The US Forest Service is soliciting public comment on proposed changes to management of e-bikes on Forest Service lands to bring these policies in line with guidance already in effect for the Department of Interior, BLM and National Parks:

​"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, is proposing to revise its directives to update and clarify guidance on management of electric bicycle (e-bike) use on National Forest System (NFS) lands. E-bikes have become increasingly popular nationwide among outdoor recreationists on NFS and other federal lands. E-bikes expand recreational opportunities for many people, particularly the elderly and disabled, enabling them to enjoy the outdoors and associated health benefits. Currently e-bike use is not allowed on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands that are not designated for motor vehicle use. To promote designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for e-bike use, the proposed revisions include new definitions for an e-bike and a Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 e-bike, as well as guidance and criteria for designating e-bike use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands...Over 27 States have adopted a standard definition for an e-bike and a three-tiered classification system for e-bikes. Additionally, the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) recently issued proposed e-bike rules for the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Park Service pursuant to a Secretarial Order that promotes e-bike use on DOI-managed federal lands. The Forest Service’s proposed directive revisions align with the 27 States and DOI’s proposed e-bike rules in adopting a standard definition for an e-bike and a three-tiered classification for e-bikes and align with DOI’s proposed e-bike rules in requiring site specific decision-making and environmental analysis at the local level to allow e-bike use" 

FAMB has carefully considered this issue, and will be submitting the following comments to the US Forest Service: 

1. FAMB supports the USFS adopting a standard definition for an e-bike separate from a traditional mountain bike.
2. FAMB supports the USFS adopting a three three-tiered classification for e-bikes (Class 1, 2, and 3). 
3. FAMB supports giving local Forest Service districts the authority to decide whether and where e-bikes should be allowed beyond trails that are currently open to motorized use, as long as access is not lost or impeded for traditional mountain bikes.
4. Only Class 1 e-bikes should be considered for use on trails that are currently designated non-motorized.

Here are some helpful resources on e-bikes if you're looking to educate yourself on the topic:
https://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/e-bikes/
Different classes of e-bikes:
https://www.bosch-ebike.com/us/everything-about-the-ebike/stories/three-class-ebike-system/ 
IMBA’s stance:
https://www.imba.com/education/emtb
Proposed changes to USFS Regs:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09-24/pdf/2020-21128.pdf

We recognize that this can be a controversial and emotionally charged issue for many. FAMB's mission is the preservation and advancement of mountain biking in the Flathead, and we have crafted these comments in keeping with this mission. Stay tuned for our developing stance on this and many other mountain biking-related issues - FAMB's Position Statements are listed on our website, and we're always happy to hear from you on these issues. 

Wherever you fall on the e-bikes issue, you can submit comments to the US Forest Service regarding their proposed changes through October 26: 
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?project=ORMS-2619

Job Description
Trail Project Coordinator (TPC)
Flathead Area Mountain Bikers
Position Open until Filled

Part-time year-round position
Wage: $18.00/hour
Estimated time commitment: Average 5-10 hours/week, April - October. Periodic work during the offseason, estimated at 50 hours total.
Position open until filled.

Ideal qualifications 

• Ability to work independently much of the time, and collaborate where appropriate.
• Professional, personable demeanor; organized.
• The TPC will have a good working knowledge of mountain bike (and not-so-MTB-friendly) trails around the Flathead, including trailhead locations and best access points. This person will also demonstrate a willingness and ability to scope out trails that are not as familiar. 
• The TPC will have a good handle on what generally makes a trail a “good mountain biking trail”. S/he will ideally have some knowledge of trail maintenance and construction standards and techniques. Familiarity with land manager trail standards (US Forest Service and/or DNRC), and knowledge of freeride trail and feature maintenance and construction standards is a plus. 
• Familiarity with Google Earth and Google Drive including Google Sheets, Google Docs, and Google Calendar, and ability to check phone & work email daily during the work season.

Responsibilities

• Work in conjunction with the Executive Director to interface with land managers and partners to ensure that FAMB’s Flathead Trail Crew (FTC) can take on projects that are important to the mountain biking community and ensure that FAMB is operating in accordance with these entities’ rules and regulations. 
• Prepare land manager paperwork to allow the FTC to work on city/state/federal lands, and establish a good working relationship with contacts at all of these entities. 
• Our FTC Trail Crew Leader is often out of mobile phone range during the day, so it would be helpful for the Trail Project Coordinator to have some computer and/or mobile phone access at some point during weekdays to serve as the point of contact with land managers.
• Help FAMB’s Trail Crew Leader schedule Flathead Trail Crew work. 
• Using FTC work logs, solicited rider feedback, and trail scouting, publish trail statuses for public view for popular mountain bike trails in the valley on a platform that FAMB will provide or select. 
• Solicit trail work suggestions from the broader public, make a decision whether or not to act upon these suggestions, and correspond in a professional manner with those who submit feedback.
• Be available for the TCL to check in via text message for safety at the end of each work day (this can be shared with other FAMB employees/board members as needed for vacations, being out of mobile range, etc.). Ability to respond to quick text/phone calls here and there from the TCL during the day if s/he has questions is helpful. 
• Oversee trail maintenance and construction at Spencer Trails. Work with FAMB board members to hire trail crew, scout trails for work/improvements needed, direct trail crew, maintain a record of all volunteer hours, and inspect work done. Oversee FAMB volunteer trail work evenings once/week in the Spring and Fall (Typically 4-5 2 hour sessions in both the Spring and Fall). Conduct periodic trail checks and record any issues or trouble spots. 
• Oversee Armory Pump Track maintenance, which is usually accomplished with 2-3 volunteer days per year, plus 1-2 minor issues to address during the summer season. Potentially in the future, oversee construction of Phase II.
• Keep an inventory of FAMB trail work tools and equipment, and ensure that equipment is maintained and stored properly, and replaced when needed.

​How to apply, or Contact for Questions 
Send cover letter and resume to info@flatheadamb.org. 

If you haven't seen a copy of this Summer's Flathead Living Magazine, you may want to go grab a free copy from your local newsstand! FAMB was featured on the cover and with a great article that discusses some of the great things we're up to at Spencer Trails and with our Flathead Trail Crew, including planning for some really exciting large-scale trail development projects on the horizon (Taylor Hellroaring and Crystal Cedar). Grab yourself a hard copy, check it out in all of its splendor using the viewer below, or find it online!

FAMB has some good news to brighten your day in otherwise difficult times: the Forest Service has issued its final approval for 25 miles of trail in the Crystal Cedar project in Columbia Falls! A huge thanks to everyone who submitted comments supporting this project. And our gratitude goes out to everyone at Gateway to Glacier Trails who have put a lot of time into ushering this project along.  

This project includes both recreation components (trails and trailheads) and forestry components (both commercial logging and fuels reduction). You can read the full environmental analysis of the project on the USFS website, and to read the final decision, click here.

A map of the approved trails appears below, and you can view a map of the planned logging here.

We'll begin building trails and trailheads as soon as we can, and will be working in partnership with Gateway to Glacier every step of the way. We may start on some small portions of the project as soon as this summer, but many of the trails won't be built until the logging is completed, which will likely take 3-5 years. We'll be able to start building trails incrementally as portions of the logging project are completed.  

As always, building these trails will take a lot of time, effort, and money. Watch for FAMB fundraising efforts in the future so we can get these trails built and open! 

On August 29th, 2019, the Secretary of the Interior issued a Secretarial Order stating that e-bikes should be allowed anywhere regular bikes are allowed in National Parks and on BLM land, and giving the relevant governmental agencies 30 days to promulgate rules. While this doesn't impact us much here in the Flathead Valley, there are questions about whether the US Forest Service might implement such changes sometime in the near future. For more on this issue, check out this article appearing in Outside Magazine, featuring statements from FAMB Board Member Noah Bodman: https://www.outsideonline.com/2402117/public-lands-ebikes 

On September 1, FAMB conducted a brief survey to gauge public opinion on how e-bikes should be looked at by land managers for purposes of deciding access. 79% of respondents said their primary trail use was mountain biking, and 15% said their primary trail use was on foot. The e-bike question was almost a dead heat: 38% thought e-bikes should be viewed as motorized vehicles, 27% thought e-bikes should be treated just like mountain bikes, and 35% felt that e-bikes deserve to be looked at as a new and separate category of trail use.  

In a letter to the editor of the Flathead Beacon, FAMB board member Noah Bodman applauds the Forest service approach to recreation. You can read the full text here, and we have pasted it below as well:

Forest Service Should be Applauded for Approach to RecreationThere’s no question that increasing use raises concerns about interactions with wildlifeBY NOAH BODMAN // JUL 27, 2019
Recreational use on our forests has increased tremendously over the last decade but the infrastructure to support that use hasn’t kept pace, and our trails are overcrowded. The solution is simple: we need more trails, and more trailheads. Thankfully, the Forest Service is working on projects like Taylor Hellroaring and Crystal Cedar that will go a long way towards meeting these needs.
The incentives for these trails are clear: spreading out users will solve many of the overcrowding problems we see, and better recreational opportunities in the valley benefit the community as a whole. A Headwaters Economics Study in Whitefish estimated that “outdoor recreation generates $101.2 million in spending annually and contributes approximately 1,460 jobs and $41.1 million in income in the community.”
Of course, the economics of the situation aren’t the primary reason for these trails. For many of us, a large part of the reason we live in the Flathead is because of the outdoor opportunities that the area offers.
There’s no question that increasing use raises concerns about interactions with wildlife, specifically bears. And yes, we can do a better job educating people about taking precautions like carrying bear spray. But vocal opponents of these projects have adopted a “sky is falling” mantra with respect to mountain bikes that isn’t backed up by data – the fact is, bike/bear interactions are extraordinarily rare. That doesn’t mean reasonable precautions shouldn’t be taken, but banning bikes or trail runners is an overreaction.
This is why Forest Supervisor Chip Weber’s approach to forest management should be applauded. Trail construction projects and event permits are analyzed with wildlife in mind, and reasonable precautions are taken. But after taking those considerations into account, much needed improvements to recreational amenities are moving forward, and the community as a whole will benefit.
Noah Bodman, board member
Flathead Area Mountain Bikers

You can read this article at the source: https://flatheadbeacon.com/2019/06/28/risk-recreation-wildlands-offering-broader-perspective/

We also repost it here in its entirety:

Risk and Recreation on Wildlands – Offering a Broader PerspectiveBalancing recreation, land management and conservation on public lands
BY CHIP WEBER // JUN 28, 2019
​
For several years there has been an active dialogue regarding risks associated with recreation in wildlands and concern for the safety of people who choose to do so. Much of this discussion has been focused on interactions between grizzly bears and humans when running or mountain biking on trails. There is strong and expanding interest from the public in partaking in these activities (and many others) on the Flathead National Forest and other forested public lands. There are several proposed trail additions and events on the forest that have been the subject of much discussion. Public understanding could benefit from a broader discussion around these subjects than has been occurring.
I think individual values are driving the discussion, not just for the public, but also for professional biologists I deeply respect. Biologists and bear management specialists who caution against running or mountain biking correctly base those concerns on bears’ response to “prey behavior” like running or their defensive reaction when surprised by something moving quickly toward them in the woods. There is a real risk when these things occur. I would like to offer a different way of thinking about that and other risks which occur when people recreate in the woods.
There are several questions I would like to pose and, at least partially answer. First, how great are the risks of recreational activities in wildlands occupied by bears? What are the activities that pose the greatest risk and what is the relative risk of the biking and running people seem most concerned about? How do those risks compare to risks of other activities that commonly occur on the national forests? I will also offer a perspective on concerns about how these conflicts often do not go well for the bears involved.
Finally, I want to discuss how I think we should consider risks in the context of the increasing demand for recreation on public lands and direction we have as an agency to provide welcome and access to the public on their national forests. I think important value differences are generating most of the conflict around how these lands should be used.
Bears and people are increasingly coming into contact as bear populations grow, their geographic distribution expands, and people increasingly use the forests for recreation and other purposes. I looked at data on human fatalities from bear attacks available on Wikipedia that references each incident and the human activity associated with that attack. I limited my considerations to incidents occurring since 1990 because mountain biking and trail running weren’t very prevalent on the landscape prior to 1990.
There have been 78 human fatalities from black bears and brown bears (which include grizzly bears) since 1990 in North America. Of those, 37 percent were associated with hiking or walking, 12 percent hunting, 4 percent fishing, and 1 percent tending fence on horseback. So, 54 percent of the fatalities were associated with slow quiet activities
The next most frequent was camping at 19 percent. These attacks are often associated with food storage issues. They may occur in remote quiet settings or more noisy developed campsites, so I considered them separately. About 8 percent of fatal bear attacks occurred at people’s homes. There were a variety of other activities that only rarely resulted in bear caused fatalities, including mountain biking 3 percent and running 4 percent. This information at least begs the question of whether limiting folks to enjoying only slow, quiet activities in areas where bears are present provides any greater safety for people or bears.
There are many steps we can take that can lower (not eliminate) risk of a bear attack. Some of these are included as guidelines or desired conditions in our Forest Plan. Specific trail locations and design, increased sight distances and bear awareness education are examples.
What is the relative risk to bears from this? The Northern Continental Divide grizzly population has steadily increased at 2-3 percent per year and their geographic distribution has doubled over a ten-year period, even as human use of the Forest has rapidly increased. Black bears continue to thrive across the landscape. Very few bears have been euthanized following conflicts with bikers or runners on trails even as compared to conflicts from other trail uses. Food conditioning conflicts remain the most common issue resulting in bears having to be removed. While it is true that individual bears can lose their lives from trail user conflicts, this is not an issue significantly affecting population growth which remains robust.
How does the risk you are exposed to in these activities compare to other recreational activities that occur on the national forests?
What about rafting, boating, swimming, or fishing? Each of these activities has broad acceptance to occur on national forests, often in very wild and remote settings. From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal accidental drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 332 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents. We do many things to try to promote water safety, but we don’t tell folks to stay away from the water.
So why such a different reaction to the much lower risks from wildlife encounters? These are low probability, high consequence events. Deaths from grizzly attacks are horrific. We have a visceral response to that imagery that makes the probability of it happening seem much higher than it is. Activities like driving account for many more deaths, still, driving for pleasure is the number one recreational activity in the country. We normalize risks from these activities because accidents and deaths occur so much more frequently. For a more familiar example, people feel safer driving (fairly high risk) than flying (very low risk).
I would suggest that we consider these different activities on an equal basis in the context of their relative risks when promoting recreation on national forests and other wildlands. All of that said, I think this conversation needs to address an entirely different aspect of risk, namely, who gets to decide what risks anyone takes in their recreational pursuits. I like to make those choices for myself and I want you to be able to do so as well.
Thrill seekers enjoy activities like whitewater rafting and kayaking, rock climbing, hang gliding, downhill and backcountry skiing, and riding challenging trails. The joy of these experiences provides great quality of life for both locals and visitors. The economic benefits from this are expressed directly in local communities and indirectly by making this a desirable place to live.
How will we, as a society, decide these questions? Do we want our decisions to reflect a narrow range of values, where only a certain, few, “approved” uses of public lands may occur? As bears expand their territories, do we want to increasingly put more and more public lands off limits to recreation that comes with risks? We have a forest plan that seeks to provide the “greatest good for the greatest number,” valuing all of these uses and providing places for awesome front-country uses like biking and running as well as amazing, quiet and solitude in world class wilderness. I hope we will continue to value it all.
We are continuing to bring forward projects that enhance recreational enjoyment and access on the forest. As you think about this, I encourage you to stay engaged. You can inform yourself of the risks associated with your recreational pursuits, learn how to mitigate them to the extent possible, choose what to do based on your own values and own the consequences of your choices.
I expect this debate will continue. In the meantime, we welcome you to your lands!
Chip Weber serves as the Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest.