Public warns Haskell Basin unsafe; board backs pursuing secondary egress for Big Mountain

A member of the public warned the City of Whitefish planning board on July 16 that listing Haskell Basin as a possible wildfire evacuation route in the hazards draft element would be dangerous and could lead to loss of life.

Richard, a member of the public who addressed the board during public comment, said the Haskell Road is not a safe evacuation option and should be removed from the plan’s evacuation-route discussion. "To send anyone or anyone to think they can escape a wildfire, down the Haskell Road is to, I don't think I'm being too strong. It it's it's a death trap," Richard said.

The planning participants discussed that concern and the broader issue of secondary egress for Big Mountain, which participants said has been raised repeatedly in prior planning cycles. One planning participant summarized an implementation objective as: "continue pursuing a secondary access for Big Mountain egress," language the group agreed to include as an objective to give the topic higher priority in the plan.

Why it matters: Big Mountain is a growing residential area where, participants said, some lots were developed with the understanding that a secondary access would exist. In a wildfire, relying on narrow, unpaved roads or routes with wooden bridges could leave residents trapped. The hazards draft aims to identify and prioritize evacuation routes, map fire risk, and coordinate with fire districts and other agencies.

Discussion and supporting details: The public commenter cited at least three wooden bridges on the Haskell route that, he said, could burn in a fast-moving fire and trap evacuees. Planning participants noted the hazards chapter already includes objectives to "assess existing and potential evacuation routes, particularly those on potential unpaved roads, determine improvements or strategies that could improve egress and provide directional information." That language will remain but the group decided to increase emphasis on pursuing a constructed secondary egress for Big Mountain as a planning objective.

Participants also raised related implementation points: compiling mitigation maps in GIS, coordinating with the Big Mountain Fire District and county emergency planners, and clarifying the use of the trademarked term "Firewise" in the document (one participant cautioned that Firewise is a proprietary designation and should be referenced carefully). The planning staff noted that the hazards chapter was developed with input from the fire department, Big Mountain Fire, and local fire-safe organizations.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt any regulatory moratorium on development in Big Mountain nor set specific acquisition or funding steps for a secondary egress. Participants acknowledged that implementation—such as securing rights-of-way or funding—would require subsequent steps and agency coordination.

Looking ahead: The hazards draft will be revised to (1) remove or de-emphasize Haskell Basin as a recommended evacuation route pending further engineering and hazard review, (2) include an explicit objective to prioritize obtaining a secondary egress for Big Mountain, and (3) clarify Firewise/fire-adapted-community language to avoid implying proprietary endorsements without definition. The planning board will continue review in subsequent work sessions and incorporate written public comments as staff compiles a revised draft.