# My BLM comment



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Many of you know that Department of the Interior agencies are in the last days of an ebike comment period. The topic for ebike riders is to review the terms of a rule that is going forward, that will be implemented. The terms, or details, of that rule determine if it will be effective or adequate to meet the needs of recreation. My opinion is that it isn't adequate. Each agency is slightly different in it's approach.

With a hope that a few more will write comments before the deadline arrives, here is my letter to the BLM for inspiration:

I see the need for ebikes and have ridden them a few times. My wife has a handicap but her ebike has given her new-found confidence. I'm frustrated because I can't take her on our nearby BLM trails. The proposed rule won't help my wife.

I have ridden great BLM non-motorized trail systems in Utah and Montana. The vast majority of non-motorized trails BLM has fostered and manages can easily support class 1 ebike activity. Presently ebikes are excluded from most non-motorized trails, and only allowed on a variety of roads and motorized trails. Some of the motorized trails are ridiculously difficult for fractional horsepower ebikes, being designed for and used by much heavier and faster vehicles. Actual ebike speeds are very similar to bicycles. Ebikes were designed for use on bicycle trails. Those that enjoy or actually need ebikes, should be able to have reasonable access to BLM non-motorized trail systems. Secretarial Order 3376 confirms that paradigm, but this proposed rule falls short.

While I support the proposed rule, it's incomplete. The rule requires BLM managers to evaluate ebike use when undergoing NEPA level review, but it also gives managers free reign to resist ebike evaluation on established BLM trail systems that have previously been reviewed. These trail systems are the exact places where families enjoy quality outdoor time, but some family members will continue to be excluded because the proposed rule doesn't require BLM managers to revisit management of these established systems, only new systems. Without a requirement to evaluate established trail systems, the intent of the Secretarial Order will be bypassed, leaving many out of luck and unable to share experiences with other friends and family. A majority of BLM non-motorized trails fall under this definition.

1. To synchronize the proposed rule with Secretarial Order 3376, it needs to contain a requirement for compliance. A reasonable time limit should be included in the rule for managers to review ebikes. I propose a 5-year time limit as a generous amount to time to address ebikes on the trail systems where Travel Management Planning has already taken place. I say this because there is a BLM trail system near me that doesn't allow ebikes and the manager is adamant about not allowing ebikes or even considering ebike discussion. Ebike review could be stalled indefinitely; the proposed rule needs to provide a path forward. A time limit for compliance is a practical, modest request. A time limit would help ensure the intent of the Secretarial Order is carried out.

2. Another weak spot in the rule is the lack of specific criteria for trail evaluation. The BLM has a good trail difficulty rating system, and this system should be adequate to guide rider's decisions as they navigate through trails. The rating system is designed for bicyclists and should work equally well for ebikers. My own observations have shown me that ebikes can go anywhere a bicycle can go, except maybe deep water crossings. Discussion suggests that certain trails can be too difficult for ebikes, a misleading notion. Ebikes are presently relegated to motorized trails and these trails can be much more challenging and often more dangerous. Non-motorized trails are often safer. As it's proposed, the rule lacks specific criteria for ebike inclusion or exclusion. I fear that without guidance, BLM managers could create virtually any plausible-sounding excuse to prohibit ebikes. Without specific guidance, the rule leaves management open to randomly discriminate against ebike access. I strongly feel that difficult trails or unfounded local bias shouldn't be deciding factors for ebike exclusion. I can't think of valid reasons for exclusion, except for trail overcrowding or deep water crossings. Even those reasons aren't enough when one considers trails aren't always crowded and water crossings often dry up seasonally.

3. Ebike access has been studied, allowed and this link is an article that summarizes the results of a season of ebike use. https://yubanet.com/regional/tahoe-national-forest-e-bike-use/

4. We have a need to verbally segregate ebikes from bicycles in future discussion and legislation. The public needs an encompassing agency term to hang on, to accurately address ebiking as a power-assisted use, similar to bicycling but distinctly different, sometimes legally separate from purely human-powered bicycling. It's very important that the proposed rule should better distinguish between non-motorized bicycling and ebiking. Creating the class l, ll, and lll systems is the first step. This proposed rule should give us one or two words that can consistently describe ebikes as distinctly different than bicycles. A universal label for the classification, so to speak.

Thank you,

Greg Beardslee


----------

