Snow in the PNW 20-21: We may have Corona but Corona doesn't have us!

[altasnob]

[John_B]

PSA - HWY 20 is indefinitely closed just East of Washington Pass. If you're headed to the Methow Valley, you need to take HWY 2 or I-90 and hope you can get past the Red Apple fire near Wenatchee. A big section of USFS land is also closed to any hiking/climbing/skiing. See attached map of the current closure.Attachment 379656

I'm sure folks are paying attention but air quality in the Methow is varying between great and the worst in the world depending on wind direction. Currently visibility is about 1 mile or less and I cannot imagine being outside. I'd strongly recommend putting any planned trips on hold.

[Zeedashbo]

You could see the smoke from whibey today

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using TGR Forums mobile app

[Norseman]

oof. been damn lucky so far on the west side w/r/t smoke but it's a matter of time before the reversal and smokeout

[plugboots]

What do people think of the Varden creek fire on Silver Star? Looks like it will burn out the entire north side of Silver Star. Sucks that Highway 20 is closed and will likely be closed for most of summer. But with the trees thinned the north side of Silver Star, this area may be the premier backcountry destination in Washington, with good skiing right down to the highway. And you can typically drive to the approach mid-winter.

Hmmmm.

Well, you can’t drive to the base of Silverstar in the middle of winter. There’s no money to plow to the Silverstar gate anymore, they close it at Early Winters, (or whatever they call it), the first chance they, (meaning WSDOT), get.
Whatever, you can still snow machine up there from wherever they stop plowing at.
That said, I’ve skied up to the top of Silverstar twice, probably 15 years ago, and haven’t done it since, because I live here and I don’t have to, I hate jungle skiing. Most people love skiing there.

Cool.

I did heli ski there for about four? runs, but of course you stop where the jungle starts.


Anyway, as you can see, the fire has decided to not clear out the Silverstar Creek drainage which is really where everybody skins up, and skis back to the road, so until the fire decides to head Northwest, nothing will really change there.
Nonetheless, there’s some pretty cool terrain to the Southeast that may now be more approachable.
What we really need is a big fucking avalanche to clear it out there like it did below Blue lake in 2015 or whatever it was.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Hmmmm.

Well, you can’t drive to the base of Silverstar in the middle of winter. There’s no money to plow to the Silverstar gate anymore, they close it at Early Winters, (or whatever they call it), the first chance they, (meaning WSDOT), get.
Whatever, you can still snow machine up there from wherever they stop plowing at.
That said, I’ve skied up to the top of Silverstar twice, probably 15 years ago, and haven’t done it since, because I live here and I don’t have to, I hate jungle skiing. Most people love skiing there.

Cool.

I did heli ski there for about four? runs, but of course you stop where the jungle starts.


Anyway, as you can see, the fire has decided to not clear out the Silverstar Creek drainage which is really where everybody skins up, and skis back to the road, so until the fire decides to head Northwest, nothing will really change there.
Nonetheless, there’s some pretty cool terrain to the Southeast that may now be more approachable.
What we really need is a big fucking avalanche to clear it out there like it did below Blue lake in 2015 or whatever it was.

I hope the fire doesn’t reveal a powder cache


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

Fire looks to be burning Sandy Butte, so we'll finally be able to ski that low angle, low snow terrain around the ski area that never was.

[plugboots]

Fire looks to be burning Sandy Butte, so we'll finally be able to ski that low angle, low snow terrain around the ski area that never was.

You read my mind. N. facing as well, which is lacking here, really.

[Norseman]

[river59]

Took the skis for a walk on Adams. I really can't remember it ever being this bare in July. Turns were made but not without a bunch of choss scrambling shenanigans.

[BFD]

Son just finished 54hr infinity loop. Was psyched now he can move out of the PNW. Corvallis particularly.

[abraham]

Damn. That's strong work.

[PNWbrit]

Son just finished 54hr infinity loop.

Damn!

https://fastestknowntime.com/route/r...finity-loop-wa

[BFD]

I just looked at his Strava and he had his trip at 115.7 miles , 44,039'. So I don't know where the 143 miles comes from. His route looks the same as the one posted. Anyway I he doesn't like me talking about him but seemed like a cool accomplishment. He did say his goal was 48 hrs but the final running was tough. But he pushed to beat the 55 hrs.

[John_B]

I'm mean that's impressive I guess.....

That's so far beyond anything I could even come close to doing.

[plugboots]

Looks like it might be clearing out the Silverstar drainage after all, and the Delancy fire across the way is clearing out one of my favorite spots. (It’s pretty open at the top anyway though, so potentially this could actually make it worse.)

[altasnob]

Regarding Fortune Creek Huts, sounds like Washington State Snowmobile Association may be filing an injunction against the Forest Service to stop the huts:

Good afternoon. I thought it would be appropriate to update all of our members and users. I appreciate everyone's patience as this has been a slow and timely process trying to work with the USFS. Since February WSSA has been consistently trying to work with the USFS sit at the table and work through the numerous concerns regarding the process of which they decided to issue an outfitters permit in the Van Epps Pass area. The continued delay tactics demonstrated by the USFS has required WSSA to retain a law firm and officially notify the USFS our intention to file a Federal Injunction within the next coming days if they do not rescind/cancel the permit. Here is the documentation that was sent to the USFS Supervisor in Wenatchee: VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Kristin Bail, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Cle Elum Ranger District
803 W. Second Ave
Cle Elum, WA 98922
Re: Special Use Permit- Wenatchee Mountains Alpine Huts
Dear Ms. Bail:
On behalf of the Washington State Snowmobile Association (“WSSA”), we are writing to
express serious concerns with respect to a special use permit that the Forest Service (“FS”)
issued to the Wenatchee Mountains Alpine Huts LLC to construct seasonal lodging facilities in
the Van Epps Pass and the Scatter Peaks Basins in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
The FS issued the permit without complying with governing permit requirements which
include—at a minimum-- opportunity for public notice and involvement and compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
In issuing the permit to construct and operate seasonal lodging facilities, the FS neither informed
and involved the public in the permitting process, nor satisfied the corresponding special use
permitting and NEPA requirements. 36 C.F.R. §251.54; 36 C.F.R. §220.3- 220.4. See also
Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (FSH 1909.15). As a consequence,
the permit now allows a use that both poses a serious risk to public health and safety and that
conflicts with existing uses. Id. Unless the FS immediately rescinds or withdraws the permit to
correct these serious violations, WSSA will be forced to seek a federal injunction to stop work
pursuant to the permit and to revoke the same.
More specifically, the area in question has been heavily used by snowmobilers for more than
fifty years. In issuing a permit to allow the construction and operation of winter lodging
facilities for backcountry skier/snowboarders and snowshoers, the FS has introduced a use that
will both compete with and render unsafe existing and future uses of this FS land. 36 C.F.R.
§251.54 (e)(1)(v) (prohibiting permitting of a proposed use that unreasonably conflicts with or
interferes with other authorized uses). The narrow dimensions of the road make it such that the
road cannot be easily or safely shared by cross country or back country skiers and snowmobilers. Kristin Bail, Forest Supervisor
July 16, 2021
Page 2
111649991.1 0040924-00001
Under these circumstances, the permit should not have issued. 36 C.F.R. §251.54(e)(1)(v) and
(2).
Moreover, the existing road on which materials will be hauled to set up and take down the
seasonal lodging is not conducive for the amount of traffic required for these seasonal
construction activities, and the wear and tear on the existing primitive access road and groomed
snowmobile trail was not adequately contemplated nor addressed in the issued permit. Nor were
parking and waste concerns adequately addressed or mitigated through the lack of permitting
process and environmental review provided by the FS in this matter.
Most importantly, the avalanche risk posed by the permitted activities was grossly underrepresented. WSSA has grave concerns that the number of user trips contemplated by the permit
will create a significant risk of a serious avalanche that will be very difficult for responders to
reach. Accordingly, issuance of a permit under these circumstances should have been prohibited
under FS regulations. 36 C.F.R. §251.54(e)(1)(iii)(proposed use must not pose serious or
substantial risk to public health or safety).
WSSA understands that construction activities are poised to begin in the next several weeks.
Accordingly, representatives of WSSA hereby request an opportunity to discuss these issues with
you and your staff in the next week. In the absence of a commitment from the FS to immediately
revoke the permit, WSSA will be prepared to commence litigation to obtain an injunction to
prevent the irreparable harm that will otherwise ensue. (end of statement) Once we have more information to provide to our members and users WSSA will do so. Please feel free to share to everyone you feel should be informed about this. Best regards, Jason Holmes District 5 North Representative.

https://m.facebook.com/WSSAUS/posts/10164811859215641

[waveshello]

That ^ does not give me warm fuzzies for the WSSA. Hard to imagine a circumstance where they would be ok with any kind of increased skier access to that area.

Sent from my BND-L24 using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Sounds like members of WSSA are concerned that bc skiers staying at Van Epps will be able to witness their decades long incursions into the ALW. That’s my interpretation.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Wapow]

I'm part of the group that organized to oppose these huts. Our contingent is mainly made up of sled-access skiers, but we have been working with the WSSA directly to force the FS to reconsider this permit, which was granted without any public notice or comment. For the record, I have skied at this location more than anybody else (by a lot). But I originally found it because it was already a popular advanced alpine sledding spot, akin to a "Crystal Mountain" for sledders. In fact, it's the best sledding spot and only alpine riding in Central WA. The guy behind the huts "Rob", is a newcomer, who is not a sledder and did not understand the history and extent of sledder use in that area. And the FS had no clue. They relied on Rob's permit application, which did not even mention the pre-existing user community and the issues that will be triggered when sledders drop (yes, they largely come in from the top there) in on skiers in the alpine zone immediately adjacent to the huts. In response to MU's comments above, I have been sledding and skiing this area pretty much weekly for the past 15 years and in all that time I've only witnessed a handful of incidents of sledders poaching into the wilderness. There was a group that habitually did it about 10 years ago, but the FS and the sledder community did a great job of addressing it. In response to WH's comment, the WSSA's participation is based mainly on the fact that the FS did not follow the law in issuing this permit, which if allowed to go forward, will jeopardize access to a popular sled zone and create a terrible precedent. Rob's operation would put 24 skiers into that zone daily, which would inevitably lead to a conflict and most likely a tragedy. This is a zone that was (and continues to be - Rob's operation isn't possible without the plowing and grooming provided by and paid for by the snowmobile community) established by sledders and has been regularly accessed by them (daily in the second half of the season) for more than 30 years. The WSSA litigation is backed by all of the sled access skiers that regularly frequent this zone, as well as the local sledding, ORV and hunting community (Rob's project would be running up there all summer as well, hauling out his huts and lots and lots of poop on a very rough, but popular, ORV trail). I'll post up WSSA's complaint when I get the green light. It does a great job of laying out all of these issues in detail. And regardless of whether you agree with the WSSA's (and my) position, if Rob succeeds in keeping the permit, this will not be a great experience for his customers. You will be paying for the opportunity to compete for pow with a bunch of expert sledders, many of whom will have no idea that you are going to be there. I have never heard of any other hut operation (or cat or heli) that puts its customers into a sled filled zone (because that would be stupid).

[altasnob]

Thanks Wapow for that perspective. If the Forest Service did violate their own notice and comment rules, that's bullshit and the permit should be pulled. Think of the precedent it would set if the Forest Service could fast track huts anywhere they want without telling the public what's going on.

But as to the location of Fortune Creek Huts, I can't think of a better spot in Washington for someone to put a commercial hut. A good location requires a) a road you can transport everything in/out in the Summer, b) on National Forest, but not in Wilderness, c) ability to get to the huts in winter via snowmbile/skinning as opposed to heli, and d) great snow and terrain. This area checks all the boxes, plus it's close to the masses. I remember biking to Gallagher Lake years ago thinking how unique of a place it is in Washington that you can 4wd up there. It's like a little slice of CO (where you can drive nearly anywhere, so long as it is not in wilderness) here in WA.

With 24 skiers a day things will definitely get tracked out compared to what it's been like. As to conflicts between the skiers and snowmobilers, looks like there is lots of North and East facing terrain in the adjacent wilderness that the skiers can focus on, letting the sleders have the non-wilderness areas. Plus, snowmobilers have all the terrain they can access up North Fork Teanaway. The huts should definitely contribute the cost of plowing the road in, since they are benefiting from it.

[altasnob]

Anyone know what's up with the funky wilderness boundary at Van Epps pass? The boundary follows the Kittitas-Chelan boundary, which also follows the mountain crest (which makes sense). But right at Van Epps pass there is a large swath cut out on the NE-side of Van Epps pass. Why wasn't this area included in the wilderness?

[Norseman]

There's a road in there from old mining activity.

[Wapow]

There is one great face on the wilderness side, right next to the huts. We call it "Van Epps Peak". A group of 4 of my friends can pretty much ski it out in a day. After that, you would have to skin pretty far to get to fresh terrain, other than the sledder zones. And the people going to these huts will not be prohibited from using the sledder zones. In fact, Rob's website mostly uses pics of those zones to promote the operation. Some more things to consider, as a potential consumer,: Rob's current plan is to get his customers to the hut using side by sides with tracks. The only way that will work is to tow the people in. It's 10 miles to the drop, on a road that 4 out of 7 days per week is fully whooped out. Once you get to the drop, you will have to skin up 2,000' to the huts with all of your supplies for your trip on your back. He is basically providing a tent and a cot, with a wood stove and cooking stove. If there is an accident, there is no plan. Rob can't even ride a sled to the huts, both due to permit restrictions and his lack of sled skills. The entire zone does not typically come into shape until mid January, and there is absolutely no good mitigated tree skiing anywhere near the huts. We did not ski this zone at all this season until the PWL was no longer a concern, around the beginning of March. (Rob plans to have customers up there as soon as there is enough snow to tow them out there.) You also mention "road access". The permit may be pulled because the quality of the road was not even considered by the FS in granting the permit, again because they relied on the description in Rob's application, that states that he will be able to use side by sides to haul his stuff in and out. Anybody who has traveled that road in the summer will seriously doubt the viability of that plan. And the FS has recently done a field assessment on the road with an engineer. Fingers crossed they announce the permit is pulled quite soon, before he starts fucking it up. When we first raised concerns about these issues with the FS, they put together a call with the local FS head ranger "Kristin" (who independently green lighted the permit and moved on to another position shortly after this controversy began), the local grooming council, state parks winter recreation manager, the WSSA, our group and Rob. The only people in favor of it were Kristin and Rob, and Kristin seemed to be hanging on only to save face. Her decision to waive NEPA requirements backfired, because the application process failed to raise the issues that would have likely doomed the permit. During that call we told Rob that the Teanaway would be a far better location for these huts, both because of the much lower chance of conflict with pre-existing users, but also because it would provide access to good skiing under pretty much every condition. We tend go to the Teanaway when there is too much new snow further west, or when the snow level rises above the elevation of the valley floor at Salmon la Sac (around 2500'). Kristin offered to let him move his permit there (which would have been another violation of law) but Rob said it was "too low". He was wrong (and apparently too dumb to read the tea leaves that his permit was in jeopardy), but that's immaterial now, as that option is out the window. My prediction is that the permit will be pulled quite soon for one or all of these reasons and any future attempt to get a permit in that zone will require a full NEPA analysis.

BTW - I can think of a better spot for these huts: WA Pass. Good luck with that NEPA Rob.

[SirVicSmasher]

Sounds like a very poorly planned operation. Not someplace I would want to be rescued and rescue chances are slim as hell back there anyway.

Dude at last resort was telling me about how he thinks there will be sled/skier collisions on the trails

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk