"The low speed that characterizes mountain bikes going uphill will be a thing of the past if e-bikes are introduced. Essentially, even Class 1 e-bikes will be able to reach 20 miles per hour regardless of the grade of trail, or the direction."
IN THIS ANALYSIS, LARRY DESJARDIN** EXAMINES IMPACT OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER OPENING GATE FOR E-BIKES IN NATIONAL PARKS, WILDLIFE REFUGES AND BLM LANDS. ARE NATIONAL FORESTS NEXT?
​On a sunny afternoon outside of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I clicked into the pedals of the e-mountain bike underneath me. In front rose US Highway 40 towards Rabbit Ears Pass. To my right was elite triathlete and fellow conservationist TJ Thrasher on his Cervélo competition triathlon bike. I would be racing him up the slopes towards Rabbit Ears Pass to answer the question—could a recreational cyclist, armed only with the lowest class of e-bike, outclimb an elite athlete on his competition machine? And, if so, what are the implications?

° ° ° °
The events leading up to the “E-bike challenge” can be traced back to August 29, 2019 when Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt issued Order No. 3376 with this subject line: “Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the Use of Electric Bikes.” 

In that edict, Bernhardt commanded that all land management agencies under the Interior Department consider electric bikes, also known as e-bikes, as non-motorized vehicles and “shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed.”  This includes paved roads and dirt trails, the latter igniting immediate resistance from conservation groups. 

The breadth of the order is staggering. The Interior Department manages not only national parks and monuments, but wildlife refuges, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Land Management. Of all of the major federal land management agencies, only the US Forest Service, managed under the Department of Agriculture, is free from Bernhardt’s order.

Lost in the debate about e-bike access are the technical, regulatory, and environmental aspects behind the controversy. Without a common base of terms and understanding, it is difficult for proponents or opponents to agree on anything. 
E-bikes are bicycles with an integrated electric motor that provide an electric power assist to the operation of the bicycle. The system is composed of a small electric motor, a rechargeable battery, and a motor controller. The system can add power in addition to that put out by the rider (Class 1 and 3 e-bikes add power only when the rider is pedaling), or the e-bike can be exclusively propelled by the motor via a throttle control (Class 2) with no peddling required. E-bikes may be pedaled without power assist, though their heavier weight may discourage many riders from doing so. A typical e-bike will give the rider control over the amount of assist, or “boost,” available from the bike through a control on the handlebar.
The unilateral dictate from Bernhardt puts the character of wildness still present in public lands into uncharted territory and many worry it represents a slippery slope, enabling large numbers of people to motor faster, deeper and longer into terrain they wouldn’t ordinarily access. Equally disturbing is the method of Bernhardt’s announcement- a declaration without any public comment or even a cursory NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) assessment. Considering that many of the trails in question were approved only after a NEPA analysis that assumed a prohibition of all motorized vehicles, including e-bikes, Bernhardt’s edict strikes at the very heart of the National Environmental Policy Act and its role in protecting our public lands.

Driving the advancements in e-bike performance is the lithium-ion battery serving as the power source. E-bikes profit by leveraging the same battery technology being developed for electric cars and hybrids. A key specification for EV (electric vehicle) batteries is the gravimetric efficiency, essentially the energy capacity to weight ratio of the battery source, measured in watt-hours per kilogram. This key specification has been improving by an impressive 5-8 percent per year, as battery manufacturers race to capture a share of the increasingly lucrative EV battery market. 
The battery capacity determines how much power an EV can apply, and for how long. The same is true for e-bikes. As new lithium-ion technologies are commercialized, constraints on the power and range of e-bikes recede. 
Setting aside the controversy over Bernhardt’s order, e-bikes have a promising future in urban transportation solutions. For many people, e-bikes make commuting and performing errands via a bicycle feasible. With that behavior change comes reduced traffic congestion, more parking options, and a smaller carbon footprint. Cities that have a significant bicycle portion in their transportation mix, such as Amsterdam or Copenhagen, are often flat. Wheeled transportation is efficient on level terrain, but any rise in elevation requires the combined weight of the rider, the bicycle, and all transported items to be lifted by the effort of the rider. E-bikes, with their embedded motors, eliminate that constraint.
The emergence of e-bikes was a conundrum for state and federal regulators. They are clearly motorized vehicles, but should they be licensed and registered the same as the family car? Eventually, most states allowed their use without registration or the rider having a driver’s license as long as the power applied would not exceed one horsepower, which later was approximated by 750 watts. This was subsequently codified nationwide through the Consumer Product Safety Act, which defines a “low speed electric bicycle” as including a “two- or three- wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.” 
Additional restrictions are dependent on the class of the e-bike. The three classes are:

• Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.

• Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, no peddling required, that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph. 

• Class 3: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 28 mph. 

All classes limit the motor’s power to 750 watts. Interestingly, the European Union has adopted the same classes, but limits the power to 250 watts. Canada has adopted a 500-watt limit. These power limits are critical to understanding the impacts to wildlife when e-bikes are allowed to traverse sensitive habitat. 

Bernhardt’s order is often defended as a way to allow those with disabilities to enjoy mountain biking with their friends and family. Indeed, the order reads, “Reducing the physical demand to operate a bicycle has expanded access to recreational opportunities, particularly to those with limitations stemming from age, illness, disability or fitness, especially in more challenging environments, such as high altitudes or hilly terrain.”

The “hilly terrain” describes nearly any backcountry hike in the Rocky Mountains, and the preponderance of multiuse trails in the forests. The question is, at these power levels, are e-bikes principally designed to help the disabled, as proponents claim, or to enable superhuman capabilities for anyone who desires it? The 20 and 28 mile per hour boost limits were created to limit the performance of the machines when they were envisioned to be used on urban bike paths or a public highway. But, are these speed limits even relevant for terrain with steep uphill ascents? 
° ° ° °
Thus, the E-bike Challenge. Being a recreational cyclist and a bike geek, I decided to rent one and see for myself. I headed down to Steamboat Ski and Bike Kare, where they matched me with an e-MTB (electric mountain bike), the Giant Stance E+2. The Giant is a Class 1 e-bike with a 250-watt Yamaha motor. It is a mid-level e-MTB, targeted at beginner and intermediate riders. I was disappointed that the newer 500-watt e-MTBs weren’t available for rent, particularly when I lifted the massive 56-pound frame onto my bike rack. At this weight, adding power assist becomes a near necessity for riding uphill. Nevertheless, I started planning how I would give it a test.
That’s when I got a call from TJ Thrasher, a fellow board member on our local conservation group. TJ is also an elite triathlete and has completed several Ironman-length triathlons. “Let’s race!” said TJ, and soon we had a plan. We would race “hill sprints” up the 7 percent grade to Rabbit Ears Pass, he on his competition 18-pound Cervélo triathlon bike and me on my 56-pound rental fat tire e-mountain bike. We were both curious what the results would be, particularly with the modest power of my rented e-bike.
 Another friend, equipped with only an iPhone and a Vespa motorscooter, agreed to document the challenge. That is how I found myself, a recreational cyclist, rolling my rented e-bike into position next to TJ’s race machine.
° ° ° °
TJ and I are recent friends, having met only in the past year as board members of the newly created conservation group, Keep Routt Wild. Routt is the name of our County, and home to Steamboat Springs, a mountain town in northwest Colorado. We face many of the same challenges as those of the Greater Yellowstone Area. Our group formed spontaneously in opposition to the proposed “Mad Rabbit” Trails Project, a massive network of largely multiuse trails planned to crisscross Routt National Forest. 
Based on a rich set of peer-reviewed scientific studies quantifying the impact of recreation on wildlife, and our local elk herd in particular, we’ve argued the case for the elimination or re-routing of many of the trails. The US Forest Service has subsequently proposed a more modest plan, and we continue to engage with them on this issue.

Elite athlete TJ Thrasher, left, with a conventional bike and the author, right, with an e-bike.
Those scientific studies are key to quantifying the impact from recreational activities, particularly hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ATV use. They also lend crucial insight when e-bikes are added into the mix. Many of the studies focus on the specific impact to elk, a migratory animal serving as an umbrella species for much of Colorado. The E-2 “Bear’s Ear” elk herd of Routt National Forest is the second largest elk herd in Colorado, making it also the second largest elk herd in the world. Two studies highlight the impact of recreation on elk.
The first study took place to our south, near Vail, Colorado. Colorado State University researchers Gregory Phillips and William Alldredge measured the impacts to elk calf survival rates from simulated recreational hiking. During calving season, a radiocollared cow elk would be approached until she was “displaced”, essentially fleeing. Each event counted as a disturbance. The study showed elk calf/cow ratios declined by approximately 40% as a result of this human disturbance. The second half of the study involved removing the human disturbance component. With the human disturbance removed the calf/cow ratios rebounded to their pre-treatment levels.
The Phillips study averaged eight disturbances per cow elk to result in 40% fewer surviving calves, or about 5 percent mortality per disturbance. This is a remarkably high mortality rate from a single disturbance. The researchers speculated that the high mortality rate was largely due to predation- that each disturbance of the cow elk also led to the calf fleeing or being unprotected. While the research quantified the impact of human disturbance, it didn’t quantify what recreation activities create a disturbance, or from what distance from a trail. 
However, a study a few years later in Oregon would do exactly that.
That study, often referred to as the “Wisdom study” led by US Forest Service biologist Mike Wisdom, placed radiocollars on mule deer and elk within an enclosed area in eastern Oregon, and then subjected the ungulates to specific recreation activities- hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ATVs. By looking at a large number of radiocollared animals, they could model the probability that the animals would flee, and at what distance, for each specific activity. This “fleeing” corresponds to a disturbance in the Phillips study. 

The results were eye opening. The results showed, specifically with elk, a wide disturbance distance from the trail, with the results varying with activity. “We saw that their flight response occurred at distances over 1000 meters (3,218 feet) for ATVs and close to that for mountain bikes, and more like 500 to 750 meters (1,640 to 2,460 feet) for horseback riding and hiking,” Wisdom said. In the September 2019 issue of PNW Science Findings, a publication of the US Forest Service, the researchers articulated additional concerns that go far beyond those during calving season. Chief among these is habitat compression.
The publication reads, “avoiding motors, wheels, hooves, or feet takes a toll on elk in two ways: increased energy expenditures and decreased access to food sources. Moving more than necessary and not having enough to eat can be detrimental to the viability of elk populations. For example, if females don’t put on enough body fat, they may not be able to reproduce.” It continued, “output from the elk “Fitbits” showed that the animals spent less time feeding and resting and more time running compared to when there was no human activity. And the amount and quality of forage area available to the animals shrank as they shifted away from recreation trails.”
“You’ve basically reduced what we call carrying capacity, the number of animals that can make a living on the landscape,” Wisdom summarized.
In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, many biologists worry about the same impacts on the region’s famous wapiti herds as well as on grizzly bears and other species. The Wisdom study subjected the animals to a specific recreation activity twice a day. Even with this low level of disturbance, elk were prone to stay away from the trails used. Notedly, the study didn’t quantify the potential additional impact of industrial strength tourism campaigns loading the trails with users from dawn to dusk, and increasingly beyond. If the modeling shows a 50 percent chance of elk fleeing from a single disturbance at a specific distance, what is the impact to a hundred such disturbances daily? 
For this reason, wildlife managers often use a lower threshold than 50 percent to determine the disturbance zone around a specific trail and a particular activity. Figure x shows the disturbance width from the Wisdom study of each activity when the threshold is set at 20%. 
An interesting correlation from the Wisdom study is speed. Each successively faster activity comes with a wider disturbance zone. A likely explanation is that speed reduces the time an animal has to react, and a surprised animal is more likely to flee than hide. This is consistent with findings from grizzly bear biologists quoted in a recent Mountain Journal article, including Dr. Christopher Servheen.  
Servheen, retired from government service, spent four decades at the helm of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Grizzly Bear Recovery Team in the West. He is an adjunct research professor in the Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences at the University of Montana. “High speed and quiet human activity in bear habitat is a grave threat to bear and human safety and certainly can displace bears from trails and along trails,” Servheen said. “Bikes also degrade the wilderness character of wild areas by mechanized travel at abnormal speeds.”
That same article quotes wildlife research consultant A. Grant MacHutchon, who analyzed risks of human-bear interactions near Jackson Hole, “Mountain biking is often characterized by high speeds and quiet movement. This limits the reaction time of people and/or bears and the warning noise that would help to reduce the chance of sudden encounters with a bear. An alert mountain biker making sufficient noise and traveling at slow speed (e.g. uphill) would be no more likely to have a sudden encounter with a bear than would a hiker. However, on certain types of trails (e.g. flat, moderate downhill, smooth surface), the typical bicyclist can travel at much higher speeds than hikers, which increases the likelihood of a sudden encounter.”
If speed is a key attribute of activities that disturb wildlife, then what would be the effect of allowing electric bicycles on those same trails? Are they slow, plodding machines, created to help those with disabilities? Or are they increasingly powerful electric motorcycles destined to break uphill speed records?

The moment of truth arrived. We would find out.
° ° ° °
Setting my rented e-bike to maximum boost, TJ and I both peddled softly until the grade turned decidedly uphill. Looking back at me, he said “Let’s go!”  And then we hammered.
For accuracy, I should say TJ hammered. My 64-year body doesn’t “hammer” these days. My typical method of riding this climb is to shift into my lowest gear and stay there for the next hour and fifteen minutes. TJ, on the other hand, immediately output an explosive 650 watts into his pedals, measured by his embedded power meter. I stood on my pedals, hoping that my own peak power, probably half that of TJ’s, would add to the e-bike’s power to keep me in touch with him. I was also riding a bike that weighed three times that of TJ’s.
No athlete can sustain TJ’s initial 650 watts, including TJ. Compare his power output to that of Tour de France cyclist Thomas De Gendt. De Gendt shared his ride data on Strava after winning the prestigious 2016 Mont Ventoux stage. His average power output over the entire ride was 319 watts, with a peak power output of 1,046 watts. A Class 1 e-bike ridden by a recreational cyclist could shatter both figures. 
I stayed within a few bike lengths of TJ as he faded to a “mere” 300-something watts, still more than Thomas De Gendt’s average. Suddenly, to my surprise, I was gaining on him. The distance closed rapidly as I raced up the slope at three times my typical climbing speed. Sitting comfortably on my fat tire mountain bike I reached TJ, who was furiously mashing the peddles on his race bike. I slowed my pace to give him words of encouragement before I accelerated up the climb alone to our improvised finish line. The e-bike had won the challenge.
We repeated the test three times, all with the same results. A 56-pound run-of-the-mill e-mountain bike with only 250 watts of power had enabled me to beat an elite athlete up the grade. 
Imagine what 750 watts, the limit for the lowest class of e-bikes, Class 1, would have shown.
° ° ° °
This experiment reveals the flaws in using the current set of e-bike classifications for off-road use. The current classes control the performance of an e-bike by a speed limit set in the controller, above which power won’t be applied, and only the power of the cyclist can bring the speed higher. This may be an effective method to control the power applied on a flat city bike path or a two-lane highway. But when the path turns decidedly upwards, and the 20-mph limit is never reached, the full power boost is retained. 
Now consider e-bikes in the context of MacHutchon’s comments about speed. The low speed that characterizes mountain bikes going uphill will be a thing of the past if e-bikes are introduced. Essentially, even Class 1 e-bikes will be able to reach 20 miles per hour regardless of the grade of trail, or the direction. Increase that to 28 miles per hour as Class 3 e-bikes are introduced. If grizzlies and other wildlife are disturbed by increased speed, e-bikes will enable this speed for all trails, all sections, up or down, all the time. 
This will be the impact from Bernhardt’s order if it stands.
Many of the proponents for allowing e-bikes on trails claim e-bikes will help people with disabilities enjoy the same terrain as able-bodied mountain bikers. This is a valid concern and could be addressed by a targeted policy which includes specific labeling and performance constraints of the e-bikes offered. But that isn’t what the e-bike industry is about or where it’s going. It’s about offering superhuman capabilities to ordinary riders. Otherwise, why not adopt Europe’s 250-watt limit in the United States? Why 750 watts?
Don’t take my word for the “superhuman” capabilities being targeted and marketed by the bike industry. Just look at the advertisements from major bike manufacturer Specialized describing their line of Turbo e-bikes. "Combining speed and style through an innovative pedal-assist motor, advanced electronics, and a sleek design, our Turbo e-bikes represents the full capabilities of the e-bike revolution. They're capable of achieving top speeds of 45 Km/h while you pedal, so they'll deliver near superhuman power to any rider."
Specialized recently promoted the elite performance capabilities of e-bikes with a video advertisement featuring Tour de France superstar Julian Alaphilippe. In the ad, Tour de France announcer Phil Liggett is announcing that Alaphilippe, shown climbing, is in pain and in trouble. Soon, Phil Liggett himself shows up, microphone in hand, passing Alaphilippe on a Specialized e-bike. Their tagline? “It’s Julian, Only Faster.”  
"...in an age of recreation everywhere all the time, and now without limits, is there still room for an elk to raise her calf, or a grizzly sow to teach her cubs? In this future world, is there even room for a hiker to peacefully stroll on our public lands without being hazed by a line of electrified motorcycles? Bernhardt's order is leading us in that direction."
One must wonder where this ends. Is the goal of the e-bike industry that all of us should be able to perform on the level of a Julian Alaphilippe or the equivalent elite mountain biker? Are we redefining disability to mean any athletic performance under that of the most elite athlete at the time? 

More importantly, in an age of recreation everywhere all the time, and now without limits, is there still room for an elk to raise her calf, or a grizzly sow to teach her cubs? In this future world, is there even room for a hiker to peacefully stroll on our public lands without being hazed by a line of electrified motorcycles? 

Bernhardt’s order is leading us in this direction. The concept of “multi-use” trails, where hikers, bikers, and horses share a common path may be a casualty of this decision. If wheeled recreation means allowing electric motorbikes wherever mountain bikes are now allowed, then it might be time to reconsider the entire package.

** About Larry Desjardin

Larry Desjardin lives in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where he is an avid cyclist, skier, and fly fisherman. He is also President of the Board of Keep Routt Wild, a grass-roots conservation group in northwest Colorado. Larry has a strong science, math, and technology background, having earned engineering degrees from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University. Retired from his role of leading global research and development teams, Larry currently consults to the industry and writes articles that often combine aspects of technology, economics, and public policy. Now in a leadership role in the conservation movement through Keep Routt Wild, Larry dedicates much of his time to preserving wildlife and wild places through education, advocacy, and volunteer efforts. Larry is hopeful that the model of Keep Routt Wild can be duplicated throughout the western United States to help preserve the wildness of our public lands

CLICK HERE to read the original article in The Mountain Journal.

BCHA Sept. 25, 2019 Press Release: "Outdoor Recreation Significant Economic Driver." The US Bureau of Economic Analysis states in this report, “In terms of gross economic output, boating/fishing, RV'ing, motorcycling/ATV'ing, hunting/shooting/trapping, and equestrian sports are the five largest conventional outdoor recreation activities.” Equestrian sports financial contribution is just behind hunting/fishing and is greater than hiking, climbing, and biking combined.  For example:

Bicycle contribution: $2,091,000,000
($3.8 billion gross output)
Climbing/Hiking/Tent Camping: $3,266,000,000
($6 billion gross output)
Equestrian contribution: $6,139,000,000
($13.4 billion gross output, $7.8 billion nominal)
Hunting/Shooting/Trapping: $6,938,000,000
($14.1 billion gross output, $8.8 billion nominal)

Public agencies care that public lands and recreation bring economic benefit to the areas they serve. Bring this information with you when you are asking for amenities, more trail maintenance, more Rangers, etc. We trail users are much larger economic drivers that normally perceived!

CLICK HERE to see statistics in Excel spreadsheet.

September 21, 2019
September 21, 2019 – The American River Ranger District on the Tahoe National Forest will begin conducting prescribed fire operations starting as early as September 20, 2019. Burning will continue through the fall and winter seasons if conditions continue to allow resource managers and specialists to reduce hazardous fuels and to re-establish healthy forest ecosystems. Fall precipitation and cooler temperatures are ideal for prescribed fire operations. Planned prescribed burning projects include low-to-moderate intensity burns of vegetation on the forest floor and burning of stacked woody material (piles) from timber harvest and forest fuels reduction projects.

The goals of these projects are to reduce the severity of future wildfires, restore forest health and diversity, and provide added protection for communities in the wildland urban interface. Prescribed fire will help to promote a more fire and pest resilient forest and improve habitat for wildlife. The Forest Service is also working to reduce dense stands of trees and brush using mechanical and hand thinning of vegetation throughout the Tahoe National Forest. All of these methods are important tools the organization uses to promote forest health and to reduce the size and frequency of high intensity wildfires.

Prescribed fire projects are conducted in accordance with an approved prescribed fire burn plan. Burn plans identify specific conditions under which burns will be conducted, including weather, number of personnel, and techniques to minimize smoke impacts. This information is used to decide when and where it is appropriate to burn.

The following is a list of prescribed fire projects currently planned for this fall:
North Divide: at Humbug Ridge Area – 600 acres of understory burning, aerial ignition may be used. Humbug Ridge is approximately 12 miles northeast of Foresthill.
Dead Wood: near Foresthill Genetics Center – 1200 acres of understory burning along Foresthill Divide Road. Project begins approximately 4 miles northeast of Foresthill and continues to the Sugar Pine reservoir (10) road.
Biggie: Near Big Trees Grove. 100 acres of hand pile burning. This will reduce the volume and density of continuous ladder fuels present in the project area.

Smoke from prescribed fire operations is normal and may continue for several days after ignition depending on the project size. Smoke will settle in low-lying areas in the morning and usually lifts out of an area during the day. All prescribed fires are monitored closely for burning and smoke dispersal conditions and, if necessary, action is taken to mitigate concerns as they arise. Forest Service fire managers coordinate with state and local air pollution control districts and monitor weather conditions closely prior to prescribed fire ignition. They wait for favorable conditions that will carry smoke away from densely populated areas. Crews also conduct test ignitions before lighting a larger area to verify how effectively fuels are consumed and how smoke will travel.

Fire managers are aware of and sensitive to the potential impact smoke and prescribed fire operations has on people and communities. Every effort is made to conduct prescribed fire operations during weather patterns that carry smoke away from populated areas and to notify the public of potentially unsafe conditions. The wildfires of recent memory are a reminder of the importance of fuels reduction and that smoke produced during a prescribed fire is less intense and of shorter duration than that of a large wildfire. Fire is a natural part of the Sierra ecosystem. Our prescribed fire program is very important for the land, the public, and firefighters. A little smoke now could prevent a lot of smoke later.

For more information call Brian Crawford at (530) 367-2224×227. For more information on prescribed fire on the Tahoe National Forest visit www.fs.usda.gov/tahoe.

CLICK HERE to see the original article in YubaNet.com.

This weekend Sat. September 21 and Sun. September 22, the Folsom Lake Mounted Patrol and California Conservation of Trials are holding their 7th annual benefit poker ride to fund Folsom Lake trails. According to the ride management, the ride, limited to 160 riders, was completely filled up and closed a full month in advance. With the addition of 50 volunteers, this will be the largest fund raising event in their history.
The ride will feature an overnight campout and a sunset ride on Saturday, and the poker ride, food truck, prizes for the ride winners on Sunday. Trails used for the ride Sunday 8:00am - 2:00pm will be the Pioneer Express, beach, and Granite Bay multi-use trails.
All funds raised will directly benefit Folsom Lake trails through the nonprofit organization, California Conservation of Trails.

Here is the calendar for events that will affect the trails during the month of October at Folsom Lake SRA. Dates, times, information, size of the event, and contact person is listed with each event.

Oct. 4th
Folsom Bike Jr. Bike Program 4:30pm-6:00pm Teaching mountain bike skills to kids between the ages of 8-14. All day use fees apply
Participants: 75 Spectators: 25
Contact: Erin Gorrell 916-844-1000

Oct. 5th
REI Intro to Mountain Biking
Oct. 5th
Glow Run
7:30pm-9:30pm
Granite Bay - Willow Creek - Negro Bar
Family friendly fun run starting and ending in Historic Folsom. Participants will enter the park at Negro Bar
1000 participants
Sarah Trobee 916-461-6618 for more information

Oct. 11th
Folsom Bike Jr. Bike Program
4:30pm-6:00pm
Teaching mountain bike skills to kids between the ages of 8-14.
Contact: Erin Gorrell


Oct 12th
Granite Head Trails & Ales
Event hours: 8:00am-11:00am
Granite Bay Activity Center
Trail run event using trails around Granite Bay.
900 participants
Contact: Mark Shaw 916-995-6676


Oct. 12th
Insomnia 35k Run
Beal’s Point & FLSRA Trails
Event hours: 7:00pm-1:00am
NIGHT time trail running event starting at Gate 142 (Auburn SRA) and ending at Beal’s Point. Event will use the Pioneer Express Trail.
100 participants
Contact: Paulo Medina 650-391-7031


Oct 13th
Mountain Bike 50 Miler
Event hours: 8:00am-2:00pm
Granite Bay
Mountain bike race using multi-use trails around Granite Bay.
200 Participants
Contact: Mark Shaw 650-391-7031


Oct. 13th
Fleet Feet Training
Group trail running program using the Pioneer Express Trail.
Contact: Sean Garbutt 916-442-3690


Oct. 18th
Folsom Bike Jr. Bike Program
Granite Bay
4:30pm-6:00pm
Teaching mountain bike skills to kids between the ages of 8-14.
Contact: Erin Gorrell 916-844-1000


Oct. 19th
REI Intro to Mountain Biking
9:00am-1:00pm
Granite Bay
  
Oct. 20th
Folsom Blues Breakout Half Marathon
Nimbus Flat
*Bike trail will be closed during the event*
Event hours: 7:00am-11:00am
Run starting at Folsom Lake Crossing, then heading down Folsom-Auburn Road to Lake Natoma. Event will enter the park at the Lake Natoma Crossing and use American River Bike Trail on the south side of the lake. Turn around point at Nimbus Flat. There will be aid stations at Willow Creek and Nimbus Flat.
1500 Participants:
Contact: John Mansour 916-792-7055


Oct. 25th
Folsom Bike Jr. Bike Program
Granite Bay
4:30pm-6:00pm
Teaching mountain bike skills to kids between the ages of 8-14.
Contact: Erin Gorrell 916-844-1000
      
Oct. 26th
REI Singletrack Mountain Biking
9:00am -12:30pm
Granite Bay


Oct. 27th
Equestrian Challenge for MS
Event hours: 7:00am-4:00pm
Staging at Granite Bay Horse Assembly.
5-20 mile trail rides on horseback
Event will use the Pioneer Express Trail, beach trails, and multi-use trails.
Contact: Debbie McGee 916-847-0638 or Brenda Strait 916-717-2764

Subject: Opposition to Motorized e-Bikes on Equestrian and Hiking Trails within Tahoe National Forest, California

Forest Supervisor Eli Llano Tahoe National Forest
631 Coyote Street 
Nevada City, California 95959 
Eli.Llano @ usda.gov
​USFS office telephone 530-265-4531 

Dear Supervisor Llano:
The American Endurance Ride Conference consists of about 4,500 equestrians (nationally) who ride long-distances (50 and 100 miles) on mountain trails in organized rides under state and federal written permits with licensed equine Veterinarians. AERC is headquartered here in Auburn, California. www.aerc.org AERC has a long-standing written Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Forest Service (at the national level in Washington, D.C.). I serve on the national Trails Committee for AERC, and serve as the California State Trails Advocate for the 50,000 miles trails.

AERC has several long-distance all-day rides within Tahoe National Forest. Foremost among these is the 100-mile Tevis Cup on the historic Western States Trail, from the Lake Tahoe area to Auburn. For example, on August 17, 2019, AERC had 184 riders on this 24-hour ride, with 1,200 volunteer crew members. The 100-mile Tevis Cup has been held annually on a Saturday in August during the full moonlight since 1955, with over 6,000 completions.

We are in close partnership with the Truckee Ranger District and the American River Ranger District, and our historic ride always has a written permit from Tahoe National Forest. AERC, Western States Trail Foundation, Backcountry Horsemen of California, Western States 100-mile Run, and Gold Country Trails Council have worked as professionally-trained crews and volunteer licensed sawyers together with Tahoe National Forest trail crews for many decades with joint trail- crews performing trail maintenance. This annually saves Tahoe National Forest a large sum of money.

For safety reasons and for legal reasons, the American Endurance Ride Conference is opposed to motorized e-Bikes on equestrian and hiking trails (= non-motorized trails). Many of our horse trails are single-track with blind corners. Horses do not want to meet a high-speed 20 m.p.h. electric bike on a blind corner on a single-track mountain trail (only 2 to 3 feet wide) with no space for lateral escape. This is a clear safety hazard, with high potential for injury and death to the rider and the horse.

On a related issue, it is against long-standing Federal Law for bicycles and motorcycles to ride on the Pacific Crest Trail. For Tahoe National Forest, this particularly includes the Granite Chief Wilderness area. Brazen intrusion of e-Bikes within Tahoe National Forest will simply disregard federal laws and create a new safety hazard for everyone, plus e-Bikes create a new problem for legal enforcement by U.S. Rangers and the Placer County Sheriff.

USFS Regional Forester Randy Moore, and his USDA General Counsel Jeffery Moulton in San Francisco, can reliably inform you that it is not legal for one Forest (out of eighteen Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region) to suddenly and abruptly allow e-Bikes on non-motorized trails, when it is clearly unsafe. On a legal basis, the USFS national headquarters in Washington, D.C., promulgates uniform rules for USFS trail usage that is in conformance with federal laws that have been passed by Congress.

Please confer with the USFS Regional Forester Randy Moore in Vallejo on the topic of the safety and legality of e-Bikes on non-motorized trails.

On a personal note, please understand that I am a former uniformed U.S.F.S. Ranger, and Trail Crew Chief. As a young man, I started on a Hot Shot Crew in the U.S. Forest Service from Region One in Missoula, Montana.

We are pro-government citizens, and vigilant proponents of safe trails for horses, hikers, and runners. Public safety is of paramount importance.

Copies to:
Region Five Supervisor Randy Moore USFS Pacific Southwest Region
1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, California 94592-1110
telephone 707-562-9000
Randy.Moore@usda.gov R5@fs.fed.us

Jeffrey Moulton, Esquire;
USFS Region 5 Attorney Office of the General Counsel
33 New Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-4511
Jeffrey.Moulton@usda.gov telephone 415-744-3166
​
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Hadley Sydnor
AERC California State Trails Advocate
Life Member, California Academy of Sciences Fellow, Geological Society of America
A.E.R.C. Trail Master (licensed trail maintenance)
U.S.F.S. Certified Sawyer (current as of April 2019)

CLICK HERE TO SEE ORIGINAL LETTER

Two days ago a man was airlifted from Annadel State Park this week after he was seriously injured while mountain biking with a friend in a rugged, steep section of the park, but not on a marked trail, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office said. They determined the man, 29, had likely broken his femur and possibly his pelvis. Santa Rosa firefighters arrived, treated the man and determined it was too dangerous to carry him out of the rugged area. The man was air lifted to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries."  It is estimated the air ambulance cost was $36,000.
Click here to see the original story in the Press Democrat newspaper.

Could this be you on the hook for $36,000? Yes. If you don't have air ambulance membership service (cost $65 - $85 a year).

You are hiking or trail running, slip and fall 50 feet down a ravine and break your ankle with a possible heart attack. You are riding your mt. bike, take a corner too fast and crash into a tree, breaking some ribs and suffer a concussion. You are a horseback rider and you and your horse are attacked by ground wasps, causing a fall, some broken bones and you are starting to go into anaphylactic shock. These are medical emergencies that can't be easily addressed by basic first aid or ground medical transport. You need emergency medical help, but you are miles from the nearest road. What to do?  Call 9-1-1. They will coordinate the help you need with an air ambulance to get you out of the forest and to the nearest ER.

Air ambulances cost from #12,000 to $40,000, depending on time and travel. Who pays for that service? If you don't have insurance that covers air transport, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BILL. If you can't pay, and you have neglected to obtain insurance, then your fellow taxpayers will pick up the bill for you.

RESPONSIBLE TRAIL USERS HAVE AIR AMBULANCE INSURANCE/MEMBERSHIP! You don't want the state to be responsible for you, your air ambulance bill, and your care.

Here are some FAQs from CALSTAR/AirMed Network, our local and extended air ambulance membership and service:

Question: Do I have to carry extra air ambulance service? I already have good private health insurance.
Answer: Some insurance plans will pay for all or a potion of your air ambulance, after your deductible. But, certainly not all. Your insurance can change coverage or your claim can be denied. Contact your insurance agent and make sure you determine your coverage in writing, and then decide what's best for you and your family.

Question: I have Medicare and a supplemental policy, do I need an air ambulance coverage?
Answer: The answer varies, depending upon the nature of your transport and your supplemental insurance provider. In many cases, Medicare and the supplemental insurance coverage should pay for the cost of transport if it is medically necessary and if Medicare believes you were taken to the closest appropriate hospital. Many seniors have said they want a membership even if they have complete coverage, in the event that their insurance coverage changes in the future or if the claim is denied. 

Question: Do air ambulances have membership service for more than wilderness emergencies? 
Answer: Yes. If your medical emergency meets certain criteria, such as a heart attack, stroke or a traumatic injury and the 911 dispatcher determines you would benefit from emergent ground or air medical transport, they may dispatch an air ambulance to your emergency, as well as a ground ambulance. If you require an emergent medical transport from one Hospital to another hospital, those transfers are ordered by physicians. In the event that the AirMedCare Network Operations Center receive a call for emergency help from an individual or source other than a healthcare or emergency services agency, AirMedCare Network Providers communication specialists will identify and contact the ground EMS service in the patient’s community and ask them to respond to the scene. If they determine air medical transport is needed, they will dispatch one of our air ambulance providers.

Question: Is this a blatant advertisement for air ambulance service?
Answer: Yes. Mother Lode Trails is a proponent of individual responsibility. Air ambulance service is a vital need for active outdoors folks so they don't become dependent on the state. EVERY TRAIL USERS SHOULD CARRY INSURANCE THAT COVERS AIR MEDICAL TRANSPORT AND/OR MEMBERSHIP IN AN AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE.

GET COVERAGE FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TODAY
In our area, CALSTAR/AirMed Network has been the trusted local group for decades and comes highly recommended by trail users. They combined the other main services in our area a few years ago, and now cover all the western states and have partners all across the U.S. CLICK HERE for coverage map. There are many trail organizations who can provide you with a discounted membership. Be sure to ask your trails group. 

From YubaNet.com - September 13, 2019  
The Tahoe National Forest recently permitted “Class 1” electric mountain bikes (E-MTBs) on over 130 miles of trails that had been reserved for hiking and other non-motorized uses. This, despite the fact that Tahoe already has some 2,500 miles of trails and roads available for motorized uses. The decision came on the heels of a recent ill-informed change in Interior Department policy, allowing electric bicycles on non-motorized trails.

Several groups recently signed onto a letter asking the Tahoe National Forest to reverse its decision to allow electric mountain bikes on non-motorized trails.

The groups protesting the rules change include The Wilderness Society, Gold Country Trails Council, Back Country Horsemen of America, Forest Issues Group, and Backcountry Horsemen of California, including its Mother Lode Unit.** In a letter to the Tahoe Forest Supervisor, the groups document how the Tahoe’s decision undermines “long-standing travel management laws and policies that help ensure higher quality recreation experiences for both motorized and non-motorized users, prevent avoidable resource damage, alleviate public safety concerns and conflicts between users….” Prior to opening non-motorized trails to motorized E-MTB use, the letter states, Tahoe should have followed the required travel management planning procedure, which is a public process that includes analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Sometimes called the Magna Carta of conservation law, NEPA requires environmental analysis and public participation in federal decisions that affect public lands.

“These abrupt changes under the Trump administration violate long-standing law and public trust,” said Alison Flint, Wilderness Society Litigation and Agency Policy Director. “We will not hesitate to fight this dangerous trend, which favors wider abuse and degradation of our remaining wild public lands while again tipping the scale to enrich an industry that’s pushing for the motorization of America’s public lands. While there are ample places for e-bikes on public lands, non-motorized trails are not one of them.”

Non-motorized trails ensure safety and conservation on public lands. This is not a campaign against e-bikes. But the Department of the Interior has a responsibility to respect the different types of recreation and users on our public lands, since there are vast areas already available for different uses.  Growing demands for all types of recreation has created pressure to open more lands to motorized recreation at the expense of non-motorized uses. This would be unfair. We can’t afford to motorize the nation’s remaining wild, quiet places. Until very recently, public lands have been open to motorized recreation by default. The agencies have worked hard to define the appropriate balance, informed by public input and environmental analysis. However, there is still an immense amount of public lands that are open to motorized uses, and so the pressure for more is unreasonable. Also, redefining non-motorized trails as acceptable places for motorized recreation, including e-bikes, sets a bad precedent that could lead to further loss of the land’s natural features, which are essential to preserving the health of our forests and wildlife.

**From Mother Lode Trails: there are several other trails and environmental organizations in addition to the above noted who are in talks with the Wilderness Society to support this issue, including the American Hiking Society, Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, Sierra Club Mother Lode chapter, Action Coalition of Equestrians, and more.
​CLICK HERE to see the original article in YubaNet.com.

UPDATE: Aug 30, 2019: Today, the National Park Service released its new policy on electric bikes or e-bikes, implementing the Secretarial Order issued yesterday by Secretary Bernhardt. The Park Service’s policy requires parks to allow e-bike access to trails that traditional bikes can use, all without any analysis of impacts to natural and cultural resources, visitors and other user groups, wildlife or trail conditions. This new policy undermines the Park Service’s own management regulations that require analysis of new uses in parks and processes that allow for public input.

WASHINGTON, DC – National trail advocates and conservation organizations blasted the Department of Interior today for Secretary Bernhardt’s new order that could open non-motorized trails to all classes of motorized e-bikes(electric motorized bicycles). Trail advocates and conservation groups point out that the order undermines agency regulations and management rules, fails to consider impacts to hikers, mountain bikers, horse riders and other recreationists, and may signal the beginning of the end for non-motorized backcountry trails, all while not including the public in the decision-making process.

Groups Fear Order Paves Way for Motorization of America’s National Trails, Parks and Public Lands

FAQ: Should the National Park Service Allow E-Bikes on Park Trails?
Electric-assist bicycles have been growing in popularity for years. Here’s why these vehicles could pose problems for some national parks.
“The Interior Department is rushing guidance on a use they haven’t properly evaluated for potential impacts to park natural and cultural resources, visitors or wildlife. Sadly, this new policy was created behind closed doors and with no public involvement,“ said Kristen Brengel, Senior Vice President at the National Parks Conservation Association. “E-bikes have a place on national parks’ roads and motorized trails. But this announcement disregards well-established policies for how visitors can enjoyably and safely experience the backcountry in national parks. For generations we’ve agreed that there are some places so special that they should be protected for visitors to enjoy away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. This new policy carelessly ignores those longstanding protections for backcountry areas.”

Earlier this summer hundreds of trail advocates and conservation groups sent a joint letter to federal land management officials opposing any effort to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails. The letter noted that non-motorized trails were created to ensure that the public could find recreational trail opportunities free from the ever-growing motorization. It pointed out that millions of public land users including hikers, backpackers, hunters, horse packers, climbers, mountain bikers and many more, value non-motorized trails for recreation. Opening non-motorized trails to motorized e-bikes would forever change the backcountry experience for many users.

Trail advocates and conservation groups are quick to point out that e-bikes should be welcomed on public lands but not everywhere and not on every trail. Conservationist and trail advocates are clear that e-bikes are motorized vehicles and should be managed as such. They point out that the existing motorized trail system provides plenty of opportunity for e-bikes use with tens of thousands of miles of trails on public lands, including many iconic trails, currently open to their use.

“What has happened to the management of our public lands?” asked Darrell Wallace, Chairman of the Back Country Horsemen of America.
“We’ve worked for decades to engage with these agencies, and other user groups, as partners in order to build and maintain a wonderful system of safe trails throughout the nation’s public lands. This abrupt change in long-standing policy came from below the radar—they didn’t bother to ask anyone’s opinion. What does this say to the thousands of volunteers who have played by the rules over the years? That the manufacturers of these motorized machines are more important than the citizens who use and maintain these trails, and the safety issues that accompany multi-use trails?”

“The outdoors are for everyone, whether enjoying human powered recreation or riding something with a motor. But sweeping changes to existing e-bike policy cannot be made without public input from all impacted user groups. Permitting e-bike use on trails that have been thoughtfully and specifically designated as non-motorized raises questions of safety and trail sustainability that must be considered,” said Tyler Ray, Director of Policy and Advocacy for the American Hiking Society. “Making this change behind closed doors undermines the long-standing collaborative relationships between trail users and federal agencies.”

“The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail is designated for hikers and horseback riders and goes through 48 wilderness areas. While the trail enjoys great protections, threats to those quiet, non-mechanized forms of recreation are ever present. Some people are working hard to open the PCT and all wilderness areas to mountain bikes. So far, Congress and federal land managers have rightly resisted these attempts,” said Mark Larabee, Associate Director of The Pacific Crest Trail Association. “The Pacific Crest Trail Association is not opposed to mountain bikes or e-bikes, and we believe they should have their place on public land. But we believe reclassifying battery-powered bikes as non-motorized not only would be illogical, it would displace mountain bikes without motors. More importantly, it would be a paradigm shift in otherwise sound government policy that could affect trails and wilderness areas across the country.”

“Let’s be clear e-bikes are motorized vehicles,” said Michael Carroll, Senior Director of the People Outdoors Program at The Wilderness Society. “Secretary Bernhardt’s policy change paves the way for the complete motorization of America’s remaining wild places. The Trump Administration has made it a standard practice to create new policies and management rules with industry behind closed doors and this is more of the same. This new policy will forever change the experience for backcountry trail users. Families that have sought out non-motorized areas to hunt, fish, hike, camp and simply get away from the noise and chaos of daily life will now have their special get-away spots opened up to motors.”

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE COMPLETE ARTICLE