Text Box: Draft minutesStewardship Plan Work Session

 

June 26, 2008

 

Present:

Curt Springer-Forestry Committee Chairman,

            Chris Giordano-Conservation Commission Chairman and Selectman,

Judy Jervis-Conservation Commission,

            Michele Tingley-Conservation Commission,

            Shawn O’Neil-Selectman Chairman,

                Joe Luna-Selectman,

            Carol Baird-Heritage Commission Chair,

            John Russo-Heritage Commission,

            Bruce Schwaegler-NH Audubon representative,

            Jennifer Hunter-NH Estuaries Project,

            Ellen Snyder-wildlife consultant,

            Phil Emilio-Danville resident

 

The meeting opened at 7:30pm and was televised.

 

 

 

It was agreed that the draft of the Stewardship Plan (SP) was well written.  Shawn asked about the procedure for amending the document.  Ellen said that the frequency of reviewing and amending the SP, and the procedure to do such, can be written into the document.  The Conservation Easement requires the SP be subject to full review every ten years.  It is a living and working document and can be reviewed more frequently.

 

Ellen asked for electronic copies of the draft Conservation Easement and the Historic District Ordinance.  She already has electronic copies of the Doucet Survey and the spreadsheet of species.  Any changes made to the draft copies of the Easement should not affect the final of the SP as the management of the forest will not change.

 

It was suggested that several citings of the Conservation Commission be changed to the Town of Danville.  There was a discussion of the town forest boundaries and the trails bisecting the forest.  It was suggested that the RSAs defining class “A” trails and scenic roads should be cited.

 

 

The second paragraph on page 4 will be modified and a reference to Tucker Road as well as Tuckertown Road will be added.  The description for Tuckertown Road on page 5 will be amended to read the gate was erected in 2004 and that Tuckertown Road was made a class A trail in 1993.

 

There was some discussion of adding or deleting names in the document.  Ellen will see about rewording the first paragraph of page 6.  She will also replace any x’s in the document with the actual number for which it stands.

 

 

i. Aquifers and wellheads

 

Maps will be reviewed to find the exact boundaries to the aquifers and wellhead areas.  Bruce asked about special conditions existing for those protection zones.

 

Ellen explained her site walks through the forest.  She would like to create a spreadsheet that can be maintained by the town.  This will include birds, mammals, amphibians, plants, reptiles, etc.  As species are observed in the forest they can be noted on the spreadsheet.

 

Chris asked about, in conjunction with the Forest Management Plan, the creation of different habitats for different species.  This is something that will be discussed more fully in chapters 3 and 4.  It was agreed that the forest was described accurately in the first chapter.

 

ii. Vernal pools

 

Chris mentioned the recommendation by Emily Brunkhurst to keep the vernal pools as one large area rather than separate pools.  Ellen explained that, regardless of size, vernal pools are important.  She agreed with Emily that those should not be fragmented as wildlife move from one pool to another.  She explained that, while OHRV trails between the pools are obviously to be avoided, foot trails don’t necessarily create a disturbance between pools.  This is the reasoning behind keeping the vernal pools as one large area.

 

Ellen further explained that forest management is designed to enhance the forest and habitat.  We can choose to have one large setback around all the vernal pools but still have some cutting between the pools.  Certain wetlands and pools can be specified as remaining undisturbed.  She said there may also be pools so isolated that they can have a separate buffer.  It depends on their location in the landscape

 

There was further discussion about vernal pools.  They are impacted more by hydrology than forest management.  Cutting around the pools may not change the hydrology.  Shade needs to be provided around the pools to discourage evaporation and a setback is desirable around the pools.  Ellen and Bruce explained that slope plays a factor in the management around the pools as well as how the northern versus the southern sides are managed.

 

            iii. Buffer zones

 

All wetlands are important, not just the vernal pools.  If there were the same buffers around all the wetlands, there might be no activity in the forest.  This is why there are different buffers in the forest.

 

Ellen explained that a forest can be totally “hands-off.”  She explained some history about New England, specifically southern New Hampshire, having had all the land cleared at one point.  The trees and wildlife came back obviously, but now people are encroaching on the wildlife’s habitats.  The natural processes that used to occur on a much larger scale can’t happen as well in the smaller spaces left for wildlife.  This perhaps makes it desirable to do some intervention and create some diversity that was there historically.  She said the town needs to decide at what level to intervene and what’s compatible with the town’s vision.  The town can protect certain vernal pools.  Ellen expressed her opinion that the buffer is more for recreation than management, especially in the town forest where the management is not for financial gain but to preserve the forest.

 

 

Curt pointed out on page 19 that there should be a distinction between the two different rookeries.  The old one is located in the North West corner and was at one time the second largest in New Hampshire.  The new rookery is in the Great Meadow.

 

Page 20 was discussed.  Chris pointed out that the Forestry Committee should have full credit for the parking lot, while there were several town boards that contributed to the kiosk.  There was a discussion about travel along trails and roads leading from Danville to Sandown.  As this can’t be proved or disproved it is a moot issue.

 

Michele pointed out that Blanding’s turtles have been seen in the town forest.  This will be noted in the Stewardship Plan.

 

There was a discussion about the shooting taking place in the town forest.  As it has not come before the town for a vote, shooting of firearms is not disallowed.  It is a safety issue and reckless shooting can be considered not allowed in the forest as in other areas of the town.  There was a discussion of gun clubs in the area and the ramifications of an area in Danville for target practice.  This will affect the Easement and the restriction and/or governance will be discussed more in the future.

 

John Russo commented that the fear of being shot can keep people from visiting the town forest and unfortunately some things don’t get done until tragedy occurs.  He expressed his opinion that he did not want to wait for a tragedy to happen in the Danville Town Forest in order for the shooting to be addressed.

 

Ellen asked if the board members would like to get the next draft with or without the changes delineated.  It was agreed that all would like to track the changes.  She also explained that she would like to include in the next draft something about invasive species and water quality.  She asked if there is a database about water quality.  Jennifer agreed to research that information.

 

Bruce asked about the Wildlife Action Plan and the species of concern addressed there and how they relate to the SP.  Ellen said she can probably add a table in the ecological section identifying those species.  Bruce also asked about primary breeding grounds in the town forest for wildlife of international concern.

 

The maps to be included in the SP were discussed.  Ellen offered to add maps and label maps as needed.

 

Ellen explained that as cutting occurs in the forest, the species of wildlife can change over time.  Along the power lines, however, with the trees continually cut, the habitat remains unchanged; therefore the species of wildlife will remain constant.  Ellen explained that different species require different ages of forest.  There can be discussions about what areas of the forest to cut in order to provide a young forest habitat while other areas can remain unchanged, maintaining habitat for other species.

 

Bruce asked about early successional forests and if it is possible in the Danville forest.  Ellen recommended looking at what the neighbors are doing and perhaps if someone has done some cutting next to the forest, Danville can look at having an area nearby for early successional forest.  Ellen is not a fan of scattering early successional forests.  The idea of working with the abutters to collaborate on management of boundaries was discussed.  Mr. Emilio said he could do this.

 

2.      Stewardship Goals and Management Issues/Strategies

 

Ellen explained the “whereas” statements and the Purposes of Easement in the Easement document talk about the values of wildlife habitat, public access for recreation, conservation of historic and cultural resources, types of soils and their location, forestry, and scenic aspects of the forest.

 

Curt asked about what should be a priority.  Bruce talked about a source of tension is always the balance between the amount of forest management versus leaving things undisturbed.  The balance can be found from a wildlife management perspective, i.e. is there a species in decline or is there an area of particular importance to a species that needs to be preserved?  This also gives a higher purpose for forestry than just cutting trees for monetary benefit.  In addition, he said the monetary benefits are not persuasive enough to justify forestry.  Bruce also explained that forest management is wildlife management, so figuring what species can be advantaged, creating opportunities from a wildlife point of view, is a good question to answer.

 

Curt mentioned that this is public property so public support is desirable.  One way to get that support is to get people out there as well as educating the public about the forest.  The herons, of course, should not be disturbed.

 

 

Jennifer talked about figuring out what low-impact activities are in line with the other goals of the forest.  Bruce mentioned that recreation is ranked second to residential development as having the heaviest impact on wildlife.  He mentioned that trails should be kept and maintained and moved from time to time and recreation handled in such a way that it doesn’t become overly damaging.  Ellen suggested having philosophical statements describing the goals to be achieved.

 

Chris said his first priority would be protecting the rookery.  There was a discussion about a boy scout recently suggesting look-out stations for the heron rookery.  This is along the lines of educating the public about viewing the wildlife at a safe distance.  Ellen spoke briefly about the lifespan of rookeries and their natural habitat.  As nesting trees fall or beavers move on, there may be a time when there are no herons in the town forest. 

 

 

Chris mentioned that site walks this year have found that water on Tuckertown Road. is probably not caused by the beaver dams.  The beaver pond at Great meadow is at the invert level of the drain pipe, yet Tuckertown Road is full of water.  The culverts have been unclogged twice this year; it’s believed that the water is at the invert level already, yet the water on Tuckertown Road has not dropped.  Chris doubts the pond level is creating the flooding of the road.

 

All these things can be considered when talking about managing water level in the forest.  Ellen agreed that this will be an issue worth discussing.  Chris expressed his opinion that the road was not constructed using any certain standards.  It was probably a path blazed through the woods and beaten down by horse and buggy.  He says the road has been washed out which would explain the flooding as it makes the road level with the wetlands.

 

Upgrading the road is questionable per the class A or scenic trail classification.  Bruce explained that for a class A trail, the private land owners may maintain the road at their own expense with the town’s approval.  The town cannot maintain the road.  As the property owner in this case is the town, it is unclear how the road would be maintained.  Chris said in any case, there needs to be a culvert installed.

 

There was a discussion of the gravel pit and the condition of Tuckertown Road.  Bruce said that he thought the Conservation Commission has status in review of the wetlands permit.  As this is becoming a wetland habitat, Bruce explained that the culverts need to be open-bottomed and very broad, not just a round tube.  Chris suggested several 12” culverts along a 50’ span.  Ellen said that the problems, conditions, and potential management options concerning Tuckertown Road can be documented.

 

There was a discussion about Terra Realty and the gravel pit.  DES still needs to give their approval before any activity goes on.  Bruce pointed out that beavers will dam the culverts quickly so any culvert will require regular maintenance.

 

 

There was a discussion about ATV’s using the strip under the power lines and then going beyond the trails which causes erosion.  Chris mentioned the possibility of connecting trails with other towns which will give ATV users more places to go.  The ruts created by the ATV’s were discussed.  Bruce explained that under wetlands law, this is a dredged area and the land owner has the responsibility to repair the land.

 

The gate at the west end of the property is designed to permit foot traffic and ATV’s.  It prevents trucks from entering the property which prohibits the dumping in the forest.

 

 

Ellen asked about any other issues that came to people’s minds.  Bruce mentioned that the public can be involved to some extent in the wildlife inventory.  The public can be educated about the purposes for the disturbance you’re about to bring.  Then have tours of the forest management as it is taking place.  Afterward, an inventory can be done to note any change that has taken place.  Bruce explained that doing this methodically and well is extremely important.  The education of the public in this way is probably the highest value of the town forest.

 

 

Curt mentioned that he’d like to see a self-funding forest in which there would be revenue from cutting that can fund other activities within the town forest.  There was a discussion of the different methods of cutting and slash.  Ellen said that wildlife like slash as it is a habitat for them.  She said there are ways of cutting that don’t leave slash.  In any case, slash should not be left on the trail.

 

Bruce talked about how the first 100’ away from a trail is treated differently than the area further away.  He also said using foot trails for skid trails is not a good idea.  The layout of all the trails and their different purposes needs to be considered closely.  Often the logging trails become new trails.  Whole tree harvesting requires wider skid trails.  Leaving slash in the woods does not require that wide of a trail.

 

Ellen has read through the Easement.  She was asked to read through it again before her project involving the Stewardship Plan is finished.  This way, if there are new concerns with either document, those can be addressed.

 

3.       Site Walk and Public Meeting

 

The public meeting will be on Thursday the 24th of July at 7:00pm and the site-walk on the 27th at 10:00am.  Curt will take responsibility for notifying the public.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.

 

 

 

Minutes are prepared by Janet S. Denison, clerk