When it comes to managing the National Park System, the example before us is clearly not the right way. In this case, we're referring to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and de facto National Park Service Director P. Dan Smith on, most recently, the topic of eBikes in the parks.

Bernhardt seems to treat the parks as his fiefdom to manage to the benefit of his industry friends. For Smith, well, he follows the secretary's lead. 

Evidence of that arose at the end of 2018, when the partial government shutdown arrived. While the National Park System was closed during past government shutdowns, Bernhardt wanted it kept open, and Smith agreed. They even agreed, after piles of garbage arose and restrooms turned disgusting, to divert Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act dollars to pay for custodial staff.

We know, of course, that keeping the parks open wasn't the best decision. One of Joshua Tree National Park's iconic trees was cut down, a backcountry traveler in Big Bend National Park broke his leg and was extremely fortunate to encounter an off-duty ranger, who carried him on his back for two miles, and off-roaders went where they shouldn't in Death Valley National Park. How many other issues arose during the partial shutdown is hard to know, as Interior is dragging its feet on responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.

That the Interior secretary would open the gates to allow eBikes to motor down park trails where traditional bicycles can roll shouldn't be surprising. Back in November 2018, during a meeting of the “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, one committee member, Phil Morlock, a vice president at Shimano North America Holdings, pointed out that Interior policy at the time banned eBikes from some areas of public lands because they were considered to be motorized vehicles.

"He suggested that this specific case be used as an example to review existing DOI policy issues which prevent outdoor recreationists from using new technology on public lands," draft minutes from the meeting noted.

While it isn't surprising that Bernhardt issued a secretarial order last week to allow greater eBike access (will privately owned drones get clearance next?), how he did, and how Smith responded in a press release for the public and a directive to his superintendents, are examples of how not to manage the parks. Or any business.

There had been an agreement to issue the policy this coming Thursday, but Bernhardt surprised more than a few folks, including some in the National Park Service, by releasing it last Thursday evening. In his secretarial order, Bernhardt said that within two weeks from last Thursday all three classes of eBikes must be exempted from being considered motorized vehicles within the park system.

Within 30 days, Bernhardt went on, he wanted to see summaries of any policy changes needed to increase eBike access to the parks, of any laws or regulations that stand in the way of such access, and a timeline for seeking public comment on changing any regulations to allow greater eBike access. At that time, as well, he wanted the National Park Service to provide visitors with guidance on where they could ride their eBikes.

In other words, first grant eBike access to park visitors and then explain how to make it neat and legal. Even though, Bernhardt should have engaged the public, the various trail groups, communities around parks, and other park users before he released the policy. Oh, and maybe evaluated potential visitor conflicts, impacts to wildlife and cultural resources, cost of enforcement—but that would have made his decision informed rather than seemingly haphazard. 

As for Smith, he sent out a press release Friday stating that the Park Service has "a new electric bicycle policy for national parks..." Nevermind that under 36 CFR Section 1.5 the Park Service needs to go through rulemaking steps before it can adopt such a policy.

But there's more that's baffling when you read Smith's press release and his directive to superintendents. For instance:

* "The operator of an e-bike may only use the motor to assist pedal propulsion," stated Smith's release. "The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling, except in locations open to public motor vehicle traffic." 

So, how many park rangers will be needed to monitor whether eBikers are pedaling or not?

* "Park superintendents will retain the right to limit, restrict, or impose conditions of bicycle use and e-bike use in order to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," the release added. "Over the coming month, superintendents will work with their local communities, staff, and partners to determine best practices and guidance for e-bike use in their parks."

So, on one hand Bernhardt is calling for more eBike access, as is Smith ... unless superintendents disagree. And while Bernhardt is calling for 30 days to pass before a public comment period is scheduled, Smith expects superintendents to get that done over the next 30 days. A tight schedule to say the least, if all the steps are followed.

But Smith is making it easy for superintendents to get by without much, if any, public comment. In a memorandum sent to them Friday the acting NPS director said superintendents "must" add language to their compendia (the on-the-ground rulebook used in individual parks for managing uses) to allow eBikes where "traditional bikes are allowed," and he even provided a fill-in-the-blank form for getting the job done.

Furthermore, Smith directed superintendents to adopt existing state laws pertaining to eBikes where their park is found. They also must comply with 36 CFR Section 1.7, which pertains to public notice, he added (if only, perhaps, to say he wanted public comment). He also told them to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, though Smith also pointed out that to meet Bernhardt's directive superintendents will resort to making a "categorial exclusion" that shortcuts the process. 

What will be interesting to see is whether those parks that have blocked eBike use on trails now will be forced to do a 180.

You can argue whether eBikes have a place on hiking trails in the parks, but if you want to go through the rulemaking channels established under the Code of Federal Regulations and be circumspect with your decision-making, the approach Bernhardt and Smith took is not the handbook to follow.

The end result is not only a poor, disjointed example of how to manage "America's best idea," but it does a disservice to all recreational users of the parks, including eBikers. Instead of having a well-thought-out policy for recreation, this just muddies the waters, poses a threat to resources and other park users, and could end up in court.