To the editor: Lowell Lake imperiled by state plan
The Chester Telegraph | Aug 19, 2019 | Comments 8
There has been considerable, often rancorous debate about what impacts the state’s plan to develop Lowell Lake State Park would have on the iconic lake and its surroundings.
The debate has been about opinion as often as it has been about facts. Following the state’s recent open house and the public presentation of its two principal options for development, a more specific picture of what impacts the development would actually have on the park emerged.
After the grass-roots community group Lowell Lake Concerned Citizens requested and received internal documents, memos and emails from Vermont Forests, Parks and Recreation under the Public Records Law, we know now that Lowell Lake would change dramatically.
Besides the lake itself, the hiking trail that runs from the existing parking lot, across the length of the park to the gate at Little Pond Road is perhaps one of the park’s most popular features.
Internal state documents estimate that up to 20 percent of park visitors use that trail. Based on the state’s own accounting of visitor numbers, that would mean nearly 3,000 people hiked, snowshoed, jogged, cross-country skied or observed nature on that trail in 2018. An internal email between the state and its development consultant, dated May 31, 2019, confirms that under the state’s “Option A” plan for the park, the trail would be gone, replaced by a roadway providing vehicle access to the overnight cabin areas and the proposed event facilities. Gone also would be the experience of hiking or snowshoeing through the quiet stands of tall trees.
It has become clear that the state’s plan would bring other changes as well that will alter the character of Lowell Lake in ways both subtle and striking. Despite this evidence, some would say “don’t worry, nothing is set in stone.”
A review of the state’s own internal communications suggests that the plan to develop overnight lodging and the considerable infrastructure necessary to support that project has been the state’s primary, if not exclusive focus since at least January of this year. Of the hundreds of pages of documents, emails and memos reviewed there is almost no mention of maintaining the park’s undeveloped state. In fact, Forests, Parks and Recreation decided not to present a detailed plan for maintaining the park’s current day use only status at its community open house, because they no longer consider that a desirable option.
The state’s mind is made up. There are only two things that will prevent the loss of a tranquil and relatively undeveloped Lowell Lake: community outrage and/or the failure of Forests, Parks and Recreation’s to obtain the nearly $3 million in taxpayer funds required to undertake this unnecessary venture.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Nied
Chester
Filed Under: Commentary • Letters to the Editor
There is a need for infrastructure improvement, safety and sanitation at Lowell Lake and the park needs a more-involved stewardship by the state. It’s pretty simple. Doing nothing will not help the park. What the state proposes will have little to no environmental impact on the park.
Many people have stopped going to the park because it is too crowded. Someone who moves here from the city might not see it that way but certainly those of us who have lived in rural areas such as this have an idea what crowded means. There is a fear that the plans the state has will increase the traffic even more. With more active stewardship, a sensible traffic scheme and paid admission, it is just as likely there will be fewer visitors. Some people just want to go whenever they feel like it and don’t want to pay.
The state thinks this will have an economic impact locally. Some make the argument that there won’t be enough to justify the work to be done. I don’t know any merchant in the area who wouldn’t mind 20 or 30 more people spending money at their establishments. If that happens from overnight camping at Lowell Lake, then I would say mission accomplished.
If anyone wishes too know more, then go to Vermont state parks website and research the information yourself. Talk to locals and park visitors. Visit the park yourself. In fact, go this coming labor day and see the fiasco called parking. You may be enlightened.
Correction:
Unfortunately, Mr. Nied is not giving the entire picture of the Lowell Lake Trail. According to Plan A, there is a short stretch of the Lowell Lake Trail, which is currently a dirt road used by State Park maintenance vehicles and pickup trucks as well as hikers, bikers and horseback riders that will be widened to a two lane road for park and cabin access. However, the vast majority of the Lowell lake trail is a hiking trail goes around the entire lake. That hiking trail will remain as it is.
https://vtstateparks.com/assets/pdf/lowell.pdf
To say that: “Gone also would be the experience of hiking or snowshoeing through the quiet stands of tall trees.” is false and hyperbole.
The Lowell Lake debate is emotional with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. My hope is that both sides remain honest without adding spin to bolster their point of view.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nied is not giving the entire picture of the Lowell Lake Trail. According to Plan A, there is a short stretch of the Lowell Lake Trail, which is currently a dirt road traveled by maintenance vehicles and pickup trucks as well as hikers, that will be widened to a two lane road for park and cabin access. However, the vast majority of the Lowell lake trail is a hiking trail goes around the entire lake. That hiking trail will remain as it is.
https://vtstateparks.com/assets/pdf/lowell.pdf
To say that: “Gone also would be the experience of hiking or snowshoeing through the quiet stands of tall trees.” is false and hyperbole.
The Lowell Lake debate is emotional with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. My hope is that both sides remain honest without adding spin to bolster their point of view.
Mr. Friant is unfortunately mistaken. Under the state’s proposed “Option A”, a large portion of the existing trail would be replaced by a vehicle road that will allow cars to access the overnight and events areas. That fact was acknowledged by Forests, Parks & Recreation’s own consultant in an email obtained through the Public Records Law which reads: “We should think about how we can accommodate visitors who are there to walk and want to avoid lakeshore congestion, given that we are proposing a new vehicular route through that existing trail.” (Citation: Patrick Olstead/SE Group to Ethan Phelps, email dated May 31, 2019, 11:02 AM.)
By FP&R’s own accounting, That trail was used by 3,000 people in 2018 for walking, observing nature, snowshoeing and cross country skiing. If FP&R has now changed its mind and is no longer proposing to convert the trail to vehicle use, that would be a good thing and they should be lauded. If anyone is unclear as to FP&R’s intent they should closely examine FP&R’s public design documents, request clarification from Ethan Phelps, FP&R’s local director and/or request FP&R’s internal communications, emails and meeting notes through the Public Records Law.
It is important to know that the Lowell Lake Trail is clearly marked on the plan for Option A. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=89084ae0cc6e4a7ba8d736688d41b99a .
As I read the plan, the trail is not going away. It is not being “removed” and is currently a road in that area. The trail will not be disturbed at all outside of the work area and will continue around the lake as it does now. There is no risk of losing the experience of hiking through quiet stands of trees.
I think Larry has said it very well. I also feel the parks Department will do its job in protecting Lowell Lake for now and the long term. I go to Lowell Lake and yes it is a beautiful place in southern Vermont. This would be a boost for southern Vermont and all that live and work here. Yes Lowell Lake would change some not a lot. The benefits out weigh just leaving it as it is. I do not know of one Park anyplace I have been to over the years that is worse off for having the Park’s Department control and care for it. It is there job and I think they do it very well. This is about finding a way for all kinds of people from anyplace to enjoy our southern Jem. Imagine what it would be like if we had no park’s anywhere and no one to protect and control these beautiful places? Sometimes change is not easy but it is also not always a bad thing as well. thanks
Forests, Parks and Recreation has stated that there are 19 official parking spaces at Lowell Lake and that limited parking is the current mechanism used to control crowding at the park. Under the proposed “Option A” development plan the number of parking spaces would increase to nearly 90, there would be event facilities accommodating up to 70 people and lodging allowing people to remain in the park 24 X 7. Suggesting that this would somehow control crowding because people would be required to “make reservations” is not a reasonable nor logical assertion.
I would like to suggest that people talk with The Agency of Natural Resources under which the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation (FPR), the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife are found, to get direct responses to the contentions made here and elsewhere, without their being present to respond to them.
People may also want to talk to people who participated in 16 sit-down meetings with FPR, across almost 2 years, to get more background and information than those who did not participate and have made a concerted effort to focus on opposition to overnight facilities, while ignoring what has become the problem, the number of day users, with no overnight facilities present.
Overnight users are day users who would have a reservation to then spend the night in a limited number of rehabbed historical cabins. Whether there are overnight facilities or not, there will have to be a control on the number of visitors (that estimated number has not yet been established). Overnight facilities are one of the ways to do that. Instead of adding to the visitors already coming, they would be a part of the balance of the number of visitors deemed to be an acceptable number of people to lake environment and experience. One must make reservations for overnight and there are only so many places for them, thus there is a further means of controlling numbers.
The people who attended the initial 16 meetings were in a back and forth sit-down with FPR at every meeting. Concerns (the same concerns as today) were laid out on the table, FPR stated their mission to the public and it was discussed and hashed out face to face.
If you would like to know more about the concepts, what led to them and get a direct response, not a narrative or opinion from those with a specific position, please go to the Lowell Lake website, find the DOC/MAPS Link on that page, to the right side in the middle. Read the documents and information, call FPR directly to ask any questions you have.
You may also want to contact me or any others that were participants in the sit-downs with Forest, Parks and Recreation were there was an open dialog where people of varying positions (including FPR) could talk, voice their concerns, be heard and hear responses, as well as discuss them. There were a variety of opinions then, but there was consensus that led to what FPR is presenting.
Please also consider that the Agency of Natural Resources has considerable experience in pursuing their mission, looking for some additional public input and data regarding the impact of their other parks and parks in general.
No entity, no individual is flawless and that goes for those of any position on the subject of what has been presented about Lowell Lake, but there are in-place examples of what ANR and FPR has done and if they are in the business of parks, (as well as protecting the environment they sit within) it would seem unlikely they would have an interest in destroying what they (the Agency of Natural Resources) essentially exist for.
https://vtstateparks.com/lowell.html
Thank you for listening.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Gubb