Chapter 7: Know Your Options

Bicycling and Wilderness: A Mountain Biker's Guide to Wilderness Advocacy

How can you protect wild areas and maintain bicycle access? What should you do when confronted with a Wilderness proposal that includes areas with valuable singletrack?

IMBA suggests bicycle advocates focus on four options when Wilderness is proposed. You may choose to focus on one option, or develop a proposal using a mix of these four options:

Boundary Adjustments
Non-Wilderness Corridors
Diverse Designations
Acceptable Wilderness
Cherry-Stemmed Trails

These tools are examined in more detail below.

What positions have cyclists across the country taken in recent and current Wilderness campaigns?

In Washington State, Backcountry Bicycle Trails Club is officially neutral on the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness Act.
Oregon cyclists support the Mount Hood Stewardship and Legacy Act, which will preserve important singletrack as a National Recreation Area while still protecting other lands as Wilderness.
Virginia cyclists have negotiated with other stakeholders, agreeing on a proposal that includes Wilderness lands but also bicycle-friendly National Scenic Area areas.
A bicycle-friendly National Recreation Area has helped California cyclists support the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
A Wilderness bill in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park is being supported by cyclists because it includes a slight boundary adjustment for a shared-use non-motorized trail along the east shore of Grand Lake.

Let's now look at IMBA's options for dealing with Wilderness proposals in more detail.

Boundary Adjustments

The geographic boundary of a Wilderness area is perhaps the single most important aspect of a Wilderness designation. In nearly every case, arguments ensue over boundaries among people with differing interests and concerns. Congress has often responded by excluding areas, or portions of areas, which have high opportunities for oil and gas development, logging, motorized recreation and other uses. Wilderness proponents understand this dynamic and often engage in negotiations with land users to draw boundaries that will not cause substantial political opposition. The same processes can occur for bicycling. Consider the idea of boundary adjustments to be a process of giving a little to get a little. You may give up a trail or area of little recreational value to mountain bikers to protect a trail or area with substantial riding value. Be realistic in understanding that this compromise will likely be necessary to create a viable Wilderness proposal. Wilderness advocates will be giving up a boundary adjustment so they can protect another area.

However, boundary negotiations can succeed only where the non-conforming use is on the fringe of a proposed Wilderness. For example, if a timber company wants to log a forest in the middle of an area, boundary adjustments will usually not work. If the line were drawn in a way that excludes the desired access, the resulting Wilderness area might not have integrity. That is, it may then be less than the generally required 5,000-acres, or it might fail to include vital wildlife habitat.

Probability of Success: Boundary negotiations are more likely to succeed where the land in question is at the edge and is a small percentage of the proposed Wilderness. For bicycling access, it is also important to demonstrate that the area we want to exclude includes a trail that is already popular for bicycling, or holds the potential for developing a trail that will become important to biking. The political reality is that we should not expect to succeed in a boundary negotiation if all we can offer is a vague idea that someday a piece of land might be nice to ride.

Non-Wilderness Corridors

This simple yet flexible option is a good choice when only one or a few important mountain biking routes are present, but those routes run through the middle of the proposed area in question. A non-Wilderness Corridor can maintain existing uses such as mountain bike access to a trail corridor while preserving Wilderness designation for the surrounding land. As such, it removes a minimal amount of land from Wilderness designation. A corridor solution is straightforward and its intentions easily understood by all stakeholder groups.

Corridors are also flexible in response to natural disasters, reroutes and other unforeseen occurrences. For example, you may wish to ask for a non-Wilderness corridor for trail A. the language in the Wilderness bill could ask for non-Wilderness designation on the trail itself and 50 feet to either side. A buffer could allow for easier trail maintenance, a complaint of many land agencies. The bill's language can also make the corridor moveable if the trail's route has to be shifted in case of fire, rock slide, etc).

Probability of Success: The main advantage of a non-Wilderness corridor is that it doesn't take away a lot of land; only a few acres are affected. This in theory should make it a very enticing negotiation tactic for mountain bike advocates. The moveable nature of the corridor protects it from future unforeseen changes in route.

Diverse Designations

This option reflects the notion that Wilderness is not the only way to protect land. A diversity of designations protect natural areas while allowing bicycle access. Like Wilderness, most of these designations prohibit the building of roads or structures, commercial timber harvest, motorized access and other resource protection measures.

This idea is not new. In addition to Wilderness, Congress has designated lands as national parks, national monuments, national seashores, national conservation areas, national recreation areas, national scenic areas, national wildlife refuges and many other titles. National parks are a popular preservation option that preceded Wilderness by almost a century, and bicycles are not necessarily banned in these areas.

Wilderness supporters advocate that preservation tool because they feel it is the most effective. In some cases they are correct, but remember that the Wilderness Act severely constraints the type of lands eligible for Wilderness designation. For example, lands with roads or developments fail to meet Wilderness guidelines. Natural areas that do not meet specific Wilderness requirements may nonetheless deserve protection through other management approaches.

GORP.com is a useful resource for information on various protected areas. Some real-world examples of diverse designations include:

National Recreation Areas:
Oregon Dunes NRA (Oregon)
Big South Fork NRA (Kentucky)
Golden Gate NRA (California)

National Conservation Areas:
Red Rock Canyon NCA (Nevada)
Gunnison Gorge NCA (Colorado)
California Desert NCA (California)

National Scenic Areas:
Columbia River NSA (Oregon)
Mt. Pleasant NSA (Virginia)

National Protection Areas and Special Management Areas:
James Peak Protection Area (Colorado)
Bowen Gulch Protection Area (Colorado)
Kings River SMA (California)
Kelly Butte SMA (Washington)
Greer Spring SMA (Missouri)

See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion of Alternative Designations.

Acceptable Wilderness

Another option available to bicycle activists is to accept part or all of a Wilderness designation. This can often be a wise course of action. Many proposed Wilderness areas do not have trails popular or suitable for bicycling. Often these places are remote and extremely rugged, and sometimes have no trails whatsoever. Wilderness is often the best designation. Bicycle activists should examine the resource use and preservation values of each proposed area and decide as individuals and as groups on a position for each place. (See "Formulating a Position," below.)

Occasionally, bicyclists may wish to decide to make a place Wilderness even though it has popular bicycling routes. This occurred in Colorado in the early 1990s. Faced with the possibility of a massive molybdenum mine, bicyclists in the town of Crested Butte chose to support the designation of the Oh Be Joyful Valley as Wilderness, and the Congress designated it Wilderness in 1993.

Unqualified support for particular Wilderness areas appears to be a good political tactic. Bicycling is a quiet, non-motorized, low-impact activity and the conservation movement ought to (and usually does) accept bicycling as a good use of land. The Wilderness issue has divided bicyclists and conservation activists. When cyclists support Wilderness, it builds our relationship with conservationists, and this can help us to gain access to other, more significant trails and landscapes.

Cherry-Stemmed Trails

Cherry-stemming, the process of cutting out a trail or road from surrounding Wilderness, is a fairly common strategy for accomodating motorized interests in current Wilderness bills. With a cherry-stem, motorized users can continue to access certain roads or trails even though they are now surrounded by Wilderness. There is no reason why this technique could not be utilized to protect bicycle access to some of our favorite trails. A cherry-stem works best on out-and-back trails to a campground, lake, scenic vista, or some other landmark. Wilderness advocates are receptive to cherry-stemming because it does not require allowing "non-conforming" uses in Wilderness. Bicyclists should consider cherry-stemming because it allows us to ride singletrack with Wilderness on both sides of the trail.

For an example of cherry-stemming legislative language, check out the 2006 Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.

Help | Site Map | Copyright



	Chapter 7: Know Your Options Bicycling and Wilderness: A Mountain Biker's Guide to Wilderness Advocacy How can you protect wild areas and maintain bicycle access? What should you do when confronted with a Wilderness proposal that includes areas with valuable singletrack? IMBA suggests bicycle advocates focus on four options when Wilderness is proposed. You may choose to focus on one option, or develop a proposal using a mix of these four options: Boundary Adjustments Non-Wilderness Corridors Diverse Designations Acceptable Wilderness Cherry-Stemmed Trails These tools are examined in more detail below. What positions have cyclists across the country taken in recent and current Wilderness campaigns? In Washington State, Backcountry Bicycle Trails Club is officially neutral on the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness Act. Oregon cyclists support the Mount Hood Stewardship and Legacy Act, which will preserve important singletrack as a National Recreation Area while still protecting other lands as Wilderness. Virginia cyclists have negotiated with other stakeholders, agreeing on a proposal that includes Wilderness lands but also bicycle-friendly National Scenic Area areas. A bicycle-friendly National Recreation Area has helped California cyclists support the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. A Wilderness bill in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park is being supported by cyclists because it includes a slight boundary adjustment for a shared-use non-motorized trail along the east shore of Grand Lake. Let's now look at IMBA's options for dealing with Wilderness proposals in more detail. Boundary Adjustments The geographic boundary of a Wilderness area is perhaps the single most important aspect of a Wilderness designation. In nearly every case, arguments ensue over boundaries among people with differing interests and concerns. Congress has often responded by excluding areas, or portions of areas, which have high opportunities for oil and gas development, logging, motorized recreation and other uses. Wilderness proponents understand this dynamic and often engage in negotiations with land users to draw boundaries that will not cause substantial political opposition. The same processes can occur for bicycling. Consider the idea of boundary adjustments to be a process of giving a little to get a little. You may give up a trail or area of little recreational value to mountain bikers to protect a trail or area with substantial riding value. Be realistic in understanding that this compromise will likely be necessary to create a viable Wilderness proposal. Wilderness advocates will be giving up a boundary adjustment so they can protect another area. However, boundary negotiations can succeed only where the non-conforming use is on the fringe of a proposed Wilderness. For example, if a timber company wants to log a forest in the middle of an area, boundary adjustments will usually not work. If the line were drawn in a way that excludes the desired access, the resulting Wilderness area might not have integrity. That is, it may then be less than the generally required 5,000-acres, or it might fail to include vital wildlife habitat. Probability of Success: Boundary negotiations are more likely to succeed where the land in question is at the edge and is a small percentage of the proposed Wilderness. For bicycling access, it is also important to demonstrate that the area we want to exclude includes a trail that is already popular for bicycling, or holds the potential for developing a trail that will become important to biking. The political reality is that we should not expect to succeed in a boundary negotiation if all we can offer is a vague idea that someday a piece of land might be nice to ride. Non-Wilderness Corridors This simple yet flexible option is a good choice when only one or a few important mountain biking routes are present, but those routes run through the middle of the proposed area in question. A non-Wilderness Corridor can maintain existing uses such as mountain bike access to a trail corridor while preserving Wilderness designation for the surrounding land. As such, it removes a minimal amount of land from Wilderness designation. A corridor solution is straightforward and its intentions easily understood by all stakeholder groups. Corridors are also flexible in response to natural disasters, reroutes and other unforeseen occurrences. For example, you may wish to ask for a non-Wilderness corridor for trail A. the language in the Wilderness bill could ask for non-Wilderness designation on the trail itself and 50 feet to either side. A buffer could allow for easier trail maintenance, a complaint of many land agencies. The bill's language can also make the corridor moveable if the trail's route has to be shifted in case of fire, rock slide, etc). Probability of Success: The main advantage of a non-Wilderness corridor is that it doesn't take away a lot of land; only a few acres are affected. This in theory should make it a very enticing negotiation tactic for mountain bike advocates. The moveable nature of the corridor protects it from future unforeseen changes in route. Diverse Designations This option reflects the notion that Wilderness is not the only way to protect land. A diversity of designations protect natural areas while allowing bicycle access. Like Wilderness, most of these designations prohibit the building of roads or structures, commercial timber harvest, motorized access and other resource protection measures. This idea is not new. In addition to Wilderness, Congress has designated lands as national parks, national monuments, national seashores, national conservation areas, national recreation areas, national scenic areas, national wildlife refuges and many other titles. National parks are a popular preservation option that preceded Wilderness by almost a century, and bicycles are not necessarily banned in these areas. Wilderness supporters advocate that preservation tool because they feel it is the most effective. In some cases they are correct, but remember that the Wilderness Act severely constraints the type of lands eligible for Wilderness designation. For example, lands with roads or developments fail to meet Wilderness guidelines. Natural areas that do not meet specific Wilderness requirements may nonetheless deserve protection through other management approaches. GORP.com is a useful resource for information on various protected areas. Some real-world examples of diverse designations include: National Recreation Areas: Oregon Dunes NRA (Oregon) Big South Fork NRA (Kentucky) Golden Gate NRA (California) National Conservation Areas: Red Rock Canyon NCA (Nevada) Gunnison Gorge NCA (Colorado) California Desert NCA (California) National Scenic Areas: Columbia River NSA (Oregon) Mt. Pleasant NSA (Virginia) National Protection Areas and Special Management Areas: James Peak Protection Area (Colorado) Bowen Gulch Protection Area (Colorado) Kings River SMA (California) Kelly Butte SMA (Washington) Greer Spring SMA (Missouri) See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion of Alternative Designations. Acceptable Wilderness Another option available to bicycle activists is to accept part or all of a Wilderness designation. This can often be a wise course of action. Many proposed Wilderness areas do not have trails popular or suitable for bicycling. Often these places are remote and extremely rugged, and sometimes have no trails whatsoever. Wilderness is often the best designation. Bicycle activists should examine the resource use and preservation values of each proposed area and decide as individuals and as groups on a position for each place. (See "Formulating a Position," below.) Occasionally, bicyclists may wish to decide to make a place Wilderness even though it has popular bicycling routes. This occurred in Colorado in the early 1990s. Faced with the possibility of a massive molybdenum mine, bicyclists in the town of Crested Butte chose to support the designation of the Oh Be Joyful Valley as Wilderness, and the Congress designated it Wilderness in 1993. Unqualified support for particular Wilderness areas appears to be a good political tactic. Bicycling is a quiet, non-motorized, low-impact activity and the conservation movement ought to (and usually does) accept bicycling as a good use of land. The Wilderness issue has divided bicyclists and conservation activists. When cyclists support Wilderness, it builds our relationship with conservationists, and this can help us to gain access to other, more significant trails and landscapes. Cherry-Stemmed Trails Cherry-stemming, the process of cutting out a trail or road from surrounding Wilderness, is a fairly common strategy for accomodating motorized interests in current Wilderness bills. With a cherry-stem, motorized users can continue to access certain roads or trails even though they are now surrounded by Wilderness. There is no reason why this technique could not be utilized to protect bicycle access to some of our favorite trails. A cherry-stem works best on out-and-back trails to a campground, lake, scenic vista, or some other landmark. Wilderness advocates are receptive to cherry-stemming because it does not require allowing "non-conforming" uses in Wilderness. Bicyclists should consider cherry-stemming because it allows us to ride singletrack with Wilderness on both sides of the trail. For an example of cherry-stemming legislative language, check out the 2006 Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.


Help \| Site Map \| Copyright