August 21, 2020
Sent via email to: Andrew.Ellis@usda.gov and
comments-southwestern-lincoln-smokey-bear@usda.gov
Andrew Ellis
NEPA Planner
U.S. Forest Service
Lincoln National Forest
Smokey Bear Ranger District
901 Mechem Drive, Ruidoso, NM 88345
RE: Hale Lake Area Management Project, Draft Environmental Assessment (#56577)
Dear Mr. Ellis:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the
Hale Lake Area Management Project. We recognize that motorized recreation represents a valid and
important form of recreational activity among our nation’s system of public lands. We value the multiple
uses that comprise public enjoyment of, and provide transport throughout, our national forests.
Back Country Horsemen of America
Founded in 1973, BCHA is a national 501(c)(3) non-profit service organization. Our mission is to
perpetuate the common-sense use and enjoyment of horses in America's back country and Wilderness
and to ensure that public lands remain open to recreational stock use. A large part of our mission
includes assisting the various government agencies and non-profit organizations in the maintenance and
management of public trails and horse camps.
Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico
Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico was founded in the fall of 1991 due to the closure of the Holy
Ghost campground to horse camping. Our members are dedicated to the enjoyment of horses in
America’s back country and wilderness, and to ensure that public lands remain open to recreation use.
Volunteerism is a very important part of this vision; it’s imperative this be carried through in agency
conditions, standards, guidelines and objectives. In 2019, BCHNM’s volunteers contributed nearly
5,000 hours on service projects in national forests throughout New Mexico.
New Mexico Horse Council
Founded in 1970, the New Mexico Horse Council (NMHC) is a 501(c)(4) organization established to
represent the diverse equine interests and values in New Mexico. The Council is also the state chapter of
P a g e | 2
the American Horse Council – which is a nation-wide equine organization. The Mission of the NMHC is to
act on behalf of the New Mexico Equine Community through education and promotion of activities
benefitting all equine interests. The Council believes that by keeping an open dialogue with federal,
state and local agencies, the equine interest’s and values in New Mexico will be maintained for present
and future generations.
New Mexico Sportsmen
New Mexico Sportsmen was founded in 1995 and is a state-wide group of sportsmen concerned about
the management and administration of public lands in New Mexico. Our Mission to promote the use of
best available science to manage and preserve the ecological integrity of public lands for the benefit of
fish and wildlife in New Mexico and throughout North America. Many of our members enjoy hiking,
backpacking and trail riding on public lands and a high percentage utilize pack stock to further their
backcountry adventures.
New Mexico Wild
New Mexico Wild is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the protection, restoration, and
continued enjoyment of New Mexico’s wildlands and wilderness areas, with thousands of members
across the state.
Specific Comments on Hale Lake Management Area EA
We support the view that motorized recreational uses should occur only on routes or in areas that have
been officially designated for motorized use. Specifically,
• We oppose the Proposed Action and its attempt to superimpose motorized use, in this case
electric motorized bicycles (e-Bikes), onto trails intended to be shared by hikers, equestrians and
others. Our primary concerns are safety, user conflict and the displacement of traditional nonmotorized users.
• The Proposed Action includes three formal parking/staging areas, formal trailheads, trail signage
and interconnected single-track looping routes for both motorized and non-motorized trail
users. The proposed trail system appears to be skewed heavily toward motorized use and could
require significant effort to address management and enforcement challenges, particularly
when the two proposed trail networks served by a joint trailhead/parking areas would be
separated only by Forest Road 443. Such safety hazards include unloading and loading of horses,
and riders heading to trail heads.
EA Proposes to Make Motorized a Dominate Use Throughout Both Trail Networks
We caution against the agency’s apparent desire to authorize motorized trail use throughout the
majority of both “Single-track network 1” and “Single-track network 2” of the Hale Lake management
area. The Draft EA describes existing unmet demand by the public for designated single-track
motorcycle trails within the District. As a result, Single-track network 2 is proposed wherein motorized
single-track trails would predominate. Doing so would appear to make sense, particular were the agency
to propose to simultaneously set aside the adjacent Single-track network 1 for non-motorized use. But
such is not the case, as the Draft EA includes proposals to authorize the following motorized uses within
Single-track network 1:
P a g e | 3
1. Under the Proposed Action, Class 1 e-Bikes would receive a special vehicle designation, which
would allow for shared-use for e-Bikes with hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding among
the entire proposed trail system.
2. Under Alternative 2, all-terrain vehicle (ATV, or “4-wheeler”), motorcycle and side-by-side offhighway vehicle (OHV) use would be authorized on an approximately 11-mile trail loop that
comprises the existing Hale Canyon trail. The trail would essentially bisect Single-track network
1, from its northwest to southeast corners, while the remainder of the loop would establish OHV
use as the dominate use throughout the southern half of the network.
Under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the Draft EA proposes that within “Single-track
network 1” Class 1 electric bicycles would share trails with non-motorized uses (Draft EA, pp. 3, 6 and 8).
Under existing Forest Service policy, e-Bikes are considered “motorized bicycles” as per the 2005 Travel
Management Rule while agency policy declares that “Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, the Forest Service is
managing e-bikes as motor vehicles.”1 This appears to be acknowledged in the Draft EA where it is
stated that “Single-track network 1 would…receive a special vehicle designation for Class 1 E-bike and
non-motorized use” (Draft EA, p.4).
In summary, the Draft EA proposes that Class 1 electric (motorized) bicycles would be allowed among
both single-track trail systems of network 1 and network 2, while the proposal contained within
Alternative 2 would render much of Single-track network 1 undesirable and unusable by most hikers and
equestrians as a result of motor vehicle noise, vehicle speed and safety concerns associated with
motorcycle, ATV and side-by-side use on the motorized Hale Canyon loop trail. Yet the analyses and
disclosure of potential adverse impacts to non-motorized users and forest resources in the Draft EA is
both incomplete and unbalanced. Our specific comments follow.
The Draft EA Fails to Disclose the Potential Impacts of E-Bike Use
The Draft EA makes vague and unsupported reference to the physical and social impacts of electric
mountain bike use as being no different than those of regular (non-motorized) mountain bikes.
• The Draft EA fails to include a discussion of the range of potential impacts that use of e-Bikes
might present in terms of its unique effects on forest resources and other forest visitors.
Instead, text in the Draft EA instantly dismisses any such comparisons with the following claim:
“The user experience, noise levels, and effects to the trail and other users from Class 1 E-bikes is
comparable to that of a regular mountain bike.” Draft EA, p.8
• This statement is not supported in the EA analysis and appears to contradict existing Forest
Service policy, which states that “E-bikes travel at speeds of 20 to 28 mph, compared to
pedestrians and non-motorized bicycles, which typically travel at speeds ranging from 3 to
10 mph.”2
In other words, the Draft EA errs in its conclusion that the user experience—and
specifically, that of a hiker or an equestrian who encounters an e-Bike on the trail—is
1 U.S. Forest Service Briefing Paper: Classification of E-bikes Under the Travel Management Rule (TMR).
February 15, 2017.
2
Ibid.
P a g e | 4
“comparable” to an encounter with a typical mountain bike rider, given the potential for higher
speeds made capable with the motor assist of a Class 1 e-Bike.
Draft EA Fails to Disclose Potential Physical Impacts on Forest Resources Associated with E-Bike Use
In similar fashion, the Draft EA brushes off the notion for any need of an analysis of the potential
impacts to forest resources from the use of e-Bikes when it states:
“The effects of E-bikes in both Area 1 and 2 are comparable to that of a regular mountain bike, which
does not create major soil degradation with sound trail design. These areas will have very little to
almost no impacts that would result in soil loss or sedimentation movement.” Draft EA, p.29
• Such a claim is unsupported and appears on its face to be inconsistent with the agency’s
acknowledgement that e-Bikes have the potential to travel at significantly higher speeds than
regular mountain bikes, as cited above.
• While the available science is scant regarding the relative physical impacts of e-Bike use as
compared to that of regular mountain bikes, the Draft EA fails to cite any peer-reviewed studies
to support its conclusion that approval of Class 1 e-bike use throughout single-track networks 1
and 2 would “have very little to almost no impacts.” The EA analysis claims only that “sound trail
design” would serve to prevent soil degradation. yet provides few if any specifics regarding how
such sustainable trail alignments would be identified and constructed in the field and by whom.
Presumably, this would be the task of professional trail designers. But the process is not
referenced in the Draft EA.
Draft EA Fails to Disclose Potential Safety Impacts Associated with E-Bike Use
The Draft EA downplays the potential for recreational conflict on the proposed trail networks while it
fails to recognize potential safety hazards associated with the proposal to authorize use of Class 1
electric bikes on otherwise non-motorized trails throughout Single-track network 1.
As stated in the Draft EA (p.8), Class 1 e-Bikes “cannot provide supplemental power at speeds of over
20 miles per hour.” Yet capable riders can, and do, exceed the maximum motor-assisted speed.
Contrast this to speeds capable by non-motorized users such as hikers and horseback riders whose
travel along natural surface trails averages 3 mph or less.
• An e-Bike, which is capable of rapid acceleration and speeds in excess of a standard mountain
bike could represent a danger to other trail users, particularly along relatively flat or uphill
terrain where higher than normal speeds could be attained via the motorized assist. The
Draft EA fails to disclose either the potential cause or results of such user conflict. The Final EA
must include an analysis that is in keeping with published scientific literature regarding trail
P a g e | 5
conflict, including literature reviews published by the federal government, which clearly state
that “Speed is a major source of conflict between trail users.”3
A recent study in Injury Prevention4
found that e-Bike riders were more than three times more likely to
be involved in a collision with a pedestrian, as compared to traditional bike riders. Not surprisingly,
speed was found to represent the most critical factor in such collisions. The study found that an increase
from 10 mph to 20 mph significantly increases the kinetic energy and risk for injury upon impact. The
study concluded that e-Bike use and injury patterns differ from more traditional pedal operated bicycles.
• These or other facts regarding the relative safety of e-Bike use are not referenced in the
Draft EA. At a minimum, the Final EA needs to address the difference in speed of travel between
e-Bikes and non-motorized trail users and its implications for visitor safety, including that of
pedestrians (hikers) and horsemen (equestrians).
Hikers and equestrians, and particularly those with children, often will choose to avoid trails where
there is a potential for encounters with fast-moving bicycles. For example, when selecting among trails
available in a given area, a key criterion shared by equestrians is safety concerns and the sometimes
unpredictable response of their horses or mules in the event of a surprise on-trail encounter. The ability
of e-Bikes to travel at relatively high speeds, combined with their often silent approach, elevate the
potential for dangerous encounters.
• The proposal by in the Draft EA to apply a “special vehicle designation” for Class 1 e-Bike and
non-motorized use in Single-track network 1 would result in these trails becoming viewed by
hikers and equestrians as either less desirable, less compatible for shared use, or outright unsafe
for shared use. Yet these facts are not acknowledged in the Draft EA.
The Draft EA Elevates E The Draft EA Elevates E Elevates E-Bike Use Above Hiking Bike Use Above Hiking Bike Use Above Hikingand Horseback Riding Horseback Riding Horseback Riding
The Draft EA claims that the Proposed Action, via its regulation of motorized trail use and the
decommissioning of unauthorized routes, would serve to reduce—but not necessarily eliminate—
conflict among trail users. It includes the following statements:
“Non-motorized users that are not disturbed by motorized uses such as motorcycles will likely continue
to or begin using the Hale Lake Project area. In certain locations motorcycle use could create conflicts
with pedestrians and horsemen. Non-motorized users could potentially be displaced to other areas on
the District. The displacement of the non-motorized users (pedestrian/horse) can be redistributed in
other general forest areas on the District that accommodate only non-motorized trail use.” (Draft EA,
p.22)
3
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee, 1994. Conflicts
on Multi-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/conflicts.pdf
4 DiMaggio CJ, Bukur M, Wall SP, et al. Injuries associated with electric-powered bikes and scooters: analysis of US
consumer product data. Injury Prevention, Published Online First: 11 November 2019. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev2019-043418. Note: The study reviewed e-Bike use on primarily urban roads and bike paths.
P a g e | 6
The non-motorized users may be displaced, but they have opportunities to hike, bike, and horseback
ride in many other locations on the Smokey Bear District (see Table 1). Conflicts between user groups
could be mitigated by patrolling, signage, and education regarding trail etiquette.” (Draft EA, p.23)
These statements appear intended to apply equally to situations where the use of e-Bikes could create
conflicts with hikers and horsemen. In other words, the Draft EA implies that if hikers and horsemen are
disturbed by safety conflicts posed by motorized uses on shared trail systems, including e-Bike use, then
they should simply pack up and recreate elsewhere.
• We prefer to believe that such sentiments in the Draft EA were not intentional. In any event,
such sentiments would be inconsistent with prevailing law and policy, as described below.
Proposed Action Ignores Guidance Promulgated via the 2005 Travel Management Rule
The Draft EA is deficient because it ignores important guidance contained within the 2005 Forest Service
Travel Management Rule (TMR).5
• The Draft EA does not describe how the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 comply with the
agency’s broad definition of off-road vehicle (ORV) and the requirement that all ORVs be subject
to travel management planning and the so-called “minimization criteria.” Indeed, the Draft EA
does not even mention the governing travel management Executive Orders (EOs).6
As described
previously, it is U.S. Forest Service policy to treat e-Bikes as motorized vehicles. The U.S. Forest
Service codified the minimization criteria in its travel management regulations at 36 C.F.R.
§ 212.55(b), which provide:
“Specific criteria for designation of [motorized] trails and areas. In addition to the
criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and
areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on
the following, with the objective of minimizing:
(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;
(2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;
(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of
National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and
(4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System
lands or neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official shall consider:
(5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas,
taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.” [underline added]
• The Forest Service is obligated to consider and document compliance with these specific criteria
for the designation of motorized trails in its Final EA and Decision Notice (DN). Of particular
relevance to our letter herein, the Draft EA fails to address or disclose the potential effects of
designating trails for motorized recreational use, “with the objective of minimizing conflicts
between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System
5
36 CFR § 212, 251, 261, and 295. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final
Rule.
6
See Exec. Order No. 11644, §§ 1 & 3 (Feb. 8, 1972), as amended by Exec. Order No. 11989 (May 24, 1977);
36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b).
P a g e | 7
lands…” Instead, the Draft EA merely states that conflicts are likely to occur between motorized
and non-motorized trail users and, if such conflict does occur, the mitigation of this potentially
adverse effect would be for non-motorized trail users to recreate elsewhere. Clearly, this
sentiment defies the intent of the TMR and the EOs.
• The Forest Service should commit via the Final EA/DN to develop and implement a trails
management plan for the Hale Lake Management Area, prior to trail construction, to identify
procedures and best management practices that seek to minimize user conflict throughout the
proposed trail system. Such a plan would, of course, include elements of patrolling, signage and
education regarding trail etiquette. It also should consider minimizing user conflict in the siting,
design and construction of parking areas, trail layout and design (including line of sight
considerations), and proper distancing between non-motorized and motorized trails in order to
minimize the potential of intentional or inadvertent trespass by one user group or another.
Case law confirms the Forest Service’s substantive obligation to meaningfully apply and implement—not
simply identify or consider—the minimization criteria when designating each area or trail, and
demonstrate in the administrative record how the agency did so.7
As a recent circuit court of appeals
decision confirmed, the Forest Service must “document how [they] applied [relevant] data on an areaby-area [or route-by-route] basis with the objective of minimizing impacts.”8
Consequently, the Final
EA/DN must include these elements as they relate to special use designations proposed for Class 1 eBikes and for the designation of routes for ORVs (i.e., in this case, motorcycles, ATVs and side-by-sides).
Allowing Class 1 e-Bike Use on Otherwise Non-Motorized Trails is Unenforceable
The Proposed Action limits e-Bike use within Single-track network 1 to those e-Bikes that fall within the
U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission’s (CPSC’s) definition of a Class 1 e-Bike. The CPSC definition
includes a motor that cannot exceed 750 watts and that limits the maximum speed that can be attained
when the motor is engaged to 20 mph. Yet there are two other classes of e-Bike defined by the CPSC
that are not referenced in the Draft EA:
1. Class 2 e-Bikes come with the distinction that the motor assist can be attained either via the
rider peddling or in the complete absence of peddling by use of a throttle (i.e., it can be
propelled up to speeds of 20 mph in a fashion similar to a motorcycle), whereas;
2. Class 3 e-Bikes provide assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and which cease to provide
assistance when the bikes reach the speed of 28 mph. For all three classes, the CPSC limits the
maximum power output of the e-Bike to 750 watts.
As described in the Draft EA, the Proposed Action includes the construction of two new single-track trail
networks—one for non-motorized and Class 1 e-Bike use (network 1), and another for non-motorized
7
See, e.g., Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1072-73 (D. Idaho 2011) (consideration of
the minimization criteria insufficient where agency failed to demonstrate that the criteria “were then
implemented into the decision process”).
8 WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 790 F.3d 920, 931 (9th Cir. 2016).
P a g e | 8
and motorcycle use (network 2). Consequently, all three classes of CPSC-approved e-Bikes would be
allowed on Single-track network 2 (Draft EA, p.8). Yet trail networks 1 and 2 would be separated only by
Forest Road 443, making unauthorized use relatively easy for riders of Class 2 and 3 e-Bikes intent on
accessing Single-track network 1.
• Yet the Draft EA makes no mention of these potential enforcement challenges; nor does it
disclose the subtle, albeit important, distinctions and management challenges that would be
encountered were the Forest Service to authorize the use of Class 1 e-Bikes yet prohibit use of
Class 2 and Class 3 e-Bikes.
In the field, it is difficult to determine which class a given e-Bike conforms to, as identifying stickers,
decals or other information are not required and few manufacturers do so. In addition, there are e-Bikes
that can be programmed to function as either a class 1, 2 or 3 with the push of a button. Moreover,
YouTube contains many videos with tips and work-arounds to negate the governor found most e-Bikes.
• These facts underscore a key fallacy of the Draft EA’s Proposed Action—the assumed ability of
rangers and law enforcement officers in the field to enforce the use of only Class 1 e-Bikes
throughout Single-track network 1.
Compounding the problem, in a new and rapidly evolving market, there are a number of commercially
available e-Bikes that do not comply with the CPSC’s technical regulations and specifications. For
example, there exist e-Bikes (with functional pedals) that are similar in appearance to Class 1 e-Bikes yet
possess motors that exceed 1,000 watts and can achieve speeds exceeding 50 miles per hour.9
Worse
still, some types of e-Bikes currently on the market cannot be distinguished on appearance alone from
traditional non-motorized bicycles.10 It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish
these e-Bikes from the Class 1 e-Bikes that the Forest Service proposes to authorize for use in Singletrack network 1 within the Hale Lake Management Area.
• The Draft EA includes no mention of these significant law enforcement challenges, which should
include training for law enforcement personnel in order to understand the differences among eBike classes (both those legal and not legal for use on Forest Service trails) and to facilitate rapid
and accurate identification of a given e-Bike class in the field.
In summary, the Forest Service’s attempt to prohibit Class 2 and Class 3 e-Bike use—or any of the other
non-CPSC classified e-Bikes—on trails proposed in Single-track network 1 is unenforceable. Any decision
9 Nargess Banks, Looking For The Ultimate Urban Toy? Introducing SWIND EB-01 Hyperbike, Forbes (Feb. 27,
2018), available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nargessbanks/2018/02/27/swindeb01-
hyperbike/#122a56b73a0a (“Designed for the urban adventurer and cross-country adrenalin junkie, the $21,000
(£15,000) bicycle has an electric motor to help boost pedal power and deliver speeds of over 60 mph”); Ben
Coxworth, Rungu's electric fattrike goes pedal-assist, New Atlas (July 8, 2018), available at:
https://newatlas.com/rungu-electric-juggernautmdv/55294/.
10 See, for example, Goat Track SLX, Goat Bikes, at: https://www.goatbikes.com/section811575_327663.html.
P a g e | 9
by the Lincoln National Forest to allow specific types of e-Bikes on a given trail while simultaneously
expecting to prohibit other e-Bike classes on the same trails would be impossible to enforce.
• The Final EA/DN must disclose current law enforcement priorities and capability within the
Smokey Bear Ranger District, and the likelihood of its enforcement of e-Bike regulations in the
Hale Lake management area. The implementation and enforcement issues described above, and
their associated environmental impacts, must be analyzed and disclosed in the Final EA/DN.
Conclusions
We applaud the Smokey Bear Ranger District for its desire to better manage recreational use on national
forest system lands in the vicinity of Hale Lake. We understand that the agency is attempting to balance
increasing resource damage—which has occurred as a result of an obsolete and often illegally-created
system of roads, ways and trails—with expanding recreational demand placed by the public. We are glad
that the agency has made this project a priority and has directed resources toward its implementation.
We do not dispute the important fact that e-Bikes have the potential to introduce people to the wonder
and excitement of exploring their national forests and, in particular, create opportunities for people who
would not otherwise have the physical ability to strike out on their own without the motor assist
provided by an e-Bike. We understand that e-Bikes have their place on public lands and we embrace
their potential benefits to the recreating public. Our chief argument remains that e-Bikes should be
allowed in landscapes designated for motorized vehicle use. For example the relatively low speed that
currently characterizes uphill travel by mountain bikes would become a thing of the past if e-Bikes were
introduced to non-motorized trails. Even riders of Class 1 e-Bikes have the potential to approach
20 miles per hour when traveling uphill, irrespective of most trail grades.
The concept of multi-use trails where hikers, hunters, equestrians, and mountain bikers share a common
path in relative harmony could become a casualty of the current Proposed Action. The Forest Service
has a responsibility to ensure this does not occur by not invoking a special vehicle designation for Class 1
e-Bike and non-motorized use. Instead, we believe that the agency should concentrate its efforts toward
directing all e-Bike use to the proposed trail system in Single-track network 2.
Sincerely,
Randy Rasmussen, Director, Public Lands & Recreation
Back County Horsemen of America
P.O. Box 1182
Columbia Falls, MT 59912-1182
Maresa Luzier, Public Lands Chair
Back Country Horsemen of New Mexico
P.O. Box 37005
Albuquerque, NM 87176-7005
Oscar Simpson, President
New Mexico Horse Council
P.O. Box 10206
Albuquerque, NM 87184
P a g e | 10
Oscar Simpson, State Chair
New Mexico Sportsmen
3320 12th St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
Logan Glasenapp, Attorney
New Mexico Wild
317 Commercial St. NE, Suite 300
Albuquerque, NM 87102
P a g e | 11
Post script:
The picture and caption above are taken from an advertisement that promotes the sale of a motorized
electric bicycle. In this instance, the manufacturer clearly targets a young and adrenalin-seeking
demographic through the use of statements such as:
• The e-Bike is “blazing fast over the toughest trails,”
• Its design “(makes) it easy to maintain speed in dicey conditions,”
• Its motor “amplifies your pedaling input by a mind blowing 410%,”
• “At peak assist, it’s like having four of you powering the pedals…,” and
• “This is the bike that lets you summit the longest, nastiest climbs with energy to spare so that
you can bomb down the longest, nastiest descents.”
The e-Bike depicted has “the most powerful motor on the market” at 250W nominal and a 700 watthour battery. As such, it falls well within the parameters of a Class 1 e-Bike as defined within the
Draft EA.
The picture above appears to underscore a break-the-rules mentality by depicting this “blazing fast” eBike rider as either uninterested or incapable of traveling within the trail tread (thereby failing any test
of the minimum impact ethos). Any message encouraging “share the trail” with other users or to yield or
exercise caution when approaching hikers or equestrians is absent.
While perhaps all fine and good for use and enjoyment on a closed-course e-Bike park, an encounter
with a thrill-seeking rider on such a machine is the last thing an equestrian wants to encounter while
trying to enjoy any non-motorized trail on their national forests.