MINUTES
HORSE
HILL NATURE PRESERVE (HHNP)
02/06/06
Members Present:
Tim Tenhave, Chair HHNP Ad Hoc, Master Plan Robyn Goinsalvos, Horseback Riding, Abutter
Andy Powell, HHNP Ad Hoc, Conservation Harry Watt, Mountain Biking
Linda Reid, Abutter John Hall, Watanic Bowmen’s Club
Mike Ruggiero, HHNP Ad Hoc, MYA Harold Watson, HHNP Ad Hoc
Connie Kreider, HHNP Ad Hoc, Heritage Debra Huffman, HHNP Ad Hoc, Master Plan
Tom Vaillancourt, Mountain Biking Roger Blais, Right Riders (ATV)
Denise O’Dwyer, HHNP Ad Hoc Rick DiOrio, Sno-buds
John Herring, Abutter Helynne Wenz, HHNP Ad Hoc
Shannon Barnes, HHNP Ad Hoc Amanda Boerner, HHNP Ad Hoc
David McCray, BOS
Members Excused:
Ron Simard, Watanic Bowmen’s Club
Chris Christensen, HHNP Ad Hoc
Ruth Roulx, HHNP Ad Hoc, P&R, Heritage Comm.
Bob L’Heureux, Hunting
Nelson Disco, Planning Board
Others Present:
Tom Kokx, Thomas Kokx Associates
Kerrie Diers, NRPC Assistant Director
Karen Baker, NRPC Administrative Assistant
Meeting Opened
The meeting was
called to order by Tim Tenhave at 7:08 PM.
Announcements:
Tim Tenhave
informed the group that Bob L’Heureux (excused absence) had a petition against
a proposed toll at where the
Public or Press
Comment on Agenda
There were no comments/questions from the public and no Press were present.
Review of Meeting
Minutes for 01/16/06
Connie Kreider accepted the motion to review the minutes of the 1/16/06 meeting. Minutes of the January 16, 2006 were approved with changes by the Consensus Building Group, 18-0-1.
Introductions
Kerrie Diers introduced herself and went over the
agenda. ½ hour to 45 minutes will be
spent just brainstorming, considering all ideas, and not to debate the merits
of any Management option. Next
Kerrie started the management options portion of the meeting
by reminding the group that the HHNP Master Plan recommended that the
Conservation Commission, along with a sub-committee, handle the management of
the HHNP. Debra Huffman clarified that
what they meant to say in the Master Plan was that if ballfields were built on
the parcel, then the Conservation Commission would not manage that
portion. She also added that the Board
of Selectmen will decide who has management duties. It was pointed out by another member that the
Conservation Commission only manages areas that have trees. Another member questioned if it was possible
down the road for the property to secede and become its own entity and have two
different management groups. Again it
was noted that would be something for the BOS decide. Andy pointed out that
Below is the outline of the input gathered from the group as well as comments, questions, and concerns regarding management options:
WASSERMAN STYLE
Different acres under different management
Parks
and Recreation & Co. (Athletic Fields)
Conservation
Commission (Remainder)
Clear Delineation of Responsibilities (PRO’s)
Established
model already that works well
Tested
and working system
Keeps
experts close to work (no extra management layer)
PRO & CON
Funding
mechanisms in place (Conservation funding/Recreation funding)
NEW COMMITTEE
Representation from all groups
Appointed by selectmen or designee
Questions:
Deb – Who would this committee report up through?
Janet – Town Manager or a neutral party?
Comments:
Andy – Selectmen have the appointing power
CURRENT OPTION
Town Staff (Community Development Director)
Ad
Hoc Commission assists
Comments:
Andy
- Some restrictions in EPA funds (conservation of space & overall EPA
restrictions) for a portion of the property.
Conservation
Commission in charge unless other use comes in.
Heritage
Commission has permission from BOS to work on trail at
Parking
lots would fall under Parks & Recreation for management because it is on
that portion of the park, but DPW does the work in Wasserman.
A
member pointed out that the Conservation Commission walk the bounds of
Wasserman Park every year to make sure it is still being run according to
funds.
Ten
years ago, towns did not know what they owned and did not manage land parcels,
now they do.
Throughout
the State, most Town owned lands are managed by the Conservation Commission or
a sub-committee. Currently, for
BOS
do not get involved in every little nit picky issue. If it is something major then each group
would notify town management.
David
McCray, member of the BOS gave his thoughts and feelings on the management
option issue and reasoning behind the decisions made at the time.
Questions:
How
do the chairs of the Conservation Commission and Parks & Recreation like
the way management works by both departments handling the management of
Wasserman?
Janet
– Just fine.
Andy
– Good but there is a line.
Linda
Reid had questions whether approval would be need for changes (ex. Installation
of a pool, School group wanting to do a forestry project on parcel) to HHNP and
who would make those decisions or would it be the BOS. It was answered by several members that it
would depend on who managed that portion of the property.
Mike
Ruggiero commented that the BOS have no authority over individual department
heads.
A
member pointed out how each group manages their areas is based on the Master
Plan.
Tim
asked if they should be more specific on management options and Linda Reid felt
that they should.
Concerns:
Mike
Ruggiero pointed out that this was exactly what we wanted regarding management
options. Deb explained that the BOS did
not want to decide management options until the group came up with a definitive
plan.
MAPPING EXERCISE
Steve Schaffer recapped the previous week’s exercise and explained this evenings mapping exercise (see HHNP Definitive Plan Mapping Exercise #2 handout). He provided a look at a map with each group’s outline of trails based on the exercise done in the previous weeks meeting. At this point all members split into 4 groups of 5. Each group consisted of one participant from each different use. This exercise went on for about 50 minutes. The exercise ended and Kerrie called back the groups to report out. She pointed out that this exercise was to get discussions going. One person from each group would be the spokesperson to report out their results and any challenges. Below are each group’s spokesperson and the results of their mapping exercise.
GROUP 1 – HARRY WATT
Identified
general purpose trails (widest uses)
Outlined
in orange sensitive areas, trails to divert or close
Outlined
in blue closed trails
Outlined
in red seasonal trails (snowmobile)
Had
difference of opinion on ballfields, but no discussion
Challenges:
Bridge
over wetlands needed work but completes beautiful loop
Size
of bridge, if built, due to rocky areas to accommodate multi-use loops
Comments:
Tim
– Smallest wetland point would be best opportunity to build bridge
Helynne
– Approval by State individual and grant money available
Rick
– Likes location of proposed ballfields
GROUP 2 – DEBRA
HUFFMAN
Scoped
out ballfield and acknowledged she had no say in the ballfields and the
selectmen would be the ones to approve ballfields
Outlined
in green were the passive trails (non-motorized)
Red
outline over the green were for snowmobile use in the winter
Swamp
crossing – spot of construction for a bridge for all appropriate uses
No
hunting south of the powerline
Limit
hunting to just fall – Jan thru Sept public would feel safe knowing they would
not encounter any firearms
No
issue with idea of mountain bike trails at HHNP
Challenges:
ATV’s
tough nut – suggested circle around Horse Hill, but access tough due to the
wetlands
Comments:
Roger
Blais – Power line near sandpit will exclude everyone unless bridged.
No
ATV’s in mud season
Tom
Kokx referred to what was proposed in the Forest Management Plan asked the
group to think about 2 or more uses on a trail and the standards. He also pointed out that wider trails may
reduce conflicts.
Andy
referred to the already existing woods trails and how they could be a benefit
in relation to solving the fire/emergency/medical access.
GROUP 3 – ANDY POWELL
Did
not agree on much but a lot of information exchanged
DES
will look for minimum impact
Felt
group should get out there and walk the trails
Close
trails certain times a year during sensitive times
Some
felt strongly against ATV’s and Horseback Riding (feels they are four footed
ATVs)
Challenges:
Crossing
Wetlands
Herring
Rookery
Nesting
Turtles
Trails
running through Harold Watson’s property
Conflicts
when trails have multiple uses
Comments:
Andy
– with all cases and uses, you have to go in with an open mind
Linda
– Forestry roads, emergency vehicle roads need to be wide enough and that the
green outline trail is a good basis for that
At this point Harold Watson got up and gave a brief description of his property and his intentions with the land once he was no longer with us. Below is the synopsis he gave on his land:
Owns
80 acres
10
to 12 acres of water
½
mile frontage on
Keeping
property private
Property
will be given to the Town of
Harold received a round of applause and many Thanks.
GROUP 4 – TOM
VAILLANCOURT
Connie
pointed out habitats
Could
not come to agreement for access at ballfields
Agreed
need bridge built over wetlands
Cellar
holes as places of interest
Conflict
regarding trunk access. Trails need to be groomed for snowmobiles but would not
be good for other uses
Proposed
walking passive walking trail not good for snowmobiles and ATVs
In
discussions with PSNH for parking lot off Naticook
Challenges:
Parking
for vehicles and trailers near proposed ballfields
Rick
DiOrio – Multiple use trails used at same time could be a big problem.
Potential
for Black Racer Snakes on top of Blodgett Hill (ideal environment but no
confirmed sightings)
Comments:
Deb
pointed out that if an issue crops up, we will deal with it. She also mentioned the potential for
snowmobile trails in the left, northeast portion of the parcel (passive,
pristine and keeps snowmobiles where they want to be). She also pointed out that the Forest
Management Plan maps show two points of entry that pass through the wetlands
and stop (no loop).
Kerrie concluded the meeting by informing the group of the alternatives map exercise slated for the next meeting. She asked the group if they had any suggestions or ideas that would be helpful.
Rick asked that the next set of maps produced should have all the information from the exercises done in the last 2 meetings. Steve pointed out that combining information from all exercises would make the map indecipherable.
Another member requested that the woods road have a wider font line and the smaller trails have a thinner font line.
Andy suggested that there be categories – (Passive and Motorized, forest road would be motorized). He also explained that the initial reason the Conservation Commission outlined the forest road was they were trying to work some other access ideas.
Deb agreed that emergency access should come in at the powerlines.
Kerrie informed the group that the Hunting discussion would be at the next meeting when Bob L’Heureux was there. In addition, the 3rd mapping exercise (coming up with viable alternatives: woods road, passive & motorized uses, and identify recommendations for motorized) would also be on the agenda.
Linda requested that the base map of the evenings mapping exercise be the template for generating the above requested maps. Kerrie agreed and said they would in addition to the map below it.
Tim Tenhave asked if there were any final comments. Roger spoke and let the group know that he had handouts for those who were not at the last meeting.
Motion to adjourn came from Debra Huffman, seconded by
Newton Coryell. Meeting adjourned at 10:04pm.
Next meeting is
scheduled for Monday, February 20th at 7:00 pm at the
KD/kmb
#235D-23