Response to Comments on Paran Management Plan 2005

In October 2005, The Fund for North Bennington, Inc. circulated a draft management plan for its Lake Paran property for public comment. A copy was posted on The Fund’s web site (www.northbennington.org), notice was sent by e-mail to all people who requested to be notified of matters relating to Lake Paran, and a legal notice was posted in the Bennington Banner. A number of comments were received. This paper summarizes comments and responses by The Fund.

1. ATVs and other unlawful uses. There were comments about both the advisability and difficulty of keeping ATVs off the property. The management plan and the conservation easement prohibit their use except for very limited purposes. The plan draft was amended to reflect the advisability of designing trails, where feasible, in a manner that discourages ATV use. Another comment noted that litter can be a problem. The plan was modified to allow waste bins in identified spots, but these would only be installed if there turns out to be an intractable problem. There has been very little waste problem at the Mile-Around Woods despite the intensive use there.

2. Eradicating honeysuckle and other invasive species. There were several comments expressing concern about the use of any herbicide in connection with such work, and in particular about keeping any chemicals from Lake Paran. The plan was modified to emphasize the need for great care in this regard. The plan was not modified to eliminate herbicides. The selective and careful use of herbicides is a recognized tool for control of invasive species on conservation land, and used by such national leaders in the field as The Nature Conservancy. The principal means of control will be machinery and hand tools such as the weed wrench.

3. Firewood. The plan allowed removal of firewood. One person commented: “I would caution that it is very easy for us humans to see dead wood as waste and standing dead trees as unsightly. Rotting wood provides a huge amount of nutrients for forest regeneration and standing dead trees are an absolutely necessary resource for many forms of wildlife, (consider all the recent discussion of the ivory-billed woodpecker and it's habitat for example).” The point is well taken and the plan was modified to provide that general practice will be to leave downed timber (although not invasive species) on the property.

4. Timing of mowing. One person commented that the timing of “maintaining open fields the timing of the mowing can be surprisingly significant in reducing impact on many species, especially insects. As I recall the Nature Conservancy recommends late winter mowing as the ideal time to minimize disruption of annual cycles of many insects. Again, this timing runs counter to our modern human ideals of neatness, order and convenience but can make a significant difference with little effort on our part.” The Seller under the terms of the original sale is currently maintaining the fields on the property. Because of these legal arrangements, no change is made in the current management plan, but the idea has merit for consideration when mowing responsibility shifts to The Fund.

5. Planting. One person commented: “ The Plan states that the Fund will plant ‘native species’ on the land to replace invasive species.  I am concerned about this general description.  Some folks like to replace invasive species with a fast growing species, such as pine.  I suggest the Plan consider favoring hardwood species to pine and other fast growing species.  I also suggest that the Plan encourage diversity in the species planted.  I believe adding hardwoods and encouraging diversity in the species planted will enhance the land and our enjoyment of it.” The plan calls for fostering “regeneration” of native species. The plan does not call for planting of trees. The fostering of regeneration would occur through removal of aggressive non-native species and natural succession.

6. Hunting and fishing. There were several concerns about the potential for public safety problems or conflicts in use if the property is used for hunting and fishing. For example, one person commented: “Hunting will discourage use of the property by hikers and others during the fall.  Hunting will also discourage waterfowl from watering, feeding and/or nesting on the Lake.  I have hunted waterfowl for a number of years and I have noticed that waterfowl will avoid areas where there is shooting.  As for fishing, the landing adjacent to the dam is typically littered with paper, cigarette butts, beer cans, dead fish, hooks, fishing line and other debris.  The litter has been somewhat better this year, but those fishing at the landing still leave an appreciable amount of debris behind.  If fishing is allowed, the Fund should consider the cost of cleaning of after these folks.  Personally, fishing is allowed on a substantial portion of the Lake, so I would like to see fishing limited to the existing areas and not permitted on the Fund's lands.” The concerns about the impact of hunting may turn out to be appropriate, but The Fund does not currently intend to close the property to all hunting and fishing uses. It will move aggressively if problems develop, and the plan has been modified somewhat to reflect this.

7. Dogs. Concern was raised about what policies would govern access for dogs in light of the intensive use of The Mile-Around Woods by dogs and dog owners. At this point, no policy is being set out in the management plan. It is extremely difficult to enforce any policy about the behavior of domestic dogs (or their owners.) The use conflicts at The Mile-Around seem to involve (a) owners who let aggressive dogs run unchecked, and (b) soiling of trails. There is also surely an impact on wildlife. The best control for bad behaving dogs and owners is direct comments from other users.

8. Geese. The problem of “nuisance geese” on the lake was mentioned in another comment. This is a problem that goes far beyond the scope of the land owned by The Fund. The management report was modified to support cooperation with the State of Vermont and Paran Recreations in dealing with nuisance wildlife issues.

9. Scenic qualities. One person commented that “you might think about adding a reference to the scenic qualities of the land in your first management paragraph, since scenic is the first attribute listed in the purposes of the conservation easement.” Agreed, and done.

10. Parking. One person noted that access to the property from the fishing access area on the south side of the lake requires crossing a rail trestle. The management plan was amended to include cautionary warnings about that access, and to suggest alternatives.

11. Trails. Thanks to Jim Henderson and the Bennington Regional Planning Commission, a GPS map of existing trails was made after the draft plan was circulated for comment. This map is included in the final plan.

The Fund for North Bennington, Inc. thanks all who contributed, and welcomes further thoughts.

About Us | Village | Photos | Resources | Conservation | Stories | News | Site Map