Call it what it is. The article was a straight-up Ebike promo. You take a place that is dying for rec-economy rebooting, and they'll praise anything that provides a glimmer of hope. They don't even want to consider any limitation, when their main focus is expanding economic activity. Of course the trail society there is supporting them....it means economic benefit. Just the same way that the majority of Albertans deny climate changes is real or that humans cause it. People will always favor technologies that put money in their pocket, and avoid engaging in any real discussion of meaningful issues when their bank accounts are involved.
That being said, the article is not without merit. There are some legitimate points about enabling greater access. However, there were also several entirely unsupported points of speculation such as reducing traffic to trailheads. Um no. There will actually be more traffic, just traffic with ebikes. If you expand the rec-economy, you increase the traffic. No magic solution there, and we all see it day to day with people pulling their ebikes off their trucks at our local trails. As for low-impacts?...compared to what? Any study that compares ebikes to MTBs is flawed if it is assumes they will be ridden in the same manner. You can't just run over the same piece of ground a few time, and say "look! no difference!". You actually have to look at the application of the tool over time, and we just are not there yet.
However, when it comes to impacts, what of ebikes compared to mining or forestry? That may seem like a stretch, but the fact is that people are more likely to take steps to preserve and protect the environment if they spend time in it. Expanding the range of recreation tourism even a small amount, can expose people to views of areas that they may otherwise never see.
It's not just a simple thing where it's all great (ebike marketers) or all evil (ebike haters).......it's actually an issue that deserves a bit of thought.....something many are reluctant to do.