As the Bureau of Land Management considers opening up access to Class 1 e-bikes on over 200 miles of singletrack trails in Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield counties, some local groups are backing the idea while others want a more site-specific review of potential user, enforcement and environmental impacts.

The federal land management agency is currently undergoing an assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for the proposal, accepting public comments through March 25. This is the first step in the environmental review process. 

“We know that this is a topic that has a lot of passion behind it, and so we anticipate getting a lot of comments,” said Lisa Dawson, the Bureau’s field manager for the Colorado River Valley Field Office, at a presentation before the Pitkin County commissioners on Tuesday, March 10. “We’re just looking for input on how to get started, really. We’ve got the information indicating a desire for e-bikes, and it’s just where we go from here and what that might look like if we were to do it.”

The Bureau of Land Management’s Colorado River Valley Field Office currently allows all classes of e-bikes on motorized trails. Class 1 e-bikes are allowed on 18 miles of single-track mountain bike trails within the Grand Hogback Trails north of Rifle. All classes of e-bikes are banned from the remaining 200 miles of singletrack mountain bike trails in systems across the field office in Glenwood Springs, Rifle, New Castle, Eagle, Gypsum and Carbondale.  

There are three classes of e-bikes, with class 1 being the most limited in speed and power. Class 1 e-bikes have pedal assist only and are capped at 20 mph. 

Under the Bureau’s current proposal, class 1 e-bikes would be allowed on the trails in several special recreation and extensive management areas: Hardscrabble in Eagle, New Castle, as well as The Crown, Red Hill and Thompson Creek areas near Carbondale. It would also impact the following Bureau-managed trail areas: Catamount, Dry Rifle, East Glenwood Canyon, Fisher Creek, Horse Mountain, Red Hill in Gypsum, Sheep Creek and Windy Point.  

Alan Czepinski, the Bureau’s outdoor recreation planner, said that only around six miles of mechanized trails managed by the field office are not being considered. These trails were excluded because they connect directly to trails managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which is not considering this expansion of use. 

Dawson said that part of the rationale was that the Bureau wanted to review public input on all trails managed by the field office. 

“Going into scoping is where we can refine what it really looks like,” she added. “It’s not to say that 100% of all of these trails will be open (to class 1 e-bikes), but we will analyze all of the trails and come with a decision that is probably in the continuum.” 

While under federal jurisdiction, these trails are managed in partnership with local municipalities and organizations, many of which have been completing their own community and user surveys and assessments around e-bike access as use expands in the region. 

“It’s been interesting from an anecdotal way to see how many more e-bikes are out on the trail now year after year,” said Ernest Saeger, executive director of Vail Valley Mountain Trails Alliance. “It’s growing more and more every year, and local bike shops are doing more e-bike rentals.” 

While some local groups have expressed concerns that as written, the proposal fails to address trail-specific needs and that opening e-bike access could lead to increased user conflicts and environmental impacts, others are supportive of the measure. Those that support the proposal cite growing demand for e-bike access — especially as a way to increase access to the outdoors — as well as evidence that class 1 e-bikes do not cause additional trail damage and user conflict. 

Balancing access with conservation 

The question of allowing e-bikes is one that addresses a growing question within land and recreation management: how can land managers ensure equitable access to outdoor recreation while conserving the natural resources that provide the opportunity in the first place?  

Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Alliance started looking into expanding e-bike access over three years ago as use and attention grew. A survey of its membership — which drew over 1,300 responses — found that over 60% were supportive or neutral on allowing e-bike access on mountain bike trails, while 20% to 30% were opposed in some way, according to Rich Grange, a board member for the alliance. 

“The largest responses in support, by far and away, are older riders or people with disabilities and health concerns that have been riding mountain bikes for years, that have difficulty or health reasons that make it difficult for them to continue to ride the kinds of trails that they’ve ridden in the past — steeper trails, longer trails, trails that require higher levels of fitness,” Grange said. 

In opposition, the biggest concerns were that it would drive overall use up, cause increased damage to trails and that the speed of e-bikes could cause more accidents, Grange added. 

In December 2025, a town of Eagle survey of over 760 participants showed similar rationales and levels and support for e-bikes on trails. Support for Class 1 e-bikes on dirt surface trails in the town was around 58%, with 32% expressing that no class of e-bikes should be allowed.  

In addition to surveying its members, the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Alliance also reached out to land managers in areas where e-bikes have been allowed, including the Bureau of Land Management’s North Fruita Desert recreation area, the city of Glenwood Springs, the Jefferson County Open Space on the Front Range and Bentonville in Arkansas. 

According to Grange, none of these managers reported increases in trail damage, maintenance or user conflicts as a result of allowing e-bikes on trails. 

This follows multiple studies — including a 2015 study from the International Mountain Bicycling Association and PeopleForBikes and peer-reviewed research — and other anecdotes about class 1 e-bikes, which report there is no evidence that the electric bikes cause more soil displacement, erosion or tread disturbance on existing, sustainable trails. These studies find that class 1 e-bikes are more similar to traditional mountain bikes than to motorized dirt bikes or off-highway vehicles. 

Around six years ago, the Bureau of Land Management opened up access to class 1 e-bikes on Grand Hogback Trails north of Rifle. Ari Philipson, the incoming president of the Rifle Area Mountain Biking Organization, said that the group has seen “very minimal impact on the actual trails themselves,” but that there has seen an increase in use.   

Philipson said that a recent survey of its “core user group” found that around 5% of its Rifle-area bikers are on e-bikes. To Philipson, this seemed a little low, with him speculating it’s likely closer to 10%, based on his experience.  

As far as conflict goes, “there appears to be safe and cooperative communication while using the trail,” he added. 

Philipson acknowledges that what has worked in Rifle may not work everywhere, but that the overall outcomes have been positive. 

“We’ve embraced e-bikers and have seen a lot of benefit, largely by getting people out onto the system that otherwise wouldn’t be able to,” Philipson said. “We have some avid e-bikers that use the trails on a regular basis and they have proven to be great stewards of the trails.” 

Where do e-bikes belong? 

Wilderness Workshop has cautioned the Bureau against a “blanket” approach to allow e-bikes on all the trails managed under the field office. The Carbondale-based conservation nonprofit expressed concerns that as e-bikes allow people to travel faster, further and in greater numbers, it could increase pressure on the land and on wildlife. 

“E-bikes are a great form of recreation, but they don’t belong everywhere,” said Juli Slivka, the senior director of policy and programs at Wilderness Workshop.

“Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we encourage BLM to pursue an alternate approach that identifies smaller areas and trail networks that may be appropriate for e-bike use and proceed with individual environmental assessments for those areas to make site-specific decisions with public and stakeholder input,” Slivka added. 

The nonprofit is currently reviewing all the trails in the proposal to identify “potential conflicts with important wildlife habitat, wilderness resources, backcountry recreation opportunities, and other public lands uses and resources,” she said. 

“We’re also considering known issues occurring on our public lands such as seasonal closure violations, illegal trail development and enforcement issues, which may be exacerbated by increased e-bike use,” Slivka added. 

Pitkin County commissioners raised similar concerns Tuesday, specifically with regard to the Red Hill management area near Carbondale. 

“I think we need to look at these areas individually, like Red Hill, for instance, is a place that I would consider completely inappropriate for e-bikes,” said Francie Jacober, a Pitkin County commissioner. “I would love to have certain things removed from consideration just because of the topography there, and safety issues, and crowding issues, and all of those kinds of things.”

In response, Bureau officials noted that they are still in the public scoping process and expect these more specific details and concerns to be addressed throughout the environmental review process.

“All of the comments will make this a better analysis in any way that we move forward,” Dawson said. 

There are, however, some that argue regional consistency aids management and enforcement.

Gary Tennenbaum, Pitkin County’s director of open space and trails, said that while the county could take a different direction than the Bureau, he warned it would cause confusion for users and a major enforcement issue for the county. 

When the town of Eagle’s Open Space and Recreation Advisory Committee discussed whether to open e-bikes on the town’s trails — which serve as gateways to Bureau-managed trails — consistency was a key factor. Alex Smiley, Eagle’s open space and trails manager, said that “the less patchwork regulations there are the easier it is to maintain and enforce those rules.”

E-bikes are already here 

According to Saeger, Vail Valley Mountain Trails Alliance is supportive of allowing class 1 e-bikes on the trails in Eagle with one caveat: “that the implementation be done thoughtfully and collaboratively, and with clear rules, education and monitoring.”

Saeger acknowledged that there are details that need to be worked out to ensure successful implementation of allowing e-bikes, but that going through the process is preferable to what is currently happening. 

“There are a lot of e-bikes out on the trail already as it is,” Saeger said. “It doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone. It’s not impacting anyone, but just turning your head and looking away is not a solution … It’s a better approach to be proactive about it and look at how you can start managing it and educating users. The sooner you start doing that, the greater, long-term beneficial use, education and understanding there will be.” 

This includes education not only specific to classes of e-bikes, but also continued knowledge sharing on trail etiquette, stewardship and more. 

“It’s worth also acknowledging that e-biking is popular, and there is a lot of people who want to see it,” said Ted Mahon, Pitkin County commissioner. ” I do think the goal here isn’t to prohibit them everywhere. I just think we need to have smart management so that that part of the community — and it’s a growing part, and this has been happening, we’ve seen it coming — has something to be proud of too.”