About the Upcoming Recommended Wilderness Areas

3/16/2022

It came to our attention that there has been some confusion surrounding the recent coverage of the Forest Plan in transitioning some trail networks to recommended wilderness areas -- it confused us at first, too. We'll provide some clarification on this:

You may have heard about a public comment period on the proposed action related to the transition of areas in the Flathead National Forest (FNF) to become recommended wilderness. Among other regulations, this prohibits mechanized transport (i.e. no bikes allowed). The confusion lies in the intention of this public comment period, further muddled by the timing of this recent announcement and the surrounding coverage of the matter. The recent FNF Proposed Action is merely the second-tiered environmental analysis and site-specific planning of the initial forest plan, approved and adopted in late 2018. At that time, the FNF was given three years to initiate this analysis plan, which brings us to the recent announcement earlier in 2022:

"The analysis will not be re-visiting the decisions the forest plan made regarding the selection of
recommended wilderness areas [adopted back in 2018] ..." - FNF Proposed Action January 2022
The intention of the public comment period is to be directed at site-specific planning and environmental analysis, not to debate the selection of the recommended wilderness areas themselves.
Such changes to public use do not take effect until after the second-tiered analysis plan, which is why no changes were implemented in 2018.

FAMB always stands behind advocacy for mountain biking, and when a matter comes to our attention affecting mountain bike access to public trails, we will spread the word and take action... this just wasn't one of those occasions. It may be a bummer when this sort of thing happens; however, it is our understanding that there is somewhat of a correlation between these changes and the decision to move forward with the upcoming increased recreational access in the Taylor-Hellroaring and Cedar Flats areas. More information on this project can be found at the Forest Service project website or by contacting Michele.Draggoo@usda.gov with additional questions.

2 Comments

Matthew Brake

6/15/2022 09:05:54 pm

I've been historically and continue to this day to be dissappointed by FAMB in regards to this issue. Here is a letter from mountain bike advocates outside of FAMB, sent to the USFS that I proudly signed onto. "Supervisor Steele,

We approach this comment letter with great concern. Over the past 20 years Region 1 has generally treated backcountry mountain bike recreation and those who enjoy it as a second class activity and demographic, not worthy recipients of clear, honest communication.

This has become newly evident by the recent Proposed Action on all districts of Flathead National Forest by the Action’s abbreviated comment period. This Forest wide Action was prefaced by the scoping cover letter stating scope and need for the Action, and it was entirely directed toward changes affecting the snowmobile community and motorized over the snow use! The proposed action has been reported in the press as an action that affects over the snow motorized uses. All the press noted that the terrain closed is roughly equal to new terrain proposed to be opened. For Region 1 Forests this extra effort spent toward forging an equitable access plan to appease motorized over the snow users and their activities must be commended and praised. This over the snow plan likely needs little modification to be accepted and implemented.

However, the over the snow plan contrasts greatly with mountain biking closures embedded in the proposed action. Closures of 96 miles of trail without fair and equitable compensation was a stunning discovery. The Scoping Cover Letter neglected to note the Action intended to impact mountain bicyclist access and so we feel the Forest intended to deceive bicyclists. How in the world were we to find out about the proposed action? Once we found out through the press, we discovered the restrictions shocking to say the least. But even more shocking is simply the manner that bicyclists are treated by both the bureaucratic language of the action and by the complete and utter disregard by Forest planners to find compensation for bicyclists for the copious amount of trail miles lost. While Forest planners truly went “the extra mile” to find equal acreage to compensate over the snow motorized users, the same planners simply swept bicyclists “under the rug”. First, we weren’t adequately notified of the closures, which are daunting, uncompromising, and in some areas crippling by severing current loop options. Second, because we found out partway through the short comment period, we lacked time to adequately form comments. Third, bicyclists weren’t offered one single mile of new quality backcountry or high-country trail in compensation for the proposed closure of 96 miles of access! Not one single mile! What a contrast when compared to the consideration given to over the snow users. The contrast is discriminatory. We feel the Forest can do better and that bicycling, a quiet, healthy, and newly energized activity, deserves equal consideration.

We have six suggestions that can help build back those trail miles lost to closure:

One. Don’t close so many miles of trail in the Recommended Wilderness Areas. Every mile of trail not closed reduces the total of new trails needed for compensation. 96 miles are a lot to us, but it’s not just the sum of the mileage, some of the routes proposed to be closed are irreplaceable. These routes often provide high country vistas and grand experience that bicyclists lack elsewhere on the Forest.

Two. Understand the application of non-Wilderness corridors in the National Wilderness Preservation System. There are thousands of miles of non-Wilderness corridors throughout the System. There are dead-end corridors (cherry stems), through corridors, and loops. Some corridors are created to accommodate infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, pipelines, dams. Some are created to give inholders access to their property, such as mines, ranches, cabins, lodges. Some corridors are created to preserve recreational experiences and those corridors can be motorized or non-motorized. Corridors can be customized. They vary in width and can feature access constraints such as seasonal closures or party size limitations. We note that a non- wilderness corridor may be proposed at Inspiration Pass Trail # 91 but the map is unclear.

Perhaps the largest example of non-Wilderness corridors exists in Death Valley National Park. Of the Park’s land area over 93% is in the National Wilderness Preservation System. But the Park features over 1,000 miles of non-Wilderness corridors, much of which is aligned over singletrack trail and very narrow at 100 feet (50 feet to either side of the trail). These corridors preserve public satisfaction and trust of land management agencies. Corridors in the National Wilderness Preservation System can be viewed on the interactive map at wilderness.net website. Corridors can be identified during the messy and conte

Matthew Brake

6/15/2022 09:09:41 pm

...contentious political process that accompanies the
design and advancement of each wilderness area on it’s journey through Congress. But
better yet as the case with Death Valley, astute land managers identified important
traditional recreational routes during planning phase and allowed for recreation to
continue within those new corridor constraints.
A tendency exists in Region 1 to resist recognition of recreational non-wilderness
corridors, a trend out of step with land managers from other Forest Service and BLM
regions. The corridor concept provides for satisfaction of the public, reduces opposition
toward Wilderness legislation, and gives land managers a concise management tool
going forward. We feel a modest portion of the trails proposed to be closed by the
Action should be identified as important recreational corridors. We stand ready to work
with Flathead National Forest to identify those important trails.
Three. Across Montana our public forest health has been suffering. Trees have been
dying at an unprecedented rate. Blister Rust, Bark Beetles, and wildfire have decimated
hundreds of thousands of acres. Everywhere are snags falling over, and the tool of
choice is a chainsaw, for salvage harvest and for keeping public trails open. Trails, our
human avenues, are either maintained or lost. When mountain biking is prohibited and
removed from the landscape, those trails become blocked with deadfall. Flathead
National Forest can’t keep up. In fact, a strong case could be made that these areas

should never become wilderness simply because in just a couple of years the trails
wouldn’t be passable. Be prudent. Identify key trails for non-wilderness corridors
through future wilderness in order to ensure those trails open to all.
Four. Bicycling has a unique role on public lands. Mountain biking culture has always
respected and appreciated natural landscapes. Many mountain bike riders come from
other sports and pastimes. Skiing and climbing, hunting, birdwatching, geology and
wildlife conservation have all been steppingstones for those who ride mountain bikes.
Mountain biking aesthetics have always featured narrow trails across wild hillsides,
through deep dark recesses, and high alpine tundra. Mountain bikers, at one point in
history, championed new Wilderness Areas. Before the 1984 prohibition we were
friends of the Wilderness movement. Adversaries wish to paint mountain biking in a
negative light and have managed to do so in Region 1 through misinformation.
Mountain biking is a wholesome activity, one that promotes fitness, self-awareness,
appreciation of nature, better overall health. Mountain biking is now mainstream,
attracting all ages of participants, We’re not all wired to hike. For many of us mountain
biking feels best. Thankfully it’s a quiet activity that in most cases, mile for mile, has less
impact than hiking. After 45 years it’s well past time for Forest Service land managers to
understand and embrace mountain biking.
Five. Key trails we are passionate about. Many mountain bikers frequent the trails in
Flathead National Forest’s Recommended Wilderness Areas. The Tuchuck-Whale area
alone has 5 major loops. Thoma Lookout, Thoma-Tuchuck Peak, and Review Mountain
are among the favorites in the most northern section. Mount Hefty is a popular out and
back, and ditto for Mt. Thompson-Seton. Chain Lakes and Nasukoin Mountain trails
have recently had work done to them and are now ridden more and more every year in
the southern proposed wilderness area. There are many bicyclists that camp at Chain
Lakes. These areas are remote, but many locals ride these trails and loops all summer
long. All these trails are candidates for non-wilderness corridor evaluation that would
reduce the mileage needed to make the Proposed Action equitable.
In the Jewel Basin Recommended Wilderness we have but one concern. Broken Leg
Trail #544 is very dear to the mountain biking community. FAMB cleared Broken Leg in
2021 and the trail is popular once again. Combined with the yet to be restored #354
Peterson Sidehill, Broken Leg would become a treasured loop trail that could be
approached from the north or south and ridden in either direction, providing a myriad of
experiences. Closure of Broken Leg is absurd.
Six. Trails that could make up some of the lost 96 miles. Taylor Hellroaring Project trails,
28 miles. Crystal Cedar Project trails, about 13 miles non-motorized. Trail #354,
Peterson Sidehill 3 miles. Broken Leg 544, .5 mile.
We request Flathead National Forest start over with a fresh cover letter and extended
comment period that gives mountain bicyclists equal courtesy to that afforded over the
snow recreationists. Alternatively, perhaps the mountain biking element needs to be
removed from the over the snow plan and given equal consideration in a new, separate

Action. Time and some collaboration could be spent toward creating a new respectful
Proposed Action.
Sincerely,
C

What's News

About the Upcoming Recommended Wilderness Areas

Leave a Reply.

About Us

Archives

Categories

Preserving and advancing mountain bike activities in the Flathead Valley.