Beauty of the Leonid Meteor Shower

November 21, 2018. Valentine Midland News 47(21): 12.

Perhaps too early for many the first of the morning hours, i.e., starting at 4 a.m. on November 16th, were a prime time to appreciate the dark sky at Valentine.

The Leonid meteor shower was happening. Most of the short tracks of the falling objects were east of the North Star with one near the Little Dipper. Another one seemingly took a dive into a pine tree atop the North Lake Shore hills. The sky-scape was a great place to gaze. A multitude of stars were bright, and represent light of the ages as it has taken a multitude of years for their steady shine to reach the sandhills. What was seen was not reality because of this lapse in stellar expression.

Meteors seen did not occur very often while my eyes were widely focused on the eastern skyscape. There was one temporary disturbance to a phantasmagoric view was the flight path of a blinking airplane travelling westward. A strobe of a red light of a tall tower on the north edge of town was thankfully low on the horizon so could be mostly ignored.

The plane was closest in the earthly air. Satellites were poised in place or brightly streaking along. The meteors were further away in the outer atmosphere. A bit of moon was to the south. And the multitude of stars were far, far away in the cosmos in every direction.

If there is one feature to appreciate for our community, it is the opportunity to readily appreciate dark skies, especially out in the big sky ranch country where anyone could get completely immersed in viewing nights of stars and constellations anytime.

My earth-bound perspective was at the northern edge of the Heart City, where wild turkey roost and horses walk about. The resident great horned owls were quiet during this morning time, but had been hooting a round the previous evening. Even the many Canada geese at the Mill Pond were quiet in their repose.

Eatinger Amendment Public Hearing Held at Valentine

November 15, 2018. Grant County News 134(16): 1, 5.

A decision on a submitted amendment that would prohibit industrial wind turbines in Cherry county was tabled at the November 6 meeting by the Planning and Zoning Board. Any decision will occur at its next meeting.

The amendment submitted in February, 2018 would repeal section 613 clauses in the county zoning regulations and replace them with language indicating that only personal use turbines of 80 feet or a lesser height would be allowed in Cherry County.

Rancher Wayne Eatinger explained his reasons for filing the amendment at the start of the public hearing, indicating why the change was necessary. He also submitted several documents prepared as testimony for the public hearing held November 6th, including commentary that would be discussed later by others.

Twenty people testified in support of the amendment including Le Roy and Carolyn Semin of Kilgore, Mike Young, Wanda Simonson representing her family, Gary and Glenda Phipps from north of Whitman, Craig Miles at Brownlee, Rick Weber, Sherri Bacon, golf aficionado Cleve Trimble and young rancher Brock Moreland who had to hurriedly leave behind chores at the ranch near Merriman to get to the hearing.

Dave Hamilton was the only one that spoke against the amendment.

Proponents of the amendment to prohibit industrial wind turbines referred to common themes that have been regularly discussed at several previous public hearings. These topics included: preserving the unique values of the sandhills including its notable viewscapes and life-style features so appreciated and important to residents and their friends and so many others including a regular multitude of visitors, avoiding impacts on tourism and recreation, negative impacts of turbine noise, loss of property value, negatives of turbine flicker, decommissioning of no longer useful turbines, loss of dark skies, “red-light” districts where the aircraft flight warning lights atop turbines would blink incessantly, threats to the endangered Whooping Crane and other wild birds of conservation concern, potential threats to groundwater quality, etc.

A common theme was that the Sand Hills are superb cattle country and should remain that way. There were many heartfelt words shared by some speakers as they shared experiences of people that have experienced negative impacts associated with industrial turbine facilities when the structures became prevalent to their place in the country in other states.

A few minutes of the hearing need to be especially appreciated and recognized. Bob Stetter has decades of life experiences in the sandhills. He waited until nearly the end of the hearing to speak. While sitting at the long end of the courtroom bench, when someone else would get up to speak, he sat down and patiently waited for the right time, which was an iconic moment in the courtroom. He slowly walked past other fine folks seated on the bench to his left to get to the desk where he would speak. After some more moments he slowly wrote his name twice on a page provided so there would be an officialist’s list of those giving testimony. Cattleman Bob sat in a hard wooden chair in front of the microphone and spoke significant words why there should be no wind turbines in the Sandhills. He said he would never take any amount of money in the world for turbines on any property he ever owned. Everyone was listening but there were no comments on one obvious misspoken word. There were a lot of busy eyes, because everyone realized the slip, but kept silent as it was very soon self-corrected. Details he presented were spot-on. These were Bob’s true words: “Cherry County is cattle country and not a place for industrial wind turbines.” His commentary was carefully typed and he read most of its details. One zoning board member tried to stop him from speaking because he had exceeded the five minute speaking limit, but the distinctive words continued for a short time. Upon conclusion, board members were given a copy of his written comments. Stetter has been a stalwart activist against wind turbines at many public hearings at Valentine.

The single opponent to the amendment touted supposed economic benefits and that turbines are a changing paradigm and need to be allowed. This speaker stated that the referendum was a “stalling tactic” by people “clinging to the past.”

There were at least 75 people attending the hearing, and when one speaker asked that those in favor of the amendment to prevent wind turbines stand to indicate their view, everyone stood except for three people associated with the turbine facility development company or the local group promoting turbines.

Those attending were predominantly ranchers from all sections of Cherry county and spoke with authority and knowledge. They also provided ample documentary proof, so obviously they had been doing much more than ranch chores. Some of the speakers indicated how industrial wind turbines could be a threat to their livelihood.

The hearing lasted from 4:30 p.m. until 6:10 p.m. Everyone that wanted to speak was allowed five minutes to present their testimony.

Following the hearing, and during subsequent board discussion, member Gary Swanson posed the situation as being two conflicting visions for the county. “Someone wants to impose their will on somebody else.”

One future would mean no turbines in the county. The alternative would result in wind turbine facilities and associated industrial powerlines crossing the land.

Another concern discussed by the board is the difficulty of getting enough members to attend meetings to make certain there is the required quorum, such as the five members present on the 6th. There are currently two vacancies. It was expressed that hopefully more members could be present at the next meeting scheduled for December 4th.

Following any decision on the Eatinger amendment by the Planning and Zoning Board, their recommendation will be submitted to the county commissioners for their yes or no vote after another public hearing.

At the pending December meeting there is an expected public hearing on the William Weller amendment requested a change in zoning regulations. Language which currently indicates commercial/utility grade wind energy conversion systems would be revised to industrial grade wind energy conversion systems. This amendment was submitted July 19, 2018.

The Eatinger amendment public hearing was held at the Cherry County courtroom along north Main Street, Valentine.

Details of FOIA Request on Proposed Burying Beetle Mitigation Site

In latter October and early November information was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – via a Freedom of Information Act request - regarding the selection of a proposed mitigation site north of Brewster, Blaine County, for the endangered American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus; as initially designated July 13, 1989). This request was made in association with the r-project as proposed by the Nebraska Public Power District. This entity has requested an incidental take permit from the federal agency to allow it to construct an industrial powerline through the middle of the sandhills and which has been indicated as having an impact, i.e., taking of the beetle. Taking is a euphemism for beetles being killed due to actions of NPPD to construct and maintain the proposed industrial powerline.

Associated with the r-project environmental statement, addressing impacts was a requirement. The following is a consideration of one aspect, the so-called mitigation site.

Site Details

A NPPD email dated December, 2017, and from an environmental specialist for NPPD stated: "I have not sent maps due to the confidentiality of our negotiations with the landowner, however we also cannot move ahead with those negotiations without the concurrence of the FWS and NGPC that the parcel is desirable as ABB mitigation lands. We do have ABB data showing the area is high quality ABB habitat."

The proposed mitigation site chosen by NPPD is a “relatively flat lowland meadow” adjacent to Highway 7 in German Valley, eight miles north of Brewster, Blaine County. The acres are near St. John’s Church located at the corner of the highway and German Valley Road.

The west side of the mitigation site would be the highway and there it would be beneath the alignment proposed for the r-project transmission line. On the east side is cropland pivot land. The property tract extends for a longer distance south to north, than from east to west.

Details for the 594-acre proposal were given in an email from NPPD to the FWS and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission early in 2018. Along with a brief summary, a property parcel map, a table of beetle survey results, an overall beetle occurrence map for the region, it also included this particular topic:

“American Burying Beetle Data – The property has some of the highest ABB abundance numbers in the data set used by the USFWS to calculate the 99th percentile for purposes of the take estimate. This property was trapped as part of NPPD’s survey effort associated with calculating take. In 2016, there was a trap on this property that captured 46 ABB in five nights of survey, which would put it in the 98th percentile. There are 23 historic surveys within one mile of the property. Only two of those traps have zero captures, and neither was a five-night survey.


“NPPD’s surveys in 2016 and 2017 show that the area of the proposed mitigation property has the highest ABB numbers of any of the areas we surveyed.”


“NPPD believes that protection and enhancement of this property will fulfill the mitigation obligation of the R-Project.”

An email stated that the property would “meet the criteria of 500 acres of ABB habitat” required as mitigation for any incidental take associated with the transmission line.

The NPPD representative said in one email that a mitigation site management plan would be prepared in “concurrence with the USFWS and NGPC” … This plan would have a goal to further enhance the number of ABB. Habitat restoration would also be a possibility on the property, NPPD staff said.

NPPD initiated correspondence regarding the suitability of the mitigation site soon after a site visit, based on an email dated March 29 from the primary NPPD environmental specialist. It is quite indicative that the initial town locality as indicated by the power company email was Burwell, in January 2018. This text is indicative: “During our discussion about potential mitigation land near Burwell there were several question [questions; sic, i.e. a paradoxical mistake] which | indicated [sic. I] would try and get information on. What I could find is I [sic] the attached file.”

The site being discussed was actually north of Brewster, and many miles away in a completely different county. This email is seemingly written in haste due repetitive grammatical errors. Might the “|” be attributed to a computer glitch? Okay. The significant topic of this email was associated with hydrology and how it would be suitably monitored at the mitigation site locality.

“Based on the sight [sic; = site; misspelling in email document provided] visit to the potential mitigation land on March 26, 2018 it was determined that the parcel as depicted in the attached file ‘Mitigation Land Acquisition Layout A 594 acres’ would meet the needs for mitigation land outlined in the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan associated with NPPD’s application for an incidental Take Permit for American Burying Beetles, according to an email sent to FWS and NGPC from James Jenniges, senior environmental specialist for NPPD.

“NPPD will work with the current landowner on modifications to the boundary to see if existing fences can be used instead of the straight lines on the map. If that is possible it would add some additional acres of meadow habitat to the final total.”

...“As soon as the appropriate individuals from your agencies respond that this parcel will meet the mitigation needs in the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan NPPD will proceed with acquiring the land in fee title.”

When NPPD had not received a reply on the proposal sent to FWS or NGPC within about a dozen days, another email was sent requesting a response. The staff of the FWS and NGPC were thus urged to respond. Both agencies acquiesced, so by mid-April 2018, two emails had been sent indicating an acceptance of the proposed mitigation site.

“The property you mention in your email below will meet the needs of the HCP in terms of being suitable mitigation for the federally endangered American burying beetle. We look forward to working with NPPD on preparation of a restoration plan for the area for the benefit of the benefit of the beetle,” as expressed by an email dated April 10 from Robert Harms to NPPD.

“Staff of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission have determined the property NPPD proposes to acquire is suitable for mitigating impacts, related to the R-Project, on the state and federally listed endangered American burying beetle,” as expressed by an email dated April 11, 2018 from Michelle Koch, of the agency.

Later in the month, NPPD indicated that they would “work on getting” the site bought from the willing seller.

In early November 2018, the site was still owned by a private landowner with an address outside the county, according to what was indicated by details presented by the Blaine county gis website.

Site Visit Communications

Several emails associated with staff from the FWS, NPPD and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, basically dealt with have a meeting to evaluate map and site visit details to the proposed mitigation site. None of the subsequent emails received indicated whether a site visit even occurred, and if so, a date of such an occurrence.

An email as sent by FWS, Denver, and dated April, 2017, indicated: "NPPD also prepared a draft land restoration plan detailing measures to restore beetle habitat, as well as measures NPPD is volunteering to implement to restore fragile sandy soils and other habitats disturbed by R-Project construction and potential emergency repairs."

Details associated with general goal would have been indicated in the draft environmental impact statement as subsequently issued for public review and commentary.

FOIA Request Details

The FOIA request was received July 30, 2018 by the FWS. An initial email response dated October 17, 2018 came from an agency office in Colorado, when 21 pertinent documents were identified. To summarize:

"Our review of these documents is complete and the following is our determination on thirteen (13) of the documents:"

"1. We are releasing to you in their entirety two (2) documents (6 pages); and

"2. Eleven (11) documents (17 pages) are not responsive to your request.

"The remaining eight (8) documents (21 pages) contain potential confidential business information or financial information of the NPPD."

A dvd with an additional 24 pages of email communications was received November 1st. It had the most useful and pertinent details.

Commentary

Though the proposed mitigation might be considered a commendable effort because of a legal requirement it is substandard. There are some obvious topics worth considering that can readily be considered as concerns with the chosen site.

Especially notable is the chosen mitigation site. It does not seem reasonable to enhance meadow features at a locality that already is amidst a region with largest populations of the American Burying Beetle. Obviously the population is already, apparently, healthy and thriving.

It should be noted that the method used to determine the number of ABB present somewhere relies upon using an artificial attractant. Survey results in no way actually represent the actual, natural presence of these beetles upon the acres of some parcel. With the ability of these strong-flying beetles to travel many miles during the night, they may have arrived from somewhere distant because of an apparent and readily available food source. Because of this, the number of beetles denoted is not a representative indicator of the extent of any naturally occurring population present at the proposed mitigation site.

Any extent of beetles present was certainly the result of a valid survey. It is, however, a faux claim by NPPD to convey that the site where the bugs were found is actually their home place. A meadow over one hill or another hill might actually be a best place of residence where the adults breed and create burrows for larvae of the next generation.

It is certain that NPPD will not be providing any supplementary food source to achieve the mitigation goals that are legally required to meet requirements for any expected taking of ABB. So the question is, how can more beetles suitably survive on the same few acres?

Certainly there could be other potential mitigation sites where focused management efforts might establish habitat that could provide a suitably new safe haven for the species. Mitigation is meant to moderate for any “take instances” across the corridor of the r-project industrial powerline. With such a wide-spread potentiality, the mitigation effort should reflect this and broaden the range of the species, and not just get more of the beetles in a concentrated area. To put it bluntly, get more beetles at a place so that when maintenance trucks travel along the powerline, they might be able to kill more ABBs.

It is essential to have the broadest range of occurrence possible to allow for potential impacts due to weather events, landscape changes due to climate variation (i.e., drought) and other factors. The NPPD proposal is just the opposite.

The FWS and NGPC approval of the mitigation site proposal was done without any input from the public. Interested people should have been allowed to review the plan and provide comments. The result could have perhaps been improved. But for NPPD to get the “green light” from two public agencies, as done without public knowledge at the time, is a disservice to concerned citizens.

Having a mitigation site and increasing a beetle population adjacent to a state highway, albeit one with a relatively low extent of traffic is senseless. Such a situation could readily result in an increase in the number of beetles struck by passing vehicles. Scientific findings indicate a beetle might fly up to about 18 miles in one night (FWS report). If they fly west will they get smashed by a semi? Will light-beams from vehicles have a greater influence since the mitigation goal is for more numbers of the nocturnally-active beetles at the same location? Will there need to be signs put in place warning drivers to slow down to watch for flying endangered beetles? Any death of a beetle is considered a “taking” and punishable, according to federal laws, so would vehicles going along the highway during the primary activity season of the beetles need to wait until daylight, or for regular travelers, would they need an incidental take permit? Ludicrous for certain, but why have a mitigation site that increases threats for survival of beetles officials are trying to conserve!

It is nonsensical to select a mitigation site along the r-project corridor. There is no known information on how such a high-voltage powerline might influence survival of the species. Could “power leakage” from the lines have a negative impact on survival of the species, perhaps especially on their vulnerable larvae? Could the powerline influence behavior that might also reduce survivability?

Selecting site with a known high-density of ABB would also constrict genetic diversity. Variability and adaptation occurs in response to weather conditions, survivability, prey base, habitat conditions and many other factors. More beetles at the same place does not provide the variety in influences that would promote the genetic variety and most essentially adaptability changes essential for vitality and species survival.

With the cost to purchase the property being proposed, could there possibly be more cost effective sites available, to reduce the overall expense to electricity rate payers. In the information received through the FOIA request, there were no details indicated on whether there was any comparison of the suitability of multiple sites.

There was no indication how a qualified, non-participant individual with ABB expertise provided some sort of outside review. This should be an essential to indicate the validity of any project proposal.

Will there be food source limitations if a local population is increased? Competition for carrion prey is a known limiter for any population, according to a FWS report on the biology of the species. The extent of available carrion would be greater across a wide-spread area in comparison to a limited site.

The FWS document stated: “historically large expanses of natural habitat that once supported high densities of indigenous species are now artificially fragmented, supporting fewer or lower densities of indigenous species that once supported ABB populations, and also facilitating increased competition for limited carrion resources among the ‘new’ predator/scavenger community.”

This could be interpreted as indicating there are already stressors on populations of the ABB. NPPD may tout the populations of beetles they have found during surveys, but these results are only short-term results. There is no historic information available in order to make any authoritative comparison for the long-term and to truly know the requirements essential to ensure survival of this large carrion beetle.

There is no indication whether grazing would be used as a site management practice. This would have to certainly be addressed in any cooperative management plan. There is also no known indication on how any acceptable management plan would get proper scrutiny.

For NPPD to indicate the purchase of a mitigation site, as was indicated in an April, 2018 email shows a continued arrogance as has been regularly conveyed during the development process for the r-project. How can the district purchase a tract when they do not even have any federal agency approval for the r-project. Though there is an indication that no purchase has occurred, there is no information indicating whether any legal “right-of-purchase” agreement has been signed with the property owner.

A final comment: this mitigation proposal for the American Burying Beetle appears to be another example of NPPD “forcing” through its proposal and forcing the public to have no alternative but acceptance. The proposal is filled with a lack of consideration for details essential when considering a little endangered species.

September and October Birds at Valentine

The autumn months of September and October of 2018 had typical conditions for the Valentine. There was one snow event but the results quickly melted and with ample continuing rainfall, vegetation continued to thrive. The localities visited were similar for these two months starting in 2015. Temperate days with slight winds were certainly appreciated.

These are some of the more notable occurrences for the period. Birds are present daily so the big decision is what days will records be kept? Records are kept most notably for occurrences of irregular or new species, and the tally then filled with what typically occurs. Every day is a good day to bird-watch in and about Valentine. Foibles might result in contrary actions, or lack thereof.

• Trumpeter Swan: the arrival and continued occurrence from 23 Oct to the 27^th of a single adult was especially notable at the Valentine Mill Pond, because of the dearth of previous sightings. This big fowl was at the low flats just west of the primary pond pier. This is an area where some community members have been searching for funds so the pond could be dredged to reestablish open water conditions. A single swan returned on a first day of November.
  
• Ducks: various species feed on the pond-weed and other vegetation that occur because of shallow-water and marsh conditions at different places amidst the overall extent of the pond from its dam, westward to huge berm constructed for the Highway 83 travelway.
  
• Wild Turkey: a group of two families with a female and five young and another female with a single young were regularly seen, and they often appreciate the regularly-placed seed on the front walk of my shack. One or another mother turkey is attentive to her brood which make their way in dominance. The parent is most attentive to the situation to ensure safety for all of them. Some male turkeys have arrived once in a while and they certainly strut using vocalizations, feather displays including tail feather spreads and antagonistic behavior to establish their dominance. Turkeys have so many feathers which they regularly shake around. The littlest young turkey has been seen dealing with abuse from associated older juveniles of a different brood with their larger size and natural dominance. They chase around to get rid of competition for the black sunflower seeds they prefer. What is not understood why these birds leave their droppings in the middle of food they are eating? The results remain while the flock goes elsewhere. At least the spot has been cleaned when there was enough rain-water to sweep away the mess.
  
• Golden Eagle: a magnificent juvenile was languidly soaring over the mill pond and was a new addition to the local birdlist.
  
• Sandhill Crane: would have been more prevalent during their southward migration than the single record indicates. Other regional reports, notably on ebird, provide other indications of seasonal occurrence.
  
• Greater Yellowlegs: likely occurs more than the single observation of a busy shorebird indicates.
  
• Rock Dove: even though there are only a couple of records, the species is a permanent resident and most notable near the livestock market, which is not always along my street-way travel route.
  
• Common Nighthawk: the lack of noted occurrences of migratory flocks is an obvious difference from a previous year. Site and date details were similar, but the right times were lacking this year.
  
• Belted Kingfisher: probably more prevalent than indicated, but obviously they were not observed to the usual extent at suitable habitat for fishing along Minnechaduza Creek, as previously observed.
  
• Eastern Bluebird: very transient though it is a regular resident. What is needed to get them to a feeder is not known because that would be a laudable goal and a great addition to bird-watching from my tiny shack.
  
• American Robin: numerous and prevalent while busy among the trees and lawns at different spots about Valentine.
  
• Sparrows: during the end of the period, the arrival of winter species was readily obvious.
  
• Dark-eyed Junco: arrival appreciated as the first birds of the season were busy eating weed seeds, but eventually they found the spread bird seed and have been the visitors in the morning, even before the time of the sunrise.
  
• Northern Cardinal: permanent residents but the population is so sparse that they are not seen very often. They are known to appreciate privately situated bird-feeders.
  

The overall tally for the two months was 64 species. There were 14 dates of record.

Proper Name      Julian Date >	253	257	265	270	271	272	275	277	279	282	296	297	298	300
Canada Goose	8	8	6	- -	8	- -	8	- -	19	28	23	- -	- -	19
Trumpeter Swan	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	1	1	1
Wood Duck	- -	11	- -	2	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Northern Shoveler	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	5	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Gadwall	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	4	- -	- -	- -	7	26
American Wigeon	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -
Green-winged Teal	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Wild Turkey	16	6	8	- -	- -	- -	11	- -	8	8	8	- -	- -	8
Pied-billed Grebe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -
Great Blue Heron	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Great Egret	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Turkey Vulture	8	11	12	- -	6	8	115	16	- -	9	- -	- -	- -	- -
Golden Eagle	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Sharp-shinned Hawk	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-tailed Hawk	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	1	1	- -	- -	1	1
Sandhill Crane	- -	- -	- -	- -	48	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Killdeer	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Greater Yellowlegs	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Rock Dove	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	18	- -
Eurasian Collared Dove	11	6	8	- -	9	- -	6	5	3	7	9	8	3	19
Mourning Dove	3	6	2	2	- -	- -	4	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Great Horned Owl	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Common Nighthawk	9	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Belted Kingfisher	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -
Red-headed Woodpecker	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Downy Woodpecker	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	1	1	1	- -	1	- -
Hairy Woodpecker	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -
Northern Flicker	1	3	- -	- -	4	- -	1	- -	2	2	1	- -	1	1
Eastern Phoebe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Western Kingbird	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Eastern Kingbird	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Great Crested Flycatcher	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Blue Jay	3	2	6	3	2	- -	3	1	4	3	3	- -	1	1
American Crow	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	455	2	1	- -	2	4	- -	3
Cedar Waxwing	11	- -	20	- -	- -	- -	10	- -	- -	14	- -	- -	20	14
Black-capped Chickadee	5	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	3	- -	2	- -	2	- -	- -	- -
Marsh Wren	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	5
House Wren	2	2	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-breasted Nuthatch	- -	2	1	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	1	1	- -	3	3
White-breasted Nuthatch	1	1	1	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	2	5	- -	1	2
Grey Catbird	2	- -	1	- -	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Brown Thrasher	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Common Starling	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	5	- -	2	- -	27	- -
Eastern Bluebird	1	- -	4	- -	4	- -	6	4	6	- -	1	6	- -	2
American Robin	50	30	105	25	- -	- -	10	10	- -	25	50	- -	35	55
House Sparrow	25	- -	20	- -	20	- -	10	- -	15	- -	10	- -	- -	10
House Finch	3	2	8	7	- -	- -	15	6	- -	4	10	- -	- -	- -
American Goldfinch	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	2	3
Nashville Warbler	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Common Yellowthroat	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Yellow-breasted Chat	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-winged Blackbird	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	20	- -	- -	67
Common Grackle	35	- -	- -	6	- -	- -	325	- -	20	6	5	- -	- -	5
Song Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Lincoln's Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	1	- -
Harris's Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	6	7	3	3	4
White-crowned Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	1	- -	1	2	- -	- -	- -	- -
White-throated Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	1	- -	- -
Dark-eyed Junco	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	20	- -	13	55
Savannah Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -
American Tree Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	2
Clay-colored Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	6	5	- -	- -	- -	- -
Spotted Towhee	- -	- -	- -	1	1	- -	2	- -	1	5	- -	- -	- -	- -
Northern Cardinal	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -

The tally for these two months compares to previous reports: 2017 - 69 species on 18 dates of record; 2016 - 63 on 27 dates of record; and, 2015 - 53 on 31 dates of record. The composite tally is 93 species for these two months in 2015-2018.

Occurrence of Cedar Waxwing increased, based upon the numbers based on multiple records of observation for a few years. Numbers are significantly different so this species is apparently living well in this region. They can be seen in the Heart City, at the Valentine Mill Pond and also amidst the North Lake Shore Hills.

Species that should have been better observed included...

1. Chimney Swift in the city but there is a nearly complete lack of effort to bicycle again to chimney places after having already been nearby in the morning when these bugeaters were elsewhere

2. gathered Turkey Vulture at their local roost at Government Pond, and

3. a meadowlark or two that might have been heard or seen if the bicycle was ridden further, perhaps to the city cemetery.

There was no Western Osprey present this season though they have been very obvious in previous years. So this years' results can be attributed to lack of occurrence. Also not observed was the subtle Townsend's Solitaire which could have been expected, though it was subsequently observed in early November.