By Trina Ortega and Terray Sylvester

The Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign has stolen center stage in the local land management debate, but trail and road use in the White River National Forest is expected to change in any case with the release of the forest-wide Travel Management Plan early next year.
Local mountain bike advocates argue that a closure to mountain bikes under the Travel Management Plan would be less restrictive than a closure resulting from a wilderness designation, such as the Hidden Gems wilderness proposal.
That’s significant because the Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop, a lead organization on the wilderness proposal, has argued that there would be little difference between the two forms of closures.
In an ad that has run in area newspapers over the last couple of weeks, the Workshop listed more than 65 mountain bike trails that “will not be affected” by the Hidden Gems wilderness proposal, which would add roughly 400,000 acres of Wilderness to the White River National Forest (WRNF). Of those, 20 trails may be closed by the Travel Management Plan.
The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) is currently contesting a handful of trails that the Workshop states are unaffected by the Hidden Gems because they would be impacted by the Travel Management Plan. Some of the trails that would be closed to mountain biking are currently ridable and attractive, such as the Anderson/Petroleum Lakes Trail that diverges from Lincoln Creek Road east of Aspen.
Kirk Hinderberger, treasurer of RFMBA, describes the trail as the only mountain bike option that diverges from the Lincoln Creek Road.
But other such contested trails are patchy, rarely traveled, or difficult to access in the first place.
An example is a user-created trail that RFMBA members hope could one day offer a connection from the Hay Park trail system on the north flank of Mount Sopris, near Dinkle Lake, to the Crystal River Valley. The trail runs through private land and is rarely ridden. But board member Charlie Eckart says that RFMBA would like to leave that terrain open to mountain bike access.
“The connectivity is what we’re looking for,” Eckart said, while acknowledging that it may be “10 to 15 years” before the trail becomes a reality.
Another example of such a conflict is the Huntsman’s Ridge road, which extends north of Highway 133 at the top of McClure Pass.
“My understanding is it’s kind of rocky and steep and could use some re-routes in the future,” said RFMBA board member Mike Pritchard, but noted that nonetheless, RFMBA is pushing for the trail to be left out of the Hidden Gems Proposal.
“We’re trying to maintain access wherever we currently have it,” Pritchard said. “[The road] is just a good access point to get out on the ridge and there are great views on both sides of the ridge.”  
If specific trails are currently rarely ridden, or won’t be accessible for a long time, that doesn’t necessarily bother RFMBA members, who are looking at the landscape not just for its present mountain bike potential, but for the potential it may offer in the future.
While the RFMBA has directed much of its energy toward the Hidden Gems proposal, the group is also working toward a master plan for mountain biking in the valley that would engage area stakeholders in an effort to identify and maintain existing trails, as well as areas that may be suitable for trails in the future, states the RFMBA website.
“It [the master plan] is exactly what we’re working towards,” Pritchard said. Though he emphasized that the plan is still in its early stages.

The details

White River forest planners began crafting the proposal in 2002, as part of its adopted Forest Plan. The Travel Management Plan examines the road and trail system for both summer and winter use, and the final plan will determine which routes should be open or closed and what types of uses will be allowed. The plan is expected to be released in January 2010.
“The fact of the matter is the Travel Management Plan is going to result in some changes in the way people travel on the White River National Forest,” said Pat Thrasher, public affairs officer for the WRNF.
Routes are being closed primarily to protect resources, but closures may also increase public safety and minimize conflict between user groups, he said.  
Based on its research and public comment, the WRNF is favoring the management scenario labeled “Alternative G,” which would “decommission” 1,483 miles of summer travel routes, according to the draft plan.
The main reason to decommission trails is to rehabilitate the area and create a healthy forest, according to WRNF transportation planner Wendy Haskins.
Additionally, some routes (totaling about 280 miles) that have not been part of the official system are expected to be open under the new plan, according to the draft.
In contrast to any land designated wilderness by Congress, trail closures under the WRNF’s Travel Management Plan would have some wiggle room at the ground level.
If a group wanted to add a trail to the system, it is not out of the question, Haskins said. The group would need to approach the WRNF, explain why the trail is an important route and demonstrate an ability for maintaining that trail. The trail is subject to National Environmental Policy Act assessments, and the decision is ultimately left for a forest manager.  
The route should “make sense,” such as connecting two trails, Haskins said, to enhance the trail system as a whole. “We’re trying to promote routes that allow for quality experiences,” she added.
Haskins said adding new trails can take anywhere from a few months to a couple years, “depending on cost, commitment and controversy.”
In comparison, Haskins noted: “Once something is declared wilderness, you can’t take that back. If it’s wilderness, it’s horse and hike. That’s OK for some places; it is what it is and that’s what it’ll be.”

Wilderness already in the works

As part of its Forest Plan, the WRNF is, in fact, recommending that 81,000 acres be protected as wilderness. Some land would be added to the existing eight wilderness areas in the WRNF. Two areas — Red Table, southwest of Gypsum, and Assignation Ridge, southwest of Carbondale — are large chunks of land that would be designated as new areas.
“We feel, that in looking at the Wilderness Act of 1964 and looking at all of the resources and demands on the national forests, these are very appropriate designations,” Thrasher said.
Existing wilderness in the WRNF amounts to 750,000 acres of land, a little more than 33 percent of the forest.
The 81,000 acres is also part of the Wilderness Workshop’s Hidden Gems proposal, which is calling for roughly 400,000 acres of WRNF land to be declared wilderness.
Thrasher stressed that the two proposals (the WRNF’s Forest Plan and the Hidden Gems) are “separate and independent of one another.”
“Do those two things overlap one another? Ultimately they do; we’re talking about the same acres,” he added.
“The Wilderness Workshop and their partners — Colorado Mountain Club, Wilderness Society, and Colorado Environmental Coalition — these are organizations that have a particular agenda with regard to how national forests are managed. The Hidden Gems reflects their interests,” Thrasher said.
While wilderness designation or changes require congressional approval, Thrasher clarified that individuals or public and private groups can come forward with a proposal on how to manage public lands.
“There are lots of different folks with lots of different ideas on how national forests should be managed,” he said.

Next Steps:

To view the draft Travel Management Plan, visit the WRNF Web site at fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver.
To view the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association’s draft comments on the Hidden Gems proposal, visit rfmba.org/MTB/Advocacy.aspx.