Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts

2019 Recreational Trails Program Annual Report

FHWA-HEP-19-024

A report on the use and benefits of Federal Recreational Trails Program funds across the United States

Download the PDF Version of 2019 RTP Annual Report (12.5MB)

Covers the period of Federal FY 1993 – FY 2018

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Prepared by:
KMS Enterprises, Inc.
Contract Number DTFH61-12-C-00029

Notice

NOTICE This document is based on work supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under contract number GS-00F006BA / DTFH6117F00074 with KMS Enterprises, Inc. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.

Quality Assurance Statement: The FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Table of contents

Executive Summary

tourists in a river boat

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is an assistance program of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The RTP provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses. This Annual Report describes RTP funding and administration, with examples of the variety of projects that States have funded to build and enhance recreational trails across America. Tables show the annual levels of funding since 1993, and each State's share of RTP funds in the most recent Fiscal Year, 2018.

Funding and Administration

For 2018, the Federal government authorized $82,365,802 for the RTP. These funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which collects an estimated $270 million per year in motor fuel excise tax from nonhighway recreational fuel use. These funds represent fuel used in recreational activities with snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks. States are required to use 40 percent of their RTP funds for diverse recreational trail use, 30 percent for motorized recreation, and 30 percent for nonmotorized recreation. Each State develops and manages its own program of project selection and grant administration, in partnership with communities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations

Use of Recreational Trails Program Funds

States may use RTP funds for a variety of project types and expenditures which fall under eight categories of permissible uses. The RTP legislation identifies these general permissible use categories:

RTP funding is highly leveraged by community and State funds, as well as contributions from organizations and businesses. Of the projects completed between 1993 and 2018, total funds apportioned in the RTP was over $1.47 billion with additional matching funds of $971 million, showing that RTP dollars were matched by 66 percent with other funds. Further program efficiencies are seen by the use of youth conservation and service corps working in cooperation with private contractors, agency or community staff, and volunteers.

RTP Database

The RTP Database (http://www.rtpinfo.org) provides an online record of RTP project data. This database contains more than 24,560 projects which can be searched by State, County, Congressional District, Trail Name, Project Name, Permissible Use, Managed Use, Land Ownership, and Year Awarded.

National Benefits

RTP funding has become an essential element in the development and management of the nationwide systems of trails. It has also been the key resource for States to develop Statewide trails programs that respond to the wide variety of outdoor recreation interests.

Examples of how RTP funding support larger public priorities include:

Funding and Administration

OHV map of the Jawbone rail

The RTP is a Federal-aid assistance program of the FHWA that apportions funds to States by statutory formula. Each State administers its own program to build and maintain recreational trails and related facilities and activities in partnership with businesses, communities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations. A State Recreational Trails Advisory Committee or Council representing both motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail users provides public input on policies and project selection. States seek to use RTP funds effectively, including streamlining required reviews and approvals, clarifying financial accountability, improving project selection, reducing project implementation costs for sponsors, and tracking program and project performance.

Project Requirements

States are required to use 40 percent of their RTP funds for diverse recreational trail use, 30 percent for motorized recreation, and 30 percent for nonmotorized recreation. The 40-30-30 calculation takes place after accounting for State administrative costs. A small State exclusion exempts Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Rhode Island from 30 percent motorized and nonmotorized requirements.

The specifics of how to apply this formula to project selection is up to the States, and varies considerably around the country. States with large Federal land ownership sometimes fund backcountry projects with both motorized and nonmotorized use to achieve diversity. Others may fund projects with adjacent paved and unpaved trail surfaces for diverse nonmotorized activities, or trails with both winter snowmobiling and summer ATV use.

The Federal funds generally provide up to 80 percent of the project cost (with higher amounts permitted in States with a higher percentage of public lands), and require project sponsors to provide the remaining amount in matching resources (generally at least 20 percent). In many cases, the actual match from the project partners is 60 percent or more.

Legislative History

The RTP was created by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), reauthorized in 1998 as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), again in 2005 through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). On December 4, 2015, the RTP was reauthorized as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, for FY 2016-20 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/).

Managed Uses

Managed Uses include a wide variety of both motorized and nonmotorized trail activities that are appropriate to recreational trails. The RTP legislation defines the term "recreational trail" as "a thoroughfare or track across land or snow, used for recreational purposes," and includes the following activities:

  1. Pedestrian activities, including wheelchair use;
  2. Skating or skateboarding;
  3. Equestrian activities, including carriage driving;
  4. Nonmotorized snow trail activities, including skiing;
  5. Bicycling or use of other human powered vehicles;
  6. Aquatic or water activities; and
  7. Motorized vehicular activities, including all terrain vehicle riding, motorcycling, snowmobiling, use of off-road light trucks, or use of other off road motorized vehicles.

Table 1: Apportionments All States, All Years

The obligation rate represents the percentage of funds committed to projects compared to the funds available. The obligation rate for the overall Federal-aid highway program averages about 95 percent over time. The obligation rate for the RTP has trended in the 85 percent range.

There are many reasons why the RTP has a lower obligation rate. Most Federal-aid highway funds, including the RTP, are available for a total of four fiscal years (current fiscal year, plus three more years), which gives States flexibility to determine priorities over several years. The obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program is usually lower than the apportionments, so some States give priority to other Federal-aid highway programs. Several States report that they select projects on two-year cycles (even- numbered years tend to have lower obligation rates). Other States report that they delay project selection and implementation when there is uncertainty about the reauthorization of the program, or take time to implement the program after each new authorization act.

The difference in the totals in Table 1 on this page and Table 3 on page 7 is due to the different sources providing the information and the manner in which a State obligates its funding (e.g., some States obligate funds every other year). The source for the data in Tables 1 and 2 is the Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty. The data source for Tables 3 and 4 is information voluntarily provided by the States and the District of Columbia for the Recreational Trails Program Database (http://www.rtpinfo.org).

Additionally, the RTP Database does not currently have complete data for all States; data collection and validation for the RTP Database is an on-going effort. Data will be regularly entered into the Database as it is received from the States and the District of Columbia.

Allocations (All States) RTP Funding Obligated
1993 Allocation $7,275,000 $5,696,543
1994 Allocation $0 $1,581,335
1995 Allocation $0 $0
1996 Allocation $14,688,000 $11,595,075
1997 Allocation $14,688,000 $16,256,403
1998 Apportioned $29,550,000 $14,691.339
1999 Apportioned $39,400,000 $33,750,926
2000 Apportioned $49,250,000 $44,161,037
2001 Apportioned $49,250,000 $44,826,248
2002 Apportioned $49,250,000 $47,586,188
2003 Apportioned $48,929,875 $44,915,197
2004 Apportioned $57,656,952 $43,957,595
2005 Apportioned $59,160,000 $43,459,118
2006 Apportioned $68,468,400 $57,983,555
2007 Apportioned $74,160,000 $65,913,964
2008 Apportioned $79,160,000 $62,787,840
2009 Apportioned $84,160,000 $81,113,236
2010 Apportioned $84,160,000 $52,908,922
2011 Apportioned $96,570,196 $88,649,335
2012 Apportioned $78,569,033 $68,360,434
2013 Apportioned $79,212,744 $65,371,220
2014 Apportioned $80,741,889 $64,842,044
2015 Apportioned $80,741,889 $71,980,520
2016 Apportioned $82,365,802 $68,808,853
2017 Apportioned $82,365,802 $83,165,826
2018 Apportioned $82,365,802 $72,579,414
1993-2017 Totals $1,472,139,384 $1,256,942,167
1993-2017 Obligation Rate   85.38%

Table 2: Number of projects per State for FY 2018

Table 2 shows RTP funds apportioned to each State for the most recent year of the program. The funding is based on the amount each State received in FY 2009. In that year, half of the funds were distributed equally among all States, and half were distributed in proportion to the estimated amount of off-road recreational fuel use in each State: fuel used for off-road recreation by snowmobiles, ATVs, off-road motorcycles, and off-road light trucks.

This table also shows obligations by State. Obligations are the Federal government's legal commitment to pay or reimburse the States or other entities for the Federal share of a project's eligible costs.

State # 2018 Projects FY 2018 Apportionment FY 2018
Obligation
Alabama 7 $1,732,289 $1,641,681
Alaska 26 $1,512,643 $1,279,965
Arizona 27 $1,915,514 $1,551,663
Arkansas 15 $1,479,029 $1,517,451
California 1 $5,698,627 $1,232,608
Colorado 16 $1,575,735 $1,862,492
Connecticut(1) 0 0 0
Delaware 1 $896,623 $1,146,573
District of Columbia (4) 1 $816,847 $378,332
Florida 22 $2,576,507 $1,803,554
Georgia 19 $1,722,736 $2,700,181
Hawaii 122 $950,859 $950,859
Idaho 44 $1,693,454 $1,740,359
Illinois 20 $1,510,044 $1,504,285
Indiana 9 $1,189,692 $1,360,439
Iowa 10 $1,361,069 $895,233
Kansas 14 $1,370,407 $1,160,000
Kentucky 20 $1,410,151 $1,222,209
Louisiana 15 $1,502,467 $1,765,319
Maine 27 $1,428,314 $864,338
Maryland 16 $1,112,384 $306,822
Massachusetts 75 $1,174,862 $2,519,509
Michigan (2,3,4) 0 $2,825,415 $2,803,369
Minnesota 34 $2,391,888 $111,000
Mississippi 17 $1,348,305 $1,385,249
Missouri 9 $1,646,765 $1,521,835
Montana 50 $1,590,638 $1,478,169
Nebraska 5 $1,205,213 $1,010,014
Nevada 22 $1,344,370 $843,561
New Hampshire 25 $1,255,265 $1,250,000
New Jersey (2,3,4,5) 0 $ 1,214,489 -$356,423
New Mexico 9 $1,415,533 $991,878
New York 4 $2,182,510 $2,301,306
North Carolina 31 $1,597,424 $1,004,032
North Dakota 10 $1,120,562 $851,515
Ohio 14 $1,655,132 $1,245,845
Oklahoma 9 $1,769,212 $1,547,045
Oregon (2,3) 0 $1,594,051 $2,458,434
Pennsylvania 12 $1,971,353 $2,652,190
Rhode Island 1 $856,384 $1,492,653
South Carolina 12 $1,199,108 $872,616
South Dakota 12 $1,125,821 $963,674
Tennessee 14 $1,624,207 $2,372,272
Texas 19 $3,954,874 $4,751,233
Utah 32 $1,546,233 $1,437,997
Vermont 51 $1,017,730 $864,430
Virginia 3 $1,511,889 $1,310,671
Washington 17 $1,867,407 $1,729,333
West Virginia 16 $1,297,964 $1,123,554
Wisconsin 41 $2,146,076 $1,853,349
Wyoming 22 $1,459,731 $1,304,741
Total to States 994 $82,365,802 $72,579,414
2018 Obligation Rate   88.12%
  1. State's Governor opted out of the RTP: CT
  2. State has not yet provided funding and match information for FY 2018 projects: MI, NJ, OR
  3. State did not obligate funds in FY 2018: MI, NJ, OR
  4. State has not provided funding and match information for FY 2017 or a prior year(s): DC, MI, NJ
  5. Negative amount represents deobligated funds

Source: Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/funding/ apportionments_obligations/recfunds_2018.cfm

* RTP Net includes 1% return to FHWA for program administration under 23 U.S.C. 133(h)(5)(B).

Table 3: Funding by State, FY 1993-2018

Table 3 shows the number of projects funded plus the amount of funding by State for Federal FY 1993-2018.

This table shows the total RTP funds obligated by each State during the period. In addition, the "Total Other Funding" column shows how much additional match was provided by project sponsors. Note that the matching funds are generally higher than the 20 percent minimum required by RTP. In 9 States the match is higher than the total RTP funds apportioned.

Since 1993, more than $1.3 billion in RTP funds generated nearly $971 million in other funds, resulting in a total of over $2.27 billion for trails: 57 percent from Federal funds and 43 percent from other sources.

State 1993-2018 Projects Total RTP Funding Total Other Funding
Alabama 366 $29,532,434 $9,753,756
Alaska 481 $16,735,231 $5,271,411
Arizona 279 $22,808,685 $5,933,478
Arkansas 361 $14,568,213 $9,041,604
California 408 $64,036,361 $40,722,574
Colorado 434 $17,121,474 $24,516,929
Connecticut (1) 369 $19,178,479 $11,921,480
Delaware 152 $11,225,196 $6,273,502
District of Columbia (4) 36 $7,876,842 $1,811,722
Florida 238 $31,205,137 $26,797,829
Georgia 335 $30,242,518 $24,145,157
Hawaii 1,362 $12,286,726 $3,254,532
Idaho 652 $22,930,889 $19,241,182
Illinois 297 $28,984,437 $13,442,707
Indiana 156 $21,910,959 $6,783,264
Iowa 123 $28,061,126 $7,046,905
Kansas 337 $19,460,793 $12,537,381
Kentucky 526 $19,704,416 $19,322,140
Louisiana 389 $23,458,491 $21,795,532
Maine 681 $16,139,355 $5,592,927
Maryland 860 $20,446,378 $7,689,145
Massachusetts 503 $14,392,286 $12,248,934
Michigan (2,3,4) 316 $38,380,501 $26,583,670
Minnesota 514 $33,163,603 $59,156,950
Mississippi 299 $24,097,534 $6,026,418
Missouri 340 $25,436,262 $26,815,856
Montana 957 $22,197,312 $18,985,992
Nebraska 140 $16,624,177 $7,836,816
Nevada 360 $17,586,809 $9,960,292
New Hampshire 788 $14,257,765 $15,382,510
New Jersey (2,3,4) 846 $18,014,988 $43,805,535
New Mexico 203 $16,927,819 $6,420,524
New York 434 $33,208,352 $13,470,311
North Carolina 567 $30,994,767 $39,047,788
North Dakota 286 $16,654,049 $4,845,964
Ohio 319 $25,785,988 $24,276,090
Oklahoma 307 $27,600,964 $14,918,619
Oregon (2,3) 437 $20,997,202 $20,700,498
Pennsylvania 397 $34,371,901 $21,847,360
Rhode Island 377 $7,064,002 $2,936,098
South Carolina 278 $17,819,864 $6,062,199
South Dakota 391 $20,941,050 $11,856,826
Tennessee 256 $20,819,369 $6,225,859
Texas 512 $60,867,170 $21,113,675
Utah 567 $27,060,414 $44,859,092
Vermont 1,262 $13,950,290 $23,473,914
Virginia 305 $22,139,997 $9,450,338
Washington 674 $27,616,592 $45,453,587
West Virginia 304 $13,205,585 $3,691,801
Wisconsin 697 $23,389,157 $43,477,087
Wyoming 496 $23,133,671 $14,711,545
Total: 22,975 $1,186,613,580 $888,537,305
  1. State's Governor opted out of the RTP: CT
  2. State has not yet provided funding and match information for FY 2018 projects: MI, NJ, OR
  3. State did not obligate funds in FY 2018: MI, NJ, OR
  4. State has not provided funding and match information for FY 2017 or a prior year(s): DC, MI, NJ

The source for the data in Tables 3 is information voluntarily provided by the States and District of Columbia for the Recreational Trails Program Database (http://www.rtpinfo.org).

RTP DATABASE PROJECT

a trail bridge over a river

The goal of the RTP Database is to provide comprehensive, up-to-date project data on recreational trails projects in all 50 States and the District of Columbia over the RTP program's entire life-cycle. The online RTP Database (http://www.rtpinfo.org) for 1993-2018 includes more than 24,560 projects that have received over $1.3 billion in funding. These projects have been matched with nearly $971 million in funds and contributions.

The RTP Database provides a central repository for RTP project data that may be used by the FHWA, Congress, the States, RTP administrators, project managers, and the public. The database promotes transparency by providing program and project information to the public.

In 2016, FHWA contracted with KMS Enterprises, Inc. (which subcontracted with American Trails and Arch Systems LLC) to develop, operate, and update a searchable RTP Database to be available on a website, and to provide annual reports on RTP funding. New data is regularly entered into the Database as the States, District of Columbia, and other sources voluntarily provide this information.

Updating the RTP Database is important because an average of more than 1,000 new RTP projects are added through the course of each year. Photographs are also gathered for the Image Library to provide examples of permissible uses and managed uses for trails, related facility construction, and other project types.

Database users can search by State, County, Congressional District, Trail Name, Project Name, Permissible Use, Managed Use, Land Ownership, and Year Awarded. Reports can be printed from the search results. Database users can view a record of the project for more information.

Addressing Today's Needs

USDOT Strategic Goals

The U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 establishes the DOT's strategic goals and objectives:

This report demonstrates how the RTP relates to these strategic goals and exhibits innovative projects and partnerships in the program by using the above symbols to represent each goal, and describing how each project example supports innovations in the appropriate goal areas.

Emerging Issues

There are a variety of issues that are increasingly impacting the RTP and the greater trails industry and will significantly impact RTP-funded projects in the future. Some of these issues are discussed in the "National Benefits" section of this report (pages 17-21). Examples of the issues the States are increasingly likely to face in the coming years are:

  1. Trail recovery from natural and weather-related disasters (wildfires, floods, etc.)
  2. Long-term maintenance from increasing use of trails and trail systems
  3. Multi-use trail conflict due to increasing trail use
  4. Emerging trail technologies (electric bikes, drones, smartphone tracking prevalence)

Use Of Recreational Trails Program Funds

The RTP legislation identifies eight categories of permissible uses for how States may use RTP funds. The following pages provide details and examples for each use. The categories are:

  1. Trail maintenance and restoration
  2. Trailside and trailhead facilities
  3. Equipment for construction and maintenance
  4. Construction of new recreational trails
  5. Acquisition of trail corridors
  6. Assessment of trail conditions
  7. Education for safety and environmental protection
  8. Administration

Permissible Use A: Trail maintenance and restoration

Maintenance and restoration of existing trails, including trail maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, or relocation. This category may also include maintenance and restoration of trail bridges.

Workers use a crosscut saw to sut a fallen tree

Project Example

Spanish Lake Trail Restoration Project, California

The Alaka'i Swamp Trail on the island of Kauai was built decades ago. Conditions and constant use have rotted the boardwalk and rusted the mesh stabilizers. The boardwalk was reconstructed with new slip-proof recycled plastic material that has been reinforced with fiberglass. At left, old wood planks are sinking into wetlands, while at right new plastic lumber is installed on stringers. Photos are from HawThis five mile long trail in the John Muir Wilderness Area was nearly lost in overgrowth and downed trees. Volunteers from Back Country Horsemen joined a Sierra National Forest crew in cutting trees, clearing brush, and widening the trail with hand tools. The work contributed to the resiliency of the resource when the major Rough Fire tore through the area. The recent trail work gave fire fighters a cleared line to set back burns, while enabling pack stock to get through to supply fuel, backpack pumps, and water to crews along the line.

Project Example

Tawlks Foster Suspension Bridge Renovation, Washington

The Methow Valley Sports Trail Association used RTP funds to renovate the Tawlks Foster Suspension Bridge located on the Methow Community Trail. Steel towers were installed to replace existing wood towers that support the bridge. The bridge is used year round by hikers, bikers, equestrians, and in the winter by cross-country skiers. The primary outdoor recreation experience provided is for nonmotorized trail use. The Tawlks Foster Suspension Bridge has become one of the largest draws for trail users in this heavily used recreation area, and this renovation ensures that it will remain a popular destination.

Permissible Use B: Trailside and trailhead facilities

Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages for recreational trails. Typical eligible work includes parking areas, toilets, horse and vehicle unloading facilities, providing appropriate signage, and seating.

an informative trail sign
<

Project Example: Heritage Trail Accessibility Enhancement Program, Georgia

The City of Rome and Floyd County have collaborated to construct the Heritage Trail System, 10 miles of paved multi-purpose trail that provide recreation and transportation opportunities. The Heritage Trail Accessibility Enhancement Program redeveloped five trailhead parking areas along the existing trail. These access points each include a rest area and signs. The City worked with SAI Digital to develop Quick Response (QR) codes that link to audio recordings of information regarding waterfowl and song birds of Georgia. These were purchased from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. The QR codes were added to the signs to provide all trail users the opportunity to learn about the birds using smartphone technology. The Northwest Georgia Center for Independent Living advised on ensuring the QR codes would perform on different smartphones and be accessible to people with visual disabilities.

Permissible Use C: Equipment for construction and maintenance

Purchase and lease of recreational trail construction and maintenance equipment. Examples include snow trail grooming equipment, mechanized trailbuilding equipment, vehicles for trail maintenance, and other equipment to help maintain the trail surface, drainage, and adjacent vegetation.

Snow grooming equipment

Project Example: Snow Trail Groomer and Drag Purchase, New York

The Western New York Snowmobile Club of Boston is one of many volunteer organizations that maintain winter trail systems for snowmobilers and other snow trail activities. The State of New York has over 10,000 miles of marked and groomed trails available. In most areas, volunteer members of the snowmobile clubs run the maintenance equipment, donating their time to make the trails safe and as smooth as possible. These trails provide direct connections to towns, tourist facilities and businesses, emergency services, and other regional trail systems. RTP funding enables these nonprofit groups to replace aging snow maintenance equipment.

Permissible Use D: Construction of new recreational trails

Construction of new recreational trails. This is the largest category of expenditures in most States, and includes paved and unpaved trails, water trails, snow trails, and bridges. The needs of local communities, agencies, and trail users are reflected in the great variety of trail construction that has been accomplished.

a boardwalk on the Big Cypress Trail

Project Example: Big Cypress Boardwalk, Tennessee

The raised wooden walkway runs 1,142 feet through the Big Cypress Park's seasonally flooded hardwood bottomland forest. The accessible boardwalk welcomes all visitors, including families and visitors with walkers or wheelchairs. Funding for the project was facilitated by a partnership between the State and the nonprofit Friends of Big Cypress Tree. The 20% match ($20,000) for the RTP funds was provided by the Friends group, which has been saving most of its contributions for many years for this purpose. The boardwalk makes it possible for everyone to have safe access into a beautiful 300-acre forested environment that is flooded for part of the year.

Project Example: White Clay Accessible Trail Under Construction, Delaware

A basic problem in building accessible trails in natural settings is to provide a firm and stable trail surface. Using techniques developed for hardening off-highway trails, Delaware State Parks worked to create a standard for best practices in building crushed rock trails. First, the trail crew excavates a trench that is filled with stone to provide drainage. Then the stone base is topped with finely crushed rock that is compacted for a smooth surface. The result is a natural-appearing trail that will accommodate wheelchairs and strollers even in wet seasons.

Permissible Use E: Acquisition of trail corridors

Acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails or recreational trail corridors. This category may include acquisition of old road or railroad bridges to be converted to trail use. Acquisition of any kind of interest in property must be from a willing landowner or seller.

A woman riding a mountain bike on a forest trail

Project Example: Premier Health Atrium Medical Center Bike Park, Lebanon, Ohio

This project showcases an effective public-private partnership between the health industry and the city which converted the old city-owned landfill property into a regional bike park. The park features mountain bike trails, a cyclocross course, skill area, and pump track. A few years ago, the Lebanon Parks Board members were discussing if they should build more baseball or soccer fields, when Lebanon resident and Park Board member, Jeff Napier, suggested building some bike trails instead. The acquisition of this property became viable through Premier Health's interest in improving community health and its innovative partnership with the city of Lebanon.

Permissible Use F: Assessment of trail conditions

Assessment of trail conditions for accessibility and maintenance, authorizes specific projects to assess trails to determine the level of accessibility for people who have disabilities, to develop programs to provide trail access information, and to assess trails for current or future maintenance needs.

Walkers inspect a directional sign

Project Example: Oak Mountain Universal Trail Access Assessment, Alabama

The Lakeshore Foundation, in partnership with the private NWGA Center for Independent Living, and using RTP funds and a Munson Foundation grant, conducted a trail assessment program at Oak Mountain State Park. It included the purchase of trail measurement technology, assessment of 32 miles of trails, installation of Trail Access Information signs, and training of staff and volunteers on the Universal Trail Assessment Process. Now, the park features 40 signs detailing trail grade, width, elevation changes, and surface hardness. People of all abilities can use these signs to determine the accessibility of the trails and choose which will be best for their hike.

Permissible Use G: Education for safety and environmental protection

Development and dissemination of publications and operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection.

A State may use up to five percent of its apportionment each fiscal year for the operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection as those objectives relate to the use of recreational trails.

A woman holds a fish

Project Example: Missouri River Water Trail Education with Students and Teachers, Missouri

Fourth-graders from Mill Creek Elementary School experienced guided tours as part of a field trip to learn about the Missouri River and its surrounding environment. The two-hour outing on the river, put together by the Missouri River Relief at Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area, included education about native plants, including tasting edible plants, learning about fish habitat, and participating in a river clean-up. The field trip was a test run for a program to provide similar experiences in fall and spring for all fourth-grade students in Columbia Public Schools.

Permissible Use H: Administration

Payment of costs to the State incurred in administering the program.

In addition to Staff time to administer the program and grants, other activities related to recreational trails are eligible under this category, including:

A State may use up to seven percent of its apportionment each fiscal year for State administrative costs in that fiscal year. Any funds not used for administration within a fiscal year must be used for on-the-ground trail projects.

Cover of Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Utah report

Project Example: Economic Impact Study for Snowmobiling in Utah

The 2017 analysis of The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Utah conducted by the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism at Utah State University determined that 79% of resident Utah snowmobilers' activities involved full-day trips, while 21% were overnight visits that averaged nearly three days long. This snowmobiling activity generated $138.2 million in local industry sales, $88.4 million in value added to the State's economy, 1,378 Utah jobs which generate $59.9 million in labor income, and over $13 million annually in State and local tax revenues. The growth in economic activity from snowmobiling is evident from a comparison with the 2001 study which counted just 358 jobs and $8.5 million ($11.9 million in 2017 dollars) in labor income.

Table 4: RTP Database Trail Project Work by Permissible Use for Federal FY 1993 - 2018

Project types within the categories show the variety of projects funded.

RTP funds may be used for projects within eight permissible use categories. The table shows the number of projects funded within each category since the inception of the program. Some categories are broken down further to specify the project type.

Many projects are listed under more than one category, so a total would double or triple count many projects. Maintenance and restoration projects are the most common projects, followed by trail facilities, and new trail construction.

Education funds are used for many kinds of projects such as signs, video guides, interpretive kiosks, safety brochures, and training programs. Many of these products are for trailheads and interpretation that are specific to an individual trail, and training is typically an event in a specific venue. States are also sharing educational curricula, OHV safety campaign materials, and designs for standard signs.

The source for the data in Table 4 is information that the States provided for the RTP Database (http://www.rtpinfo.org).

Category Total Projects
A. Maintenance and Restoration 16,930
Trail Restoration/Rehabilitation 6,137
Trail Relocation 582
Trail Grooming 2,184
Trail Maintenance 6,133
Bridge Restoration/Rehabilitation 1,070
Bridge Relocation 67
Bridge Maintenance 757
B. Trailside and Trailhead Facilities 12,665
Trailhead Work 2,712
Parking 1,862
Signs 4,153
Restroom 1,137
Accessibility Features 767
Access Ramps 531
Other Trailhead and Trailside Facilities 1,539
C. Equipment for Construction and Maintenance 2,913
D. Construction of New Recreational Trails 9,922
Trail 8,146
Bridge 1,776
E. Acquisition of Trail Corridors 428
F. Assessment of Trail Conditions 292
G. Education for Safety and Environmental Protection 3,280
Publications (Maps and Brochures) 678
Safety Programs 1,088
Environmental Programs 1,001
Other Educational Programs 513
H. Administration 837
I. Unspecified/Unlisted 1,392

National Benefits

Cross-country ski tracks in mountain scenery
A review of RTP-funded projects reveals the many benefits of providing quality trails in our communities and across our public lands. Some important benefits are identified along with examples of how trails support aspirations for maintaining the health of people as well as the environment, encouraging economic activity, providing jobs and education, and improving communities across America.

Examples of how RTP funding support larger public priorities include:

Community Connections

Public health researchers have been working hard to explore the effects of trails on communities. In the last few years, many have found that communities which provide convenient access to places for physical activity, such as trails connecting to parks or other recreational facilities, increase the level of physical activity in their residents.

In addition to providing recreation and health benefits, trails and greenways can function as nonmotorized transportation corridors to help pedestrians and cyclists access schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. In every State, cities, towns, and counties are working to plan and build interconnected networks of trails. These routes tie in with open spaces as well as the built environment.

The Cottonwood Trail is a link within the Arkansas Hills Trail System adjacent to the community of Salida, Colorado. For the community and visitors alike, the trail system is an integral part of daily life, enhancing opportunities for trail-based recreation and transportation. Trail runners, hikers, and bicyclists enjoy the trails year round due to the warm and dry climate. Over the past 6 years, visitation numbers have increased from 14,000 to 21,000 visitors per year. This growth and enthusiasm for local trails would not be possible without the public and private partnerships that have allowed continuity of access to expand over the past ten years.

Salida Mountain Trails has fostered a cooperative effort among the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the City of Salida. The Cottonwood Trail represents this continuing relationship by providing eight miles of nonmotorized single-track trail on USFS land that continues on to public land managed by the BLM.

Cost Effectiveness

Because RTP requires significant matching resources for grants, project sponsors aim to design trails that provide maximum benefit for their cost. Trail planners are working with new technologies and creative use of materials. For snow trails, both cross-country ski and snowmobile routes, the major expenditures are in annual trail maintenance. Trail managers are working to find equipment that is fuel efficient, low maintenance, and environmentally friendly. In recent years, managers of backcountry trail systems have relied increasingly on mechanized trail building equipment. Gradually, manufacturers have improved these machines to cause less resource disruption while building a more stable and sustainable trail tread. In many cases, trail crews and volunteers have provided the fine-tuning required to finish the projects.

Extreme weather events in recent years have provided evidence of the vulnerability of our trails and parks, making it essential to make them more resilient and less costly to maintain. Trail managers are finding that poor design and location of trails is the most pressing problem. Events and trends related to severe weather will affect trails, but improving our trails in the long run will make them more resilient and less costly to maintain.

To trail managers, an important aspect of sustainability is reducing expenditures on maintenance by better design of trails, and the use of appropriate materials and structures. RTP funding applied to training is most often specifically intended to improve the quality of trail development by project sponsors.

The Bugline Trail Historic Train Depot in Wisconsin has demonstrated innovative and cost effective planning by relocating their historic train depot building to Madeline Park for use as a trailhead facility with restrooms and a meeting space. Other facilities to be developed include a parking area and play equipment. Trails and park area that will utilize these facilities are used for hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, picnicking, snowshoeing, photography and bird watching.

Economic Development

Trails contribute to the economy by providing construction and maintenance jobs, attracting tourists and visitors, and providing business for outfitters, guides and tour companies. One major benefit of trail tourism is that it is money spent in rural towns and in more economically disadvantaged areas. The impacts of trail use and related activities have been documented in many studies, which show that local businesses especially benefit from trail users. Many of the people traveling to a trail and spending a night or more in the area are economically well off and have significant discretionary income.

"It was the demise of my hometown," said one local resident. "We had a loss of industry and tourism. Mines closed, the lumber industry died, the railroad hub moved out. Our OHV trails became a site of illegal dumping, shooting and partying. We became the poorest county in the State of New Mexico."

And then the Gallup OHV Park was developed in New Mexico. The facility has a 1.2 mile track and 10 miles of ATV trails. The new park is located on approximately 300 acres of city land. The economic and private interests that bring volunteers and citizens groups together to assist in building and maintaining trails managed by different levels of government. Another benefit of trail project partnerships is in bringing together agencies with different missions, such as parks, health, transportation, and education. Where project sponsors work to develop common ground, businesses, trail clubs, and a variety of nonprofit organizations are funding partners. Iron Belle Trail signage Photo Credit: Friends of the Iron Belle Trail, MI impact of Gallup's adventure tourism is impressive, attracting 32,000 adventure tourists annually, with mountain biking and off- road events taking in over $1 million for the past eight years. There have been new businesses created. Spring cleanup projects involving Jeeps West, Boy Scouts, youth conservation corps groups, and county detainees have disposed of 100,000 pounds of trash from the recreation area.

Habitat Conservation

An important aspect of trail development is creating a positive experience for visitors while preserving the important natural resources that plants and animals depend on. In many RTP- funded projects, this process goes further in improving the habitat along the trail corridor. RTP funding is also commonly used for projects involving acquisition of land for habitat and ecological connectivity. Planning efforts may also focus on trail systems that guide visitors away from sensitive wildlife areas and into more adaptable settings. Best practices for trail development also includes mitigation of impacts, revegetation of disturbed areas, using recycled materials, and reducing erosion. Often the environmental work is done by volunteers and conservation corps crews, which also provides opportunities for education about environmental issues.

A perfect example is the Acushnet Sawmill Trails and Boardwalk in Massachusetts. The Buzzards Bay Coalition owns 220 acres of contiguous conservation land that includes frontage on Tripps Mill Brook and retired cranberry bogs surrounded by an additional 383 acres of contiguous conservation land extending across three towns. In conjunction with habitat restoration, RTP funded the construction of the trail network, a canoe launch, and interpretive trail signs that show visitors how restoration of the site has helped wildlife and water quality. Accessible trails provide direct river access for people with disabilities and an additional half-mile of hiking trails includes boardwalks through wetland habitats. Additional ecological restoration is planned to improve fish passage and restore the bogs to wetlands.

Partnership Development

RTP funds contribute to the success of trail projects by encouraging effective partnerships. For many trails the key requirement is cooperation among jurisdictions, such as a rail trail that passes from town to town. In many cases the partnership is between public Gallup OHV Park Photo Credit: Red Rocks Motorsports Club, NM "It was the demise of my hometown," said one local resident. "We had a loss of industry and tourism. Mines closed, the lumber industry died, the railroad hub moved out. Our OHV trails became a site of illegal dumping, shooting and partying. We became the poorest county in the State of New Mexico." And then the Gallup OHV Park was developed in New Mexico. The facility has a 1.2 mile track and 10 miles of ATV trails. The new park is located on approximately 300 acres of city land. The economic and private interests that bring volunteers and citizens groups together to assist in building and maintaining trails managed by different levels of government.

Another benefit of trail project partnerships is in bringing together agencies with different missions, such as parks, health, transportation, and education. Where project sponsors work to develop common ground, businesses, trail clubs, and a variety of nonprofit organizations are funding partners.

A great example is the ongoing efforts around the Iron Belle Trail in Michigan. After years of planning, procuring funding and getting multiple governmental and private entities on board, work has begun on the extension of the Iron Belle Trail in Otsego County. The total cost of the trail extension project is $2,938,000 with funding from a RTP grant matched with a Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program grant, a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant, an Iron Belle Trail grant, and a local share split among Otsego County, Otsego Lake Township, and Bagley Township.

Public Land Stewardship

Trails promote natural resource management strategies that help ensure environmental quality. Land managers use trail projects as opportunities to engage volunteers and habitat specialists in improving natural habitats. Benefits include restoring degraded stream corridors, routing trails to avoid sensitive wildlife habitat, and removing invasive plants.

Just as our communities and transportation systems are vulnerable to major damage, so are our trails and parks. All trails need maintenance, but extreme weather events as well as heavy visitor use will require additional rebuilding. Damage from wildfires and resulting erosion have also affected many miles of trails on public lands.

All trails and parks need maintenance, with heavy visitor use and weather events requiring additional rebuilding. RTP funds have been used to address renovation needs such as:

One example of public land stewardship in action is the Spencer Butte Summit Trail in Oregon. Eugene Parks and Open Space has constructed a single, well-defined trail to the summit of Spencer Butte. The project addresses heavy visitor use, user safety, erosion, trail braiding, and habitat degradation. The open summit area is home to a variety of rare plants, animals, lichens, and mosses. Many of these fragile species are found only in this special type of rocky outcrop ecosystem. The improved accessibility also provides expanded opportunities for nature appreciation organizations, such as Lane County Audubon, the North American Butterfly Association, the Native Plant Society, and classes from nearby schools.

Safe Recreation

As with all transportation programs, safety is a vital component. The sheer variety of trail types and recreation goals means that some trail activities do include strenuous efforts, journeying into remote country, and all the risks of the natural world. The goal for backcountry land managers is to reduce known hazards and to warn trail users of the unexpected.

At the other end of the spectrum of trail activities are highly constructed urban trails. To make trail recreation more inclusive, planners are emphasizing routes that are easier to get to and safe to use. At the same time, people who are not outdoor enthusiasts are being courted by health interests who want to encourage more active living and social interaction. Another element is the aging population of active seniors who need safe facilities to participate in recreational activities.

To address all these issues, every State has used RTP funding for educational programs to promote safety as well as environmental protection. Safety is a key part of the training and resources provided by States and organizations for planning, managing, and promoting water trail facilities. OHV and snowmobile training and educational materials have been an important type of RTP expenditures in the safety area. The popularity of boating and designated water trails has also brought attention to safety issues on these water- based corridors.

An example of safe recreation is the North Dakota Safety Signage project. North Dakota's State snowmobile trail system consists of over 2,800 miles. To ensure safe and clear navigation by trail users, the snowmobile program created templates for "You Are Here" maps to be placed at the intersections along the snowmobile trails. A QR code for each sign enables the map to be viewed and saved on a smartphone. The map also enhances safety for trail users by showing access points and roads in case of trouble or to direct emergency responders. The example shown is on the Mayvile-Portland Snowmobile Trail.

Trails for All

A long-term trend has been to make communities, trails, and recreation facilities more available to all Americans. This means improving trails for persons with disabilities, but also understanding the needs of older people, families with children, and those who are new to trail activities.

As the demographics of residents and visitors evolves over time, public land managers are seeking ways to make trails more available to the public. Efforts underway are to connect with underserved populations, provide opportunities for public input on parks and facilities, and to involve a variety of disciplines in larger corridor planning.

Conservation corps as well as educational programs seek to help young people connect with outdoor resources and to learn about stewardship of public lands.

Completed this fall, the wheelchair-accessible Lac D'Or Trail at Hirundo Wildlife Refuge in Alton, Maine is already starting to blend into its natural surroundings. Constructed by students of the University of Maine Department of Engineering and Technology, it is the second pathway in the refuge's new wheelchair-accessible Trail of the Senses network. Surfaced with gravel and stone dust, the smooth pathway is 6 feet wide and bordered by a rope handrail strung between wooden posts. Along the rope, wooden blocks have been placed at the location of each nature station, so visitors who have visual impairments will know the location of each station and can pair them with an audio tour, which is still in the making.

Workforce Development

In the area of trails, workforce development provides an opportunity to young people to learn skills in resource management and outdoor recreation. Youth and conservation corps are important programs for teaching many kinds of skills, from familiar hand tools to heavy mechanized equipment. Corps members learn valuable lessons in working with different agencies, and learning the skills required to be quality employees. In particular, Corps organizations work to recruit and train economically and educationally disadvantaged young adults.

Many RTP-funded projects involve young adults in entry-level positions. Other programs help college students gain practical experience and qualify for federal internships. Besides construction techniques, those working on trail projects learn many other valuable skills, such as crew leadership and supervision, project management and logistics, environmental review requirements, and tracking accomplishments, materials, and future needs.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Section 1524 (text below), requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to encourage the States and regional transportation planning agencies to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified youth service or conservation corps to perform appropriate projects. These projects include pedestrian and bicycle, transportation alternatives, and recreational trails.

The California Conservation Corps made the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park Recreational Trail System possible by training corps members in heavy equipment operation, thus enabling young people to develop the skills necessary to bring these kinds of projects to fruition. This trail promotes healthy living and healthy communities through outdoor recreation; allows visitors to enjoy natural resources; and prevents damage to sensitive habitats. The trail encourages a variety of users to explore and appreciate the natural resources located within a highly developed urban area and provides the missing link to connect an existing regional trail system. The trail was designed and constructed to respond to the considerations of the community and stakeholders, minimize impacts to the environment and provide maximum accessibility to future trail users. None of this could have been possible without a well trained conservation corps providing the workforce.

Conclusions

As discussed in the National Benefits section, trails contribute in many ways to employment, environmental education, health, resource conservation, and community development. RTP funding also enables States to respond to the diversity of their citizens as well as visitors. Each State is able to provide appropriate funding for different activities, and to emphasize different trails to reflect the differences in climate, the amount of public land, and changes in demographics.

The RTP provides an essential supplement to funds from State programs such as OHV and snowmobile registration fees. It also enables local governments to leverage municipal and county funds in concert with transportation projects. On Federal lands, RTP funds enable volunteer organizations to engage the land management agencies in solving problems that have persisted for years.

In the years before the creation of RTP, trails were typically the responsibility of individual jurisdictions, such as a single city park, State recreation area, or Federal land unit. The RTP has encouraged partnerships, sharing of resources, and engagement of volunteer organizations and other citizens' groups.

In addition, with more sharing of project information nationwide, organizations and agencies have developed more effective resources for trail design, construction, and management. The RTP has helped fund numerous training programs and resources that have been used by trail programs in every State. At the same time, nonprofit groups have shared their own publications as well as contributed to the development of new resources for trail maintenance and monitoring.

Across the country, equestrians and cyclists, hikers and snowmobilers, ATV enthusiasts and paddlers have joined in support of local as well as regional efforts to meet the trail needs of all users. Because RTP funds are distributed for both motorized and nonmotorized trail work, all trail interests have incentives to cooperate and learn from each other.

All of these trends are helping create a climate for improving the design of trails, while exploring better materials and technology. Through RTP-supported training, the expertise of organizations and individuals is being made available to project sponsors in every region.

Finally, projects using RTP funds also illustrate a variety of the ways that these trails address the DOT strategic goals:

Resources

For more information on many topics related to RTP funding as well as technical resources on trails of all types, see the following resources.

Recreational Trails Program

Recreational Trails Program Database: http://www.rtpinfo.org

The Recreational Trails Program website for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/

FHWA guidance and policies for RTP: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/

For policies and funding in every State, see the State RTP Administrators List to find program contacts and websites: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/rtpstate.cfm

The Coalition for Recreational Trails gives awards each year for outstanding projects funded through State RTP grants: http://www.americantrails.org/rtp/crtawards.html

Accessible trails

FHWA guidance to provide best practices for trail accessibility, and trail design, construction, and maintenance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/

USDA Forest Service trail and outdoor facility accessibility guidelines: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/

More resources on accessible trails: https://www.americantrails.org/user-types/trail-user/accessible

Trail planning, development, and management

For many resources on trail planning, design, construction, management, accessibility, funding, training, for both motorized and nonmotorized trails, see the National Trails Training Partnership Resources and Library on the American Trails website: https://www.americantrails.org/resources/planning-design

Youth and Conservation Corps

FHWA Youth Workforce Development Resources: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/guidance/youth_workforcedev.cfm

FHWA Youth Service and Conservation Corps Questions and Answers: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qayscc.cfm

A guide to transportation funding programs for service and conservation corps; "Conservation Corps and Transportation: Making the Connection" (pdf 1.7 mb): http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/CorpsandTransportation.pdf

More about opportunities with Corps nationwide at The Corps Network: http://www.corpsnetwork.org

Technical Assistance

Recreational Trails Program Database Website: http://www.rtpinfo.org

Technical Questions:
Call the number or send an email to the address below.

RTP Database Technical Assistance Section
American Trails
P.O. Box 491797
Redding, CA 96049-1797
(530) 605-4395
info@recreationaltrailsinfo.org

Website issues: Write to webmaster@recreationaltrailsinfo.org.

Acknowledgements

The Recreational Trails Program Database project is funded by the Federal Highway Administration through the Recreational Trails Program under contract GS-00F-006BA / DTFH6117F00074.

Updated: 4/2/2019
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000