Baker area hut proposal

[Kameron]

Linking to a TAY thread, but likely of interest to many of you here:

https://turns-all-year.com/forum/index/random-tracks/53982-proposed-backcountry-huts-off-mt-baker-highway

Generally, I'm in favor of huts. Huts in Canada are incredible and really open up the mountains. I've also used the Wallowa huts and thought it was fun. I don't think they ruin the Wilderness experience for me. Besides, the Cascades at large are vast and offer many other places to get into the wilderness, whereas the 542 corridor is small with the easy-access spots overcrowded. We definitely need to be looking at ways to make more areas accessible to spread people out. I am really excited in particular about Anderson/Watson and Twin Sisters areas. These are hard to get to without a snowmobile, so having huts and shuttle system will be cool. Heliotrope is also hard to get to in Winter without a sled, so I like the idea of having one there, although I mostly go to that area in Fall and Spring.

The part about the proposal (as I could see on the video) that seems odd to me is the Artist's Point hut: This area is easy to access and also overcrowded. I don't see why this hut is helpful, since private parties or guided groups can tent camp in the area without too much effort. Also, I am concerned that Twins access will not be improved for public backcountry users under this proposal and could even become worse. See more comments below.

I am concerned about the cost of these huts. I would like to be able to use them without paying for a guide. These should be accessible to the public backcountry community at large, not just users who are willing to pay >$100 per day for a guided experience. The snowmobile access is a nice feature for Anderson/Watson, Heliotrope, and N Twin zones for those of us who don't want to own sleds, but I think it should be optional for hut users like it is in the Wallowas.

Regarding the N Twin hut: Access to the area is complicated by the fact that a logging company controls who can access the road. This past year Baker Mtn Guides had a special deal with Weyerhauser that allowed them exclusive snowmobile access. I don't mind the guide company offering snowmobile access up this road and running a hut. However, access to this area differs greatly from the other hut zones which are open to everybody. The Twin Sisters range, on the other hand, is only accessible to people who either pay exorbitant fees to the timber company for a key to the gate or users that ignore the rules and pass through that land illegally.

Weyerhauser's sale of this land is an opportunity to open a dialog with the new owner and try and open up access to more backcountry users. The Twin Sisters range is an incredible area for skiing right next to Bellingham. If there was a public trailhead in the area, it could take pressure off the main ski areas of the 542 corridor. However, these public access needs may be in conflict with the interests of the guide company that wants to offer an exclusive, untracked experience in the area. I say we should be looking at ways to make a deal with the timber company to open the gate at the MF Nooksack and have designated parking for winter backcountry users who just want to pass through these private lands and access the amazing skiing in the wilderness beyond. The guides can coexist peacefully with public backcountry users.

[Kameron]

New version of proposal surfaces:

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDAFS/2024/04/03/file_attachments/2836295/20240403-Temporary Winter Shelters-Public_Scoping_Letter_DRSigned.pdf

2 weeks until the public meeting in Sedro-Wooley

[Bronco]

On 6/17/2021 at 11:16 AM, Kameron said:

I am concerned about the cost of these huts. I would like to be able to use them without paying for a guide. These should be accessible to the public backcountry community at large, not just users who are willing to pay >$100 per day for a guided experience. The snowmobile access is a nice feature for Anderson/Watson, Heliotrope, and N Twin zones for those of us who don't want to own sleds, but I think it should be optional for hut users like it is in the Wallowas.

In the USFS proposal, it looks like all four huts are being proposed by commercial ventures.  I'd like to know what access the public would have (if any) aside from hiring the guides.

[genepires]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:47 AM, Bronco said:

In the USFS proposal, it looks like all four huts are being proposed by commercial ventures.  I'd like to know what access the public would have (if any) aside from hiring the guides.

Conflicted on this.  if the structure was completely paid for by the guide service then i can see that they have control over it.  but then it is also on public land.  But then if some jackass leaves the door open in the winter and the inside fill up with snow. 

in the description

"provide temporary winter shelters for the recreating public (both
commercially guided and unguided). Three of the shelters would provide reservable overnighting
facilities operated by three private commercial entities. One of the shelters would provide a free
warming shelter day-use for the general public. All of these shelters would provide safe locations
for the recreating public during the winter season."

it doesnt say who is paying for it. 

[Kameron]

The snowmobile hut up Canyon creek is paid for by the club.

The other 3 are paid for by the guide companies/businesses running them. That cost would be covered by use fees, some of which would be bundled into guided ski day fees.

[genepires]

19 hours ago, Kameron said:

The snowmobile hut up Canyon creek is paid for by the club.

The other 3 are paid for by the guide companies/businesses running them. That cost would be covered by use fees, some of which would be bundled into guided ski day fees.

well that makes it a moral conundrum.  bought with private funds but sits on public land.  seems like it could go either way.

 

would be cool if let unlocked and accessible when not occupied by the guide services.  or of fee required, it would be fairly cheap like the Canadian BC hut systems, but I think the alpine club runs those so the motivation is different.

 

[Choada_Boy]

Keep the gate locked.  No huts.  No snowmobiles.  Gonna have to earn your turns, or the place will be over-run, and the seclusion, so close to Bellingham, will be ruined.  Imagine the shitshow up there if you could drive to the start of the switchbacks? Totally lame...

[Kameron]

21 hours ago, Choada_Boy said:

Keep the gate locked.  No huts.  No snowmobiles.  Gonna have to earn your turns, or the place will be over-run, and the seclusion, so close to Bellingham, will be ruined.  Imagine the shitshow up there if you could drive to the start of the switchbacks? Totally lame...

Old timers tell me that back in the day it was unlocked. Back before ski touring or climbing was very popular... shit, it's listed in the Burgdorfer ski guidebook.

I don't think the Hampton company has any interest in opening up that gate to anybody that's non-paying.

[JasonG]

Yeah, those gates in the Twin Sisters were unlocked into the 90s but the public definitely ruined that privilege long ago, unfortunately.

[max]

On 4/12/2024 at 2:20 PM, JasonG said:

... but the public definitely ruined that privilege long ago, unfortunately.

Not being smarmy: what did the public do to ruin that privilege? I don't see that area getting trashed or abused...

But I also 100% respect Hampton's right/interest in closing the place. Fires are real and cost $$$.

 

[max]

BTW, access from the other side (coming in Hampton/Sierra Pacific land from much farther south on Mosquito Lake Rd) is getting attention as a more legitimate access point under the auspice of visiting the DNR Daley Prairie Nature Area Preserve. Its 3-4 times longer but all bike-able.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/dailey-prairie-natural-area-preserve

https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=12.1/-122.0436/48.7031&pubLink=HvWt3tXDN4hxcctmlr5OsnYq&trackId=52e0a40a-30fe-4eb5-8baa-692cb581c84c

Edited April 14 by max

[JasonG]

9 hours ago, max said:

Not being smarmy: what did the public do to ruin that privilege? I don't see that area getting trashed or abused...

 

I am not 100% certain of the exact instances behind the Twin Sisters gates, but I suspect the usual- timber theft, dumping, fires, shooting, long-term camping, general mayhem, etc. These days it's much easier for the timber companies to gate their ownerships than deal with the shenanigans.  But, gates do get vandalized all the time and aren't cheap to maintain either, but still probably cheaper than the alternative. 

I work a bit in the timber mgmt. landscape and I fully understand why the timber companies lock people out! 

[geosean]

Wow, "reservable overnighting facilities operated by three private commercial entities" is exceedingly vague about who gets to use it.

I feel like if you're going to allow any kind of development on public land it should be publicly accessible. The way I understood it last time was that the huts were going to be for private guided groups. I don't want more access for the rich pay to play crowd at the expense of any portion of the public trust. Cheap public huts like in Canada... maybe.

[Kameron]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:08 PM, max said:

BTW, access from the other side (coming in Hampton/Sierra Pacific land from much farther south on Mosquito Lake Rd) is getting attention as a more legitimate access point under the auspice of visiting the DNR Daley Prairie Nature Area Preserve. Its 3-4 times longer but all bike-able.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/dailey-prairie-natural-area-preserve

https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=12.1/-122.0436/48.7031&pubLink=HvWt3tXDN4hxcctmlr5OsnYq&trackId=52e0a40a-30fe-4eb5-8baa-692cb581c84c

Hi Max, I'm not sure what makes that approach more "legit" than going in from the MF Nooksack. As far as I can tell, either route passes through Hampton land which is gated and officially requires permission from the landholder. The route in from the MF Nooksack is also bikeable. If I'm off on those details, though, I'd be keen to hear it

[Kameron]

t

On 4/14/2024 at 7:14 PM, JasonG said:

I am not 100% certain of the exact instances behind the Twin Sisters gates, but I suspect the usual- timber theft, dumping, fires, shooting, long-term camping, general mayhem, etc. These days it's much easier for the timber companies to gate their ownerships than deal with the shenanigans.  But, gates do get vandalized all the time and aren't cheap to maintain either, but still probably cheaper than the alternative. 

I work a bit in the timber mgmt. landscape and I fully understand why the timber companies lock people out! 

I was driving back from the end of the MF Nooksack FS road once and some guys were hanging around their car. One of them waved as we drove by and they chatted us up. The dude had been riding around on his dirt bike with a pistol in his waistband and it had fallen out. Kind of sheepishly, they asked if we'd seen it on the road. We said "nah" and got out of there.

[tbickford]

Some takeaways from the meeting this evening: 

I couldn't make the (sneaky!) 4 pm start time, so missed some of the presentations, but was able to speak to a number of folks about the proposals afterward. Basically, many of the concerns Kameron voiced at the start of this thread are spot on. 

- Most significant to me seems to be Aspire's plans to build not just a shelter at Heliotrope, but also one at Grouse Ridge and "a few" (Abram of Aspire's words) shelters at Artist Point. According to Abram, they would be running paid snowmobile shuttles to these shelters through the winter, and offering experiences to folks involving building fires and cooking food (read: glamping). They also hope to partner with guide services to offer ski trips and avy courses out of these shelters. Notably, the FS proposal only concerns itself with the Heliotrope shelter and many folks, including myself, were unaware of the other structures being pursued; when I asked Abram about this, he blamed it on the FS and took little responsibility for getting this rather critical information out to the user base. His arguments for the shelters centered on "spreading out impact" (not sure how running glamping trips on Heliotrope and Artist Point would be spreading out the crowds, personally) and the idea that lots of private companies make money off public lands, so why not them? A FS ranger told me that they are primarily considering the Heliotrope shelter first, and will make moves on the others depending on public comment and other vague provisos. 

- BMG seems to have zero plan in place for allowing the public to use their shelter, and they know that public use will be difficult anyway due to the logistics of reserving their shelter as a public user without official paid access to the Hampton land. And by "zero plan", I mean that BMG's owner said he literally hasn't considered it yet. BMG will pay 3% of their gross revenue to the FS for the land use. 

- the snowmobile club's shelter will be on wheels as stated in the proposal, and available to the public at any time. They'll pull it out every season once it melts out. 

- Roundhouse representatives weren't present, so not much information there. 

An interesting theme of the meeting was the general lack of information available about how these huts will benefit the public, how the commercial interests involved will run their operations, and how long these permits will be valid for. Numerous FS officials and guide service owners/reps had little to offer on these questions. The district ranger basically copped to a desire within the agency to make something happen with the proposal, whatever the outcome. We also caught the tail end of an interesting presentation on the possible impact on winter wolverine habitat, which would seem to mainly affect the Heliotrope site. 

Anyway, that's what I got. Sorry for the salty editorializing, but in my view this proposal is just ramrodding the interests of commercial enterprise down our throats with woefully insufficient information. I'm actually down with the snowmobile shelter, which has precedent in the Nooksack Valley and is being run by a nonprofit organization. The others are problematic, to say the least. Hopefully someone else can fill in the gaps that I missed or may have perceived differently. 

Edited April 18 by tbickford
grammar

[JasonG]

I wasn't there tonight but what @tbickford says above was backed up by a friend who was also present.  Get yer comments in folks!

[rat]

Thanks for the takeaways tbickford. For those interested, the public comments are posted here:

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=65559

 

[JBo6]

As an FYI in the Methow Valley the local snowmobile club has multiple warming huts that operate similar to the proposed hut in Canyon Creek.  As a relatively decent backcountry skier and absolute hack snowmobiler I really appreciate the chance to warm up and take a breather at the publicly accessible club warming huts.

 

Also in the Methow there are the privately owned Rendezvous Hut system on the Methow Trails system.  With the exception of the covid years those huts are always open for public day usage and function as warming huts as well.  Plus Methow Trails operates a warming hut that is also on a trailer and is removed as soon as the snow is gone.

Edited April 18 by JBo6

[Kameron]

I was at the meeting, too.
My takeaways were that things are just too vague--various clarifications were made at the meeting but we need to see things in writing to be sure that's the real plan.

@tbickford I felt like I heard something different in what Abram said. I thought he said they'd like "2 huts at the Heliotrope trailhead", not Grouse ridge etc. I personally don't think there will be enough demand at Heliotrope midwinter to make even 1 hut work, since there is very limited protected terrain (at least that I'm aware of). Maybe the glamping crowd will be into it regardless.

I am involved with CBA, and we put together this blog post asking people to comment:

https://www.cascadebackcountryalliance.com/post/4-huts-proposed-for-mt-baker-region

(There is a minor mistake in the post; the snowmobile club hut is not an overnight one)

[Kameron]

Regarding Roundhouse/Anderson-Watson:
This is my favorite of the proposed locations from a ski perspective. However, one of the proponents has moved to Bozeman and the other hasn't been responding to requests to talk about it. It is unclear whether that group is seriously interested in making that hut happen or not.

[Kameron]

Get your comments in by May 2, folks!

[tbickford]

@Kameron yeah, I missed the presentations but Abram pointed out the other locations to me on a map later on at the meeting. You may be right about the multiple Heliotrope huts, not sure. In any case this is perfectly to your point about the vagueness of the whole enterprise. Also, if he didn’t mention those other shelters to the group at large, it contributes to the shady vibes I was referring to in my original post - seems like they’re happy to keep the other possible sites out of the public mind. 

Edited April 28 by tbickford

[Kameron]

Latest update is that the project is cancelled. Apparently the proposers will have to reapply for permission to get their huts in. Not sure if this applies to the snowmobile club warming shelter as well or just the overnight huts.

[max]

1 hour ago, Kameron said:

 Not sure if this applies to the snowmobile club warming shelter as well or just the overnight huts.

My bet is the shelters are nonprofit so don't require such a high level (or any) permitting.