PDA

View Full Version : New AMC hut proposal



James GAME2009
08-11-2015, 14:04
The AMC has proposed the construction of a new hut in Crawford Notch. I have mixed feelings about this. While in the Whites I found the entire hut system to be annoying at best. On the other hand, I understand the role the AMC plays in protecting the fragile ecosystems that exist in the Whites. There is a change.org petition against the construction of this hut, for those interested. As of yet I have not signed the petition. Curious to hear what others think of the proposed new hut.

https://www.change.org/p/forest-users-who-hold-value-in-new-hampshire-s-pristine-landscape-prevent-the-amc-from-constructing-another-hut-in-crawford-notch?recruiter=359294096&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink (https://www.change.org/p/forest-users-who-hold-value-in-new-hampshire-s-pristine-landscape-prevent-the-amc-from-constructing-another-hut-in-crawford-notch?recruiter=359294096&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)

chrismagness
08-16-2015, 16:29
The AMC has proposed the construction of a new hut in Crawford Notch. I have mixed feelings about this. While in the Whites I found the entire hut system to be annoying at best. On the other hand, I understand the role the AMC plays in protecting the fragile ecosystems that exist in the Whites. There is a change.org petition against the construction of this hut, for those interested. As of yet I have not signed the petition. Curious to hear what others think of the proposed new hut.

https://www.change.org/p/forest-users-who-hold-value-in-new-hampshire-s-pristine-landscape-prevent-the-amc-from-constructing-another-hut-in-crawford-notch?recruiter=359294096&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink (https://www.change.org/p/forest-users-who-hold-value-in-new-hampshire-s-pristine-landscape-prevent-the-amc-from-constructing-another-hut-in-crawford-notch?recruiter=359294096&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)

Surprised this hasn't attracted discussion.

I started the change.org petition because the state of New Hampshire had, as of early last week, received little little feedback regarding construction and the open comment period ended yesterday.

While opinions for construction are strong on both sides, many people are opposed to building another hut. Not only because it's an AMC hut which caters more to the well-to-do, but because building a hut involves construction on public lands and setting a precedent for further construction.

This hut could have an impact on the Appalachian Trail in the Ethan Pond area due to increased traffic. Furthermore, a new trail will be cut to access the hut. This trail will likely be a spur off of the AT which is illegal use of National Parks land.

chrismagness
08-16-2015, 16:31
I encourage wilderness users and AT hikers to review and sign this petition. Every voice is needed.

peakbagger
08-16-2015, 22:05
Unfortunately Chris is confused on the siting of the spur trail. All of the documents issued to date show all the improvements on State of NH land. I don't know where he got the impression that building a new trail on state land is an illegal use of NPS land. Since NPS land and USFS land is intentionally not in the proposal, I don't see where change.org will have impact on what is a state decision. I expect the confusion is that Chris doesn't understand that the NPS does not own the entire AT. The NPS does own large strips of land in fee (outright ownership) where it was purchased over private property. In other areas the NPS has a right of way. Where it goes over state and federal land, the NPS has a right of way allowing the AT to cross the land but they don't own it. Thus the right to pass over the AT is protected by NPS but the NPS doesn't call the shots on land they don't own.

The petition unfortunately will have no legal standing as the state comment period is closed. To bad he didn't focus his efforts on getting people interested in state comment period.

chrismagness
08-17-2015, 06:24
Peakbagger, you sound like an AMC employee? My name is clear and proud. Who are you?

The petition and all of its comments were filed with the state within the comment period. Furthermore, I will continue to submit the signatures and comments weekly throughout this process, which the state will accept. The state will not be reviewing public comments until the end of the month. If (that word was emphasized to me by the state) this process moves forward, more comments will be solicited. The large public outcry against this project was had an impact. Even your panties seem wadded.

Looking at the map of the proposed trail and parking area, the new trail will be a spur off of the AT and the parking area will blow-up a small section of the the AT. That is, a small section of the AT will become a parking lot. I have contracted the ATC conservation officer on these issues, I do need clarity. But they are a concern, this construction will effect the AT and its corridor.

Also, Peakbagger, it isn't my petition. I belongs to everyone who has --and will-- sign it.

rickb
08-17-2015, 07:17
With regards to the previous poster's contention that the proposed parking area will "blow up" a small section of the AT, he has a point-- sort of. But detail (and facts) matter.

Right now the AT (AKA the Ethan Pond Trail) dumps into a parking lot about 1/4 mile from the main road crossing through Crawford Notch (302). AT hikers walk down this 2-way paved road for about 1/4 mile (he road is the AT) before crossing the highway and getting back into the woods.

The parking lot is busy since the trailhead serves not only the AT, but also a popular local waterfall and a popular day hiked peak. You are lucky to get a spot up top by the AT on some weekends, so cars park along the road's shoulder. Cars will invariably also be parked where this 1/4 mile paved stretch of the AT crosses 302.

My understanding is that proposed parking would be either at the base of the 1/4 mile stretch of paved AT by 302, or simply a hardening of the shoulders of the road. Not sure what would be better/worse depending on your perspective.

That said, I think this would be a great time to have the NH State Parks Department, with the help of the AMC and guidance of the ATC, move the exiting Trail off that road and into the woods. This is an unneeded road walk!

This trail construction nwould not be hard to do -- all state land-- and makes a great deal of sense.

As for some of the other issues brought up in the petition -- underground electrical cables, windmills and concern that the ATC's programs at this hut will only serve only the economic elite? The probably hold a kernel of truth, but to my way of thinking not the whole truth. Not even close.

chrismagness
08-17-2015, 07:47
Perspective matters, too. I don't use the AMC huts. Cost isn't an as much an issue for me as some folks. Around here, the AMC has developed the moniker "Appalachian Money Club" for a good reason. It's expensive to stay in the huts. Less costly off season, but not desirable for many people.

I'm concerned with developing Crawford Notch. I would like to see left as pristine and wild as possible. Development now only sets precedent for future construction: the AMC's last hut (albeit 50 years ago) was in Crawford Notch, and more recently, the Highland Center. And now the proposed new hut.

Because of winter plowing, don't expect hardening of the shoulders.

Apology to Peakbagger. I'm not sure how to edit posts on this forum.

This is a polarizing issue, especially for people who live here.

peakbagger
08-17-2015, 09:23
I happen to live in the region. I personally don't use the AMC huts but I know people who do. I also know many people who originally got exposed to hiking and camping in the whites by first staying at a hut and I know several older hikers who are stretching their years of hiking by staying at AMC huts. I have speculated that the AMC is most likely going to make fairly extensive upgrades to the existing and new trails to make them accessible for those with mobility issues. They are pricey for many but there are also other lower cost options in the area. The state run Dry River campground is just down the road for a low cost option as well the federal run campgrounds north off of Zealand Road. AMC also has the Shapleigh lodge adjacent to the Highland Center. I consider their winter caretaking rates reasonable for the services provided. As the summertime peak rates, they like any other entity is a limited resource and people who want to stay there get to chose if they want to go elsewhere or pay the rate. Its not like this accommodation is displacing another lower cost accommodation, this is just adding a new option.

If the hut was proposed to be on the current AT routing I would be somewhat more concerned but as proposed, its a blue blaze. The area in question gets a lot of dayhiker traffic and the trails get pounded pretty severely. The state does minimal if any trail maintenance these days and in this area the primary group doing any trail maintenance is AMC. As you are aware, the state forces the Division of Parks and Recreation to be self funded and they are forced to scramble for revenue to keep their parks running. The AMC proposal puts some level of revenue into the division and puts a presence in this area that is going to be actively interested in maintaining the trails. NH state parks are managed for multiple interests of the users. There is a ATV park in Berlin, two ski areas, the Flume for day users and numerous campgrounds and swimming areas. They all have their constituents and I regard the AMC hut as serving another constituency. I expect this hut will get heavy use during Ice Climbing season. As for parking, the current parking is generally a low priority secondary effort for the state and I expect AMC will probably contribute to the parking plowing effort. More than a few folks have gotten towed or ticketed after a large snowstorm for parking along the side of the highway in this area right after a storm which is the best time to go skiing.

The new lodge can be built to blend in with the surroundings. That is definitely something that the state will need to retain control of. Generally the more recent hut rehabs tend to use muted colors that blend in with the terrain (once the white cedar shakes age). The biggest impacts are reflections of the glass windows and current passive design cuts back somewhat on windows so this should be less of an issue. The area already has the Conway Scenic trestles and track in the area so this is not pristine backcountry.

At least according to the reports of the public hearing, there isn't a local groundswell of opposition, far lower than the complaints regarding the Highland Center predominantly from the businesses in Twin Mountain.

Personally I am far more opposed to the current Mt Cannon expansion (also on state land) and the state fiefdom that protects the area from financial and regulatory scrutiny which predominately is for the benefit of the surrounding seasonal home owners. I find it very distasteful that the state managers are able to ban access to the majority of the state land on the north side of the mountain for the non ski months because they don't want the public to see the legacy of the ski areas management (vast amounts of junk, trash and old equipment thrown out in the woods along the runs and subpar erosion and sedimentation control of the slopes during and post construction).

Rain Man
08-17-2015, 10:56
Peakbagger, you sound like an AMC employee? My name is clear and proud. Who are you? ... Even your panties seem wadded.

This was "Chris'" second or third post on WB? What a first impression.

Wyoming
08-17-2015, 14:01
I'm not so sure we don't need a few more of those huts. I want to reserve one for after the apocalypse to be my doomstead. Who would not want a fort in the mountains? It'll be like Game of Thrones.

BirdBrain
08-17-2015, 14:06
My first reactions to huts and the AMC in general was not positive. These discussions are very informative. Things are not as simple as they seem at first blush. As usual, those from the area are more informed and in a better position to have an opinion. I defer to the locals. The Whites are beautiful. The natives have difficult decisions. I trust they will make the best ones they can and hope time bears out their wisdom. In the mean time, I am enjoying listening to the local perspectives.

Don H
08-17-2015, 14:07
Where it goes over state and federal land, the NPS has a right of way allowing the AT to cross the land but they don't own it. Thus the right to pass over the AT is protected by NPS but the NPS doesn't call the shots on land they don't own.

Not to change the subject but since we're talking about legal "Right of Ways" does the NPS have a ROW on Katahdin?

peakbagger
08-17-2015, 15:47
Some folks don't contribute to the site and therefore don't have access to the edit key (I forget to contribute on occasion). The petitioner unfortunately got caught up in the hype of Crawford Notch hut rather than the details. Its easy to do. I am not and never can be local as I was not born in the area but have been here since 1987. As for my name, I prefer to leave it out of reach of web crawlers but have consistently used Peakbagger on this site and others. I also try to compose these postings and then let them sit for a bit and reread them before I hit the Post button.

With respect to a ROW at BSP. BSP has stated that the AT is a guest and that BSP can pull the invitation thus there probably is not a right of way. Given Governors Baxter's goal to remove all potential "clouds" on the titles to BSP properties to the extent of buying out squatters, I doubt that his successors on the commission would have allowed NPS to obtain an easement. He was quite adamant in his papers that the park would never be a national park and that would reinforce my belief that the AT is strictly a guest with no legal standing. The NPS has been very reticent in using eminent domain for many years and regards it as a last resort and I expect that they would be very reluctant in trying to force the issue at Baxter.

ATC did a disservice for years by having a trail protection campaign that listed the remaining miles to be "protected". Some of the protected miles have weak protections but was the best they could do but nevertheless it gave many the impression that the AT has a clear deeded title to the AT from Springer to Katahdin. In reality that level of protection varies significantly. I remember one spot particularly in Maryland just south of crossing of a four lane divided highway (luckily elevated) the trail went between two chain link fences about 10 feet across in a typical suburban neighborhood. Yes the trail was protected in that a hiker could pass through between these two private lots but to most that is probably not what they would regard as protected. I remember another area down south where there were warnings posted that the trail was a right of way only on private property and that hikers were only allowed to walk from one end of the section to another without stopping or camping. Vernon NJ also has/had some interesting neighbors. The unprotected parkway crossing outside of NYC where a hiker takes their life into their hands with speeding traffic also calls into question the term protection.

I could speculate that the agreement with the state of NH is that the AT can cross NH state park land but the exact details on where exactly and in what matter is subject to discussion and ultimately the state of NHs call. A NH state park is inherently protected versus privately held land. There is a traditional route of the AT through the NH state parks that definitely existed long before the NPS took over the AT but I think its tradition and unlike on private land prescriptive rights never accrue on public land. I could envision AMC relocating the steep vertical section of the Ethan Pond trail between the tracks and the ridgeline into a series of extended switchbacks to make the AT more accessible as well as connecting up with the new hut trail.

chrismagness
08-17-2015, 16:16
This was "Chris'" second or third post on WB? What a first impression.

I did apologize. It's really difficult not to be personal with this stuff, but that's the nature of this particular quandary, one where there is little room for concession and an unhappy middle ground would probably be a lean-to or tenting platforms. You haven't heard from me before because I didn't know this forum existed. I am, however, an avid outdoorsman. And, as it is related to this discussion, spend 30+ days a year in Crawford Notch climbing and hiking.

Peakbagger, there has been an uproar about this hut in North Conway circles. The public meetings didn't yield much conversation because people were unaware of them and the times were awkward (4 pm on a Thursday afternoon at the Wiley House. I had to leave work early to attend, and have the luxury of doing so because I'm self employed). I'm immersed in the outdoor community, and outside of the AMC rank-and-file, know of no-one in support of this construction project. I suggest you read the comments on the petition check the locales of the writers. You'll recognize a bunch of names as prominent members of the outdoor community, even several Old Hutsmen and a bunch of AMC members. You did eloquently highlight reasons for construction. And I agree with you, to an extent (feel that the RMC and UNH huts are a better model) but I'm really concerned about further commercialization of a place I have grown to love. Our use of these forests is a short history, and they've rebounded wonderfully since being clear cut. What happens when the next generation has an idea for another hut in Crawford Notch? Or another Highland Center? The precedent will have already been set and the AMC will continue to look for ways to grow: in 2011, it had a $10M profit, with $105M worth of assets.

This project would never fly on national forest land (Wildcat ski area's effort to expand is a good example) or in a wilderness area. And for all intensive purposes, Crawford Notch is a wilderness area. It just happens to be owned by the state, and is thus an easier target for development. The Ethan Pond area is barely outside of these protections.

rickb
08-17-2015, 17:35
in 20011, it had a $10M profit.

Just not true.

Facts matter.

Tuckahoe
08-17-2015, 19:08
I did apologize. It's really difficult not to be personal with this stuff, but that's the nature of this particular quandary, one where there is little room for concession and an unhappy middle ground would probably be a lean-to or tenting platforms.

That is bunk right there. You either choose to be civil or not.


the AMC will continue to look for ways to grow: in 2011, it had a $10M profit, with $105M worth of assets.


Just not true.

Facts matter.

Even if true, as an uneducated outside observer, I can not understand why this is an issue. It seems that the continuing issue that some seem to have to the AMC is that the some how either have money/assets or they cater to the monied.

Hangfire
08-17-2015, 19:51
I'm not sure where all the hatred for the hut system came from, I found the huts extremely useful as great places to get water and to load up on free leftover foods. By the time you get to the Whites you should be able to read your awol guide and plan accordingly. Most of the haters that I ran into were the ones who were dead broke on the trail but would somehow find a way to stay in town for multiple days and get drunk and stoned the whole time. The further I got down the trail the less pity I had on those who couldn't plan a budget past the cigarette in their mouth or the bottle of beer waiting for them in town, both of which are expensive habits.