Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility maintains the National Park Service has done a poor job of analyzing the impacts of eBikes on the National Park System and its users.
While the National Park Service has been studying the impacts of eBikes in the National Park System, the agency really knows little about the impacts on the environment or on other trail users, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The draft "programmatic environmental assessment" on Use of Electric Bicycles Within the National Park System the Park Service released in June "provides no current information on the actual number of roads and trails in which 130 park units are now approved for eBikes, or even whether 130 units remains accurate in 2023," PEER said Thursday in its comments on the PEA. "It provides zero indication of how many backcountry trails, i.e., the most significantly impacted trails in the system, have been approved or where they are."
Regarding user impacts, PEER wrote that the PEA " fails to adequately assess the conflicts created by the NPS’s approval of eBikes. It does not meaningfully quantify how eBikes can climb more elevation faster without stopping; maintain higher overall velocity; and pass other trail users more frequently which, when executed improperly (as is foreseeable), can disrupt single-track traffic and increase the risk of collision. Also because eBikes (typically 50-60 lbs.) weigh more than non-motorized trail bikes (typically 25-30 lbs.), any such collision carries a greater risk of serious injury."
The National Park Service did not immediately respond Thursday when asked about PEER's comments.
The PEA is the result of a lawsuit won by PEER in 2022. The federal court ordered NPS to conduct the assessment as a condition of retaining its policy authorizing individual parks to allow eBikes on trails and roads open to traditional human-powered bikes.
The resulting 47-page assessment reveals just how little information the agency had gathered on the topics it should have evaluated before changing the policy, PEER claimed. In its comments, the organization said the PEA didn't adequately evaluate how eBikes impact wildlife, did not examine conflicts experienced in other state, local, and other federal jurisdictions between eBikes and hikers, horse riders and traditional bicyclists, and didn;t assess concerns about fires sparked by the bike's batteries.
“The Park Service assessment repeatedly claims that any negative impacts will be avoided by ‘user education’ without providing any reason for confidence in that approach,” said PEER Senior Counsel Peter Jenkins. “On eBikes, the Park Service is hoping for the best but without analyzing, let alone preparing for, the worst.”
In addition, the NPS assessment did not address how promised mitigation measures would be implemented or what they would cost, the organization claimed. Nor did the assessment discuss the added enforcement duties imposed on park rangers or the heightened burden on maintenance of unpaved trails from increased traffic by heavier, faster e-bikes, it added.
“It is illustrative that the Park Service did not interview a single party outside the agency in compiling this supposedly comprehensive assessment,” Jenkins said. “This document suggests the Park Service’s capacity for serious environmental planning has badly atrophied.”
