Rio Puerco and Arroyo Chico, NM

[southwestbackcountry]

I like the sound of that....

Me too.  I appreciate the map too Scott with the CDT, GDMBR, and TD routes.  Didn't notice to CDT signs at that little pass there (where you're saying the trail was closed). Thanks for the info. 

It would be nice to create some movement toward keeping biking open on those WSA trails, some Taos folks ran into the same issue with the Hondo WSA.

[southwestbackcountry]

SWBC, the SYDC race used to ride from high desert cycles out to cabezon so I have ridden the route and remember crossing the no trespassing gate at king ranch and a fence at the reservation land. We just went over and around them. Something happened a few years ago and the race director changed the start to leave from white mesa. You could ping the race director Lenny Goodell and see what prompted the change. We always thought it was a land owner complaint, never the less, I know it can be ridden. I live at Ranchitos road and Guadalupe trail and thought it would be cool to literally leave from my house and ride to Chaco. I am out of town until next week but when I get back I will do some map research. I gave a good blm map so it probably will show the detail of the ranch and the reservation. Keep up the great writing and pics. Good stuff.

Yeah, I'd love to hear what you find.  Thanks for the shout out on the write up. Peace.

[evdog]

I think there is hope for bikes in WSAs. 

We recently went through forest plan amendments for 4 SoCal National Forests which resulted in large new areas of Recommended Wilderness (RW).  Management of RW is similar to that of a WSA, the difference being that RW is proposed by the Forest Service as part of a management plan process while a WSA is an area that has been inventoried as having wilderness characteristics but has not yet been designated by Congress as Wilderness.  Both areas are required by law to be managed to preserve their Wilderness values.
 
In our case the areas designated RW included trails which are currently open to bikes.  Although not used frequently by bikes they offer good potential for future connectivity.  Initially the Forest Service had planned to cherry-stem the trails to allow continued bike access but ultimately they changed their mind and decided to include them in RW.   Our understanding (following rulings in Montana) is that RW designation automatically bans bikes so we appealed the RW designation for those trails citing existing use and connectivity.  During the process we learned that RW designation does not automatically mean bikes are banned. 

The law states that once designated as RW the land/trails have to be managed to preserve wilderness characteristics.  They don't have to be managed by the same laws as long as the wilderness values are not impaired.  Normally the Forest Service would issue a closure order which would ban bikes from trails within the RW.  But apparently, in cases where bike use is not deemed high enough that it would impair wilderness values, such a closure order need not be issued which would allow bikes to continue to use a trail until Congress officially designates the area as Federal Wilderness.  In the meantime the Forest Service will not maintain those trails to a standard they deem suitable to support mountain biking - they would only maintain them to a standard deemed suitable for hiking. 

(Fine with us - many bikers would argue that bikes do not impair wilderness values, nor do trails for hikers and bikers need to be build to different standards - but those are whole other arguments for another day)

In the case of our appeal, the finding was that because the trails in question do not see heavy mountain bike usage (in reality, they see little use by any type of user), allowing bikes to continue using them will not impair the wilderness characteristic.  Therefore, the compromise was that the trails will be included in RW designation but the Forest Service will not issue a forest order closing the trails to bikes.  Therefore, until Congress designates the area Wilderness we will be allowed to continue to ride bikes on those trails.  If congress ultimately designates them Wilderness we are out of luck.

Part of the Forest Service reasoning for going with this solution rather than cherry-stemming the trails is that regardless of what option they select for their management plan, Congress can and will change it when they ultimately write a Wilderness bill.  Congress may add or subtract areas that were RW in the forest plan from Wilderness, or make any other change they want.  So if the Forest Service cherry-stems the trails for us in the management plan we will still lose access if Congress does not write that into the Wilderness Bill.  The take away from all this is that we really need to start lobbying Congress hard to make them understand that bikes are consistent with Wilderness values and should not be banned.

My thought is that a trail is nothing more than a travel corridor in which one should expect to meet other travellers.  Heck, look at Mt Whitney trail which has 250 permits/day issued (plus thru-hikers).  How is the wilderness experience there?  There is no reason to ban bikes from low use wilderness areas we are just like any other trail user when it comes down to it.   

There are many areas within Wilderness that would be good candidates for bike use.  In the case of the NSCDT it sees minimal use aside from thru-hikers as Scott and Eszter saw.  Clearly then bikes would not impair the wilderness characteristic, so I think we would have a strong argument for bike access in WSA's.    And for designated wilderness as well, though that is a whole other fight we will eventually take on. 

[ScottM]

Me too.  I appreciate the map too Scott with the CDT, GDMBR, and TD routes.  Didn't notice to CDT signs at that little pass there (where you're saying the trail was closed). Thanks for the info.  

It would be nice to create some movement toward keeping biking open on those WSA trails, some Taos folks ran into the same issue with the Hondo WSA.

Right, the trail isn't that noticeable--just a lone carsonite next to a barely used/visible trail.  From the photos I have seen, though, it looks like prime/amazing riding in places.  It follows the rim of many of the small mesas to the north, where trail construction wasn't really necessary since it's open rock (!).

I think there is hope for bikes in WSAs.  

Me too.  Unfortunately the BLM is different than the FS in that WSA seems to automatically mean no bikes.  The forest is different -- sometimes RW means no bikes, sometimes not, as you saw.  We have a really old RW area in AZ that is still open to bikes... and has no real hope of turning to actual Wilderness.

I probably would have argued for cherry stemming the trails, anyway.  It's true that congress can do whatever it wants and rewrite it, but if it's in the plan early on that those trails are excluded, it sets a precedent and might be less likely to be changed/challenged.  I'm sure there's more to it than that in the cases you're describing...

My biggest concern on the CDT is the tendency for newly built sections of non-wilderness trail to default closed to bikes.  Only on a few sections have mountain bikers noticed and made noise.  I'm going to see what IMBA knows and if they want to take it up, but I'm getting closer to wanting to create a "CDTB" -- a friends group for the CDT focused on advocating for bike access.  Seems like it might need to be done.

Ideally the CDT would be open in WSA's as well, though the only ones I know of are in the Malpais NCA and north of Cuba.

[wahday]

Thanks for posting all of that information evdog. Clear and well written, too. This is a topic of emerging interest to me as I have been following the planning process for the Zuni Mountains (part of Cibola Na’tl Forest) that is currently entertaining possible designations of Recommended Wilderness Areas near where I own some land (and regularly ride and bikepack). It’s a bit cumbersome to try and understand the process and untangle the government text that accompanies these land designations, so I appreciate you laying out so well (and I’m a Planner!)

At the same time, I am also very interested in exploring more of the CDT through the WSA’s Scott mentioned which I now understand is a BLM issue. Learning!

[radtron]

I appreciate your post.  Being a native New Mexican I appreciate the sentiments expressed in your blog.  I also agree with the idea that adventure is a place in your heart not far away from home.  I have been using the county buses and train to create adventures from my house in downtown Albuquerque.  It's actually quite convent for bikepacking adventures in New Mexico, Thank you again.

[southwestbackcountry]

I appreciate your post.  Being a native New Mexican I appreciate the sentiments expressed in your blog.  I also agree with the idea that adventure is a place in your heart not far away from home.  I have been using the county buses and train to create adventures from my house in downtown Albuquerque.  It's actually quite convent for bikepacking adventures in New Mexico, Thank you again.

Thanks a lot.  much appreciated.