Federal Agency Acts Without Public Consideration on Permits to Take Burying Beetles

A email received on August 7th indicates that the Nebraska Public Power District continues to impose their demands on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Details presented by an agency biologist, indicate the federal agency has allowed further harassment of the American Burying Beetle along the corridor of the proposed r-project. Trapping of the little beetles was permitted even as FWS is reviewing a supposed final version of a document allowing incidental take of the species.

How can there be any sort of valid review of a permit request while the requesting agency is still gathering information?

The federal agency has acted without public consideration as they issued permits to allow the taking of the endangered American Burying Beetle along Highway 83, notably in Thomas county. The activity is related to "research" associated with the r-project.

The permits allows the beetles to be trapped, then actively handled, based upon decisions by the controlling federal agency.

In regards to this activity, the federal agency should instead be known as the Federal Whatever Service (FWS).

The FWS once again agreed to permit requests with a seeming disregard to the beetles or the area landowners. Who gave the FWS the authority to make decisions without public comment on a natural lands species?

Consider these pertinent points:

Did the FWS notify landowners of the real-time activities associated with the allowed permit activities? Did NPPD? Nope.

Did the Nebraska Department of Roads give permission for anyone to place beetle traps along the Highway 83 right-of-way? Are any traps being placed along the highway? Is there any public information readily available on these essential detail? Nope.

Did the FWS provide details on the areas where survey activity will occur? Nope.

Did the FWS provide any details on the period of time during which the surveys will occur? Nope.

Did the FWS provide any details on the purpose of the surveys? Nope.

Has the FWS provided any details on the survey methods, notably the number of plastic buckets that will be used, and the frequency of them being checked? Nope.

Has the FWS provided any information on how the results of the surveys will be made available to the public? Nope.

Has the FWS provided details of the permit and how there will be a limit on mortality of the beetles and what is being done to ensure that there are very few or no beetle deaths? Nope.

Do the issued FWS permits include a clause indicating how the permitted activity does not allow access to private property except with landowner permission? Were any details about this provided to the public? Nope.

Did the FWS explain why permits were issued not only to a consultant hired by NPPD and an Oklahoma university as well? Nope. Why do two entities need permits for "so-called" scientific research associated with a single purpose? Has an explanation been provided by anyone? Nope.

Has the FWS indicated the expertise of the permittees and how they have the qualifications to handle an beetle listed as an species? Nope. If non-resident people are going to intrude into the sand hills, they certainly need to know what they are doing and be doing it in an efficient and nonintrusive manner!

Did the FWS indicate a date of application for these permits, and an issuance date? Nope. Why was there no public notice, and not even a known press release?

Why does the FWS give a permit to NPPD minions to "harass" every single captured beetle? The permit apparently allows this harassment, i.e., a taking instance to occur every time a beetle is handled! This is direct intrusion and the actual effect on species once released is not known.

NPPD has already applied for an incidental take permit for the American Burying Beetle, so why are they collecting data now? They should not be applying for a permit until after thorough research has been completed!

The Fish and Wildlife Service has given permits to allow NPPD to get further details to buttress why they should be able to construct the r-project industrial powerline. If they can indicate a broader range or greater numbers, then the projected impact can be lessened to improve the rationale for getting an incidental take permit.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is using the endangered species classification of the beetle as a means of control. Through this classification they can tell everyone how they have to deal with the species. It is as if they are "owners" of the beetles so their permission is need to deal with them!

The federal agency – being a bureaucracy that represents the "heavy fist" of government – needs to understand in complete clarity that they do not own a single American Burying Beetle. They do not control the lives and times of this unique species. Yet they provide permits to kill and harass thousands of beetles without any public notice or review. And this has occurred most recently even with agency staff in the Nebraska Field Office are very aware of the concern of numerous sandhill residents concerning this little beetle and other local and essential resources. Staff could not even provide a courtesy notification to any of the many people whose emails they have readily available through current and ongoing communications. This failure is indicative.

Has the FWS actually done anything to conserve the American Burying Beetle other than making regulatory edicts? Has the agency provided any indication how their rules are benefitting the species? Nope.

Each and every American Burying Beetle in Nebraska is an asset of the citizens of Nebraska. Certainly ownership applies but that is only a legal argument. They are just one example of the great diversity of flora and fauna owned in "public trust." It is the citizens of Nebraska that should be making each and every decision associated with this species, since federal and state agencies are not representative.

Many residents of the Sand Hills – in particular – want the distinctly colored little beetle to thrive and in no manner have any malicious intent to undertake activities detrimental to their survival. Every property owner that has this beetle on their place can make their own decisions on management steps needed to make their place a success. They can personally evaluate whether or not it is beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the beetle, and there is even benign attention which applies in many instances because raising cattle is the key focus.

It seems that the American Burying Beetle is doing quite fine under current conditions in ranchland cattle country. If someone owns a ranch and wants to make it a distinct haven for the American Burying Beetle and provide ecotourism visitations to enjoy the life and times of this bug, that is their option. No government agency can try to control this right of a property owner.

This situation applies to other species of species of concern, including the Blandings Turtle. Land management efforts could occur to benefit this species and the government has no control over this. Yet the government wants to intrude by saying that they control the right to "handle or possess" a single turtle. It is easy for them to profess their rules from a taxpayer-financed office in a distant city.

A ranch owner with a property expanse where this turtle thrives has the complete right to know about the wildlife on their place. If a ranch couple want to venture out in an evening and look for turtles, they have the complete right to pick up a turtle of any sort and appreciate its presence. If a niece or nephew is visiting, they can carefully put a turtle in a suitable container and take it back to their home to share with visiting relatives for a short time, and the place it back where it was found. This is an educational and appreciation endeavor.

Property owners pay the taxes. They deal daily with the survival of so many species through their land management decisions. They have the inherent right to know and understand the natural life in their personal manner.

Yet, it is so wrong that governmental officials could swoop in and issue a criminal complaint, with possible fines attached. They would say that "handling" and "possession" is illegal.

It should be illegal for bureaucrats sitting within publicly-owned facilities to be enforcers upon those that actually own and manage great lands where plants and animals thrive and do not receive a single dime of financial support for protecting a publically appreciated resource.

If someone wants to establish a "Bluebell Ranch" where occurrence of the Blowout Penstemon is the primary focus, that is their right. They can manage for the habitat necessities of this plant, undertake revolving plot management spread across sections for the benefit of the survival of this singular plant. If they want a lack of grass and instead have a lot of sand within their property boundary that is their choice as long as it does not have an impact on neighbors. The whole complex of life at penstemon colonies is enough for a unique visit by naturalists or others that want to enjoy the so obvious biological diversity and natural life.
　
There are now great issues within the sand hills. There are however great opportunities because great people are actively working to conserve the heritage of the land and its people. There can be great times in the future as new generations realize, appreciate and understand what is essentially important for the region and its people now and in future times.

Is there an indifference to the history and future of the Great American Sandhills each day now and into tomorrow? Nope.  

Considering the Blandings Turtles Dwelling in the Great American Sandhills

A distinctly special reptile of the Great American Sandhills is the Blandings Turtle that has survived for centuries in a great land where natural habitats now provide a last essential haven. A myriad of these small animals have thrived as represented by so many unknown lives found sustenance and a nice spot to place some eggs that would hatch and survive to become adults. It is the nature of this species that it may require lives of decades and great disasters to eggs and young associated with annual reproductive cycles until a few progeny continue to carry on as the next parents of generations that have to adapt to continue the survival of the species.

During their early times amidst the so-called Great American Desert, at a time when there were measly bits of written history, this “happy turtle” was indifferent to anything other than its own existence … on a daily basis to find two most important things: food and shelter. Breeding time meant additional challenges, including other animals that would not hesitate to eat them or their eggs of the small youngsters of summertime. The turtles cared only to go about on a daily basis, to continue its own existence in a changing landscape. A century or so ago, the extent of wetlands of the sandhills were lesser in comparison to the current era. Situations changed as the extent of water features associated with Ogallala Aquifer changed, so more lakes became prevalent on the landscape, in comparison to the realities shown by the original land office surveys of times past.

Semi-aquatic habitats appreciated by these little bits of turtle life probably improved as more often during the known history of the sandhills they had more places to live as the region transitioned from a so-called “desert” to a land of more prevalent wetlands and grass. More young probably survived as there were more places to thrive. A single turtle could have easily outlived any nearby human resident. Moving parties of original native Indian residents riding a pony across the hills and valleys were probably indifferent to some turtle striding from a wet place to a sandy place to lay some eggs at a seemingly safe place for their progeny of a season.

The indomitable march of civilization continued and still is ongoing. So many changes have occurred upon the landscape of the hill country.
Turtles continued their regular routine with a singular focus on their life and reason for being … continue to support the survival of their species.

As the historic and modern eras descended upon their prairie-landscape, threats have continued to be more threatening to their survival. Horse-drawn wagons across dim trails were somewhat diminutive. Slow automobiles across sandy roads were somewhat different. Now, improved highways where huge motor vehicles travels are obvious threats where turtle and other natural life can be smashed. Wetlands of various sorts that were once a haven are gone.

Additional threats loom as in the current era some people want to industrialize portions of the region by placing industrial wind turbine facilities and impose a massive powerline across the hills of sand. There have always been repercussions as constructs and significant changes occur on a large scale.

The Blandings Turtle has survived for so many long-generations across so many decades and obviously centuries. No one has any idea of their natural history. They deserve attentive consideration and as some work to destroy more living spaces in the hills of Nebraska, these turtles deserve to have words expressed for their benefit. Turtle history is important to know.

Nomenclature and Distribution

The commonly used proper name of this species is not acceptable, considering key details of scientific nomenclature. The current name used is possessive, that being Blanding’s Turtle. Mr. Blanding does not own this turtle species and has no possession of them, so the more proper name is Blandings. The original name was determined based upon a local population so long ago hundreds of miles easterly of the sandhills.

Having dealt with this whole idea of nomenclature associated with more than 10,000 species of wildbirds as addressed by international experts, there are essential details that have to be dealt with. Blandings Turtles have their own identity with absolutely no association, nor do they care to be possessively associated with some researcher that many decades ago imposed his name on natural life found in a wildlife place by collecting specimens and then writing a paper for some sort of authoritative publication in order to stake a claim on the common and scientific name. Current scientists may not accept this quibble, but their stance is simply not acceptable, as this turtle owes no possessive naming glory to anyone.

How did this small turtle establish a historic range of such great expanse? It was done each tiny step at a time. How did they traverse great water flows such as the Missouri River? Or even the Loup river. Birds can fly. Turtles have to walk – as measured in a step of less than an inch – or swim across great currents. The range of the Blandings is representative of centuries of effort to find new homes and overcome humongous obstacles just so they could successfully live out their nature.

Nebraska Sandhills

Very soon after crossing the North Platte, the towers requiring vehicular access for construction and management will encroach into habitat areas vital to this species. This situation would continue along the entire remainder of the powerline corridor as far as its proposed eastern terminus in southeast Holt county. NPPD wants to bring “huge” trucks, helicopters and other equipment, temporarily fill lowland wetlands, use mats to cover wetlands and other intrusions into areas with turtle habitat.

After having reviewed documents that convey knowledgeable details of this species, it is a) Tier 1 species of concern in Nebraska, and b) that despite a July 2015 petition to list it in accord to the stipulations of the Endangered Species Act.

There are especially notable items to consider:

1) NPPD would need to have a permit to handle or possess any Blanding’s Turtle, referring to this statement: “In Nebraska, it is illegal to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship [Blanding’s turtle] (NGPC 2005). Regulations should be enforced” (NNLP assessment). The utility company freely indicates that they will pick up, move, relocate and in other various ways deal with the occurrence of these turtles in the immediate vicinity of any powerline construction localities. Any measures to get such a permit is apparently been ignored, as especially notably in the “draft environmental impact statement.” The utility company is obviously ignoring this requirement. Therefore any of the “avoidance” activities indicated in the draft EIS would be illegal. Any request for a permit should undergo a public review.

2) NPPD proposes to conduct daily surveys during any mid-year construction activities to avoid any incidental impacts on the little turtles. Construction trucks of a relatively “huge” size with multiple “flat-bottomed” tires in comparison to the diminutive size of a turtle would simply crush any animals and vegetation. A suggestion by a report completed by the Nebraska Legacy Project convey that even ATV activity should be limited in places where this species nests during the summer season.

With their decades long life-cycle, the loss of any of these “happy” turtles would be literally crushing in reducing the vitality of the population. The access routes shown in the request to the Army Corps of Engineers for a wetland permit, are shown to occur in lowland places, which, according to researchers, are among the most important habitats for this turtle which has strived to survive for centuries within this home space. Especially notable are proposed powerline constructs along the southern fringe of Holt County where there are wetlands, meadows and other essential floral features that were a recognized place of importance, according to details indicated years ago in a little pond.

These turtles move about within natural lands on such short feet and a limited perspective from a couple of inches above the ground. They have been a feature of the sandhills long before any written history, and thus they deserve to be known for their legacy of silent and essential life of so many turtle generations.

3) NPPD proposes to place silt-fences to prevent any of these turtles from falling into tower constructs, including deep holes in the ground. Silt fences would not be adequate, because they do not conform in the minutiae of detail suitable to the terrain where inches matter. There may be gaps. Any gap of even a couple of inches might be sufficient enough for a turtle on a mission to go beneath the silt fence fabric.

4) The draft EIS for the r-project indicates that this species of turtle has been found at “a small pond on the Holt/Wheeler County line” yet there are no other known details to indicate the overall extent of this species in the various sorts of ephemeral and permanent wetlands in this general vicinity. This includes especially wetland spaces which have an affinity with Carson Lake, Garfield county and eastward at Sunfish lake and Rush lakebed, as well as near Goose Lake WMA. Does the species occur along the proposed corridor in northern Loup county? Placement of any local access routes should not be allowed until a “qualified biologist” does surveys to determine actual extent and whom will present findings independent of NPPD control, though the utility company should pay for the research.

5) the draft EIS states that “previous accounts of this species in the study area have reported its presence on the South Loup River near Stapleton, the Middle Loup River near Mullen, and a small pond on the Holt/Wheeler County line.” There are no references indicated so these statements are conjecture as conveyed.

6) If this r-project is built, a qualified biologist should be present each day during construction in “sensitive areas” with the sole job of surveying for Blandings Turtle, rather than having any reliance on work personnel focused on completing construction in the quickest manner possible.

7) It is not clear how any of goals associated with management objectives given in the “conservation assessment” report prepared in 2012 by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission have been achieved? This does not seem to be an “active document” but instead seems to be empty words by a governmental agency within an out-dated report sitting on a shelf or posted online. It is very doubtful that anyone associated with the so-called Nebraska Legacy Project has done any current field studies of the Blandings Turtle?

8) Why has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not acted on available measures to protect an essential natural species of the Sand Hills and elsewhere, when there are known declines in its overall extent in multiple states? This is a situation which is open to legal measures to address the failure to act by a federal agency on a finding initially issued in July 2015 in the Federal Register, based upon a petition filed in 2012.

9) Where is there an authoritative count of the number of Blandings Turtle which dwell within their range of the Nebraska sandhills? Is this information even available?

10) There is a need for genetic (DNA) evaluation of different local populations throughout the Blandings Turtle distribution in order to compare lineage and biologic variation; is the now isolated regional Sandhills species a distinct subspecies? This is especially important to determine since as local populations have become disjunctive, there is the likelihood that genetic exchange has been stifled, perhaps leading to a decline in the overall genetic vitality of the species. The Nebraska Natural Legacy Project lists this particular focus: “Document and maintain genetic diversity in population”.

Based upon a review of available scientific literature, there is an insufficient understanding of the actual occurrence and extent of the Blandings Turtle within the Sandhills based upon a records-based evaluation.

Consider these wetland districts that could be readily evaluated to determine whether or not this species occurs and its actual population status:

1) Northwest Cherry county where there is Shell Lake WMA, as well as nearby Alkali lake, and northward are several lakes, including some in northeast Sheridan county and into the extreme southern extent of South Dakota. It is not even clear whether the Blandings Turtle occurs at wetlands associated with Lacreek NWR. Several lakes in this area are on the McGinley Ranch owned by R.E. “Ted” Turner so perhaps he could fund studies to determine the extent on his properties, and which should include the numerous wetlands on the Spikebox Ranch in central Cherry county as well as the Fawn Lake Ranch at the western edge of Cherry county.

2) Lakes and wetland north of Cody where there is the especially prominent Threemile lake and other similar wetlands across the Nebraska boundary into southern South Dakota

3) The Mother lake country in southwest Cherry county where there are multiple lakes and associated wetlands.

4) Lakes and wetlands in the Hyannis area where specimens were collected for “freezing studies” a few years ago; Frye Lake WMA, Avocet WMA and Defair Lake WMA are in the immediate vicinity so there could be an understanding how these publically-owned sites might contribute to the survival of this turtle species and other natural life of the fauna and flora sorts.

5) Lakeland in southwest Brown county, with its multiple lakes and wetlands including several which are state owned wildlife management areas.

6) east-central Rock county including Twin Lake WMA, Stockdale lake, Cameron lake and others.

7) vicinity of Pony lake, Otter lake, Wolf lake and Snipe lake, as well as Dora lake to the east within Holt county.

8) Brown lake, Overton lake, Lambs lake and other water places along the south-western extent of Holt county.

9) Near Swan Lake, Grass lakebed, Maurice lakebed, Round lake and other wetland features westward of Amelia, Holt county.

10) Etc.

The only information that is available is a general distribution map and approximations of numbers. A general, estimated range map is not adequate as it does not indicate whether or not the species’ range extends into the sandhills of South Dakota.

Certainly Valentine NWR is a supposedly a refuge for this species, but any actuals are lacking on the situation in 2017. No one associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be able to provide an accurate census figure for the number of Blandings Turtle that now occur at this lake district which they own and manage. The National Park Service has indicated that this species does not occur along the Niobrara National Scenic River which is indicated to be a part of this species distribution in the state. What could the so-called Nebraska Natural Legacy Project be able to provide a records-based range of occurrence, yet the staff of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission continue to use public funds for their salaries as they rely on sporadic research findings to indicate how they are protecting natural features of importance to so many resident citizens. Their goals are seemingly not being fulfilled because follow-up efforts seem to be lacking?

It is very much likely that this turtle no longer occurs in the eastern-most Nebraska counties which are indicated as part of the overall range. It is questionable that Blandings Turtle occur anywhere eastward of the confluence of the Loup and Platte rivers.

A study issued in association with the University of Nebraska at Kearney as found online, indicated very recently that there would be research done along the Platte River in the nearby vicinity, as there was information indicating the previous presence of Blandings Turtle. None were found following survey efforts. So the local population has obviously been extirpated.

There is an obvious lack of attention to validating where this turtle – as well as many other species of Nebraska’s flora and fauna – actually occur. Our natural heritage is being slowly but certainly decimated. Within the sandhills where some species strive, there is a great demand by some to industrialize the landscape and bring ruination to one of the last, best great spaces in the world.

Birds of Summer at Valentine

Summer days were variable during June and July in the vicinity of Valentine. During the early days of June birds were obvious in song and being territorial while the next generation of various sorts of wildbirds were being nourished.

There were no unexpected occurrences amidst the daily activities of birds noted in the vicinity. July brought great heat. Valentine had greatest temperature within the state of Nebraska on more than fifteen days during the month. There were several instances of heat in the three figure extent. When it is 106^o outdoors any interest in venturing forth for a time of bird watching is severely diminished. Multiple sorts of these instances are simply brutal.

Observations were notable for a bunch of species but the regular occurrence on a daily basis does vary. Many of the occurrences to denote are towards the end of July. These are some of the notable observations during this summer time:

• Canada Goose: young were raised at the Valentine Mill Pond, but lesser numbers were present as the adults and flighty youngsters left the place for elsewhere.
  
• Wild Turkey: only occasionally seen and with no indication of any young; it's obvious that there is little, if any, reproductive success in the area where observations were kept.
  
• Great Blue Heron: there were at least two nests in trees just east of the Valentine City Park; their activity was obvious from a vantage point on the street to the north.
  
• Turkey Vulture: a regular resident but it was surprising that there was such a large number present on July 14^th; numbers of these birds then continued on a regular basis; the count of three represents those roosting on a wireless tower along Main street of Valentine on one day. In comparison, a comparable number of similar extent occurred during the autumn of 2016 -- in October -- which was not during the summer. Did drought on the northern plains have an influence? These birds within the vicinity appreciate the snag trees upon which they spend so many hours of repose when not looking for the things they eat as they continue to occur.
  
• Chimney Swift: an obvious resident for anyone that would care to take the time to observe; the bunch of 30 near the shack were obviously a post-nesting season and had congregated to take advantage of an opportunity to forage on available insects. These bugeaters are a regular occurrence in the aerial realm of Main Street.
  
• Purple Martin: there are just a few nesting places within the city, and the small local population continued to raise some young this year; these vocal birds are quite expressive and have been seen foraging above the Mill Pond and notably perched upon a wire and a tree here and there along the Cowboy Trail.
  
• American Crow: though notably seen on a regular basis in "off-season" months, rarely seen during the month of summer.
  
• American Cliff Swallow: they appreciate the dam structure at the Mill Pond, where they were nesting and not observed to the extent possible.
  
• House Wren: there have been two nesting places in the immediate vicinity north and south of the shack; one nest site was within a pipe that is part of a shed structure and the other place was within the fixture of a nonoperational outdoor light; the wrens ignored the many nest boxes available in the immediate vicinity.
  
• Common Grackle: very common during the early weeks but notably fewer at the end of July; where there had been many only a few were present, primarily within the city environs; fledglings were obvious while bicycling the local streets but then they were gone, depictingof a multiple to singular occurrence.
  
• Dickcissel: a transient that was around for only a few days; perhaps it left a place of no success for breeding and because of its nature thought it should express its intent at an alternative space.
  
• Orchard Oriole: always busy within the observational space. Parents were seen feeding their young.
  
• Blue Grosbeak: nicely heard and seen.
  

There were 66 species noted during June and July and this is the tally.

Julian Dates of June and July >	157	162	172	188	195	203	207	211
Canada Goose	- -	12	- -	7	4	8	7	- -
Wood Duck	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -
Mallard	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Wild Turkey	6	1	1	2	1	- -	- -	- -
Great Blue Heron	1	- -	1	1	1	- -	1	1
Turkey Vulture	6	5	3	8	37	33	3	21
Bald Eagle	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-tailed Hawk	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	1	2	2
Killdeer	1	- -	1	1	1	1	1	- -
Rock Dove	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	4	- -
Eurasian Collared Dove	7	6	6	9	7	8	6	5
Mourning Dove	3	5	3	3	3	6	14	3
Yellow-billed Cuckoo	- -	1	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Great Horned Owl	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	1	- -	- -
Common Nighthawk	1	2	2	4	- -	1	- -	2
Chimney Swift	4	2	3	10	14	19	19	30
Belted Kingfisher	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-headed Woodpecker	- -	1	- -	- -	1	- -	1	- -
Red-bellied Woodpecker	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Downy Woodpecker	1	- -	- -	1	1	1	- -	- -
Northern Flicker	- -	2	1	1	1	- -	- -	1
American Kestrel	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Eastern Phoebe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	1	- -
Eastern Wood-Pewee	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -
Willow Flycatcher	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -
Western Kingbird	4	2	1	9	7	14	18	- -
Eastern Kingbird	2	2	1	3	3	2	5	3
Great Crested Flycatcher	2	1	1	3	3	2	2	4
Bell's Vireo	1	1	1	- -	1	- -	- -	1
Warbling Vireo	1	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Red-eyed Vireo	- -	1	1	2	1	1	- -	- -
Blue Jay	- -	- -	- -	2	2	2	- -	- -
American Crow	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -
Cedar Waxwing	2	1	- -	2	7	4	4	- -
Black-capped Chickadee	1	1	1	2	2	4	2	2
Purple Martin	- -	- -	- -	5	12	7	13	- -
Northern Rough-winged Swallow	8	10	6	5	6	5	- -	- -
Barn Swallow	- -	2	4	- -	1	- -	- -	- -
American Cliff Swallow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	15	20	- -
House Wren	7	7	8	14	10	12	6	5
Red-breasted Nuthatch	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	1	- -	- -
White-breasted Nuthatch	1	1	1	1	1	2	3	- -
Grey Catbird	1	- -	1	3	2	1	1	- -
Brown Thrasher	2	2	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Common Starling	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	15	- -	- -
Eastern Bluebird	- -	1	- -	1	2	- -	- -	- -
American Robin	18	8	6	18	12	34	40	25
House Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	20	25	30	50	- -
House Finch	4	4	6	6	8	15	20	10
American Goldfinch	3	3	4	3	3	3	- -	3
Common Yellowthroat	3	3	3	2	2	3	3	3
American Yellow Warbler	2	2	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Baltimore Oriole	2	1	- -	2	- -	- -	1	- -
Orchard Oriole	6	1	1	3	3	4	4	3
Red-winged Blackbird	- -	20	10	10	10	10	- -	- -
Brown-headed Cowbird	6	8	4	5	2	2	- -	- -
Common Grackle	15	10	4	15	15	6	- -	- -
Song Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -
Chipping Sparrow	5	3	3	5	7	5	- -	3
Field Sparrow	1	1	- -	2	1	1	- -	- -
Lark Sparrow	2	2	- -	2	3	3	3	- -
Spotted Towhee	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	- -
Dickcissel	- -	- -	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Northern Cardinal	- -	1	- -	1	1	1	1	1
Blue Grosbeak	1	2	- -	- -	1	1	- -	- -
Indigo Bunting	- -	- -	1	2	- -	- -	- -	- -

The first days of August brought relief from oppressive heat that stifled any attempt to venture forth to a greater extent of local places, notably Government Canyon. There has at least been scattered precipitation in the country. Valentine remains to by dry, with the amount of precipitation well below the average. The House Wrens continue to be active, though they did not find any appreciation of the dried meal worms placed for them as a source of food. They and other birds were completely oblivious, so this was a failed endeavor. The breeding season is basically done. August will involve further observations of seasonal residents, and it will be weeks until autumn migration activities provide new occurrences in the vicinity of the Heart City in Cherry county.

Lake and Wetland Improvements Continue in Cherry County Watershed

Management to improve the natural conditions of lakes and wetlands in a Cherry County watershed continue.

There has been a request by Sandhills Task Force spokesperson Shelly Kelly for improvements at Vrender Swamp in central Cherry county, at the southern edge of the Valentine Lake district. She officially asked Cherry County commissioners for approval to install an additional 36” culvert – adjacent to a present similar culvert – as well as a concrete box to control water flow and to place fish screens at each culvert. These constructs would be placed at the county road at the southern edge of Vrenders Marsh (a.k.a. Vrender Swamp), according to details present commissioners meeting on July 25th at Valentine. The fish-screens are solar-powered and cycle on a timed schedule to remove accumulated debris to ensure an uninhibited water flow. This equipment would be built by a son of the land owner, according to Kelly. Having them along the county road would improve their reliability as they could be more easily monitored at a readily accessible location. Any expenses associated with the project would be paid by sponsors.

The proposal was positively received by the commissioners, and notably by Jim Van Winkle (a former representative of the Sandhills Task Force), though a decision was tabled until there could be a determination to ensure the county road right-of-way alignment as notably voiced by commissioner Tanya Storer. The three commissioners agreed that that landowners would need to be timely informed of roadway construction activities, and that any work be done in a manner that would not inhibit travel necessary for area ranchers, especially if they need to transport cattle to the livestock market.

“The objective of this project is to impede upstream movement of invasive common carp and ultimately restore the high-quality ecosystem inherent to Vrenders Marsh and the associated wetland,” according to information presented at the meeting. There would be 450 acres of “permanent lake and seasonal wetlands” restored with the removal of carp which would be expected to result in “high quality habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds and desirable game fishes.”

The original plan, for which a permit was received from the Army Corps of Engineers, would have placed a culvert northward in the meadow, and which would have required the construction of a water control berm. The waters would be treated with rotenone to remove any fish present.
The project would be done on privately owned property.

Other participants in the project include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

There has been previous work done to improve the quality of this watershed for game fish and migratory birds following the placement of two fish barriers just eastward of the Rat and Beaver Lakes complex. Both lakes were treated with rotenone to remove unwanted fish on September 3, 2014, according to Zac Brashears, a fisheries biologist employee of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

Following the treatment, yellow perch, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie and redear were released to reestablish the fishery, he said via email. In addition, “the lake has rebounded quickly with both emergent and submergent vegetation making it a great place to view shorebird species and waterfowl including trumpeter swans.”

The project summary submitted to the county commissioners also stated that “high-quality habitat” would be restored at Vrender Swamp following completion of this project. Waterfowl were notably indicated as beneficiaries.

“We are currently in the stages of documenting how these systems change and what added benefits are created once common carp are removed,” Brashears said.

The Cherry County Commissioners voted 2 to 1 to deny the application to install a second culvert beneath the county road so the status of this project is uncertain.

Land Impacts by NPPD Indicated by Corps of Engineers Document

The Nebraska Public Power District in mid-May applied for a nationwide permit from the Army Corps of Engineers that would allow them to place fill in wetlands along the corridor of the r-project.

This is a section of text from the letter submitted to the federal agency: “NPPD is applying for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 (2017 issue) for Utility Line Discharges from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to authorize the loss of less than 0.50 acre of waters of the United States (US) from fill.”

The document submitted to the Corps is titled “R-Project – Pre-Construction Notification – Application No. 2012-02858” as prepared by consultant company Power Engineers and with a date of May 10, 2017. This document was provided by the federal agency after three Freedom of Information Act requests.

What is very prominent was that NPPD did not just apply for a permit from the Corps, but they applied for a particular type of permit, and made certain that the indicated impact to wetlands was below the threshold that would have required an individual permit requiring a public notice and allow public review.

A Problematic Application

Amidst the extensive information in the document, there are several items which are very problematic based upon a review of details.

The application is basically built upon a false premise that immediately becomes evident in Figure 1, showing the project location. This map differs from other maps showing the “final transmission line route” as given in other project review documents also issued in May, especially the draft environmental impact statement released by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even the permit area map given as Figure 1 in the Habitat Restoration Plan portion of the document submitted to the Corps has an alignment different from what is shown in Figure 1 shown on previous pages.
The map given in the Corps documents has three obvious changes: 1) northeast Blaine county eastward of Highway 7 which shows a shift southward; 2) just west of Highway 183 in northern Loup county and in the vicinity of the Calamus river which shows a shift northward; and, 3) a slight southerly shift in northwest Garfield county on the south side of Carson lake.

Map indicating three instances of changes in the supposed "final route" for the proposed R-Project transmission line.

These changes have occurred despite the continued and repeated insistence by NPPD that the route is final, but this claim apparently applies only until the utility company decides to make changes to suit their purpose.

It needs to be indicated that NPPD cannot convey a definitive final route for the industrial powerline until NPPD has signed, legal agreements for any right-of-way for access. There are indications that there are few such signed easements, notably in Blaine and Thomas counties, where an evaluation was done by an advocate to prevent construction of the r-project industrial powerline.

This application conveys a tentative route that is a convoluted route of many changes here and there in directions to such an extreme that there is hardly ever any long length of straight-line alignment in comparison to other powerline alignments shown maps within the NPPD documentation.

The draft restoration management plan portion of the document indicates that there will be “temporary disturbance activities” in 1,042 acres within the permit zone and 465 acres outside the permit area. Each site will “require restoration efforts” as described in this plan. This extent of acres as being directly impacted according to the NPPD application includes both lowland and upland localities.

Placement of Fill in Wetlands

An essential component of the document is an evaluation of where fill will be placed. The only item for which jurisdictional fill is being considered is for the proposed monopoles where there is an indicated value of “0.001” acres of impact for each monopole structure. Though steel-lattice structures would be placed directly into in wetland areas and the aquifer, there is an exemption on any fill activity as the anchor screws have been legally defined as not being a type of fill. Most of indicated activity associated with permanent fill are denoted in a similar numeric factor of 0.000 extent.

There is an overall list of places where construction activity would take place within the multiple county area which the powerline would traverse. There are dozens of places that will require temporary fill, and which will exceed a minimally indicated more than 40 acres overall for dozens of miles – for which there is no indicated extent – of vehicular routes for items such as “overland travel access” or pull sites, or temporary work areas as well as fly yards. Pictures with the document indicate particular wetland places where impacts will occur.

There is no indication on the number of times that NPPD-associated vehicular traffic will traverse a particular route, as the number of times heavy equipment crosses a grassland or meadow, the impact will increase. What if it is a very wet season when construction crews want to travel to a particular tower site? There are times following extensive precipitation when wet meadows should not be traversed. The NPPD application does not consider such conditions. What if a big truck gets stuck in a meadow, and other big equipment is required to extract it from the wetland? This will result in a deep gouge into the ground, and not simply be a track across the land.

At four indicated places where culverts will be installed, the banks of the waterway will be altered to a configuration that will conform to the circular or oval shape of the metal culvert. Dirt will be placed within the waterway and atop the structure to allow vehicle travel. This is not a temporary disturbance.

The “temporary” designation for travel access is a not particularly considered in any specific manner by the document. Will NPPD will continue to traverse these routes for powerline maintenance and any emergency access? There is an obvious need of the utility company for regular, perhaps twice a year maintenance work. If a culvert is required for a construction route, it seems reasonable that this same construct will be needed for additional future and expected access.

There is nothing in the document submitted by NPPD that even considers the access necessary for the required continued maintenance and emergency access of powerline features. How will any utility company truck(s) traverse routes across the hills after a substantive snowfall exceeding 12 inches and perhaps with ongoing blizzard-like conditions? They will not be able to do any such thing. So rather than align the powerline along already established rights-of-way, they instead prefer to place the line where access will not be possible during severe winter weather, so any repairs will need to be delayed until some later time.

Since the r-project is not intended to provide a powerline for “local” customers, instead any outage might be locally irrelevant, but the overall power grid will be operating in a deficient manner. This situation does not conform with the intent of NPPD and the Southwest Power Pool to improve quality of service.

It needs to be noted that wetland delineation occurred only at places where the landowner allowed “right of entry” so any wetland evaluation is only partial since some property owners may have denied access to their property. There were three dates, primarily during the 2016 growing season, when field surveys were done by hired consultants.

There is a claim made that any “temporary fill” within wetlands will be removed following the completion of the powerline construction. The document indicates: “4) temporary fill will be removed in its entirety, and the affected area will be restored to its pre-construction condition including seeding wetlands with appropriate native hydrophytic species as needed; and 5) when temporary fills are placed in a wetland, a horizontal marker will be used to demarcate the existing ground elevation in order to restore the wetlands to pre-construction conditions.”

There is no indication of any effort by NPPD to conduct work in wet meadow areas during times of the year when the ground is frozen, which would reduce impacts. If the ground is frozen, perhaps the placement of fill would not be required as it would be hard ground traversed rather than a soft-ground water-saturated soil. NPPD has not considered this alternative.

There is no timeframe indicating when any temporary fill would be removed. This needs to precisely defined so that NPPD cannot simply wait years or until some time of their choosing.

It is impossible for any entity to restore each and every wetland to “pre-construction conditions.” Once a wetland is disturbed by being filled to some extent, and then when excavation occurs to remove the fill, it is forever altered. Only time will allow recovery, and this will be influenced the overall extent of alteration and by any artificial seeding.

Within the report, there is, of course, a section on “Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation” with one pertinent statement: “Restrict all construction vehicle movement outside the ROW to pre-designated access or public roads, and restrict the use of other roads or areas to emergency situations.”

This is a statement which is directly the opposite of what is shown in the NPPD document to develop new travel access routes for construction, many of which are outside the powerline right-of-way. This statement would seem to indicate that there will be no new access routes developed though NPPD will obviously create new travel routes through the hills to suit their needs.

Powerline Route Maps

A key section of the document provided to the Corps is Appendix B, the “Wetland Map Book” which comprises 81 images showing particular segments of the powerline route with land features shown in association with the powerline alignment and the proposed r-project access route within these counties: Lincoln (where two forested wetlands along the South Platte river will be cleared; these two locations are not indicated in the tabular fill summary because it is vegetative removal, not placement of fill. There is a similar situation at the North Platte river), Logan, Thomas, Blaine, Loup (with maps for ca. 20 sections of the proposed powerline route), Garfield (ca. 15 segments), Holt (ca. 12 segments) and Wheeler.
These are some example of the route maps indicating prominent land features. After looking at the “map book” time and time and time again, these maps conveys some of the most notable indications associated with the proposed powerline route and access routes as derived from some example computer screen captures from the document provided by the Corps.

Crossing the North Platte River. Note how the powerline alignment does not adhere to the westerly North Prairie Trace Road because there would not be a “pull-site” available at the western extent of the corridor and along a roadway, as such a place would be within the river, so instead the line will be placed through forested wetlands rather than along the road.	North Loup River northwest of Brewster.
Along Gracie Creek avenue. The dashed black lines indicate the proposed route. How will the topography will altered so that the immediate setting of the powerline tower is suitable for an industrial lattice tower. This is a situation all along this indicated segment of the proposed r-project.	Note the topography of this site for a powerline construct at the western end of Gracie Creek Avenue. It seems that NPPD will conform the site to make it suitable for a lattice tower, rather than conform their construct to the natural contours of the hills. The marker pictured - and others in the immediate vicinity - are nothing but trash on the land.
This location is on the Hawley Flats. The powerline pole will be placed directly west of the county road and within the wetland extent. Because of legal machinations, placing the steel-lattice tower within this wetland site, it is not considered to be sort of fill activity. Notice how the map is erroneous as it calls the road “Holly Flats” which is an obvious and notable error.	This is a photograph taken in April 2017 which shows a marker indicating the specific location of an industrial powerline tower. There are additional impacts due to the imposition of pull areas and work yards to the south.
Alignment shift at the south side of Carson lake in northwest Garfield county. The route of the proposed powerline could follow a county road westward of the lake, and then continue along the county road alignment rather than traverse overland through a lake setting and wetland meadows and other portions of a natural landscape.
Along Highway 11. There was an access route of a greater extent selected to avoid any crossing associated with Big Cedar creek.	Southward of Goose Lake WMA. At Highway 183 the utility company decided to move the live southward to an alignment where there is no access route, rather than make the effort to just have a straight-line alignment along county road 846.

Despite the extent of proposed access routes associated with the conveyed alignment of an industrial powerline, the details given to the Corps and other federal agencies are associated only with a proposed corridor. This document indicates that the potential impact is much greater because of ancillary routes of vehicular travel. Yet this has received only slight consideration via the ACE document. Every consideration needs to be given to the overall particulars, not just some chosen portion of an industrial construct. The details given represent a “false reality” which is not an overall reality accepted by residents of the Sand Hills.

Vegetative Restoration

Essential to any review of wetland conditions is an evaluation of the flora, and there are those details given in the permit application. Appendix E provides the “wetland determination data forms” as prepared for some sites along the project corridor.

Why is it that the species indicated to be used to reestablish the disturbed vegetation – based upon some report or another – do not include the species actually documented as growing at a several locales? Subtle nuances in plant growth represent centuries of adaptation yet NPPD prefers to use a few so-called “representative studies” to make decisions on what needs to be seeded, with there being an obvious focus only on some representative grassland species.

Representative species actually present on the east-west segment of the line include, for example, include these sorts of plants as indicated on many “Wetland Determination Data Form” reports prepared for site surveys, notably in the route along County Road 846 in southern Holt county and northern Wheeler county: Carex (sedges), different species of Juncus (rushes), Calamagrostis stricta (slimstem reedgrass), Ratibida columnifera (upright prairie coneflower), Verbena stricta (hoary verbena), Liatris aspera (a gayfeather species), Agrostris giganteum (= A. gigantea; a grass species), Eleocharis compressa (flatstem spikerush) at several sites, Trifolium pratense (red clover), Ambrosia psilostachya (Cuman ragweed), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), Typha angustifolia (narrowleaf cattail), Distichlis spicata (inland saltgrass), Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass) and numerous other sorts of plants as documented during site surveys.

A claim conveyed in the NPPD document is that all restoration will be completed with a five-year timeframe, with monitoring of the restoration efforts. The document states: “A formal Effectiveness Monitoring Report will be submitted to USFWS only for Zone 1, because that is the area of the project under USFWS jurisdiction through the ITP. The annual report will be prepared following each late-summer monitoring session, which will include results from the effectiveness monitoring and document progress toward achieving the performance standards. If performance standards are met, the fifth annual report (end of five-year monitoring) will be the final report on restoration effectiveness. If performance standards are not met within the initial five-year monitoring period, adaptive management measures will be implemented and post-construction restoration effectiveness monitoring will be extended until the standards are met. Any data collected for Zone 2 will be kept by NPPD to document restoration success.”

It is not apparent how this information will be available for public consideration and that there would be any sort of review of efficacy.

The seeding mix indicated in the document submitted to the Corps does not represent the overall flora present and thus lacks any proper suitability in any indicated vegetative restoration. The species listed in the document are primarily focused on grass species, mostly ignoring forbs and other sorts of plants which exist in a naturally adapted vegetative setting.

Considering the Section 404 Evaluation

The pre-construction document received from the Corps after three Freedom of Information Act requests, comprises 45 pages and several appendices as prepared by Power Engineers for the utility company so it comprises a much greater extent of pages.

Due to the many problems with a permit request by NPPD, the application needs to be elevated to an individual permit where the public can review details in a timely manner and that there would also be a public hearing or two in the proposed project area, preferably Brewster and then Burwell. To do anything otherwise, would be an intentional decision that disregards the public and most notably ranch-country residents.

Cherry County Planning Board Violates Open Meetings Act

(Copyright 2017 James E. Ducey. All rights reserved) Also issued in the Grant County News.

The Cherry County Planning and Zoning Board violated the Open Meetings Act during their morning meeting on July 21st at the commissioner’s room at Valentine.

The three items which were violations are indicated in Section 84-1412 of the Act.
The first and most egregious violation was of subsection 1, which states: “…the public has the right to attend and the right to speak at meetings of public bodies …”

There was no comment period item on the agenda and there was no opportunity given to allow public comments by attendees.

This is especially problematic because Gary Swanson stated at the previous meeting of the board in early July that public comment would not be allowed at their next meeting. Despite my objections at that time that this would violate the Open Meetings Act and with a strident request to the board that this objection be entered into the public record, this statement was not corrected, nor was any subsequent action taken by board chair Jim Buer. These two board members and everyone on the board was told that to not allow public comments would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
Buer stated I should talk to Eric Scott, the county attorney. Following a meeting with the attorney there was a better understanding on how to deal with any potential violations.

A subsection 4 of the Act states: “Any member of a public body who knowingly violates or conspires to violate or who attends or remains at a meeting knowing that the public body is in violation of any provision of the Open Meetings Act shall be guilty of a Class IV misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class III misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.”

Therefore, each member of the board present on July 21st knowingly violated the Open Meetings Act, especially since each of them had been present at the meeting earlier in the month and heard the notice that to not allow public comment would be a violation. This means there has been a legal offense by eight members of the board, including messrs. Billings, Buer, Ericksen, Lee, Mathis, Pabst, Swanson and Wheeler.

Another pertinent subsection states that “Public bodies shall make available at the meeting or the instate location for a telephone conference call or videoconference, for examination and copying by members of the public, at least one copy of all reproducible written material to be discussed at the open meeting.”

There was no public copy available in the meeting room of a) the meeting agenda, and b) the minutes, so there were two distinct, additional violations. Photocopies of both items were however given to members of the board by the county zoning administrator.

Just before adjournment of the meeting – with an insistence to speak – a formal, verbal objection was made with a request that it be entered into the public record. This was personally done to comply with an annotation to Sec. 84-1412, which states: “To preserve an objection that a public body failed to make documents available at a public meeting as required by subsection (8) of this section, a person who attends a public meeting must not only object to the violation, but must make that objection to the public body or a member of the public body.”

This clause was read in its entirety to ensure that the board members and public present understood the complaint. The objection was told to the eight members of the board that were present, as well to the more than ten members of the community present. The entire meeting was videotaped by an attendee so there is an obvious record.

Because of these violations, there is an opportunity to file a civil law suit as Section 84-1414, subsection 1 allows recourse: “Any motion, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a body made or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within one hundred twenty days of the meeting of the public body at which the alleged violation occurred.” This language is reinforced in subsection 3.

Subsection 2 states that the “… county attorney of the county in which the public body ordinarily meets shall enforce the Open Meetings Act.” This would be Mr. Scott in Cherry county.

It also needs to be known that despite multiple and repeated requests by some meeting attendees for a sign-in sheet, both the planning and zoning board and county commissioners continue to disregard this means of getting into the official record the names of people that have taken the time to be involved in the public discourse. The excuse given is that this is a courtesy not a legal requirement. It is a request which elected public officials apparently prefer to ignore. At multiple meetings, an attendee has personally gotten together a sign-in sheet and spread it around so that public involvement would be documented.

NPPD Forces Feds to Nix Attendance of FWS Official at Community Meeting

A phone call from a federal office in Washington D.C. prevented Robert Harms of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from attending a private meeting in Thedford on the afternoon of July 17, 2017.

Officials of the Nebraska Public Power District had learned of the meeting via an online posting, and called the Denver and Grand Island office of the federal agency, but were told by an agency head in Nebraska that the question and answer meeting was still a go, according to details provided by a meeting sponsor. Because of communication with an office in Washington, D.C., Harms received notice that he could not attend the meeting. It was conveyed that NPPD thought that it looked like Harms was “going behind their back” and made the FWS look biased.

Harms, from the Nebraska Field Office, had planned to answer questions regarding the R-Project. He was already in Thedford, when he received the notification to not attend, within the hour prior to the start of the meeting.

Prior to the start of the meeting, two NPPD representatives were sitting in a back corner of the meeting room of the venue. They were kindly asked to leave, initially balked as they were told to attend by some lawyer and then erroneously said that Mr. Harms would be present. Once told that it was a private meeting and they did not have reservations, they were escorted to the exit and it was made certain that they left, according to the hostess of the meeting. While the meeting was underway, an attendee that arrived a short time after it had started, saw two people in an NPPD truck driving around, taking pictures of parked vehicles and their license plates, she said.

Ranchland Community Gathering

Despite the lack of a guest that would have been greatly appreciated, the meeting continued with discussions on these key items:
* the Section 404 application made to the Army Corps of Engineers where NPPD has asked for a type of permit which does not address fill being placed in wetlands for the required long-term powerline and power-pole maintenance; they have also requested a permit that was prepared in a manner that would not allow public review, as associated with an individual permit. Information on this application was received three Freedom of Information Act requests. Any decision is still pending.
* change in r-project alignment: the alignment map in the ACE document does not match the alignment indicated in other draft documents that have recently been submitted for public review; there are obvious substantive changes.
* lack of legal agreements for many portions of the proposed powerline route as obvious due to the few easements filed in deed records of two counties which the powerline will traverse, notably Blaine county.
* NPPD and regulatory agencies undertaking an environmental review and other considerations for a project where the final route of the powerline is hypothetical due to the lack of legally-indicated easements.
* how is it that NPPD can identify itself as a “quasi-public” corporation; this company has even indicated that it is a public corporation or a political subdivision, according to documentation received via the FOIA request; an action item indicated at the meeting was to have the Nebraska Attorney General issue a finding that will provide a final answer as to the type of company designation for NPPD. It is impossible for NPPD to be a "political subdivision" as the term is applicable to incorporated villages, towns and cities.
* pending opportunity for further public comment on the draft environmental impact statement and other project documents, comprising about 1500 pages; additional weeks will be provided, based upon details which are expected to be issued this month in the Federal Register.
* matters regarding the legal statutes of the state of Nebraska Open Meetings Act, including how these statutes have recently been violated in association with public meetings on the r-project and wind turbine planning efforts in Cherry county.
* plans for ongoing activities to keep industrial powerlines and unwanted wind turbines from being placed in the sandhills, a place that is special for each person in the meeting, and for future generations, as stated multiple times by speakers. Cattleman Steve Moreland from Merriman put it very succinctly: “Just say no” to unwanted turbines and powerlines.

The private meeting was hosted by Dan and Barb Welch of the Brush Creek Ranch which is primarily west of Brownlee, with their south unit a short distance south of Thedford, along with great involvement from "members" of the advocacy group “Preserve the Sandhills.” More than 65 people attended, including Merriman, Valentine, Wood Lake, the Brownlee area, Brewster, Burwell, and Thomas County residents. There was also a representative or two from local planning boards or county commissioners that attended to hear the commentary.

There were many successful ranchers present, sitting on the chairs in the rooms. Their names could be mentioned individually, but that will not happen here because it was a community meeting where a bunch of special ranch country decided to splice out personal time during a busy summer season to be present at a meeting for common causes.

Lots of cowboys hats were upon the heads of cattlemen. There were boots a bit of distance above the floor spread about. The crowd was completely respectful. They listened. They learned because among those present are a few people which have spent multiple hours dealing with government, wind turbines and an industrial powerline. Most importantly, everyone, yes everyone was given a chance to speak. Everyone listened attentively in each instance.

The meeting was one more example of sand hill ranchland residents gathering to work towards conservation of their home place now as well as for their future generations.

Blaine county is now initiating efforts to develop zoning regulations, according to comments made at the meeting and details mentioned at the meeting of the Cherry county commissioners on July 11th. An initial meeting is pending.