# 60 day comment period for BLM



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comment-proposed-e-bike-regulations


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

All the BLM land I have frequented here in the west has been pretty out there with double tracks already established from whatever purpose in the past. My presence there with an eBike went un-noticed as there was never anyone to notice. The fact that they are freaked about 1hp powered bicycles is pretty much a joke when you consider the heinous logging/mining practices that they readily allow....


----------



## Coyotefred (Dec 21, 2016)

+1 Or the damaged caused by decades of abuse by cattle (= welfare ranching) and various "improvements" associated with it. In some BLM areas moderate/well-managed ranching is consistent with good health of the land. In many intermountain BLM tracts, however, is it not.

All that said, it's still worth taking the time to get engaged and make your voice heard. In many rural areas these "public" outfits like BLM, Forest Service, etc. operate in relative obscurity, primarily for the benefit of a few nearby private landholders/interests. Simply having more folks "watching" their activities, commenting, etc. has a beneficial effect, I think, in "reminding" them that these are *everyone's* public lands...



Bigwheel said:


> [snip] The fact that they are freaked about 1hp powered bicycles is pretty much a joke when you consider the heinous logging/mining practices that they readily allow....


----------



## Coyotefred (Dec 21, 2016)

OK so has anyone actually managed to find where you can "comment" on this proposed rule? I see in the press release that you can snail mail comments, but when I follow the directions for electronic comment, the proposed rule doesn't come up in a search. I even tried the new 'beta' regulations site (https://beta.regulations.gov/search?filter=ebike) and can't get the rule ("RIN 1004-AE72") to come up... ?


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Coyotefred said:


> OK so has anyone actually managed to find where you can "comment" on this proposed rule? I see in the press release that you can snail mail comments, but when I follow the directions for electronic comment, the proposed rule doesn't come up in a search. I even tried the new 'beta' regulations site (https://beta.regulations.gov/search?filter=ebike) and can't get the rule ("RIN 1004-AE72") to come up... ?


Same. Search doesn't work. Maybe it only works if you're a hiker or equestrian. Ugh.


----------



## Coyotefred (Dec 21, 2016)

I've emailed the BLM employee listed on that press release; I'll post back if I get something helpful!


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Here is the pdf link to the actual regulation they we can comment about. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/BLM_EBIKE_NPRM%20Final%203.27.20%20PDF.pdf


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

This BLM page has all the available links and instruction to submit comment.https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comment-proposed-e-bike-regulations


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

There are some things I'm concerned about. Foremost, I haven't found a requirement for any BLM managers to initiate NEPA process for recreational trails in their own areas. If they are going to do any NEPA level projects, this rule compels them to include e-bikes in the analysis. But if they are in between projects as they are in my area, they aren't compelled to revisit through NEPA any prior analysis to determine the acceptability of ebike use in those already established trail networks. It leaves the door open for managers to put off this issue indefinitely in some areas. If someone can find any requirement buried in the text for managers to act within a reasonable time period, please let us know where it is.


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

SO 3376 is being implemented in a hodgepodge-podge. Every BLM Field Office has discretion. Local to me, all BLM non-motorized was opened to Class 1 eMTB as of the SO date back in August. BLM offices in Moab/UT, etc are in elite mountain bike communities and pressure from "no eMTB" purists (it IS a motor) has kept those areas closed/vague for eMTB on non-motorized trails. I wonder how this will all play out? Seems very similar to snowboard/skier wars of 30 years ago.


----------



## Coyotefred (Dec 21, 2016)

'No reply yet; who knows what is going on with staffing, etc. with COVID measures, etc.



Coyotefred said:


> I've emailed the BLM employee listed on that press release; I'll post back if I get something helpful!


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

sparrow said:


> BLM offices in Moab/UT, etc are in elite mountain bike communities and pressure from "no eMTB" purists (it IS a motor) has kept those areas closed/vague for eMTB on non-motorized trails. I wonder how this will all play out? Seems very similar to snowboard/skier wars of 30 years ago.


 Yes! The proposed rule under public review seems written in such a way to encourage continued discrimination without oversight, or without incentive to comply. Yes this is just like the snowboarder debacle of the past. If we don't effectively comment, history will likely be repeated.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Here is the link to the Federal Register.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/10/2020-07099/increasing-recreational-opportunities-through-the-use-of-electric-bikes


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

Done! Thank you


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

I got my comment posted.

Did some of you happen to look at already entered comments? Boy do horse back riders not want e-bikes and ironically one post that more bikes would erode the trails more, guess they consider the damage their horse do to be "natural".


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

KenPsz said:


> Did some of you happen to look at already entered comments? Boy do horse back riders not want e-bikes and ironically one post that more bikes would erode the trails more, guess they consider the damage their horse do to be "natural".


Right you are! Also I noticed a lot of pushback from hunters who don't want to share the land. But they do want to go anywhere and kill animals. Talk about hypocrites!

What I notice most in the comments is a lack of understanding what this comment period is designed for. The rule already exists through the prior Secretarial Order. What this proposed rule is doing is a modification/clarification of that order. The comments are generally for or against the Secretarial Order. But we must comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed rule, to be effective. This comment period is about allowing or not allowing ebikes on the great BLM non-motorized bike trail systems that exist around the Western US. Systems such as those near Fruita and Grand Junction, or Moab, or Copper City in Montana, not random cow trails and mining roads where hunters or horse riders tend to go. Most of those areas are open for motorized access already. Please everyone, read the proposed rule and try hard to determine problems with it. I'll be posting my concerns with the rule in a week or so.


----------



## Coyotefred (Dec 21, 2016)

Very true. The trail damage issue is obviously nonsense and can be disproved simply by walking any trail section used by both bikes/horses. The horse pack outfits are of course the worst, but this issue seems pretty easy to address/overcome.

There is a legitimate issue about spooking horses, and I can confirm that many of them are pretty spooked when they see my big human profile on my fat tire mtn bike. Good trail/sharing ethics has always dictated giving horses/riders right of way and I've always tried to do that. Where I ride in the 'open country' (= not closed in mtn trails) I will always stop early, get off the trail and give them a wave and a little chat as they work by. Some of the horses won't even want to pass me and the riders will turn aroud and go elsewhere, but they always wave in appreciation and the ones who do ride by are always thankful for my consideration. These are state/nonprofit public lands which we share, and I always try to be a good ambassador.

But definitely many of these folks see horses/riding as "what these places were intended for" rather than biking, e or otherwise. Not my thing (nor is hunting), but if we want to keep our access to these shared public places we need to focus on our areas of agreement rather than disagreement it seems to me...



KenPsz said:


> I got my comment posted.
> 
> Did some of you happen to look at already entered comments? Boy do horse back riders not want e-bikes and ironically one post that more bikes would erode the trails more, guess they consider the damage their horse do to be "natural".


----------



## Delta_kilo (Oct 30, 2006)

Put my comment in probably won't do a damn bit of good because BLM will do what they want anyway got a feeling their minds are already made up.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

I’ve added my comments. Thanks


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Trivia: If BLM approves the rule change as written and Nez Perce Clearwater chooses alternative Z, will eMTBs be allowed there in Recommended Wilderness in winter?


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

Overwhelming support for eBikes in the comments


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

The request for public input on the proposed ruling stated that comments and recommendations that will be "most useful and likely to influence agency decisions" are:

1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and 
2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

It would be helpful to call attention to any studies you may know of in your local area.
As part of my reply I referenced a 2019 study of e-bike use in the Tahoe National Forest

https://yubanet.com/regional/tahoe-national-forest-e-bike-use/

Nevada City, Calif. October 23, 2019 - As the 2019 field season winds to a close, the Tahoe National Forest would like to share an update on class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on recommended routes and trails:
•	*No observed increase in trail degradation* nor resource damage occurred as a result of class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
•	*No trail conflicts were reported or observed* between class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike users and other recreationalists on Tahoe National Forest roads or trails.
•	There were *no reported accidents or injuries due to E-bike use of any class type* on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
•	Tahoe National Forest trail and recreation *managers did observe an increase in the diversity of skill levels and age groups utilizing E-bikes to access Tahoe National Forest routes and trails*. This included both class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use, and other classes of E-bikes utilizing motorized routes.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

How many eMTBs sumbitted comments to maintain access in Nez Perce Clearwater NF?


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Dirtrider127 said:


> Overwhelming support for eBikes in the comments


That is awesome!


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

pop quiz, which part of this comment is wrong. First half or second?

"I fully support the proposed change to allow for e-bikes use of BLM land unless restricted by specific justification by the specific land manager for a specific land parcel / unit. E-bikes provide additional portions of the population the opportunity to experience public lands in a way that couldn't in the past. "


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

Truly great news, As a senior ,going through multiple recoveries, loving sports endorphins, and great outdoors, this is great news, Thanks to all involved. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Since everyone is too afraid to take a guess at the questions and too lazy to read the actual document: The proposed rule allows land managers to allow eMTBs where pedal bikes go and encourages them to do so in FUTURE planning efforts. This is allowing on a case by case basis, not a blanket opening. Also, BLM's decision has no effect on USFS. Also nobody commented on Nez Perce Clearwater NF by the deadline, so there are good odds that 50 miles or so of backcountry riding has been lost to mountain bikes and e-bikes.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

aoliver said:


> so there are good odds that 50 miles or so of backcountry riding has been lost to mountain bikes and e-bikes.


Thats not good, ebikes want that extra 50 miles or so of backcountry riding.


----------



## fore76 (Jan 27, 2020)

I just read a post today the Tahoe Basin is no longer allowing e-bikes on trails not designated as motorized trails. It is also posted on the NFS website


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

fore76 said:


> I just read a post today the Tahoe Basin is no longer allowing e-bikes on trails not designated as motorized trails. It is also posted on the NFS website
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 not good when ebikes are not allowed on trails.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

I don't get it. There are plenty of ATV trails that ebikers can ride without limitations. Why the need to push them into areas where there are restrictions on motorized vehicles for obvious reasons. Who in their right mind thinks that regulating what is a Class 1 bike is going to realistic. Are we going to pay for dedicated people to police the bikes to make sure they conform? Not to mention muddling the line between what is an "anolog" bike and what it motorized.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

matt4x4 said:


> not good when ebikes are not allowed on trails.


If e-bikes don't learn and play by the rules, expect a lot more of that. BLM doesn't have much ability to enforce, I would expect all losses associated with the current mess to be taken from Forest access.

Here's another prime example. 
"I built my e-bike from a kit that was readily purchased online and was a simple upgrade to my existing bike; much less expensive than buying a pre-built e-bike. Research showed the 1000 Watt battery-powered motors are the 'goldilocks' power level to achieve hill-climbing. It is also the most common power size with some going up to 1500 watts and more. I don't want to go fast, I just want enough power to reach the top of the small hills in my neighborhood. The regulation limits an electric bicycle to the power level of 750 watts because it equates to 1 horsepower; otherwise it is considered to be a motorized bicycle. I hope the forgers of this regulation will see the need for this subtle change to increase the standard measurement to 1000 watts. "

Industry isn't publishing their specs, isn't sticking to the class definitions that THEY WROTE, nor making it difficult to derestrict. You already have ebikers pushing to double the power. Good luck, we're gonna need it


----------

