Badger Oversight Management Commission (BOMC) Meeting

Minutes (482 KB)

Badger Oversight Management Commission
Meeting Recap
July 19, 2012

The Badger Oversight Management Commission (BOMC) convened at the Sauk County West Square Building, Room 213, for its regular meeting on Thursday, July 19, 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
No
Wisconsin DNR Steve Schmelzer
Craig Karr Yes
Yes
Sauk County Bill Wenzel Yes
Town of Merrimac Richard Grant
Judy Ashford Yes
Yes
Town of Sumpter Peter Mullen Yes
Stakeholder Interest Stakeholder Rep
Badger History Group Michael Goc Yes
Citizens for Safe Water around Badger Laura Olah Yes
UW-Baraboo Ann Vogl No
Baraboo School District David Haseley No
Bluffview Sanitary District Jeff Little
Lisa Rutkowski No
Yes
City of Baraboo Eugene Robkin Yes
Sauk Prairie Cons. Alliance Dave Tremble Yes
Sauk Prairie School District Teresa Kreutzmann No
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Don Hammes Yes
The Village of Sauk City Bill Stehling Yes
Commission Liaison Liaison Representative
USDA-DFRC Rick Walgenbach
Lori Bocher No
No
U.S. Army Joan Kenney No

Others present: Brian Simmert, Cherrie Nolden, Gail Lamberty, Donna Stehling, Don Kirner, Frank Olah.

Motion by Richard Grant, seconded by Peter Mullen, to adopt the agenda for the July 19, 2012 meeting. Motion Carried.

Motion by Steve Schmelzer, seconded by Bill Wenzel, to adopt the minutes from the May 17, 2012 meeting. Motion Carried.

Public Comment: None

Commissioner Reports:
1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Steve Schmelzer spoke about PILT payments made to the Towns of Merrimac and Sumpter for 2012 (see handout) and noted that once the town collects payments allotments are sent to other jurisdictions (i.e., county, town, schools). The DNR is proceeding with a fall deer hunt (3-day season in October, 9- day season in November, and 4-day season in December). The Army will not have guards to assure that people are hunting in the correct areas. Hammes expressed concern regarding deer exposure to contaminated lands. Discussion ensued regarding the need to, at a minimum, inform hunters of possible contamination. The DNR is waiting on the transfer of building 207.
2. Town of Merrimac: No report
3. Town of Sumpter: Discussion ensued regarding town assumption and maintenance of cemeteries and the intent of the town to not take over cemeteries until they are required to do so. Tremble suggested that there be a prior agreement that the town will take over. If there is not agreement than there is a risk that the property will be put up for auction. There currently are no road access easements to the cemeteries. It was believed that the Army would survey the access easements. The group noted that if there is not a process in place for the town to accept the cemeteries that there is a possibility that land would be added to the cemeteries to make a package more attractive to a bidder, including possible fee simple access. Karr suggested that the town needs to let GSA know what its needs/wishes are. Peter Mullen indicated that he will follow-up on this issue.
4. Bluffview Sanitary District: Lisa Rutkowski gave an update on the three construction projects. The master meter project is substantially completed and all water mains have been installed as part of this project. The wellhouse improvement project started July 6th with the bulk of the work to be completed in August. The lift station replacement will start in late August. Grant asked what the water and sewer rates are.
5. Sauk County: Bill Wenzel met with the CEO of Orbitec. Orbitec started operations in 1992 and have a lease with the Army. They contract with Airforce, Navy and NASA. The research they do evolved out of research at UW-Madison. They test missile engines.
6. Ho-Chunk: No report.
Committee Reports:
1. Executive and Finance: No report
2. Planning and Land Use: Karr referred to separate minutes of the Planning & Land Use Committee. Karr discussed what the role of the PLU Committee and role the BOMC will play in the master planning process. The committee intends to meet on a monthly basis rather than an every other month basis to address issues related to the master plan.
3. Education and Outreach: Michael Goc reported that the Badger History group is giving presentations and finding questions about what is happening at Badger and what the future will be. There has been an increase in visitors at the BHG museum. Donna Stehling reported on education activities for Ho-Chunk kids and also reported on volunteer activities taking place at Hillside Prairie. Dave Tremble spoke about the need to coordinate all of the educational activities and that all owners need to be thinking about how they may be able to contribute to educational efforts. Stehling spoke about a mapping project being coordinated with the county and interpretation methods.
Wenzel asked about adding stakeholder reports as an additional item to the agenda. All support it. One of the original plans were for stakeholders to submit written reports prior to the meeting. Discussion ensued about the need for people to notify the group if they cannot attend meetings or if they have no intention of ever attending.
Wenzel spoke with Larry Chandler and that Dairy Forage is out of money and cannot reopen the Environmental Assessment (EA) and they have no funds to implement their project. Wenzel noted that Chandler indicated that there will be a formal opportunity for input, but not necessarily a reopening of the EA.
4. Ad Hoc Committees: No report
Liaison Reports:
1. US Army: No report. Discussion ensued about the proposed municipal water system and shutting down the MIRM and the need to leave it in place to reactivate it, if need be.
2. USDA: No report.
New Business:
1. Discussion regarding a proposal by Cherrie Nolden to utilize animals other than goats for invasive species control at Badger.
Wenzel asked if there is a need for Nolden to come before the BOMC for minor changes. The recommendation of the PLU Committee would allow Nolden to make minor changes without approval from BOMC. Robkin felt that the BOMC needs to know about changes, such as adding a new species, and that Nolden should report to BOMC changes. Tremble noted that the Reuse Plan permits research and that DFRC does not come to BOMC when they make changes, but the base is research. If changes are occurring, BOMC does not need to approve every change. If a concern is raised, BOMC can invite the person in. The group suggested that if Nolden has any future changes that she go before the PLU Committee and PLU Committee will make a recommendation to the BOMC on her behalf.
2. Presentation by Diane Brusoe, DNR Planner to provide an update on the master planning process and take part in any discussion concerning the BOMC’s role and the Planning & Land Use Committee’s role in the process.
3. Discussion regarding BOMC submittal to DNR in the master planning process.
Note: The aforementioned agenda items were discussed jointly.
Karr reported on behalf of Brusoe. The regional and property analysis, as part of the master planning process, has been completed. It is a compilation of various studies that have been done at Badger and includes data about Badger as well as an analysis of how Badger fits into region. The document does not make recommendations. The next step is a public meeting to present the regional and property analysis document which includes an opportunity for the general public to ask questions and give input. After public session comments have been gathered, staff will develop goals and alternatives which the public will have a chance to review and offer input. Karr provided two handouts providing an update on the master planning process and a printout of the Sauk Prairie master planning process website home page. Hammes asked what the significance of the Aug 17th due date is for public comment on the regional analysis document. Karr noted that the requirements to accept public input are under a predetermined timeframe. However, public input can be accepted throughout the process. Robkin suggested that comments received after the deadline may not become part of the formal record. Olah recommended that BOMC ask for an extension of the deadline to give more people time to comment. Karr will look into this as an option. Goc asked how long it will take for the comments to be available for public review. Karr provided a handout, “The Role of BOMC and the Planning and Land Use Committee in the SPRA master planning process.” Tremble asked the group when the best time to submit the reuse plan into the master planning process would be so that it can be used as a tool to determine future uses. Robkin felt the earlier the better. Robkin feels there needs to be a special BOMC meeting before Aug 17 to comment before the deadline and that the BOMC needs to have the reuse plan submitted as official comment. Tremble felt the reuse plan is too vague. The group felt they need to screen all submitted proposals through the reuse plan and submit the results to the DNR. Hammes would like to hear from DNR where they think the reuse plan fits into the process. Karr indicated that DNR knows about and supports the reuse plan, however when future uses are presented only the BOMC can offer its opinion as to whether it is consistent. Robkin reinstated the importance of submitting the reuse plan by Aug 17th. Submit the reuse plan, the research document and cover letter. Discussion ensued as to why there is no mention of the Badger Reuse Committee on the website and no link to the Reuse Plan. Olah asked if there would be an opportunity to use the public open house as a means to convey the Badger Reuse Plan. The BOMC agreed to submit the reuse plan prior to the August 17th deadline with a cover letter including the following language, “The Badger Oversight Management Commission (BOMC) hereby submits the attached document titled, ‘Final Report on the work of the BADGER REUSE COMMITTEE including Values, Criteria, and Concept Plan Map for the Reuse of The Badger Army Ammunition Plant Property, March 28, 2001’ and requests it be considered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as they develop the master plan for the Sauk Prairie Recreation Area.

4. Possible presentation by the DNR and discussion regarding the DNR’s recent findings concerning the Army’s proposed municipal water system. Discussion and possible action regarding DNR’s findings concerning the proposed municipal water system.
No presentation. DNR staff may attend a future meeting.
5. Discussion and possible action on a BOMC tour of Badger
The PLU committee felt it would be important to get the group a tour to look at progress. Schmelzer spoke about having the property open in early fall for people to look around. Hammes suggested spending an entire day evaluating the land.
6. Discussion and possible action regarding a Badger public meeting/tour
No discussion occurred.
7. Discussion and possible action regarding the hiring of a public information specialist.
No discussion occurred.
8. Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
9. Public Comment: None
Motion to adjourn by consensus at 10:04. Motion Carried.
Respectfully submitted, Richard Grant
Recap by Simmert