Ranch Land Facing Threat of Eminent Domain

June 21, 2018. Ranch land facing threat of eminent domain. Grant County News 133(47): 1, 3.

Ranchland heritage established by Dan and Barbara Welch is facing the threat of eminent domain that would impose an industrial powerline on their place south of Thedford.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued multiple documents, each of them titled as a “determination of no hazard to air navigation” for a transmission line, which is basically for 35 industrial powerline towers – built 1350 feet apart – associated with the Nebraska Public Power District r-project. The powerline constructs would transit the Brush Creek Ranch and other private property south and southeast of Thedford.

One of the approved towers, more than 132 feet in height, would be placed on the southern edge of the Brush Creek Ranch, and adjacent to highway 83. The proposed powerline would continue a short distance to the north, then go easterly, and then again northward as the final tower having been considered by the FAA would be adjacent to the Middle Loup River, just south of what would be an expanded power substation east of Thedford, along Highway 2.

The towers needed for the 345-kV industrial powerline at the designated locations would vary in height from 62 feet to 140 feet, with 29 more than a hundred feet in height. Work is scheduled to be completed from January 2019 to December 2020. The “determination” would expire if construction had not been started by December 4, 2019. There would be no requirements for marking or lighting, according to the FAA documents. Maps indicating the specific placement of each tower are provided at the agency website.

The type of tower is not indicated by the FAA summary page. There would apparently be several monopole towers along a short distance of Highway 83 and then steel-lattice towers on rangeland of the Brush Creek Ranch, according to environmental review documentation.

NPPD would have to also use eminent domain to place monopoles on nearby property owned by Brent Steffen, just south of the Brush Creek Ranch, and along Highway 83. Both Welch – who has undertaken legal action to prevent NPPD from accessing his property – and Steffen – who has written several letters to editors in different newspapers – have been very consistent and vocal opponents to the r-project. Neither of them have signed an easement agreement to allow powerline construction on their personally owned private property. Thus eminent domain procedures by NPPD would be required for construction to occur in Thomas county and notably elsewhere along the proposed 225 mile powerline corridor where every request by the power company for many easements have been unacceptable to multiple property owners.

Vehicular access would be necessary along the entire length of the transmission line and would continue to be needed for years for ongoing maintenance requirements.

Construction through the middle of the Welch Ranch would involve placement of monopoles using huge cranes and seemingly be done because of readily available access along Highway 83? Then lattice towers, would apparently be placed using a helicopter, according to r-project documents; associated ground crews would drive vehicles across the hills. A very local staging area where lattice tower pieces would be put together and flight landings would be required, according to details provided by NPPD in federal project application documents. There is a dearth of details on “staging areas” where towers would be built or helicopters would land, specifically for the south Thedford area. There also may be the need for a “pull-site” on the Welch Ranch, since the proposed line makes a change from north-south to east-west alignment near the southern most towers as approved by the FAA.

There was no opportunity for public comment on the FAA applications, which for the initial filings did not provide any “sponsor information” and for which details were only indicated once final determination was made, based upon a comparison of online documentation on different dates in late May and early June.

Any other applications for FAA consideration of transmission line placements for the r-project were not found at the agency website as of the first week of June. Each powerline tower needs a distinct “determination of no hazard” finding.

The r-project is still currently being evaluated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has thus-far issued no environmental permits necessary for construction to be started. There has been no time indicated when the findings of this agency will be available for public consideration.

Industrial Development Stopped Upon Avia

Galactic Year 102018. Based upon a release of information by the Avia Federation.

A decision to continue the entirety of the planet of Avia as a preserve for avians recently occurred, thus halting plans by an interplanetary developer to establish a mining operation on the planet, located in the Andromeda cosmos.

Their request was denied, following a decision by the Queen of Light.



Avia is a planet dedicated to the preservation of birds in the many habitats of the natural ecosystem encompassing the entire planet, with very few research monitoring outposts, as supported by a galactic community of contributors.

Another recent attempt to establish an industrial presence by a mining conglomerate of a nearby planet, and known to establish operations wherever they could to make a profit was stopped, with essential intergalactic assistance and arbitration required.

The ephemeral Queen of Light arrived with her assistant, the Princess of Light, along with a delegation that included several Angels of Light to indicate that any decision would be enforced. Each of them were prominent yet hard to see.


Following her arrival and once suitably settled in the planetary administrative building, readings of the will of planetary residents and others within the stellar realm occurred multiple times. The Queen of Light – with her supreme powers of empathy and understanding – then presented a diagram indicating multiple boxes of different colors that conveyed the preference for what should occur. The graphic figure was prominent and distinctive in a singular perspective, with protection the preferred option.


While the delegation was upon Avia, multiple attempts were made by parties associated with the development entity, to thwart the arbitration. An attempt to block the solar light to diminish stellar power failed in its effort to inhibit efforts to understand the pulse of the planet.

The decision was obvious, with the majority rejecting the industrial proposal. The planetary land would continue to be a space where birds should would thrive, and any contrary efforts would be prohibited.

Just a few years ago, there was a battle at the central headquarters of the Avia Federation, at its headquarters situated upon a vast grassland plain. An attack by pirate spacecraft was repulsed during a single-day confrontation. Damage did occur to the single administrative building on the planet.

Avia is about half the size of Sol – the sun of Gaia – but the forcible effort to impose industrialization was thwarted.

This fight was an initial intergalactic effort – involving a party from Gaia, within the Milky Way and having an appropriate resume – helped with tactics based upon the reality of knowing birds and what could be done to repel the invaders. The result was a cooperative agreement that the planet would solely be a vast landscape of myriad floral habitats where birds would thrive and survive in abundance.

The fight indicated a victory and definitive decision to get bird conservation enacted on a planetary scale with an official designation by cosmic administration officials that Avia would be a bird haven where any artificial constructs would not be acceptable.

An edict has been issued by the intergalactic council to indicate the planet is being managed for the benefit of thousands of different sorts with habitats and a plan where so many sorts of birds survive and thrive. The planet has a multitude of habitats, including oceans and islands, multiple sorts of forests, many different lakes, riverine woods, wetlands and prairies, as well as other spaces.

No details are available from any chronicles of the Milky Way to indicate the many thousands of sorts of avians that dwell upon Avia. There is no bird guide available. Information that might become available in the future may convey additional specifics for this planetary ecosystem.

There could be a multitude of knowledge to indicate "species" of avians present on Avia. There are no known surveys that would be helpful.
　

Birdly Wonders of a Cherry County Spring

June 6, 2018. Birdly wonders of a Cherry county spring. Valentine Midland News 46(49): 11. A paid advertisement. The cost was $132 for the 2 x 11 ad.

Every day can be a bird day and spring in Cherry County and at Valentine was indicative as many different wildbirds got lots of attention as appreciated by multiple observers. On various days during March through May birders visited prominent places including near Valentine at the city park and mill pond, Valentine NWR (12 checklists), three visits each to Fort Niobrara NWR and Smith Falls State Park, as well as to Anderson Bridge, Shell Lake and Ballards Marsh WMAs, and even along the county road northward from Brownlee.

There were some especially exciting sightings among nearly 1800 records, many by visitors reporting their observations to the ebird online repository and that were significant in indicating many of the 176 species seen to occur. The tally for the immediate vicinity of Valentine was 115 species during the three months.

The mid-April blizzard wrought destruction to birds. Carcasses of migratory Sandhill Crane were found a few miles south of Valentine, days later. A significant flight of the cranes going northward did occur on 17 April, and the flight and calls perfectly showed that winter was finally finished! During the blizzard event, a nest box with Eastern Bluebird eggs filled with blowing snow, ruining the breeding attempt. After the pair had not returned for weeks, the box caretaker let some Tree Swallow use it instead.

Notably prominent at Valentine were two indications of the potentiality of bird hybridization in the so diverse Niobrara Valley environs. A male Rose-breasted Grosbeak had a contention during mid-May over breeding habitat with a couple of Black-headed Grosbeak just north of the Mill Pond. The latter species was still present at the end of the month. A hybrid Bullocks Oriole x Baltimore Oriole was also indicative as closely seen during the same days, also north of town.

A couple of local highlights were the Great-tailed Grackle in mid-May, seemingly getting established here and elsewhere in north-central Nebraska, and a simply beautiful Lazuli Bunting appreciating some of the bird seed. At least two pair of Great Blue Heron have been busy raising a brood at nests in trees at the eastern extent of the city park. Bald Eagle were not reported but were certainly raising young in their massive nests.

Various warblers were seen on branches and boughs in the sylvan setting of the city park, including the Yellow Warbler, American Redstart and Ovenbird. The itty-bitty Common Yellowthroat appreciates its bit of space among the cattail habitat at the western extent of the Mill Pond, where Spotted Sandpiper are busy nearby on the sandy creek bank. Many other species are local residents. You can’t miss the robins, Blue Jay or Eurasian Collared Dove around town.

Daily, the local flock of Turkey Vulture soar in search of some edible carrion near Valentine, as well as other suitable country spaces. The north side flock of Wild Turkey survived intact after the hunting season. Red-winged Blackbird were visibly perturbed as the big hens and gobblers – a very apt term – ruled at the seed buffet. Daily a horde of black birds of three species eat a bunch of seeds. While they feed, it is quite interesting to watch the birds’ behavior as they interact to get something to eat. Female redwings, for example, use a wing-flutter action to indicate their space ... momma is hungry, so stay away.

By the end of May, two pair of Canada Goose had goslings at the Mill Pond. Swallows were busily eating bugs with a colony of Cliff Swallow on the Highway 83 bridge over Minnechaduza Creek. Rough-winged swallows were busy in the same vicinity. Chimney Swift continue to be prominent over Main Street being bugeaters all day long. Purple Martin with a similar purpose, dwell where a suitable nest house is present, and not overtaken by the pesky House Sparrow. During the night, Common Nighthawk also fly in search of insects somewhere near where they nest on the ground or a city building roof?

The overall county bird variety ranges in size from the magnificent Trumpeter Swan to the mighty mite, the house wren. The call of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo was heard in late May and is a certain sign of summer’s arrival.

A grand variety of wildbirds are essential wildlife around Valentine, within the county and overall in the Great American Sandhills. The current and historic reality conveys many people spend tourist money and hundreds of hours to appreciate nature and the many ranchland and wildlife values amidst a landscape mostly free of constructs and blinking lights that destroy night sky views.

Nearly every bird sighting can be a distinctive story with every outing an opportunity for unique memories. Wildbirds though are indifferent to being a mark on a tally sheet, so there is a responsibility for actions to make a difference to ensure the “voice” of birds is realized and their airspace and habitat is suitably conserved so the special wildbird wonders of these days can be appreciated in a similar manner tomorrow, next years and by future generations.

There is no place in our unique county where industrial wind turbines and mega-powerlines should in any manner be allowed to kill wildbirds by spinning turbine blades or destroy wildlands habitat. Don’t ruin treasures just so some misdirected people can put tax-payer subsidized dollars in their pocket.

Ad paid for by James E. Ducey. Details online at Wildbirds Broadcasting.

---

The numbers given in the table indicate an overall summary of the number observed for each of the species at any locale within the county during the particular month.

Birds of Cherry County - Spring, 2018

Proper Name	March	April	May
Canada Goose	220	3853	181
Cackling Goose	--	16	--
Snow Goose	--	336	--
Trumpeter Swan	--	10	6
Wood Duck	19	6	8
Cinnamon Teal	--	--	1
Blue-winged Teal	78	--	122
Northern Shoveler	196	5	43
Gadwall	227	7	20
American Wigeon	12	7	6
Mallard	51	35	48
Northern Pintail	--	4	1
Green-winged Teal	39	8	4
Canvasback	96	12	--
Redhead	158	10	18
Ring-necked Duck	27	10	3
Greater Scaup	2	--	--
Lesser Scaup	125	21	3
Bufflehead	82	7	1
Common Goldeneye	1	8	--
Common Merganser	24	81	--
Ruddy Duck	182	--	55
Northern Bobwhite	--	--	1
Wild Turkey	103	76	64
Sharp-tailed Grouse	5	--	9
Common Pheasant	5	2	8
Common Loon	--	--	1
Pied-billed Grebe	1	--	5
Horned Grebe	5	--	--
Black-necked Grebe	--	--	18
Western Grebe	12	--	103
White-faced Ibis	1	--	34
American Bittern	--	--	7
Black-crowned Night Heron	1	--	--
Western Cattle Egret	--	--	5
Great Blue Heron	15	3	15
American White Pelican	73	--	86
Double-crested Cormorant	50	--	16
Turkey Vulture	171	28	125
Western Osprey	--	--	1
Sharp-shinned Hawk	4	1	--
Cooper's Hawk	1	1	--
Northern Harrier	7	1	2
Bald Eagle	4	6	2
Mississippi Kite	--	--	1
Swainson's Hawk	--	--	1
Red-tailed Hawk	5	21	9
Rough-legged Buzzard	1	3	--
Virginia Rail	--	--	2
Sora	--	--	1
American Coot	546	--	20
Sandhill Crane	1545	--	6
Black-necked Stilt	--	--	1
American Avocet	--	--	4
Killdeer	14	4	26
Upland Sandpiper	--	--	34
Long-billed Curlew	--	--	2
Stilt Sandpiper	--	--	63
Sanderling	--	--	1
Least Sandpiper	--	--	12
White-rumped Sandpiper	--	--	3
Semipalmated Sandpiper	--	--	31
Long-billed Dowitcher	--	--	1
Wilson's Snipe	--	--	7
Wilson's Phalarope	--	--	45
Spotted Sandpiper	1	--	13
Greater Yellowlegs	3	--	--
Franklin's Gull	--	2	6
Ring-billed Gull	6	19	20
American Herring Gull	4	22	--
Forster's Tern	--	--	7
Black Tern	--	--	43
Rock Dove	17	27	--
Eurasian Collared Dove	47	47	57
Mourning Dove	67	9	97
Yellow-billed Cuckoo	--	--	2
Great Horned Owl	3	1	3
Burrowing Owl	--	--	1
Common Nighthawk	--	--	16
Chimney Swift	3	--	64
Ruby-throated Hummingbird	--	--	1
Belted Kingfisher	8	1	2
Red-headed Woodpecker	--	--	22
Red-bellied Woodpecker	1	3	1
Downy Woodpecker	11	12	7
Hairy Woodpecker	1	3	4
Northern Flicker	16	19	10
American Kestrel	4	--	2
Merlin	--	1	--
Peregrine Falcon	--	--	1
Eastern Phoebe	7	1	9
Eastern Wood Pewee	--	--	2
Willow Flycatcher	--	--	1
Least Flycatcher	--	--	8
Western Kingbird	1	--	37
Eastern Kingbird	--	--	73
Great Crested Flycatcher	--	--	17
Loggerhead Shrike	1	--	1
Great Grey Shrike	--	1	--
Bell's Vireo	--	--	13
Warbling Vireo	--	--	9
Red-eyed Vireo	--	--	10
Blue Jay	5	6	15
American Crow	14	39	18
Cedar Waxwing	--	94	30
Black-capped Chickadee	20	26	17
Horned Lark	--	--	63
Sand Martin	--	--	6
Tree Swallow	23	--	99
Purple Martin	--	--	12
Northern Rough-winged Swallow	5	--	103
Barn Swallow	1	--	59
American Cliff Swallow	15	--	250
Ruby-crowned Kinglet	--	1	--
Sedge Wren	--	--	1
Marsh Wren	--	1	25
House Wren	--	--	53
Blue-grey Gnatcatcher	--	--	1
Red-breasted Nuthatch	5	3	1
White-breasted Nuthatch	13	19	7
Grey Catbird	--	--	15
Brown Thrasher	1	--	29
Common Starling	22	97	19
Eastern Bluebird	19	18	12
Townsend's Solitaire	--	2	--
Swainson's Thrush	--	--	8
American Robin	278	253	125
House Sparrow	70	122	32
House Finch	39	50	23
Common Redpoll	--	75	--
Red Crossbill	--	12	--
American Goldfinch	39	24	35
Pine Siskin	1	2	4
Ovenbird	--	--	6
Northern Waterthrush	--	--	1
Orange-crowned Warbler	5	--	5
Common Yellowthroat	--	--	29
American Redstart	--	--	25
American Yellow Warbler	--	--	83
Blackpoll Warbler	--	--	2
Palm Warbler	--	--	1
Myrtle Warbler	3	--	6
Audubon's Warbler	11	--	10
Yellow-breasted Chat	--	--	3
Yellow-headed Blackbird	12	--	82
Bobolink	--	--	9
Western Meadowlark	20	6	77
Eastern Meadowlark	--	--	13
Baltimore Oriole	--	--	21
Bullock's Oriole x Baltimore Oriole	--	--	1
Orchard Oriole	--	--	23
Red-winged Blackbird	706	840	476
Brown-headed Cowbird	20	--	147
Common Grackle	140	14	204
Great-tailed Grackle	--	--	2
Lark Bunting	--	--	2
Song Sparrow	8	4	3
Lincoln's Sparrow	4	--	4
Harris's Sparrow	6	--	23
White-crowned Sparrow	2	--	47
White-throated Sparrow	--	--	11
Dark-eyed Junco	198	234	--
Savannah Sparrow	8	1	--
Grasshopper Sparrow	--	--	43
American Tree Sparrow	84	326	--
Chipping sparrow	21	--	132
Field Sparrow	1	--	14
Clay-colored Sparrow	3	--	81
Lark Sparrow	--	--	86
Spotted Towhee	1	--	30
Lapland Longspur	--	2	--
Rose-breasted Grosbeak	--	--	2
Black-headed Grosbeak	--	--	12
Northern Cardinal	10	15	18
Blue Grosbeak	--	--	2
Indigo Bunting	--	--	5
Lazuli Bunting	1	--	--

Wildbirds During May at Valentine

A very nice variety of wildbirds were observed in the immediate vicinity of Valentine during the spring month of May. The month started with the passage of migrants and ended with young waterfowl by the end of the month.

Bird observations were made on more days than typical because of the need to record an unusual occurrence. Also helpful were three ebird reports from the Valentine City Park (14th, 17th with the ebird report combined with personal observations, and the 30th).

The following is some analysis of species occurrence.

• Canada Goose: the first goslings were seen on May 18th (julian date 138) at the western extent of the Valentine Mill Pond; at least two pair raised young here.
  
• Wild Turkey: regularly seen earlier in the month and then sparse until the end of the month when the flock of ten was prominent at the bird seeds fed at my residence at the North Lake Shore Hills.
  
• Great Blue Heron: regularly seen flying along above the north hills and occasionally at the Mill Pond; two occupied nests were present in the east woods at the Valentine City Park and was noted that none of the ebird reports made any reference to the presence of this species at this locale.
  
• Turkey Vulture: more prevalent this season than in previous years, and most typically seen in numbers at their roost locale with birds notable throughout the day soaring over the north hills.
  
• Red-tailed Hawk: a pair certainly nested in the North Lake Shore Hills, as at least one of the birds could be seen nearly every day.
  
• Spotted Sandpiper: along Minnechaduza Creek with a surprising three at some sandy beach habitat at the west end of the mill pond.
  
• Yellow-billed Cuckoo: their presence late in the month was a sure sign of summer.
  
• Chimney Swift: most prevalent in Valentine.
  
• Red-bellied Woodpecker: surprisingly sparse.
  
• Hairy Woodpecker: more prevalent than the single record would indicate; the bird seen was carrying food at the western edge of the city park.
  
• Eastern Phoebe: most readily seen along Minnechaduza Creek in the city park and near the mill pond dam.
  
• Western Kingbird: pairs most prevalent at several places among the urban setting of the Heart City.
  
• Tree Swallow: eventually allowed to use a nest box where the mid-April blizzard froze the eggs of a pair of nesting Eastern Bluebird.
  
• Purple Martin: there are at least three known house in Valentine, the most prominent one at the Wacky West campground.
  
• American Cliff Swallow: the largest nesting colony is on the Highway 83 bridge over Minnechaduza Creek.
  
• Marsh Wren: vagrant at the mill pond.
  
• Blue-grey Gnatcatcher: notable seen perched for a short time on a powerline near a line of trees.
  
• Grey Catbird and Brown Thrasher: not seen or heard very often once they get actively nesting.
  
• Swainson's Thrush: two of the three sightings at the city park.
  
• American Robin: much more prevalent than minimal numbers indicate; first seen carrying food on May 23rd.
  
• Ovenbird: reported from the city park.
  
• Orange-crowned Warbler: also only from the city park.
  
• Bullock's Oriole x Baltimore Oriole: well seen foraging outside a window of my residence; seen earlier this year than the two sightings in 2016.
  
• Black birds: Red-winged Blackbird, Brown-headed Cowbird and Common Grackle were regular and common visitors to bird seed being provided to the local animals.
  
• Great-tailed Grackle: heard then seen at a building just west of the livestock market and then seen a bit later in the parking lot of the elementary school this May record is much more indicative of breeding season occurrence that the 28 March record in 2016.
  
• Rose-breasted Grosbeak: only single birds seen on the north side.
  
• On the 23rd, a Rose-breasted Grosbeak and two Black-headed Grosbeak had a contention about habitat along Lake Shore Drive at the northeast extent of the mill pond.
  
• Black-headed Grosbeak: more prevalent in the vicinity this year, with a pair first seen at the western edge of the city park on the 10th; a pair continued to be present at the place where the two grosbeak species contended over habitat.
  
• Blue Grosbeak: male well seen in the north hills mid-month.
  

This is a list of the species observed.

Wildbirds Reported at Valentine During May

Proper Name	122	125	127	128	130	133	134	135	137	138	139	143	148	150	151
Canada Goose	--	8	--	--	5	--	--	--	8	11	--	11	--	--	11
Wood Duck	--	2	--	--	3	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Blue-winged Teal	--	--	--	--	4	--	--	--	--	4	--	--	--	--	--
Northern Shoveler	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--
Wild Turkey	--	5	--	--	7	--	--	--	3	--	--	--	1	--	10
Pied-billed Grebe	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--
Great Blue Heron	--	1	--	--	1	--	--	--	3	--	--	1	1	--	1
Turkey Vulture	--	8	--	--	11	5	--	--	7	--	--	23	27	2	24
Western Osprey	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Red-tailed Hawk	1	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	1	--	2
Spotted Sandpiper	--	--	--	--	--	1	1	--	1	1	--	--	--	--	3
Eurasian Collared Dove	--	4	--	--	7	--	--	--	7	--	--	4	3	--	8
Mourning Dove	--	3	--	--	3	--	--	5	4	--	--	4	4	--	7
Yellow-billed Cuckoo	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	1	--
Common Nighthawk	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	--	--	2
Chimney Swift	--	6	--	--	20	3	8	--	13	--	--	2	3	--	8
Red-headed Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	4	--	--	--	--	--	1
Red-bellied Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Downy Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	--	1	1	--	1	--	--	--	--	1	1
Hairy Woodpecker	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1
Northern Flicker	--	--	1	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1
American Kestrel	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--
Eastern Phoebe	--	--	--	1	--	1	1	--	3	1	--	--	--	--	--
Eastern Wood Pewee	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--
Least Flycatcher	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--
Western Kingbird	--	1	--	--	3	--	--	6	6	--	--	--	--	--	6
Eastern Kingbird	--	--	1	1	1	--	--	--	6	--	--	1	4	--	2
Great Crested Flycatcher	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--	2	--	--	1	2	1	3
Bell's Vireo	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	1
Warbling Vireo	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--	1	1	1	1
Red-eyed Vireo	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	--	1	1
Blue Jay	--	1	--	--	--	1	1	--	3	--	--	1	--	--	1
American Crow	--	1	--	1	1	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	5	--	2
Cedar Waxwing	--	3	--	--	--	6	--	--	5	--	--	1	--	--	--
Black-capped Chickadee	--	3	--	--	2	--	2	--	4	--	--	--	--	--	1
Tree Swallow	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2
Purple Martin	--	6	--	--	--	--	--	--	6	--	--	--	--	--	--
Northern Rough-winged Swallow	--	--	--	2	23	12	--	--	15	5	--	6	6	--	6
American Cliff Swallow	--	--	--	--	--	--	4	--	5	50	--	3	--	--	35
Marsh Wren	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--
House Wren	--	2	1	--	5	--	1	--	14	--	--	3	--	3	6
Blue-grey Gnatcatcher	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--
Red-breasted Nuthatch	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--
White-breasted Nuthatch	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	2	--	--	1	--	1	--
Grey Catbird	--	--	--	--	2	--	2	--	6	--	--	2	--	--	--
Brown Thrasher	1	--	--	1	--	1	--	--	1	1	--	2	--	--	--
Common Starling	--	--	--	--	3	--	--	--	7	--	--	--	--	--	2
Eastern Bluebird	--	1	--	--	--	2	--	--	1	--	2	--	--	1	1
Swainson's Thrush	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	1	1	--	--	--	--	--
American Robin	--	10	--	--	14	--	4	--	33	--	--	10	6	2	25
House Sparrow	--	--	--	--	10	--	--	--	12	--	--	--	--	--	10
House Finch	--	--	--	4	--	--	--	--	9	--	--	4	4	--	2
American Goldfinch	--	--	--	2	--	2	1	--	7	3	--	3	3	--	3
Pine Siskin	--	--	--	1	2	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--
Ovenbird	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	--	--	--	--	1	--
Orange-crowned Warbler	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Common Yellowthroat	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	3	3	--	--	--	--	1
American Redstart	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	8	--	--	--	--	2	--
American Yellow Warbler	--	--	2	--	2	3	8	--	5	--	--	4	1	2	1
Myrtle Warbler	--	--	--	--	3	--	2	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Yellow-headed Blackbird	--	1	2	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Baltimore Oriole	--	--	--	--	3	--	--	--	3	1	--	2	1	--	4
Bullock's Oriole x Baltimore Oriole	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Orchard Oriole	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	1	2	1	--	2
Red-winged Blackbird	--	30	--	--	25	25	--	--	--	25	--	20	15	--	30
Brown-headed Cowbird	--	20	--	1	25	--	3	--	14	--	--	8	10	2	10
Common Grackle	--	12	--	--	39	--	--	--	40	--	--	10	10	1	20
Great-tailed Grackle	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Song Sparrow	--	--	--	--	2	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Lincoln's Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Harris's Sparrow	--	--	--	--	2	1	1	--	1	1	1	--	--	--	--
White-crowned Sparrow	1	1	--	3	6	7	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
White-throated Sparrow	--	1	--	--	--	--	6	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Chipping Sparrow	--	10	--	--	9	6	6	--	14	--	--	6	5	2	9
Field Sparrow	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	1	--	--	--	--	--	2
Clay-colored Sparrow	3	4	5	--	6	6	2	6	2	--	1	--	--	--	--
Lark Sparrow	--	1	--	1	2	2	--	--	4	--	5	4	4	--	6
Spotted Towhee	1	--	--	1	3	1	2	--	6	--	--	1	1	1	1
Rose-breasted Grosbeak	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	1	--	--	--
Black-headed Grosbeak	--	--	--	2	2	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	1	2
Northern Cardinal	--	--	--	1	1	1	--	--	3	--	1	3	--	--	3
Blue Grosbeak	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--	--
Indigo Bunting	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	1	1	1	--	1

The tally of 82 species this year compares to 74 in 2017 and 86 in 2016. The combined total is 98 species and one hybrid sort.

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

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

 

Applicant Comments

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

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

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

Ducey Comments

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

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

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

Public Notice

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

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

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

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

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

Section 612 Radio, Television and Wireless Communication Towers

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

Section 612.01 Intent

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

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

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

Section 612.03

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

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

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

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

Section 612.04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 612.06

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment on CUP Application Fee in Cherry County

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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