sierra
Well-known member
Things are only bad, if you see them that way.
Cog Rolls out big development plans near the summit.
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Things are only bad, if you see them that way.
ChrisB
Well-known member
I go back and forth on this one: thinking the summit is a total loss to believing there is still hope.
While I know it can't be "re-wilded" I see no reason why it can be "restored" to some previous less developed state.
So today I'm thinking: Gog plan bad! Instead the state should remove existing structures, tanks and other human artifacts in that general area and restore the alpine flora that was displaced years ago.
It could happen! ("The Love Goddess, Judy Tenuta RIP)
I think it goes back to confusion over the control of the summit area due to confusion over control of the larger summit cone and the adjacent areas. It's easy to get confused. The Cog had many historical rights assigned to them when the state long ago issued a railroad charter to run a track to the summit. They also "owned" the summit for some period through a long and confusing chain of transactions. https://www.nhstateparks.org/getmed...8d8fd8c/Committee-7-23-18-Mt-Wash-History.pdf At one point, the state became the owner of a circular area centered on the summit and an adjacent rectangular area that is roughly aligned with the "home stretch" of the autoroad. The Cog and presumably other entities retained various rights to the summit despite state ownership. The cog also has additional rights inherent to operation as a railroad. They retain ownership of a 99 foot strip of land from the base station to the state property at the summit. The proposed Lizzies Station rail terminal area and accommodations are located on the Cog strip outside the state-owned land. They have stated at a prior Coos county planning board meeting that they would like to obtain a portion of the rectangular portion of the state land with the state in exchange for some cog rights within the summit circle. This is an area that has fuel tanks and the remains of the air force test facility that operated at one point near the summit. The WMNF owns the surrounding land not owned by the state, the cog and the autoroad.
In the background is the Coos County Planning board. They are responsible for regulation of any development that occurs in the county. The state and federal government are not subject to the Coos County Planning board. The Coos County Planning board previously put in special restrictions to prevent development in the high elevation areas of the county (above 2700 feet) to presumably preclude any new ridgeline like the development that I had linked to previously at Sugar Top in NC https://carolinapublicpress.org/174...e-battle-over-mountaintop-development-in-wnc/. Far more importantly the state and federal government can ignore the county regulations but private landowners cannot. Therefore, the state can do what it pleases on Mt Washington on their land and has done so in the past.
Control of the state-owned land is by the state, the Mt Washington Commission is an advisory body to the state composed of parties that have sometimes competing interest in the summit along with members of the general public. Ultimately, they are strictly advisory, the state can do what they want and ignore the commission. Traditionally the MWC has been kept abreast of proposals and agreements for operations at the summit. The state apparently ignored past practice and negotiated in private with the Cog regarding the Lizzies Station proposal and changes to the summit operations despite the impact to other summit users and according to the press, made several non public agreements with the cog that could impact summit operations without advising the commission, therefore when the Lizzies Station concept was made public to the MWC, the other members were not aware of the non public agreements already negotiated. Therefore, the response of the MWC members to the public proposal was without knowing that there were negotiated "strings attached", thus a possible cause of the Autoroad's representative's apparent flip flopping of support for the project when it was disclosed that there were undisclosed conditions after the initial presentation.
As the Cog has not yet requested a formal building permit, there is no current publicly available site plan on any other document other than concept documents that were supplied to the planning board. The development concept as described is outside the state park boundaries and therefore any development is subject the Coos County Planning board. It consists of taking installing two tracks and a switching area to allow the current single track to transfer to either one of the two tracks. A single track will still go up to the summit onto the state land. One of the two parallel tracks will be used to seasonally park mobile rail cars that house accommodations and support functions including a new passenger terminus which will include restrooms and concessions like food and souvenir sales. The entire area will have a grated elevated platform to allow guests to get on and off the Cog. Guests can either take a short shuttle train to the summit, elect to walk up to the summit from the new terminus via hardened existing hiking trails or a path along the rail or they can elect to stay at the new terminus and skip the summit. Reportedly, one of the "strings" is that the cog will be able to utilize the summit building and summit facilities when the summit building is closed due to lack of state employees to staff it. The summit building is only staffed during the day via state employees that commute via the auotoroad and therefore the operations of the summit building would have to fundamentally change to allow use of the summit building earlier and later in the season and overnight. Hikers may appreciate that as presumably there will be rest rooms available.
The proposal will put far more people in the area north of the summit and presumably in the alpine zone outside of Cog property. The cog owners have stated that there will be attempts to educate and contain guests to the hardened areas and on the platform but common sense is that some folks will, like they do today, roam outside the boundaries given the hiking trails that go through and near the proposed development. No doubt the steep adjacent cliffs looking down over the Great Gulf will become a popular selfie area. Despite the Cog owner's statement that there are no plans to expand outside the section of the current proposal, unless that is made as a condition of the approval of the current project, there is no reason that a future application could not be made to expand the development farther down along the tracks. Anyone familar with the summit during tourist season knows that the tourist use of the alpine zone is a function of distance to good footing on the summit. Adding a 500 foot plus or minus by 99 wide platform to the north of the summit is going to increase usage or a much larger area of the alpine zone than impacted currently.
In the background is the Coos County Planning board. They are responsible for regulation of any development that occurs in the county. The state and federal government are not subject to the Coos County Planning board. The Coos County Planning board previously put in special restrictions to prevent development in the high elevation areas of the county (above 2700 feet) to presumably preclude any new ridgeline like the development that I had linked to previously at Sugar Top in NC https://carolinapublicpress.org/174...e-battle-over-mountaintop-development-in-wnc/. Far more importantly the state and federal government can ignore the county regulations but private landowners cannot. Therefore, the state can do what it pleases on Mt Washington on their land and has done so in the past.
Control of the state-owned land is by the state, the Mt Washington Commission is an advisory body to the state composed of parties that have sometimes competing interest in the summit along with members of the general public. Ultimately, they are strictly advisory, the state can do what they want and ignore the commission. Traditionally the MWC has been kept abreast of proposals and agreements for operations at the summit. The state apparently ignored past practice and negotiated in private with the Cog regarding the Lizzies Station proposal and changes to the summit operations despite the impact to other summit users and according to the press, made several non public agreements with the cog that could impact summit operations without advising the commission, therefore when the Lizzies Station concept was made public to the MWC, the other members were not aware of the non public agreements already negotiated. Therefore, the response of the MWC members to the public proposal was without knowing that there were negotiated "strings attached", thus a possible cause of the Autoroad's representative's apparent flip flopping of support for the project when it was disclosed that there were undisclosed conditions after the initial presentation.
As the Cog has not yet requested a formal building permit, there is no current publicly available site plan on any other document other than concept documents that were supplied to the planning board. The development concept as described is outside the state park boundaries and therefore any development is subject the Coos County Planning board. It consists of taking installing two tracks and a switching area to allow the current single track to transfer to either one of the two tracks. A single track will still go up to the summit onto the state land. One of the two parallel tracks will be used to seasonally park mobile rail cars that house accommodations and support functions including a new passenger terminus which will include restrooms and concessions like food and souvenir sales. The entire area will have a grated elevated platform to allow guests to get on and off the Cog. Guests can either take a short shuttle train to the summit, elect to walk up to the summit from the new terminus via hardened existing hiking trails or a path along the rail or they can elect to stay at the new terminus and skip the summit. Reportedly, one of the "strings" is that the cog will be able to utilize the summit building and summit facilities when the summit building is closed due to lack of state employees to staff it. The summit building is only staffed during the day via state employees that commute via the auotoroad and therefore the operations of the summit building would have to fundamentally change to allow use of the summit building earlier and later in the season and overnight. Hikers may appreciate that as presumably there will be rest rooms available.
The proposal will put far more people in the area north of the summit and presumably in the alpine zone outside of Cog property. The cog owners have stated that there will be attempts to educate and contain guests to the hardened areas and on the platform but common sense is that some folks will, like they do today, roam outside the boundaries given the hiking trails that go through and near the proposed development. No doubt the steep adjacent cliffs looking down over the Great Gulf will become a popular selfie area. Despite the Cog owner's statement that there are no plans to expand outside the section of the current proposal, unless that is made as a condition of the approval of the current project, there is no reason that a future application could not be made to expand the development farther down along the tracks. Anyone familar with the summit during tourist season knows that the tourist use of the alpine zone is a function of distance to good footing on the summit. Adding a 500 foot plus or minus by 99 wide platform to the north of the summit is going to increase usage or a much larger area of the alpine zone than impacted currently.
Last edited:
ChrisB
Well-known member
Thanks PB.
I am sure there is a lot of Machiavellian maneuvering going on as various interests work at further monetizing this unique NH natural resource.
I am sure there is a lot of Machiavellian maneuvering going on as various interests work at further monetizing this unique NH natural resource.
Andrew
Active member
Geez Chris, I have a 9 year old son and hope the rewilding is none too soon. It will happen, that is certain, but more likely right along to when the highways we use to get to Mt. Washington for our hikes are re-wilding and growing more grass than pavement.
In the meantime, humanity (hopefully) strives to balance its impact on these natural places we enjoy.
I remember one of the first projects I had some involvement with when starting work for NH parks; hardening the pathways through the rhododendron groves at Rhododendron State Park by bringing the trail up to ADA standards. I was so upset that the mystical winding root covered trail was going to be paved over by crushed stone. When the impacts of this project became apparent with subsequent years of use that brought healing to the area as people now stayed on the trail, and drainages were no longer pounded out and now functioning. Also the appreciation that developed from the broader spectrum of users that were now able to more easily enjoy this special environment. I was left to feel good about attempting to manage public recreational use.
I think it's cool that mighty Mt. Washington can host so much human activity on its shoulders that benefit so many and drives so much economic activity for the state. Like someone had commented early on with this proposal, worry if the Cog was hauling gondola loads of minerals off the summit as it preferred business activity. The biggest threat from climate change on Mt. Washington as for the effects on sensitive species is the rapidly warming climate. The biggest impact on the alpine flora other than climate change is hiker impact. I would venture to guess that the Cog visitors who have every right to enjoy the summit of Mt. Washington as well as hikers, would be less likely to stray from established developed pathways and facilities than us hikers. Hikers arrive equipped to travel on rough terrain and do often off established treadways. Save Mt. Washington! Eliminate the Hikers! No
sierra
Well-known member
I have a better chance of scooping up Tom Brady's wife.
I long ago have written off the state owned summit ciircle, its been "anything for a buck" for long time. Phil Bryce is good soldier and will do what his former masters want. I do hold out hope to keep the areas surrounding the summit from sprawl and Lizzies Station is significant sprawl.
Andrew
Active member
I have always noticed how some get named to continue forth and benefit so well after separation from state service.
Me, I have nothing to gain except personal entertainment, and for some frustrating reason, a need to write volumes of management plans and strategies towards management of public recreational use in my head. This one is up to 18 pages, wait 18 volumes.
Someone who ran a department with the right contacts in NH State Government can always pick up state affiliated work post retirement. One typical approach is getting named as the state project representative of a special project. Let say there is a tram that needs replacing somewhere or maybe a major upgrade on the summit, a politician with the right pull can effectively get someone who retired assigned to the position and generally the pay is quite good as its funded off the grant. On the other hand there are frequently parties that want something from the state and they will hire former employees to lobby the people they used to work for. Always nice to have a "former" prominently listed by third party that is for or against a project. I think Northern Pass had a several "former" folks in their organization.
Years ago in Berlin we needed to go before the Site Evaluation Commission for a project. The firm we were working with on the project hired a former long term PUC chairman, he knew most of the people on the current board and knew their "hot buttons". He was very involved in our developing our approach and possible responses to the board. This was 20 years ago I think his rate was $250 per hour door to door. He dropped into the background at the actual hearing, but his assessment was right on.
Years ago in Berlin we needed to go before the Site Evaluation Commission for a project. The firm we were working with on the project hired a former long term PUC chairman, he knew most of the people on the current board and knew their "hot buttons". He was very involved in our developing our approach and possible responses to the board. This was 20 years ago I think his rate was $250 per hour door to door. He dropped into the background at the actual hearing, but his assessment was right on.
egilbe
Member
you have a chance with Tom's ex-wife.
Andrew
Active member
My former supervisor and I used to marvel jealously over all the lucrative consultant gigs with Parks. We would spend years hammering on an issue and get nowhere, but when a firm would be brought in to say the same things on a powerpoint and a fancy document, they would make the equivalent of our annual salary's times 3. I had my chance as I was asked to participate with a sign plan for FNSP but missed an initial meeting due to my own inability to participate with modern communication methods (and then realized it would take too much of my time from the woods). Every chance I had to schmooze politically, I always preferred to instead hang out with the riff-raff and talk about toilet cleaning products with my peers and smoking cigarettes.
I'll say a couple things for Phil, he let me work with the Nansen Ski Club to build themselves a warming hut at Milan Hill State Park. And he never tried to control me on my participation on the technical team with the last Nash Stream Management Plan, while others did try to.
I'll say a couple things for Phil, he let me work with the Nansen Ski Club to build themselves a warming hut at Milan Hill State Park. And he never tried to control me on my participation on the technical team with the last Nash Stream Management Plan, while others did try to.
Reportedly Phii was the "hatchet man" when what was left of the Crown Vantage (the remains of the James River) woodlands were dispersed. He didn't make a lot of friends and went on to work for the state after that. Perhaps he has grown older and wiser since switching to state work?
It comes down in government jobs, there are the leaders that come and go and the doers who actually keep things running. The problem is a there is wave of doers leaving government and no one with enough experience to take over.
It comes down in government jobs, there are the leaders that come and go and the doers who actually keep things running. The problem is a there is wave of doers leaving government and no one with enough experience to take over.
Seems as if the The Mount Washington Commission is all about image at best. At least the chairman had the sense to back down albeit just in time for midterms. Since the Committee is appointed by the Governor’s authority it will be interesting if any or overall change in it’s members occurs after the elections going forward as The Governor himself is also up for a term renewal. The lack of transparency at the moment is not only dysfunctional but a slap in the face to the general public.
Andrew
Active member
I don't think your impression is off. A lack of interest in developing and retaining staff is one of the biggest reasons I retired early. The way it was typically dealt with was to promote one of the doers into some quasi-mini director position without filling their former position, thus relegating them to have no staff to direct, and a commitment to accomplishing their former job role while additionally talking a lot more about things, and attending countless meetings.
It's quite apparent that a 'starve the beast' effort has been in place for a number of years, and they should be proud of their success and live with it.
ChrisB
Well-known member
Couple of thoughts:
In my work experience there were always two kinds of staff: doers who took the job seriously and got the day to day work done. And careerists who did some work but first and foremost managed their career opportunities within the organization.
Second thought: is it my imagination that AMC is not very visible, vocal or engaged in the summit/Lizzie Station issue? Chris Thayer is on the committee but seems as silent as Clarence Thomas.
Unfortunate that this type of situation exists. The lack of autonomy is again dysfunctional on many levels. To quote the article below: “ Bryce said the assessment is going to have more impact by waiting.
Kris Pastoriza suggested Bryce can’t speak for the public because of his past role as state parks director and said he should resign”.
“At two public hearings this summer – one in North Conway and one in Concord – members of the public overwhelmingly urged the plan to include an environmental assessment”.
https://indepthnh.org/2022/10/28/mo...ar-summit-master-plan-over-public-objections/
ChrisB
Well-known member
Interesting that the chair of the committee (R Jeb Bradley) is an avid hiker and Grid finisher.
Also interesting he stepped down from the Chair of the Committee after the vote and just before Election Day. Probably a good move on his point as his transparency IMO was questionable. My guess also would be that he probably did not want to be part of the Committee and potentially then having to vote in the legislature on the funding for the environmental study that should have been done already.
The Cog is on the agenda for the Coos Country Planning board this week on 11/21 for "conceptual discussions" about a project at the base station. The owner and his lawyer usually shows up with a big pack of info for the board members but none of it is ever published in advance. There is no official public comment sessions on Conceptual Discussions. It comes down to its way of seeing if a concept might pass the boards muster and figure out what members are leaning either way.
And the Balsam Ski Area is on the agenda again but no public hearing as the application is still a work in progress.
And the Balsam Ski Area is on the agenda again but no public hearing as the application is still a work in progress.
Similar threads
