Mt. Adams Yurts Proposed

[Water]

edit: they extended their deadline to July 21st after I pointed out to them if they can talk about #worldchocolateday and snacks on their Facebook, they can certainly post this. Then they posted it and some people felt only 2 days to comment was ridiculous, as if you're not in this undetermined email list, you'd have never otherwise heard about it.

Mt. Adams Backcountry Yurts – Cold Springs Campground/South Climb Trailhead
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1egudck ... sp=sharing

To increase winter recreational opportunities, a private outfitter proposes to operate two seasonal yurts via special use permit at the Cold Springs Campground on the Mt. Adams Ranger District. The yurts will facilitate public access to the South Climb Trailhead and surrounding snow-covered areas for recreation during winter months when snow on Forest Roads limits access.

The yurts will operate from roughly November 20th to June 20th. Yurts will be towed in on trailers via Forest Road 500 in the late fall and assembled before the first snow arrives. In the spring, once the Cold Springs Campground is accessible by 4x4 vehicles and trailers, the yurts will be disassembled and removed. Proposed yurt siting is compatible with the existing campground and trailhead layout and future campground and trailhead re-design currently being planned. Yurt rental operations could begin as early as winter 2023 pending interdisciplinary team review.

Yurts will remain on trailers throughout the winter season (Figure 5). The yurts are 20 feet in diameter and wood-heated; the outfitter will provide wood. Guests will utilize the existing toilet facilities located at the Cold Springs Campground. Each yurt can sleep 6 guests, for a total of 12 guests. Guests will park at Pineside Sno-Park and be towed via snowmobile 13.5 miles to the yurt location at Cold Springs Campground. While staying at the yurt, guests can enjoy winter activities such as backcountry or cross-country skiing, splitboarding, snowshoeing, or snowmobiling. Guests will be made aware of wilderness regulations regarding motorized access as well as access restrictions for adjacent land owned by Yakama Nation.

Preparation of a detailed Environmental Analysis is not expected for this project. The proposal will be analyzed per categorical exclusion 36 CFR 220.6(d)(12) - Issuance of a new authorization or amendment of an existing authorization for recreation special uses that occur on existing roads or trails, in existing facilities, in existing recreation sites, or in areas where such activities are allowed.

Figure 5. Example of yurts to be operated seasonally during the winter at Cold Springs Campground/South Climb Trailhead.

How to Comment
Comments on these three proposals are welcome. Please provide comments by July 21, 2023.
Comments or questions can be directed to: Whitney Reynier, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Mt. Adams Ranger District.

• Mailing Address: 2455 Hwy 141, Trout Lake, WA 98650
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 509-395-3425

[johnspeth]

I wonder how commercially feasible this plan is for anybody not using snowmobiles. A skier would be towed 13 miles! I don't think that's an easy thing to do. There's no mention of getting a tow back.

[drm]

I was thinking the same thing. Realistically, only snowmobilers would be using this facility. And it is right on the edge of the wilderness boundary.

[Born2BBrad]

Email sent to Whitney Reyier:

"It has been my observation that motor vehicle user (ATVs and snowmobiles) have not respected the wilderness boundaries above Cold Springs Campground. Having yurt rentals will only encourage misuse. Who is going to stop them? I predict many incursions."

[Limey]

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to be towed 13miles on snowshoes.

[jvangeld]

Reading between the lines, it seems like the outfitter will have someone there at least when the yurts are occupied.

Yurts will remain on trailers throughout the winter season (Figure 5). The yurts are 20 feet in diameter and wood-heated;

Now that I would like to see. A standard flatbed trailer is 8.5 feet wide. So even parking two side by side I'm not sure how that would work. The attached Figure 5 doesn't seem very descriptive of a yurt-on-trailer scenario. But it will probably work out. I'm just speculating with scant details.

[Water]

also speculating on details.

You could tow a yurt in, erect it on the trailer, and have temporary supports under the areas that are not on the trailer. As snow fills in, this becomes a moot point. To that end, I think they are trying to say they are are not building any platform for it like the picture below (Bell Lake Yurt, Tobacco Root Mountains Montana)


There are yurts both in the Wallowas and by Broken Top (Tam Rim Alpine Yurts). I know both offer snowmobile assist to access where located on the (outside) boundary of Wilderness areas. These are almost exclusively geared towards backcountry skiing/splitboarding. Not snowshoeing or other winter activity or winter glamping. I can't imagine a 13 mile snowshoe tow...you would be dragged. I believe tows are around 6~ miles in both instances I'm aware of. I haven't done it but even a minor downhill grade can make very quick work with gravity assist on the return, especially if there is already a groomed/compressed track.

Brad, I am of a contrary opinion. I think this will be very popular with backcountry skiers, few of whom tolerate motorized winter incursion in wilderness. Having a presence at the alpine area is going to put eyes and attention on illegal incursion. Right now snowmos operate with impunity up there because there is no realistic presence from FS, concessionaire, or human powered traffic, when snow blocks access. I think this is much more likely to tamp down said incursions. Including if snowmobile guests are hosted by this concessionaire then engage in illegal operation in the wilderness, there is a lot more accountability and risk involved.

I also asked if this would be posted on their projects area or if email distribution was the only method the public was being notified of this potential operation. No response yet.

[drm]

Well, it all really depends on things we are speculating about. We just don't have enough details. If staff will be onsite, then they probably won't be violating wilderness rules. Do skiers get towed that distance to such places elsewhere?

I plan to send comments in before the deadline, but am waiting and the discussion here will help me finalize that comment. My initial reaction is that it should be lower down, not at Cold Springs. If the facility were at Mt Adams Horse Camp, they would also have the existing bathrooms, good views, and also much easier access. Of course the rental season would be shorter.

[Water]

Skiers getting towed a decent distance is not really a huge deal-seems like it could be dependent on the snow-line. Parking at a snopark, then shuttling with snowmobiles and trailer to snowline, and departing from there, not necessarily a fixed 13 miles no matter what. And yes there are long tows elsewhere, and many places require helicopter rides for access to alpine yurts and cabins. Is the concern skiers will not participate due to the long tow?

Easier access to yurts and good views makes sense for winter glamping and snowshoeing/xc skiing, but for backcountry skiing or splitboarding, myself I'd rather be at Cold Springs and have 1-2hr skin to access all sorts of great terrain for skiing right back to the yurt. From Horse Camp backcountry skiing above treeline is a near non-starter distance wise for BC downhill. Maybe a second yurt location for different preference of snow activity?

--------
Additionally I was informed this would not be posted on the FS website, which to me is a complete joke. The fact that I have to be on an email distribution list in order to find out about new operations in the Forest is totally unprofessional and seems ragtag/adhoc. The idea that putting this on a website or announcing it on Facebook even, as some kind of labor burden completely lacks credibility. "doesn't meet the standard of getting posted, so...thankfully some members of the public are on an email list and share this with a wider audience" -and what, the social media team is disconnected from the projects distribution list? Radical suggestion, put social media person(s) on the project proposals email distribution list so that they can post it on social media. They make oodles of posts all week about various topics, but upon a search just now nothing is found for Yurt on their website or their facebook page. I'm sure it would take some committee evaluation and hat in hand, hand-wringing about lacking resources to exercise this plan. I can't tell if they are trying to avoid public interaction, if there is pure apathy, or major dysfunction, - maybe some of each. Not a good look, however par for the course for the Forest Circus.

Clarification to add. Our Forest Environmental Coordinator clarified that not all proposals get posted to our projects page.

The level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation required for each project determines whether it gets posted. The following proposal types will get posted to our project page: 1) proposals requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, 2) proposals requiring an Environmental Assessment, and 3) proposals utilizing a Categorical Exclusion that require a Decision Memo.

In the case of the three projects circulated in our June 2023 outreach, the Lahar Monitoring Stations and the Red Mountain Seismometer Installation are projects that require a Decision Memo, so they will be posted soon. The Mt. Adams Yurt proposal does not require a Decision Memo, so it will not appear on our projects page.

Best,
Whitney

[drm]

Nothing in the quoted text says it wasn't posted because of a labor burden. Undoubtedly there is some policy from on high that created that criteria list that you posted, that they must then abide by. And far be it for us to know how it got that way.

Every large organization I have ever dealt with had seemingly bizarre bureaucratic rules. And the main reason for those stupid rules was that if you leave it up to common sense of the people involved, you mostly get decent results, but the few bad decisions end up being the cause of the rules handed down. Because then you can blame the stupid rule and nobody knows who created it. Maybe ChatGPT can be blamed in the future!