Ten Lakes plan cuts bike and snowmobile access

A proposed travel plan for the Ten Lakes area north of Whitefish has sparked criticism from both the local snowmobile and mountain bike communities.

The proposed plan calls for restricting over-snow motorized use to less than half of the current area available from Dec. 1 to March 31, and to less than 10 percent of current use between April 1 and May 31.

Mountain bikers could see their summer access to the area reduced from nearly 86 miles of trail to less than 17.

Scott Mattheis, a member of the Ten Lakes Snowmobile Club, said the restrictions are abusive and unnecessary.

“These are unwarranted restrictions placed upon snowmobile use in the Wilderness Study Area and the Ten Lakes area,” he said.

The 64,177-acre project area is north and east of Eureka and includes the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, which was set aside by Congress in the 1977 Montana Wilderness Study Act. The act required the Forest Service to maintain the area in its 1977 condition.

A 2007 lawsuit settlement with the Montana Wilderness Association commits the Forest Service to developing summer and winter travel plans for the area.

Bryan Donner, the Forest Service District Ranger for Fortine and Rexford districts, said the recreational-use restrictions included in the plan are aimed at limiting conflict between recreation users and grizzly bears in the area.

“It’s based upon our grizzly bear management goals,” he said. “We’ve identified areas where bears are likely to be and restricted travel likely to impact emerging bears and cubs.”

Mattheis disagrees with Donner’s rationale for the decision.

“There is zero recorded conflict between grizzly bears and snowmobiles,” he said. “That’s not just in this area, but throughout the state. I don’t want to throw other recreation folks under the bus, because I like to hike, fly fish and do all the summer activities, too, but there’s much more conflict between humans and bears in these activities than with snowmobiles.”

Another point of contention is with how the process was handled.

Donner said the Forest Service engaged in a long-term collaboration with stakeholders in the area before making the decision.

“We went through a very protracted and involved collaboration process with our user group and other interested individuals, it was about a two-year process,” he said.

The collaboration, however, was part of a larger discussion for the Galton project. According to the Proposed Action document, the Forest Supervisor decided to split the Ten Lakes travel management component into its own action.

Mattheis said the split proposal was just another example of the Forest Service ignoring the public’s input.

“Our collaborative effort has never been recognized by the United States Forest Service,” he said. “I feel that’s because it came out different from what they wanted, so they tossed it out and decided to start over. They’re just trying to wear us down, make us not want to be involved so we don’t disagree with them.”

The Whitefish-based Flathead Fat Tires mountain bike advocacy group argues that mountain bikes are already an established use in the Ten Lakes area and should continue to be allowed on the backcountry singletrack.

“This area has seen a considerable and established use by mountain bikes, and the Forest Service should encourage future use, rather than banning it,” the group wrote in a letter to the Forest Service. “The Ten Lakes area includes some of the best trails for backcountry mountain biking in northwest Montana, and banning bikes in that area would represent a major loss for a large user group.”

The Fat Tires group also takes issue that mountain bikers are being lumped with motorized uses in the plan.

“By lumping these uses together, the Forest Service has utterly failed to appropriately consider the uses and impacts at issue in the Ten Lakes area,” the letter reads.

“Rather than confronting the issue of bicycle access and the impacts thereof, the Forest Service has elected to simply ignore the issue and propose what amounts to a wholesale ban. This has the effect of hurting the local economy and unnecessarily disenfranchises a significant user group.”

The 30-day public comment period on the proposed action opened April 15. At the conclusion of that period, the Forest Service will address the comments and prepare a draft Environmental Assessment, the release of which will trigger a 90-day objection period.

Participation in the objection period is limited to those who comment during the initial 30-day period, and will not include those who commented during the public phase of the Galton project.