Proposal would restrict 130,000 more acres but leave access up to bureaucrats
Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke has introduced legislation that would place 130,415 acres of federal land under permanent wilderness protections—meaning restrictions—in return for promises of forest restoration, timber management, wildfire mitigation, and recreational access.
But critics say the wilderness restrictions would be guaranteed while the promised benefits could well disappear in subsequent federal agency decision-making.
The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC), a group that challenges federal land-management restrictions through litigation, legislative advocacy, and grassroots campaigns, primarily for motorized recreational access to federal lands, summarized its concerns this way: “History says the wilderness is guaranteed and the access is not.”
“BlueRibbon Coalition believes public-lands legislation must be evaluated based on what it actually delivers for the people who use and depend on public lands,” the BRC stated in its review of the legislation. “While the bill includes provisions advertised as protecting and expanding recreation, wilderness compromises deserve close scrutiny. History has shown that promises made during negotiations do not always translate into lasting protection for motorized access.”
BRC argues that motorized recreationists should be skeptical of agreements in which the wilderness designations are statutorily mandated but the recreational and access provisions are not.
What the Legislation Would Do
Specifically, the legislation would codify a comprehensive land-management package covering approximately 430,000 acres in Montana’s Blackfoot Valley. According to BRC, the bill designates six Forest Restoration Areas totaling 180,000 acres to support timber harvest, forest thinning, prescribed fire, vegetation management, stream restoration, and other forest-health projects.
“The bill prioritizes forest restoration and fuel-reduction projects near Lincoln and other communities to reduce wildfire risks and improve forest resilience,” the analysis states. “The legislation establishes six designated recreation areas totaling approximately 60,000 acres. According to the bill’s announcement, it would secure permanent winter access for snowmobiles, add mountain-bike routes, protect existing routes, and create a connected off-highway vehicle trail loop exceeding 70 miles, including approximately 20 miles of new trails.”
In addition, there are new wilderness designations, BRC reports.
“The bill adds approximately 100,000 [130,415] acres to the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness areas and creates wilderness on Nevada Mountain,” the analysis states. “Approximately 23,000 acres of Wilderness Study Area land would be released from further wilderness consideration, restoring multiple-use management and public access to those lands.”
However, BRC observes, while the stated goal is to create a comprehensive land-management package that accommodates conservation, economic activity, forest management, and recreation, the recreation provisions do not guarantee that motorized access will be maintained in the long run.
And, if the past is prologue, it won’t.
Specifically, Section 301 of the bill would designate additional wilderness acreage immediately upon enactment, while Section 204 makes construction of new recreational trails contingent upon available federal appropriations and Forest Service determinations that the projects comply with applicable requirements.
The secretary of agriculture would also retain authority to modify the trails.
For BRC, that distinction raises the prospect of another wilderness compromise in which the restrictions are guaranteed but the promised benefits are not.
“For decades, motorized recreationists have been asked to support public-lands compromises with assurances that existing roads will remain open, wilderness boundaries will not create buffer zones, and new recreational routes will be developed to offset access restrictions,” the BRC analysis states. “The problem is that these assurances can be undermined by subsequent agency decisions, travel-management plans, or interpretations of statutory language.”
For example, BRC states, a road can remain outside a wilderness boundary and still be closed.
“A law can say it does not create a buffer zone while agency management decisions restrict access near the boundary,” the analysis states. “A provision directing an agency to evaluate new routes does not necessarily mean those routes will ever be constructed or designated.”
BRC believes those distinctions must be part of the debate for every federal land compromise bill.
BRC has a fair point. The major sticking point involves the new wilderness designations. Zinke’s announcement and BlueRibbon’s analysis both describe approximately 100,000 acres of additional wilderness. The bill would change the legal management designation of existing federal lands to place additional restrictions on permissible uses.
Then, too, the legislation would remove the Hoodoo Mountain and Wales Creek Wilderness Study Areas from special wilderness-study protections, but it would designate the affected region as backcountry areas subject to continuing federal restrictions, including prohibitions on mineral leasing and mining claims.
In addition, Section 201 requires the Forest Service to prepare a comprehensive recreation management plan within three years, identifying opportunities for new motorized trails in the Bartlett Creek and Sandbar Creek Recreation Areas, including loop trails, as well as new mountain-bike trails in the Lodgepole Creek and Rice Ridge Recreation Areas. However, the provision does not require the agency to construct those trails, and once the plan takes effect, motorized vehicles generally would be permitted only on roads and trails designated for that use in the plan.
The bill does provide some more specific protections. Section 203 requires designation of an over-snow vehicle corridor within two years, and the legislation expressly allows certain snowmobile activities within designated winter recreation areas. However, those provisions remain subject to operating conditions, snow coverage requirements, and other restrictions that may be determined by the secretary of Agriculture.
BlueRibbon Warns of a History of Broken Compromises
BlueRibbon’s wariness rests not only on the language of Zinke’s legislation but also on what it describes as a history of federal agencies pulling the plug on recreational protections negotiated in previous wilderness compromises.
In one example, after the Dingell Act designated substantial wilderness in Utah’s San Rafael Swell, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) undertook travel-management planning in the area.
“BRC has raised concerns that the resulting travel-management decisions closed hundreds of miles of routes, including routes that provide access toward or into the wilderness areas,” the analysis stated. “These closures are significant because a route does not have to physically cross a wilderness boundary to be essential to access. Roads and trails outside a designated area may provide the only practical means of reaching trailheads, overlooks, hunting areas, camping locations, and other public lands.”
When those routes are closed, BRC wrote, the effect can be a de facto reduction in access around the wilderness, even if the agency does not formally label the closures a buffer zone.
“The lesson for motorized recreationists is straightforward: a statutory promise against buffer zones does not necessarily prevent access restrictions that occur through later travel-management decisions,” BRC stated. “The BLM currently has no functional guidance for determining which administrative actions qualify as creating buffer zones.”
In other words, BRC argues, wilderness legislation should not be evaluated solely by whether it contains no-buffer-zone language but must also be evaluated by whether the legislation provides enforceable protection for the roads and routes that make surrounding federal lands accessible.
In Indiana, Tower Ridge Road, which was expressly excluded from wilderness designation, is nonetheless staring down the barrel of a proposed conversion to nonmotorized use.
“The road was left outside the wilderness designation, but the Forest Service is still proposing to permanently convert approximately three miles of the road to a nonmotorized trail following storm damage,” BRC wrote. “The proposed change demonstrates the limitation of relying on a cherry-stemmed road as a long-term access guarantee. Even when Congress excludes a road from wilderness, the managing agency may later propose a change in its transportation or travel-management decisions that eliminates motorized use.”
For the motorized community, the practical result is the same, BRC observed: a route that was historically available for motorized recreation may no longer be accessible by motor vehicle.
The Vinagre Wash area is another example of the difficulties associated with wilderness compromises, BRC contends. According to the coalition, the 2019 Dingell Act included provisions addressing the evaluation and designation of new recreational routes to accommodate access needs on surrounding federal lands.
“The purpose of such provisions was to address recreation and access needs associated with the surrounding public lands,” the review stated. “However, BRC’s concern is that the Bureau of Land Management did not follow through in good faith with the promised route-development process, and new routes were not created as expected.”
That illustrates an important difference between a legislative promise and an enforceable obligation, BRC asserted.
“A requirement to study, evaluate, or consider new routes is not the same as a requirement to designate, construct, and maintain those routes,” BRC stated. “If the agency has broad discretion, or if the legislation lacks a clear remedy for noncompliance, the motorized community may give up existing access without receiving the promised replacement opportunities. Any promise to create new motorized routes must include clear deadlines, specific route commitments, enforceable agency obligations, and meaningful accountability if those obligations are not met.”
Enforceable Access Protections
BlueRibbon argues that the central issue is whether Congress will establish enforceable statutory protections for motorized recreation or leave the future of those activities largely to bureaucrats who manage federal land.
“If Congress intends to protect motorized access, it should do so through clear, enforceable language,” BRC argues. “Existing roads and routes should receive meaningful protection from closure. New routes should be specifically identified and required to be designated within a defined timeframe. Agencies should not be allowed to undermine congressional compromises through subsequent discretionary travel-management decisions. The public deserves more than assurances. It deserves legislation that protects access in practice.”
In the end, BRC argues, the history of wilderness compromises is a history of broken promises.
“The San Rafael Swell, Tower Ridge Road, and Vinagre Wash examples raise serious concerns about relying on promises that can later be weakened through agency decisions or lack of follow-through,” the BRC stated. “BRC will continue to scrutinize wilderness legislation and advocate for the roads, trails, and access opportunities that make public lands available to all Americans. Conservation agreements should not come at the expense of motorized recreation, and any compromise must provide genuine, enforceable protections—not promises that ultimately leave the motorized community with less access.”
The bottom line, BRC asserted, is that wilderness compromises are almost always false compromises.
“The wilderness restrictions go into effect immediately, and there is rarely a guarantee that motorized access will be protected and that promised recreation opportunities will actually be delivered,” BRC wrote. “The motorized community should have serious concerns about supporting false compromises.”
That’s true enough, and the Zinke bill represents another example of the more treacherous trends in modern governance—enshrining federal control of ever more land while unconstitutionally empowering bureaucrats over elected lawmakers to restrict access and multiple use productive activities on those lands.
