Minutes (333 KB)

Badger Oversight Management Commission

 Meeting Recap

May 16, 2013

The Badger Oversight Management Commission (BOMC) convened at the Sauk County West Square Building in Baraboo, for a regular meeting on Thursday, May 16, 2013.

Chair Wenzel called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. Staff affirmed compliance with Open Meetings Law.

Attendance:

Others present.  Gail Lamberty, Mike Carignan, Diane Brusoe, Tim Lins, Frank Olah, Mike Mossman,  Dane Verese.

Motion by Mullen, seconded by Schmelzer, to adopt the agenda for the May 16, 2013 meeting.  Motion Carried.    

Motion by Schmelzer, seconded by Wenzel, to adopt the minutes from the March 21, 2013 meeting.  Motion Carried.

Public Comment:  None

Presentation:

“Birds at Badger and Beyond”, Mike Mossman, DNR.

Mossman spoke about a possible trail at Badger that could also serve as a wildlife corridor with the potential to restore prairie along the trail.  The presentation focused on amphibian and reptile use of the corridor and the unique opportunity to connect habitat at Badger with the habitat of the riverway.  Mossman stated that a trail at Badger would be unique in that there would be a contiguous connection and only one road crossing (Hwy. 78).  Mossman noted that the trail could also be used to export the value at Badger to the surrounding landscape. 

Tremble noted the possible use of motorized vehicles on 500 acres and asked how to identify potential impacts to birds and other wildlife in these areas.  Mossman noted studies have been done but that it is hard to quantify disturbance and that it would be difficult to apply the results to another area such as Badger.

Tim Lins asked about the winter bird population at Badger.  Mossman replied that it has not been measured, but that there are birds that use Badger in winter.         

New Business – Commissioner Reports:

1.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  Schmelzer reported that work on the river pump station continues with the removal of asbestos, etc. and that the first floor windows and doors will be boarded up. There is no funding to take down the entire structure (estimated at 1-million).   Nancy Frost, Wildlife Manager with DNR will be working a bit at Badger.   Her office will be in bldg. 207.  The SPRA will be one of her responsibilities.  Limited term employees will be doing work on invasive species control, mowing, keeping brush away from buildings, etc.  50% of their time will be at Badger. 

Diane Brusoe stated that DNR will be giving a presentation/display of alternatives.  Once this is developed, a meeting will be scheduled with BOMC before taking it to the public.  Current estimates indicate that this may occur at the June BOMC meeting.

2.  Town of Merrimac.  Grant.  No Report.   

3.  Town of Sumpter.    Mullen.  Reported that the Town approved a Farmland Preservation Plan map and that the Town will participate in a water testing program with UW-Extension.  There is no update on the status of the cemetery transfers.  Mullen stated that the town has to wait for land to transfer and then the town will need to work with the new owners for easement access.

Wenzel stated that at the Sauk County Finance Committee it was noted that Sauk County may be participating in a pilot program for nitrate testing in the Sauk Prairie area as part of the Wisconsin Safe Drinking Water Nitrate Initiative.   

4.  Bluffview Sanitary District.   Mullen noted that Jeff Little gave an update to town and that there is still a problem with a grinder pump not being able to accommodate 12 homes. 

5.  Sauk County.   Wenzel.   Discussion ensued regarding installation of a water system and that there appears to be no movement on the project.  The Town of Prairie du Sac has been discussing entering into an agreement with the Village of Prairie du Sac to provide water to some residents in the town.  Discussion ensued regarding Army shutting down the water cleaning system.  Olah noted that Army is required to provide an updated schedule on the system.

 6. Ho-Chunk.  Poelma stated that he is attending the BOMC meeting on behalf of Rep. Holst and noted that Holst does not intend to run for re-election.  Poelma stated that Ho-Chunk is still working with BIA regarding the land transfer and that they expect to have a decision soon (couple months) and that BIA is actively working with DNR and EPA to obtain data/documentation.

New Business – Committee Reports: 

1.  Executive and Finance.  No Report.

2.  Planning and Land Use.  Poelma noted that the PLU Committee met on May 2, 2013 and referred to the minutes of the meeting.  At the PLU meeting the group discussed non-traditional uses and concerns with uses being considered by DNR.  The PLU discussed the desire to review the Reuse Plan and compare uses proposed by DNR.  The PLU is also developing a document/matrix that can be used to assess proposed uses.  The PLU also compared the criteria presented in the Reuse Plan with the suggestion of motorized uses.  2.  PLU discussed settling ponds and appropriate level of cleanup for future land uses on the parcels.  3.  PLU discussed idea of snowmobile trails along the fence and within Badger.  The Sauk County Snowmobile Club would like to secure a trail so that they do not have to deal with agreements with landowners.    

Tremble noted that here has been much discussion regarding the use of ATVs at Badger and that snowmobiles have a greater chance of being approved.   It was asked when the PLU will turn their review process over to the full group for review.  The group discussed the value in using the review process to evaluate any possible proposed land use.

Hammes asked if there is a role for the BOMC in master planning process.  Hammes stated that at the last PLU meeting he suggested that a statement be created to define what the role of BOMC should be.  It was decided that the role of PLU is to apply the criteria in the Reuse Plan to evaluate proposals followed by a PLU recommendation to the BOMC.  Then BOMC would make recommendation to DNR (DNR used as an example during the discussion) as formal BOMC input to the planning process.  The group felt that this approach would fulfill the role of the PLU and help DNR understand the role of BOMC. 

Brusoe asked that when DNR brings alternative forward that she was not sure if they should be presented to BOMC or PLU first.  BOMC decided that the PLU should get started now on their evaluation of DNR’s proposals to the extent they can, based on the information available.

Brusoe stated that a grid was originally used to assess uses, but that this grid has not been used for some time.  Mullen asked if DNR intended to have open meetings to allow people to rate uses.  Brusoe noted that there will not be voting, but there will be an effort to present alternatives and ask people if they see value in the proposed uses (value feedback).  The planning process has led to the creation of a vision statement, goals that set a desired future and conceptual proposal that fit the vision and goals.  The vision, goals and conceptual scenarios will all come out at the same time.  The draft property analysis will b in a draft until it goes to the Natural Resources Board for approval.  Tremble asked if the property analysis gets incorporated into the master plan.   Brusoe stated that it will become Chapter 3, which is the background information in the master plan document. 

Wenzel asked if there was a lack of other statewide facilities and if there is a need for these facilities at Badger (referring to shooting ranges and ATV trails).  Brusoe spoke about the need to be responsive to the Department’s mission statement and that ATV and shooting ranges are recreational uses.  The question was asked that if these uses are not located at Badger, then where would they go?  Hammes spoke about a regional approach and asked DNR to identify all land DNR owns in this region (and uses).  Brusoe stated that defining a region is arbitrary and varies.  Hammes asked how many other shooting ranges and ATV trails there are and where the land used for these purposes is located.  Hammes also asked if other land could be used for an ATV trail other than Badger and noted that this is hard to evaluate because the group does not know what other lands DNR owns.  Brusoe suggested looking at the regional analysis to identify other DNR lands.  The state Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational  Plan also shows this info.  Robkin added that some recreational uses exclude other recreational uses and  suggested that the DNR analysis consider an exclusion factor when assessing uses at Badger.   Robkin further stated that the concept of uses affecting other uses is widely documented.  The group agreed by consensus that the PLU committee continue to develop an evaluation table/matrix to be finalized and distributed to BOMC at the June meeting.

Tim Lins spoke about the snowmobile club’s desire for a safe and permanent trail through Badger.  Lins stated that the perimeter road was looked at and some dozing and culvert work would need to be done before it could be used.  Running of sleds on an existing road is not an option because snow blows off.  The road would need to be ground up.  Lins stated that they would be ok with a multi-use partnership and multi-use trail i.e., snowmobiling in winter and biking in summer.    The success of a snowmobile trail is that this time of year you would not know it is there.  The club has 211 miles of state funded trail and 50-60 miles of a hub trail.  Every community has a snowmobile trail.   Hammes asked how many members are in the club.  Lins stated about 600 in Sauk County.  Schmelzer stated peak times may have 200 or more per day along Burma Road.  Tremble noted that the discussion is not talking about the continued use of perimeter of Badger but about expanded snowmobile use.   Tremble asked if club members would consider speed limits.  Lins stated that the average speed is 30-35 mph.  Other speeds maybe closer to 55 mph.  Lins stated that if there is a speed limit there is a reason why, such as a trail close to residential area. Wenzel asked about a partnership. Lins stated that he club has access to machinery and man power to build and maintain a trail  (i.e., maintain trail for snowmobile and bicycles).    Hhhhhhhshd               

3. Education and Outreach.    No Report.

4.  Ad Hoc Committees.    No Report.   

New Business – Stakeholder Reports: 

CSWAB.    No Report.

Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance.   Tremble stated that the SPCA has been attending every monthly meeting of Natural Resources Board since February and speaking during the public input session.  SPCA has been presenting various aspects of the Reuse Plan and at the last meeting submitted to the Board the 1390 some signatures supporting the reuse plan along with comments.   The intent is to give the Natural Resources Board the best possible understanding so that when the time comes to review the master plan they will have context with which base their decision.  SPCA will continue this effort.  Tremble noted that the Natural Resources Board will meet in Baraboo in August and may take a tour of the Badger property.    Discussion of BOMC role in participating in the tour with the Natural Resources Board to provide education and outreach.   The group noted that the BOMC is not a special interest group and therefore should be part of the tour. 

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.   Hammes stated that DNR completed a study of bluegills in Gruber’s Grove Bay and concluded that contamination levels are no different than any other fish.  The Federation remains concerned with the destruction of wetlands in settling pond areas and continued contamination to Gruber’s Grove Bay and the idea that DNR will accept contaminated soil as a safe place for people to recreate.  

New Business – Liaison Reports: 

1.  Army.   No report.

2.  USDA.  No report

Other New Business Items: 

1.Discussion and possible action regarding draft concept for proposed settling ponds.

Olah discussed cleanup efforts at the settling ponds as a dig and remove operation.  Olah noted that   Army did not get a clean water permit to do this work.  Level of cleanup proposed by Army is that people have limited contact with soils here because major contamination is in surface soils.  A cleanup proposal outlined by CSWAB suggests that Army go above and beyond cleanup standards.  This proposal is to take and finish the job at the settle ponds and turn the cleanup of the ponds into a positive outcome for the community.  Olah referred to a project at Joliet as an example.  Army states that these are not wetlands and they do not need to restore to wetlands.  The proposed remedy is to leave contamination in place and use plants to hold the contamination in the soil.  Olah believes a restoration plan is needed so that any work done is in context.   Hammes stated that the Army’s level of cleanup sets a bad precedent here as there is an exception to the level of cleanup needed.  Hammes stated that he is working with the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) national office expressing concern.  Tremble suggested that BOMC make a proposal, but that there is a lot of additional information needed.  Olah wants this effort to be collaborative, not just CSWAB.  Olah also noted the need to identify a funding source for the effort.  Other landowners need to be part of this discussion.  Hammes spoke about delineating wetlands and criteria as follows: 1^st criteria is soil type (hydric condition), 2^nd criteria is vegetation.  3^rd criteria is hydrology.  4^th criteria is general history of site. 

2.  Next Meeting Date:  June 20^th (possible day meeting).  Discussion ensued regarding putting a timeframe to each topic on the agenda.

3. Public Comment:  Lambertyl asked that the handout provided to Sumpter and Merrimac be e-mailed to the group.

Motion by to adjourn by consensus at 9:40 p.m.  Motion Carried.    

Respectfully submitted, Richard Grant
 

Recap by Simmert