Planning board discussion urges priority on Big Mountain secondary egress after public safety warning

The Whitefish Planning Board continued line-by-line edits to the hazards draft element during a work session, after a public commenter urged the board to remove Haskell Basin as a listed evacuation route and to prioritize obtaining a second egress for Big Mountain.

Richard, a public commenter, told the board that listing Haskell Basin as a potential evacuation route is dangerously misleading. “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 a death trap,” he said, arguing the route has wooden bridges and other choke points that could fail in an active wildfire.

Why it matters: The hazards element will guide future land-use and infrastructure decisions. Board members and staff said the document should not imply unsafe routes are reliable evacuation options, because the plan could influence buyer decisions and emergency planning.

Board discussion focused on two outcomes: clarifying language in the hazards text about which routes are considered feasible evacuation corridors today, and elevating a goal to pursue a functional secondary egress for Big Mountain. Staff said the draft already contains objectives to “assess existing and potential evacuation routes” and to “determine improvements or strategies that could improve egress and provide directional information.” Participants asked that the plan be explicit about routes that are not safe for evacuation under wildfire conditions.

Board members also cautioned about use of proprietary labels. A staff member noted that Firewise is a trademarked/community-certification program and suggested the draft avoid implying the city itself is certifying neighborhoods as Firewise without the program’s process and standards. The group agreed to replace or define proprietary terms so the plan remains actionable without misusing program names.

Next steps: Staff will incorporate the public commenter’s concerns into the hazards chapter wording, clarify which routes are feasible now versus potential (subject to future engineering or land acquisitions), and retain an objective that prioritizes obtaining or securing a secondary egress for Big Mountain. The board signaled it expects the revised hazards language to return in a future packet for review.