Cover photo: Anthony Smith

It was only a matter of time before the lawsuits started. Electric mountain bikes are a touchy subject—their proliferation raises all kinds of questions, not the least of which is whether bikes with motors, regardless of how small and powerless, should be allowed on trails designated as non-motorized.

That’s the issue at the heart of a lawsuit filed three weeks ago by a group of equestrians and wilderness advocates, which claims that the U.S. Forest Service unilaterally decided to allow Class 1 E-Mtbs (Class 1 means pedal-assist power, not throttle, and speed is governed at 20 miles-per-hour) on 132 miles of non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest. The complaint isn’t necessarily that e-bikes are allowed on these public trails—though that is the root of the issue, to be sure—it’s that the Forest Service didn’t go about the process to allow them properly, according to the suit filed October 23 in federal court.

Earlier this year, the Tahoe National Forest clarified the e-MTB section on its website, posting a PDF with “additional opportunities” for class 1 bikes—class 2 and 3 bikes are allowed only on roads and trails designated for motorized use—on recommended non-motorized trails. This includes trails in and around Downieville, Truckee and Nevada City, and throughout the Forest, which spans 850,000 acres in California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see the full list here).

The suit’s plaintiffs—the Back Country Horsemen of America, the Backcountry Horsemen of California, Gold Country Trails Council, The Wilderness Society and The Forest Issues Group—claim that by allowing additional access for class 1 e-bikes, the Forest Service acted without the appropriate public notice, comment period or environmental review process, which violates its travel management regulations.

They say that the Forest Service should’ve assessed the potential social impact of promoting e-bike opportunities before they deemed them OK on certain trails.

“Equestrians, in particular, often will choose to avoid trails where there is a potential for encounters with fast-moving bicycles. Their selection among trails available in a given area is based, in large part, on safety concerns and the sometimes unpredictable response of their horses or mules in the event of a surprise on-trail encounter. The use of e-bikes, and their potential for travel at relatively high speeds, elevate the potential for such surprise encounters. The decision to open trails to e-bikes, and to recommend many trails specifically as e-bike “opportunities,” has and will continue to result in many trails currently designated for pack and saddle stock use becoming either unfit for such use, less accommodating for such use, or less desirable by equestrians for such use. Additionally, this decision will interfere with BCHA members’ enjoyment of traversing natural forest settings with a historic mode of travel.”

While this may elicit a collective eye roll among mountain bikers—historically speaking, this is not a group of users that always co-exists well with mountain bikers of any kind, particularly when it comes to access issues—the suit raises an interesting question: Should class 1 e-MTBs be treated the same as traditional mountain bikes when it comes to non-motorized trail access? The answer to that question, should the lawsuit produce an answer, could inform the future of e-bike access on millions of acres of public land.

Right now, there’s no uniformity across the jurisdictions that manage public lands. In August, the Department of the Interior signed a policy stating that low-speed electric bikes would be subject to the same rules as motor-free bikes in national parks, though the impact of this is minimal since national parks rarely allow mountain bikes on anything other than paved park roads and dirt doubletrack. The BLM also falls under the Department of the Interior, but has deferred to individual managers, saying that e-bikes are only allowed on non-motorized trails if a BLM manager has issued a written decision authorizing their use. The existing Forest Service travel management plan treats e-bikes like motor vehicles, allowing them only on motorized roads and trails. The Tahoe National Forest addendum seems to be the first of its kind (e-bikes are allowed on the trails at Mammoth Mountain, which is on National Forest land but operates under a special use permit).

If this suit proceeds, it could provide much-needed clarity, at least when it comes to the millions of acres of public land where mountain biking is legal. E-bikes are selling like mad, but the rules that govern where they can be ridden are murky, and differ greatly, not only federally, but at the local level as well. There’s so much gray area that the people selling e-bikes may not even know where they’re legal and where to point customers who roll out of the shop with a shiny new e-toy. As a result, people ride them wherever they want. They’re everywhere, at least on the trails here in southern California, and enforcement is scant.

Another plaintiff in the case brought up that exact point. The Gold Country Trails Council, a volunteer nonprofit that patrols and maintains trails in Nevada County, said it’s had no time to prepare for safety issues associated with allowing another user group on non-motorized trails, and no studies have been done to assess the impact of mixing higher-speed mountain bikes with hikers and equestrians.

“In addition to class 1 e-bikes, GCTC members are already seeing class 2 or class 3 e-bikes with throttles on the non-motorized trails,” the suit says. “There has been no indication from the Forest Service regarding how this law enforcement issue will be addressed.”

The Forest Service has yet to file a response to the complaint, and has until December 23 to do so.