Application for CUP to Replace a US Cellular Communications Tower near Valentine

Comments submitted at a public hearing held by the Cherry County Commissioners in response to an application for a Conditional Use Permit to replace a US Cellular wireless tower north of Valentine; May 29, 2018. Copies of my prepared comments were provided to each commissioner, the county clerk and the newly elected commissioner who will take office in January. Some friends were also shown the text before and after its presentation.

 

Applicant Comments

Shawn Kellis, the representative for the US Cellular applicant, once again started the public hearing. He started his comments by at least referring to the street address of the project, which is apparently on Jackson Road. The need for the replacement tower was the acquisition of Western Wireless, so local service was now nearly entirely “maxed out.” Kellis indicated that the use of a monopole tower would reduce the tower footprint to 75 by 100 feet, in comparison to the five acres needed by the current tower with its guy-wires. The applicant representative indicated that the lesser footprint for the tower would allow land to be returned to a grassland condition, though no actual details were given. It was not indicated if the overall area included the tower equipment building and fencing.

Commissioner Van Winkle stressed the necessity to colocate county emergency equipment, as had been required for all recent wireless tower projects. Details for this were no apparent in the application and further details had to be found so that a statement of understanding would be included in any CUP approval.

The construction of a new tower and removal of the old tower would be one continuous process, Kellis said, with weather a obvious variable. No timeline details were given in the CUP application.

Ducey Comments

During the first of the morning, the zoning administrator was asked in any supplemental information had been provided for this CUP application. Her response was no. The actual words spoken adhere to these primary points but at times additional verbiage was used to emphasize a point.

A public hearing held [May 1] by the Planning Board, they failed to suitably several items listed under section 6.12 in the zoning regulations. Their failure is indicative that their approval was based on incorrect action. The zoning board should be held accountable for this failure and all of them should be removed from the board except for Michael MacLeod.

It is the responsibility of county commissioners to appoint members to the Planning and Zoning Board so it is their responsibility to ensure that eight of the members [should] be removed immediately and others appointed that will be accountable to the residents of Cherry county and [deal with] regulations as they have volunteered to do.

Public Notice

There are obvious problems with the public notice issued for CUP 002/18. They included:

1) This CUP application is not authorized under anything, it is regulated by; only the county commissioners can authorize anything.

2) The CUP application is regulated by Section 10 as well as section 612 of the zoning regulations, though only section 10 was mentioned.

3) This is not a tower update, it is a tower replacement. An update refers to changes to a current tower and the way the public notice reads, it seemingly states that a current tower will be modified to a 280’ self-supporting tower. This is not the case, as a new tower will be constructed.

4) The location of the proposed tower was not indicated by a legal description [while at least the applicant did this time provide an address necessary for emergency services.]

Section 612 Radio, Television and Wireless Communication Towers

"Missing from the CUP applicant and material provided to the zoning administrator are these items as specifically referred to in the Cherry County zoning regulations. None of this material has been available for public review, neither.

Section 612.01 Intent

“Telecommunication facilities, towers and antennas in the County, to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impact due to the installation of towers and antennas through special design, siting, and camouflaging, to promote and encourage shared use/collocation of towers and other antenna support structures rather than the construction of additional single use towers, to avoid potential damage to property caused by towers, telecommunications facilities and antennas. … Also to ensure such structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained, repaired and removed when no longer used or are determined to be structurally unsound and to ensure that towers and antennas are compatible with surrounding land uses.”

"There is no mention in the CUP application on how camouflaging will be used to screen the tower property tract, notably landscaping such as planting trees to mask the fence, building and base of the tower. [Commissioner Storer had said previously in association with a wireless tower placement near Arabia that the commissioners could not tell the applicant what to do, but this clause indicates they can.]

"How has the applicant indicated that a cellular tower is compatible with “surrounding land uses” which includes, residential acreages and agricultural-related uses? There is also Government Canyon, which is a [nearby] state of Nebraska wildlife management area established and maintained for many years for a wide variety of outdoor recreation pursuits. The proposed tower is an industrial use and does not conform to any of these land uses and their associated values.

Section 612.03

“2. No proposed tower shall be located within five miles of any existing tower, without approval of the Cherry county Board of Commissioners.”

How can this criteria be suitably evaluated if the necessary information is not provided with the applicant’s request?

“4. ... Upon completion of construction of a tower and prior to the commencement of use, an engineer’s certification that the tower is structurally sound and in conformance with all of the aforementioned applicable regulatory standards shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator.”

There was no item found in the application on how the applicant will comply with this regulation, nor the timeframe when it will be completed? [The applicant representative indiated that engineering drawings fulfilled this requirement.]

Section 612.04

“1. ... Applicants shall include the owner of the tract of land and all persons having an ownership interest in the proposed tower. The application shall be executed by all applicants.”

These details were not found in the applicant’s request packet. And note that the zoning regulations states “all persons” having an ownership interest, not just the company business name. “All persons” indicates everyone that has any ownership stake in the US Cellular. This would perhaps include users of the companies’ cellular service? This application was not “executed” by all applicants, but instead by an “agent” company for the owner of the proposed tower. [Not a single owner associated with US Cellular was indicated by the project application.]

“2. The legal description and address of the tract of land on which the tower is to be located.”

There is no apparent proper road address included with the application that is a requirement for emergency response crews. Also, there is only a partial, and insufficient legal description; indicating the north one-half of a section is not detailed enough for a facility as small as the communications tower tract which is just relatively a short bunch of feet in extent. The quarter section should be specifically indicated, and even more details as appropriate.

“3. An affidavit attesting to the fact that the applicant has made diligent but unsuccessful effort to obtain permission to install or collocate the applicant’s telecommunication facilities on a tower or useable antenna support or written technical evidence from an engineer that the applicant’s telecommunications facilities cannot be installed or collocated on another tower or useable antenna support structure.”

This affidavit was not provided in the material provided to the zoning office, as it was not found among the application material available for review at the zoning administrator office on the morning of 26 April. Any cost to conduct this evaluation and prepare this affidavit should be paid for by the CUP applicant, and should be done by an independent engineer, not a company employee, nor a hired agent submitting the application, and not an employee of a subsidiary company of the applicant. This affidavit needs to represent an independent and non-biased perspective.

“5. Designation of an appropriate space for Cherry County’s operational and emergency services communication equipment to be provided at no cost to the County by the applicant.”

How has the applicant indicated that this requirement will be met?

Section 612.06

“4. Towers must meet the following minimum separation requirements from other towers:

“A. Monopole tower structures shall be separated from all other towers, whether monopole, self-supporting lattice, or guyed by a minimum of 750 feet.

“B. Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from all other self-supporting lattice or guyed towers by a minimum of 1,500 feet.”

Building a new monopole tower within less than 100 feet of another tower does not conform to these zoning regulations. Any excuse that one tower will replace another means this regulation will temporarily not be in compliance [i.e., when will the old tower be removed?]. The regulations are obvious ... remove the first tower and then build the new tower to comply with this zoning requirement.

The applicant reconsidered thie item and provided further details on when the previous tower would be removed.”

No one else spoke in opposition to the tower. No one spoke in favor of the tower.

Further Discussion

Commissioner Jim Van Winkle expressed his ongoing intent to have colocation of services on common towers and was important to him and for which he has had no success.

My response, despite an attempt by the chair to say the public hearing was closed so further comments could not be spoken, my voice continued: Where is the affidavit in the CUP application that indicates this was considered? No written details were given by any public official.

The former interim zoning administrator, Gary Weaver, then said that adjacent landowners were in favor of the tower, based upon zoning meeting testimony. My instant response was that there were no adjacent landowners that spoke in favor of the tower at that meeting. Weaver’s response was that no one said anything in opposition.

It was warm in the meeting room, with a single open window that provided a slight wind and an open door into the hallway where county court participants were actively talking, and loudly heard.

Due to time constraints, the commissioners seemed to agree to a time limit of 60 days for the old tower to be removed, once construction of the new tower was complete. Since documents had to be revised, there was a delay in the final vote.

It was obvious that approval would occur. The resolution for approval was not only already completed and ready for the commissioner’s signature, but the applicants representative was heard saying that the new tower had already been ordered.

The transition of the towers was expected to be finished by the end of this summer.

"It was the consensus of the Board to table formal action on the CUP application to the June 12, 2018 meeting," according to the meeting minutes.

Public Comment on CUP Application Fee in Cherry County

Comments during the public comment period on May 29, 2018 at Cherry County Commissioners meeting. Slight changes to improve syntax have been made. The written word can be so different from what is said! Prepared comments were provided to each commissioner, the county clerk and the newly elected commissioner who will take office in January. Some friends were also shown the text before and after its presentation.

The first thing spoken about was directed at Commissioner Tonya Storer. I was not a guest at the meeting. Neither were others in attendance that were not public officials or employees or company representative.

We were not “guests” as she had referred to four of us – the actual count being five – during an introduction for a morning telephone conference with a health care provider.

My concern with that so wrong attribution happened later after lunch at the Coachlight, when the public comment period started close to 1 p.m., back in the too warm commissioners room. The point being that we are not guests; we were not invited. We came on our own volition and because of our own choice. Upon her initiating the wrong use of language, and in response to her asking what we should be called, the words citizens and residents were suggested, but then it was indicated that there was no need for any term to be used. At least she said that she did not mean any disrespect.

This same point had been made previously at a Planning and Zoning Board meeting. At that time, a dictionary was used to convey the definition of guest and how it did not apply to the many concerned citizens present. The hired woman who had used the terminology in the meeting minutes she prepared, did not subsequently return after this point was strongly indicated.

Prepared Comments

“This is a request that the filing fee for industrial project Conditional Use Permits within Cherry county should be increased to $500 [revised from an initial amount of $250, following a Main Street consultation]. This would include wireless towers, communication towers, solar projects, any wind turbine project and confined animal feeding facilities.

“The current fee of $50 is completely inadequate. The applicant pays a relatively trivial sum and then profits from their construction.

“The county residents have to cover the cost to pay the zoning administrators salary, and they often spend many hours on these projects, often many more than are covered by the $50 fee.

“Also, why should Cherry county residents have to pay to receive what is basically public information. The $500 fee would cover the cost of providing some copies so residents can read and learn about a project for which they many have some concern.

“Also, the applicant should be required to provide a copy of the CUP material in a PDF format so rather than having to make print copies, an electronic copy can be obtained at no cost. There should be no fee for the minute or two it takes to transfer a file from a computer to a zip drive.

“Besides, county resident have to deal with many unwanted aftermaths [of industrial projects] – including visual pollution, loss of dark night skies, destruction of visual landscapes, unwanted bird mortality to collisions with towers, etc., while the companies make profit for business owners which primarily do not live within many miles of a wireless tower, for example.

“There should be no burden on the county budget and its residents because an applicant for any sort of industrial project development in Cherry county places the monetary burden on the county rather than be responsible for what they are imposing within Cherry county.”

Following my comments, the commissioners had no response; then went through subsequent agenda items continued so my statement was entirely ignored.

Evaluation of Known Memoranda of Agreement for Wind Turbine Facilities, Cherry County

Prepared by James E. Ducey, Valentine, initially in May 8, 2016; revised and updated November-December, 2017. Version 2.1. This is a draft document and subject to change as it is a paradox to determine the actuality of the records, despite a reliance on official government records since expressed details by the wind turbine proponents do not match the official county records.

This is an evaluation of land owners who have knowingly signed an agreement with Cherry County Wind LLC to allow development of wind turbine facilities on their property. The agreements officially filed within a Cherry county office would allow the development of wind turbines and have been reestablished by the controlling entity, Bluestem Sandhills LLC.

Details were derived from documents in Book 50 and Book 52 of Miscellaneous Agreements, kept in the Cherry county deed office. For those entities that had agreements filed in 2015, an “Amended and Restated Abstract/Memorandum of Agreement” was filed in late October, 2017.

The overall acreage for these entities is a sum of 352,010+ acres for the known agreements filed and available for public review at the county deed records office. There are fewer than fifty individual parties indicated by these documents.

It should be noted that for a couple of the ranch properties, the parcels indicated by the agreement are less than the overall extent of acreage indicated by the county GIS records, as available online in late November. In one instance, a parcel properties indicated with the agreement differs actual extent of acreage as denoted in county assessor records. There is one instance where the acreage parcels indicated in 2015 differ from those indicated in 2017 in the amended agreement. Note the examples where the enrolled acreage is less than 640 acres. Also indicated in this comparison is the enrollment of property owners that have an indicated address outside of Nebraska, obviously showing the involvement of absentee landowners.

Any consideration of these details is limited by the lack of legal records. It is obvious from comments presented in recent months during hearings in Cherry county meetings, that additional parties are associated with Cherry County Wind, LLC. There is an example to consider as associated with the Adamson family and their corporate entities.

It needs to be indicated that it is nearly impossible to derive any sort of accurate figure. There are sources
of errors which prevent an accurate tally. While reconsidering records associated with publicly-owned Board of Educational Lands and Funds, there were errors. Some of the parcels listed in the agreement were not indicated in the tally of parcels given in a legal document filed in December 2015. Another parcel is not indicated as a BELF parcel in the online county GIS details, though a legally filed agreement indicates it as such. Another parcel is shown by two versions of plat maps as being privately owned, though the section is listed as being owned by the BELF, according to documentation filed as associated with Cherry County Wind, LLC.

It also needs to be realized that changes in this information may occur, based upon details given with any amended and restated details of agreement as filed near the end of October, 2017. These documents have not been reviewed.

The reality is that it is nearly impossible to actually determine an accurate figure for land ownership. There are too many errors associated with the sources used to evaluate the details. This is problematic, as errors occur in the online record-base as provided by Cherry county, as well as the documents filed in the county courthouse. The base records may be accurate, but it would require an extensive evaluation to be completely accurate. Therefore this evaluation is an approximation.

Some of the areas indicated may not be suitable for development of a turbine facility. Based upon their small extent and configuration the property lines or distance from an occupied dwelling may not comply with zoning regulations. This can be determined further once the changes to the Cherry county zoning regulations are approved by the county commissioners.

There has to be other land owners involved with Cherry County Wind LLC, based upon the claims of the business entity. All of the following locales are within Cherry county.

Abbott Cattle Company	Gordon (ranch in western Cherry county)	48,676 acres1	( B
Taylor G. and Kerri Adamson	Bluejacket, OK	1240	( B
Todd M. Adamson	Cody	2706	( A
Jeanne K. Ang and Wayne R. Wright	Spring Grove, IL	1431	( C
William D. Barner and Donalee A. Berner	Mullen (ranch in Cherry county)	1104	( C
Board of Educational Lands and Funds	Lincoln (prominent locale along Highway 83 in southern Cherry County, north of Thedford)	26,491	( C
Bow & Arrow, LLC	Auburn, AL	20,224	( C
Broken Box Company (Rex Adamson)	Cody	37,002	( B
Glen Coble and Sons, Inc. (Matt G. Coble)	Mullen	19,922	( A
Don Cox Ranch Company	Mullen	6167	( B
Donald B. and Deborah S. Cox	Mullen	640	( B
Curtis Ranch, Inc. (Marie Wiese)	Whitman (ranch west of the headwaters of the North Loup River)	6120	( B
Donald D. and Jolene M. Grunhaupt	Crookston	760	( B
Reed Hamilton Ranch, Inc. (David W. Hamilton)	Thedford	5733	( B
Henderson Land and Livestock Company (Michael Henderson)	Whitman (ranch to north in Cherry county)	11,372	( B
Casey L. Henderson	Hyannis (parcel in Cherry county)	640	( B
Elmus M. and Tonya J. Henderson	Whitman	7142	( A
Larry and Carolynn T. Henderson	Whitman	15,698	( B
Mark E. Johnson	Kilgore	447	( C
Mark and Janelle Johnson	Kilgore	615 2	( C
Krajeski and Johnson, Inc. (John Johnson)	Cody	2598	( B
Krajeski and Johnson, Inc.	Cody	2440	( B
Robert B. Lord; Robert B. and Donna Mae Lord	Lamar, CO	9001	( C
Robert B. Lord, Wendy Fritzler and Phy Lord	Lamar, CO	2454	( C
Dean R. and Jennifer A. Marsh	Kearney	1259	( C
Robert J. Marsh; Robert J. and Peggy L. Marsh	Mullen	1393	( C
Wade W. Marsh and Kelly M. Marsh	Minden	320	( C
Lyn J. (DeNaeyer) Messersmith	Alliance	8080	( A
Matthew A. Miles and Carmen V. Miles	Brownlee	1465	( B
North LLC (Marian L. Nutter)	Thedford	4683	( C
Daniel W. and Shirley E. Osborn	Mullen (ranch in Cherry county)	2836	( C
Michael Don Peterson and Tammy J. Peterson	Kilgore	399	( C
Ivan R. and Phyllis M. Phillips	Whitman	1829	( B
Lyle D. and Twila F. Phillips	Mullen	1888	( C
John N. and Patsy L. Phipps	Whitman	1680	( B
Duane R. and Carolyn J. Porath	Valentine	631	( A
Powderhorn Ranch, Inc. (William W. Fischer)	Nenzel	12,281	( A
Ridenour Land and Cattle, Ltd. (Larry Ridenour)	Mullen	7493	( C
Rocking J Taylor Company (Taylor Adamson)	Cody	3712	( C
Rocking J Todd Company (Todd Adamson)	Cody	16,140	( B
S.K.K.B. Carpenter Ranch, LLC (Larry Ridenour)	Mullen	5560	( C
Fink-Sheer Inc. (Kevin Sheer)	Elsmere	2989	( C
Nancy and Robert Sinnett	Valentine	2684	( C
South LLC (Marian L. Nutter)	Thedford	2863	( B
Sunny Slope Ranch, Inc. (Adam Fischer)	Valentine	9730	( B
Three Bar Cattle Company (John W. Ravenscroft, a former county commissioner)	Nenzel	26,694	( C
James L. and Michalene R. Van Winkle (he has been a county commissioner for years with his tenure ending December, 2018)	Wood Lake	657	( A
Yeager Ranch Land, Inc. (Rex Adamson)	Cody	4121	( B
( 1 Acreage totals have been rounded to the nearest whole number ( A – total given with document ( B – summation of parcel acres given with document ( C – parcel acreage as derived from county GIS and other assessor records ( 2 Acreage total 615 with 2015 agreement and 447 acres in 2017 amended document

Known investors in Cherry County Wind LLC

March 2018 image courtesy of Tyler Rath, who developed the may based upon details indicated by this report.

It should be noted that this summary information does not conform to the acreage and membership details indicated by Cherry County Wind LLC, with additional unknown details that would be indicative.

Special Recognition Given to Unique Nebraska Conservationist

Two events occurred during mid-May to recognize the many efforts by Ione Werthman a farm girl raised near Coleridge, Nebr. Her educational focus and concerns for the natural features would after years of interest and concern become a unique and special legacy associated with getting things done to protect natural resources in Nebraska.

A first recognition event occurred Thursday, May 17^th at Heron Haven Wetland in west Omaha at the nature center which Ione was instrumental in working with the local NRD to establish a place where natural values continue on a daily basis at a prominent natural area within a developed urban environment filled with streets and buildings.

A proclamation issued by the Omaha City Council indicated it was “Ione Werthman Day.” A key aspect was that the city street on the north side of the haven was officially redesignated as “Ione Werthman Drive.”

More than 20 people were at the haven nature center event, according to a member of the Werthman family in attendance. People present included Sam Bennett, the current president of the Friends of Heron Haven group and who was instrumental in the recognition effort, Mark Brohman the director of the Nebraska Environmental Trust who has always been supportive of funding requests to promote conservation efforts for a bit of an urban wetland filled with natural life, and other people with an interest and luminaries, including Hal Daub.

Ione Werthman won awards from the Nebraska Wildlife Federation and National Audubon Society for her efforts, according to the proclamation signed by each member of the Omaha city council. This indicated item conveys a basic tenant given for the distinctive honoree: “Whereas, Ione Werthman has been referred to as a fierce protector of wildlife and one of Nebraska’s iconic conservationists” ...

It is very obvious that even years after her active efforts that some key people recognized a legacy and undertook successful efforts to recognize a personal legacy.

Valentine Recognition

During a drizzly, cool afternoon when incessant rain fell upon Valentine environs on Saturday the 19^th, a fine group of people gathered to convey how so many did so many essential actions that resulted in the establishment of the Niobrara National Scenic River. The appreciation meeting was sponsored by the National Park Service.

There were many “Great Americans” recognized. Obviously Ione Werthamn and her husband Al were actively involved once efforts to conserve the free-flowing Niobrara River became an issue of a broad public concern.

Ione and Al’s son Jerry spoke first, and was “thankful for what my mom and dad did” while he shared some particular highlights of their legacy. Ione followed her husband as a leader of the Audubon Society of Omaha, then Nebraska Audubon Council and then to a national level as a member of the board of directors for National Audubon Society. She traveled to Washington D.C. three times to promote the designation of a significant portion of the Niobrara as a scenic river.

Also present was the couple’s daughter Jeanne.

In subsequent years, she was the key force behind the founding of Heron Haven, protecting a relic wetland from development and then directing its establishment as a distinct nature area with a nature center in a former bar.

An especially prominent event at the celebration was the unveiling of a framed document recognizing Ione’s involvement in getting the scenic river established. The wall hanging was loaned to the National Park Service for display at the Niobrara Scenic River visitor center.

Werthman Family at the recognition event at Valentine.

Many names were mentioned when Bruce Kennedy, member of Friends of the Niobrara River, spoke. He mentioned that the 1970s were “a dark period of those who loved rivers” in Nebraska. There were plans to place dams on the Platte, Calamus and Niobrara rivers. “Leadership emerged,” he said. “It was one of the most fantastic things I’ve ever seen.”

Ione Werthman was a member of the friends group since its beginning, and continues to be listed as a member, despite her death in 2016.

The extent of people that cared increased when Mel Thorton dramatically indicated his recollections. People individually recognized included Ron Klataska associated with the National Audubon Society (Kennedy recalled his horseback ride along the river valley to promote the scenic river; he initially bought the property that would eventually become the Fred Thomas WMA at the east end of the scenic river; and as a leader of the Audubon of Kansas was instrumental in establishing the Hutton Niobrara Ranch Wildlife Sanctuary along the Niobrara River), Fred Thomas an environmental reporter for the Omaha World-Herald that was an essential asset as he wrote of news and activities and continually contributed through reporting and personal interest until his death in 1999 with the Fred Thomas WMA officially dedicated in October 1999, Laura and Merle Curry, Franklin and Lillie Egelhoff, Loren Wilson who was one of the first outfitters along the river, Ernest Rousek and Tim Knott (he accompanied Ione to Washingto D.C. to speak to legislators about the need for a scenic river) of Audubon, as well as Wes Sandall an area rancher.

“These are our great Americans,” said Bruce Kennedy.

Mel Thorton talked about the effort to split an acre of land near Rocky Ford into 4840 square yard parcels that were sold for $25 each so that any effort to build a dam would have to individually deal with each owner. He explained that in 2008 the Niobrara River was listed as one of the ten most threatened river in the nation due to water being taken for irrigation purposes. Soon, the river was declared to be fully appropriated, impeding any further extractions.

Having an opportunity to personally comment, it was simply wonderful to remember an activist of past times. Ione Werthman was a compatriot. We were a team. We were goal oriented. If someone told us No, that was simply the wrong answer because there are times when that single word was a call to further action and “digging in the heels” to ensure conservation of something essential and valuable. Were we always successful? Of course not but we were still very effective. Ione and I learned as we collaborated together on activities mostly done in association with the Audubon society.

We would not let some bureaucrat impose their view that a development that would destroy uniquely valuable natural values because of the perceived need for something like a dam to provide water to irrigate corn fields. Or in later years to allow a natural spring book to get put into a culvert because engineers did not put in the time to achieve what had already been agreed to. The bureaucrats may have changed their mind, but an adamant no meant a redesign that meant there would be no culvert for the brook at Spring Lake Park, a City of Omaha project that would eventually win an environmental award for its design and implementation.

When attending a recognition dinner for having received environmentalist of the year award from Woodmen (for getting conservation management at a small public land parcel at Levi Carter Park), I made sure to invite Ione and insisted that she speak and share some of her recollections. She was the one that deserved the award. It was grand that she could share the spotlight and be publicly acknowledged.

I still remember visiting Ione in her room at the assisted living facility just a short distance from where she knew my family as we were active participants in the local church community.

Ione was my friend and I am pleased to have her been her ally and to have been helped her to get an oprational windmill from a Cherry county ranch at get it erected at Heron Haven. This effort failed, probably because she could be less involved as age was having its affect.
Perhaps, as an option, a Sandhills windmill should be placed at Rocky Ford if/when it becomes another unique river asset that the public can appreciate and treasure now and for future generations.

Ione Werthman was certainly a Great American. Her legacy continues to be known by activists including those involved in the conservation movement for so many past years, while new generations very much appreciate the Niobrara National Scenic River and Heron Haven.

There are some very prominent conservation concerns along the Niobrara River and the Sand Hills. It is heartening that several ranch women have stepped to the plate and are essential in efforts to protect the sandhills from industrial wind turbine facilities and industrial powerlines. Ione would certainly be pleased about this...

Wildbirds Observed During April at Valentine, NE

It was another distinctive month for wildbirds present Valentine, Cherry County. A big difference for sightings during April this year was providing bird seed. It was so much easier to make observations when birds would be readily visible outside the window or front door rather than going in search of them. Feed is refreshed daily, and on occasion, more than once per day since the birds can be very hungry.

This gobbler was looking in the north window in early morning on April 28th, perhaps to see if the resident birder was awake and going to spread more seed for his companion turkeys to eat?

The Valentine Mill Pond was a prime place for waterfowl, and the results are indicative. Two species added to the overall regional tally from this locale were the Redhead and Bufflehead. There were also larger numbers of the Northern Shoveler (with the best occurrence in a flock number along Minnechaduza Creek, west of Highway 83), Gadwall and Green-winged Teal. Several sorts of waterfowl appreciate the cattail wetlands at the west end of the Valentine Mill Pond, just east of Highway 83. The Snow Goose was a flyover species, as was the Sandhill Crane, with the majority observed on a single day when numerous flocks were moving northward, with kettling in a spectacular manner over the pine-covered hills at the north edge of the city. Wild Turkey liked the free food and once the flock arrived as winter waned, they were daily visitors. There was no need for a morning alarm from a clock because the gobbling sufficed to indicate it was early morning.

Missed during the month was the Franklin's Gull. This was a result of timing, as probably my time of being observant outdoors was not when flocks of this species would have been transient over the locality, as they have been seen in the past. Swallows seemed to have a later arrival this year as none were observed locally during the month.

There were lots of usual observations for the many species that regularly occur or are residential. Chimney Swift were once again present along Main Street at the end of the month. Downy Woodpecker and Hairy Woodpecker are certainly local residents but they are not seen on a regular basis. Once the Icterids arrived, they became very common at the bird seed, with many Red-winged Blackbird, Brown-headed Cowbird and Common Grackle present daily. Their antics can be quite amusing, especially when a couple of the black birds have a dispute over a bit of seed when a few feet away there are seeds where there are no birds foraging. A male Northern Cardinal may not occur at the bird seed buffet on a daily basis, but it also needs to be noted that it may not be heard singing every day at the tree line just to the west. At least the small sparrows had a chance to feed, and often more seed was not put out to facilitate their feeding.

Harris's Sparrow were more prominent this spring. Larger numbers of the Dark-eyed Junco and American Tree Sparrow were counted because they were daily visitors to the bird seed buffet. The Lazuli Bunting was also seen when it foraged for a time one day at this food source.

The blizzard of April 13-14 had an impact on birds. One nest box occupied by Eastern Bluebird ended up filled to the entrance and then a crust of snow. The nest had contained five eggs, according to a local observer. The birds had not returned by the end of the month. South of the Heart City, carcasses of Sandhill Crane were found. There were other reports of crane mortality locally but the wildlife officer in the area of the Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to an inquiry for further details.

White-tailed Deer were also appreciative of having a supplemental food source, often feeding four feet outside the front door. The corn-oats-barley mix disappeared in entirety each time they arrived, as seven deer are great consumers.

What is becoming more useful is that after years of ongoing observations, particulars associated with dates of occurrence can be compared, which is why all calendar dates are converted to julian date, since calendar dates cannot be grouped in a common fashion by a database query. A standard Julian date indication is the same for a particular date in any year.

Wildbirds Observed During April at Valentine

Proper Name     Julian Date >	93	94	100	101	102	103	105	107	109	110	112	120
Canada Goose	--	12	7	80	9	--	22	--	--	12	14	8
Wood Duck	--	--	3	--	--	2	4	--	--	--	10	--
Blue-winged Teal	--	--	--	--	--	--	8	--	--	4	16	--
Northern Shoveler	--	--	--	15	--	--	2	--	--	--	32	--
Gadwall	--	--	--	--	8	--	4	--	--	7	4	--
American Wigeon	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	3	--
Mallard	--	2	2	--	6	--	--	--	--	2	2	--
Green-winged Teal	--	--	18	--	--	--	6	--	--	1	--	--
Redhead	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	1	--	--
Lesser Scaup	--	--	--	10	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bufflehead	--	3	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Wild Turkey	1	8	7	18	9	1	2	11	12	--	6	13
Great Blue Heron	--	1	1	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--	2
Double-crested Cormorant	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	--
Turkey Vulture	1	17	28	75	--	--	--	13	--	12	8	4
Sharp-shinned Hawk	--	--	1	--	--	1	1	1	--	--	--	--
Bald Eagle	--	--	--	1	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Red-tailed Hawk	--	--	1	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--
American Coot	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--
Sandhill Crane	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1400	65	--	--	--
Killdeer	1	1	1	--	--	--	1	1	--	--	1	2
Greater Yellowlegs	--	--	1	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--
American Herring Gull	--	--	4	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Rock Dove	--	--	--	--	16	--	--	--	--	--	--	1
Eurasian Collared Dove	4	--	7	--	3	8	5	--	--	4	7	9
Mourning Dove	2	2	4	3	3	3	5	--	--	4	3	3
Great Horned Owl	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--
Chimney Swift	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	3
Belted Kingfisher	1	1	1	--	1	--	1	1	--	--	1	--
Red-bellied Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--
Downy Woodpecker	1	--	1	--	--	1	3	--	--	--	1	1
Hairy Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--
Northern Flicker	--	1	1	--	--	1	1	--	--	1	2	--
Eastern Phoebe	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	4	--
Blue Jay	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--	--	--	--	3
American Crow	--	2	2	--	2	--	2	--	--	1	2	--
Black-capped Chickadee	3	--	3	--	--	--	3	--	--	--	6	3
Red-breasted Nuthatch	1	--	1	--	1	--	1	--	--	--	1	--
White-breasted Nuthatch	2	--	4	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	3	2
Brown Thrasher	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1
Common Starling	--	--	3	--	6	--	--	--	--	--	--	3
Eastern Bluebird	--	2	4	--	--	2	3	--	--	--	3	--
American Robin	--	5	23	--	10	125	4	--	--	6	44	21
House Sparrow	--	--	18	--	--	--	27	--	--	--	15	10
House Finch	2	--	6	--	4	--	6	--	--	--	13	8
American Goldfinch	--	--	3	--	--	--	20	--	--	--	5	11
Pine Siskin	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--
Yellow-headed Blackbird	--	--	--	--	--	2	2	--	--	--	--	--
Western Meadowlark	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	--	--	1	--
Red-winged Blackbird	45	--	55	--	35	85	100	--	--	105	36	--
Brown-headed Cowbird	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	8	8
Common Grackle	2	--	30	--	--	4	29	--	--	--	36	12
Song Sparrow	--	--	1	--	--	--	1	--	--	2	2	--
Lincoln's Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	2	--
Harris's Sparrow	1	--	--	--	1	1	2	--	--	--	1	--
Dark-eyed Junco	12	14	22	10	6	50	40	27	--	8	8	--
Savannah Sparrow	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	4	--	--
American Tree Sparrow	24	11	16	6	4	7	3	4	4	2	2	--
Chipping Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	3	10
Field Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--
Clay-colored Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1
Northern Cardinal	--	--	2	--	--	2	2	--	--	--	3	1
Lazuli Bunting	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1

The 63 species seen in 2018 compares to 63 in 2017 and 53 during the month in 2016. The overall tally for the three years combined is 80 species. Eventual plans are to prepare individual accounts for the more than 120 species observed in the immediate vicinity of Valentine and that would include detailed comparisons of numbers and dates of occurrence.

Wildbirds Die Due to Collisions With Spinning Blades of Wind Turbines

Wildbirds Die Due to Collisions With Spinning Blades of Industrial Wind Turbines

Wind Turbine Facilities Destroy Distinct Habitat Essential for Wildbirds

Industrial wind turbines should not be built in Cherry County, a land internationally recognized as a haven for hundreds of species of appreciated and vital wildbirds and many other sorts of fauna and flora, as based upon decades of scientific records and efforts of so many appreciative people

Elect a county commissioner candidate that will say no to industrial wind turbines in Cherry County and prevent the destruction of habitats where wildbirds thrive

My vote will be for two leaders, Michael C. Young and James B. Ward who have publicly stated they would just say NO to industrial wind turbines

Paid for by James E. Ducey, Valentine; a birder that has traveled throughout the Great American Sand Hills since 1982 to learn about wildbirds, and which has resulted in an appreciation of the many important natural resources in the regions. These assets need to be recognized now so they can be present for future generations.

May 9, 2018. [Wildbirds die due to collisions with spinning blades of wind turbines.] Valentine Midland News 46(45): 11. A paid advertisement. The cost was $108.

Application for Replacement of a US Cellular Communications Tower

Comments submitted to Cherry County Planning and Zoning Board by James E. Ducey; May 1, 2018. A copy of these comments was provided to each member of the board.

A public hearing cannot be held on this Conditional Use Permit 002/18 request to replace a communications tower north of Valentine because the application is not complete. There was not a suitable public notice as a single sentence within an ongoing paragraph on the public notice of the local newspaper is not sufficient, especially in comparison to the more prominent public notice issued for a public hearing at the county commissioner meeting.

The application associated with CUP 002/18 should not even be considered, and especially not approved, because it is deplorably inadequate. It does not include many items as required by Cherry County Zoning regulations, dating to 2008. The following refer to a specific item(s) as required for any CUP proposed and as applied for by the CUP application for this site.

This is "exhibit two" which was submitted to show the locations of residential dwellings. This aerial photo depicts a locality and does not indicate a single dwelling.

Application item Number 4, item g: “The locations of residential dwellings and other non-agricultural land uses within four miles of the property to be affected by the proposed Conditional Use.”

The application refers to Diagram 2. This large-scale aerial photograph diagram does not have any of the detail necessary to determine any of the many residences within four miles of the site that will be affected by the proposed conditional use. Also, obviously, any other land uses are not indicated, including wildlife, park areas and natural spaces owned by the citizens of Valentine.

Also missing from the CUP applicant and application material provided to the zoning administrator are these items as specifically referred to in the Cherry County zoning regulations.

Section 612.01 Intent

“Telecommunication facilities, towers and antennas in the County, to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impact due to the installation of towers and antennas through special design, siting, and camouflaging, to promote and encourage shared use/collocation of towers and other antenna support structures rather than the construction of additional single use towers, to avoid potential damage to property caused by towers, telecommunications facilities and antennas. ... Also to ensure such structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained, repaired and removed when no longer used or are determined to be structurally unsound and to ensure that towers and antennas are compatible with surrounding land uses.”

There is no mention in the CUP application on how camouflaging will be used to screen the tower property tract, notably landscaping such as planting trees to mask the fence, building and base of the tower.

How has the applicant indicated that a cellular tower is compatible with “surrounding land uses” which includes, residential acreages and agricultural-related uses? There is also Government Canyon, which is a state of Nebraska wildlife management area established and maintained for many years for a wide variety of outdoor recreation pursuits. The proposed tower is an industrial use and does not conform to any of these land uses and their associated values.

Section 612.03

“2. No proposed tower shall be located within five miles of any existing tower, without approval of the Cherry county Board of Commissioners.”

How can this criteria be suitably evaluated if the necessary information is not provided by the applicant’s request.

“4. ... Upon completion of construction of a tower and prior to the commencement of use, an engineer’s certification that the tower is structurally sound and in conformance with all of the aforementioned applicable regulatory standards shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator.”

There was no item found in the application on how the applicant will comply with this regulation, nor the timeframe when it will be completed?

Section 612.04

“1. ...Applicants shall include the owner of the tract of land and all persons having an ownership interest in the proposed tower. The application shall be executed by all applicants.”

These details were not found in the applicant’s request packet. And note that the zoning regulations states “all persons” having an ownership interest, not just the company business name. “All persons” indicates everyone that has any ownership stake in the US Cellular. This would perhaps include users of the companies’ cellular service? This application was not “executed” by all applicants, but instead by an “agent” company for the owner of the proposed tower.

“2. The legal description and address of the tract of land on which the tower is to be located.”

There is no apparent proper road address included with the application that is a requirement for emergency response crews. Also, there is only a partial, and insufficient legal description; indicating the north one-half of a section is not detailed enough for a facility as small as the communications tower tract which is just relatively a short bunch of feet in extent. The quarter section should be specifically indicated, and even more details as appropriate.

“3. An affidavit attesting to the fact that the applicant has made diligent but unsuccessful effort to obtain permission to install or collocate the applicant’s telecommunication facilities on a tower or useable antenna support or written technical evidence from an engineer that the applicant’s telecommunications facilities cannot be installed or collocated on another tower or useable antenna support structure.”

This affidavit was not provided in the material provided to the zoning office, as it was not found among the application material available for review at the zoning administrator office on the morning of 26 April. Any cost to conduct this evaluation and prepare this affidavit should be paid for by the CUP applicant, and should be done by an independent engineer, not a company employee, nor a hired agent submitting the application, and not an employee of a subsidiary company of the applicant. This affidavit needs to represent an independent and non-biased perspective.

“5. Designation of an appropriate space for Cherry County’s operational and emergency services communication equipment to be provided at no cost to the County by the applicant.”

How has the applicant indicated that this requirement will be met?

Section 612.06

“4. Towers must meet the following minimum separation requirements from other towers:

“A. Monopole tower structures shall be separated from all other towers, whether monopole, self-supporting lattice, or guyed by a minimum of 750 feet.

“B. Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from all other self-supporting lattice or guyed towers by a minimum of 1,500 feet.”

Building a new monopole tower within less than 100 feet of another tower does not conform to these zoning regulations. Any excuse that one tower will replace another means this regulation will temporarily not be in compliance (when will the old tower be removed?). The regulations are obvious ... remove the first tower and then build the new tower to comply with this zoning requirement.

Also, by-the-way, the filing fee for communication tower applications should be increased to $250 to pay expenses for publishing suitable public notices – and which should not be a sentence in an ongoing meeting notice - and to offset costs for the time required by the zoning administrator to review applications and to make sure they are filed in accordance with all applicable zoning regulations. County residents should not be required to pay any sort of costs for a tower being placed by a for-profit company such as US Cellular, as indicative by this application.

---

Though most of these items were not considered by the members of the Planning and Zoning Board, the request for the CUP was approved by an unanimous vote.

It is a common point-of-view that the members basically ignored the zoning regulations. What is the purpose of regulations if they are ignored by a board responsible for making sure that any CUP application meets the requirements?