MINUTES
HORSE
HILL NATURE PRESERVE (HHNP)
03/20/06
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
John Hall, Watanic Bowmen’s Club Nelson Disco, Planning Board
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 Bob L’Heureux, Hunting
Helynne Wenz, HHNP Ad Hoc Bette Philo, Abutter
Ruth Roulx, HHNP Ad Hoc, P&R, Heritage Comm. Amanda Boerner, Horseback Riding, Abutter
Terry Bernhardt, MYA
Karen Mattor, HHNP Ad Hoc
Members Excused:
Ron Simard, Watanic Bowmen’s Club
Chris Christensen, HHNP Ad Hoc
Others Present:
Tom Kokx, Kokx Associates
Karen Baker, NRPC Administrative Assistant
Public Present:
John Lastowka
Rolland Roberge
Glen Philo
Sumner Webster
Meeting Opened
The meeting was
called to order by Tim Tenhave at 7:07 PM.
Announcements:
Tim Tenhave
welcomed the group and informed the group of the Merrimack Village District’s
March 28th Town Meeting and reminded everyone that this was an
opportunity for all voters.
Public or Press
Comment on Agenda
There were no comments/questions from the public and no Press was present.
Introductions
Listed below are the uses that were discussed, comments, concerns, and the poll vote results received based on members’ scale of agreement. Actual votes should come from HHNP members.
ACCESS & PARKING
Main
access point off
Woods
road on the west side would be for motorized uses, east side to be
non-motorized.
Forestry
equipment would be there for harvesting for management of the property.
Tom
Vaillancourt felt the road was adequate for all access but some wetlands
issues.
Question
on determination of road on east side.
Best
management practices used when dealing with growth on eastern access road.
Large
gravel deposit just east of green road could be used in upgrading access roads.
Access
road was looked at and recommended by a professional forester.
Forestry
takes place about every 15 years.
Forestry in State is well regulated.
Sumner
Webster concerned about impact from the brook over years.
COMMENTS:
Bob L’Heureux - If
culvert put in around basal areas near wetlands, area has to be put back to
original state.
QUESTIONS:
Bette Philo - Would
there be a gate across or signs posted citing no public access if it were to be
used for forestry equipment, harvesting and emergency access.
Roland Roberge - Closeness
of wall to access road due to single patch of
Deb Huffman – Forestry trails have been used for logging at least 3 times in the last century.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Access and Parking: 1 vote for #5
1
vote for #3
8
votes for #2
7
votes for #1
ARCHERY
Pink
area on map.
COMMENTS:
John Hall – Asked that we strike the word “hunting” on the map.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Archery: 19 votes for #1
OUTDOOR EDUCATION:
Connie
Kreider felt Beaver ponds should be in Stand 1.
All agreed.
Deb
Huffman felt an educational marker or drop down for education regarding farming
be placed near
A
member wanted to make sure the well on Quarry Trail 150 ft in on left hand side
be identified on maps.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Outdoor Education: 18 votes for #1
CONSERVATION:
Maintain
minimum of 500 acres (10 year planning guide in Forest Management Plan).
Lower
right portion purchased with EPA funds (talk of some protections for that
area).
South
of powerline for wildlife habitat.
Pictures
passed around from Robyn Goinsalvos showing wild turkeys in area that felt
should be labeled as corridor. In
addition, presented a report from the MPD showing animals killed in area.
As
more people are out in HHNP, more input and refined data should become
available (second level of habitat information to be available in a couple of
months).
Any
use will impact conservation.
Final
voting was based on three things to be included in the definitive plan; 1) demarcation of sensitive areas, 2) survey
of wildlife from abutters, and 3) information to come.
COMMENTS:
Sumner Webster – Wildlife corridor not identified on 2 sources used for maps.
Roland Roberge – Woodcock area right in his back yard, alder grove in swamp. Wanted it noted that there was Woodcock on property and he feels that the area is a wildlife corridor.
John Lastowka – abutter, does have deer, turkey, coyote come through the area.
Andy Powell – knows of grove of hickories in HHNP, but not identified on maps.
Bob L’Heureux – No such thing as a fisher cat, it is a Fisher.
Deb Huffman – felt a vote be taken based on Andy’s discussion based on course level assessment and look forward to second level of information.
Tim Tenhave –
sensitive area in section near field was identified on map (green part at top
Connie Kreider – felt corridors change over the years and thought abutters not on HHNP committee would be source of input or information.
Bob L’Heureux – felt abutters should be surveyed on wildlife. Kerrie put it as a recommendation for management entity. Robin asked how often for surveying and Andy replied on an on going basis.
Nelson Disco – had reservations regarding passive use being restricted to eastern portion of the property and also noted sensitive habitat areas not identified on maps (ex. snake, beaver). Andy agreed on removal of designation for that area.
Andy Powell – felt entire site should be green (sensitive habitat areas).
QUESTIONS:
Robyn Goinsalvos – What was the basis of wildlife corridors? Andy Powell – maps done in December of last year.
Robyn Goinsalvos – how was this determined? Andy Powell – wetlands and geographical features.
Bette Philo - she would like to see the whole area as conservation area.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Conservation: 7 votes for #3
12
votes for #2
2
votes for #1
NON-MOTORIZED TRAILS
Need
for more specific plan for trails (trail sub-committee to do work).
Trails
constructed to town specifications.
Signs
can be posted indicating which trails can be used for what uses.
Right
of way on other side of house near Harold’s property should be put on formal
map.
Some
trails to be moved or redirected over time depending on usage.
Non-motorized
and motorized maps to be renamed Trails Map with consideration of overlay for
passive only (anything without motor = passive).
COMMENTS:
Tim Tenhave – Grayed out trails not continuing or managing and wanted to have committee put in writing what the intent was on this (what they were saying). Deb replied non-town-maintained.
John Hall – Can’t say motorized and non-motorized on same map.
Vote was for All Trails Map/overall concept plan.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Non-Motorized Trails: 1 vote for #3
10
votes for #2
7
votes for #1
MOTORIZED TRAILS
Wetlands,
winter conditions, powerline corridor loop.
Eliminate
the word “Passive” on maps.
Harold’s
trail to be re-routed.
PSNH
has given snowmobile’s permission to use any public or right-of-way owned by
them.
If
PSNH rescinded their grant of permission to snowmobiles, best knowledge is that
they are on a easement through HHNP and would be unable to restrict use on town
governed property.
COMMENTS:
Deb Huffman - Currently ATV use not allowed (BOS to make determination), no need for discussion at time
Tim Tenhave – Felt Roger Blais knows what target areas fit into plan so ATV’s should be discussed.
Nelson Disco – Felt this should be just a snowmobile map with ATV use trails overlay or different map once ATV use is determined.
Robyn Goinsalvos – Been using HHNP for 13 years, snowmobiles and ATV users are courteous.
Amanda Boerner – Felt there needs to be a compromise.
Tim Tenhave – Some possibilities with ATV’s uses are setting up guidelines and rules (shut-off times and certain days closed). He also felt ATV and snowmobile uses should be on 2 different maps.
Harold Watson – Keep in mind the difference in snow coverage from one side of a hill to another.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Motorized Trails: 2 votes for #3
6
votes for #2
10
votes for #1
There was a short discussion on ATV use with Roger Blais after the vote. Below is a small excerpt from the discussion.
Stopped
ATV trail at sandpit and eliminated the trail through Harold’s property. Then it would go into powerlines and then
turn back.
Seasonal
use (DES rules/Master Plan rules)
Discussion
not up for vote at this time, just floated ideas. To be left up to trails committee and
management entity for later. All
proposed uses go to selectmen.
Roger
wanted to be heard and not forgotten and understood why vote should not be done
at this time.
Newton
Coryell qualified what OHRV were not big trucks. Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles are
snowmobiles, ATV’s, Motorbikes, and 4 Wheelers.
Connie
Kreider questioned how Roger’s club would police this and if they would follow
the rules. Roger responded with signage
and his hope would that they would.
Connie also was concerned that with such a large area, that there would
be a problem with ATV’s following signs.
Roger
also informed the group that 14 years or older have to pass a safety course. He controls his kids and said the parents are
responsible if they stray.
Any
OHRV has to be registered.
“IF”
use is allowed, the concept trails are depicted on Roger’s trail map.
HUNTING
Information
handout on trajectory of 22, 44, rifles, and shotguns.
Kerrie
Diers showed 300ft buffer from each occupied residence on map.
Hunting
is already allowed in HHNP.
Allowed
to hunt on a persons’ property unless posted outside of the 300ft buffer
(owners can post as they please on their own land).
Master
Plan goes over education, posting, and safety and should be included in the
definitive plan.
Across
from
Currently
no noise ordinances or sound restrictions.
Concerns
were with abutters that were not present at meeting with duck hunting.
Mike
Ruggiero had concerns with hunting during baseball and soccer games.
COMMENTS:
Deb Huffman - safety zones can be posted around neighbors residences that are uncomfortable with hunting on HHNP.
Final poll tally for scale of agreement on Hunting: 7 votes for #3
6
votes for #2
8
votes for #1
ATHLETIC COMPLEX
Hydric
soils are different from jurisdictional wetlands (should go by DES definition).
Delete
all instances of Hydric Soils in Objective Criteria and change to
jurisdictional wetlands (legal definition).
Will
need field verification for any use proposed for HHNP.
Beaver
considered key species. They create
wetlands, bring wildlife habitat (deer population). They can’t be relocated because they are
territorial.
Need
for more accurate up-to-date information on area.
COMMENTS:
Andy Powell – Woods roads not going to impact wetlands, impacts are different for woods roads.
Tom Kokx – He put Hydric Soils into the objective criteria but the term jurisdictional wetlands was more appropriate and were the primary focus of his intent. Also, “avoid” was changed to “minimize impact” in a previous meeting.
Harold Watson – Beaver are very active in the area near the proposed ballfields and unless controlled or eliminated he did not feel comfortable voting on this. He also added that there were about 6 beaver on the parcel in the late 60’s and now they have grown to about 100. In addition, the area proposed for ballfields would mess up wildlife travel (north).
Robyn Goinsalvos – told of ledge in the area, many wetlands and presented several current aerial photos of the parcel and the beaver ponds/dams and one from years back showing the difference in size. She also went over a handout with the objective criteria explaining how ballfields did not meet the objective criteria. In addition, she referred to Ann Poole (who would come back to talk at another meeting if needed) and an Audubon representative that said the proposed athletic fields area was not conducive to wildlife habitat. Robyn also recommended the area be surveyed by the Army Corp of Engineers.
Karen Mattor –
felt developing the ballfieds would require a lot leveling of the land and
would be costly. For the price it would
cost, she felt a piece of land could be purchased elsewhere in
Bob L’Heureux –
felt there was lots of other land available in
Mike Ruggiero – Proposed spot was the #1 choice from the beginning.
Deb Huffman – Various areas were considered and proposed area was a potential spot from the beginning. She also felt that exact spots of locations for fields not be marked. She could not vote on this at this time.
Andy Powell – went over the severe impact on wildlife in the area using the objective criteria (destruction of wetlands, and overall impact to the site).
Mike Ruggiero – fields fit in using the objective criteria and that if anyone had another area for fields to let him know.
QUESTIONS:
Deb Huffman – wanted to know why Ann Poole did not include the statement about the ballfields being not conducive to wildlife habitat in her report. Response was because another area was recommended. Janet Cormier replied that it was under the powerlines and that would not work.
Kerrie Diers – asked the group if another area should be designated for the proposed ballfield.
Final comments came from Andy Powell: He said he is not representing the Conservation Commission, it is not his commission and that opinions from himself and Karen Mattor are as individuals.
Motion to adjourn was from Denise O’Dwyer and Debra Huffman seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:17 pm.
Next meeting will be held on April 3rd, 2006 in
the
KD/kmb
#235D-28