Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

LoT4 paid parking should be mandatory on weekends.

what does the local health authority have to say concerning this obvious health concern? What does the local water authority say?

Well that's a good question that i'm afraid will not be answered,
concerning the most shithole parcel of land in the Alpental Valley.

to combat the poop accumulation
i've considered tossing em to LoT3
there are ZERO waste receptacles

Thanks Conrad for continuing to engage the community publicly!

As a long time Baker local I have seen the massive growth in backcountry use in the Bagley Bowl area. I fluctuate between distress at the crowding and pride in the local community when I see a dozen tracks in the NW Coulior on Shuksan. Either way, more people are getting after it and we have less access points. This last Sunday was a prime example, I took 3 runs in the ski area and had to go home because I was too stressed out about the crowds.

Based on my interactions with CBA they seem to respond well to reasonable input. I suggested improving human powered access to Twin Lakes and Skyline Divide even though I have a sled and can get to those two places easily enough when I want to. They started a conversation with our local FS land manager and I don't expect much to happen this winter but it's proceeding better than I expected with the FS. Maybe next year we'll have reasonable access on skis outside of the ski area.

It's only going to be a good thing to spread people out. More rad lines will get skied, it'll push our sport a little further, and a new secret stash will be discovered 30 minutes further out than the last one that is now a named run in a guide book.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my query. To be clear, I'm not looking for a "formula." The sort  of "grading rubric"  I'm thinking of is more along  the  lines of a way of making  goals clear to  a group  of people. IME this is very useful to do  well at the start of this sort of venture, or else you'll  have people talking at cross purposes w/o really knowing why. Better to be able to say "that project idea doesn't do  nearly  as well on fulfilling  goals #1 and 2 than these  others on our idea list, but is there  some other important goal that you  think we're missing that your suggestion hits on, or do you  think we're wrong that  it  wouldn't meet these goals as well as those other  projects?"

And yes, talking it out is good - that's exactly what I tried to suggest.

What I infer from your reply is that you have some goals that could be used for at least roughly ranking plowing project ideas that are along  the lines  of the following:
1) will provide handy parking to a big population  of  skiers
2) will provide access to a significant amount of desirable touring  terrain, allowing a fair number of skiers to  coexist as happily as can be reasonably hoped for (no one can cure surfer-like localism so that shouldn't be a goal)
3) is a feasible project - e.g. doesn't require major $$$ or lengthy enviro reviews or so forth. This may be eased over time but it's important to start  with some  lower-hanging fruit to  gain  some "wins" early on

I  also see that you are putting  a focus on  relieving potential conflicts  at ski areas around both parking and  sidecountry access from  parking and the lease areas. I didn't list this  as I'm not sold yet  that  it  should be  a goal in and of itself. I think that  succeeding on  the  3 goals I listed is  sufficient; if this  happens to  yield projects that  relieve some potential  conflict, great. But  the win should be succeeding at increasing access to good terrain  for significant population(s) of skiers. By the same token, I'd be wary of using the fact that  many skiers go to  Baker and  Alpental to start tours as an  indicator of where the  best projects  might lie, unless in fact you  do  want an explicit goal  about  reducing ski  area conflicts  (at which  point I'd love to  know  more about why this should be an explicit  goal - hence my wish for discussion  about such a  goals list!). E.g. I'd want to  know that potential Highway 2 projects and notions like expanded plowing along the road by gold creek or opening up other parking a little further east along the highway have been  properly ranked on  these sorts of goals versus the Commonwealth lot (particularly given that, as of now, tourers are successfully parking at both Summit West and Alpental  to access Source/Snow/Commonwealth/Kendall/Etc. - but if you  have some inside knowledge that  this  is  at serious risk, versus just being concerned based on trends elsewhere, now might be a good time to  share that fact; or if you  have a goal around "scoring points" with  ski area management in  hopes of maintaining parking and  sidecountry access via a good relationship, it would also  be good to  articulate that as a clear goal to  any community you  want to  engage for their energy,  ideas, or $$!!).

I could type more, but perhaps this will  give you a  better  idea of what  I was driving at. I'd love to  see some good community discussion  about such a goals list, and see you  guys take a stand on  what will ultimately be the definitive list (at least for the next while...). As a project manager who  had to harness the energies of large groups  with  divergent motivations for  multiple decades, I've  learned that  this  bit of crucial foundation-laying will pay good dividends later, even though  at the  outset it may  seem to  be a "process thing" that  distracts from just getting some good work done.

Oh, and yeah. I've seen the mounting gripes about Alpy upper lot and Baker parking  and sidecountry shenanigans. Again, if relieving those issues is a primary goal of yours, it would be great  to  make that explicit and have a community discussion  about the perceived merits of that as a goal. For my  part I'd rather see the focus on  gaining new access to significant terrain for lots  of people. My strong hunch is that  no matter how many new lots you plow, the ski area pressure  will remain, given our area's mounting population and the  apparent increase in the % of folks who  are getting out  to hike, snowshoe, and ski tour (and, at least at lot 4, to sled and get the  dog out for a short poop walk), and the relative obviousness of moving into  sidecountry from that ski area you may know so well... I'm reminded of  what urban planners learned about building more highways in  traffic burdened cities back in the sixties - they'll just invite yet more developers to build housing  and thus more  traffic and the roads you  hoped to relieve will be just as bad or worse as a result.

Thanks to Jim and HFNC for pivoting this back to a conversation that might get us somewhere in the near future!

I appreciate hearing the thoughts on the grading rubric as someone who also deals in a professional environment of establishing priorities with competing requests and poorly expressed objectives.

It seems to me the current Jim Hill/Arrowhead access and its problematic parking situation would be a perfect issue for the newly formed CAB to work on. Jim Hill has been a traditional ski touring destination for DECADES, before some TAYers were even born. In my experience, parking was NEVER an issue in the past. In recent years, WSDOT has started throwing hissy fits about it. Why now and not before? A clearly defined and posted policy allowing - not prohibiting - parking by the ventilator station would be a nice accomplishment.

Recent post:
Jim Hill-ish