Badger Interim Oversight Management Commission

Minutes (66 KB)

Badger Oversight Management Commission
Meeting Recap
August 15, 2012

The Badger Oversight Management Commission (BOMC) convened at the Sauk County West Square Building, Room B30, for a special meeting on Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

Chair Wenzel called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Staff affirmed compliance with Open Meetings Law.

Attendance:
Commission Member Commission Representative Present
HoChunk Nation John Holst
Wisconsin DNR Craig Karr
Sauk County Bill Wenzel
Town of Merrimac Judy Ashford
Stakeholder Interest Stakeholder Rep
Badger History Group Michael Goc
Citizens for Safe Water around Badger Laura Olah
Bluffview Sanitary District Lisa Rutkowski
City of Baraboo Eugene Robkin
Sauk Prairie Cons. Alliance Dave Tremble 
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Don Hammes
The Village of Sauk City Bill Stehling

Others present: Brian Simmert, Cherrie Nolden, Gail Lamberty, Donna Stehling, Ryder Will, Curt Meine, Rep. Fred Clark, Craig Schlender, Frank Olah, Terre Calrson.

Motion by Judy Ashford, seconded by Craig Karr, to adopt the agenda for the August 15, 2012 meeting. Motion Carried.

Motion by Judy Ashford, seconded by Craig Karr, to adopt the revised minutes from the July 19, 2012 meeting. Motion Carried.

Public Comment: Curt Meine noted that an article by Ron Seeley will appear in the, Wisconsin State Journal regarding Badger. Meine also spoke about a former munitions plant (Midewin) in Joliet, Illinois as an example of what Badger might look like ten years from now. Craig Schlender of Pheasant’s Forever spoke about his organizations interest in future uses at Badger. He spoke about establishing a large area of prairie for nesting ground birds and hunting opportunities and youth opportunities.

New Business:
1. Review and approval of a letter to be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Matural Resources as they develop a master plan for the SPRA.

2. Any other discussion related to BOMC participation in the SPRA master planning process.

Wenzel reviewed the master planning process, open house and deadline of Friday to submit comments on the Regional and Property Analysis document. Discussion ensued regarding nontraditional activities referenced in the document excerpt as follows:
“Non-Traditional Outdoor Recreation Uses. A number of non-traditional outdoor recreation uses should be considered. With the large open spaces the potential exists to fill out the Baraboo Hills/Devil’s Lake recreation landscape. The topography and landscape can support such uses as rocketeering, shooting ranges, geocaching, dog parks, paintball, community gardens and other recreation activities not typically found on Department lands.”

Craig Karr noted that the recommendations need to be a balance of different recreational uses. Dave Tremble indicated that the uses should be removed because the application (and uses therein), submitted to the NPS is not consistent with the suggested non-traditional outdoor recreation uses. Karr noted that plans and uses at Badger need to be acceptable to the NPS. Fred Clark suggested that a member of the BOMC convey the uses they feel are appropriate.

Discussion ensued regarding the naming of the SPRA. A suggestion was made that the final agreed upon uses define a name.
The group noted that agricultural uses coupled with conservation were absent from the document and that agriculture/grazing are important management strategies to maintain land for grassland species. Hammes felt that the BOMC should point out the problems with the document- errors/omission/inaccurate statements. Hammes also commented that the data used is outdated. Hammes felt that the letter needs to state two things, 1. DNR lands to preserved predominately as prairie and, 2. To follow the Reuse Plan.
Gail Lamberty (member of the public) suggested that the management plan needs to address the entire property and should include the three stakeholders: Dairy Forage (USDA), DNR, and Ho-Chunk. Conceptually, the idea is to plan as a team with specific issues being addressed through the process.

Wenzel suggested that, along with the Reuse Plan, copies of all other agreements be submitted (MOU, Intergovernmental Agreement).
Fred Clark suggested that the group ask the DNR to send a letter showing how they will comply with all other agreements. Clark indicated that he will send a letter to Secretary Stepp asking for this analysis.

Craig Schlender (member of the public) noted that it will be important to allow the land to be farmed/cropped periodically to remove invasives and allow a return to grasslands.

Karr indicated that the transfer documents do not preclude leasing for farming.

Olah felt that the only document that should be referenced is the Reuse Plan because the entire group agrees with it and in particular the concept of landscape scale restoration.

Clark noted that it probably does not matter to other user groups that there is a Reuse Plan. He indicated that it would be helpful to understand why certain uses should not be considered. He spoke about explaining whether the Reuse Plan is opinion, science based, or other.

Robkin spoke about exclusionary recreation (incompatible uses) and inclusionary recreation (compatible uses).

Rutkowski felt that the group needs solid, science based or practical reasons why the group feels certain uses are appropriate and other uses are not, in addition to just presenting the Reuse Plan.

Tremble noted that the Reuse Plan speaks about the reasons for suggested uses. He further stated that this is not a local issue and that the Reuse Plan was created by a 21-member stakeholder group and reflects a broad interest in this property. The master plan needs to reflect the decision of these stakeholders and the consensus vision that represents all people. Tremble felt that there is no need to justify the Reuse Plan and that it is the job of the BOMC to uphold the Reuse Plan.

Holst noted the tribes interest to keep the land in a natural state, as much as possible. He spoke about the Reuse Plan being put together with input from a lot of individuals and that the Reuse Plan reflects this input to define the future uses of the property.
Robkin reiterated that the Reuse Plan was not just a local process and that it was a very public process.

Meine noted that the BOMC is the steward of the Reuse Plan and that the process/plan can serve as a model to the Country.

Rutkowski suggested that the letter include the following three points: Reaffirm the Reuse Plan and the value of the property, point out that the nontraditional uses are not consistent with the Reuse Plan, and remind the DNR that they are signatory to the Reuse Plan.

Tremble suggested that an example of a use evaluation already completed be sent.

Discussion ensued regarding a joint master plan including approvals from USDA and Ho-Chunk. Ultimately, the DNR NR Board has the final approval.

Karr indicated that he is attempting to keep the USDA as an equal partner. He has not done that with the Ho-Chunk because the future ownership of Ho-Chunk is not known.

Discussion ensued regarding the longevity of BOMC. The group felt that so long as the Reuse Plan is implemented, the BOMC will exist.
It was decided that Michael Goc would draft a letter that would be reviewed by BOMC and stakeholders prior to sending it to the DNR.

3. Next Meeting Date: Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

4. Public Comment: None

Motion by Stehling, seconded by Holst to adjourn at 9:47 p.m. Motion Carried.


Respectfully submitted, Richard Grant



Recap by Simmert