do the agencies need to look at impacts on tern and plover
habitat?
• USFWS said they would need to go back to the office and look at additional information and discuss with NGPC
further. They will return correspondence to HDR within 2-3 weeks (approximately by January 29).
3. Information to be determined from Study 5 – Flow Depletion/Flow Diversion
HDR summarized that this study would develop a 1D HEC-RAS steady state model to study the effects of diverted flows
on least tern and piping plover nesting habitat and also whooping crane roosting habitat. USFWS noted that there have
been reports published on 1D model for whooping crane habitat. The Platte-Habitat simulation, which has a lot of indices,
would likely apply to the Loup diversion area.
• USFWS referenced a USGS publication – “Evaluation of Models and Data for Assessing Whooping Crane
Habitat in the Central Platte River, Nebraska” – 2005 Farmer et al.
• USFWS will send a copy to David Turner at FERC.
• Because this reference is a bit dated, USFWS would like to think about this habitat assessment and coordinate
with NGPC before discussing with HDR what information they will need to determine affects to whooping crane
roosting habitat.
• Parkers Regime Equation can be found in the 1983 USGS report (as referenced in the Revised Study Plan – pg.
24)
4. Data Collection Locations
HDR began this discussion by displaying aerials with tern and plover nesting sites overlaid on a number of years of aerial
imagery. Discussion centered on where the cross-sections should be taken for the flow depletion/flow diversion study
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
(some of which would be used for other studies too). All parties agreed that the extent of the data gathering (topo) and
subsequent model extents would be 1-2 times the channel width. One additional cross section would be taken upstream
of the study site and downstream of the study site to assist with modeling boundary conditions. Only topo information
would be gathered. The 1D model would be calibrated based on water surface profile information obtained during the
survey and flows obtained from nearby gages. Therefore, velocity measurements would not be obtained.
USFWS noted that when looking at changes in sediment transport, this can be impacted because of bank stabilization.
USFWS also noted that it might be difficult to see a change upstream and downstream of the diversion because changes
in the transport may actually be affected by jetties and bank revetment, rather than from the diversion. However, it was
discussed that this is the condition of the river today, and effects of bank stabilization can not be ignored. HDR will take a
closer look at aerial photographs and try to set a study site outside of bank stabilization areas.
• USFWS will deliver bank stabilization information from a survey of the lower Platte River to HDR; however, no
such survey was done for the Loup River. USFWS noted that the lower Platte River survey was completed in
2006, so there may be additional bank stabilization that was not noted in this survey. HDR should coordinate
with USACE to get additional permitted activity to supplement the 2006 data.
HDR reiterated that if they can understand what the agencies need to evaluate effects; that will assist in developing the
model and how to get the required information. There was some discussion as to whether cross sections will be cut, or a
topo survey will be performed, from which cross sections for the model can be obtained. Due to relatively higher spring
flows, the cross-sections or topo information in May will likely be from a boat. The data collected in August can likely be
done on foot to a large degree, with the assistance of an amphibious vehicle, as the channel can often be walked across
in August due to lower flows. HDR is planning to collect topo or cross-section data. Velocity measures are not necessary
for the 1D model.
The criteria discussed when choosing the representative sites were:
• Locations where the birds historically nested;
• Access locations for survey equipment;
• Representative of the general reach;
• Avoid revetment locations, if possible
HDR proposed the locations for obtaining topo data or taking cross-sections in the following areas and requested
feedback from the agencies:
Loup River/Platte River confluence to the tailrace return/Platte River confluence
HDR is planning to obtain data where birds had historically nested between Platte RM’s 102 and 103. The data collection
effort would consist of obtaining topographic information and would be limited to 1-2 times the channel width. USFWS
asked about the extent of the revetment in this stretch, because by looking at the aerials, there may be some at the
location of the proposed cross-section
• NGPC noted that the effect will be realized and the revetments should not make a difference
• USFWS noted that if the revetment was not there, the effects would be different
• NGPC pointed out that the revetments are there and they are not going away, so it’s not realistic or
representative to try and take a cross-section in an area without revetment.
• HDR noted that this stretch is only approximately 1.5 miles, so the most logical choice of where to obtain the
data would be in the one area where birds had historically nested, between RM’s 102 and 103.
• USFWS reiterated that if there were a sediment deficit, the river would erode banks, bed, and bars
• NGPC reiterated that the majority of the lower Platte River is stabilized, so unless the USFWS is proposing a
river restoration project, which they are not, the stabilization sites shouldn’t dictate where a cross-section is cut.
Stabilization is there and should be irrelevant for the purposes of this study. Need to focus on effects to the birds.
• LPD noted that there is revetment along most of this stretch for the adjacent county road and for the powerline
near the railroad bridge
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
• USFWS asked HDR how representative this proposed location was of the longitudinal segment. HDR responded
that it seems fairly representative and likely the best location from a bird nesting standpoint, as well as from an
access standpoint.
Platte River: 5-miles downstream of the tailrace return confluence
• HDR displayed the proposed area for data collection to be just east of the Bellwood Lakes area, near Platte RM
99, due to the amount of birds historically nesting in this location. The data collection effort would consist of
obtaining topographic information and would be limited to 1-2 times the channel width. NGPC asked how HDR
was proposing to control other variables that could affect the data being measured. HDR proposes to look at
how the width and depth can change based on relationships developed in the sedimentation study, not
estimating how the channel section will change (i.e. erosion or aggradation of a sandbar feature). The 1D
steady-state model utilizes a fixed cross section, and does not have mobile bed component.
• USFWS noted that there is not an integrated model that looks at all variables. Only models exist that look at
different pieces in different parts.
• NGPC noted that the proposed site was probably optimal relative to nesting birds; however, it may not be
representative of the reach.
• USFWS noted that in this reach, above the railroad bridge (which splits this river reach) the river is deep and
swift, while below the bridge is wide and slower, making it difficult to choose one location that could represent
the entire reach.
• NGPC again agreed that RM 99 would be the best area for nesting birds because a large sandbar existed there;
however, it would likely not represent the entire reach, although a cross-section should not be cut where no
habitat could potentially exist.
• USFWS will consider this location and get back to HDR with comments within 2-3 weeks (approx. January 29).
• HDR can place the aerials with the proposed locations on an FTP site for USFWS and NGPC to access.
USFWS would let HDR know if this is needed.
Platte River near the North Bend USGS Gage
HDR displayed the proposed cross-section location in this reach near RM 71. HDR noted that USFWS, in their comment
letter on the Study Plan, would prefer the cross-section be taken downstream of the Hwy. 79 Bridge. The data collection
effort would consist of obtaining topographic information and would be limited to 1-2 times the channel width.
• NGPC noted that this reach would also be difficult to find a representative site for the entire reach, so it would be
sensible to take the data where the birds have nested historically. NGPC also noted that there may still be an
operable boat ramp at “Legge’s Lake” near RM 69 for access. NGPC pointed out that there was also a bar with
nesting at RM 69 in 2009.
• HDR reiterated that this cross-section needs to be “near the North Bend USGS gage.” HDR is trying to pick a
location that stays closer to the gage (at RM 72.5) and RM 69 may be a little farther than anticipated.
• USFWS said that if NGPC is okay with the site at RM 71 that HDR chose, then USFWS is okay with it.
• NGPC agreed that the site at RM 71 would work.
Loup River Upstream of the Diversion
HDR displayed the proposed the data be collected downstream of the confluence of Cedar River and the Loup River at
approximately Loup RM 39. There was has also been historic tern nesting here.
• USFWS noted that targeting the area downstream of the Cedar River is good, so as not to confuse any effects
the Cedar River could have on the data.
• All parties agreed that the proposed upstream of the diversion and downstream of the Cedar River location was
appropriate.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
Loup River Downstream of the Diversion
HDR proposed taking the cross-section between Loup RM’s 30 and 31. USFWS had proposed a site nearer to Loup RM
4, by Columbus. HDR asked if USFWS had a preference of the cross-section being cut closer to or farther from the
diversion. The data collection effort would consist of obtaining topographic information and would be limited to 1-2 times
the channel width.
• USFWS noted that they had selected the farther downstream site because they thought there were nesting
records for that area.
• HDR noted that they did not currently have nesting records for this area.
• USFWS does not have a preference about being closer or farther away from the diversion, but would like to go
back to their office and review their records before agreeing to this cross-section location. They will get back to
HDR in the 2-3 week timeframe.
• NGPC noted that if HDR is looking for an area to take data that would detect greater impacts of the operation,
wouldn’t it be better to be closer to the diversion?
• LPD noted that there is a powerline running through the trees near Loup RM 31, which would provide good
access.
• USFWS reiterated that they would prefer to review their data. It has been noted that HDR’s preference is near
Loup RM 31.
• NGPC noted that there may be a lot of people impacts directly downstream of the diversion.
o LPD noted that ATV usage typically remains upstream of Loup RM 32.
5. Study 5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion – Aerial Imagery Review
HDR will compare river conditions for five randomly generated 1-mile-stretches upstream of the diversion and five
randomly generated 1-mile-stretches downstream of the diversion. Habitat specific items will be evaluated. As there are
34 miles of Loup River downstream from the diversion to the confluence with the Platte River, the limits for review
upstream will also be 34 miles.
• USFWS noted that the “above the diversion” river would be the “control”
• HDR noted that FSA imagery would be used for this analysis and the method used by Kirsch (1996) would be
followed.
• NGPC noted that Kirsch flew the river at specific times when nests were initiated for the aerial photos used in her
analysis, which could make using FSA photos, typically taken in July, problematic. HDR stated this is the data
that is available. NGPC also asked what factors HDR would quantify.
o HDR is planning to use number of sandbars per mile, position of sandbars, vegetation composition on
sandbars, etc.
o NGPC noted that sandbars can be identified, but not all sandbars are habitat. NGPC would like HDR to
clarify that all sandbars are not habitat.
o USFWS noted that this study is not quantifying what is or is not habitat. This study is merely comparing
river conditions with respect to sandbars.
o HDR noted that originally the study was going to compare nesting numbers above and below, but after
reviewing the data, it was found that there is not enough data to offer a powerful difference worth
evaluating. HDR chose to move to the next step which was comparing river conditions.
o NGPC noted that this is a fairly weak test for how operations could be affecting the river. A better test
would be to go out and measure real life conditions for greater accuracy, but this is not feasible in the
timeframe given. NGPC also noted that focusing solely on nesting locations could confound the
analysis.
• NGPC asked if the FSA photos were all taken on the same day for the years to be analyzed. HDR responded
that this is not likely the case, but will check. HDR will try to find photos with similar flows in different years, a
representative 5 years of photos.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 8

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study Plan Data Gathering Meeting – January 5, 2010
USFWS noted that in many areas of these studies, there is a lot of gray. Differences in the years and aerial photos will
need to be stated and this study will not answer all questions.
• NGPC noted that this study still may not be able to isolate the impacts of the diversion. The study would likely
show that there is not enough evidence to show there is an impact. This study would compare conditions above
and below, but wouldn’t be able to isolate Project effects.
• HDR will provide additional details on the methods to be used for this study and try to get something in writing
that explains the method and assumptions.
• USFWS recommended a stream classification report by Jacobson and Elliot that was used on the Missouri
River. HDR could potentially use some of the same methods. USFWS would try to send detailed reference
information for this report.
• NGPC noted that this is not a stand-alone study.
FERC requested that HDR clarify if the 5 areas where cross-sections would be taken had been settled on. HDR noted
that not all locations had been decided and USFWS would get additional comments on the 5-miles Downstream of the
Tailrace confluence and Loup River Downstream of the Diversion locations back to HDR within 2-3 weeks.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:05 PM.
Action Items:
Who
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Task
HDR Develop more detailed descriptions of the studies for subsequent
Quarterly Progress Reports.
USFWS Review USFWS information, meet with NGPC, and provide
comment on what output the agencies would need from the 1D
model to determine impacts on tern, plover, and whooping crane
habitat.
USFWS Deliver 2006 USFWS lower Platte River bank stabilization survey
information to HDR. [Subsequently delivered via email on 1/5/10]
USFWS Further consider the Platte River: 5-miles Downstream of the
Tailrace Return Confluence stretch and provide comment on this
proposed cross-section location.
USFWS Further consider the Loup River Downstream of the Diversion
stretch and provide comment on this proposed cross-section
location.
USFWS Provide detailed reference information of the Jacobson and Elliot
stream classification report, referenced during the final discussion.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Date
Assigned
2/27/10
1/29/10
1/6/10
1/29/10
1/29/10
1/15/10
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 8 of 8

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Bob Harms; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Koch, Michelle; Holland, Richard
Subject: Loup River On3Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt, Melissa:
In the meeting today there was some question whether any nesting records exist between the diversion and
the Loup3Platte confluence. I was concerned by this apparent discrepancy. I did a check and there does
appear to be several records for this stretch. All data that I am aware of were provided to HDR in June 2009
via letter (with enclosures) addressed to Lisa Richardson of your firm and sent from this office . As noted in the
letter addressed to Ms. Richardson, the data, including the data that are now in question, were included in the
MS Excel file entitled “Loup River 198232005.xls”. An accompanying PDF file entitled
“Loup_Colony_Location_Key.pdf” provided supplemental location information. As also noted in the letter,
Loup River data from 2006 were provided in a separate file.
If you identify a problem with the data or file(s), an error on my part, or if for some reason you are not in
possession of these files, please let me know so that we can quickly rectify this situation.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have any questions.
3 Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On#Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Joel,
We looked into this a little more on our end. We do have the Loup River spreadsheets with some other locations
imbedded in the referenced PDF. However, our GIS technician did not map them as the locations in the PDF were only
noted by Section, Township, and Range. Thus, for our preliminary purpose of mapping the data, this location
information was not accurate enough. Our technician did tell me this, but I had forgotten that this was the case.
Let us isolate these instances. Is it possible that more accurate location information exists outside of what was in the
spreadsheet/PDF for locations? For example, have some assumptions been made as to these locations that we could
also use, rather than trying to guess where these nesting locations were in relation to the Section, Township, Range
information? Does USFWS or NGPC already have these locations entered into a GIS layer?
Thanks.
Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Bob Harms; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Koch, Michelle; Holland, Richard
Subject: Loup River On3Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt, Melissa:
In the meeting today there was some question whether any nesting records exist between the diversion and
the Loup#Platte confluence. I was concerned by this apparent discrepancy. I did a check and there does
appear to be several records for this stretch. All data that I am aware of were provided to HDR in June 2009
via letter (with enclosures) addressed to Lisa Richardson of your firm and sent from this office . As noted in the
letter addressed to Ms. Richardson, the data, including the data that are now in question, were included in the
MS Excel file entitled “Loup River 1982#2005.xls”. An accompanying PDF file entitled
“Loup_Colony_Location_Key.pdf” provided supplemental location information. As also noted in the letter,
Loup River data from 2006 were provided in a separate file.
If you identify a problem with the data or file(s), an error on my part, or if for some reason you are not in
possession of these files, please let me know so that we can quickly rectify this situation.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have any questions.
# Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt:
I’m looking into this to see whether there is any information that might provide more specific location information. The
spreadsheet that I provided is the raw data. Other data sets may exist, but all would have been derived from this original
data set. If one data file provides more precise locations, the pertinent question in my mind is whether it is the result of
some arbitrary post hoc decision process that only gives the impression of a greater precision, or whether additional
information exists where the precision is also accurate and reliable.
I agree with your comment that isolating these instances. I will try to get back to you early next week as I recognize the
time sensitivity of this matter.
Thanks and please feel free to contact me further regarding any questions with the data. There is a great deal of
information to work through..
* Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On'Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Joel,
We looked into this a little more on our end. We do have the Loup River spreadsheets with some other locations
imbedded in the referenced PDF. However, our GIS technician did not map them as the locations in the PDF were only
noted by Section, Township, and Range. Thus, for our preliminary purpose of mapping the data, this location
information was not accurate enough. Our technician did tell me this, but I had forgotten that this was the case.
Let us isolate these instances. Is it possible that more accurate location information exists outside of what was in the
spreadsheet/PDF for locations? For example, have some assumptions been made as to these locations that we could
also use, rather than trying to guess where these nesting locations were in relation to the Section, Township, Range
information? Does USFWS or NGPC already have these locations entered into a GIS layer?
Thanks.
1

Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Bob Harms; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Koch, Michelle; Holland, Richard
Subject: Loup River On'Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt, Melissa:
In the meeting today there was some question whether any nesting records exist between the diversion and
the Loup*Platte confluence. I was concerned by this apparent discrepancy. I did a check and there does
appear to be several records for this stretch. All data that I am aware of were provided to HDR in June 2009
via letter (with enclosures) addressed to Lisa Richardson of your firm and sent from this office . As noted in the
letter addressed to Ms. Richardson, the data, including the data that are now in question, were included in the
MS Excel file entitled “Loup River 1982*2005.xls”. An accompanying PDF file entitled
“Loup_Colony_Location_Key.pdf” provided supplemental location information. As also noted in the letter,
Loup River data from 2006 were provided in a separate file.
If you identify a problem with the data or file(s), an error on my part, or if for some reason you are not in
possession of these files, please let me know so that we can quickly rectify this situation.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have any questions.
* Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On(Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt:
After reviewing and looking for additional information, more precise and accurate location information does not appear to
be available for Loup River data prior to 2006. Heritage data gives the appearance of greater accuracy, but this is
because of the process and decisions made to conform to biotics national standards. The information provided appears
to be the most usable.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have questions.
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Thanks Joel. We’ll be in touch.
Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt:
I’m looking into this to see whether there is any information that might provide more specific location information. The
spreadsheet that I provided is the raw data. Other data sets may exist, but all would have been derived from this original
data set. If one data file provides more precise locations, the pertinent question in my mind is whether it is the result of
some arbitrary post hoc decision process that only gives the impression of a greater precision, or whether additional
information exists where the precision is also accurate and reliable.
1

I agree with your comment that isolating these instances. I will try to get back to you early next week as I recognize the
time sensitivity of this matter.
Thanks and please feel free to contact me further regarding any questions with the data. There is a great deal of
information to work through..
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Joel,
We looked into this a little more on our end. We do have the Loup River spreadsheets with some other locations
imbedded in the referenced PDF. However, our GIS technician did not map them as the locations in the PDF were only
noted by Section, Township, and Range. Thus, for our preliminary purpose of mapping the data, this location
information was not accurate enough. Our technician did tell me this, but I had forgotten that this was the case.
Let us isolate these instances. Is it possible that more accurate location information exists outside of what was in the
spreadsheet/PDF for locations? For example, have some assumptions been made as to these locations that we could
also use, rather than trying to guess where these nesting locations were in relation to the Section, Township, Range
information? Does USFWS or NGPC already have these locations entered into a GIS layer?
Thanks.
Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Bob Harms; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Koch, Michelle; Holland, Richard
Subject: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt, Melissa:
In the meeting today there was some question whether any nesting records exist between the diversion and
the Loup(Platte confluence. I was concerned by this apparent discrepancy. I did a check and there does
appear to be several records for this stretch. All data that I am aware of were provided to HDR in June 2009
via letter (with enclosures) addressed to Lisa Richardson of your firm and sent from this office . As noted in the
2

letter addressed to Ms. Richardson, the data, including the data that are now in question, were included in the
MS Excel file entitled “Loup River 1982(2005.xls”. An accompanying PDF file entitled
“Loup_Colony_Location_Key.pdf” provided supplemental location information. As also noted in the letter,
Loup River data from 2006 were provided in a separate file.
If you identify a problem with the data or file(s), an error on my part, or if for some reason you are not in
possession of these files, please let me know so that we can quickly rectify this situation.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have any questions.
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
3

Selzle, Lydia
From: Jorgensen, Joel [Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On(Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt:
After reviewing and looking for additional information, more precise and accurate location information does not appear to
be available for Loup River data prior to 2006. Heritage data gives the appearance of greater accuracy, but this is
because of the process and decisions made to conform to biotics national standards. The information provided appears
to be the most usable.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have questions.
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Thanks Joel. We’ll be in touch.
Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt:
I’m looking into this to see whether there is any information that might provide more specific location information. The
spreadsheet that I provided is the raw data. Other data sets may exist, but all would have been derived from this original
data set. If one data file provides more precise locations, the pertinent question in my mind is whether it is the result of
some arbitrary post hoc decision process that only gives the impression of a greater precision, or whether additional
information exists where the precision is also accurate and reliable.
1

I agree with your comment that isolating these instances. I will try to get back to you early next week as I recognize the
time sensitivity of this matter.
Thanks and please feel free to contact me further regarding any questions with the data. There is a great deal of
information to work through..
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Marinovich, Melissa
Subject: RE: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Joel,
We looked into this a little more on our end. We do have the Loup River spreadsheets with some other locations
imbedded in the referenced PDF. However, our GIS technician did not map them as the locations in the PDF were only
noted by Section, Township, and Range. Thus, for our preliminary purpose of mapping the data, this location
information was not accurate enough. Our technician did tell me this, but I had forgotten that this was the case.
Let us isolate these instances. Is it possible that more accurate location information exists outside of what was in the
spreadsheet/PDF for locations? For example, have some assumptions been made as to these locations that we could
also use, rather than trying to guess where these nesting locations were in relation to the Section, Township, Range
information? Does USFWS or NGPC already have these locations entered into a GIS layer?
Thanks.
Matt
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Marinovich, Melissa; Pillard, Matt
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Bob Harms; jeff_runge@fws.gov; Koch, Michelle; Holland, Richard
Subject: Loup River On*Rive Data: Diversion to Mouth
Matt, Melissa:
In the meeting today there was some question whether any nesting records exist between the diversion and
the Loup(Platte confluence. I was concerned by this apparent discrepancy. I did a check and there does
appear to be several records for this stretch. All data that I am aware of were provided to HDR in June 2009
via letter (with enclosures) addressed to Lisa Richardson of your firm and sent from this office . As noted in the
2

letter addressed to Ms. Richardson, the data, including the data that are now in question, were included in the
MS Excel file entitled “Loup River 1982(2005.xls”. An accompanying PDF file entitled
“Loup_Colony_Location_Key.pdf” provided supplemental location information. As also noted in the letter,
Loup River data from 2006 were provided in a separate file.
If you identify a problem with the data or file(s), an error on my part, or if for some reason you are not in
possession of these files, please let me know so that we can quickly rectify this situation.
Please do not hesitate contacting me if you have any questions.
( Joel
===============================
Joel Jorgensen
Nongame Bird Program Manager
Wildlife Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Lincoln, NE 68503
402 471 5440
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov
3

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Study 8.0: Recreation Use
Meeting Date: January 14, 2010
2:30 PM – 4:30 PM
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Randy Thoreson – NPS
Jeff Schuckman – NGPC
Dave Tunink – NGPC
Rick Holland – NGPC
Mark Ivy – FERC
Ron Ziola – LPD
Meeting Location: Conference Call
Meeting Notes
Jim Frear – LPD
Quinn Damgaard – HDR
Ellen Fitzsimmons – HDR
A meeting was held between the Loup Power District (the District), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
HDR Engineering (HDR), the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC), and the National Park Service (NPS) to
finalize methods for data collection activities associate with Study 8.0: Recreation Use.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Trail Counters
2. Phone Survey Timing
3. Creel Survey Clerk Training
4. Clarification of Study Plan Determination Comments on Survey Questions
5. Survey Methods along Bypass Reach and at Loup Lands WMA
6. General Recreation Use Survey Schedule
7. Other (Non-Agenda Discussion)
Discussion:
HDR began the meeting with introductions. Discussion of issues is summarized by agenda topic below.
1. Trail Counters
In the meeting invitation, HDR provided an informational brochure on the TRAFx Infrared Trail Counter Generation III that
the District is proposing to use for trail count activities. In an off-line email, prior to the meeting, FERC noted “TrailMaster”
as alternative equipment. FERC was concerned about the TRAFx equipment not counting cyclists and volunteered that
the Trailmaster equipment has been used successfully in other studies. HDR will contact TRAFx to verify the ability of the
equipment to detect cyclists and let FERC and NPS know the result of the inquiry. FERC will forward HDR a list of the
specific Trailmaster equipment that would be required of the study. FERC noted that some time will need to be built into
the count schedule to assure that the counters are calibrated correctly and accurately record data.
The counters will be placed along Two Lakes Trail, Bob Lake Trail, and Robert White Trail. The TRAFx package includes
three counters, which would be placed in the middle of each of the three trails. Counter location would be consistent
throughout the entire survey period. All participants were in agreement with the proposed methods. FERC suggested
that an inquiry be made as to how the trails are used by each type of user (walkers/cyclists and whether the use is a loop
or out-and-back). The results of this determination would derive a formula which would account for out-and-back users
that pass the counter twice.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 1

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study 8.0: Recreation Use – January 14, 2010
2. Phone Survey Timing
HDR inquired on whether or not any agencies had specific preferences as to when the phone survey would occur, with
the understanding that it must occur during a point in 2010 to allow sufficient time to review survey results and determine
whether or not the response warrants an extension of the overall Recreation Use Study – beyond October 31, 2010. No
agencies had any preference and it was generally agreed that the survey would occur in the spring/summer.
3. Creel Survey Clerk Training
During preparation of the Proposed Study Plan, NGPC initiated the idea of holding creel survey clerk training at their
Norfolk Office, prior to the initiation of the creel survey. With this in mind, HDR inquired about NGPC’s ability to perform
this training and when it should occur. NGPC noted that training activities could occur during a meeting intended to fine
tune Recreation Use data collection methods (and discussed in Section 7, below). NGPC noted that they have training
manuals that can be used in training activities.
4. Clarification of Study Plan Determination comments on Survey Questions
FERC asked if the changes they proposed in the Study Plan Determination have been incorporated into the survey forms.
HDR indicated that the FERC-recommended revisions have been reviewed and incorporated into the forms. Upon FERC
request, HDR agreed to forward the revised forms to FERC and NPS via email. The phone survey was revised to
indicate that demographic information will be collected for all respondents completing the survey. Question strings A
(familiar with Loup sites and use Loup sites), B (familiar with Loup sites but do not use Loup sites), and C (not familiar
with Loup sites) will all conclude with demographic questions.
5. Survey Methods along the Loup River Bypass Reach and Loup Lands WMA
The District is proposing a mail-back windshield visitor survey for the subject locations and referenced that this method
has recently been approved by FERC during their Study Plan Determination of the Merced Irrigation District FERC
Relicensing Project (FERC No. 2179). According to this method, a mail-back survey would be placed on the windshields
of vacant vehicles parked at publicly accessible access points along the Loup River Bypass Reach. The District proposes
to perform this activity on four weekend days between May 1 and July 4. If considerable use is noted during the four
proposed surveys, the District would then entertain extending the survey.
The survey forms would be tailored to include activities associated with the Bypass Reach, and the survey would take
place on different days than the recreation survey to occur within the Project Boundary.
FERC stated that the Bypass Reach survey should be comparable to the survey proposed within the Project Boundary.
Similarly, NGPC was concerned with the limited survey scope. HDR stated that based on the lack of use documented
during the NGPC 1996 and 1997 creel surveys performed along the Bypass Reach and the minimal flows known to occur
within the Bypass Reach during the irrigation season, a limited survey was adequate for the Bypass Reach.
FERC and NGPC also expressed some concern that by limiting the survey to users or vehicles located at publicly
accessible access points, the survey may not accurately depict use along the Bypass Reach. To address this concern,
FERC and NGPC suggested that an airboat could be used to expand the survey capabilities. FERC then went on to
request study plans (including cost estimates) for both an access survey and a survey that includes the use of air boats.
In calculating costs, NGPC suggests that a minimum of six survey days be proposed per month. In response to this
request, HDR stressed that the proposed access method is consistent with that used on the Bypass Reach by NGPC in
1996 and 1997, that the windshield method is consistent with methods recently approved on other FERC projects, and
that on page 26 of FERC’s Project-specific Study Plan Determination, FERC specifically states that a survey will occur at
the access points along the Bypass Reach that receive the highest recreational use. The District went on to state that
they neither own, nor have access to, an airboat.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 2

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study 8.0: Recreation Use – January 14, 2010
It was ultimately determined that the District will provide a more-detailed plan on the proposed survey methods along the
Bypass Reach.
6. Recreation Use Survey Schedule
As noted in more detail below, the survey schedule was developed by NGPC in association with Study 9.0 of the
Proposed Study Plan and would be applied to the combined study detailed in the Revised Study Plan; however, October
is not included in this schedule. The group agreed that this schedule was sufficient with the caveat that a schedule for
survey activities during October would need to be determined.
7. Other (Non-Agenda Discussion)
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the methods and processes detailed in Study 8.0 of the Revised Study Plan
and regarding the combining of the Recreation User Survey and the Creel Survey into one comprehensive study.
FERC inquired on the interview selection protocol that would be applied when more recreational users are present
then can be interviewed. HDR stated their awareness of FERC’s provided example of every seventh user
interviewed and noted this was acceptable to the District and would be applied.
Anglers would get a dual survey (recreation and creel).
Jeff Schuckman expressed concern with the proposed method and the lack of an instantaneous count (for use in
creel analysis). HDR expressed that this method was discussed and agreed upon in previous agency meetings
attended by NGPC fisheries staff and that the exclusion of an instantaneous count is specifically noted in the Revised
Study Plan. Rick Holland explained that there are two ways to perform a creel survey, one of which includes a bus
route survey, which is consistent with the methods proposed by the District and does not require an instantaneous
count. In accordance with this method, the study area would be divided into segments which would each be allocated
a designated survey time, based on understood use/pressure. The four segments labeled in Figure 9-1, Study 9.0
Creel Survey of the District’s Proposed Study Plan were agreed upon as applicable to this type of combined bus
route survey. Survey proctors would move through a segment in a linear fashion and would count and interview
users as they are encountered. It was noted that effort should be made to randomize the time when survey
segments are visited such that the same locations are not continuously visited during the same time of day. NGPC
noted that they were aware of software that could accommodate a bus route survey; otherwise, NGPC software may
still apply if each position was entered as a different site (survey).
FERC asked why April was not included in the survey schedule and the District explained that the area is not officially
open until mid-to-late April. NGPC also noted that angling pressure generally does not ramp up until May.
The survey schedule developed by NGPC in association with Study 9.0 of the Proposed Study Plan would be applied
to the combined study detailed in the Revised Study Plan; however, October is not included in this schedule. The
October survey schedule would need to be determined.
NGPC noted that during poor weather conditions, it is appropriate to enter zeros and not perform surveys, as it is
assumed that users would/could not access the area for recreation. NGPC stated that if access is feasible, even in
limited areas, surveys should occur – if in doubt…survey. The data should not be biased for only good weather days.
Ultimately, it was decided that representatives from the District, HDR, and NGPC will get together for a face-to-face
meeting to fine tune the details of the Recreation Use data collection activities. This meeting must occur prior to May
1, and based on participant schedules, is targeted for early March.
Meeting Adjourned at 4:30 PM.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 3

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study 8.0: Recreation Use – January 14, 2010
Action Items:
Who
HDR
FERC
HDR
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Task
Contact TRAFx to verify the ability of the equipment to
detect cyclists and consult with FERC and NPS.
Forward the required equipment list for TrailMaster counter
to HDR.
Schedule face-to-face meeting between the District, HDR,
and NGPC to fine-tune Recreation Use survey methods
(FERC and NPS will also be invited and may choose to
participate via conference call).
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Date
Assigned
1/14/10
1/14/10
1/14/10
HDR Forward survey forms to FERC and NPS for review. 1/14/10
HDR/LPD
Prepare more detailed study plan for methods proposed along
the Loup River Bypass Reach and within the Loup Lands
WMA and provide to present agencies for review.
1/14/10
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 4

From: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:22 AM
To: 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; Mark Ivy; 'Schuckman, Jeff';
'richard.holland@nebraska.gov'; 'dave.tunink@nebraska.gov'; Ron Ziola; Jim
Frear
Cc: Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Thompson, Wendy
Subject: LPD Recreation Call Notes Jan 14 2010
Attachments: LPD_Recreation_Call_Notes_100114.pdf
All:
Notes from our January 14, 2010 Loup Power District recreation conference call are respectfully
provided for your reference. Please notify me of any concerns that you may have with the notes by
close of business on January 26.
Thanks and Regards,
Quinn Damgaard
Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114"4049
Phone: 402.399.1041
Fax: 402.399.1111

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mark Ivy [Mark.Ivy@ferc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Damgaard, Quinn V.; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; Schuckman, Jeff;
richard.holland@nebraska.gov; dave.tunink@nebraska.gov; Ron Ziola; Jim Frear
Cc: Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Thompson, Wendy
Subject: RE: LPD Recreation Call Notes Jan 14 2010
Quinn,
Per our telephone conservation, I am sending you a list of equipment needs should you decide to use the Trailmaster
technology for trail counts. At a minimum you will need three TM1550 active infrared trail monitors (one per trail). While
you can download data manually in the field, I have found that it is more reliable to use a data logger. This equipment
also eliminates the need for data entry into a stat package or excel. I have also used their Stat Package and have found it
useful in the generation of reports, but you can create tables and spreadsheets in SPSS or Excel using the raw data. You
will have to determine whether or not the software is cheaper than staff time.
I want to reiterate that I am not advocating that you purchase this technology, but I wanted to make you aware of other
options. Regardless of the technology you intend to use, it is critical to field test it before the data collection period begins
so that it can be properly calibrated.
Let me know if you have any other questions,
Mark
Mark Ivy, PhD
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
202.502.6156
202.219.2152 (fax)
From: Damgaard, Quinn V. [mailto:Quinn.Damgaard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:22 AM
To: 'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; Mark Ivy; 'Schuckman, Jeff'; 'richard.holland@nebraska.gov';
'dave.tunink@nebraska.gov'; Ron Ziola; Jim Frear
Cc: Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Thompson, Wendy
Subject: LPD Recreation Call Notes Jan 14 2010
All:
Notes from our January 14, 2010 Loup Power District recreation conference call are respectfully provided for your
reference. Please notify me of any concerns that you may have with the notes by close of business on January 26.
Thanks and Regards,
Quinn Damgaard
Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114"4049
Phone: 402.399.1041
Fax: 402.399.1111
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Robert_Harms@fws.gov
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:55 PM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov; joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov; Michelle.Koch@nebraska.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; richard.holland@nebraska.gov; dave.tunink@nebraska.gov
Subject: Study Plan Input Loup Power District
Importance: High
Matt:
Please make reference to our January 5, 2010, meeting in Lincoln about details on the study plan. At that
meeting, there were several items that needed further consideration and response from NGPC and FWS. We
completed our discussions and offer the following input below as a means of assisting HDR with study design.
Bold items are our responses to questions posed at the January 5 meeting by HDR.
a) Hydrocycling: HDR is developing a 10dimensional HEC0RAS steady0state model to study the effects of
hydrocycling on the least tern and piping plover nesting habitat.
HDR inquired as to what kinds of information does FWS and NGPC want to obtain from this model?
We need to understand the relationship among various daily flow discharge alternatives under non
hydropeaking and hydropeaking regimes and how each alternative affects the probability of sandbar
erosion and nest/chick inundation among a range of discharges.
b) Flow Depletion and Diversion: HDR is developing a 10dimensional HEC0RAS steady0state model to study
the effects of hydrocycling on the least tern and piping plover nesting habitat and whooping crane roosting
habitat on the Loup River bypass reach.
HDR inquired as to what kinds of information does FWS and NGPC want to obtain from this model?
Terns and plovers: We need to understand the relationship among various discharge alternatives and the
number, size, bar height, bar position (mid channel or point) and channel depths which isolate such bars.
Whoopers: We need to understand the relationship among various discharge alternatives and
unobstructed channel width, total wetted width, distance to visual obstructions, and cumulative depth.
c) We discussed the location for survey work at several locations along the Platte and Loup rivers to identify a
representative location for such surveys. We need to discuss and make a recommendation on locations to HDR.
These segments include:
1) Tailrace downstream for a distance of 5 miles.
We are OK with 1 D survey work in this segment at the large bar downstream of Bellwood. However,
geomorphology cross section for the sediment transport study should not occur here but at the segment of
river between the tailrace and the railroad bridge. The geomorphology cross section can also serve as the
input cross section for 1 D modeling.
2) Loup Power District Diversion downstream to the Loup and Platte rivers confluence.
1

We are OK with going with HDRs recommendation on this.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
a) HDR will need to coordinate with the NGPC And FWS to avoid any potential take of least terns and
piping plovers that could occur during the course of survey activities.
b) We request that HDR provide the NGPC and FWS a copy of a detailed study plan for review and
comment.
c) For the aerial photography work in the flow bypass section, LPD/HDR should compare Geomorphic
Measurements as described by Elliott and Jacobsen (2006). We recommend channel attributes from the
geomorphic measurement section (page 16) include valley width, channel width, sinuosity, bare sand
bars, and vegetated bars. Study sites should be located in areas that are not affected by bank
stabilization. Channel attributes should be compared to: a) mean flow at the photography date, and b)
antecedent peak flow occurring within the calendar year. Photography should try to capture variability
in a) and b).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions, please contact me by E0mail or
telephone if you have any questions.
Bob
Robert R. Harms
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801
Phone: 308038206468, Extension 17
Fax: 308038408835
robert_harms@fws.gov
2

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Study 8.0: Recreation Use
Meeting Date: February 11, 2010
9:30 AM – 12:30 PM
Notes by: HDR
Attendees:
Quinn Damgaard – HDR Engineering
Jim Frear – Loup Power District
Mike Gutzmer – New Century Environmental
Rick Holland – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Keith Hurley – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Kevin Pope – Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Jeff Schuckman – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Dave Tunink – Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Ron Ziola – Loup Power District
Meeting Notes
Meeting Location: Loup Power District Office –
Columbus, NE
Meeting Overview:
Per the request of NGPC during a similar meeting held January 14, 2009, a supplemental meeting was held between the
Loup Power District (the District), HDR Engineering (HDR), the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC), the
Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and New Century Environmental (NCE) to finalize methods for
data collection activities associate with Study 8.0: Recreation Use.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Finalize Methods for the Rec/Creel Survey along the Loup Power Canal
2. Establish Methods for the Rec Survey along the Loup River Bypass Reach
Discussion:
The meeting began with introductions and project background. Following extensive discussion on data collection
methods and how the discussed methods would affect data analysis, the following outcomes and final methods were
determined.
1. Loup River Power Canal Recreation Survey Methods
A Progressive Count Bus-Route Creel/Rec Survey will be performed along the Canal in accordance with the following
details:
• Survey will follow the randomized schedule produced by NGPC during the meeting (attached)
o May 1 through October 31 – 6 weekdays and 4 weekend days per month
o Creel survey must follow the developed schedule and will not be performed on July 4 or Labor Day
(September 6) – A recreation only survey will be performed on these days in accordance with the
FERC’s Study Plan Determination
o Survey will begin at the exact start time for the specified period during the appropriate month.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 1

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study 8.0: Recreation Use – February 11, 2010
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
o Survey will use one team of two proctors on weekdays and two teams of two proctors on weekends and
holidays.
• Survey will start from either the Headworks or the Tailrace (as specified in the NGPC-prepared schedule) and
not in the middle of the Canal.
o Facilitates logistics difficulties associated with starting in the middle of the canal and then back tracking.
o Adequate randomization will be achieved by altering between two periods and two start points.
• Canal will be divided into four segments (consistent with those shown in Study 9.0 Creel Survey as presented in
the District’s Proposed Study Plan). This division is for analysis purposes only and will be recorded on both
creel count sheets (one count sheet will be completed for each survey day and the four rows will be used to
differentiate counts between the four segments) and interview forms.
o Headworks to Monroe Powerhouse
o Monroe Powerhouse to 48 th Avenue
o 48 th Avenue to Columbus Powerhouse
o Columbus Powerhouse to Tailrace Park
o Proctors will record lat/long coordinate of counts/interviews on appropriate forms.
• Survey will be limited to portions of the Canal that are accessible by vehicle.
o Users do not stray far from their vehicles – use in areas where vehicular access is restricted is
considered negligible.
• Proctors will have the entire survey period (6.5 – 7.5 hours) to cover the entire Canal
o Proctors are to use their best judgment while progressing along the Canal to assure that the entire
Canal is surveyed within the specified period. Noted that the most pressure will occur at the
Headworks, Tailrace, Siphons, Powerhouses, and Lake North.
o Counts and interviews can not occur outside of the designated Period.
o No specific time restrictions will be applied to the four segments listed above.
o If proctors complete the survey of the entire Canal ahead of the Period End Time, proctors can then go
back and pick up additional interviews; however, no additional counts would be performed.
o No user will be counted or interviewed more than once in a given period
• All non-English speaking users will be counted
o Attempts will be made to interview. Potential that the children of the group might speak English
sufficient to complete an interview.
o No incomplete interview forms will be submitted.
o No special accommodations (bi-lingual proctor or survey forms written in Spanish) are required.
• As-designed, the survey can be entered into existing NGPC software
o LPD/HDR/NCE will perform all data collection and data entry (data entry will be performed as it is
collected and hard copy forms will be filed and maintained).
o NGPC will run output analysis
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 2

LPD Hydropower Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256
Study 8.0: Recreation Use – February 11, 2010
2. Loup River Bypass Reach Recreation Survey Methods
Attendees discussed the scope of the survey that would be adequate to address the intent of collecting recreational use
data along the Bypass Reach. It was generally agreed upon that a survey, much abbreviated to that which will be
performed on the canal, is adequate, and that data should be collected and analyzed during two periods: 1) pre-irrigation
diversion: May 1 – July 15, and 2) post-irrigation diversion: July 15 – September 30. Methods by which the data will be
collected were also discussed. The following provides greater detail on this discussion:
• The survey will be performed on 10 days (6 weekdays and 4 weekend days) during each of the two periods
specified above.
• The survey could be performed at publicly-accessible locations along the Bypass Reach or via use of an airboat.
o The District made no commitment to which method it would employ
o If the access-point method is used, mail-back surveys would be left on vacant vehicles to supplement
data collected from interviewed users.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:30 PM.
Action Items:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
Who
Task
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Date
Assigned
NGPC Provide the applicable NGPC software for data entry 2/15/10
LPD/HDR/NCE
Coordinate with NGPC to determine randomized schedule for bypass
reach survey days.
2/15/10
LPD/HDR/NCE Finalize Bypass Reach Study Plan and provide to agencies for review. 2/15/10
Page 3 of 3

Loup Power District 2010 Recreation and Creel Survey Schedule
Month Date Day Period Start Location Notes
4 Tuesday 0630‐1330 Headworks
5 Wednesday 0630‐1330 Headworks
7 Friday 1330‐2030 Headworks
9 Sunday 1330‐2030 Tailrace
May
15
19
Saturday
Wednesday
1330‐2030
1330‐2030
Tailrace
Tailrace
23 Sunday 0630‐1330 Headworks
27 Thursday 0630‐1330 Headworks
29 Saturday 0630‐1330 Tailrace
31 Monday 1330‐2030 Tailrace Holiday ‐ Both Creel and Rec Survey
June
July
August
2 Wednesday 0600‐1330 Headworks
3 Thursday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
5 Saturday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
8 Tuesday 1330‐2100 Headworks
12 Saturday 0600‐1330 Tailrace
15 Tuesday 0600‐1330 Headworks
19 Saturday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
21 Monday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
23 Wednesday 0600‐1330 Headworks
27 Sunday 0600‐1330 Headworks
1 Thursday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
2 Friday 0600‐1330 Tailrace
4 Sunday 0600‐1330 Headworks Holiday ‐ Rec Survey Only ‐ No Creel
5 Monday 1330‐2100 Headworks
7 Wednesday 0600‐1330 Tailrace
10 Saturday 0600‐1330 Tailrace
16 Friday 1330‐2100 Headworks
20 Tuesday 0600‐1330 Headworks
25 Sunday 1330‐2100 Headworks
28 Wednesday 0600‐1330 Headworks
31 Saturday 1330‐2100 Tailrace
3 Tuesday 0630‐1330 Tailrace
11 Wednesday 0630‐1330 Headworks
14 Saturday 1330‐2030 Tailrace
15 Sunday 1330‐2030 Tailrace
18 Wednesday 1330‐2030 Headworks
22 Sunday 0630‐1330 Headworks
23 Monday 1330‐2030 Headworks
28 Saturday 1330‐2030 Headworks
30 Monday 0630‐1330 Tailrace
31 Tuesday 0630‐1330 Tailrace

Loup Power District 2010 Recreation and Creel Survey Schedule
Month Date Day Period Start Location Notes
1 Wednesday 1330‐2000 Headworks
3 Friday 0700‐1330 Headworks
4 Saturday 0700‐1330 Tailrace
6 Monday 1330‐2000 Headworks Holiday ‐ Rec Survey Only ‐ No Creel
8 Wednesday 0700‐1330 Tailrace
September 10 Friday 1330‐2000 Tailrace
11 Saturday 0700‐1330 Headworks
13 Monday 0700‐1330 Headworks
19 Sunday 1330‐2000 Headworks
25 Saturday 1330‐2000 Tailrace
30 Thursday 1330‐2000 Tailrace
October
2 Saturday 0800‐1330 Headworks
5 Tuesday 1330‐1900 Tailrace
9 Saturday 0800‐1330 Headworks
15 Friday 1330‐1900 Headworks
18 Monday 1330‐1900 Tailrace
20 Wednesday 0800‐1330 Headworks
23 Saturday 1330‐1900 Tailrace
26 Tuesday 0800‐1330 Tailrace
28 Thursday 1330‐1900 Tailrace
30 Saturday 0800‐1330 Headworks

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:49 AM
To: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
asheridan@omahatribe.com; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net;
calms@neb.rr.com; cgenoa@cablene.com; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com;
cityadmin@cablene.com; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; CoraJones@bia.gov;
cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov;
frank.winchell@ferc.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com;
jean.angell@nebraska.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe.ne.org;
justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
lewrightjr@gmail.com; Louis_pofahl@mail.house.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; mark.ivy@ferc.gov;
marvp@megavision.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; ncpza@hamilton.net;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; patricia.leppert@ferc.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
robertm@llnrd.org; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
thowe@ponca.com; todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District . FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
For your information, Loup Power District has submitted the second quarterly study progress report to FERC and it has
been posted to the project website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114.4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Cell: 402.689.5187| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

From: user-submission@response-o-matic.com
To: Thompson, Wendy
Cc: arobak@loup.com; Brimmer, Michelle; Frame, Gail
Subject: Loup Comments/Mailing List (fb2)
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:33:31 AM
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Mohler
First Name: Robert
Affilitation: Lower Loup Natural Resources District
Phone: 308-728-3221
Complete Email Address: robertm@llnrd.org
Address 1: 2620 Airport Drive
Address 2: P.O. Box 210
City: Ord
State: NE
Zip Code: 68862
Comments: In reviewing the Progress Report #2, I still notice that the Lower Loup as well as all the
other NRDs listed are spelled incorrectly. Please note that we manage more than one resource,
therefore the legislature has entitled us Natural Resources Disticts.
--
Date/Time: 2010-02-25 06:33:25 PST
Sender IP: 71.8.247.186 [United States] | vskj4j0ojxbf4gl0
Referrer: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/commentform.html

From: Thompson, Wendy
To: "robertm@llnrd.org"
Subject: Loup Comment
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:29:25 PM
We apologize for omitting the s in Natural Resources District. We are correcting our lists.
Wendy Thompson
Administrative Assistant
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098 Phone:402.399.1341| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email:wendy.thompson@hdrinc.com

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:16 PM
To: Frame, Gail; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: Angling Access
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Gail – please add to the DB
Wendy – please file on PW
Quinn & Ellen – FYI for the recreation study.
From: Neal Suess [mailto:nsuess@loup.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 9:55 AM
To: m kush
Subject: RE: Angling Access
Mitch:
As you may know, Loup Power District is currently in the process of relicensing its entire hydroelectric project,
including both powerhouses and the canal. As part of that process, the District is studying recreation use along
the canal and the extent that use is meeting the demand of the area. The study will be conducted during 2010 and
we will then be sitting down with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the governing agency who oversees
the powerhouses and canal, the Nebraska Game and Park Commission, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service to determine what further steps may need to be taken as a result of the studies
conducted. You can keep abreast of the updates by reviewing our relicensing website at
http://www.loup.com/relicense/index.html. This website is update frequently with information about the process.
You can also submit comments and contact us via this website. We will take your thoughts into account as we
perform our studies and move forward with our relicensing efforts.
Thank you for your concerns.
Neal Suess, P.E.
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988 (2404 15th Street)
Columbus, NE 68602;0988
Phone: 402;564;3171
Fax: 402;564;0970
Cell: 402;910;8979
E;Mail: nsuess@loup.com
From: m kush [mailto:mkush@neb.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:07 PM
To: Neal Suess
Subject: Angling Access
1

Neal,
I would like to know if you would ever entertain the idea of enhancing angler access and habitat at Lake North,
Babcock Lake, and/or portions of the canal? Part of this could include rock jetties, fishing piers, underwater
habitat such as sunken trees, and possibly some dredging along the camping areas at Babcock Lake, etc...
If so, I would like to contact the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) to discuss possible funding
options that could be presented to you for further consideration.
Aside from my own selfish angling motives, I believe it would be a well used resource, especially during trying
economic times such as we are experiencing now. I also believe that a wide variety of amenities only
enhances a community’s image and comfort. Loup Power District has been very generous with their
recreational areas, and I would like to help improve upon what is already available.
Best Regards,
Mitch Kush
2

From: user-submission@response-o-matic.com
To: Thompson, Wendy
Cc: arobak@loup.com; Brimmer, Michelle; Frame, Gail
Subject: Loup Comments/Mailing List (aff)
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:51:30 PM
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Kush
First Name: Mitch
Affilitation: customer
Phone: 402-564-5310
Complete Email Address: mkush@neb.rr.com
Address 1: 2058 40th Ave
Address 2:
City: Columbus
State: NE
Zip Code: 68601
Put me on the mailing list? Yes
Comments: I would like to know if the time has passed to get involved with public input regarding
recreational activities(specifically fishing and OHV)?
Thank You,
Mitch Kush
--
Date/Time: 2010-03-15 20:51:25 PDT
Sender IP: 76.85.147.18 [United States] | vskj4j0ojxbf4gl0
Referrer: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/commentform.html

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Frame, Gail; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Fitzsimmons, Ellen; Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: Angling Access
Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:16:04 PM
From: Neal Suess [mailto:nsuess@loup.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 9:55 AM
To: m kush
Subject: RE: Angling Access
Mitch:
As you may know, Loup Power District is currently in the process of relicensing its entire
hydroelectric project, including both powerhouses and the canal. As part of that process, the
District is studying recreation use along the canal and the extent that use is meeting the demand
of the area. The study will be conducted during 2010 and we will then be sitting down with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the governing agency who oversees the powerhouses and
canal, the Nebraska Game and Park Commission, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Park Service to determine what further steps may need to be taken as a result of
the studies conducted. You can keep abreast of the updates by reviewing our relicensing website
at http://www.loup.com/relicense/index.html. This website is update frequently with information
about the process. You can also submit comments and contact us via this website. We will take
your thoughts into account as we perform our studies and move forward with our relicensing
efforts.
Thank you for your concerns.
Neal Suess, P.E.
Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988 (2404 15th Street)
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone: 402-564-3171
Fax: 402-564-0970
Cell: 402-910-8979
E-Mail: nsuess@loup.com
From: m kush
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:07 PM
To: Neal Suess
Subject: Angling Access
Neal,
I would like to know if you would ever entertain the idea of enhancing angler access and
habitat at Lake North, Babcock Lake, and/or portions of the canal? Part of this could
include rock jetties, fishing piers, underwater habitat such as sunken trees, and possibly
some dredging along the camping areas at Babcock Lake, etc...
If so, I would like to contact the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) to
discuss possible funding options that could be presented to you for further consideration.
Aside from my own selfish angling motives, I believe it would be a well used resource,

especially during trying economic times such as we are experiencing now. I also believe
that a wide variety of amenities only enhances a community’s image and comfort. Loup
Power District has been very generous with their recreational areas, and I would like to
help improve upon what is already available.
Best Regards,
Mitch Kush

Selzle, Lydia
From: Mark Ivy [Mark.Ivy@ferc.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:21 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Kim Nguyen
Cc: Neal Suess; Ziola; frear; Damgaard, Quinn V.
Subject: RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256 6 Bypass Reach Survey Notes
Lisa,
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review your summary of our recent conference call. Kim is out of the
office for a week and thus will not be able to provide comments until she returns.
I would like to make the following clarifications:
Best,
Mark
1) Loup Lands WMA
The species listed for wildlife watching were meant as examples only, not to imply that they are found at
the site. Since the occurrence of watchable wildlife species within the WMA has not documented, it may
be helpful to contact local bird watching or nature study groups.
2) Bypass Reach Survey Methods
At Looking Glass Creek WMA it appears from Google Earth that the access road is adjacent to the Loup
River. If field work proves this to be accurate, it seems to be a logical place for the public to access the
river.
Another protocol question that was posed was: What would happen if the survey team ran out of time
before sampling all of the access points on a given survey day (Thinking about the days when surveying
does not begin until 3:30 pm)
The question was also raised as to whether the data gathered would be extrapolated to cover the months
not sampled.
Mark Ivy, PhD
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Division of Hydropower Licensing
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
202.502.6156
202.219.2152 (fax)
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha) [mailto:Lisa.Richardson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:49 PM
To: Kim Nguyen; Mark Ivy
Cc: Neal Suess; Ziola; frear; Damgaard, Quinn V.
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256 7 Bypass Reach Survey Notes
Kim and Mark,
Attached are notes from our conference call on April 1, 2010 to discuss the Bypass Reach Survey. Please let me know if
you have any questions or comments.
Lisa
1

Project: Loup Public Power FERC Relicense
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114-4098
Telephone Record
Project No: 000000000037139
Date: 04/16/10 Subject: Angler Access
Call to: Mr. Quinn Damgaard - HDR
Call from: Mr. Mitch Kush - Private Citizen
Phone No: 402-399-1041
Discussion, Agreement and/or Action:
Mr. Kush stated his position that additional angler access is needed along project fisheries and inquired on
how the relicensing process might consider this input.
Mr. Kush originally provided a letter to Neal Seuss regarding his position, at which time Neal informed Mr.
Kush of the relicensing process and put him in contact with NGPC and NPS. Mr. Kush then contacted these
agencies who forwarded him to Matt Pillard – HDR. This call represents HDR’s first contact with Mr. Kush.
Mr. Kush had knowledge that a creel survey was proposed but was unaware of the details (HDR stated
survey details) and was concerned that the survey may not result in what he feels to be a dramatic need for
increased bank and boat fishing opportunities. Mr. Kush stated that there are approximately 3,800 licensed
anglers in Nance and Platte counties and that the only two boat ramps in Platte County occur at Lake North
and Lake Babcock. He stated that the heavy boat and water skiing traffic that occurs on Lake North conflicts
with angling, and has an overall concern with the limited shore fishing access. He stated that it is difficult to
access Lake Babcock from the shore or via boat and wonders if there is any possibility of dredging Lake
Babcock or providing fishing jetties in the southwest portion of the lake near the community college.
HDR noted that although no formal public meetings were planned, Mr. Kush was welcome to provide formal
written comment or meet with HDR and/or the District on his concerns. HDR also stated that his input would
be considered during the preparation of the Recreation Management Plan and explained how this was a
condition of the pending operating license.
Mr. Kush stated his intention to follow up with written comment and noted his appreciation for the input and
time.
Phone (402) 399-1098
Fax (402) 399-1111
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 1

From: m kush
To: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Schuckman, Jeff; mark_weekley@nps.gov; Pillard, Matt; Holland, Richard;
Randy_Thoreson@nps.gov
Subject: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:07:58 PM
Attachments: Angler comment summary 4-19-10.doc
Angler comments 4-19-10.doc
Quinn,
Thank you for taking the time to visit with me about the Loup Re-licensing
project. Per our discussion, I have documented some of my concerns in the
attached MSWord file. I have also attached a summary page if you prefer.
Also, per our discussion, I have copied all those who were on the original
emails as a courtesy for them to read/delete as they see fit.
Thanks again. I appreciate everyone's time and the warm welcome to provide
comments. Please feel free to contact me at your lesuire at any time
throughout the project. I would be more than happy to help in any way I
can.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kush

From: Damgaard, Quinn V.
To: Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Date: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:27:45 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:33 AM
To: 'm kush'
Subject: RE: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Hi Mitch:
Thanks for the information and your interest in the relicensing process. The documents you provided
have been logged into the project's comment database and will be considered during the production of
the District's Recreation Management Plan. If the District decides to present additional/formal
opportunities to present public comments, I'll make sure that you're aware.
Regards,
Quinn Damgaard
Environmental Scientist
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone: 402.399.1041
Fax: 402.399.1111
-----Original Message-----
From: m kush
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:08 PM
To: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Schuckman, Jeff; mark_weekley@nps.gov; Pillard, Matt; Holland, Richard;
Randy_Thoreson@nps.gov
Subject: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Quinn,
Thank you for taking the time to visit with me about the Loup Re-licensing project. Per our discussion, I
have documented some of my concerns in the attached MSWord file. I have also attached a summary
page if you prefer.
Also, per our discussion, I have copied all those who were on the original emails as a courtesy for them
to read/delete as they see fit.
Thanks again. I appreciate everyone's time and the warm welcome to provide comments. Please feel
free to contact me at your lesuire at any time throughout the project. I would be more than happy to
help in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kush

From: Frame, Gail
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Damgaard, Quinn V.
Cc: Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:03:21 AM
Attachments: Angler comment summary 4-19-10.doc
Angler comments 4-19-10.doc
I spoke before I opened the document. Sorry.
I thought this was a comment from a couple of people rather than a list of generally collected comments.
Lisa - I'm hoping your plan is to incorporate these in analysis outside of the database because they don't actually follow the "this specific
commenter said this comment" format. But you're the boss... :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Frame, Gail; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Gail / Lisa:
Please see below and attached citizen comments concerning angling/recreation at Loup.
I've preliminarily filed at below, but am not certain on all the protocols. Unless there is another protocol, I'll send a reply to Mitch thanking him
for his interest and participation. Please let me know.
pw:\\PWAPPOMA001:NorthCentral_Omaha\Documents\Loup_Power_District\LPD_FERC_Relicensing\04.00_Correspondence\04.03_Public\Comments
and Responses\LPD143_100426_Kush
Thanks,
Quinn
-----Original Message-----
From: m kush
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:08 PM
To: Damgaard, Quinn V.
Cc: Albrecht, Frank; Schuckman, Jeff; mark_weekley@nps.gov; Pillard, Matt; Holland, Richard; Randy_Thoreson@nps.gov
Subject: Loup Power District Re-Licensing 4-26-10
Quinn,
Thank you for taking the time to visit with me about the Loup Re-licensing project. Per our discussion, I have documented some of my concerns
in the attached MSWord file. I have also attached a summary page if you prefer.
Also, per our discussion, I have copied all those who were on the original emails as a courtesy for them to read/delete as they see fit.
Thanks again. I appreciate everyone's time and the warm welcome to provide comments. Please feel free to contact me at your lesuire at any
time throughout the project. I would be more than happy to help in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Mitch Kush

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Frame, Gail
Cc: Pillard, Matt; Engelbert, Pat
Subject: FW: Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:26:00 PM
FYI – Gail – please update the DB. Thanks!
From: Kim Nguyen [mailto:Kim.Nguyen@ferc.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Neal Suess; Waldow, George
Cc: Janet Hutzel
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project No. 1256
Neal, Lisa, and George:
Our licensing division here at the Commission has recently gone through a re-organization. I am no
longer project coordinator for the Loup River Project. Janet Hutzel (Cc-ed here) in our Midwest
Branch will be taking over as project coordinator. I have given Janet a status of where we are
and all my files.
FYI. Nick Jayjack (Janet’s branch chief) and Paul Makowski are on Janet’s team.
Good luck. You are in good hands!!
Kim A. Nguyen, Civil Engineer
OEP/DHL/West Branch 1
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 1st Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
202-502-6105 direct
202-219-0205 fax

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:45 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; jean.angell@nebraska.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
ncpza@hamilton.net; rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org;
jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com;
calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org;
jblackhawk@aol.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; robertm@llnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov;
justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov;
mark.ivy@ferc.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; david.turner@ferc.gov;
marvp@megavision.com; lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; julias@poncatribe.ne.org;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis.pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov;
patricia.leppert@ferc.gov; frank.winchell@ferc.gov; tpetr@loup.com; mike.black@bia.gov;
janet.hutzel@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District . FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
For your information, Loup Power District has submitted the third quarterly study progress report to FERC and it has
been posted to the project website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114.4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

From: Pillard, Matt
To: Frame, Gail
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:25:02 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
FYI
From: Patricia Leppert [mailto:Patricia.Leppert@ferc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:44 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Subject: RE: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
Matt, please remove my name from your distribution list. Thank you.
From: Pillard, Matt [mailto:Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:45 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; jean.angell@nebraska.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net; rbishop@cpnrd.org;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com;
monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu;
rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov;
prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; robertm@llnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov;
justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; Peggy Harding;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov;
adubas@leg.ne.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov;
Mark Ivy; Nicholas Jayjack; David Turner; marvp@megavision.com; lewrightjr@gmail.com;
thowe@ponca.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; julias@poncatribe-ne.org;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis-pofahl@mail.house.gov; emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov;
deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; Patricia Leppert; Frank Winchell; tpetr@loup.com; mike.black@bia.gov;
Janet Hutzel
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame, Gail;
Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler,
Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Progress Report Available
For your information, Loup Power District has submitted the third quarterly study progress report
to FERC and it has been posted to the project website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol

8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:12 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com;
mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net;
robertm@llnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com;
cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
marvp@megavision.com; lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; julias@poncatribe/ne.org;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis/pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com;
mike.black@bia.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov;
paul.makowski@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District / FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Relicensing Participants:
This e-mail is to remind you of the Initial Study Results meeting scheduled for September 9 th at the New World Inn, 265
33 rd Ave, Columbus, Nebraska. Please RSVP to Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
For those not able to attend in person, but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials will be posted to:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the meeting (by end of day 9/8/10).
Dial-in information is as follows:
1-866-994-6437
Passcode: 4023994909
On August 26, 2010, the District will be submitting the Initial Study Report (ISR) to FERC, it will also be posted on the
website at http://www.loup.com/relicense (link). This report will include study reports for the following completed
studies:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
10 – Land Use Inventory
Additionally, the ISR will provide a progress summary for the other reports.
Please come ready to discuss; we have a lot of material to cover and will start promptly at 8:30 AM.
1

Please bring your own copy of the Initial Study Report. It can be found online after 8/26/10.
We look forward to seeing you on September 9 th .
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114/4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

Thompson, Wendy
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:30 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; Angel Robak;
asheridan@omahatribe.com; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil;
bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; Sigler, Bill; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net; calms@neb.rr.com;
cgenoa@cablene.com; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; Grennan, Dennis E.;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov; emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; Frame, Gail; Hunt, George; Waldow, George;
isis.johnson@ferc.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com;
jeddins@achp.gov; Jim Frear; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com;
jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe-ne.org; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov; lewrightjr@gmail.com; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); louis-pofahl@mail.house.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; marvp@megavision.com; Pillard,
Matt; mbrown9@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Madson, Michael J.; mike.black@bia.gov;
mkuzila1@unl.edu; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; ncpza@hamilton.net;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; Neil Suess; Engelbert, Pat; paul.makowski@ferc.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
Damgaard, Quinn V.; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org; robertm@llnrd.org;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; Ron
Ziola; White, Stephanie; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; thowe@ponca.com;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; Thompson,
Wendy; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Attachments: pic18636.gif
Matt,
I have read the Loup Power District May 24, 2010, progress report where initial study results will be
separated into two meetings. PCBs were not identified as a discussion topic for either of the two
meetings. I have included PCB section from FERC's Study Plan Determination where fish tissue results
would be a part of the Initial Study Report. Any insight as to time frames for fish tissue results and
discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Jeff Runge
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 382-6468, Ext. 22
(308) 379-8553 Cell
********************************
1

Sediment Sampling for PCB’s in the Loup Power Canal and Lake Babcock
In its comments on the revised study plan, the FWS recommended that the District sample for polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's) from fish tissue and sediments from Lake Babcock and the Loup Power Canal between
Monroe and Columbus powerhouses. The District proposes to conduct fish tissue sampling in 2009
cooperatively with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. One of the sample sites includes Lake
Babcock, which is located in the affected reach mentioned by FWS. This information, along with the fish tissue
sampling results presented in the PAD for the project area, will be sufficient for our analysis. The District shall
report the results of this analysis in their Initial Study Report.
The relevant issue for any licensing decision is whether any PCB mobilization caused by project operations
affects fishery resources. To answer that question, it is most appropriate to first sample fish tissue for PCB's in
the potentially affected reach (i.e., Lake Babcock) to determine if PCB's are presently affecting fish, regardless
of the source (e.g, project-induced mobilization of canal sediments versus upstream Loup River flows carrying
PCB's from other sources). Should elevated fish PCB levels be found in the fish tissues, we may consider
additional PCB monitoring in year 2.
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents/license/LFERC.090826.Study_Plan_Determination.pdf
"Pillard, Matt"
"Pillard, Matt"
08/06/10 03:12 PM
2
To "frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov"
,
"john.bender@nebraska.gov"
, "jeff_runge@fws.gov"
, "robert_harms@fws.gov"
,
"barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil"
,
"abaum@upperloupnrd.org"
,
"randy_thoreson@nps.gov" ,
"bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov"
, "mkuzila1@unl.edu"
, "david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov"
, "jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org"
, "steve.chick@ne.usda.gov"
,
"pcclerk@megavision.com"
, "cityadmin@cablene.com"
, "ncpza@hamilton.net"
, "rbishop@cpnrd.org"
, "jwinkler@papionrd.org"
, "lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org"
, "jmangi@columbusne.us"
, "cgenoa@cablene.com"
, "monroe@megavision.com"
, "calms@neb.rr.com"
, "danno@nohva.com"
, "mbrown9@unl.edu"
, "rtrudell@santeedakota.org"
, "jblackhawk@aol.com"

3
, "vwills@pawneenation.org"
, "bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov"
, "msittler@lpsnrd.org"
, "butchk@nctc.net"
, "robertm@llnrd.org"
, "jmsunne@nppd.com"
, "jalexand@usgs.gov"
, "jjshadl@nppd.com"
, "cothern.joe@epa.gov"
, "justin.lavene@nebraska.gov"
,
"bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov"
,
"kennyj@headwaterscorp.com"
,
"mferguson@gp.usbr.gov" ,
"Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov"
,
"Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov"
, "jeddins@achp.gov"
, "kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov"
, "peggy.harding@ferc.gov"
, "djjarecke@clarkswb.net"
, "al.berndt@nebraska.gov"
, "astuthman@leg.ne.gov"
, "ksullivan@leg.ne.gov"
, "clangemeier@leg.ne.gov"
, "adubas@leg.ne.gov"
, "chairmanrhodd@ponca.com"
,
"asheridan@omahatribe.com"
,
"don_simpson@blm.gov" ,
"nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov"
,
"jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov"
,
"prescott.brownell@noaa.gov"
,
"marvp@megavision.com" ,
"lewrightjr@gmail.com" ,
"thowe@ponca.com" ,
"zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov"
,
"julias@poncatribe-ne.org" ,
"todd.crawford@mail.house.gov"
, "louispofahl@mail.house.gov",
"emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov"
,
"deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov"
, "tpetr@loup.com"
, "mike.black@bia.gov"
, "janet.hutzel@ferc.gov"
, "isis.johnson@ferc.gov"
, "lee.emery@ferc.gov"
, "paul.makowski@ferc.gov"
cc Angel Robak , Jim Frear

Relicensing Participants:
4
, Neil Suess ,
Ron Ziola , "Damgaard, Quinn V."
, "Engelbert, Pat"
, "Frame, Gail"
, "Grennan, Dennis E."
, "Hunt, George"
, "Madson, Michael J."
, "Pillard, Matt"
, "Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha)" , "Sigler,
Bill" , "Thompson, Wendy"
, "Waldow, George"
, "White, Stephanie"
Subject Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Report
and Study Results Meeting
This e‐mail is to remind you of the Initial Study Results meeting scheduled for September 9 th at the New World
Inn, 265 33 rd Ave, Columbus, Nebraska. Please RSVP to Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564‐3171,
ext. 275.
For those not able to attend in person, but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials will be
posted to: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the meeting
(by end of day 9/8/10). Dial‐in information is as follows:
1‐866‐994‐6437
Passcode: 4023994909
On August 26, 2010, the District will be submitting the Initial Study Report (ISR) to FERC, it will also be posted
on the website at http://www.loup.com/relicense (link). This report will include study reports for the following
completed studies:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
10 – Land Use Inventory
Additionally, the ISR will provide a progress summary for the other reports.
Please come ready to discuss; we have a lot of material to cover and will start promptly at 8:30 AM.
Please bring your own copy of the Initial Study Report. It can be found online after 8/26/10.
We look forward to seeing you on September 9 th .
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114‐4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111

Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
5

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:08 PM
To: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov; Pillard, Matt
Cc: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; Angel Robak;
asheridan@omahatribe.com; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil;
bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; Sigler, Bill; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net; calms@neb.rr.com;
cgenoa@cablene.com; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; cityadmin@cablene.com;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; Grennan, Dennis E.;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov; emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; Frame, Gail; Hunt, George; Waldow, George;
isis.johnson@ferc.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com;
jeddins@achp.gov; Jim Frear; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com;
jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com;
john.bender@nebraska.gov; julias@poncatribe6ne.org; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com;
ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov; lewrightjr@gmail.com; louis6
pofahl@mail.house.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; marvp@megavision.com; Pillard, Matt; mbrown9
@unl.edu; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Madson, Michael J.; mike.black@bia.gov; mkuzila1
@unl.edu; monroe@megavision.com; msittler@lpsnrd.org; ncpza@hamilton.net;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; Neil Suess; Engelbert, Pat; paul.makowski@ferc.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; Damgaard,
Quinn V.; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org; robertm@llnrd.org;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; Ron
Ziola; White, Stephanie; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; thowe@ponca.com;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; Thompson,
Wendy; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Subject: RE: Loup Power District 6 FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Jeff,
The fish tissue sampling results will be included in our August 26 th Initial Study Report and will be presented and
discussed at the meeting scheduled for September 9 th .
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 6811464049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov [mailto:Jeff_Runge@fws.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:30 AM
To: Pillard, Matt
Cc: abaum@upperloupnrd.org; adubas@leg.ne.gov; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; Angel Robak; asheridan@omahatribe.com;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; Sigler, Bill;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; butchk@nctc.net; calms@neb.rr.com;
cgenoa@cablene.com; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov;
1

cothern.joe@epa.gov; danno@nohva.com; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; Grennan, Dennis
E.; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; don_simpson@blm.gov; emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov;
frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; Frame, Gail; Hunt, George; Waldow, George; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; jalexand@usgs.gov;
janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; jblackhawk@aol.com; jeddins@achp.gov; Jim Frear; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov;
jjshadl@nppd.com; jmangi@columbusne.us; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com; john.bender@nebraska.gov;
julias@poncatribe4ne.org; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; jwinkler@papionrd.org; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov; lewrightjr@gmail.com; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); louis4pofahl@mail.house.gov; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; marvp@megavision.com; Pillard, Matt; mbrown9@unl.edu;
mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Madson, Michael J.; mike.black@bia.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu; monroe@megavision.com;
msittler@lpsnrd.org; ncpza@hamilton.net; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; Neil Suess; Engelbert, Pat;
paul.makowski@ferc.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; Damgaard,
Quinn V.; randy_thoreson@nps.gov; rbishop@cpnrd.org; robertm@llnrd.org; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; Ron Ziola; White, Stephanie; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
thowe@ponca.com; todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com; vwills@pawneenation.org; Thompson, Wendy;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Loup Power District 4 FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Matt,
I have read the Loup Power District May 24, 2010, progress report where initial study results will be
separated into two meetings. PCBs were not identified as a discussion topic for either of the two
meetings. I have included PCB section from FERC's Study Plan Determination where fish tissue results
would be a part of the Initial Study Report. Any insight as to time frames for fish tissue results and
discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Jeff Runge
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 38256468, Ext. 22
(308) 37958553 Cell
********************************
Sediment Sampling for PCB’s in the Loup Power Canal and Lake Babcock
In its comments on the revised study plan, the FWS recommended that the District sample for polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's) from fish tissue and sediments from Lake Babcock and the Loup Power Canal between
Monroe and Columbus powerhouses. The District proposes to conduct fish tissue sampling in 2009
cooperatively with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. One of the sample sites includes Lake
Babcock, which is located in the affected reach mentioned by FWS. This information, along with the fish tissue
sampling results presented in the PAD for the project area, will be sufficient for our analysis. The District shall
report the results of this analysis in their Initial Study Report.
The relevant issue for any licensing decision is whether any PCB mobilization caused by project operations
affects fishery resources. To answer that question, it is most appropriate to first sample fish tissue for PCB's in
2

the potentially affected reach (i.e., Lake Babcock) to determine if PCB's are presently affecting fish, regardless
of the source (e.g, project5induced mobilization of canal sediments versus upstream Loup River flows carrying
PCB's from other sources). Should elevated fish PCB levels be found in the fish tissues, we may consider
additional PCB monitoring in year 2.
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents/license/LFERC.090826.Study_Plan_Determination.pdf
"Pillard, Matt"
"Pillard, Matt"
08/06/10 03:12 PM
3
To "frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov"
,
"john.bender@nebraska.gov"
, "jeff_runge@fws.gov"
, "robert_harms@fws.gov"
,
"barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil"
,
"abaum@upperloupnrd.org"
,
"randy_thoreson@nps.gov" ,
"bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov"
, "mkuzila1@unl.edu"
, "david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov"
, "jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org"
, "steve.chick@ne.usda.gov"
,
"pcclerk@megavision.com"
, "cityadmin@cablene.com"
, "ncpza@hamilton.net"
, "rbishop@cpnrd.org"
, "jwinkler@papionrd.org"
, "lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org"
, "jmangi@columbusne.us"
, "cgenoa@cablene.com"
, "monroe@megavision.com"
, "calms@neb.rr.com"
, "danno@nohva.com"
, "mbrown9@unl.edu"
, "rtrudell@santeedakota.org"
, "jblackhawk@aol.com"
, "vwills@pawneenation.org"
, "bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov"
, "msittler@lpsnrd.org"
, "butchk@nctc.net"
, "robertm@llnrd.org"
, "jmsunne@nppd.com"
, "jalexand@usgs.gov"
, "jjshadl@nppd.com"
, "cothern.joe@epa.gov"
, "justin.lavene@nebraska.gov"
,
"bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov"
,
"kennyj@headwaterscorp.com"
,
"mferguson@gp.usbr.gov" ,
"Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov"

4
,
"Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov"
, "jeddins@achp.gov"
, "kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov"
, "peggy.harding@ferc.gov"
, "djjarecke@clarkswb.net"
, "al.berndt@nebraska.gov"
, "astuthman@leg.ne.gov"
, "ksullivan@leg.ne.gov"
, "clangemeier@leg.ne.gov"
, "adubas@leg.ne.gov"
, "chairmanrhodd@ponca.com"
,
"asheridan@omahatribe.com"
,
"don_simpson@blm.gov" ,
"nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov"
,
"jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov"
,
"prescott.brownell@noaa.gov"
,
"marvp@megavision.com" ,
"lewrightjr@gmail.com" ,
"thowe@ponca.com" ,
"zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov"
,
"julias@poncatribe5ne.org" ,
"todd.crawford@mail.house.gov"
, "louis5
pofahl@mail.house.gov" ,
"emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov"
,
"deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov"
, "tpetr@loup.com"
, "mike.black@bia.gov"
, "janet.hutzel@ferc.gov"
, "isis.johnson@ferc.gov"
, "lee.emery@ferc.gov"
, "paul.makowski@ferc.gov"
cc Angel Robak , Jim Frear
, Neil Suess ,
Ron Ziola , "Damgaard, Quinn V."
, "Engelbert, Pat"
, "Frame, Gail"
, "Grennan, Dennis E."
, "Hunt, George"
, "Madson, Michael J."
, "Pillard, Matt"
, "Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha)" , "Sigler,
Bill" , "Thompson, Wendy"
, "Waldow, George"
, "White, Stephanie"
Subject Loup Power District 5 FERC Relicensing: Study Report
and Study Results Meeting

Relicensing Participants:
This e-mail is to remind you of the Initial Study Results meeting scheduled for September 9 th at the New World
Inn, 265 33 rd Ave, Columbus, Nebraska. Please RSVP to Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171,
ext. 275.
For those not able to attend in person, but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials will be
posted to: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the meeting
(by end of day 9/8/10). Dial-in information is as follows:
1-866-994-6437
Passcode: 4023994909
On August 26, 2010, the District will be submitting the Initial Study Report (ISR) to FERC, it will also be posted
on the website at http://www.loup.com/relicense (link). This report will include study reports for the following
completed studies:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
10 – Land Use Inventory
Additionally, the ISR will provide a progress summary for the other reports.
Please come ready to discuss; we have a lot of material to cover and will start promptly at 8:30 AM.
Please bring your own copy of the Initial Study Report. It can be found online after 8/26/10.
We look forward to seeing you on September 9 th .
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
5

August 26, 2010
George Howell, President
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 470
Pawnee, OK 74058
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Howell:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Alice Alexander, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Larry Wright, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 288
Niobrara, NE 68760
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Wright:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Gary Robinette, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Douglas Rhodd, Chairman
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
20 White Eagle Drive
Ponca City, OK 74601
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Rhodd:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Trey Howe, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Roger Trudell, Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska
108 Spirit Lake Ave W
Niobrara, NE 68760
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Trudell:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Thelma Thomas, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Amen Sheridan, Chairman
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NE 68039
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Sheridan:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Antoine A. Provost, Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Mr. Robert Puschendorf
State Historic Preservation Office
1500 R Street
P.O. Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554
Re: HP#0804-127-01
Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
FERC Project No. 1256; Docket No. 1256-029
Dear Mr. Puschendorf:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The existing license was
effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014. The District is utilizing the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to determine
whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic properties (any site, structure, or other
property listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and
allow interested parties the opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect
historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13 the District prepared the Revised Study Plan (RSP)
identifying studies needed for relicensing. The RSP included Study 11.0 – Section 106
Compliance. This plan was coordinated with your office and approved by FERC on
August 26, 2009. Study 11.0 – Section 106 Compliance, includes the following six elements:
• Phase IA Archaeological Overview
• Phase I Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
• Ethnographic Documentation
• Historic District Inventory and Evaluation
• Historic Properties Management Plan
• Executed Programmatic Agreement
The Phase IA Archaeological Overview was submitted to your office in October 2009 and your
office concurred with the findings.
The District has now completed the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation and the
Historic Buildings Inventory and Evaluation. Copies of these reports accompany this letter.

At this time we are seeking concurrence from your office regarding the findings of the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation and the Historic Buildings Inventory and Evaluation and
would like to further our dialogue towards development of the Historic Properties Management
Plan and Programmatic Agreement to achieve Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mike Madson (HDR) at (763) 278-5921 or me at (402) 564-3171
if you have any questions about these reports. We look forward to working with your office
throughout the relicensing effort and beyond.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Joe Trnka, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
(2) Historic Buildings Inventory and Evaluation

August 26, 2010
Ansley Griffin, Chairman
Omaha Tribal Council
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 368
Macy, NE 68039
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Loup River Public Power District (the District) is applying to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The
existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this
relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project. A copy of the report
accompanies this letter.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR or me at (402) 564-3171 if
you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc: Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
George Waldow, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:03 AM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com;
mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
butchk@nctc.net; robertm@llnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com;
asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; marvp@megavision.com;
lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov;
julias@poncatribe2ne.org; todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis2pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com;
mike.black@bia.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov;
paul.makowski@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 2 FERC Relicensing: Initial Study Report Filing and Study Results Meeting
Relicensing Participants:
Loup Power District has electronically filed its Initial Study Report (ISR) with FERC. The report is available on FERC’s e2
library and on the District’s relicensing website: http://www.loup.com/relicense/.
The ISR includes study reports for the following completed studies:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
8 – Interim Recreation Telephone Survey
10 – Land Use Inventory
Additionally, the ISR provides a progress summary for the other studies.
The District will hold the Initial Study Results meeting on September 9 th at the New World Inn, 265 33 rd Ave, Columbus,
Nebraska. Please RSVP to Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com or (402) 56423171, ext. 275.
For those not able to attend in person, but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials will be posted to:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the meeting (by end of day 9/8/10). Dial2
in information is as follows:
12866299426437
Passcode: 4023994909
Please bring your own copy of the Initial Study Report and come ready to discuss; we have a lot of material to cover and
will start promptly at 8:30 AM.
We look forward to seeing you on September 9 th .
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:19 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com;
mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net;
robertm@llnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com;
cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov; bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov;
kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov;
peggy.harding@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net; al.berndt@nebraska.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov; clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov;
chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov;
nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
marvp@megavision.com; lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com;
zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov; julias@poncatribe-ne.org;
todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis-pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com;
mike.black@bia.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov;
paul.makowski@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha);
Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: RE: Loup Power District - FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Relicensing Participants:
The presentation for tomorrow's Initial Study Report meeting is now available on
www.loup.com\relicense. Call in instructions can also be found there (and below).
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:12 PM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov; robert_harms@fws.gov;
1

arbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org; randy_thoreson@nps.gov;
bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu; david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org;
steve.chick@ne.usda.gov; pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net; rbishop@cpnrd.org;
jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us; cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com;
calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com; mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; bdunnigan@dnr.ne.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org; butchk@nctc.net; robertm@llnrd.org;
jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov; jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov; Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov;
Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov; kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov;
djjarecke@clarkswb.net; al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com; asheridan@omahatribe.com;
don_simpson@blm.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov; jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov;
marvp@megavision.com; lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov;
julias@poncatribe/ne.org; todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis/pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com; mike.black@bia.gov;
janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov; paul.makowski@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.;
Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow,
George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District / FERC Relicensing: Study Report and Study Results Meeting
Relicensing Participants:
This e-mail is to remind you of the Initial Study Results meeting scheduled for September 9 th at the New World Inn, 265
33 rd Ave, Columbus, Nebraska. Please RSVP to Angell Robak at arobak@loup.com or (402) 564-3171, ext. 275.
For those not able to attend in person, but wishing to do so via conference call, meeting materials will be posted to:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/agencymeetingsresources.html in advance of the meeting (by end of day 9/8/10).
Dial-in information is as follows:
1-866-994-6437
Passcode: 4023994909
On August 26, 2010, the District will be submitting the Initial Study Report (ISR) to FERC, it will also be posted on the
website at http://www.loup.com/relicense (link). This report will include study reports for the following completed
studies:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
10 – Land Use Inventory
Additionally, the ISR will provide a progress summary for the other reports.
Please come ready to discuss; we have a lot of material to cover and will start promptly at 8:30 AM.
Please bring your own copy of the Initial Study Report. It can be found online after 8/26/10.
We look forward to seeing you on September 9 th .
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
2

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: ISR Questions
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:06:00 AM
Wendy – please add to PW and the DB. Thanks!
From: Engelbert, Pat
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 7:51 AM
To: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FW: ISR Questions
Jeff,
Thanks for sending your questions. We have provided responses below. If you have any additional
questions, please don’t hesitate to call or e-mail.
See you tomorrow.
Pat
From: Jeff_Runge@fws.gov [mailto:Jeff_Runge@fws.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Engelbert, Pat
Cc: Robert_Harms@fws.gov
Subject: ISR Questions
As we have discussed earlier this week, I was interested in forwarding questions to HDR prior to next
week's meeting, so that HDR would be able to provide insight prior to the ISR meeting. I have included
my questions below. An email response would be helpful, or we can discuss by phone. I will be in the
office the afternoon of the 7th and all day on the 8th.
I appreciate the offer for early coordination. This should speed up any discussions on the 9th.
Jeff
*******************************
Jeff Runge
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 W. Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 382-6468, Ext. 22
(308) 379-8553 Cell
********************************
General Questions
Would it be possible to get either a spreadsheet or database information on sediment transported for

each year in the period of record for each streamgage site?
As you would expect, the spreadsheets are rather cumbersome with numerous large equations
and cell references. If you could provide us an idea of what information you want, we may be able
to clean them up and make them more user friendly.
Why was only the period from 1984 through 2009 evaluated for sediment transport?
The period of record of 1984 through 2009 were chosen for several reasons:
1) The study period was selected to correspond with available tern and plover information
which is available starting in 1986. Starting in 1984 allowed us to evaluate a two year lag.
2) The USGS cross sectional information is only available, electronically, starting in 1984.
3) 2009 was chosen as the stopping point because it is the latest year with a full year of data.
Note that there is bird data available back to 1983. However, the locations associated with the
data were not recorded until 1986.
Questions for Table 4-3.
Does the 2,005,000 tons/year represent sediment deposited on the North Sand Management Area and
the South Sand Management Area?
Yes, the 2,005,000 tons/year is the average total amount dredged per year from 1975 through
2009. Of the 2,005,000 tons/year, 1,445,000 tons/year are deposited on the North Sand
Management Area and 560,000 tons/year are deposited on the South Sand Management Area.
Based on calculations, does sediment passing through the canal represent a portion of the 2,005,000
tons/year of sediment removed from the settling basin?
For this analysis, it was assumed that the settling basin was able to trap all sediment passing down
the canal and that the dredge was able to remove it all.
Questions for Table 5-1.
Is the 560,000 tons/yr of sand dredged to the South Sand Management Area represented as a portion
of the 2,004,800 tons/ yr removed from the settling basin or does it represent a withdrawal of sediment
in addition to the amount removed from the Settling Basin?
As stated above, the 2,005,000 tons/year is the average total amount dredged per year from 1975
through 2009. Of the 2,005,000 tons/year, 1,445,000 tons/year are deposited on the North Sand
Management Area and 560,000 tons/year are deposited on the South Sand Management Area.
I may be wrong but there may be a slight error in sediment supply calculations (I know that this
depends on how above questions are calculated). If the subbasin total above diversion weir is
4,179,000 tons/yr and the sediment removed from the settling basin and passing down the canal is

2,004,800 tons/yr and 700,000 tons/year, respectively, then subbasin total below the diversion weir
should be 1,474,300 tons/yr. Not a big difference in the overall significance sediment yield. However,
this potential error (if realized) is translated through the remaining downstream sediment yield
calculations.
Below is the equation we used to obtain the estimate for the subbasin total below Power Canal
Diversion Dam near Genoa:
Subbasin Total at Genoa above Power Canal Diversion Dam – (Sediment removed from Loup Public
Power Canal Settling Basin + Sediment Passing down Loup Power Canal) + South Sand
Management Area return = Subbasin Total below Power Canal Diversion Dam near Genoa
4,179,000 – (2,005,000 + 700,000) + 560,000 = 2,034,000
Questions for Table 5-3.
What differences in sediment transport variables have resulted in the slightly higher sediment transport
capacity at Genoa compared to Columbus?
There are two main reasons for the slightly higher sediment transport capacity at Genoa as
compared to Columbus. First, there was only limited data from which to generate the sediment
discharge rating curve. Recall that the gage was re-established in 2008, so we only had two years
of measurements to generate a sediment discharge rating curve, as opposed to 25 years of
electronic cross section information available for the gage at Genoa. And second, there was no
USGS sediment discharge data available with which to calibrate the sediment discharge curve for
Columbus. We used the measurements at Genoa as an approximation.

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Meeting
Date:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
September 9, 2010, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Notes by: Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Initial Study Results
Meeting Summary
Meeting Location: New World Inn, Columbus, NE
NOTES revised October 26, 2010 per comments received from attendees.
Loup River Public Power District (Loup Power District or the District) filed its Initial Study Report (ISR)
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on August 26, 2010, as part of relicensing the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256) and in accordance with the regulations of FERC’s
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 5). Subsequently, the Initial
Study Results were presented to FERC and other relicensing participants during the Initial Study Results
Meeting held on September 9, 2010, at the New World Inn (265 33 rd Street) in Columbus, Nebraska. The
proceedings of that meeting are presented in this Initial Study Results Meeting Summary, which follows the
organization of the agenda for the meeting.
The meeting agenda and handout of the slide presentation are included as Attachments A and B, respectively.
Welcome and Introductions
Neal Suess (Loup Power District) and Stephanie White (HDR) provided those attending the Initial Study
Results Meeting with an overview of the agenda and the goals for the meeting. The meeting goals and the list
of attendees are provided below.
Meeting Goals
The goals of the Initial Study Results Meeting were the following:
• To present the results of completed studies identified in the Revised Study Plan and Study Plan
Determination.
• To discuss any proposals to modify the study plan (by the District or other participants) in light of
study progress and data collected.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Attendees:
The following agency and District representatives attended the Initial Study Results Meeting:
Name Organization Name Organization
Chris Pracheil NDEQ Janet Hutzel (via phone) FERC
Shuhai Zheng NDNR Nick Jayjack FERC
Frank Albrecht NGPC Isis Johnson FERC
Richard Holland NGPC Paul Makowski FERC
Joel Jorgensen NGPC Mike Gutzmer New Century
Michelle Koch NGPC
Environmental LLC
Jeff Schuckman NGPC Bob Clausen Loup Power District
Dave Tunink NGPC Jim Frear Loup Power District
Justin King NPPD Theresa Petr Loup Power District
Jim Jenniges NPPD Neal Suess Loup Power District
John Shadle NPPD Ron Ziola Loup Power District
Randy Thoreson (via phone) NPS Pat Engelbert HDR
Jerry Kenny PRRIP Gary Lewis HDR
Mary Bomberger-Brown TPCP Matt Pillard HDR
Tom Econopouly (via phone) USFWS Lisa Richardson HDR
Mike George USFWS Scott Stuewe HDR
Robert Harms USFWS Wendy Thompson HDR
Jeff Runge USFWS George Waldow HDR
Lee Emery FERC Stephanie White HDR
Integrated Licensing Process Overview
Lisa Richardson (HDR) discussed the overall relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
(Project). She also gave a brief summary of the Study Plan Determination.
FERC issued its Study Plan Determination on August 26, 2009. In the Study Plan Determination, they
removed three studies, the deletion of which had already been agreed to by the participating agencies:
• Water Temperature in the Platte River
• Fish Sampling
• Creel Survey
FERC approved three studies without modification:
• Fish Passage
• Land Use Inventory
• Section 106 Compliance
FERC also modified six studies based on agency comments:
• Sedimentation
• Hydrocycling
• Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Recreation Use
• Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Finally, Richardson briefly discussed the next steps in the process, which include preparation of this Initial
Study Results Meeting Summary and an opportunity for relicensing participants to submit comments.
2010 Weather
Lisa Richardson discussed the weather experienced in Nebraska during this past spring. Spring 2010 brought
high winds, higher than normal precipitation, and widespread flooding throughout Nebraska. Richardson
shared that the majority of Nebraska’s 93 counties, including areas within the Loup and Platte River basins,
were subjected to heavy flooding, and many counties, including Nance and Platte counties, were declared
disaster areas by the governor. Therefore, the weather has had ramifications on topographic and hydraulic
surveys and associated studies which were discussed later.
Progress Update for Ongoing Studies
Members of the Project team from HDR provided progress updates for the five studies that are ongoing:
• Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
• Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Study 5.0, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Study 8.0, Recreation Use
• Study 12.0, Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
After each progress update was given, the other meeting attendees had an opportunity to ask questions and
offer comments on the respective study.
Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
Progress Update:
Pat Engelbert (HDR) and Matt Pillard (HDR) presented the progress update of the hydrocycling study. It was
noted that cross section information was obtained in mid-April, May, and June due to high flows. End of the
nesting season cross sections were collected in early September. The results of the hydrocycling study will be
provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked how much higher than normal the flows have been this year.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) responded that flow is normally in the hundreds of cubic feet per second
(cfs) during August, and this year, flows have been in the thousands of cfs.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked where the identified time frames for nesting and departures came
from.
A: Matt Pillard (HDR) responded that there is not a set date when the birds arrive and when they
leave, but rather it is a range of time. These time frames were developed with coordination from the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership as well as
with the body of knowledge of existing historical data.
• Q: Paul Makowski (FERC) asked if the sediment transport component within HEC-RAS would be
used to model sediment.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) explained that the team would evaluate that based on available data.
Engelbert indicated that they would evaluate the effects of project operations using the sediment
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
transport calculations that were performed for the sedimentation study and evaluating the “run-ofriver”
alternative. It would be very difficult to calibrate a sediment transport model with the limited
amount of sediment data available.
CLARIFICATION: Mr. Engelbert’s statement at the ISR meeting that “Initially we will set up the
model and make some runs to provide us an idea of how things have changed.” was meant to indicate
that the HEC-RAS models would be developed and executed and the hydraulics between the two
cross sections would be compared. However, per FERC’s request, the District will also use the
sediment transport module within HEC-RAS.
Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Progress Update:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the progress update of the study of water temperature in the Loup River
bypass reach. It was noted that this study has missing data due to high flow and washout of a gage. It was
determined at the RSP meetings that the critical time for data collection is in Late July/ Early August;
however, due to higher than normal flows, data collection occurred August 13-23. The results of the study of
water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on
January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: David Tunink (NGPC) asked how, with the higher than normal flows this year, analysis for low
flows would be handled.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that even with no low flows, water temperature standards have
been exceeded.
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if historic data includes bypass temperature data.
A: Richardson noted that there is no historic temperature data in the bypass reach. The only historic
temperature data near the Project has been collected from one gage on the Platte River near
Louisville.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked if the Columbus gage is located where it was gaged in the 1970s and
1980s.
A: Richardson noted that the Columbus gage is in the same location on the U.S. Highway 81 bridge.
Study 5.0, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Progress Update:
Pat Engelbert (HDR) and Matt Pillard (HDR) presented the progress update of the flow depletion and flow
diversion study. It was noted that cross section information was obtained for the ungaged sites in mid-April,
May, and June due to high flows. Low flow cross sections were collected in early September. The results of
the flow depletion and flow diversion study will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January
6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Mike George (USFWS) asked what characteristics are being referred to when we say Loup River
characteristics both above and below the diversion.
A: Pillard (HDR) noted that the data collection methodology was discussed with the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The characteristics that would be
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
observed include the width of sandbars, whether sandbars are isolated or point bars, whether they are
vegetated or unvegetated, and whether the banks were vegetated or unvegetated.
Study 8.0, Recreation Use
Progress Update:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the progress update of the recreation use study. It was noted that a study
plan for Recreation Use of the Loup River Bypass Reach was developed in coordination with the National
Park Service, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and FERC. The results of the recreation use study
will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Randy Thoreson (NPS) asked why the study area for the recreation survey of the Loup River
bypass reach presented in the slide show at the Initial Study Results Meeting (slide 37) appears to be
different than the study area discussed in the Initial Study Report (pages 8-1 and 8-2). Thoreson
pointed out that the slide show indicates that the Loup River bypass reach survey includes 2 public
parks, 4 wildlife management areas, and 3 public road bridges but that the Initial Study Report lists
only the Loup Lands Wildlife Management Area (WMA).
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that the entire bypass reach is being studied, and the locations
listed on the slide indicate where the public can access the Loup River bypass reach. For the purpose
of the study, we are not collecting recreation data at the non-District-owned public parks, but instead,
we are using those parks as locations where we can access and observe the river.
• Q: Thoreson asked if FERC is going to determine whether the recreation surveys should be extended
into the winter and if he would have an opportunity to comment on that before a decision is made.
A: Janet Hutzel (FERC) noted that a decision would be made based on the results of the telephone
surveys and that FERC would accept agency comments prior to making that decision.
• Q: Thoreson asked why creel surveys were not conducted in the Loup River bypass reach.
A: Richardson explained that FERC’s Study Plan Determination specifically required only recreation
surveys on the bypass reach. Although the survey proctors are noting whether people are fishing in
the Loup River bypass reach, the actual Nebraska Game and Parks Commission creel survey is not
being conducted. The purpose of the creel survey on the canal is to help the District manage those
fisheries, and this is not a purpose for the District beyond the Project Boundary.
Study 12.0, Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Progress Update:
George Waldow (HDR) presented the progress update of the study of ice jam flooding on the Loup River. It
was noted that the District contracted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Omaha District to conduct
this study. The results of the study of ice jam flooding on the Loup River will be provided in the Updated
Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked if ice jams typically happen at the Highway 39 bridge.
A: George Waldow (HDR) noted that there is a long history of ice jams near Genoa, but they are not
necessarily at the bridge. Waldow also noted that the District has compiled historical information
about pre-Project flood and ice jam conditions. The history of ice jams before and after the Project
was constructed are being evaluated. Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that this study was
requested because of a 1993 USACE report on Columbus flooding and ice jams.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Presentation of Study Results
Members of the Project team from HDR provided results for the studies that have been completed:
• Study 7.0, Fish Passage
• Study 8.0, Recreation Use (Telephone Survey)
• Study 10.0, Land Use Inventory
• Study 11.0, Section 106 Compliance
• PCB Fish Tissue Sampling
• Study 1.0, Sedimentation
After the results of each study were given, the other meeting attendees had an opportunity to ask questions
and offer comments on the respective studies.
Study 7: Fish Passage
Study Results:
Scott Stuewe (HDR) presented the study results of the fish passage study. The key points were as follows:
• The Diversion Weir is submerged less than 1 percent of the spawning season and is generally a
barrier to fish passage due to high flow velocities.
• The Sluice Gate Structure does not provide a fish pathway due to limited operation and high flowthrough
velocities.
• An alternative fish pathway around the Diversion Weir on the right bank of the Loup River exists (on
average) less than 1 day out of every spawning season.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked if the right bank alternative is the right bank looking downstream on the
other end of the weir.
A: Scott Stuewe (HDR) indicated that the right bank is looking downstream.
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) noted that most of the analysis dealt with average velocities and asked
how those average velocities were calculated.
A: Stuewe explained that for the sluice gates, different openings using different flows were averaged.
For the Diversion Weir, velocity could be calculated only when the water was going over the weir,
which was so infrequent that the average was very small.
• Q: Holland asked how the analysis would change if minimum velocities or a lower quartile velocity
were used because fish would not gravitate toward average or higher velocities trying to pass a
structure but would look for minimum velocity areas.
A: There was group discussion on this topic and it was noted that fish do seek out the lowest
velocities and will take advantage of those opportunities. It was agreed that the use of average
velocities underestimates the amount of fish passage that takes place.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 8.0, Recreation Use (Telephone Survey)
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the telephone survey portion of the recreation use
study. The key points were as follows:
• A 12-minute telephone survey of 400 residents in Nance and Platte counties was conducted by The
MSR Group between May 26 and June 9, 2010.
• The telephone survey indicates an overall awareness among respondents that the District provides
recreational opportunities. Specifically, less than 1 percent of all respondents were NOT aware of
any District recreation facilities. Awareness of specific District recreation facilities varied among
respondents.
• There is a significant lack of use of the District’s recreation sites during the winter months. Of the
respondents who mentioned that they are aware of the following recreation sites, the percentage of
respondents stating that no one from their household visited the specified recreation site between
November 1, 2009, and February 28, 2010, varied from 88 percent to 97.6 per cent. To put this into
context, an average of greater than 50 percent of the respondents who are aware of the District’s
recreation areas indicate that they visited the areas during July.
• Among the recreation facilities inquired upon, trails were the highest rated facility, with almost 7 out
of 10 respondents rating them as “Excellent” or “Above Average.”
• The telephone survey also asked respondents to rate the importance of the recreational opportunities
provided by the District. The results were as follows:
– Respondents who are Aware of District Facilities
Most Important – relaxing/hanging out and trails
Least Important – jet skiing and water skiing
– Respondents who are Not Aware of District Facilities
Most Important – children’s playground and relaxing/hanging out
Least Important – jet skiing and motorized boating
Discussion:
• Randy Thoreson (NPS) wanted to acknowledge that the information collected will be used for the
recreation management plan, and that it provides good information for that plan. Lisa Richardson
(HDR) confirmed this.
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked if the distribution of ages was representative of the county’s
demographics.
A: Neal Suess (Loup Power District) said they were a pretty typical representation because the
younger generation tends to move away. Suess noted that Nance County’s average age is probably a
bit older and Platte County’s average age is a bit younger because of Columbus.
• Q: Hutzel asked if cross-country skiing took place on the trails during winter.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) noted that the trails are not groomed for cross-county skiing but are used
for running and walking. Suess added that the trails could be used for cross-country skiing if people
wanted, but affirmed that the trails are not groomed for it. Ron Ziola (Loup Power District) noted
that winter weather in the area and the very flat terrain are not conducive to skiing.
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked where the swimming areas are.
A: Richardson noted that the survey did not ask about specific swimming areas. There are
swimming facilities in multiple places, including the Headworks and Lake North, but not at Lake
Babcock.
• Q: Emery asked if recreation activities such as trapping, ice fishing, and hunting occur at the Project.
A: Suess stated that ice fishing can be done at Lake North and that some people do trapping and
hunting in the wooded areas.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• Q: Emery asked about the scale of that activity.
A: Ziola noted that it would be small as the lakes reside within a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA), where hunting is prohibited. Ziola also noted that state hunting laws do not allow hunting in
or near Columbus and Genoa. There would be only about 50 miles of the canal where hunting would
be allowed (approximately 25 miles of canal, with both banks usable for hunting), but the canal rightof-way
is small and typically bounded by private property.
• Q: David Tunink (NGPC) asked if the telephone numbers used for survey participants were all
landline phones. Tunink noted that younger people often have cell phone rather than landline phones,
and this may be why there was not much participation from the younger generation.
A: Richardson stated that the telephone numbers were likely landline phones, but that would have to
be confirmed.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked if any consideration was given to a bilingual survey and whether
the non-English speaking population was accurately represented in the surveys.
A: Richardson stated that a bilingual survey was not conducted as there is a limited Spanish speaking
population in the Project area.
• Q: Emery noted that most of the anglers that he saw when he visited the Project the day before were
Hispanic. Emery asked if any of the survey proctors speak Spanish and could ask the survey
questions in Spanish.
A: Richardson stated that the survey proctors did not perform the survey in Spanish.
• Q: Koch expressed concern that Hispanic people were not accurately represented in the survey.
A: Suess explained that some of the survey proctors can speak Spanish, and Ziola noted that often
one member in the group of Hispanic people can speak English and serve as an interpreter. Ziola also
noted that all survey proctors wear lined yellow reflective vests and white ball caps so that the public
knows they are not state officials and look more approachable and friendly. Ziola stated that they are
getting Hispanic in-person interviews and that Hispanics are being represented.
• Mike Gutzmer, primary survey proctor for the in-person surveys, noted that he was often able to get
surveys from the Hispanic population through a younger member of the family who was able to
interpret or through survey proctors who were able to speak a little bit of Spanish.
• Richardson noted that demographic data is being collected, so when the data is analyzed, we will be
able to determine what percentage of the survey respondents were Hispanic.
• Q: Mary Bomberger-Brown (TPCP) thought that the responses to the telephone survey seemed
female biased and asked if there were any patterns in responses based on gender. Are females more
likely to use the facilities in some ways and males in other ways.
A: Richardson stated that the data exists and that more analysis will be done when the recreation
management plan is developed.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 8 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 10.0, Land Use Inventory
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the land use inventory study. The key points were as
follows:
• Field-verified land use maps were developed and show land uses both inside and within 500 feet
outside of the Project Boundary. Public access locations were identified and included in the maps as
well.
• Potential land use conflicts were identified, and it was determined that all of the adjacent land uses
are compatible with the Project.
• Future land use plans for Nance County and the City of Columbus do not indicate future land use
changes that would be incompatible with the Project.
• Restricted Operations Areas are safely separated from publicly accessible areas and do not conflict
with recreation opportunities
• Approximately 90 percent of the Project lands are accessible to the public from numerous locations.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) noted that there are 5,000 acres of Project lands and asked about the
distribution of this land.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) stated that of the over 5,000 acres of Project lands, most is along the
canal, but there is a larger area at the Headworks and the two regulating reservoirs.
• Q: Randy Thoreson (NPS) asked if the Loup River bypass reach was included in the land use
inventory.
A: Richardson noted that it was not included because the land use inventory took place within and
adjacent to the Project Boundary. Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that the District does not
own the bypass reach or any land along it. The District owns only the canal and 50 to 100 feet along
the canal. The land use inventory included the Loup Lands WMA because the District owns this
land.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked if the Project Boundary includes the Loup River bypass reach or if the
District has any other easements or rights around the bypass reach.
A: Neal Suess (Loup Power District) stated that the bypass reach is the normal riverbed with private
ownership on both sides of that. The District does not have any other easements or rights around the
bypass reach.
• Q: Mike George (USFWS) asked if there are irrigation intakes in the Loup River bypass reach.
George noted that it might be useful information for the land use inventory because of the nature of
the water demand.
There was group discussion of irrigation use along the bypass and the canal. In the end Nick Jayjack
(FERC) noted that the issue of irrigation and how it would be addressed was discussed during scoping
and can be found in the meeting transcripts on FERC’s website. Richardson noted that the documents
are on Loup Power District’s relicensing website as well.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked if FERC has a regulatory role in the access authorizations, or
agreements.
A: Jayjack explained that if they are not part of the license, then they are not under FERC’s
jurisdiction. These issues, particularly water rights, are a state issue and FERC does not get involved
with those.
• Q: Thoreson asked if an actual inventory and analysis of what is available at each recreation site will
be included in the recreation management plan.
A: Richardson explained that that is occurring as part of the recreation use study and would also be
included in the recreation management plan.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 9 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 11.0, Section 106 Compliance
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the Section 106 compliance study, which included four
components. The key points and discussion for each component were as follows:
Phase IA Archaeological Overview:
• The Phase IA Archaeological Overview was completed in late summer/early fall of 2009.
• The study determined that field exams were necessary for eight areas within the Project Boundary
that appear to be undisturbed since the 1930s, or that are within or near documented archaeological
sites.
• Nebraska SHPO concurred with recommendations in Phase IA Archaeological Overview on
November 11, 2009
• The Phase IA Archaeological Overview was filed with FERC as privileged information on
December 4, 2009.
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation:
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation was completed in summer 2010.
• Eighty-three shovel tests were completed:
– Prehistoric archaeological material was found in three tests.
– Historic artifacts were recovered from four tests.
• One site is recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
• Other sensitive areas of the canal corridor were identified for management through consultation with
Nebraska SHPO.
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report includes recommendations that
coordination with Nebraska SHPO be required prior to earth-moving or earth-disturbing activities in
the aforementioned areas.
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report was submitted to Nebraska SHPO for
concurrence on August 27, 2010.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked what was meant by “other sensitive areas” She also if any mitigation
is being proposed.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) stated that these areas could potentially contain additional artifacts, but at
this time, they are not determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. These results are included in
the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report but have not been discussed with
Nebraska SHPO yet. Mitigation has not been considered at this point. The first steps are to confer
with Nebraska SHPO about the findings of the report and to get concurrence from Nebraska SHPO on
what areas need to be monitored as part of that agreement.
Ethnographic Documentation:
• Initial coordination with tribes has occurred through both FERC and the District.
– Six tribes with historical presence in the area include the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca Tribe
of Nebraska, Omaha Tribe, Pawnee Tribe, Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation.
– No tribes responded with information related to places that are of traditional religious and cultural
importance.
– The Winnebago Tribe will not be participating in relicensing as it does not have any land in either
Nance or Platte County.
• The tribes were provided an opportunity to review the Phase IA Archaeological Overview, but none
responded
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 10 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation was provided to the tribes for comment. The
District will follow up with the tribes in the next few weeks to ensure that they received the report and
if they have any comments or wish to consult on it.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked whether copies had been sent to the tribes, noting that she hadn’t
heard the last statement clearly.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that copies of the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and
Evaluation had been sent to the chairman of each tribe and that a copy of the letter was sent to each
tribal historic preservation officer.
• Q: Hutzel asked if the documentation from the Winnebago Tribe noting that the tribe does not wish
to participate in relicensing had been filed with FERC.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) noted that the Winnebago Tribe responded directly to FERC’s letter via
e-mail, so that document should be filed with FERC, but she will check to ensure that it is.
Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation:
• The Project is a historic district eligible for listing on the NRHP.
• Eligible elements include 16 properties that exhibit individual eligibility and 21 properties that lack
individual eligibility but contribute to the historic district.
• The historic district also includes numerous non-contributing properties that are not eligible for listing
on the NRHP.
• The Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation report was submitted to Nebraska SHPO on
August 27, 2010, for concurrence.
Historic Properties Management Plan and Executed Programmatic Agreement:
• The Historic Properties Management Plan will be developed following review and approval of the
field studies for archaeology, ethnography, and the historic district.
• The Programmatic Agreement will be developed and executed following review and approval of the
field studies for archaeology, ethnography, and the historic district as well as approval of the Historic
Properties Management Plan.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked if the Historic Properties Management Plan would be developed in
consultation with tribes as well as with Nebraska SHPO.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that the intent is to consult with the tribes though there really
has been no tribal participation to date. The District will send them copies and allow them to
comment.
• Q: Hutzel asked if there will be follow-up on the Section 106 Compliance study in the January
meeting when updated initial study results are discussed.
A: Richardson explained that concurrence with Nebraska SHPO, consultation with the tribes, and a
status update for the Historic Properties Management Plan will be part of the January meeting.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 11 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
PCB Fish Tissue Sampling
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the PCB fish tissue sampling. The key points were as
follows:
• This was not an official relicensing study, but a question had been raised by agencies during scoping
about contamination and NDEQ agreed to conduct additional fish tissue sampling in 2009 in the
Project area.
• NDEQ conducted sampling at two locations along the Project:
– Lake Babcock was sampled on August 11, 2009.
– Tailrace Canal (U.S. Highway 30 bridge) was sampled on August 12, 2009.
• Fillets were provided to the EPA Region VII laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas, for PCB analysis.
• PCB (Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260) concentrations at each site were below the applicable reporting
limits.
• Results have not been officially reported by NDEQ, but data will be included in NDEQ's 2009 Fish
Tissue Report once all statewide data have been assessed.
• NDEQ stated that “the current fish consumption advisory for the Loup Power Canal will likely be
removed following completion of the 2009 Fish Tissue Report in late 2010 or early 2011.”
Discussion:
• Q: Frank Albrecht (NGPC) asked if there is a standard size or age of the fish tested for PCBs.
A: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) explained that carp are in the 21-inch range, likely 18 to 24 inches. The
EPA-approved methods for fish tissue sampling take into consideration bioaccumulation and
biomagnifications. They target fish that they assume would accumulate the material and the size that
would have time to biomagnify.
• C: Jeff Runge (USFWS) noted that USFWS had recommended a measurement of sediment samples.
However, FERC’s Study Plan Determination included an indirect measure of PCBs in sediment
through fish tissue sampling. Runge noted that PCB-contaminated fish in the middle section
(between the Monroe and Columbus powerhouses) would cause concern that maybe there is a
potential for PCB-latent sediment. Two aspects of concern are PCBs within the fish tissue and any
discharges that would be released into the canal system and would eventually make their way into the
lower Platte River, which is currently an impaired waterbody. The idea behind the fish tissue
sampling was to help answer those questions.
• Q: Runge also asked what the difference is between reporting limits identified in the report and
actual water quality limits.
A: Pracheil explained that fish tissue limits are not the same as water quality standard parameters.
NDEQ has tested for PCBs in the water column at numerous sites throughout the state but has not
found PCBs in the water column. Sampling was conducted in Lake Babcock to determine if there
was contamination above the Tailrace because there is potential for fish from the lower Platte River to
enter the Tailrace during a high flow event. It is difficult to determine whether contaminated fish are
in the Tailrace because of the Loup Power Canal or if they are coming from a contaminated section of
the lower Platte River into the Tailrace. Although this can’t be answered, the Lake Babcock sample
helps point to the direction that the Loup Power Canal above the Tailrace does not have PCB
contamination.
• Q: Runge asked if “at or below the reporting limits” means that there is no contamination present.
A: Pracheil explained that NDEQ’s assessment method is to take the reporting limit and divide by
two, and that is the number applied to all of NDEQ’s assessment criteria. This is more conservative
so there is less risk to the consumer.
• Q: Runge asked why the carp species was used rather than another common species like catfish and
whether there would be the same levels of contamination for both species.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 12 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
A: Pracheil stated that the collection technique somewhat limits the success for some species. NDEQ
tries to get both a predator and a bottom-feeder species from every sample site, but the fish have to
meet the requirements for size considerations. Bass are considered a predator species, and both carp
and catfish are bottom-feeder species. NDEQ’s methodology for testing is available on its website.
Carp are easier to catch, so that species often fills the role of bottom-feeder in NDEQ’s methodology.
In Lake Babcock, Pracheil was unsure if they attempted to get another species; the methodology
specifies carp as that is what was on the impaired waterbodies list.
• Jeff Schuckman (NGPC) noted that if fish tissue samples are needed from other species, NDEQ could
contact NGPC because they routinely conduct fish sampling and would be willing to help out.
Study 1.0, Sedimentation
Study Results:
Pat Engelbert (HDR), Matt Pillard (HDR), and Scott Stuewe (HDR) presented the study results of the
sedimentation study, which included four objectives. The key points and discussion for each objective were
as follows:
Objective 1:
• Both rivers at all locations studied are clearly not supply limited.
• Spatial analysis of effective and dominant discharge reveals that they increase in a downstream
direction in a manner consistent with natural river processes.
• The effective discharge, and associated river morphology, has not changed since 1928.
• Sediment transport calculations show that the channel geometries are in “regime.” Nothing appears
to be constraining either the Loup or Platte River from maintaining the hydraulic geometry associated
with the effective discharges.
• The combinations of slopes, sediment sizes, and effective discharges result in all locations being well
within the braided river morphologies, with none being near any thresholds of transitioning to another
morphology.
Discussion:
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if the suspended sediment load in the Platte and Loup rivers is a
composite suspended sampling from USGS and if bed load is incorporated into any of these
calculations as well.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) explained that for bed load in the Platte and Loup rivers, a composite of the
bed material samples and suspended samples was used to calculate the d50 used in Yang’s equation
to create the sediment discharge rating curves. The d50 of the suspended is a smaller material, and
the d50 of the bed material is a coarser material. Therefore, we felt that this composite better
represented the total bed material load.
• Q: Mary Bomberger-Brown (TPCP) asked why the amount of dredged material since 1975 was
nearly half the amount dredged prior to 1975.
A: Engelbert explained that there are probably several reasons, including a change in farming
practices (terracing and land leveling) and the construction of upstream structures (Calamus Reservoir
and Sherman Reservoir). Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that the District did not change its
operating practices at all during that time.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked how the total sediment discharge was calculated.
A: Engelbert explained that the amount of flow for a given day was multiplied by the sediment
discharge rating curve (the amount of sediment for a particular discharge), which is in tons per cubic
feet per second (cfs). This results in a tons calculation by using an adjustment factor to get the units
correct. George Waldow (HDR) noted that this is an established methodology, and Gary Lewis
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 13 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
(HDR) added that this procedure is adopted by all of the agencies that work with or represent the
Platte River.
• Q: Tom Econopouly (USFWS) asked if the y-axis was tons on slide 118 and how that relates to the
dominant discharge of 3,500 cfs.
A: Engelbert explained that the total amount of sediment transported in tons was indeed represented
by the y-axis. The dominant discharge is 3500 cfs; however, it was not graphically shown. The red
line on the graph showing the 3,500 cfs does not correspond to the y-axis units. The average tons per
day were determined from total tons, and the dominant discharge corresponding to that average daily
sediment transport was found from the sediment rating curve.
• Q: Nick Jayjack (FERC) asked about the significance of the USBR 1.5-year analysis on the regime
graphs.
A: Engelbert explained that previously, a common estimate of the channel forming flow was the
1.5-year flood, but current technologies do not require such estimates for sand bed systems.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked how the total yield was calculated for North Bend.
A: Engelbert explained that the Missouri River Basin Commission used established methodology to
determine what the supply to those locations would be based on all erosion processes, including sheet,
rill, and bed and bank. There is a table in the initial study report that lists the Missouri River Basin
Commission yields.
• Q: Runge asked if the Platte River between Columbus and North Bend only has a certain amount of
capacity to continue to add to the supply.
A: Gary Lewis (HDR) explained that transport capacity will not necessarily move all of the yield in
braided systems, which are defined as rivers with sediment supplies in much greater excess than the
ability to transport it. The best estimate of yield is what it is transporting whenever a river is in
equilibrium. Missouri River Basin Commission methods are an indicator of whether the yield
exceeds the capacity. Lewis noted that probably what is being transported is what is being delivered
because the river is in dynamic equilibrium. The key point is that by the procedure that was applied
and agreed to in the study plan, the yield exceeded capacity of the transport, so the study sites are not
supply limited. Transport capacities are not additive as you move downstream. The capacity at a
particular location is based on hydraulics—slope, width, depth, velocity—and sediment size.
Because the river hydraulics change, the capacity will change. The capacities and yields are
calculated independently using different methodologies.
• Q: Runge asked if more sediment is being transported away or through North Bend than what is
being supplied from Columbus and Duncan.
A: Engelbert explained that the transport capacity numbers cannot really be added. The capacity is
based on the river condition at Duncan and the river condition at Columbus. You cannot add the
capacity of the two and get the resulting capacity.
• Q: Runge asked if changes in local hydraulic characteristics result in the difference.
A: Engelbert noted that calculations for the Platte River near Columbus have not been completed yet
but will be based on 1 year’s measurements as opposed to the capacities being developed based on
30 or 50 years of hydraulic measurements.
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) asked if the capacity indicates the amount of sediment that the water
will hold.
A: Engelbert explained that capacity indicates the amount of bed material sediment the water will
convey, if transporting at capacity.
• Q: Holland asked what determines sediment size and capacity and if we have any indication about
particle size and distribution.
A: Engelbert explained that the sediment size and capacity are based on USGS measurements and
Yang’s Unit Stream Power equation. Bed sediment samples, suspended sediment samples, and daily
flow (function of velocity and depth) were used to calculate the capacity. The particle sizes by gage
are in the initial study report or attachments; sizes are different at the study sites, not the same. Lewis
added that if flows decline, transport declines. Engelbert noted that a spatial relationship based on the
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 14 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
gaging stations was evaluated. Holland stated that things are completely different 100 miles
downstream. Engelbert explained that the District was tasked to evaluate the calculations at a point
within 5 miles of the Tailrace and a point upstream of the Tailrace, which is being done.
• George Waldow (HDR) noted that the yield or supply were each calculated additively as you go
downstream. The analysis does not allow only the capacity amount be added to the supply as you go
downstream. The analysis is only one indicator of capacity, not absolute values. At best, this tool is
an approximation of a complicated system. However, yield or supply exceeds capacity at all
locations. No studies in the literature disagree with this. Lewis provided the definition of dynamic
equilibrium, saying that it doesn’t mean it is always the same; it varies, but around a constant trend.
The Corps describes a stream system with variability (in width, depth, bars, and braids) but not
deviating from a long-term condition trend. We need to look at parameters like effective discharge.
Engelbert added that the budget analysis performed for this sedimentation study is part of that.
• Q: Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) asked if the model is able to measure the errors and bring the error values
forward so that they can be identified.
A: Engelbert explained that the data has uncertainty but not error, and because the data was analyzed
over a 25-year period, any random errors are likely smoothed out. Waldow clarified that rather than
error, Joel is referring to imprecision.
• Q: Holland and Jorgensen noted that it would be useful to know the percent error (for example,
1 percent or 50 percent), or a measurement of the imprecision. Jorgensen also asked if there are error
values for the components that go into Yang’s equation.
A: Lewis noted that USGS rates their records as good, fair, and poor, and in the USGS manual, they
list a confidence range of 5 to 15 percent. We did a sensitivity analysis on Yang’s equation, and we
erred on the side of conservative rather than understating or overstating the capacity. We relied on
USGS flow and other measurements.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked if the yield of total supply available is just free-flowing sediment or
if it also includes the sediment trapped in stabilized sandbars or other stabilization structures.
A: Engelbert explained that the total supply available accounted for the sediment being removed
from the system. The Missouri River Basin Commission accounted for sediment being trapped at
structures or taken out of the system, but did not analyze sediment in stabilized sandbars. For
example, at Loup’s diversion structure, they took the total amount and accounted for sediment being
removed in the settling basin. In addition, they accounted for an amount of suspended sediments
being conveyed through the system with half of that sediment being trapped in the system and the
other half returning to the Platte River system at the Tailrace.
• Q: Runge asked if the sediment analysis for the Platte River at Duncan and the Loup River at
Columbus could be added to see how close of an agreement there is with the values at North Bend.
A: Engelbert explained that hydrographs are being developed at the area just downstream of the
confluence based on gage data at Duncan and on the Loup and that historic reach gains and losses
were accounted for. Runge noted that this would help from a precision standpoint if they were in
close agreement and could shed some light as to the precision.
• Q: Jayjack asked if the capacity numbers were calculated and the yield numbers were from published
sources. If so, he asked if we have a good idea of the uncertainty involved with the capacity numbers.
A: Engelbert confirmed this and stated that whether the rivers are supply limited or not supply
limited is just one piece of the overall puzzle.
• Q: Paul Makowski (FERC) wanted to draw the distinction between uncertainty, error, and variability.
Makowski noted that there is a lot of variability with the sediment discharge rating curve and asked if
a confidence interval could be added and what the bands would be.
A: Engelbert explained that a sensitivity analysis was conducted, and that 25 years of data were used
to reduce the variation. The rating curves showing the variation in suspended loads are an indication
of these bands.
• Q: Econopouly pointed out that there was almost 50 percent more capacity at Genoa than Columbus
and asked about the factor of data.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 15 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
A: Engelbert explained that it is a factor of the data used to develop the sediment discharge rating
curve. At Genoa, there were 25 years of measurements to use, but at Columbus, there was only
1 year of measurements to develop the sediment discharge rating curve. Engelbert agreed that the
results are somewhat inconsistent.
• Q: Econopouly asked why two points marked on Chang’s regime morphology chart, which were
bankfull discharge rather than effective discharge, were not used.
A: Lewis explained that those charts and data points were used in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) report on Platte River history. He noted that there is no reason to use bankfull or 1.5-year
flows as estimates of channel-forming flow because effective discharge calculations are the current
methodology. Bankfull flow is not easily found on a braided river where the yield exceeds the
transport, forming a “backbone” along the river valley.
• C: Holland noted that when focusing on specific habitat features, there is a need to look at different
types of flow events, such as bankfull flow. There are two different ways of looking at how sediment
is used and what sediment is doing to the river.
Objective 2:
• Literature and analysis clearly indicate that both rivers are in dynamic equilibrium with no indications
of aggradation or degradation or channel geometry changes over time.
• Literature and calculations demonstrate that the Loup River bypass reach and the lower Platte River
are in regime and well seated within regime zones classified as braided streams.
Discussion:
• Jeff Runge (USFWS) noted that the purpose of this meeting is to develop information to propose any
necessary changes in methodology. Runge suggested that the trends and channel gradation
information from the 1999 USGS report be updated as a study modification; he noted this would be
included in the USFWS’ comment letter. Lee Emery (FERC) asked if Runge thought the findings
would change with this additional work. Runge indicated he was unsure. Emery also noted that the
cost and benefit of doing this additional work would be a consideration when FERC makes a
determination on modifications. It was also clarified that study modifications should follow FERC’s
7 study request criteria (same as for initial study requests.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked why 1985 was chosen as the starting date.
A: Engelbert explained that it was to correlate the date with bird data available. In addition, USGS
had electronic data from 1984, so it was a good representative era of 25 years to begin with 1985.
These years had wet, dry, and normal year designations, and it was considered to be a good
representative time frame.
Objective 3:
• It was determined that the system is in dynamic equilibrium and the Project does not affect
morphology in this reach of the Platte; therefore, it is inferred that the Project does not affect pallid
sturgeon or least tern and piping plover habitat parameters related to sediment transport.
• No further analysis is needed based on the RSP methodology, but analysis of plots of interior least
tern and piping plover nest counts against sediment transport parameters was completed due to timing
of other study activities.
– There is not a significant relationship between interior least tern and piping plover nest counts
and sediment transport parameters.
– No evidence from this analysis was discovered that would suggest a potential relationship
between nest counts and sediment transport parameters.
Discussion:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 16 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if transforming some of the discharge parameters might have given
a different correlation. Pracheil also stated that an R 2 of 0.3 is usually considered significant in
biological settings.
A: Matt Pillard (HDR) explained that a linear regression was performed as described in the study
plan.
• C: Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) shared a number of comments related to the statistical analysis of the data:
– Noted that the data preparation should have been explained and that there may be
pseudoreplication issues with the analysis. Is the data normally distributed? If not, is linear
regression appropriate?
– Suggested that rather than using parametric tests, nonparametric tests should have been used
because the data aren’t normally distributed.
– Noted that the small data set may cause issues with the analysis and that specific statistical tests
for significance were not referenced in the report
– Noted that most of the analysis may be influenced by outliers; suggested that the outliers be
reviewed to see why they outliers exist, possibly because of data inconsistencies
– Suggested that linear regression is not appropriate for the data because in some cases the analysis
would result in a negative value, which is not possible..
– Suggested looking at a generalized linear model for regression. Using a model-based approach
you can build competing models and compare the relative strength of the models against each
other that would allow interactions between the x variables.
– Another possible choice is logistic regression.
• Jorgensen noted that he will provide written comments regarding the analysis.
• Mike George (USFWS) noted that he did not see the system as linear either; if it were linear, then at
either end, you will not have nesting. He noted that the value in linear regression was to show that
the relationship is not linear .
• G. Lewis noted that in order to do some of the statistical analysis suggested, such as a principal
component model, there needs to be a model that you are trying to fit. He also noted that to do a
multivariate analysis you have to have an idea of how the variables relate to each other in order to do
the work.
• Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) noted that if there is good justification not to do any sort of additional
analysis, then provide that discussion in the report.
Objective 4:
• It was determined that the system is in dynamic equilibrium and the Project does not affect
morphology in this reach of the Platte; therefore, it is inferred that the Project does not affect pallid
sturgeon habitat parameters related to sediment transport.
– The Lower Platte River geomorphology is in dynamic equilibrium.
– The literature review states that the lower Platte River is appropriate pallid sturgeon habitat.
– Recent sturgeon captures show species occupation.
• No further analysis is needed based on the Revised Study Plan methodology.
Discussion:
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) asked if the sampling that occurred 30 miles west of Columbus was a
one-time sampling event and noted that that was not part of the original objectives of the UNL study.
A: Scott Stuewe (HDR) confirmed that it was a one-time sampling event and noted Holland’s
comment.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 17 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Next Steps
Lisa Richardson (HDR) discussed the next steps for the completed studies and the remaining studies.
For the completed studies, the next steps are as follows:
• September 24, 2010 – District submits meeting summary
• October 24, 2010 – Agencies file meeting summary disagreements and submit requests for
modification to on-going studies
• November 24, 2010 – District responds to summary comments and study modification requests
• December 27, 2010 – FERC resolves comments and study modification requests
For the remaining studies, the next steps are as follows:
• January 6, 2011 – Submittal of Updated Initial Study Report to FERC
• January 20, 2011 – Updated Initial Study Report Agency Meeting
Discussion:
• There was discussion about the interrelatedness of Sedimentation with the Hydrocycling and Flow
Depletion and Flow Diversion studies. USFWS indicated that because of this, they may hold some of
their comments until after all of the study results are available. This led to a question of whether
FERC will address study modifications in October 2010 or wait until spring 2011 when all study
results and comments are available. FERC is considering this issue.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 18 of 18

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Thompson, Wendy; Frame, Gail
Subject: RE: FERC process
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:58:10 AM
Attachments: FERC_ILP_flowchart.pdf
ILP_Relicensing_Process.pdf
Joel,
Attached are two graphics that illustrate the ILP process. The FERC ILP Flowchart is a chart from
FERC’s Licensing handbook that shows all the timeframes for the process. The ILP Relicensing
Process is a board that we developed for the public meetings – this is the same graphic that I
presented in the meeting last week – this shows the general process without dates or timelines (note:
the PDF is set for 48x36, but you can print to fit at 11x17 or smaller).
Finally, here is a link to the Schedule and Process page from the District’s relicensing website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/licensingprocess.html
If you have any questions about any of these, please feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FERC process
Hi Lisa:
Nice meeting you last week at the meeting. I was wondering if you had a handy graphic or summary
showing the overall re-licensing process as it related to the LPPD project. I believe you had some
information in the room, but I am hoping to have something I can refer to here. Any help is
appreciated.
Thanks.
-Joel
__________________________
Joel Jorgensen | Nongame Bird Program Manager
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St. | Lincoln, NE, 68503
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov | 402.471.5440

From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
To: Jorgensen, Joel
Cc: Thompson, Wendy; Frame, Gail
Subject: RE: FERC process
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:58:10 AM
Attachments: FERC_ILP_flowchart.pdf
ILP_Relicensing_Process.pdf
Joel,
Attached are two graphics that illustrate the ILP process. The FERC ILP Flowchart is a chart from
FERC’s Licensing handbook that shows all the timeframes for the process. The ILP Relicensing
Process is a board that we developed for the public meetings – this is the same graphic that I
presented in the meeting last week – this shows the general process without dates or timelines (note:
the PDF is set for 48x36, but you can print to fit at 11x17 or smaller).
Finally, here is a link to the Schedule and Process page from the District’s relicensing website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/licensingprocess.html
If you have any questions about any of these, please feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
From: Jorgensen, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jorgensen@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: FERC process
Hi Lisa:
Nice meeting you last week at the meeting. I was wondering if you had a handy graphic or summary
showing the overall re-licensing process as it related to the LPPD project. I believe you had some
information in the room, but I am hoping to have something I can refer to here. Any help is
appreciated.
Thanks.
-Joel
__________________________
Joel Jorgensen | Nongame Bird Program Manager
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St. | Lincoln, NE, 68503
joel.jorgensen@nebraska.gov | 402.471.5440

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:42 AM
To: frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov; john.bender@nebraska.gov; jeff_runge@fws.gov;
robert_harms@fws.gov; barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil; abaum@upperloupnrd.org;
randy_thoreson@nps.gov; bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov; mkuzila1@unl.edu;
david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov; jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org; steve.chick@ne.usda.gov;
pcclerk@megavision.com; cityadmin@cablene.com; ncpza@hamilton.net;
rbishop@cpnrd.org; jwinkler@papionrd.org; lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org; jmangi@columbusne.us;
cgenoa@cablene.com; monroe@megavision.com; calms@neb.rr.com; danno@nohva.com;
mbrown9@unl.edu; rtrudell@santeedakota.org; jblackhawk@aol.com;
vwills@pawneenation.org; Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov; msittler@lpsnrd.org;
butchk@nctc.net; robertm@llnrd.org; jmsunne@nppd.com; jalexand@usgs.gov;
jjshadl@nppd.com; cothern.joe@epa.gov; justin.lavene@nebraska.gov;
bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov; kennyj@headwaterscorp.com; mferguson@gp.usbr.gov;
Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov; Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov; jeddins@achp.gov;
kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov; peggy.harding@ferc.gov; djjarecke@clarkswb.net;
al.berndt@nebraska.gov; astuthman@leg.ne.gov; ksullivan@leg.ne.gov;
clangemeier@leg.ne.gov; adubas@leg.ne.gov; chairmanrhodd@ponca.com;
asheridan@omahatribe.com; don_simpson@blm.gov; nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov;
jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov; prescott.brownell@noaa.gov; marvp@megavision.com;
lewrightjr@gmail.com; thowe@ponca.com; zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov;
julias@poncatribe1ne.org; todd.crawford@mail.house.gov; louis1pofahl@mail.house.gov;
emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov; deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov; tpetr@loup.com;
mike.black@bia.gov; janet.hutzel@ferc.gov; isis.johnson@ferc.gov; lee.emery@ferc.gov;
paul.makowski@ferc.gov
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; tpetr@loup.com; Damgaard, Quinn V.;
Engelbert, Pat; Frame, Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Thompson, Wendy; Madson,
Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa (Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Waldow, George; White,
Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 1 FERC Relicensing: Interim General Recreation Use Report Filed with
FERC
Relicensing Participants:
For your information –
Loup Power District has electronically filed the Interim General Recreation Use Report with FERC. The report is available
on FERC’s e1library and on the District’s relicensing website: http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811414098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:41 PM
To: 'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'jeff_runge@fws.gov';
'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org';
'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov'; 'mkuzila1@unl.edu';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'ncpza@hamilton.net';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us';
'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'calms@neb.rr.com';
'danno@nohva.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'vwills@pawneenation.org'; 'Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov';
'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'robertm@llnrd.org'; 'jmsunne@nppd.com';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov';
'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov'; 'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov';
'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'jeddins@achp.gov'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov';
'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov';
'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'; 'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov';
'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'chairmanrhodd@ponca.com'; 'asheridan@omahatribe.com';
'don_simpson@blm.gov'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov';
'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'marvp@megavision.com'; 'lewrightjr@gmail.com';
'thowe@ponca.com'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe1ne.org';
'todd.crawford@mail.house.gov'; 'louis1pofahl@mail.house.gov';
'emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov'; 'deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov'; 'tpetr@loup.com';
'mike.black@bia.gov'; 'janet.hutzel@ferc.gov'; 'isis.johnson@ferc.gov'; 'lee.emery@ferc.gov';
'paul.makowski@ferc.gov'
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 1 FERC Relicensing: Meeting Summary Filed with FERC
Relicensing Participants:
Loup Power District has electronically filed the Meeting Summary from the Initial Study Results Meeting held on
September 9, 2020. The report is available on FERC’s e1library and on the District’s relicensing website:
http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents.html.
Thank you.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811414098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:48 AM
To: 'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'jeff_runge@fws.gov';
'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org';
'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov'; 'mkuzila1@unl.edu';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'ncpza@hamilton.net';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us';
'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'calms@neb.rr.com';
'danno@nohva.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'vwills@pawneenation.org'; 'Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov';
'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'robertm@llnrd.org'; 'jmsunne@nppd.com';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov';
'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov'; 'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov';
'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'jeddins@achp.gov'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov';
'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov';
'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'; 'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov';
'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'chairmanrhodd@ponca.com'; 'asheridan@omahatribe.com';
'don_simpson@blm.gov'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov';
'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'marvp@megavision.com'; 'lewrightjr@gmail.com';
'thowe@ponca.com'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe4ne.org';
'todd.crawford@mail.house.gov'; 'louis4pofahl@mail.house.gov';
'emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov'; 'deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov'; 'tpetr@loup.com';
'mike.black@bia.gov'; 'janet.hutzel@ferc.gov'; 'isis.johnson@ferc.gov'; 'lee.emery@ferc.gov';
'paul.makowski@ferc.gov'
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 4 FERC Relicensing: Initial Study Report Submittal to FERC
Relicensing Participants:
This e-mail is to inform you of the timing for the updated Initial Study Report and Study Results Meeting for the Loup
River Hydroelectric Relicensing.
On January 6, 2011, the District will be submitting the Updated Initial Study Report (ISR) to FERC, it will also be posted on
the website at http://www.loup.com/relicense. This report will include study reports for the following completed
studies:
1 – Sedimentation (update on ungaged analysis)
2 – Hydrocyling
4 – Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
5 – Flow Depletion/Flow Diversion
8 – Recreation Use
11 – Section 106 Compliance (update)
12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River Bypass Reach
The Study Results meeting is scheduled for January 20 th and 21 st . Due to the number of studies included in the Initial
Study Results report, the District will hold a two day meeting:
Date and Time Topic Location
Thursday, Jan 20
10:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Study Results for Hydrocyling, Flow
Depletion/Flow Diversion,
1
New World Inn
265 33 rd Ave

Friday, Jan 21
8:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Temperature, Recreation Use, and Ice Columbus, NE
For those not able to attend in person, conference call capabilities will be available.
We appreciate your time and input on this relicensing effort. If you have any questions regarding the upcoming reports
or meetings, please call me at (402) 399-1186.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811444098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:54 AM
To: 'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'jeff_runge@fws.gov';
'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org';
'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov'; 'mkuzila1@unl.edu';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'ncpza@hamilton.net';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us';
'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'calms@neb.rr.com';
'danno@nohva.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'vwills@pawneenation.org'; 'Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov';
'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'robertm@llnrd.org'; 'jmsunne@nppd.com';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov';
'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov'; 'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov';
'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'jeddins@achp.gov'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov';
'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov';
'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'; 'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov';
'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'chairmanrhodd@ponca.com'; 'asheridan@omahatribe.com';
'don_simpson@blm.gov'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov';
'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'marvp@megavision.com'; 'lewrightjr@gmail.com';
'thowe@ponca.com'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe4ne.org';
'todd.crawford@mail.house.gov'; 'louis4pofahl@mail.house.gov';
'emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov'; 'deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov'; 'tpetr@loup.com';
'mike.black@bia.gov'; 'janet.hutzel@ferc.gov'; 'isis.johnson@ferc.gov'; 'lee.emery@ferc.gov';
'paul.makowski@ferc.gov'
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 4 FERC Relicensing: Initial Study Report Comments
Relicensing Participants –
This is a reminder that comments on the Initial Study Report submitted on August 26 th and presented at the Initial Study
Results meeting on September 9 th are due on Monday, October 25 th . The studies that were presented include:
1 – Sedimentation
7 – Fish Passage
8 – Recreation Phone Survey Results (Interim General Recreation Report submitted on September 15 th )
10 – Land Use Inventory
11 – Section 106 – Historic Buildings Inventory and Evaluation and Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
Comments are due to FERC on these studies on October 25 , 2010.
Thanks!
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
HDR | ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions Sol
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811444098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
1

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Neal D. Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
October 22, 2010
Project No. 1256-029 – Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup River Public Power District
Reference: Commission Staff Comments on Initial Study Report and Meeting
Summary
Dear Mr. Suess:
Commission staff has reviewed the initial study report and meeting summary for
the Loup Project No. 1256, filed on August 27, 2010 and September 24, 2010,
respectively. Our comments and requests for clarification on the meeting summary are
provided in appendix A. Our comments and requests for clarification on the initial study
report are provided in appendix B.
Any questions on these comments should be directed to Lee Emery at (202) 502-
8379 or lee.emery@ferc.gov.
Enclosure: Schedule A
cc: Mailing List
Public Files
Sincerely,
Nicholas Jayjack, Chief
Midwest Branch
Division of Hydropower Licensing

Comments on Meeting Summary
APPENDIX – A
We have reviewed the meeting summary pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15(c)(4),
and have the following comments and clarifications:
Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
During the Study Results Meeting held on September 9, 2010, in the
discussion about Study 2.0, Hydrocycling, we asked whether any resolution was
reached concerning the use of the sediment transport component within HEC-RAS
to evaluate the effects of hydrocycling on interior least tern and piping plover
nesting habitat. The meeting summary, filed on September 24, 2010, says that the
consulting firm would use the sediment transport calculations that were performed
as part of the sedimentation study to evaluate the effects of alternative project
operations. However, the meeting summary appears to miss the response to our
question in which the transcript of the meeting states the consultant would set up
the model (we assume the sediment transport component within the HEC-RAS
model) to determine how alternative project operations affect sediment transport.
Specifically, the transcript states that, “Initially we will set up the model and make
some runs to provide us an idea of how things have changed.” Therefore, please
revise the meeting summary to be consistent with your response to our question
within the transcript.
A-1

Comments on Initial Study Report
APPENDIX – B
Commission staff have reviewed the initial study report pursuant to 18 CFR
§ 5.15(c)(4), and have the following comments and clarifications:
Study 1.0, Sedimentation
Based on the Study Plan Determination issued by the Commission on
August 26, 2009, the Loup Power District was to analyze the relationship between
the available interior least tern (Sternula antillarum athalossos) and piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) nesting and productivity data versus sediment transport
indicators for both wet and dry cycles as part of Objective 3 of the Sedimentation
Study. In the initial study report, Loup Power District explains that upon
examining the data available, it was determined (by them) that nest count numbers
were the most optimal data set for use in a regression analysis.
While we understand the limitations of the data available with respect to
statistical examination, the nesting and productivity data that exists is valuable in
providing a more comprehensive and qualitative view of the tern and plover
populations in the vicinity of the project. As such, we request that the Loup Power
District submit to us the available nesting and productivity data for both species,
including the most recent counts. The data should include, but not be limited to:
(1) nest counts and general location; (2) number of eggs; (3) fledging success; and
(4) any other pertinent demographic information not currently contained in the
study results.
Lastly, it is unclear whether the Loup Power District considered “wet” and
“dry” year variations in the statistical analysis presented in the report, as required
by the Study Plan Determination. Please clarify.
Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
In the Revised Study Plan (RSP) dated July 27, 2009, Loup Power District
proposed the use of sediment transport indicators (effective discharge and total
sediment transported) to evaluate the effects of hydrocycling on interior least tern
and piping plover nesting habitat. The RSP states that sediment transport
indicators would be calculated for existing and alternative project operation using
subdaily hydrographs. Please provide the discharge averaging period to be used to
capture the subdaily operations. For example, the discharge averaging period
could be 24 hours (mean daily), 1 hour, or perhaps 15 minutes. Please provide
references for similar applications where the effects of artificial flow pulses, such
B-1

as hydrocycling, have been successfully evaluated using sediment transport
indicators.
In a teleconference held on April 1, 2010, Loup Power District stated that
the effective discharge methodology can be used to evaluate sediment
augmentation through modification of the sediment rating curve. Please describe
how the sediment rating curve would be modified to model sediment
augmentation.
In the Study Plan Determination for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
dated August 26, 2009, we were anticipating that you would use a sediment
transport model, such as HEC-RAS, to study the effects of hydrocycling and
sediment augmentation. The results of the modeling would provide a relative
comparison of erosion or deposition within river sections for the alternative
operations. A sensitivity analysis would identify significant parameters. We
recommend that you use the sediment transport function within HEC-RAS to
evaluate various operational scenarios specified in the study determination letter.
The effort to execute the model would be minimal, because the hydraulic
component of the HEC-RAS model and sediment data are already proposed.
B-2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:12 PM
To: Frame, Gail
Subject: FW: HP#0804&127&01 & Loup Power District
Attachments: LSHPO.101022.Puschendorf_Transmission.pdf
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Puschendorf, Bob
Cc: Dolberg, Jill; 'Neal Suess'; 'Ron Ziola'; Madson, Michael J.
Subject: HP#0804/127/01 / Loup Power District
Mr. Puschendorf,
Loup Power District has been consulting with your office regarding their relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Although a Historic Properties Management Plan has not yet been
developed, the District understands the importance of coordinating with SHPO regarding potential impacts to historic
properties resulting from District activities.
On behalf of Loup Power District I am providing information relative to a maintenance activity the District is undertaking.
The District has prepared a letter that will be sent to your office today, but in the interest of time, I am communicating
electronically and have attached a copy of the letter.
The District is proposing reconstruction of an existing transmission line near a known archaeological site eligible for the
NRHP. The District has performed pre&construction subsurface testing and determined that the soil profile at most pole
locations has been previously disturbed by cultivation and erosion, or obscured by fill. In addition, the District will have an
archaeologist on site to monitor excavation activities. Upon completion of excavation activities, the District will provide a
report summarizing the results of the archaeological monitoring.
If you have any questions about this activity or the attached letter, please feel free to contact me at (402&926&7026) or Mr.
Neal Suess, CEO Loup Power District at (402) 564&3171 x268.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114&4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
Cell: 402.618.9865
Fax: 402.399.1111
1

October 22, 2010
Mr. Robert Puschendorf
State Historic Preservation Office
1500 R Street
P.O. Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554
Re: HP#0804-127-01
Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256; Docket No. 1256-029
Addendum to Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
Dear Mr. Puschendorf:
Loup Power District (the District) proposes to reconstruct a single pole transmission line in
the vicinity of site 25PT115, a property recommended eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places under criterion “d.” Currently, several transmission poles for the
existing line are within the boundaries of site 25PT115. Because replacement of this line
would represent an action within the Project APE, the District contracted with Nancy Carlson
to perform subsurface testing efforts to assess whether the proposed locations of the eleven
replacement transmission poles within the boundaries of the site will affect the integrity of
archaeological materials, the quality of significance that contributes most directly to the site’s
eligibility.
The results of this effort suggest that the soil profile at most pole locations has been disturbed
by cultivation and erosion, or obscured by fill. Two small lithic artifact fragments were
found within the initial 10 cm of the surface and plow zone at the test site for Pole #17. No
other archaeological remains or indications of buried archaeological deposits were
encountered during this investigation. Ms. Carlson’s report is pending.
Based on these results, the District proposes that the pole placement proceed under a “no
historic properties affected” finding; that is, an historic property is present, but the proposed
action will not diminish the qualities that contribute to its significance. The District seeks
your concurrence with this finding contingent on archaeological monitoring of the auguring
for each of the eleven poles within the boundaries of site 25PT115. All field investigations
for this effort will be documented in a single report and provided to your office once the
project is complete. In the unlikely event that a discovery occurs during monitoring, the
augering activities will cease in the vicinity of the discovery and the District will notify all
appropriate parties so that consultation may proceed in accordance with Section 800.13 of the
regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.

Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson (HDR) at (763) 278-5921 or me at
(402) 564-3171 if you have any questions about our proposed findings.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc:
Jill Dolberg, SHPO
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR

October 25, 2010
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E., Room IA
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd Sr. / P.O. Box 30370 / Lincoln, NE 68503-0370
Phone: 402-471-0641/ Fax: 402-471-5528/ www.OurdoorNebraska.org
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission staffmembers have reviewed the Initial Study Report
(ISR) for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project, Nebraska, FERC Project No. 1256. The
ISR provided study reports for Sedimentation, Fish Passage, Recreational Use, Land Use
Inventory, and Section 106 Historic Buildings Inventory and Evaluation and Phase VII
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation. Pending studies include Hydrocycling, Water
Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach, Flow DepletionIFlow Diversion and Ice Jam
Flooding.
The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission has been involved with this re-licensing effort from
the beginning ofthe process. We have attended several meetings and provided letters which
outlined a number ofconcerns and questions to include potential impacts to state-listed species.
In the PAD, please reference a letter dated September 23, 2008 (Kristal Stoner to Melissa
Marinovich) and a joint letter developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NGPC
(letter dated July 21, 2008) for a detailed description ofour earlier comments.
We appreciate the willingness ofLoup Power District to undertake these studies. Specific
comments on the Initial Study Report are provided below;
Study 7: Fish Passage
During the September 9, 2010 meeting, Scott Stuewe (HDR) presented the results ofthe fish
passage study. The key points were as follows:
• The Diversion Weir is submerged less than I percent ofthe spawning season and is generally a
barrier to fish passage due to high flow velocities.
• The Sluice Gate Structure does not provide a fish pathway due to limited operation and high
flow-through velocities.
• An alternative fish pathway around the Diversion Weir on the right bank ofthe Loup River
exists (on average) less than I day out ofevery spawning season.
hinted on recycledpaper with say ink.

Questions were raised regarding ifthe analysis would change is minimum velocities or a lower
quartile velocity were used as fish would seek out the lowest velocities when trying to pass the
structme. We would like to have this question answered to get a complete representation ofthe
data.
Study 1.0 Sedimentation Study
Objective #3 ofthe sedimentation study is "to determine ifa relationship can be detected
between sediment transport parameters and Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover nest counts".
To accomplish this objective, it is necessary to carefully consider the data and use appropriate
analytical and statistical methods. The superficiality ofthe Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover
data analyses stand in stark contrast to the apparent complexity ofthe hydrological analyses.
Simple analyses and statistics can be powerful, but they must be appropriate to the data and the
data must be summarized properly or else they will be ineffective, as is the case here. We
believe this study could be greatly improved. Specific comments and suggestions are listed
below.
1) Rather than stating that "pertinent literatme covering species' biology and avian
survey methods was reviewed...", we suggest you cite the literatme in the document
where relevant. This will be useful helping readers understand the justification for
the approach and methods used.
2) A critical first step in all studies is to review the data and determine what analyses are
appropriate. The data were not summarized before analysis and the units ofanalysis
were not defined. Consequently, there are errors ofpseudoreplication throughout the
analysis, making it unusable. See Hmlbert, S.H., 1984. Pseudoreplication in the
design ofecologicalfield experiments. Ecological Monographs 54: 187-211 for
details.
3) Parametric statistical tests should not have been used with these data. Nearly all data
from biological systems are non-parametric (not normally distributed) and it is known
from other analyses that this is the case with these data. No tests ofnormality were
perfOimed nor were the data transformed to affect a normal distribution. Reviewing
the residual or Q-Q plots would be helpful in addressing the distribution ofthe data
(i.e. checking for normality) and would suggest more appropriate analyses.
4) The specific statistical tests are not named (e.g. Tukey's, Spearman correlation,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney U, etc). This makes it impossible for readers
to evaluate the analyses and interpret the results.
5) It appears that some analyses were affected by the distribution ofthe data reflected in
the presence ofoutlying points on the graphics. It would be helpful to review the data
and identify the somce ofthese outliers.
6) No significance tests, P-values, or estimates of error (i.e., standard error or SE) are
provided in the text or in the graphs, even though they are easily calculated. This is a
minimal expectation ofany statistical analysis.

7) A model-based analysis or Bayesian analysis would be a better way to approach the
data. They would allow for multiple dependent variables, and interactions between
dependent variables to be considered together. Also, they would provide predictions
about how the system would behave in the future or under different flow regimes.
8) The analysis could be simplified by considering that many ofthe dependent variables
are likely cOlTelated. Addressing multicollinearity issues by conducting a
correlation, multivariate, or principal components analysis could reduce the number
ofdependent variables and simplifY the analyses.
9) Ifregression and/or correlation analyses are used, they should only be a first step in
the project and be followed by the appropriately applied tests of significance.
10) A Generalized Linear Model with either a I) logistic regression or a 2) Poisson
regression would be preferable to the linear regressions presented here and should be
considered. There are, ofcourse, benefits and limitations to both methods. Logistic
regression simplifies the response variable and may be useful when using "noisy"
data. Poisson regression is appropriate when using count data as the response
variable. Both techniques are readily available, quite easy to perform and are
desirable ifLPPD is trying to produce a predictive analysis; this would allow much
more flexibility and power in the analysis.
11)R squared value (0.389), even though it is not meaningful due to flaws in the analysis,
is high for exploratory analyses ofbiological systems. It is remarkable to be able to
explain nearly 40% ofthe variation in a natural system so simply. This result should
not be discounted.
12)The data presented in the graphs, does, by observation, follow a curvilinear pattern,
yet a straight line was fit to the data. A more thorough exploration ofthe data is
necessary.
In addition to the above, we have concerns regarding the manner in which information in the
report is presented for Objective #3.
1) It may be helpful to clearly state that there is a high probability ofa Type II error
(false negative, failing to detect a relationship) because ofthe limitations ofthe data
and available methods. Not detecting a relationship does not and should not
necessarily lead to a conclusion that there are indeed relationships between sediment
transport characters and bird use.
2) On page 6, the document describes the Interior Least Tern colony on the North Sand
Management Area as "significant". While there is no dispute that numerous pairs
nest here each year, the term significant is not appropriate in this situation. The term
"significant" has a specific statistical meaning and, in a document relying heavily on
statistical analyses, that should be considered.
3) On page 6, it should be clarified that the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
monitors nesting activity on the North Sand Management Area with funding provided

Selzle, Lydia
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:09 AM
To: Frame, Gail; Thompson, Wendy
Subject: FW: HP#0804+127+01 + Loup Power District
From: Puschendorf, Bob [mailto:bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:34 AM
To: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Cc: Dolberg, Jill; Neal Suess; Ron Ziola; Madson, Michael J.; Steinacher, Terry
Subject: RE: HP#08047127701 7 Loup Power District
Lisa: Our archeologist, Dr. Terry Steinacher is out this week, but upon receipt of your letter we will process. However,
we will also need to review Nancy Carlson’s report concerning the findings of her survey. We regret that we cannot
accept email reviews.
From: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha) [mailto:Lisa.Richardson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Puschendorf, Bob
Cc: Dolberg, Jill; Neal Suess; Ron Ziola; Madson, Michael J.
Subject: HP#08047127701 7 Loup Power District
Mr. Puschendorf,
Loup Power District has been consulting with your office regarding their relicensing of the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Although a Historic Properties Management Plan has not yet been
developed, the District understands the importance of coordinating with SHPO regarding potential impacts to historic
properties resulting from District activities.
On behalf of Loup Power District I am providing information relative to a maintenance activity the District is undertaking.
The District has prepared a letter that will be sent to your office today, but in the interest of time, I am communicating
electronically and have attached a copy of the letter.
The District is proposing reconstruction of an existing transmission line near a known archaeological site eligible for the
NRHP. The District has performed pre+construction subsurface testing and determined that the soil profile at most pole
locations has been previously disturbed by cultivation and erosion, or obscured by fill. In addition, the District will have an
archaeologist on site to monitor excavation activities. Upon completion of excavation activities, the District will provide a
report summarizing the results of the archaeological monitoring.
If you have any questions about this activity or the attached letter, please feel free to contact me at (402+926+7026) or Mr.
Neal Suess, CEO Loup Power District at (402) 564+3171 x268.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa M. Richardson, P.E.
Professional Associate
HDR One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE 68114+4049
Phone: 402.926.7026
1

November 1, 2010
Gary Robinette
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 288
Niobrara, NE 68760
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Mr. Robinette:
Per your discussion with Alan Stanfill of HDR, enclosed please find a copy of the Phase
I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation that was completed for the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project which is owned and operated by Loup River Public Power District
(the District). The District is applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The existing license was
effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014. Loup Power District is
utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project and the Nebraska State Historic
Preservation Office has approved the report.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR (763) 278-5921 or me at
(402) 564-3171 if you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory
and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Lisa Richardson, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

November 3, 2010
Emily Smith
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
P.O. Box 687
Winnebago, NE 68701
RE: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Platte and Nance counties, Nebraska
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket No. P-1256-029
Dear Ms. Smith:
Per your discussion with Alan Stanfill of HDR, enclosed please find a copy of the Phase
I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation that was completed for the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project which is owned and operated by Loup River Public Power District
(the District). The District is applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to relicense the Loup River Hydroelectric Project. The existing license was
effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014. Loup Power District is
utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing effort.
Relicensing the Project is a Federal undertaking by FERC, and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal
agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse effects on historic
properties (any site, structure, or other property listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and allow interested parties the
opportunity to comment on decisions and actions that may affect historic properties.
Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and §5.13, the District prepared a study plan to gather the
information needed to comply with Section 106 as part of Project Relicensing. On
August 26, 2009, FERC approved the District’s study (Study 11.0), as submitted in the
Revised Study Plan on July 27, 2009. The District has completed the Phase I/II
Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Project and the Nebraska State Historic
Preservation Office has approved the report.

At this time we are seeking your input regarding the findings of the report and
continuance of our dialogue towards Section 106 compliance.
Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson at HDR (763) 278-5921 or me at
(402) 564-3171 if you have any questions about the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory
and Evaluation.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc (without attachments):
Lisa Richardson, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR
Attachments:
(1) Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation

November 24, 2010
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
ISR Meeting Comments
FERC Project No. 1256
Docket 1256-029
Dear Secretary Bose,
Via Electronic Filing
Loup River Public Power District (Loup Power District or District) herein electronically files
its responses to comments received on the Initial Study Results (ISR) Meeting Summary and
the Initial Study Report for relicensing the Loup River Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project
No. 1256 (Project). The District is the owner, operator, and original licensee of the Project.
The existing license was effective on December 1, 1982, for a term ending April 15, 2014.
Loup Power District is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this relicensing
effort.
In accordance with 18 CFR §5.15, the District presented the Initial Study Results to FERC
and other relicensing participants during the Initial Study Results Meeting held on
September 9, 2010. After the meeting, comments were received the following:
• Commission Staff
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
• National Park Service

Attached please find the District’s responses to the comments received on the ISR Meeting
Summary and the ISR. Reponses to each agency’s comments are provided separately in
Attachments A through D, respectively.
The District has prepared an updated Meeting Summary addressing the Commission’s
comments. This updated summary is attached and also posted on the District’s relicensing
website: www.loup.com/relicense.
If you have any questions regarding the District’s responses, or any information provided by
the District, please contact me at (402) 564-3171 ext. 268.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neal D. Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
Page 2

Attachment A
November 24, 2010
District response to Commission Staff comments on the ISR meeting summary and
the ISR dated October 22, 2010.
1. Comments on ISR Meeting Summary
The meeting summary, filed on September 24, 2010, says that the consulting firm
would use the sediment transport calculations that were performed as part of the
sedimentation study to evaluate the effects of alternative project operations.
However, the meeting summary appears to miss the response to our question in
which the transcript of the meeting states the consultant would set up the model
(we assume the sediment transport component within the HEC-RAS model) to
determine how alternative project operations affect sediment transport.
Specifically, the transcript states that, “Initially we will set up the model and make
some runs to provide us an idea of how things have changed.”
District Response
The statement that “Initially we will set up the model and make some runs to
provide us an idea of how things have changed” was meant to indicate that the
HEC-RAS models would be developed and executed and that the hydraulics
between the two cross sections would be compared. However, per FERC’s
request, the District will also use the sediment transport module within HEC-RAS.
The meeting summary has been updated to reflect this clarification.
2. Comments on Study 1.0 - Sedimentation
Commission Comment 1
We request that the Loup Power District submit to us the available nesting and
productivity data for both species, including the most recent counts. The data
should include, but not be limited to: (1) nest counts and general location; (2)
number of eggs; (3) fledging success; and (4) any other pertinent demographic
information not currently contained in the study results.
District Response
In order to use the interior least tern and piping plover nesting and productivity
data, the District entered into a Data Use Agreement with the Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission (NGPC) that limits distribution of the data to other entities.
The District has coordinated with NGPC regarding submittal of the raw nesting
and productivity data to FERC, and even though the District’s Data Use
Agreement allows submittal of the data to FERC, NGPC has requested that FERC
also enter into a similar Data Use Agreement. The District has forwarded NGPC’s
request to FERC staff; upon resolution of the need for FERC to sign a Data Use
Agreement, the District will provide the raw nesting and productivity data as well
as an assembled version of this data for FERC’s use.

November 24, 2010
Commission Comment 2
It is unclear whether the Loup Power District considered “wet” and “dry” year
variations in the statistical analysis presented in the report, as required by the
Study Plan Determination.
District Response
The District’s statistical analysis related to interior least tern and piping plover
nesting was performed using available data from years 1985 through 2009. As
noted in Section 4.3.2 of the Sedimentation Study Report, this period included
years with wet, dry, and normal flows, as defined by USFWS (Anderson and
Rodney, October 2006). However, the District’s statistical analysis did not
segregate wet, dry, and normal into separate analyses.
3. Comments on Study 2.0 - Hydrocycling
Commission Comment 1
Please provide the discharge averaging period to be used to capture the subdaily
operations. For example, the discharge averaging period could be 24 hours (mean
daily), 1 hour, or perhaps 15 minutes. Please provide references for similar
applications where the effects of artificial flow pulses, such as hydrocycling, have
been successfully evaluated using sediment transport indicators.
District Response
The District intends to use 15-minute data to evaluate sediment transport
indicators between current operations (hydrocycling) and run of river.
With respect to references for similar applications of sediment transport indicators
to evaluate morphological effects of “artificial flow pulses,” the District notes that
even though the phrase, “sediment transport indicators” is largely related to the
determination and use of effective and dominant discharge and total sediment
transported by an actual or an artificial hydrograph of flows, any application that
employs sediment transport capacity calculations falls in the same category of
science. Each “parameter” requires calculation of daily sediment transport
capacity using equations like Yang’s. Thus, calculation of daily sediment
transport capacity is part and parcel with determining the “indicators.” Any study
of other project’s impacts on sediment processes that involved estimates of daily
transport capacity by any of the available methods (Yang’s, etc.) falls under the
umbrella of “sediment transport indicators.” Further, any peer-reviewed
publication employing daily sediment transport capacity calculations implies that
if the methods were acceptable by the scientific community for use with daily
actual and/or artificial flows, their scientific applicability and acceptance for use in
evaluating actual or artificial sub-daily flow “pulses” is implied. The methods
apply, no matter what magnitude or duration of flow is input. Acceptance by the

November 24, 2010
scientific community of sediment transport capacity calculation applications to
historical and artificial daily discharges implies acceptability of the methods for
sub-daily flows, whether historical or artificial.
As far as specific use of parameters like effective and dominant discharges and
total sediment transport, the literature search and bibliography sections of the ISR
elaborate fully on others’ acceptance of their applicability to this issue, showing
that these “indicators” are considered fully relevant to Platte and other river
morphologies. Several proposed diversion and storage projects in Nebraska, such
as the Twin Valley, Enders, Landmark, and Prairie Bend projects, have been
evaluated by comparing sediment transport parameters for without- and withproject
conditions. Each involved analyses of “synthetic” flows. Some of the
references in the ISR refer to these analyses, while many others are available in
records of hearings before the Nebraska Department of Water Resources on
instream water right applications.
Commission Comment 2
In a teleconference held on April 1, 2010, Loup Power District stated that the
effective discharge methodology can be used to evaluate sediment augmentation
through modification of the sediment rating curve. Please describe how the
sediment rating curve would be modified to model sediment augmentation.
District Response
If sediment augmentation is evaluated; the rating curve would only be modified if
a different gradation of sediment was being used for augmentation, i.e., readily
available source material. Based on the results at the gaged locations, in which the
sedimentation study showed that the reaches were not supply limited, the District
does not anticipate evaluating any sediment augmentation alternatives. The
District is currently evaluating whether or not the ungaged sites are flow or supply
limited.
Commission Comment 3
The commission recommends use of the sediment transport function within HEC-
RAS to evaluate various operational scenarios specified in the study determination
letter. The effort to execute the model would be minimal, because the hydraulic
component of the HEC-RAS model and sediment data are already proposed.
District Response
The District is using the sediment transport function in HEC-RAS in conjunction
with the sediment transport calculations at the ungaged sites as outlined in the
RSP. The District will include the results of the HEC-RAS analysis in the
Updated ISR.

References
November 24, 2010
Anderson, Donald M., and Mark W. Rodney. October 2006. “Characterization of
Hydrologic Conditions to Support Platte River Species Recovery Efforts.”
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(5):1391-1403.

Attachment B
District response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) comments on the ISR,
dated October 20, 2010.
1. Introductory Comments
USFWS Comment 1
“The ESA requires that the action agency provide the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning the impact of the proposed Project on listed
species and/or critical habitat. Likewise, the Service is also required to gather,
review, and evaluate information to determine if it meets best scientific and
commercial data standards prior to undertaking listing, recovery, section 7
consultation, and permitting actions [59 FR 34271 (July 1,1994)]. For section 7
consultation, the Service completes its evaluation in the context of whether the
best commercial and scientific data is sufficient to ascertain if the proposed Project
relicensing “may affect” federally listed species or federally designated critical
habitat. Thus, our comments will apply the legal definition of may adversely
affect" as the measure of Project effects to federally listed species and federally
designated critical habitat.”
District Response
The District is surprised by USFWS’ reference to 59 FR 34721 and the “best
scientific and commercial data standards.” Although USFWS issued a policy on
information standards in 1994, this is the first time that this standard has been
mentioned over the course of nearly 3 years of collaboration with USFWS
regarding relicensing of the District’s Project. Since USFWS participated in study
development, including providing comments on the PSP and RSP, and never
mentioned this standard, the District has been operating under the assumption that
USFWS agreed that the information used in the studies is the best scientific and
commercial data available.
Additionally, the District assumes that USFWS’ comments related to use of data
to evaluate whether the project “may affect” or “may adversely affect” federally
listed species was referring to the Action Agency’s (FERC’s) determination of
effects, rather than USFWS’.
USFWS Comment 2
“These Service comments should be considered by FERC as preliminary because
critical information from the Sediment Transport study for the un-gaged locations,
including cross sections, are necessary prior to comprehensively evaluating Project
effects to federally listed species. Furthermore, Sedimentation study results from
the ISR would need to be cross validated with results from the Hydrocycling and
Flow Bypass/Flow Diversion studies prior to developing conclusions about the

adequacy of the Sedimentation study. Our comments were also prepared to assist
FERC with study modifications that would improve the understanding of Project
effects; these suggested modifications are provided in accordance with FERC’s
criteria for requesting new studies. We also provide comments relating to the
study interpretations and conclusions. However given the limited information
available for review, the Service would prefer to defer final comments, under the
Sedimentation section, until after the agency meeting on February 23
and 24, 2011.”
District Response
The District agrees with USFWS that final comments on the ISR, Appendix A,
Sedimentation Study Report, be postponed until the ungaged analysis and other
remaining studies are complete. The District recognizes that important
information relative to the sediment transport calculations and the subsequent
spatial analysis using the data from the ungaged sites is needed before final
comments can be compiled. As will be demonstrated in the Updated Initial Study
Report, the ungaged site data were compiled and analyzed according to plan. The
District anticipates that many of the concerns regarding sedimentation will be
addressed during the Updated Initial Study Results Meeting to be held in February
2011. Therefore, the District considers its responses to USFWS’ comments to be
preliminary as well. Furthermore, the District will not propose any revisions to
the study until final agency comments are received and considered by FERC.
2. Comments on Study Evaluation and Recommended Changes
USFWS Comment 1
“The Service used four criteria to determine if the six studies included in 1.0
Sedimentation of the ISR meet the standard for best scientific and commercial data
as outlined in 59 FR 34271…. These criteria (Purpose, Directness, Location, and
Timing) and a rating scale for each are listed in Table 1.”
District Response
Again, the District is surprised that USFWS is suggesting new criteria to evaluate
the study results at this late date. These criteria may have been useful in designing
the studies a year and a half ago, but at this time, the District feels that the study
results should be evaluated based on the goals and objectives from the Study Plan
as approved by FERC.
3. Comments on Cross Section (item a)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Cross Section study was determined by the Service to represent the best
scientific and commercial data available thereby effectively addressing Project
effects to federally listed species.... Additional cross sections identified in the
Final Study Determination including the Loup River upstream of the diversion

dam, lower Platte River between the Loup River and tailrace canal confluences,
and the lower Platte River within 5 miles downstream of the tailrace canal will
provide for a high location ranking and we urge collection of this important
information. Other than collection of this information, we can offer no other
suggestions at this time that might improve the Cross Section study.”
District Response
The District also recognizes the importance of collecting and evaluating the
ungaged-site data, the results of which will be presented at the upcoming
meetings. However, the District cautions USFWS and FERC that these data still
represent just a “snapshot” in time and should used with caution. As has been
demonstrated in similar studies (Lower Platte River Stage Change Study) and as
discovered in the data collected, the cross sections are continuously shifting,
which is characteristic of a braided system. The long-term trends clearly show
that both the Loup and Platte rivers are neither aggrading nor degrading, as shown
in the ISR, Appendix A, Sedimentation Study Report.
4. Comments on Sediment Transport (item b)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Sediment Transport study ranks high under the Purpose criterion because it
provides a good assessment of Project effects to sediment transport and federally
listed species. This study generally meets the standards for best scientific and
commercial data thereby effectively addressing Project effects to federally listed
species.”
District Response
The District appreciates this acknowledgement. As will be demonstrated in the
Updated Initial Study Report, the District is applying the same methodology and
approach in analyzing the data at the ungaged sites that was used for the gaged
locations.
USFWS Comment 2
“The study currently receives a medium ranking for the Location criterion because
the conclusions do not include results from beyond-bridge cross sections that were
not collected due to difficult river and weather conditions. Improvements to the
Location criteria, however, will be realized once sediment transport estimates are
developed for Loup River upstream of the diversion dam, lower Platte River
between the Loup River and tailrace canal confluences, and the lower Platte River
within 5 miles downstream of the tailrace canal. We urge inclusion of these study
segments to improve the Location criteria ranking from medium to high.”

District Response
The District confirms that this information will be included in the Updated Initial
Study Report.
USFWS Comment 3
“This study receives a medium ranking for the Timing criterion because of
limitations in assessing sediment transport at the Columbus gage (ISR Transcript,
Page 185, Lines 17-22). The Service understands that this deficiency can only be
improved by using a longer period of record which is not possible given the
limited time frame for studies. However, we are concerned that calibration
uncertainty results in an approximate 30-percent reduction in sediment transport
capacity for the Loup River at Columbus when compared to Genoa. The Service
believes that the uncertainty associated with calibration should be transparent and
incorporated into the overall analysis. Therefore, the Service recommends that
FERC include ranges of uncertainty for all study segments. These ranges of
uncertainty should be reported for annual and seasonal estimates of sediment
transport.”
District Response
The uncertainty in the sediment transport parameter calculations at Columbus is
transparent in the ISR. As stated in Appendix A, Sedimentation Study Report, and
as noted by USFWS in its comment, the reason for the 30 percent reduction is
because the sediment transport calculations for the Loup River at Genoa were
based on 25 years of USGS measurements, while the sediment transport
calculations for the Loup River at Columbus were based on approximately 1 year
of USGS data. This is clearly stated in the ISR and the inherent uncertainty in
having only one year’s data to compare with 25 years at other stations is
transparent.
The ISR notes that the sediment transport calculations for the Platte River gage at
Leshara showed a slight decrease in capacity when compared to North Bend;
however, this can be similarly attributed to having only 15 years of USGS data.
The spatial analysis in the Sedimentation Study Report shows that the Loup River
at Genoa and the Platte River at Duncan, North Bend, and Louisville all compared
well with other studies when using 25 years of record. Based on this, the District
feels that with an increase in record length, the Loup River at the Columbus gage
would be in greater spatial agreement with the Loup River at Genoa.
With regard to reporting uncertainty limits on annual and seasonal estimates of
sediment transport parameters for all study segments, these uncertainties are
already transparent in the ISR in the form of graphs comparing the District’s plots
through USGS measurements of sediment concentration, wetted width, average
channel depth, and average channel velocity.

For example, the District’s calculated Yang-equation sediment transport rating
curves for each segment were contrasted in Appendix A with USGS sediment
concentration measurements over the full discharge range. This scatter in many
cases covers full log-cycle ranges. These accurately and transparently expose the
uncertainty in the rating curves. Similarly, every hydraulic geometry curve (Q
versus W, D, and V) adopted for use in solving Yang’s equation is contrasted with
USGS measurements of each variable over the full range of applicability to this
study. Although uncertainty bands in the form of confidence limits were not
inserted on the W, D, V, or sediment concentration curves, the graphs are probably
more effective in communicating the ranges of possible values of the variables.
With regard to uncertainty ranges of summary-type sediment transport parameters
such as annual or seasonal dominant and effective discharges or annual and
seasonal sediment transport, the ISR included and interpreted sensitivity analyses
of the inputs to Yang’s equation, which is the basis of all the parameters. The
parameters are derived by summing large numbers of values of random variables
(daily and/or sub-daily transport capacities). General literature on uncertainty
states that variables that are composed of sums of large numbers of random
variables tend to follow normal or Pearson probability density functions (PDFs).
Rather than assessing possible PDFs, the District believes that the data plots
themselves provide better indications of the uncertainties than any set of
confidence limits. Although not reported here, USGS publishes evaluations of
uncertainties in their measurements. The District does not concur that it is
responsible for evaluating uncertainties or establishing confidence limits for
USGS measurements.
Item 2 in the USFWS comments on FERC’s five criteria states that “Methods
proposed by the Service will be used to determine the magnitude of these
uncertainties.” The District suggests to FERC that no better method than visual
representations of the variabilities in measured values exists for truly
understanding the uncertainties in graphs plotted through that data.
5. Comments on Aggradation/Degradation (item c)
USFWS Comment 1
“The indices used in the Aggradation/Degradation study (aggradation,
degradation, or no trend) will provide a direct measure for the Project’s potential
to affect federally listed species, which ranks high using the Purpose criterion. The
study was ranked low under the Directness criterion because it applies findings of
referenced studies that were not scaled to study the Project effects on sediment
transport; therefore, generalized conclusions that were quoted from these studies
may not directly apply to the Project tailrace return or to the bypass reach.”

District Response
The District believes that the referenced studies on aggradation/degradation were
scaled properly and accurately interpreted in our spatial analysis. The studies
were comprehensive assessments by reaches, including the study reaches, of signs
of any existing project’s impacts on aggradation/degradation. As noted
previously, the District’s analysis of the ungaged sites will be included in the
Updated Initial Study Report.
USFWS Comment 2
“Further, the Service had also identified limitations of this study in its ability to
identify Project effects to least tern and piping plover nesting habitat because the
sub-aerial component of the channel (i.e., sandbars) was not recorded as part of the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measured cross sections (Alexander 2009). The
study receives a medium ranking for the Location criterion because the Chen et al.
(1999) reference provides a good coverage for the Loup River bypass reach, but
the stream gage at North Bend is approximately 30 miles downstream from the
Project tailrace, the area where substantial Project affects would be expected. We
recognize that it would take several decades to develop directed studies to assess
aggradational/degradational trends near the Project's diversion and tailrace return
and thus, little that can be done to improve the study under the Directness and
Location criteria.”
District Response
The District notes that FERC has already made a determination regarding
USFWS’ concern regarding the USGS cross-section data. In its SPD, FERC
stated that “As to the FWS’ issue that the USGS cross-sectional data were only
taken at points that were inundated, we don’t see how this is relevant to the
characterization of stream morphology in the manner proposed by the District,
which relies on a review of hydraulic data and calculations.” In addition, the
District is currently completing analysis of the ungaged sites, which will include
documentation of the sub-aerial component of the channel geometry and will be
included in the Updated Initial Study Report.
USFWS Comment 3
“The ISR references information from a USGS publication (Chen et al. 1999) that
evaluated aggradation/degradation at several stream gages on the Platte and Loup
rivers. A medium ranking was assigned to the Timing criterion because the
information used by Chen et al. (1999) ended in 1995 and therefore is dated
information. Thus, we recommend that the analysis developed by Chen et al.
(1999) be expanded to include updated stream gage information for the Loup
River near Genoa, Loup River at Columbus, and Platte River at North Bend
stream gages. All three gages are located near the areas influenced by Project
operations. The revised analysis would be especially useful for the Loup River at

the Columbus gage which showed a statistically significant aggradational trend
using 1967 to 1974 data. The analysis also showed that the Loup River at Genoa
revealed a slight aggradational trend from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s when
it appeared to level off. The ISR referenced, USACE (2009) publication did not
evaluate trends in gradation at the Loup River stream gages. A revised analysis
would be used to determine if trends in aggradation or degradation are continuing
or if they represent continued environmental variability.”
District Response
The District performed aggradation/degradation analyses for the Platte River at
Duncan, North Bend, Ashland, and Louisville for 1985 to 2010 in the Pre-
Application Document (Section 5). The District notes that in the first paragraph of
Chen’s abstract, Chen agrees that transport capacity is the key metric for
aggradation/degradation trend analysis. The District’s analysis essentially updates
and corroborates the Chen study results. The results of both studies showed that
the gages were essentially neutral.
USFWS Comment 4
“Methods proposed by the Service above would require only a modest increase in
effort, but would generate much useful information. Rating curves can be acquired
through USGS water resources division in Lincoln, and Chen et al. (1999)
provides the reference discharge needed for the analysis. Revised surface water
elevations would be developed for each stream gage by applying all rating curves
developed since 1995 from which a Kendall tau test would be used to assess trends
in aggradation or degradation.”
District Response
The District will perform the Kendall tau test and report the results in the Updated
Initial Study Report.
6. Comments on Regime Theory (item d)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Regime Theory study received a low ranking under the Purpose criterion
because none of the regime models can be used to discern Project sediment-related
effects to channel morphology which severely limits the study’s ability to assess
Project effects to federally listed species. It is important for FERC to recognize
that District operations may adversely affect riverine habitat despite repeated, but
questionable suggestions throughout the study that the river is in a state of
dynamic equilibrium (see General Comments section). As a result of the study’s
limited ability to assess the Project's sediment-related effects to federally listed
species, the Service did not rank the study using remaining criteria. Thus, this
study does not meet standards for best scientific and commercial data and cannot

e utilized by the Service in its evaluation of the Project affects on federally listed
threatened and endangered species.”
District Response
The District believes that the regime methods accurately discern Project sedimentrelated
effects on channel morphology. The long-term equilibrium morphology,
as determined from the long-term effective and dominant discharges, was
compared with annual and seasonal values of these parameters. This comparison
determined that if the two sets of data are plotted on the regime graphs, they show
that even if the magnitudes of the changes in both are permanent, the morphology
has not been impacted. Further, the District’s choice of regime methods matched
those used by USACE, meeting any test of “standard for best scientific and
commercial data.”
Regarding USFWS’s assertion that the District used “questionable suggestions
throughout the study that the river is in a state of dynamic equilibrium,” the
District would like to note that USACE also made the determination that the river
was in dynamic equilibrium, as well as other supporting statements. In addition,
both Chen (USGS) and USACE (July 1990) concluded that there was no evidence
of any trend in aggradation or degradation in the Loup River at Genoa, Platte
River at Duncan, Platte River at North Bend, and Platte River at Ashland, which
offers evidence that it is in dynamic equilibrium.
7. Comments on Sediment Budget (item e)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Sediment Budget study received a low ranking under the Purpose criterion
because this study alone was not sufficient in assessing Project sediment-related
effects to federally listed species. Although the study results were used to support
conclusions in the Sediment Transport study, it could not provide definitive insight
about Project effects in the absence of the Sediment Transport study. In other
words, this study is ineffective in comparing a present condition alternative (with
Project) to a without Project alternative because variables applied in this study
would not change numerically as a result of changes in Project operations.
Information from the ISR public meeting further supports the above Service
conclusions in that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' estimates of yield were
based on the river's ability to transport sediment and were not focused on available
supply (ISR Transcript, Page 161, Lines 21-25 and Page 162, Lines 1-11). The
Service did not rank the study using remaining criteria because of the study's
limited ability to assess the Project’s sediment-related effects to federally listed
species. Thus, this study does not meet standards for best scientific and
commercial data and cannot be utilized by the Service in its evaluation of the
Project affects on federally listed threatened and endangered species.”

District Response
The District believes that using the MRBC results, which provide at best an
approximation of the sediment supply to the rivers (USACE, July 1990), is the
best scientific and commercial data available for basin-wide sediment yield,
especially when trying to evaluate whether or not a system is flow or supply
limited. As demonstrated in the ISR, Appendix A, Sedimentation Study Report,
crude estimates of sediment supply cannot be used to address aggradation or
degradation trends. However, when coupled with sediment capacity calculations,
yield estimates are the most effective way of determining whether or not a system
is flow or supply limited. The District’s analysis was not an attempt to evaluate a
change in Project operations, but to characterize the river as being flow or supply
limited. The analysis definitively determined that none of the study sites were
supply limited, with all having more sediment in the system than the river can
convey.
8. Comments on Tern and Plover (item f)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Tern and Plover study received a low ranking under the Purpose criterion.
None of the sediment transport and hydrologic parameters in the study would be
effective in evaluating sediment-related effects of the Project to least tern and
piping plover nesting with the possible exception of Annual percent diverted flow
and Seasonal percent diverted flow. In other words, this study is ineffective in
comparing a present condition alternative (with Project) to a without Project
alternative because many of the variables applied in this study, with the exception
of Annual percent diverted flow and Seasonal percent diverted flow, would not
change numerically as a result of changes in Project operations. Proposed methods
for Annual percent diverted flow and Seasonal percent diverted flow would be
inappropriate because the longitudinal scale is inadequate to discern Project
effects. Any sediment-related effects of the Project would have the greatest impact
near the tailrace return and that effect would be expected to attenuate downstream
at some unknown distance. The study was implemented at a spatial scale that
could not discern Project effects because nests totals were aggregated at a course
spatial scale (i.e., North Bend study segment and further downstream study
segments). Furthermore, the study made no attempt to characterize tern and plover
nesting on the Loup River or the bypassed portion of that river.
“Because of the study’s limited ability to assess the Project’s sediment-related
effects to federally listed species, the Service did not rank the study using
remaining criteria. Thus, this study does not meet standards for best scientific and
commercial data and cannot be utilized by the Service in its evaluation of the
Project affects on federally listed threatened and endangered species.”

District Response
The District notes that it is currently reviewing the use of additional statistical
analyses as suggested by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and has
agreed to perform a more comprehensive statistical analysis. This effort includes
redesigning the analysis of Annual percent diverted flow and Seasonal percent
diverted flow as independent variables and their potential effects on nest
frequencies above and below the Tailrace Return. Options are being examined for
using a finer longitudinal scale and aggregating nest counts with respect to other
criteria rather than proximity to gaging station. Both processes require analysis of
the effects of smaller aggregates on the power of statistical tests and a
reassessment of the statistical procedures that may be appropriate for the
reorganized data. The specific additional analyses will be included in the Updated
Initial Study Report and presented at the Updated Initial Study Results Meeting in
February 2011.
9. Comments on Pallid Sturgeon (item g)
USFWS Comment 1
“The Pallid Sturgeon study received a low ranking under the Purpose criterion
because the study was ineffective in evaluating sediment-related effects of the
Project to species habitat use. Furthermore, referenced studies and literature serve
as an indirect means of generalizing Platte River suitability to the pallid sturgeon,
and none of the referenced studies were implemented at a spatial scale that could
meaningfully asses Project sediment-related effects at the tailrace return. Because
of the study’s limited ability to assess the Project’s sediment-related effects to
federally listed species, the Service did not rank the study using remaining criteria.
Study conclusions were also highly reliant on personal communications versus the
available literature. Thus, this study does not meet standards for best scientific and
commercial data and cannot be utilized by the Service in its evaluation of the
Project affects on federally listed threatened and endangered species.”
District Response
The District notes that the RSP, as approved by FERC, for the Sedimentation
Study indicated that “If it is determined that the Project does not affect
morphology, or that the system is in dynamic equilibrium, it will be inferred that
the Project does not affect pallid sturgeon habitat parameters related to sediment
transport and that no further analysis is warranted.” The District’s results
indicated dynamic equilibrium; thus, it was determined that the Project does not
affect habitat parameters related to sediment transport. Even though the District
reached this conclusion in accordance with the RSP, the District also presented
recent information related to pallid sturgeon use of the lower Platte River that the
District believes further supports the conclusion that the Project is not adversely
affecting habitat.

The District agrees that the information presented in its study is highly reliant
upon personal communications versus available literature. However, according to
the policy in 59 FR 34271 (July 1, 1994), USFWS is to “receive and use
information from a wide variety of sources, including individuals. Submitted
information may range from the informal—oral, traditional, or anecdotal—to peerreviewed
scientific studies, and hence the reliability of the information can vary
widely” (Buck et al., September 28, 2010). The District notes that the personal
communication that was referenced in the report was from discussions with
recognized experts and researchers, including USFWS staff, who are currently
developing the best scientific information available. Through these personal
communications, including Dr. Mark Pegg, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Aaron DeLonay, USGS; and Tracy Hill, USFWS, Columbia, MO, an attempt was
made to acquire the most recent and applicable information to this system for
pallid sturgeon. Literature was reviewed for the lower Platte River and was
included as reference to the study. As research continues by the three
aforementioned individuals and institutions/agencies, the life history and
population dynamics of the pallid sturgeon will become more understood.
USFWS Comment 2
“The references to Bergman et al. (2008) and USFWS (2010) which discuss the
absence of documented spawning in Missouri River tributaries may be factually
accurate, but those comments were made in the context of the rarity of wild adult
pallid sturgeon; the likelihood of observing any spawning activity would be quite
low given the species’ rarity. The absence of evidence that would document
spawning in the lower Platte River is likely a consequence of the absence of any
directed spawning studies in the lower Platte River. For example, the evidence of
spawning was absent throughout the Recovery Priority Management Area 4
(RPMA 4), until the USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center
implemented spawning telemetry studies focusing only on the mainstem of the
Missouri River. Prior to 2009, the absence of any long term sampling above the
Elkhorn River confluence with the Platte River led to the long held conclusion that
this segment of the lower Platte River was outside of the pallid sturgeon’s range.
Since implementation of the 5-year Shovelnose Sturgeon Population Dynamics
Study, the lower Platte River between Columbus and the Elkhorn River
confluence has yielded seven documented pallid sturgeon captures (UNL 2010).”
District Response
The District recognizes that “the likelihood of observing any spawning activity
would be quite low given the species’ rarity” and that this is “likely a consequence
of the absence of any directed spawning studies in the lower Platte River.”
However, in the absence of additional studies, the information presented by the
District is the best scientific information available. Furthermore, there is the
possibility that spawning habitat may be available, as the USGS report titled

“Ecological Requirements for Pallid Sturgeon Reproduction and Recruitment in
the Lower Missouri River: Annual Report 2009” has initially identified that
spawning habitat appears to be along bank revetment along the outside bends of
the Missouri River in depths of approximately 3 meters (DeLonay et al., 2010).
The lower Platte River has the potential for spawning activity along similar
habitat.
According to the latest information obtained from the University Nebraska-
Lincoln’s “Interim Report: Population Characteristics of Sturgeon in the Lower
Platte River, Nebraska (Year 1)” (January 2010), it is reported that a total of
69 pallid sturgeon were collected, of which 9 were collected during the spring,
17 during the summer, and 32 during the fall sampling seasons. This was in
conjunction with the directed collection of 1,324 shovelnose sturgeon for which
the project was originally designed. Prior to this study, previous studies in the
Platte River documented the collection of only 15 pallid sturgeon from 2000 to
2005 (Peters and Parham, 2008). With these results, it can be inferred that the
habitat is not limiting as the number of collections have increased.
USFWS Comment 3
“The shovelnose and pallid sturgeon are morphologically similar (hence the
Similarity of Appearance ruling) (75 FR 53598) and thereby, some reasonable
inferences can be made about pallids due to this morphology. How one uses
shovelnose sturgeon as a surrogate species for pallids is very important.
Physiologically making the statement that shovelnose sturgeon are the same as
pallid sturgeon is unknown and likely false given the differing population status of
the two sympatric species (i.e., shovelnose recruitment is evident in RPMA 4 and
is absent for pallid sturgeon) (USFWS 2007). Diet studies generally show some
differences between the species, and telemetry studies in Montana by Bramblett
and White (2001) have shown some differences in habitat use/preferences.”
District Response
In terms of using shovelnose sturgeon as a surrogate for pallid sturgeon, until
further information is available, information on shovelnose sturgeon is the best
scientific information available to use in identifying suitable habitat, particularly
as pallid sturgeon are collected and identified within the same habitats (DeLonay
et al., 2010). The District recognizes that the shovelnose sturgeon has a diet
different than the pallid sturgeon and should not be used as a surrogate species
based on diet (Wanner, Shuman, and Willis, March 2007) as they become
piscivorous. However, with the frequency of the collection of pallid sturgeon in
the lower Platte River in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 5-year Shovelnose
Sturgeon Population Dynamics Study, it is evident that there are habitats available
for foraging needs. Ruelle and Keenlyne (July 1994) concluded that pallid and
shovelnose sturgeon are similar in that both live for 20 years or longer and are

similar in other traits. It is recognized that shovelnose sturgeon may not meet all
of the traits desired for a surrogate; however, based on current knowledge, they
may be the best surrogate available because of their many similarities to the pallid
sturgeon. The two species inhabit the same river basins and prefer large, freeflowing
rivers over reservoirs and tend to occupy the same general spawning
habitat (DeLonay et al., 2010).
10. General Comments on Missing Data
USFWS Comment 1
“A key component of the study, the cross-section data and analyses on the Loup
River above the Diversion Weir, were not available. Further, the survey data and
analyses for the two cross-sections on the Platte River, above and below the canal
return, were not available. The data collection and analyses need to be completed
to further determine the condition of this section of the Platte and Loup rivers. The
data analyses need to be available to further determine conditions on the Loup
River prior to developing meaningful conclusions about Project sediment-related
effects.”
District Response
The District concurs that the cross section data and associated analysis was not
available. The data collection effort as outlined in the SPD letter was delayed due
to high flows, as discussed in the ISR and during the September 9, 2010, Initial
Study Results meeting. As previously stated, the ungaged site analyses will be
completed and reported in the upcoming Updated Initial Study Report on
Sedimentation as well as in the Study Reports on Hydrocycling and Flow
Depletion and Flow Diversion. The District anticipates that many of USFWS’
concerns regarding sedimentation will be addressed in these reports and during the
upcoming Updated Initial Study Results Meeting in February 2011.
11. General Comments on Project Sediment-related Effects: Tailrace to North
Bend
USFWS Comment 1
“The Service questions the conclusion made in the Sediment study that the lower
Platte River is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. For example, results from the
ISR sediment transport calculations indicate that sediment load for the North Bend
study segment, representing 2,890,000 tons per year, is higher than the combined
sediment load of 2,007,000 tons per year from the Loup River at Columbus and
central Platte River at Duncan. This difference in sediment transport indicates that
there is an 883,000 ton per year sediment deficit in the North Bend study segment.
This difference in sediment transport when using seasonal values (i.e., May 1
through August 15) is 403,804 tons per year. Such calculations have been used
elsewhere on the Platte River to determine level of sediment deficiency. For
example, the Bureau of Reclamation (Murphy et al. 2004) estimated channel

erosion occurring at a rate of 400,000 tons per year at the Johnson-2 canal return
in the central Platte River by applying methods similar to those above. Murphy et
al. (2004) estimated the 400,000 tons per year deficit by subtracting the estimated
sediment load downstream of the Johnson-2 return (i.e., Overton stream gage)
from estimated sediment loads upstream of the Johnson-2 Return (i.e., Cozad
stream gage). This sediment deficiency is readily apparent on this segment of the
Platte River by the presence of incised and narrow channels.”
District Response
As stated at the ISR meeting, sediment transport capacities downstream of a
confluence are not additive. The transport capacity of a river is a function of
slope, width, depth, velocity, etc. At best, the capacities between the two
upstream reaches would have to be weighted, but there is no literature that
supports this. In addition, as stated in the ISR, the supply-versus-capacity
comparison should not be used to assess whether a system is aggrading or
degrading. Rather, it can be used only to qualitatively assess whether the system
is flow or supply limited.
USFWS Comment 2
“The Platte River would compensate for this 883,000 ton per year sediment
imbalance by eroding local sediment supply. The ISR, on page 47 of the
Sedimentation section, references a USACE (1990) study which states that the
sediment supply in the Platte River is comprised of sand and gravel deposits along
banks and in the stream as sand bars. The Service (USFWS 2006) has documented
that the Platte River from the Loup River confluence through the Highway 15
Bridge at Schuyler has 44.3 percent of its banks stabilized by revetments and/or
hardpoints. Given such a high documented level of bank stabilization, it is likely
that any erosion of sediment supply would come from riverine sandbars, which
provide nesting habitat for least terns and piping plovers, and current velocity
refugia and foraging habitats for the pallid sturgeon. For this reason, the Service
remains concerned that the District's sediment-related effects to the Platte River
may adversely affect habitats for the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon.”
District Response
USFWS’ comments on the 44.3 percent amount of stabilized banks from
Columbus to Schuyler may be a valid point, but this is not a basis for FERC to
conclude that the District’s operations need to be altered. As shown in the
sedimentation study through a variety of methods, as well as citations, the river is
neither aggrading nor degrading, which suggests it is in a state of dynamic
equilibrium.

12. General Comments on Loup Bypass Reach
USFWS Comment 1
“The Service recognizes that there is much uncertainty with regards to
aggradation/degradation trends and their apparent causes on the Loup River
bypass segment. For example, on page 51 of the Sedimentation Study Report, the
authors, when discussing dredging records at the settling basin, state: ‘An
unknown physical process has to be involved during those years because the
dredged amounts quickly rose and then fell over several years, reaching an
apparent equilibrium' level in 1975.’ The Chen et al. (1999) study on channel
gradation in Nebraska streams contains a graphic for the Loup River at Genoa
which reveals that the river at this location was experiencing a slight aggradation
from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s when it appeared to level off. Also, the
study showed a significant aggradation downstream at Genoa during the early
1970s.
“Results from the ISR sediment transport calculations shed some light on the
above uncertainties. The results indicate that sediment load for the Genoa study
segment, representing 1,760,000 tons per year, is higher than the sediment load of
1,260,000 tons per year from the Loup River at Columbus. This difference in
sediment transport indicates that there is a 500,000 ton per year sediment surplus
in the Loup River bypass reach. This information demonstrates that the Loup
River bypass below Genoa was and still may be in disequilibrium. For this reason,
the Service must question the conclusion made in the Sediment study that the
Loup Bypass reach is in a state of dynamic equilibrium.
“Some of the uncertainties about the aggradation/degradation trend on the bypass
reach may be due to the lack of available data. For example, both the sediment and
flow data at Columbus were collected at Genoa, and only one year of data was
used to develop a sediment discharge curve. Further, the study does reveal in
Table 5-3 (page 55), that at Columbus, there is a reduction in sediment capacity at
the same time the sediment yield increases; this is an indication of aggradation.”
District Response
The fact that the capacities are different between the Loup River at Genoa gage
and Loup River at Columbus gage are not the result of the river being in
disequilibrium but rather are likely due to the length of record used to develop the
rating curves. As previously stated, the Loup River at Columbus gage was based
on 1 year of data, while the Loup River at Genoa sediment rating curve was based
on 25 years of record. Certainly, the difference between capacities of two
drastically different periods of record should not be used to determine whether or
not a river is in disequilibrium. In addition, based on the results outlined in the
ISR, as well as the citations of others including USGS and USACE, the Platte and
Loup rivers are neither aggrading or degrading.

13. General Comments on Scale of Geographic Evaluation
USFWS Comment 1
“Assessments contained in the Sedimentation section of the ISR for effective
discharges, regime analyses, and cited references provide an indirect evaluation of
a dynamic equilibrium condition, and subsequent conclusions were developed
based on this coarse scale evaluation. The Sedimentation section of the ISR cited
several documents that indicate a river in dynamic equilibrium including Chen et
al. (1999), Elliott et al. (2009), Parham (2007), Peters and Parham (2008), USACE
(1990), and USACE (2009). However, none of the above studies were developed
at a spatial scale that would be able to evaluate Project sediment-related effects to
habitat. The best example of the misapplication of scale is the Murphy et al.
(2004) citation used to support the conclusion that the Platte River is in a greater
state of dynamic equilibrium than it was in its pre-development form (Page 82 of
the ISR Sedimentation Section). The Service notes that Murphy et al. (2004) also
documented a localized 400,000 ton per year deficit resulting in narrow, incised
channels near the source of that deficit.
“The Service is aware of one study that evaluated changes in river geomorphology
over time from 1938 through 2005 at a spatial scale better suited for assessing
Project effects to the Platte River. Joeckel and Henebry (2008) documented a
reduction in cumulative channel area on a 10-mile study stretch located
downstream from the Loup River confluence (i.e., RG study stretch). Although
the authors noted only a slight change in channel area for the RG study stretch
since 1960, Figure 11 of the report shows a consistent decline in channel area from
1960 to 2005. This slight but continuing decline in channel area indicates that the
Platte River immediately downstream of the Loup River confluence is not in
dynamic equilibrium, but appears to be narrowing.”
District Response
The District acknowledges that the Sedimentation Study Report misquoted the
Bureau of Reclamation’s quote from Murphy regarding dynamic equilibrium in
that Murphy’s analysis was related to the central Platte River rather than the lower
Platte River.
USFWS states that the reach is not in dynamic equilibrium because Figure 11 of
the Joeckel report shows there is a continued slight decline in channel area.
USFWS believes the study was at a spatial scale better suited for assessing Project
effects to the Platte River. Upon review of Figure 11, the District interprets the
figure to indicate that since approximately 1955, there has been little to no change
in channel area. As shown in the pairs of cross-section measurements collected
this year by the District, to be discussed in the Updated Initial Study Report,

References
dramatic changes can occur over even short time spans, but this is a characteristic
of a braided river and not evidence of disequilibrium.
Figure 11b of the Joeckel report shows that the percent change of channel area
between 1956 and 2005 is approximately 2 percent (from 80 percent to
78 percent), all of which occurred between 1994 and 2006, but the same data show
that there was no change in percent channel area between 1956 and 1994. A
2 percent change in area would likely fall within the study degree of uncertainty,
especially when remotely sensed information rather than on-site data are used to
determine channel widths and areas. Vegetation and many other factors affect an
investigator’s ability to scale things to this degree. Furthermore, the District
believes that the results presented in the Sedimentation Study Report, which
showed that the reach was in dynamic equilibrium based on a reach analysis and
supported by other research, was sufficient to address the equilibrium question
near the Tailrace Return. Thus, the results of the Joeckel study, which USFWS
believes are at a spatial scale better suited for assessing Project effects on the
Platte River, in fact corroborate the District’s analysis.
Buck, Eugene H., M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Robert Meltz, and Kristina
Alexander. September 28, 2010. “The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the
111 th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices.” Congressional
Research Service.
Chen, Abraham H., David L. Rus, and C.P. Stanton. 1999. “Trends in Channel
Gradation in Nebraska Streams, 1913-95.” USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-4103. Lincoln, Nebraska.
DeLonay, Aaron J, Robert B. Jacobson, Diana M. Papoulias, Mark L. Wildhaber,
Kimberly A. Chojnacki, Emily K. Pherigo, Casey L. Bergthold, and Gerald E.
Mestl. 2010. “Ecological Requirements for Pallid Sturgeon Reproduction and
Recruitment in the Lower Missouri River: Annual Report 2009.” USGS Open-
File Report 2010–1215. Available online at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1215/pdf/of2010-1215.pdf.
Joeckel, R.M., and G.M. Henebry. 2008. “Channel and Island Change in the Lower
Platte River, Eastern Nebraska, USA: 1855–2005.” Geomorphology 102:407-418.
Peters, Edward J., and James E. Parham. 2008. “Ecology and Management of Sturgeon
in the Lower Platte River, Nebraska.” Nebraska Technical Series No. 18.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Ruelle, Richard, and Kent Keenlyne. July 1994. “The Suitability of Shovelnose
Sturgeon as a Pallid Sturgeon Surrogate.” Contaminant Information Bulletin. SD-
ES-94-03.
University Nebraska-Lincoln. January 2010. “Interim Report: Population Characteristics
of Sturgeon in the Lower Platte River, Nebraska (Year 1).”
USACE. July 1990. Platte River Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Report No. 5. Special
Studies Unit, River & Reservoir Section, Hydrologic Engineering Branch,
Engineering Division, USACE-Omaha.
Wanner, Greg A., Dane A. Shuman, and David W. Willis. March 2007. “Food Habits of
Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon and Adult Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Missouri River
Downstream of Fort Randall Dam, South Dakota.” Journal of Freshwater
Ecology 22(1): 81-92.

Attachment C
November 24, 2010
District response to Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) comments on
the ISR dated October 25, 2010.
1. Comments on Study 1.0 – Sedimentation
NGPC Comment 1 (items 1 - 12)
NGPC noted several concerns regarding the statistical analyses performed for
Sedimentation Study Objective 3. Additionally, NGPC noted several additional
statistical analyses that could be performed to further evaluate potential
relationships between interior least tern and piping plover nesting compared to
sediment transport parameters.
District Response
The District appreciates NGPC’s suggestions regarding additional statistical
analyses and is currently reviewing the use of these and other possible analyses.
The District will perform more comprehensive statistical analyses to further
evaluate potential relationships between interior least tern and piping plover
nesting compared to sediment transport parameters. The specific additional
analyses will be included in the Updated Initial Study Report and presented at the
Updated Initial Study Report Meeting.
NGPC Comment 2
NGPC provided the following comments related to the presentation of information
in the sedimentation report:
• It may be helpful to clearly state that there is a high probability of a Type II
error (false negative, failing to detect a relationship) because of the limitations
of the data and available methods.
District Response
Comment noted. The District will clearly state any limitations associated with
the additional statistical analyses to be included in the Updated Initial Study
Report.
• On page 6, the document describes the Interior Least Tern colony on the North
Sand Management Area as "significant". While there is no dispute that
numerous pairs nest here each year, the term significant is not appropriate in
this situation. The term "significant" has a specific statistical meaning and, in a
document relying heavily on statistical analyses, that should be considered.

November 24, 2010
District Response
The District agrees that use of the term “significant” to describe the interior
least tern colony on the North Sand Management Area (North SMA) was
inappropriate in this situation given the use of the term in statistical analyses
within other sections of the report. A more appropriate term for the North
SMA colony would have been “substantial.”
• On page 6, it should be clarified that the Tern and Plover Conservation
Partnership monitors nesting activity on the North Sand Management Area
with funding provided by Preferred Rocks of Genoa. The NGPC Nongame
Bird Program does not actively monitor or survey this site, but plays a
supporting role.
District Response
Comment noted. Any future reference to surveys on the North Sand
Management Area will more clearly indicate the agency responsible for
conducting those surveys.
• On pages 6-7, the legends for Figures 3-2 and 3-3 should be clarified to note
that the graphic shows the number of adult birds observed during a single
survey during the breeding season and does not necessarily reflect the "total
number of” terns or plovers "on the Lower Platte River System, 1987-2009".
District Response
Comment noted. Any future use of these graphs will clarify the information
presented.
• On page 7, we recommend that the term "frequently" be replaced with
"regularly" when describing Piping Plover nesting on the North Sand
Management Area.
District Response
Comment noted. Any future discussion of nesting on the North Sand
Management Area will note regular nesting rather than frequent.
• The disclaimer that accompanied the transmittal of the NGPC Interior Least
Tern and Piping Plover data is standard in the scientific and professional
communities when sharing data between workgroups. It is a simple statement
that the data are available for use but may be limited in scope as they were
collected for other purposes. It does not imply any inherent failings in the data.
Analysts should appreciate that data are collected using various techniques for
a variety of reasons but that does not make the data necessarily inadequate for
use in other analyses. The data were provided to LPPD in a format that would

November 24, 2010
allow them the freedom to conduct summaries and analyses using traditional
methods, Bayesian and model-based techniques without restriction. The
dismissal of the NGPC data as evidenced on page 41 suggests that LPPD chose
to disregard the request for a rigorous completion of Task 4.5.
District Response
The District’s intent in including the following statement in the Sedimentation
Report was not to infer that the NGPC data is flawed or inaccurate.
“However, the Nongame Bird Program “makes no warranty as to
the fitness of these data for any purpose nor that these data are
necessarily accurate and complete” (NGPC, 2009).
Rather the District’s intent was to acknowledge that the NGPC data was
collected for purposes other than use in the District’s study and may therefore
have some limitations related to the District’s analyses.
2. Comments on Study 7.0 – Fish Passage
NGPC Comment 1
At the ISR meeting, questions were raised regarding if the analysis would change
if minimum velocities or a lower quartile velocity were used in the analysis, as
fish would seek out the lowest velocities when trying to pass the diversion weir
and sluice gate structure.
District Response
The District’s analysis of fish passage at the Diversion Weir and Sluice Gates used
a 1-Dimensional (1-D) hydraulic model that assumes a constant velocity across the
channel cross section. A spatially varying velocity field is beyond the capability
of a 1-D model. Although the model assumes a constant velocity, in reality there
are boundary layers near solid surfaces and hydraulic shadows associated with
hydraulic structures, particularly at the interface of corners of the wall and floor.
The velocity in these areas is moving very slowly compared to the calculated
average velocity through the gate. A fish could work up near the gate, hang out in
a hydraulic shadow, and then burst through following the concrete along the gate
housing. This type of behavior has been documented at hydraulic structures on the
Mississippi River (Melvin Price Locks and Dam, Progress Report 1999). Given
these hydraulic conditions and the known species diversity upstream and
downstream of the Diversion Weir, fish passage is likely occurring at the District’s
headworks, particularly by larger and stronger adult fish.
Additionally, there are other possible fish passage situations for which a 1-D
model does not account:

November 24, 2010
• Debris build-up – debris could build up near the Sluice Gates and block
flow, thereby reducing velocities enough to allow fish to pass through the
Sluice Gates.
• Ice build-up – ice could also build up near the Sluice Gates and block flow,
thereby reducing velocities enough to allow fish to pass through the Sluice
Gates.

Attachment D
District response to National Park Service (NPS) comments on the ISR dated
October 25, 2010.
1. Comments on Study 8.0 – Recreation Use
NPS Comment 1
NPS noted the District’s intent to utilize descriptions of user experience with
recreation facilities from the survey responses to determine whether Project
recreation facilities meet user needs and to what degree and noted that no
additions or revisions to the ISR and Appendix F, Interim Recreation Use
Telephone Survey Results.
District Response
The District appreciates NPS’ review of the ISR and concurrence with the use of
verbal user responses in evaluating the District’s recreation facilities.
NPS Comment 2
NPS noted that although the Interim General Recreation Use Report cites a lack of
use of District recreation facilities during the winter months, this determination
should also be substantiated by completion of the remaining surveys.
District Response
The District agrees that the final determination regarding the extent of recreation
use during the winter months will be made after all survey data has been compiled
and analyzed.
NPS Comment 3
NPS noted support for the proposed calculation of annual usage, average weekday
usage, average weekend usage, and peak weekend usage for each of the District’s
recreation facilities. NPS also indicated a desire to discuss this information at the
Updated Initial Study Results meeting in January 2011.
District Response
The District confirms that the usage calculations will be discussed at the Updated
Initial Study Results meetings; however, the District notes that this meeting has
been rescheduled for February 2011 to allow for completion of the remaining
studies that required late season data collection efforts which were hampered by
high river flows.
NPS Comment 4
NPS noted that the Recreation Use Study information and results will be very
beneficial for development of a Recreation Management Plan.

District Response
The District appreciates NPS’ review of the ISR and concurrence that the
Recreation Use Study will be beneficial for development of the Recreation
Management Plan. The District intends to begin development of the plan after
comments have been received on study results included the Updated Initial Study
Report.
2. Comments on Study 10.0 – Land Use Inventory
NPS Comment 1
At the ISR meeting, NPS requested clarification regarding the inclusion of the
Loup River Bypass reach in the Land Use Inventory. The District responded that
the Land Use Inventory did not include the bypass reach because the inventory
was intended for the lands within and adjacent to the Project Boundary (and the
bypass reach is not included in the Project Boundary). NPS noted concurrence
with the District’s approach regarding land use along the bypass reach.
District Response
The District appreciates NPS’ review of the ISR and concurrence.
NPS Comment 2
At the ISR meeting, NPS asked if an inventory of recreation facilities at each
recreation site will be included in the Recreation Management Plan. The District
responded that specific inventories at each site would be occurring as part of the
Recreation Use Study and would be included in the Recreation Management Plan.
NPS noted concurrence with the District’s approach.
District Response
The District appreciates NPS’ review of the ISR and concurrence. Additionally,
the District notes that the recreation facilities inventory will be included in the
Updated ISR as well as the Recreation Management Plan.

Project: Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Subject: Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Meeting
Date:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
September 9, 2010, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Notes by: Loup Power District
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Initial Study Results
Meeting Summary
Meeting Location: New World Inn, Columbus, NE
NOTES revised October 26, 2010 per comments received from attendees.
Loup River Public Power District (Loup Power District or the District) filed its Initial Study Report (ISR)
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on August 26, 2010, as part of relicensing the Loup
River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256) and in accordance with the regulations of FERC’s
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 5). Subsequently, the Initial
Study Results were presented to FERC and other relicensing participants during the Initial Study Results
Meeting held on September 9, 2010, at the New World Inn (265 33 rd Street) in Columbus, Nebraska. The
proceedings of that meeting are presented in this Initial Study Results Meeting Summary, which follows the
organization of the agenda for the meeting.
The meeting agenda and handout of the slide presentation are included as Attachments A and B, respectively.
Welcome and Introductions
Neal Suess (Loup Power District) and Stephanie White (HDR) provided those attending the Initial Study
Results Meeting with an overview of the agenda and the goals for the meeting. The meeting goals and the list
of attendees are provided below.
Meeting Goals
The goals of the Initial Study Results Meeting were the following:
• To present the results of completed studies identified in the Revised Study Plan and Study Plan
Determination.
• To discuss any proposals to modify the study plan (by the District or other participants) in light of
study progress and data collected.
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 1 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Attendees:
The following agency and District representatives attended the Initial Study Results Meeting:
Name Organization Name Organization
Chris Pracheil NDEQ Janet Hutzel (via phone) FERC
Shuhai Zheng NDNR Nick Jayjack FERC
Frank Albrecht NGPC Isis Johnson FERC
Richard Holland NGPC Paul Makowski FERC
Joel Jorgensen NGPC Mike Gutzmer New Century
Michelle Koch NGPC
Environmental LLC
Jeff Schuckman NGPC Bob Clausen Loup Power District
Dave Tunink NGPC Jim Frear Loup Power District
Justin King NPPD Theresa Petr Loup Power District
Jim Jenniges NPPD Neal Suess Loup Power District
John Shadle NPPD Ron Ziola Loup Power District
Randy Thoreson (via phone) NPS Pat Engelbert HDR
Jerry Kenny PRRIP Gary Lewis HDR
Mary Bomberger-Brown TPCP Matt Pillard HDR
Tom Econopouly (via phone) USFWS Lisa Richardson HDR
Mike George USFWS Scott Stuewe HDR
Robert Harms USFWS Wendy Thompson HDR
Jeff Runge USFWS George Waldow HDR
Lee Emery FERC Stephanie White HDR
Integrated Licensing Process Overview
Lisa Richardson (HDR) discussed the overall relicensing process for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project
(Project). She also gave a brief summary of the Study Plan Determination.
FERC issued its Study Plan Determination on August 26, 2009. In the Study Plan Determination, they
removed three studies, the deletion of which had already been agreed to by the participating agencies:
• Water Temperature in the Platte River
• Fish Sampling
• Creel Survey
FERC approved three studies without modification:
• Fish Passage
• Land Use Inventory
• Section 106 Compliance
FERC also modified six studies based on agency comments:
• Sedimentation
• Hydrocycling
• Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Recreation Use
• Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 2 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Finally, Richardson briefly discussed the next steps in the process, which include preparation of this Initial
Study Results Meeting Summary and an opportunity for relicensing participants to submit comments.
2010 Weather
Lisa Richardson discussed the weather experienced in Nebraska during this past spring. Spring 2010 brought
high winds, higher than normal precipitation, and widespread flooding throughout Nebraska. Richardson
shared that the majority of Nebraska’s 93 counties, including areas within the Loup and Platte River basins,
were subjected to heavy flooding, and many counties, including Nance and Platte counties, were declared
disaster areas by the governor. Therefore, the weather has had ramifications on topographic and hydraulic
surveys and associated studies which were discussed later.
Progress Update for Ongoing Studies
Members of the Project team from HDR provided progress updates for the five studies that are ongoing:
• Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
• Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Study 5.0, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Study 8.0, Recreation Use
• Study 12.0, Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
After each progress update was given, the other meeting attendees had an opportunity to ask questions and
offer comments on the respective study.
Study 2.0, Hydrocycling
Progress Update:
Pat Engelbert (HDR) and Matt Pillard (HDR) presented the progress update of the hydrocycling study. It was
noted that cross section information was obtained in mid-April, May, and June due to high flows. End of the
nesting season cross sections were collected in early September. The results of the hydrocycling study will be
provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked how much higher than normal the flows have been this year.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) responded that flow is normally in the hundreds of cubic feet per second
(cfs) during August, and this year, flows have been in the thousands of cfs.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked where the identified time frames for nesting and departures came
from.
A: Matt Pillard (HDR) responded that there is not a set date when the birds arrive and when they
leave, but rather it is a range of time. These time frames were developed with coordination from the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership as well as
with the body of knowledge of existing historical data.
• Q: Paul Makowski (FERC) asked if the sediment transport component within HEC-RAS would be
used to model sediment.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) explained that the team would evaluate that based on available data.
Engelbert indicated that they would evaluate the effects of project operations using the sediment
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 3 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
transport calculations that were performed for the sedimentation study and evaluating the “run-ofriver”
alternative. It would be very difficult to calibrate a sediment transport model with the limited
amount of sediment data available.
CLARIFICATION: Mr. Engelbert’s statement at the ISR meeting that “Initially we will set up the
model and make some runs to provide us an idea of how things have changed.” was meant to indicate
that the HEC-RAS models would be developed and executed and the hydraulics between the two
cross sections would be compared. However, per FERC’s request, the District will also use the
sediment transport module within HEC-RAS.
Study 4.0, Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
Progress Update:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the progress update of the study of water temperature in the Loup River
bypass reach. It was noted that this study has missing data due to high flow and washout of a gage. It was
determined at the RSP meetings that the critical time for data collection is in Late July/ Early August;
however, due to higher than normal flows, data collection occurred August 13-23. The results of the study of
water temperature in the Loup River bypass reach will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on
January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: David Tunink (NGPC) asked how, with the higher than normal flows this year, analysis for low
flows would be handled.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that even with no low flows, water temperature standards have
been exceeded.
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if historic data includes bypass temperature data.
A: Richardson noted that there is no historic temperature data in the bypass reach. The only historic
temperature data near the Project has been collected from one gage on the Platte River near
Louisville.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked if the Columbus gage is located where it was gaged in the 1970s and
1980s.
A: Richardson noted that the Columbus gage is in the same location on the U.S. Highway 81 bridge.
Study 5.0, Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
Progress Update:
Pat Engelbert (HDR) and Matt Pillard (HDR) presented the progress update of the flow depletion and flow
diversion study. It was noted that cross section information was obtained for the ungaged sites in mid-April,
May, and June due to high flows. Low flow cross sections were collected in early September. The results of
the flow depletion and flow diversion study will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January
6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Mike George (USFWS) asked what characteristics are being referred to when we say Loup River
characteristics both above and below the diversion.
A: Pillard (HDR) noted that the data collection methodology was discussed with the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The characteristics that would be
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 4 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
observed include the width of sandbars, whether sandbars are isolated or point bars, whether they are
vegetated or unvegetated, and whether the banks were vegetated or unvegetated.
Study 8.0, Recreation Use
Progress Update:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the progress update of the recreation use study. It was noted that a study
plan for Recreation Use of the Loup River Bypass Reach was developed in coordination with the National
Park Service, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and FERC. The results of the recreation use study
will be provided in the Updated Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Randy Thoreson (NPS) asked why the study area for the recreation survey of the Loup River
bypass reach presented in the slide show at the Initial Study Results Meeting (slide 37) appears to be
different than the study area discussed in the Initial Study Report (pages 8-1 and 8-2). Thoreson
pointed out that the slide show indicates that the Loup River bypass reach survey includes 2 public
parks, 4 wildlife management areas, and 3 public road bridges but that the Initial Study Report lists
only the Loup Lands Wildlife Management Area (WMA).
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that the entire bypass reach is being studied, and the locations
listed on the slide indicate where the public can access the Loup River bypass reach. For the purpose
of the study, we are not collecting recreation data at the non-District-owned public parks, but instead,
we are using those parks as locations where we can access and observe the river.
• Q: Thoreson asked if FERC is going to determine whether the recreation surveys should be extended
into the winter and if he would have an opportunity to comment on that before a decision is made.
A: Janet Hutzel (FERC) noted that a decision would be made based on the results of the telephone
surveys and that FERC would accept agency comments prior to making that decision.
• Q: Thoreson asked why creel surveys were not conducted in the Loup River bypass reach.
A: Richardson explained that FERC’s Study Plan Determination specifically required only recreation
surveys on the bypass reach. Although the survey proctors are noting whether people are fishing in
the Loup River bypass reach, the actual Nebraska Game and Parks Commission creel survey is not
being conducted. The purpose of the creel survey on the canal is to help the District manage those
fisheries, and this is not a purpose for the District beyond the Project Boundary.
Study 12.0, Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Progress Update:
George Waldow (HDR) presented the progress update of the study of ice jam flooding on the Loup River. It
was noted that the District contracted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Omaha District to conduct
this study. The results of the study of ice jam flooding on the Loup River will be provided in the Updated
Initial Study Report on January 6, 2011.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked if ice jams typically happen at the Highway 39 bridge.
A: George Waldow (HDR) noted that there is a long history of ice jams near Genoa, but they are not
necessarily at the bridge. Waldow also noted that the District has compiled historical information
about pre-Project flood and ice jam conditions. The history of ice jams before and after the Project
was constructed are being evaluated. Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that this study was
requested because of a 1993 USACE report on Columbus flooding and ice jams.
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 5 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Presentation of Study Results
Members of the Project team from HDR provided results for the studies that have been completed:
• Study 7.0, Fish Passage
• Study 8.0, Recreation Use (Telephone Survey)
• Study 10.0, Land Use Inventory
• Study 11.0, Section 106 Compliance
• PCB Fish Tissue Sampling
• Study 1.0, Sedimentation
After the results of each study were given, the other meeting attendees had an opportunity to ask questions
and offer comments on the respective studies.
Study 7: Fish Passage
Study Results:
Scott Stuewe (HDR) presented the study results of the fish passage study. The key points were as follows:
• The Diversion Weir is submerged less than 1 percent of the spawning season and is generally a
barrier to fish passage due to high flow velocities.
• The Sluice Gate Structure does not provide a fish pathway due to limited operation and high flowthrough
velocities.
• An alternative fish pathway around the Diversion Weir on the right bank of the Loup River exists (on
average) less than 1 day out of every spawning season.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked if the right bank alternative is the right bank looking downstream on the
other end of the weir.
A: Scott Stuewe (HDR) indicated that the right bank is looking downstream.
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) noted that most of the analysis dealt with average velocities and asked
how those average velocities were calculated.
A: Stuewe explained that for the sluice gates, different openings using different flows were averaged.
For the Diversion Weir, velocity could be calculated only when the water was going over the weir,
which was so infrequent that the average was very small.
• Q: Holland asked how the analysis would change if minimum velocities or a lower quartile velocity
were used because fish would not gravitate toward average or higher velocities trying to pass a
structure but would look for minimum velocity areas.
A: There was group discussion on this topic and it was noted that fish do seek out the lowest
velocities and will take advantage of those opportunities. It was agreed that the use of average
velocities underestimates the amount of fish passage that takes place.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 6 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 8.0, Recreation Use (Telephone Survey)
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the telephone survey portion of the recreation use
study. The key points were as follows:
• A 12-minute telephone survey of 400 residents in Nance and Platte counties was conducted by The
MSR Group between May 26 and June 9, 2010.
• The telephone survey indicates an overall awareness among respondents that the District provides
recreational opportunities. Specifically, less than 1 percent of all respondents were NOT aware of
any District recreation facilities. Awareness of specific District recreation facilities varied among
respondents.
• There is a significant lack of use of the District’s recreation sites during the winter months. Of the
respondents who mentioned that they are aware of the following recreation sites, the percentage of
respondents stating that no one from their household visited the specified recreation site between
November 1, 2009, and February 28, 2010, varied from 88 percent to 97.6 per cent. To put this into
context, an average of greater than 50 percent of the respondents who are aware of the District’s
recreation areas indicate that they visited the areas during July.
• Among the recreation facilities inquired upon, trails were the highest rated facility, with almost 7 out
of 10 respondents rating them as “Excellent” or “Above Average.”
• The telephone survey also asked respondents to rate the importance of the recreational opportunities
provided by the District. The results were as follows:
– Respondents who are Aware of District Facilities
Most Important – relaxing/hanging out and trails
Least Important – jet skiing and water skiing
– Respondents who are Not Aware of District Facilities
Most Important – children’s playground and relaxing/hanging out
Least Important – jet skiing and motorized boating
Discussion:
• Randy Thoreson (NPS) wanted to acknowledge that the information collected will be used for the
recreation management plan, and that it provides good information for that plan. Lisa Richardson
(HDR) confirmed this.
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked if the distribution of ages was representative of the county’s
demographics.
A: Neal Suess (Loup Power District) said they were a pretty typical representation because the
younger generation tends to move away. Suess noted that Nance County’s average age is probably a
bit older and Platte County’s average age is a bit younger because of Columbus.
• Q: Hutzel asked if cross-country skiing took place on the trails during winter.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) noted that the trails are not groomed for cross-county skiing but are used
for running and walking. Suess added that the trails could be used for cross-country skiing if people
wanted, but affirmed that the trails are not groomed for it. Ron Ziola (Loup Power District) noted
that winter weather in the area and the very flat terrain are not conducive to skiing.
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) asked where the swimming areas are.
A: Richardson noted that the survey did not ask about specific swimming areas. There are
swimming facilities in multiple places, including the Headworks and Lake North, but not at Lake
Babcock.
• Q: Emery asked if recreation activities such as trapping, ice fishing, and hunting occur at the Project.
A: Suess stated that ice fishing can be done at Lake North and that some people do trapping and
hunting in the wooded areas.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 7 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• Q: Emery asked about the scale of that activity.
A: Ziola noted that it would be small as the lakes reside within a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA), where hunting is prohibited. Ziola also noted that state hunting laws do not allow hunting in
or near Columbus and Genoa. There would be only about 50 miles of the canal where hunting would
be allowed (approximately 25 miles of canal, with both banks usable for hunting), but the canal rightof-way
is small and typically bounded by private property.
• Q: David Tunink (NGPC) asked if the telephone numbers used for survey participants were all
landline phones. Tunink noted that younger people often have cell phone rather than landline phones,
and this may be why there was not much participation from the younger generation.
A: Richardson stated that the telephone numbers were likely landline phones, but that would have to
be confirmed.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked if any consideration was given to a bilingual survey and whether
the non-English speaking population was accurately represented in the surveys.
A: Richardson stated that a bilingual survey was not conducted as there is a limited Spanish speaking
population in the Project area.
• Q: Emery noted that most of the anglers that he saw when he visited the Project the day before were
Hispanic. Emery asked if any of the survey proctors speak Spanish and could ask the survey
questions in Spanish.
A: Richardson stated that the survey proctors did not perform the survey in Spanish.
• Q: Koch expressed concern that Hispanic people were not accurately represented in the survey.
A: Suess explained that some of the survey proctors can speak Spanish, and Ziola noted that often
one member in the group of Hispanic people can speak English and serve as an interpreter. Ziola also
noted that all survey proctors wear lined yellow reflective vests and white ball caps so that the public
knows they are not state officials and look more approachable and friendly. Ziola stated that they are
getting Hispanic in-person interviews and that Hispanics are being represented.
• Mike Gutzmer, primary survey proctor for the in-person surveys, noted that he was often able to get
surveys from the Hispanic population through a younger member of the family who was able to
interpret or through survey proctors who were able to speak a little bit of Spanish.
• Richardson noted that demographic data is being collected, so when the data is analyzed, we will be
able to determine what percentage of the survey respondents were Hispanic.
• Q: Mary Bomberger-Brown (TPCP) thought that the responses to the telephone survey seemed
female biased and asked if there were any patterns in responses based on gender. Are females more
likely to use the facilities in some ways and males in other ways.
A: Richardson stated that the data exists and that more analysis will be done when the recreation
management plan is developed.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 8 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 10.0, Land Use Inventory
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the land use inventory study. The key points were as
follows:
• Field-verified land use maps were developed and show land uses both inside and within 500 feet
outside of the Project Boundary. Public access locations were identified and included in the maps as
well.
• Potential land use conflicts were identified, and it was determined that all of the adjacent land uses
are compatible with the Project.
• Future land use plans for Nance County and the City of Columbus do not indicate future land use
changes that would be incompatible with the Project.
• Restricted Operations Areas are safely separated from publicly accessible areas and do not conflict
with recreation opportunities
• Approximately 90 percent of the Project lands are accessible to the public from numerous locations.
Discussion:
• Q: Lee Emery (FERC) noted that there are 5,000 acres of Project lands and asked about the
distribution of this land.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) stated that of the over 5,000 acres of Project lands, most is along the
canal, but there is a larger area at the Headworks and the two regulating reservoirs.
• Q: Randy Thoreson (NPS) asked if the Loup River bypass reach was included in the land use
inventory.
A: Richardson noted that it was not included because the land use inventory took place within and
adjacent to the Project Boundary. Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that the District does not
own the bypass reach or any land along it. The District owns only the canal and 50 to 100 feet along
the canal. The land use inventory included the Loup Lands WMA because the District owns this
land.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked if the Project Boundary includes the Loup River bypass reach or if the
District has any other easements or rights around the bypass reach.
A: Neal Suess (Loup Power District) stated that the bypass reach is the normal riverbed with private
ownership on both sides of that. The District does not have any other easements or rights around the
bypass reach.
• Q: Mike George (USFWS) asked if there are irrigation intakes in the Loup River bypass reach.
George noted that it might be useful information for the land use inventory because of the nature of
the water demand.
There was group discussion of irrigation use along the bypass and the canal. In the end Nick Jayjack
(FERC) noted that the issue of irrigation and how it would be addressed was discussed during scoping
and can be found in the meeting transcripts on FERC’s website. Richardson noted that the documents
are on Loup Power District’s relicensing website as well.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked if FERC has a regulatory role in the access authorizations, or
agreements.
A: Jayjack explained that if they are not part of the license, then they are not under FERC’s
jurisdiction. These issues, particularly water rights, are a state issue and FERC does not get involved
with those.
• Q: Thoreson asked if an actual inventory and analysis of what is available at each recreation site will
be included in the recreation management plan.
A: Richardson explained that that is occurring as part of the recreation use study and would also be
included in the recreation management plan.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 9 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Study 11.0, Section 106 Compliance
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the Section 106 compliance study, which included four
components. The key points and discussion for each component were as follows:
Phase IA Archaeological Overview:
• The Phase IA Archaeological Overview was completed in late summer/early fall of 2009.
• The study determined that field exams were necessary for eight areas within the Project Boundary
that appear to be undisturbed since the 1930s, or that are within or near documented archaeological
sites.
• Nebraska SHPO concurred with recommendations in Phase IA Archaeological Overview on
November 11, 2009
• The Phase IA Archaeological Overview was filed with FERC as privileged information on
December 4, 2009.
Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation:
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation was completed in summer 2010.
• Eighty-three shovel tests were completed:
– Prehistoric archaeological material was found in three tests.
– Historic artifacts were recovered from four tests.
• One site is recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
• Other sensitive areas of the canal corridor were identified for management through consultation with
Nebraska SHPO.
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report includes recommendations that
coordination with Nebraska SHPO be required prior to earth-moving or earth-disturbing activities in
the aforementioned areas.
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report was submitted to Nebraska SHPO for
concurrence on August 27, 2010.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked what was meant by “other sensitive areas” She also if any mitigation
is being proposed.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) stated that these areas could potentially contain additional artifacts, but at
this time, they are not determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. These results are included in
the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation report but have not been discussed with
Nebraska SHPO yet. Mitigation has not been considered at this point. The first steps are to confer
with Nebraska SHPO about the findings of the report and to get concurrence from Nebraska SHPO on
what areas need to be monitored as part of that agreement.
Ethnographic Documentation:
• Initial coordination with tribes has occurred through both FERC and the District.
– Six tribes with historical presence in the area include the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Ponca Tribe
of Nebraska, Omaha Tribe, Pawnee Tribe, Winnebago Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation.
– No tribes responded with information related to places that are of traditional religious and cultural
importance.
– The Winnebago Tribe will not be participating in relicensing as it does not have any land in either
Nance or Platte County.
• The tribes were provided an opportunity to review the Phase IA Archaeological Overview, but none
responded
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 10 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• The Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation was provided to the tribes for comment. The
District will follow up with the tribes in the next few weeks to ensure that they received the report and
if they have any comments or wish to consult on it.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked whether copies had been sent to the tribes, noting that she hadn’t
heard the last statement clearly.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that copies of the Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and
Evaluation had been sent to the chairman of each tribe and that a copy of the letter was sent to each
tribal historic preservation officer.
• Q: Hutzel asked if the documentation from the Winnebago Tribe noting that the tribe does not wish
to participate in relicensing had been filed with FERC.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) noted that the Winnebago Tribe responded directly to FERC’s letter via
e-mail, so that document should be filed with FERC, but she will check to ensure that it is.
Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation:
• The Project is a historic district eligible for listing on the NRHP.
• Eligible elements include 16 properties that exhibit individual eligibility and 21 properties that lack
individual eligibility but contribute to the historic district.
• The historic district also includes numerous non-contributing properties that are not eligible for listing
on the NRHP.
• The Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation report was submitted to Nebraska SHPO on
August 27, 2010, for concurrence.
Historic Properties Management Plan and Executed Programmatic Agreement:
• The Historic Properties Management Plan will be developed following review and approval of the
field studies for archaeology, ethnography, and the historic district.
• The Programmatic Agreement will be developed and executed following review and approval of the
field studies for archaeology, ethnography, and the historic district as well as approval of the Historic
Properties Management Plan.
Discussion:
• Q: Janet Hutzel (FERC) asked if the Historic Properties Management Plan would be developed in
consultation with tribes as well as with Nebraska SHPO.
A: Lisa Richardson (HDR) explained that the intent is to consult with the tribes though there really
has been no tribal participation to date. The District will send them copies and allow them to
comment.
• Q: Hutzel asked if there will be follow-up on the Section 106 Compliance study in the January
meeting when updated initial study results are discussed.
A: Richardson explained that concurrence with Nebraska SHPO, consultation with the tribes, and a
status update for the Historic Properties Management Plan will be part of the January meeting.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 11 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
PCB Fish Tissue Sampling
Study Results:
Lisa Richardson (HDR) presented the study results of the PCB fish tissue sampling. The key points were as
follows:
• This was not an official relicensing study, but a question had been raised by agencies during scoping
about contamination and NDEQ agreed to conduct additional fish tissue sampling in 2009 in the
Project area.
• NDEQ conducted sampling at two locations along the Project:
– Lake Babcock was sampled on August 11, 2009.
– Tailrace Canal (U.S. Highway 30 bridge) was sampled on August 12, 2009.
• Fillets were provided to the EPA Region VII laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas, for PCB analysis.
• PCB (Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260) concentrations at each site were below the applicable reporting
limits.
• Results have not been officially reported by NDEQ, but data will be included in NDEQ's 2009 Fish
Tissue Report once all statewide data have been assessed.
• NDEQ stated that “the current fish consumption advisory for the Loup Power Canal will likely be
removed following completion of the 2009 Fish Tissue Report in late 2010 or early 2011.”
Discussion:
• Q: Frank Albrecht (NGPC) asked if there is a standard size or age of the fish tested for PCBs.
A: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) explained that carp are in the 21-inch range, likely 18 to 24 inches. The
EPA-approved methods for fish tissue sampling take into consideration bioaccumulation and
biomagnifications. They target fish that they assume would accumulate the material and the size that
would have time to biomagnify.
• C: Jeff Runge (USFWS) noted that USFWS had recommended a measurement of sediment samples.
However, FERC’s Study Plan Determination included an indirect measure of PCBs in sediment
through fish tissue sampling. Runge noted that PCB-contaminated fish in the middle section
(between the Monroe and Columbus powerhouses) would cause concern that maybe there is a
potential for PCB-latent sediment. Two aspects of concern are PCBs within the fish tissue and any
discharges that would be released into the canal system and would eventually make their way into the
lower Platte River, which is currently an impaired waterbody. The idea behind the fish tissue
sampling was to help answer those questions.
• Q: Runge also asked what the difference is between reporting limits identified in the report and
actual water quality limits.
A: Pracheil explained that fish tissue limits are not the same as water quality standard parameters.
NDEQ has tested for PCBs in the water column at numerous sites throughout the state but has not
found PCBs in the water column. Sampling was conducted in Lake Babcock to determine if there
was contamination above the Tailrace because there is potential for fish from the lower Platte River to
enter the Tailrace during a high flow event. It is difficult to determine whether contaminated fish are
in the Tailrace because of the Loup Power Canal or if they are coming from a contaminated section of
the lower Platte River into the Tailrace. Although this can’t be answered, the Lake Babcock sample
helps point to the direction that the Loup Power Canal above the Tailrace does not have PCB
contamination.
• Q: Runge asked if “at or below the reporting limits” means that there is no contamination present.
A: Pracheil explained that NDEQ’s assessment method is to take the reporting limit and divide by
two, and that is the number applied to all of NDEQ’s assessment criteria. This is more conservative
so there is less risk to the consumer.
• Q: Runge asked why the carp species was used rather than another common species like catfish and
whether there would be the same levels of contamination for both species.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 12 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
A: Pracheil stated that the collection technique somewhat limits the success for some species. NDEQ
tries to get both a predator and a bottom-feeder species from every sample site, but the fish have to
meet the requirements for size considerations. Bass are considered a predator species, and both carp
and catfish are bottom-feeder species. NDEQ’s methodology for testing is available on its website.
Carp are easier to catch, so that species often fills the role of bottom-feeder in NDEQ’s methodology.
In Lake Babcock, Pracheil was unsure if they attempted to get another species; the methodology
specifies carp as that is what was on the impaired waterbodies list.
• Jeff Schuckman (NGPC) noted that if fish tissue samples are needed from other species, NDEQ could
contact NGPC because they routinely conduct fish sampling and would be willing to help out.
Study 1.0, Sedimentation
Study Results:
Pat Engelbert (HDR), Matt Pillard (HDR), and Scott Stuewe (HDR) presented the study results of the
sedimentation study, which included four objectives. The key points and discussion for each objective were
as follows:
Objective 1:
• Both rivers at all locations studied are clearly not supply limited.
• Spatial analysis of effective and dominant discharge reveals that they increase in a downstream
direction in a manner consistent with natural river processes.
• The effective discharge, and associated river morphology, has not changed since 1928.
• Sediment transport calculations show that the channel geometries are in “regime.” Nothing appears
to be constraining either the Loup or Platte River from maintaining the hydraulic geometry associated
with the effective discharges.
• The combinations of slopes, sediment sizes, and effective discharges result in all locations being well
within the braided river morphologies, with none being near any thresholds of transitioning to another
morphology.
Discussion:
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if the suspended sediment load in the Platte and Loup rivers is a
composite suspended sampling from USGS and if bed load is incorporated into any of these
calculations as well.
A: Pat Engelbert (HDR) explained that for bed load in the Platte and Loup rivers, a composite of the
bed material samples and suspended samples was used to calculate the d50 used in Yang’s equation
to create the sediment discharge rating curves. The d50 of the suspended is a smaller material, and
the d50 of the bed material is a coarser material. Therefore, we felt that this composite better
represented the total bed material load.
• Q: Mary Bomberger-Brown (TPCP) asked why the amount of dredged material since 1975 was
nearly half the amount dredged prior to 1975.
A: Engelbert explained that there are probably several reasons, including a change in farming
practices (terracing and land leveling) and the construction of upstream structures (Calamus Reservoir
and Sherman Reservoir). Neal Suess (Loup Power District) added that the District did not change its
operating practices at all during that time.
• Q: Isis Johnson (FERC) asked how the total sediment discharge was calculated.
A: Engelbert explained that the amount of flow for a given day was multiplied by the sediment
discharge rating curve (the amount of sediment for a particular discharge), which is in tons per cubic
feet per second (cfs). This results in a tons calculation by using an adjustment factor to get the units
correct. George Waldow (HDR) noted that this is an established methodology, and Gary Lewis
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 13 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
(HDR) added that this procedure is adopted by all of the agencies that work with or represent the
Platte River.
• Q: Tom Econopouly (USFWS) asked if the y-axis was tons on slide 118 and how that relates to the
dominant discharge of 3,500 cfs.
A: Engelbert explained that the total amount of sediment transported in tons was indeed represented
by the y-axis. The dominant discharge is 3500 cfs; however, it was not graphically shown. The red
line on the graph showing the 3,500 cfs does not correspond to the y-axis units. The average tons per
day were determined from total tons, and the dominant discharge corresponding to that average daily
sediment transport was found from the sediment rating curve.
• Q: Nick Jayjack (FERC) asked about the significance of the USBR 1.5-year analysis on the regime
graphs.
A: Engelbert explained that previously, a common estimate of the channel forming flow was the
1.5-year flood, but current technologies do not require such estimates for sand bed systems.
• Q: Jeff Runge (USFWS) asked how the total yield was calculated for North Bend.
A: Engelbert explained that the Missouri River Basin Commission used established methodology to
determine what the supply to those locations would be based on all erosion processes, including sheet,
rill, and bed and bank. There is a table in the initial study report that lists the Missouri River Basin
Commission yields.
• Q: Runge asked if the Platte River between Columbus and North Bend only has a certain amount of
capacity to continue to add to the supply.
A: Gary Lewis (HDR) explained that transport capacity will not necessarily move all of the yield in
braided systems, which are defined as rivers with sediment supplies in much greater excess than the
ability to transport it. The best estimate of yield is what it is transporting whenever a river is in
equilibrium. Missouri River Basin Commission methods are an indicator of whether the yield
exceeds the capacity. Lewis noted that probably what is being transported is what is being delivered
because the river is in dynamic equilibrium. The key point is that by the procedure that was applied
and agreed to in the study plan, the yield exceeded capacity of the transport, so the study sites are not
supply limited. Transport capacities are not additive as you move downstream. The capacity at a
particular location is based on hydraulics—slope, width, depth, velocity—and sediment size.
Because the river hydraulics change, the capacity will change. The capacities and yields are
calculated independently using different methodologies.
• Q: Runge asked if more sediment is being transported away or through North Bend than what is
being supplied from Columbus and Duncan.
A: Engelbert explained that the transport capacity numbers cannot really be added. The capacity is
based on the river condition at Duncan and the river condition at Columbus. You cannot add the
capacity of the two and get the resulting capacity.
• Q: Runge asked if changes in local hydraulic characteristics result in the difference.
A: Engelbert noted that calculations for the Platte River near Columbus have not been completed yet
but will be based on 1 year’s measurements as opposed to the capacities being developed based on
30 or 50 years of hydraulic measurements.
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) asked if the capacity indicates the amount of sediment that the water
will hold.
A: Engelbert explained that capacity indicates the amount of bed material sediment the water will
convey, if transporting at capacity.
• Q: Holland asked what determines sediment size and capacity and if we have any indication about
particle size and distribution.
A: Engelbert explained that the sediment size and capacity are based on USGS measurements and
Yang’s Unit Stream Power equation. Bed sediment samples, suspended sediment samples, and daily
flow (function of velocity and depth) were used to calculate the capacity. The particle sizes by gage
are in the initial study report or attachments; sizes are different at the study sites, not the same. Lewis
added that if flows decline, transport declines. Engelbert noted that a spatial relationship based on the
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 14 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
gaging stations was evaluated. Holland stated that things are completely different 100 miles
downstream. Engelbert explained that the District was tasked to evaluate the calculations at a point
within 5 miles of the Tailrace and a point upstream of the Tailrace, which is being done.
• George Waldow (HDR) noted that the yield or supply were each calculated additively as you go
downstream. The analysis does not allow only the capacity amount be added to the supply as you go
downstream. The analysis is only one indicator of capacity, not absolute values. At best, this tool is
an approximation of a complicated system. However, yield or supply exceeds capacity at all
locations. No studies in the literature disagree with this. Lewis provided the definition of dynamic
equilibrium, saying that it doesn’t mean it is always the same; it varies, but around a constant trend.
The Corps describes a stream system with variability (in width, depth, bars, and braids) but not
deviating from a long-term condition trend. We need to look at parameters like effective discharge.
Engelbert added that the budget analysis performed for this sedimentation study is part of that.
• Q: Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) asked if the model is able to measure the errors and bring the error values
forward so that they can be identified.
A: Engelbert explained that the data has uncertainty but not error, and because the data was analyzed
over a 25-year period, any random errors are likely smoothed out. Waldow clarified that rather than
error, Joel is referring to imprecision.
• Q: Holland and Jorgensen noted that it would be useful to know the percent error (for example,
1 percent or 50 percent), or a measurement of the imprecision. Jorgensen also asked if there are error
values for the components that go into Yang’s equation.
A: Lewis noted that USGS rates their records as good, fair, and poor, and in the USGS manual, they
list a confidence range of 5 to 15 percent. We did a sensitivity analysis on Yang’s equation, and we
erred on the side of conservative rather than understating or overstating the capacity. We relied on
USGS flow and other measurements.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked if the yield of total supply available is just free-flowing sediment or
if it also includes the sediment trapped in stabilized sandbars or other stabilization structures.
A: Engelbert explained that the total supply available accounted for the sediment being removed
from the system. The Missouri River Basin Commission accounted for sediment being trapped at
structures or taken out of the system, but did not analyze sediment in stabilized sandbars. For
example, at Loup’s diversion structure, they took the total amount and accounted for sediment being
removed in the settling basin. In addition, they accounted for an amount of suspended sediments
being conveyed through the system with half of that sediment being trapped in the system and the
other half returning to the Platte River system at the Tailrace.
• Q: Runge asked if the sediment analysis for the Platte River at Duncan and the Loup River at
Columbus could be added to see how close of an agreement there is with the values at North Bend.
A: Engelbert explained that hydrographs are being developed at the area just downstream of the
confluence based on gage data at Duncan and on the Loup and that historic reach gains and losses
were accounted for. Runge noted that this would help from a precision standpoint if they were in
close agreement and could shed some light as to the precision.
• Q: Jayjack asked if the capacity numbers were calculated and the yield numbers were from published
sources. If so, he asked if we have a good idea of the uncertainty involved with the capacity numbers.
A: Engelbert confirmed this and stated that whether the rivers are supply limited or not supply
limited is just one piece of the overall puzzle.
• Q: Paul Makowski (FERC) wanted to draw the distinction between uncertainty, error, and variability.
Makowski noted that there is a lot of variability with the sediment discharge rating curve and asked if
a confidence interval could be added and what the bands would be.
A: Engelbert explained that a sensitivity analysis was conducted, and that 25 years of data were used
to reduce the variation. The rating curves showing the variation in suspended loads are an indication
of these bands.
• Q: Econopouly pointed out that there was almost 50 percent more capacity at Genoa than Columbus
and asked about the factor of data.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 15 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
A: Engelbert explained that it is a factor of the data used to develop the sediment discharge rating
curve. At Genoa, there were 25 years of measurements to use, but at Columbus, there was only
1 year of measurements to develop the sediment discharge rating curve. Engelbert agreed that the
results are somewhat inconsistent.
• Q: Econopouly asked why two points marked on Chang’s regime morphology chart, which were
bankfull discharge rather than effective discharge, were not used.
A: Lewis explained that those charts and data points were used in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) report on Platte River history. He noted that there is no reason to use bankfull or 1.5-year
flows as estimates of channel-forming flow because effective discharge calculations are the current
methodology. Bankfull flow is not easily found on a braided river where the yield exceeds the
transport, forming a “backbone” along the river valley.
• C: Holland noted that when focusing on specific habitat features, there is a need to look at different
types of flow events, such as bankfull flow. There are two different ways of looking at how sediment
is used and what sediment is doing to the river.
Objective 2:
• Literature and analysis clearly indicate that both rivers are in dynamic equilibrium with no indications
of aggradation or degradation or channel geometry changes over time.
• Literature and calculations demonstrate that the Loup River bypass reach and the lower Platte River
are in regime and well seated within regime zones classified as braided streams.
Discussion:
• Jeff Runge (USFWS) noted that the purpose of this meeting is to develop information to propose any
necessary changes in methodology. Runge suggested that the trends and channel gradation
information from the 1999 USGS report be updated as a study modification; he noted this would be
included in the USFWS’ comment letter. Lee Emery (FERC) asked if Runge thought the findings
would change with this additional work. Runge indicated he was unsure. Emery also noted that the
cost and benefit of doing this additional work would be a consideration when FERC makes a
determination on modifications. It was also clarified that study modifications should follow FERC’s
7 study request criteria (same as for initial study requests.
• Q: Michelle Koch (NGPC) asked why 1985 was chosen as the starting date.
A: Engelbert explained that it was to correlate the date with bird data available. In addition, USGS
had electronic data from 1984, so it was a good representative era of 25 years to begin with 1985.
These years had wet, dry, and normal year designations, and it was considered to be a good
representative time frame.
Objective 3:
• It was determined that the system is in dynamic equilibrium and the Project does not affect
morphology in this reach of the Platte; therefore, it is inferred that the Project does not affect pallid
sturgeon or least tern and piping plover habitat parameters related to sediment transport.
• No further analysis is needed based on the RSP methodology, but analysis of plots of interior least
tern and piping plover nest counts against sediment transport parameters was completed due to timing
of other study activities.
– There is not a significant relationship between interior least tern and piping plover nest counts
and sediment transport parameters.
– No evidence from this analysis was discovered that would suggest a potential relationship
between nest counts and sediment transport parameters.
Discussion:
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 16 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
• Q: Chris Pracheil (NDEQ) asked if transforming some of the discharge parameters might have given
a different correlation. Pracheil also stated that an R 2 of 0.3 is usually considered significant in
biological settings.
A: Matt Pillard (HDR) explained that a linear regression was performed as described in the study
plan.
• C: Joel Jorgensen (NGPC) shared a number of comments related to the statistical analysis of the data:
– Noted that the data preparation should have been explained and that there may be
pseudoreplication issues with the analysis. Is the data normally distributed? If not, is linear
regression appropriate?
– Suggested that rather than using parametric tests, nonparametric tests should have been used
because the data aren’t normally distributed.
– Noted that the small data set may cause issues with the analysis and that specific statistical tests
for significance were not referenced in the report
– Noted that most of the analysis may be influenced by outliers; suggested that the outliers be
reviewed to see why they outliers exist, possibly because of data inconsistencies
– Suggested that linear regression is not appropriate for the data because in some cases the analysis
would result in a negative value, which is not possible..
– Suggested looking at a generalized linear model for regression. Using a model-based approach
you can build competing models and compare the relative strength of the models against each
other that would allow interactions between the x variables.
– Another possible choice is logistic regression.
• Jorgensen noted that he will provide written comments regarding the analysis.
• Mike George (USFWS) noted that he did not see the system as linear either; if it were linear, then at
either end, you will not have nesting. He noted that the value in linear regression was to show that
the relationship is not linear .
• G. Lewis noted that in order to do some of the statistical analysis suggested, such as a principal
component model, there needs to be a model that you are trying to fit. He also noted that to do a
multivariate analysis you have to have an idea of how the variables relate to each other in order to do
the work.
• Joel Jorgenson (NGPC) noted that if there is good justification not to do any sort of additional
analysis, then provide that discussion in the report.
Objective 4:
• It was determined that the system is in dynamic equilibrium and the Project does not affect
morphology in this reach of the Platte; therefore, it is inferred that the Project does not affect pallid
sturgeon habitat parameters related to sediment transport.
– The Lower Platte River geomorphology is in dynamic equilibrium.
– The literature review states that the lower Platte River is appropriate pallid sturgeon habitat.
– Recent sturgeon captures show species occupation.
• No further analysis is needed based on the Revised Study Plan methodology.
Discussion:
• Q: Richard Holland (NGPC) asked if the sampling that occurred 30 miles west of Columbus was a
one-time sampling event and noted that that was not part of the original objectives of the UNL study.
A: Scott Stuewe (HDR) confirmed that it was a one-time sampling event and noted Holland’s
comment.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 17 of 18

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1256
Initial Study Results Meeting Summary
Next Steps
Lisa Richardson (HDR) discussed the next steps for the completed studies and the remaining studies.
For the completed studies, the next steps are as follows:
• September 24, 2010 – District submits meeting summary
• October 24, 2010 – Agencies file meeting summary disagreements and submit requests for
modification to on-going studies
• November 24, 2010 – District responds to summary comments and study modification requests
• December 27, 2010 – FERC resolves comments and study modification requests
For the remaining studies, the next steps are as follows:
• January 6, 2011 – Submittal of Updated Initial Study Report to FERC
• January 20, 2011 – Updated Initial Study Report Agency Meeting
Discussion:
• There was discussion about the interrelatedness of Sedimentation with the Hydrocycling and Flow
Depletion and Flow Diversion studies. USFWS indicated that because of this, they may hold some of
their comments until after all of the study results are available. This led to a question of whether
FERC will address study modifications in October 2010 or wait until spring 2011 when all study
results and comments are available. FERC is considering this issue.
Loup Power District
Columbus, NE
P.O. Box 988
2404 15 th Street
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
Phone (866) 869-2087
Fax (402) 564-0970
www.loup.com
Page 18 of 18

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:05 PM
To: 'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'jeff_runge@fws.gov';
'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org';
'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov'; 'mkuzila1@unl.edu';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'ncpza@hamilton.net';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us';
'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'calms@neb.rr.com';
'danno@nohva.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'vwills@pawneenation.org'; 'Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov';
'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'robertm@llnrd.org'; 'jmsunne@nppd.com';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov';
'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov'; 'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov';
'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'jeddins@achp.gov'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov';
'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov';
'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'; 'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov';
'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'chairmanrhodd@ponca.com'; 'asheridan@omahatribe.com';
'don_simpson@blm.gov'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov';
'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'marvp@megavision.com'; 'lewrightjr@gmail.com';
'thowe@ponca.com'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe1ne.org';
'todd.crawford@mail.house.gov'; 'louis1pofahl@mail.house.gov';
'emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov'; 'deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov'; 'tpetr@loup.com';
'mike.black@bia.gov'; 'janet.hutzel@ferc.gov'; 'isis.johnson@ferc.gov'; 'lee.emery@ferc.gov';
'paul.makowski@ferc.gov'
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 1 FERC Relicensing: UPDATED STUDY REPORT SCHEDULE
Relicensing Participants –
Please find attached a link
(http://www.loup.com/relicense/html/documents/license/LFERC.101119.UpdatedISR_Delay.pdf) to a letter from the
District notifying FERC of a delay in completing the following studies due to higher than normal flows on the Loup and
Platte rivers:
2 – Hydrocycling
5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Because of the delay to these studies the District is delaying submittal of the Updated Initial Study Report (originally
scheduled for January 6, 2011) approximately one month. As a result, the Updated Study Results Meeting will also be
delayed. The new dates for these items are:
Updated Initial Study Results Report – February 11, 2011
Updated Initial Study Results Meeting – February 23 & 24, 2011
The following studies will be presented in the updated report and at the meeting:
1 – Sedimentation (ungaged site analysis)
2 – Hydrocycling
4 – Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass
5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
8 – Recreation Use
12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup and
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
1

Thanks!
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
HDR | One Company | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 6811414098
Phone: 402.399.1186 | Fax: 402.399.1111
Email: Matt.Pillard@hdrinc.com
Please consider the environment before printing.
2

Selzle, Lydia
From: Robert Mohler [robertm@llnrd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:38 AM
To: Thompson, Wendy
Subject: RE: Loup & Initial Study Report & Sedimentation Attachments
Thanks, Wendy. The hydrology information is really valuable to me.
Robert T. Mohler, P.E.
District Engineer
Lower Loup Natural Resources District
Ord, NE 68862
308-728-3221
From: Thompson, Wendy [mailto:Wendy.Thompson@hdrinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:35 AM
To: robertm@llnrd.org
Cc: Richardson, Lisa (Omaha)
Subject: Loup + Initial Study Report + Sedimentation Attachments
HDR Employees:
Use the "Download Attachments" button after opening this message in Outlook to download attached files.
Non HDR Recipients:
If you are not an HDR employee and this is your first time using Slingshot click here and follow the prompts to set your
password.
Returning users click here to Download (files: Attachment_B.pdf; Attachment_A.pdf; Attachment_D.pdf;
Attachment_C.pdf;)
Notice: The link in this email will only work for up to 30 days (as set by the sender). If you need access to these
files for longer, please download and save a copy locally. Recipients of forwarded emails WILL NOT have access
to the files using this link.
Please see attached for the requested documents from the Loup River Hydrocycling Project Initial Study Report. Please
let us know if you need anything else.
Wendy Thompson
Public Involvement Specialist
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114&4098 Phone:402.399.1341| Fax: 402.399.1111
Email:wendy.thompson@hdrinc.com
1

Selzle, Lydia
From: Pillard, Matt
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:30 PM
To: 'frank.albrecht@nebraska.gov'; 'john.bender@nebraska.gov'; 'jeff_runge@fws.gov';
'robert_harms@fws.gov'; 'barbara.j.friskopp@usace.army.mil'; 'abaum@upperloupnrd.org';
'randy_thoreson@nps.gov'; 'bob.puschendorf@nebraska.gov'; 'mkuzila1@unl.edu';
'david.jundt@dhhs.ne.gov'; 'jmiyoshi@lpnnrd.org'; 'steve.chick@ne.usda.gov';
'pcclerk@megavision.com'; 'cityadmin@cablene.com'; 'ncpza@hamilton.net';
'rbishop@cpnrd.org'; 'jwinkler@papionrd.org'; 'lpsnrd@lpsnrd.org'; 'jmangi@columbusne.us';
'cgenoa@cablene.com'; 'monroe@megavision.com'; 'calms@neb.rr.com';
'danno@nohva.com'; 'mbrown9@unl.edu'; 'rtrudell@santeedakota.org';
'jblackhawk@aol.com'; 'vwills@pawneenation.org'; 'Brian.Dunnigan@nebraska.gov';
'msittler@lpsnrd.org'; 'butchk@nctc.net'; 'robertm@llnrd.org'; 'jmsunne@nppd.com';
'jalexand@usgs.gov'; 'jjshadl@nppd.com'; 'cothern.joe@epa.gov';
'justin.lavene@nebraska.gov'; 'bobbie.wickham@nebraska.gov';
'kennyj@headwaterscorp.com'; 'mferguson@gp.usbr.gov'; 'Willie_Taylor@ios.doi.gov';
'Robert_F_Stewart@ios.doi.gov'; 'jeddins@achp.gov'; 'kenneth.sessa@dhs.gov';
'peggy.harding@ferc.gov'; 'djjarecke@clarkswb.net'; 'al.berndt@nebraska.gov';
'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'; 'ksullivan@leg.ne.gov'; 'clangemeier@leg.ne.gov';
'adubas@leg.ne.gov'; 'chairmanrhodd@ponca.com'; 'asheridan@omahatribe.com';
'don_simpson@blm.gov'; 'nicholas.jayjack@ferc.gov'; 'jill.dolberg@nebraska.gov';
'prescott.brownell@noaa.gov'; 'marvp@megavision.com'; 'lewrightjr@gmail.com';
'thowe@ponca.com'; 'zach_nelson@bennelson.senate.gov'; 'julias@poncatribe1ne.org';
'todd.crawford@mail.house.gov'; 'louis1pofahl@mail.house.gov';
'emily_brummund@johanns.senate.gov'; 'deb.vanmatre@mail.house.gov'; 'tpetr@loup.com';
'mike.black@bia.gov'; 'janet.hutzel@ferc.gov'; 'isis.johnson@ferc.gov'; 'lee.emery@ferc.gov';
'paul.makowski@ferc.gov'
Cc: Angel Robak; Jim Frear; Neil Suess; Ron Ziola; Damgaard, Quinn V.; Engelbert, Pat; Frame,
Gail; Grennan, Dennis E.; Hunt, George; Madson, Michael J.; Pillard, Matt; Richardson, Lisa
(Omaha); Sigler, Bill; Thompson, Wendy; Waldow, George; White, Stephanie
Subject: Loup Power District 1 FERC Relicensing: Web Posting
Relicensing Participants:
On November 24 th the District filed responses to all comments received on the Initial Study Report (ISR) and ISR meeting
notes with FERC. These responses are available on the District’s Relicensing website as well as on the FERC e1Library
(Docket No. P112561029).
Also – just a reminder of the date change for submittal of the Updated Initial Study Report and follow1up meeting.
Updated Initial Study Results Report – February 11, 2011
Updated Initial Study Results Meeting – February 23 & 24, 2011
The following studies will be presented in the updated report and at the meeting:
1 – Sedimentation (ungaged site analysis)
2 – Hydrocycling
4 – Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass
5 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
8 – Recreation Use
12 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.
Matt Pillard, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Associate
1

December 16, 2010
Mr. Robert Puschendorf
State Historic Preservation Office
1500 R Street
P.O. Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554
Re: HP#0804-127-01
Loup River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
FERC Project No. 1256; Docket No. 1256-029
Addendum to Phase I/II Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation
Dear Mr. Puschendorf:
Per my letter to you on October 22, 2010, Loup Power District (the District) has
reconstructed a single pole transmission line in the vicinity of site 25PT115, a
property recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
under criterion “d.” Because replacement of this line represents an action within the
Project APE, prior to initiating construction activities, the District contracted with
Nancy Carlson to perform subsurface testing efforts to assess whether the proposed
locations of the eleven replacement transmission poles within the boundaries of the
site will affect the integrity of archaeological materials.
The results of that effort suggested that the soil profile at most pole locations has been
disturbed by cultivation and erosion, or obscured by fill. Two small lithic artifact
fragments were found within the initial 10 cm of the surface and plow zone at the test
site for Pole #17. No other archaeological remains or indications of buried
archaeological deposits were encountered during this investigation. Based on these
results, the District also contracted with Ms. Carlson to monitor construction
activities. Monitoring of the pole placement produced no cultural material or features.
Enclosed please find a copy of Ms. Carlson’s report documenting her investigations
both prior to and during construction.

Please do not hesitate to contact Michael Madson (HDR) at (763) 278-5921 or me at
(402) 564-3171 if you have any questions about this report.
Sincerely,
Neal Suess
President/CEO
Loup Power District
cc:
Jill Dolberg, SHPO
Lee Emery, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Janet Hutzel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ron Ziola, Loup Power District
Lisa Richardson, HDR
Michael Madson, HDR

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Mr. Neal Suess, President/CEO
Loup Power District
2404 15 th Street
P.O. Box 988
Columbus, NE 68602-0988
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20426
December 20, 2010
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Loup Power District
Reference: Determination on Requests for Modifications to the Loup River
Hydroelectric Project Study Plan
Dear Mr. Suess:
Pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15(c), this letter contains my determination on requests for
modifications to Loup Power District’s Loup River Hydroelectric Project (Loup River
Project or project) study plan.
Background
Loup Power District filed its Initial Study Report on August 27, 2010, and held a
meeting on September 9, 2010, to discuss: (1) the first year study results to date (the
studies were initiated in June 2010) and (2) proposed modifications to the study plan. On
September 24, 2010, Loup Power District filed a meeting summary. Loup Power
District’s proposed modifications, which are based on information derived from the
ongoing studies, are detailed in the Initial Study Report and summarized in the
September 24, 2010 meeting summary. The Initial Study Report provided results for the
following approved studies:
• Study 1.0 – Sedimentation
• Study 7.0 – Fish Passage
• Study 10.0 – Land Use Inventory
• Study 11.0 – Section 106 Compliance

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
At the meeting, Loup Power District also provided progress updates for the
following on-going studies:
• Study 2.0 – Hydrocycling
• Study 4.0 – Water Temperature in the Loup River Bypass Reach
• Study 5.0 – Flow Depletion and Flow Diversion
• Study 8.0 – Recreation Use
• Study 12.0 – Ice Jam Flooding on the Loup River
Written comments on the Initial Study Report were filed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) on October 21, 2010; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff (Commission staff) on October 22, 2010; Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(Nebraska Game and Parks) on October 25, 2010; and National Park Service (NPS) on
October 25, 2010. None of the commenting entities requested that new studies be
conducted; however, some of the entities requested minor study plan modifications for
two of the existing approved study plans for the project: Study 1.0--Sedimentation and
Study 2.0--Hydrocycling. Loup Power District adequately addressed all comments
concerning the approved studies in a November 24, 2010 filing.
Study Determination
Commission staff reviewed the recommended modifications to the initial study
plan, comments on the Initial Study Report, and other related elements on the record.
Based on that review, I am modifying Study 1.0--Sedimentation and Study 2.0--
Hydrocycling to require that Loup Power District:
Sedimentation Study
2
• include confidence limits on the sediment rating curves used to develop the
sediment budgets and effective discharges that are presented in the
Sediment Study Report.
• include aggradation/degradation analyses developed for the Duncan, North
Bend, Ashland and Louisville gages that were presented in the Pre-
Application Document into the Updated Study Report for the
Sedimentation Study.
• conduct an aggradation/degradation analysis using Genoa gage data and
provide the results in the Updated Study Report for the Sedimentation
Study.
• use the Kendall tau test to assess trends in the aggradation/degradation data.
• perform the more comprehensive statistical analyses recommended by
Nebraska Game and Parks to evaluate the relationship between sediment
transport parameters and tern and plover nesting.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
• attach publications by Chen et al. (1999) and Missouri River Basin
Commission (1975) to the Updated Study Report.
Hydrocyling
• conduct the study’s sediment transport analysis using HEC-RAS.
By letter filed on November 19, 2010, Loup Power District proposed to file a
revised Initial Study Report with the Commission on February 11, 2011, and to hold an
updated Study Results Meetings in Columbus, NE on February 23-24, 2011, to discuss
the results of studies 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12, which have been delayed because of adverse
weather conditions. I approve this rescheduling of the second Initial Study Results
Meeting for the five remaining studies.
No other modifications to the study plan are needed. The procedures for
implementing these modifications and my reasons for requiring them as well as for not
making other recommended modifications are explained in detail in Appendix A.
If you have any questions, please contact Lee Emery at (202) 502-8379 or
Lee.Emery@ferc.gov.
cc: Mailing List
Public File
3
Sincerely,
Jeff C. Wright
Director
Office of Energy Projects

APPENDIX A
Staff’s Recommendations and Findings on Requested Study Modifications
Below, we discuss the comments on the Initial Study Report, filed on August 27,
2010, and provide our basis for requiring or not requiring certain modifications to the
Study Plan.
Study 1.0 – Sedimentation
1. Requested Modification
FWS recommended that ranges of uncertainty be included for all study segment
results, including annual and seasonal estimates of sediment transport. In support of its
recommendation, FWS stated that the uncertainty associated with the calibration should
be transparent and incorporated into the overall analysis. In response, Loup Power
District stated that it does not agree that ranges of uncertainty are required for the data
and instead states that the preferred method of evaluating the uncertainties and variability
associated with the sediment data is by visual assessment. However, Loup Power District
stated that if it is required to provide the ranges of uncertainty, it can only provide the
information for its own data presented in the Sedimentation Study Report 1
and not the
data it presented that was gathered by others.
Discussion and Conclusions
FWS’ request appears to reference the sediment rating curves presented in the
Sedimentation Study Report. These plots include the observed data, regression lines,
equations of the regression lines, and coefficients of determination. 2
Confidence limits indicate the reliability of an estimate by describing the
boundaries of the interval around the values determined by use of the regression line.
Data falling inside selected confidence limits are considered significant and data falling
outside the selected confidence limits are considered not significant. In hydrology, the
confidence limits are generally chosen at a level of between 80 and 95 percent. 3
1
This report is included as Appendix A of the Initial Study Report filed by Loup
Power District on August 27, 2010.
2
A coefficient of determination provides a measure of the difference between the
variance of the observed (actual) values and the values determined by use of the equation
of the regression line.
3
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY. 1,418 pp.

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
Including confidence limits on the plots would effectively communicate the
uncertainty of the data used in the analysis as requested by the FWS. We do not agree
with Loup Power District that a visual assessment would be sufficient. Although a visual
assessment would allow one to observe the variability, it does not indicate whether or not
the variability is significant. Therefore, we recommend that Loup Power District modify
the sediment rating curves to include confidence limits at a minimum of an 80 percent
confidence level. The modified sediment rating curves should be incorporated into the
Updated Study Report.
We agree with Loup Power District that they should not be responsible for
evaluating the uncertainty for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measurements that were
presented in the report. Therefore, we do not recommend that Loup Power District do so.
However, we recommend that the sediment rating curves developed by Loup Power
District using USGS measurements include the confidence limits where the curves are
used by Loup Power District to develop the sediment budgets or effective discharges
presented in the Updated Study Report.
2. Requested Modification
FWS recommended that an aggradation/degradation analysis conducted by Chen
et al. (1999) be expanded by the Loup Power District to include updated stream gage
information for the Loup River near Genoa (Gage 06793000) and Columbus
(Gage 06794500), and for the Platte River at North Bend (Gage 06796000), and that
Chen’s (1999) analysis should be updated to use more current data (i.e., 1995 to present).
Loup Power District would include the results of this analysis in its Sedimentation Study
Report.
Loup Power District did not respond directly to the request to expand the analysis
to include gage data from the Loup River at Genoa and Columbus, and the Platte River at
North Bend; however, Loup Power District noted that it had used more current data from
the Duncan (1997-2007), North Bend (1989-2007), Ashland (1995-2007), and Louisville
(1985-2007) gages on the Platte River. 4
Loup Power District added that the analysis of
these four gages was included in section 5 of the Pre-Application Document (PAD).
Discussion and Conclusions
An assessment of aggradation/degradation on the Loup River is missing from the
Loup Power District’s analysis. This information is needed for us to assess
aggradation/degradation conditions on the Loup River, which is part of the project’s
available.
4 The period 1985 to 2007 was selected because the data was electronically
2

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
affected environment. Therefore, we recommend that Loup Power District conduct an
aggradation/degradation analysis using data from the Genoa gage as recommended by the
FWS and include the results in its Updated Study Report.
However, we do not recommend that the Loup Power District expand the analysis
to include more recent data from the Loup River at the Columbus gage as recommended
by FWS. The most recent data from the Columbus gage is from September 23, 2008 to
the present. This most recent record is too short to provide any meaningful information.
Therefore, we do not recommend adding more recent data from the Columbus gage to the
Loup Power District’s sedimentation study report.
As to FWS’ recommendation that Loup Power District’s analysis include data
from the North Bend gage, we note that the Loup Power District has already developed
its analysis of the aggradation/degradation component of the sedimentation study for the
North Bend gage as well as the Duncan, Ashland, and Louisville gages. The analysis of
aggradation/degradation at these gages was reported in the PAD, but not in the Initial
Study Report. This analysis is important to our understanding of aggradation/degradation
both upstream and downstream of the project. Therefore, we recommend that Loup
Power District include in the Updated Study Report the aggradation/degradation analysis
for these four gages that was presented in the PAD.
3. Requested Modification
FWS recommended using the Kendall tau test to assess trends in aggradation and
degradation. However, FWS did not provide a discussion as to why it was
recommending the Kendall tau test. In its November 24, 2010 filing, Loup Power
District responded that they would perform the Kendall tau test and report the results in
the Updated Study Report.
Discussion and Conclusions
The Kendall tau test is a nonparametric statistic used to measure the association
between two measured quantities through the computation of a correlation coefficient
(tau). Loup Power District agreed to use the Kendall tau test to assess trends in
aggradation/degradation at the selected stream cross sections for the sedimentation study
and include results of this analysis in the Updated Study Report. We agree that
performance of the Kendall tau test could be useful for assessing trends in
aggradation/degradation within project area waters. We could use this information as
part of our assessment of project effects on sedimentation and any related effects on
plover and tern habitat. Therefore, we recommend that Loup Power District use the
Kendall tau test to assess trends in aggradation/degradation within project area waters and
include this analysis in the Updated Study Report.
3

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
4. Requested Modification
Nebraska Game and Parks made several suggestions on ways of improving the
statistical analysis in evaluating sediment transport and its effects on nesting conditions
for terns and plovers. These suggestions include: (1) use of a nonparametric test to
assess the data, unless it can be shown that a parametric test is appropriate (i.e., if it can
be shown that the data is normally distributed); (2) identify the sources of observed
outliers presented in the report; (3) provide significance tests, P-values, and estimates of
error for the data; (4) use a model-based or Bayesian analysis to analyze the data; (5)
simplify the analysis by conducting a correlation, multivariate, or principal components
analysis to reduce the number of dependent variables; (6) apply tests of significance to
regression and correlation analyses presented in the report; and (7) use a Generalized
Linear Model with either a logistic regression or Poisson regression in place of the linear
regressions presented in the report.
Loup Power District responded that it was currently reviewing the use of the
statistical analyses recommendations provided by Nebraska Game and Parks, would also
research other statistical analyses, and include any specific analyses in the Updated Study
Report.
Discussion and Conclusions
Nebraska Game and Parks suggestions for a more complete evaluation of the data,
including but not limited to, a more detailed data summary, discussion, and subsequent
application of the most appropriate test(s) and/or statistical model(s) with respect to the
distribution of the data set, as well as describing estimates of confidence and error would
improve the strength of the statistical analyses included in the Initial Study Report and
provide a more comprehensive assessment of the relationship between the sediment
transport parameters and nesting of terns and plovers. Therefore, we recommend that the
study plan be modified to require Loup Power District to incorporate the suggestions
provided by Nebraska Game and Parks and provide the results in the Updated Study
Report. If Loup Power District determines through its analysis of the data that a
particular suggestion should not be followed, Loup Power District should provide its
reasons for not adopting the suggestion in its Updated Study Report.
5. Requested Modification
Loup Power District’s responses to FWS’ various requested study modifications
reference two reports:
4

Loup River Hydroelectric Project
Project No. 1256-029-Nebraska
5
• Chen, Abraham H., David L. Rus, and C.P. Stanton. 1999. “Trends in
Channel Gradation in Nebraska Streams, 1913-95.” USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 99-4103. Lincoln, Nebraska.
• Missouri River Basin Commission. September 1975. “Platte River Basin –
Nebraska, Level B Study, Land Conservation and Sedimentation.”
Technical Paper.
Discussion and Conclusions
The information in these two publications, including, methodologies, results, and
conclusions, are frequently discussed and cited in the Sedimentation Study Report;
however, the publications are not in the Commission’s project record for staff’s use.
Therefore, we recommend that the study plan be modified to require that Loup Power
District attach these two publications to the Updated Study Report.
Study 2.0 – Hydrocycling
1. Requested Modification
Commission staff requested that Loup Power District conduct the sediment
transport analysis portion of the Hydrocycling Study using HEC-RAS. In its
November 24, 2010 filing, Loup Power District responded that it agreed to use the
sediment transport module within HEC-RAS to address staff’s request.
Discussion and Conclusions
Sediment transport analysis using the HEC-RAS model has been successfully used
in numerous studies of the type and manner conducted for the Loup Project. The HEC-
RAS model has the ability to provide data that predicts whether there would be
aggradation or degradation of the channel for various project operations. More
specifically, the model output could be used to evaluate the relative effects of project
operations on sediment transport, channel geometry, and water surface. This sediment
transport and hydraulic information would be used in determining an assessment of
environmental effects caused by the proposed project operations. Therefore, we
recommend that the study plan be modified to specifically require that Loup Power
District use HEC-RAS for its sediment transport analysis. The results should be filed in
the Updated Study Report.