Board presses hazards chapter; members flag Big Mountain egress and wildfire risk

The Whitefish Community Development Board reviewed the draft hazards element of the growth policy on June 18, focusing discussion on wildfire risk, evacuation routes for Big Mountain neighborhoods and how the policy should reference community wildfire protection planning.

Public comment: Richard, a resident who participates in local Firewise/Fire Safe efforts, told the board that the draft should not present Haskell Basin or similar unimproved roads as reliable evacuation routes. “To send anyone to Haskell Road is to send them into a death trap,” Richard said, noting narrow roads, wooden bridges and steep canyons that firefighters and local responders consider hazardous during extreme fire events. He asked the board to remove or explicitly qualify any language that suggests those routes are dependable egress options.

Staff presentation: Alan T., the city’s long‑range planner, described the hazards chapter as significantly expanded relative to the city’s 2007 plan. The draft includes assessment text and objectives on wildfire risk and the wildland‑urban interface, evacuation routes, a community wildfire protection plan (CWPP), Firewise and fire‑adapted communities language, floodplain management, high groundwater, seismic activity and steep‑slope development. Alan said the draft incorporated input from local fire agencies, Big Mountain Fire District and agencies such as DNRC and Flathead Electric, and that many concerns raised in earlier public comments were already addressed.

Board discussion and direction: Board members urged the chapter to be explicit about evacuation planning and to prioritize finding a reliable secondary egress for Big Mountain. Several members argued that improving secondary egress (or otherwise ensuring safe evacuation) should be framed as a priority objective because continued development without reliable egress raises public‑safety questions. Staff said the chapter already includes objectives to assess existing and potential evacuation routes — “particularly those on unpaved forest roads” — and to prioritize improvements or strategies that could improve egress and provide directional information.

On wildfire mitigation and CWPPs: The draft requests completion or updates of wildfire‑risk assessments, references the role of a CWPP and calls for coordination with Big Mountain Fire District and other responders. The board and public also discussed whether to use proprietary program names (for instance, “Firewise”) in the policy text; staff recommended using neutral language (for example, “fire‑resistant construction standards” or equivalent practices) or explicitly defining proprietary programs.

On floodplain and other hazards: The hazard chapter recommends active participation in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System and better coordination to update floodplain maps following infrastructure changes so private property owners are not left to bear mapping costs. The draft also suggests cataloguing groundwater and requiring plat notes or construction standards for sites with high groundwater potential.

What’s next: Staff will incorporate the board’s direction — including clearer, higher‑priority language about Big Mountain egress and evacuation route assessment — into the next draft, and will continue coordination with the fire district and Flathead County on CWPP and evacuation planning. The board also asked staff to keep the hazards language consistent with implementation steps and to identify responsible agencies and likely funding pathways.

Why it matters: Wildfire and evacuation planning directly affect public safety in neighborhoods adjacent to forested slopes. Whether the growth policy explicitly prioritizes secondary egress improvements and ties development expectations to demonstrated evacuation capacity will influence future zoning, annexation and development approvals and emergency planning.