USFS proposed rule to revamp eMTB access (Sept. 2020)

[skaredshtles]

"that electric bicycles be removed from the definition of “motor vehicle” and considered to be a non-motorized use"

WTAF?

They're asking us to consider a MOTORIZED piece of equipment as non-motorized? What kind of retarded world are we living in?

[grinch]

Ya if you can't see the difference keep fkn that chicken. You slow kids should just follow the rules

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[altasnob]

Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, Washington's MTB advocacy organization and the largest statewide MTB advocacy organization in the country, has released their formal recommendations for USFS eMTB Access policy:

https://www.evergreenmtb.org/blog/ur...service-trails

Comments close on Monday, October 26th.

[altasnob]

Here is their sample comment letter you can send:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to your proposed new rules 7700 & 7710. As a mountain biker, it’s important to me that we are careful in how we manage electric-assist mountain bikes on trails to protect the user experience of those recreating on non-motorized USFS trails.

I’m extremely concerned about the current approach to classify e-bikes as motorized vehicles.

This solution will jeopardize funding sources to maintain traditionally non-motorized trails and, by not aligning with recent decisions made within the DOI agencies, will cause more confusion amongst e-mountain bikers on where they can and cannot ride. More importantly, this solution will pit mountain bikers against hikers and equestrians once a proposal is made to allow e-bikes on a previously non-motorized trail by changing it to a motorized designation. The current proposals are also cumbersome and require more resources within an already constrained Federal Agency.

I recommend the following simpler solutions:

Adopt Class 1 e-bikes as non-motorized transportation.
Adopt Class 2 and 3 e-bikes as motorized transportation.
Allow Class 1 on non-motorized trails upon completion of an environmental review and public comment process, driven by local forests and/or districts.
Prohibit Class 2 and 3 on non-motorized trails.
Encourage programmatic NEPA review of eMTB impact on non-motorized trails, at the District, Forest or Regional level, to ease the review burden on a trail by trail basis.
Approach eMTB access by using a “Closed Unless Signed Open” basis.

By allowing Class 1 on non-motorized trails on a case by case basis and upon completion of a review process, the USFS offers flexibility at the local level and preserves maintenance funding sources that can be pursued by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers to help maintain thousands of miles of trail throughout the United States. Class 1 e-bike technology is quickly becoming ubiquitous, so the above approach also makes enforcement easier and reduces consumer confusion.

It is my understanding that the above approach is also in line with the wishes of People for Bikes, the International Mountain Bicycling Association, multiple mountain bike manufacturers, as well as my own local mountain bike organization, the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance.

Thank you,

-Your Name

Submit your comments here:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...ject=ORMS-2619

[altasnob]

Evergreen is not anti-ebike. They build ebike trails and want Class 1's to be legal everywhere mountain bikes are currently legal. Evergreen is afraid that if ebikes are defined as "non-motorized" it will screw everything up, cut the funding they received for trail building, and give hikers and equestrians even more reason to hate mountain bikes.

[grinch]

Fair play. Makes sense

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Rossymcg]

Pretty sure we've figured that out: Canada and Europe.

f

[Bunion 2020]

Evergreen is not anti-ebike. They build ebike trails and want Class 1's to be legal everywhere mountain bikes are currently legal. Evergreen is afraid that if ebikes are defined as "non-motorized" it will screw everything up, cut the funding they received for trail building, and give hikers and equestrians even more reason to hate mountain bikes.

A lot of unintended consequences. Who could have seen that coming.

[donutlynx]

imba: "a motorized vehicle isn't motorized."

sure. that makes sense. it's just a bike with a motor to assist with pedaling.

everything will be fine. very logical.

[grinch]

Thats been proven . Guess you were sleeping or just slow

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[donutlynx]

way too slow. need to get a non-motorized bike, but with a motor on it.

[grinch]

Case and point. Sloooow

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Bunion 2020]

People for Bike=an advocacy group for the Bike and E-bike industry.

IMBA=an advocacy group for no bikes in the Backcountry.

Gimp=A mosquito buzzing around your ear.

[climberevan]

I wasn't planning to, since I'm fine with the proposed changes, but I guess I'll comment just to offset the "that motor is not a motor" commenters. I'm disappointed that so many purported bicycle advocacy groups are caving to the e-idiocy.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

If the fat and lazy want to use class 1s on non motorized trails and the rules are changed I’m fine with that. Don’t claim a bike with an electric motor for pedal assist isn’t motorized. Just stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[rod9301]

If the fat and lazy want to use class 1s on non motorized trails and the rules are changed I’m fine with that. Don’t claim a bike with an electric motor for pedal assist isn’t motorized. Just stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Fat and lazy?

https://youtu.be/5bk75FP-hsk



Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[Bunion 2020]

Which National Forest was that shot in and what State?

[grinch]

If the fat and lazy want to use class 1s on non motorized trails and the rules are changed I’m fine with that. Don’t claim a bike with an electric motor for pedal assist isn’t motorized. Just stupid. Ohhh yeeeaaahhh!!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

....

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[MTT]

imba: "a motorized vehicle isn't motorized."

sure. that makes sense. it's just a bike with a motor to assist with pedaling.

everything will be fine. very logical.

At the turn of the century people started putting motors on bicycle's They called them motor cycles
Today we have cars with battery powered motors. Me call them cars and make no distinction from gas powered cars.

And maybe we are getting a bit carried away with rules. 10 years from now batteries will be so good you will have mountain bikes that generate 50 HP with almost indistinguishable power supplies.

If I had the means I would buy an stable a string of horses and lead them around all the wilderness trails camping where I please.
This would be fun and a big fuck you to the MTBers and hikers

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The amount of insecurity showcased by e bike fan bois is hilarious. I really don’t care how people recreate but don’t pretend you use any e bike for any other reason than it makes it easier to pedal.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jono]

I'd like to hear how the designation of non-motorised or motorised changes anything with regard to trail access and funding. I see the argument that changing trails to motorised becomes a problem for trails whose lease etc says no motors allowed, but why would the USFS' naming matter? It seems pretty narrow--only applies to grants specifically designated for non-motorised trails on USFS property, right?

[altasnob]

I'd like to hear how the designation of non-motorised or motorised changes anything with regard to trail access and funding. I see the argument that changing trails to motorised becomes a problem for trails whose lease etc says no motors allowed, but why would the USFS' naming matter? It seems pretty narrow--only applies to grants specifically designated for non-motorised trails on USFS property, right?

Here is what Evergree says about this. It is specific to Washington State, but I could see other states' having similar issues:

"Designating eMTBs as motorized could negatively impact our traditional maintenance and development funding sources for non-motorized trails like RTP, WWRP and NOVA grant funding in Washington State."

The Recreational Trails Program provides federal funds to rehabilitate and maintain trails that provide a backcountry experience.

https://rco.wa.gov/grant/recreational-trails-program/

The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including local and state parks, trails, water access, and the conservation and restoration of state land.

https://rco.wa.gov/grant/washington-...am-recreation/

NOVA grant is the state's Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Account. NOVA is generated from state gas tax revenue and is distributed to pay for maintenance of trails on federal, state, county and municipal public lands. For instance, much of the U.S. Forest Sevice's Cle Elum Ranger District pays for its annual trail maintenance budget through NOVA grants.

Everegreen currently receives funding from all three grant sources above. They are afraid if the USFS designates all ebikes "non-motorized," the people that dole out these Washington State grants may decide to not give Evergreen any more money because they will lump mountain bikes in with dirt bikes (the grant are for non-motorized uses). For instance, if USFS allows all ebikes everywhere bikes are now allowed, state land use managers may not trust Evergreen when they claim their new trail on State land will be off limits to ebikers (they will figure ebikers will just ride on closed trails anyway). And while some of these grants come from exclusive Washington State funding, some receive federal matching dollars.

Evergreen does most, but not all, of their new trail building on state lands. But they appear afraid that if USFS takes a "non-motorized" position to all ebikes, it will affect how state land managers view ebikes.

As I mentioned, Evergreen is the largest, most well funded mtb state advocacy group in the country. They build some of the most epic new trails on earth right now and every state should wish they had an advocacy group as bad ass as they are. There are a lot of very wealthy mountain bikers in the Seattle area who give money to Evergreen. And they agree with grinch that ebikes are here to stay and want to also attract ebike users to their cause. So they are trying to balance the competing interest. I will defer to their expertise on this, so I just commented what they told me to comment. I assume they are speaking to fancy environmental attorneys on this issue to help them decide what their position should be.

[climberevan]

Evergreen is not anti-ebike. They build ebike trails and want Class 1's to be legal everywhere mountain bikes are currently legal. Evergreen is afraid that if ebikes are defined as "non-motorized" it will screw everything up, cut the funding they received for trail building, and give hikers and equestrians even more reason to hate mountain bikes.

Their draft response says the exact opposite. The USFS proposal would clearly include e-mopeds with other motorized vehicles. It seems that Evergreen wants to carve out a spot for Class 1 and define them as non-motorized. Obviously I disagree with that.

If they are worried that the future non-motorized trail projects would exclude mopeds, they are probably right. Those of us who prefer a non-motorized trail system don't have a problem with that.

I think a bigger concern is that groups which are even more opposed to motors than I am would block attempts at building trails if Class 1 mopeds are allowed, since despite any official definition to the contrary, it's obvious to anyone that they have motors.

If moped riders want to advocate for their inclusion, they should go for it. Convince the Sierra Club etc that your motor vehicles are ok. The attempts to get in through the back door by saying that they are not motorized is what galls many.

[jono]

I can't see how the USFS destination changes anything with respect to NOVA (or similar): the question is not what USFS thinks an e-bike is, that's a matter for the organization giving the money. If they say a motor is a motor, then why would they care what the USFS says?

For example, the WWRP program manual only has one reference to motors and trails, and it seems like they're going to use the English language definition--at least until they don't:

Trails Category11
Grants in this category provide for projects whose primary intent is to acquire, develop, or renovate pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, or cross-country ski trails. Projects may include land and/or facilities, such as trailheads; parking; rest, picnic, or view areas; and restrooms that directly support an existing or proposed public trail. These trails and their landscapes, signs, amenities, and barriers must conform to applicable federal, state, and/or local codes and regulations. Trails funded through this program may have either hard or natural surfacing, or a combination thereof.
The intent of this funding source is to acquire, develop, or renovate statewide, regional, and community-oriented recreational trails that provide linkages between communities or other trails, or provide access to destinations of interest to recreationists. Trails in this category are routes constructed for recreational use and may be used as alternatives to
other forms of transportation.

Trails in this category must be for non-motorized use and cannot be part of a city street or county road (“roadway”) such as a sidewalk or unprotected road shoulder, or any other area on the roadway such as a designated bike or combination bike and pedestrian lane.

I can see how some groups would like the USFS to redefine non-motorized like they did with mechanized. But I'm not seeing any reason why it would result in less friction than simply asking these other entities to change their own definitions, since that would have to happen anyway. If the USFS does what they've proposed and some specific trail gets e-bikes the question of whether that makes the trail motorized or not is going to have to be addressed either way.

[altasnob]

I should not have said Evergreen "wants Class 1's to be legal everywhere mountain bikes are currently legal on USFS." Evergreen says they want Class 1 to be designated as "non-motorized" by the USFS but they want each local USFS land manager "to allow Class 1 eMTBs on trails with public support and without negatively affecting trail quality and/or trail user experience." So it sounds like the end result would be a region by region, trail by trail, decision, and not a Class 1's are allowed on every trail.

Evergreen adds, "for many of you, Evergreen has not been working enough to gain more eMTB riding opportunities, while others feel that we are spending too much time on the matter. Regardless of where you are on this issue, your support in rejecting the current USFS proposal is crucial. We cannot let non-motorized trails slip into motorized and risk our ability to maintain and secure ongoing grant funding through our traditional non-motorized funding sources. Once we pass this hurdle, we’ll continue to work on reasonable solutions for Washington State through a statewide e-Bike Policy Development Coalition to find common ground. More details to follow on that."