Editor's note: This updates with reaction from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Thirteen months after Interior Secretary David Bernhardt ordered the National Park Service to grant eBike riders the same access in parks as muscle-powered cyclists enjoyed, the Interior Department on Friday finalized the regulations that allow that access.
“Enhancing access to our public lands and expanding recreational opportunities to all Americans is a priority for the Trump administration,” the secretary said in a release. “The new regulations allow our public land managers to provide eBike access to bike trails, enhancing the opportunities to utilize our public lands to create life-long memories.”
The policy change towards the end of August 2019 came without public disclosure and without an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposal before it was implemented, moves that appear in conflict with the Code of Federal Regulations. The secretarial order called for the policy to be adopted "unless otherwise prohibited by law or regulation" within two weeks. It also called for public comment, after the fact, some time in the future.
That call for public comment came in April.
In December 2019 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a lawsuit to overturn the Interior Department's move to expand eBike access in the National Park System. The 31-page filing, made by PEER with three other conservation groups and two individuals, charged that the decision-making process was flawed in that it violated not only the Administrative Procedures Act but also the National Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs also argued that an advisory committee comprised of industry friendly representatives met regularly with Interior officials to lobby for the increased access and helped develop the new policy.
Officials with PEER said Friday that Interior's announcement that it had finalized eBike rules for the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation would not derail the lawsuit. Concerns ranging from the risks of high-speed eBikes to visitors and wildlife, spooking horses on mixed-use trails, and degradng the quality of the backcountry experience have not been addressed, the organization said.
“The Park Service’s undue haste resembles an eBike whizzing by with an irresponsible teenager on the throttle,” said PEER Senior Counsel Peter Jenkins. “Interior and the Park Service realized they were caught with their legal pants down and are scrambling for cover.
“This rule is the product of industry influence having nothing to do with improving the park experience – a topic on which the Park Service has yet to even do a preliminary assessment,” added Jenkins. “Given the major challenges facing a Park Service in the grip of a pandemic, this is a questionable use of its limited regulatory resources.”
There are three "classes" of eBikes:
* Class 1: eBikes that are pedal-assist only, with no throttle, and have a maximum assisted speed of 20 mph.
* Class 2: eBikes that also have a maximum speed of 20 mph, but are throttle-assisted.
* Class 3: eBikes that are pedal-assist only, with no throttle, and a maximum assisted speed of 28 mph.
Part of the secretary's directive called for public land managers to bring their eBike experience more in line with state rules. The National Park Service policy adopted over a year ago has already resulted in more than 385 national parks evaluating e-bike use.
The final rules in large part adopt the existing federal definition of eBikes as a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of not more than 750 watts (1 horsepower). The rules look to the classification system developed by a majority of states to differentiate between different types of eBikes. These new regulations clarify the authority of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to increase recreational opportunities for those who enjoy the peddling assistance eBikes can provide. The regulations make clear the agencies can allow eBikes on roads and trails that are open to traditional bicycles through the issuance of site-specific decisions.
Park superintendents have discretion to decide which classes of eBikes are allowed on trails.
Public lands designated by Congress as “wilderness areas” will remain off-limits to both traditional bicycles and eBikes.
Comments
This is just another case where the republicans currently in charge of the NPS do not and apparently cannot comprehend either the law or the concept of due process. In a democracy, it isn't just about what you want and it doesn't matter how much you want it. There are laws establishing the processes by which decisions are made; those laws are there to ensure that everyone's wants and needs are considered; and no one group or individual gets to just wave their hands and dictate the outcome. In this case, those relevant legal requirements weren't met; no legitimate due process was followed; and, under those circumstances, the decision, whether good or bad in anyone's opinion, is illegal and must be considered null and void. It wouldn't have been hard for this decision, very probably with the same outcome, to have been made the right way; but, it wasn't made the right way and it can't stand because it sets the precedent that the law doesn't count, only it damn sure does. Again, that's the law; grow up and deal with it.
I recall a call for public imput locally to this rule at the end of last year. Saw e-mountain bikes being used on trails in the tuscon area a year ago. They are occasionally seen on DNR and county partks in Western Washington. It is reasonable for class 1 bikes to use trails open to non powered bikes. There is no more chance of spooking livestock or wildlife from a 250watt motor bicycle than one without a motor.
I am wholeheartedly opposed to e-bikes on any mountain bike trails. E-bikes are bicycles (cylces) that have a motor. Motor+cycles = MOTORCYCLES. Just because it is an electric motor, does not make it any less of a motorcycle than a Tesla is considered a "car". The increased power and speed endanger other riders, equestrians, hikers, and wildlife, all the more so in that their speed is quiet, so they come upon unsuspecting victims quickly and quietly. The mechanical advantages of ebikes also lead to increased wear-and-tear on the trail, from their increased speed, power, and weight. Furthermore, frequently ebikers are less experienced riders than traditional mountain bikers, leading to less control at higher speeds, increasing the risk of a serious accident when situations arise. Ebikes have their place in the spectrum of transportation modalities, just not on mountain bike trails.
Long time mountain biker here (32 years). Now an Ebiker (56 years old). me in an Ebike does nothing to harm others trail experience and gives me a healthy fun recreation that I deserve as a tax payer. Provide access and educ instead of banning based on ignorance. If the access causes issues, then change public policy. Enjoy life people and let others do the same.
In places where Ebikes are allowed, none of your seemingly logi concerns have come to fruition. It's ok to let others have healthy fun if your experience is not damaged right?
Well, it looks like all aspects of my case have been made. We have, right here in these comments, strong opinions and assertions for and against each side. Had the established laws governing due process been followed in the first place, everybody's wants and needs would have been duly heard, in accordance with the law. Again, although in a democracy, it isn't just about what you want and it doesn't matter how much you want it, each argument would have been properly and rationally considered and no one group or individual would have just waved their hands and dictated the outcome. Nobody's childish and twisted alternative version of the facts would have gone unchallenged.
But nooooooo. Because, as I have said so often, the republicans currently in charge do not and apparently cannot comprehend either the law or the concept of due process, the decisions on this topic will forever be considered tainted and we are doomed to argue about them ...possibly forever. The relevant legal requirements governing this decision making process weren't met; no legitimate due process was followed; the decisons were just reverse engineered and pasted together after the fact to only make it look legal when much of the public protested; and, under those circumstances, these decisions, whether good or bad in anyone's opinion, will ooze into history as just another toxic vestige of the incompetent Trump years.
I'm 61 years old. I have a Class 3 E-bike. I ride it on the trails near my home. I find that my average speed is only 1-2 mph faster than I achieve when riding my regular bike with no motor. The only real difference is I am no longer limited to trails without hills. I never get up to the 20 mph speed of a Class 1 bike except down a hill from time to time, which I can also achieve on my regular bike. I'm a heavy guy. The combined weight of my body and my regular bike is more than the weight of the average person on an E-bike. The E-bike is not the cause of the problems described in above comments. The combined weight and the speed choices are the issue. If you want to protect the environment or others, establish speed limits (you can even have them vary by weight class if you want, ie transport trucks on hiways). Don't force those of us that need the help of the electric motor off the trail.