FOREST SERVICE 

TRAILS

Long- and Short-Term 

Improvements Could 

Reduce Maintenance 

Backlog and Enhance 

System Sustainability

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2013

GAO-13-618

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-618, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2013

FOREST SERVICE TRAILS 

Long- and Short-Term Improvements Could Reduce 

Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System 

Sustainability 

Why GAO Did This Study

The Forest Service manages more 

than 158,000 miles of recreational 

trails offering hikers, horseback riders, 

cyclists, off-highway-vehicle drivers, 

and others access to national forests. 

To remain safe and usable, these trails 

need regular maintenance, such as 

removal of downed trees or bridge 

repairs. GAO was asked to review the 

agency’s trail maintenance activities. 

This report examines (1) the extent to 

which the Forest Service is meeting 

trail maintenance needs, and effects 

associated with any maintenance not 

done; (2) resources, including funding 

and labor, that the agency employs to 

maintain its trails; (3) factors, if any, 

complicating agency efforts to maintain 

its trails; and (4) options, if any, that 

could improve the agency’s trail 

maintenance efforts. GAO reviewed 

laws and agency documents; analyzed 

Forest Service budget data for fiscal 

years 2006-2012 and trails data for 

fiscal years 2008-2012; and 

interviewed agency officials and 

representatives of 16 stakeholder 

groups selected to represent trail 

users, conservation, and industry. 

Their views are not generalizable.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

actions, that the Forest Service 

(1) analyze trails program needs and 

available resources and develop 

options for narrowing the gap between 

them and take steps to assess and 

improve the sustainability of its trails 

and (2) take steps to enhance training 

on collaborating with and managing 

volunteers who help maintain trails. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, 

the Forest Service generally agreed 

with GAO’s findings and 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Forest Service has more miles of trail than it has been able to maintain, 

resulting in a persistent maintenance backlog with a range of negative effects. In 

fiscal year 2012, the agency reported that it accomplished at least some 

maintenance on about 37 percent of its 158,000 trail miles and that about onequarter of its trail miles met the agency’s standards. The Forest Service 

estimated the value of its trail maintenance backlog to be $314 million in fiscal 

year 2012, with an additional $210 million for annual maintenance, capital 

improvement, and operations. Trails not maintained to quality standards have a 

range of negative effects, such as inhibiting trail use and harming natural 

resources, and deferring maintenance can add to maintenance costs.

The Forest Service relies on a combination of internal and external resources to 

help maintain its trail system. Internal resources include about $80 million 

allocated annually for trail maintenance activities plus funding for other agency 

programs that involve trails. External resources include volunteer labor, which the 

Forest Service valued at $26 million in fiscal year 2012, and funding from federal 

programs, states, and other sources.

Collectively, agency officials and stakeholders GAO spoke with identified a 

number of factors complicating the Forest Service’s trail maintenance efforts, 

including (1) factors associated with the origin and location of trails, (2) some 

agency policies and procedures, and (3) factors associated with the management 

of volunteers and other external resources. For example, many trails were 

created for purposes other than recreation, such as access for timber harvesting 

or firefighting, and some were built on steep slopes, leaving unsustainable, 

erosion-prone trails that require continual maintenance. In addition, certain 

agency policies and procedures complicate trail maintenance efforts, such as the 

agency’s lack of standardized training in trails field skills, which limits agency 

expertise. Further, while volunteers are important to the agency’s trail 

maintenance efforts, managing volunteers can decrease the time officials can 

spend performing on-the-ground maintenance.

Agency officials and stakeholders GAO interviewed collectively identified 

numerous options to improve Forest Service trail maintenance, including 

(1) assessing the sustainability of the trail system, (2) improving agency policies 

and procedures, and (3) improving management of volunteers and other external 

resources. In a 2010 document titled A Framework for Sustainable Recreation, 

the Forest Service noted the importance of analyzing recreation program needs 

and available resources and assessing potential ways to narrow the gap between 

them, which the agency has not yet done for its trails. Many officials and 

stakeholders suggested that the agency systematically assess its trail system to 

identify ways to reduce the gap and improve trail system sustainability. They also 

identified other options for improving management of volunteers. For example, 

while the agency’s goal in the Forest Service Manual is to use volunteers, the 

agency has not established collaboration with and management of volunteers 

who help maintain trails as clear expectations for trails staff responsible for 

working with volunteers, and training in this area is limited. Some agency officials 

and stakeholders stated that training on how to collaborate with and manage 

volunteers would enhance the agency’s ability to capitalize on this resource.

View GAO-13-618. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov. 
 

Page i GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Letter 1 

Background 3

Forest Service Has Substantial Unmet Trail Maintenance Needs, 

Resulting in Multiple Negative Effects 10

To Maintain Trails, the Forest Service Relies on a Combination of 

Internal and External Resources 17

Varied Factors Complicate the Maintenance of Forest Service 

Trails 27

Stakeholders Have Identified Numerous Options for Improving 

Trail Maintenance over the Long and Short Terms 36

Conclusions 43

Recommendations for Executive Action 44

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 45

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

Appendix II Selected Trails Data from the Forest Service’s Infra 

Database 50

Appendix III Forest Service Trails-Related Budget Data 52

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Agriculture 54

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables

Table 1: The Forest Service’s Estimated Trail Maintenance Needs 

for Fiscal Years 2006-2012 12

Table 2: National Forests Included in GAO’s Review 46

Table 3: Organizations GAO Interviewed 48

Table 4: Forest Service’s National Forest System Trail Inventory 

and Estimated Number of Visitors, as of May 2013 50

Contents 
 

Page ii GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Table 5: Forest Service’s National Forest System Trail Inventory, 

by Region and Trail Class, Fiscal Year 2012 51

Table 6: Forest Service Trails Allocations Distributed to the 

Regions, Fiscal Years 2006 to 2012 52

Table 7: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funding in 

Support of Forest Service Trail Maintenance and 

Decommissioning Projects, by Region and State 52

Figures

Figure 1: Forest Service Lands and Regions 4

Figure 2: Forest Service Trail Miles, Miles Maintained, Miles 

Meeting Forest Service’s Standards, and Miles Improved, 

Fiscal Years 2008-2012 11

Figure 3: Trail Before and After Clearing Following a Windstorm, 

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Idaho, 2011 14

Figure 4: Example of a Failing Bridge, Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest, Montana 14

Figure 5: Visitor-Created Alternate Route to Avoid a Wet, Muddy 

Trail, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Montana 15

Figure 6: Deep Trenches Due to Inadequate Drainage, Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest, Washington, and ChattahoocheeOconee National Forest, Georgia 17

Figure 7: Estimated Trail Maintenance Needs, Compared with the 

Forest Service’s Trails Allocation, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2012 18

Figure 8: Bridge Replacement and Signs Paid for with Recovery Act 

Funding, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon 22

Figure 9: Legacy Trails in Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, 

Georgia, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 

Montana 28

Figure 10: Road Bridge Adopted into Mt. Hood National Forest’s 

Trail System, Oregon 29
 

Page iii GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Abbreviation

OHV off-highway vehicle

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 27, 2013

The Honorable Michael K. Simpson

Chairman

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Cynthia M. Lummis

House of Representatives

Growing populations, expanding development, and the lure of the 

outdoors for people living near public lands have increased demand for 

recreational opportunities in national forests and grasslands, including 

demand for trails. Recreation enthusiasts contend that trails enhance 

quality of life, and, according to the Outdoor Industry Association, the use 

of trails contributes over $80 billion annually to the U.S. economy. The 

Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages more than 

158,000 miles of recreational trails on its 155 national forests and 

20 national grasslands—the largest network of trails in the country, 

according to the agency. Forest Service data show that national forests 

receive about 165 million visits each year, and many of these visits 

involve trails for a variety of recreational pursuits. The primary recreation 

activity on trails is recreation on foot, with over 40 percent of visitors to 

national forests hiking or walking the forests’ trails. In addition, over the 

last 40 years, new forms of motorized recreation, such as snowmobiles 

and off-highway vehicles (OHV), as well as nonmotorized recreation, 

such as mountain bikes, have gained popularity. These new forms of 

recreation intersect with many traditionally popular activities, such as 

camping, hiking, hunting, and horseback riding.

Recreational trails require regular maintenance, including removal of 

trees and other debris and repairs to bridges. Without proper 

maintenance, trails can become dangerous or unusable, and deferring 

needed maintenance can ultimately add to costs. In 1989, we reported a 

nearly $200 million backlog of deferred maintenance on Forest Service 

trails, noting that the agency did not routinely gather data on maintenance 

and reconstruction needs or associated costs. Additionally, we found that 

the Forest Service’s new computerized information system, to be 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

operational in 1990, was not planned to gather such data.1

In this context, you asked us to review the Forest Service’s trail 

maintenance activities. This report examines (1) the extent to which the 

Forest Service is meeting trail maintenance needs, and effects associated 

with any maintenance not done; (2) resources, including funding and 

labor, that the agency employs to maintain its trails; (3) factors, if any, 

complicating agency efforts to maintain its trails; and (4) options, if any, 

that could improve the agency’s trail maintenance efforts.

Since we 

issued that report, the Forest Service has faced new trail maintenance 

challenges, including widespread wildland fires, extensive tree die-offs 

due to insect and disease outbreaks, and more recreational use of its 

trails, all of which can require more maintenance to keep trails safe and 

passable. In light of these and other factors affecting trail maintenance, 

along with constrained federal budgets, trail users and others have 

remained concerned about the Forest Service’s ability to adequately 

maintain its trail system.

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws and agency documents, 

including agency handbooks and other guidance related to maintaining 

trails. We interviewed Forest Service officials in the agency’s 

headquarters and received information from all nine of its regions about 

trail maintenance needs and effects associated with any deferred 

maintenance. We also interviewed officials from a nonprobability sample 

of 18 national forests located in five of the nine Forest Service regions. 

We held these interviews to learn about their trail maintenance programs; 

we also examined trails on which maintenance had been deferred and 

trails that were well maintained. We selected these forests to represent 

variation in geography, proximity to urban and rural areas, trail mileage, 

and type and intensity of trail use, although findings from this selection of 

forests are not generalizable to the entire population of national forests. 

We obtained data on the Forest Service’s trail inventory for fiscal years 

2008 to 2012 from the agency’s Infrastructure database (known as Infra). 

 

1

GAO, Parks and Recreation: Maintenance and Reconstruction Backlog on National 

Forest Trails, GAO/RCED-89-182 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 1989). We recommended 

that the Forest Service gather and make available to Congress, on a periodic basis, 

nationwide data on needed trail maintenance and reconstruction work, the severity of 

conditions requiring the work, and associated costs. Since we issued that report, the 

Forest Service has implemented a database to collect and maintain data related to its trail 

inventory and to provide data for the agency to estimate the cost of maintenance and 

reconstruction needs.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing relevant 

documentation and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the 

data and found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. To evaluate the resources the Forest Service employs to maintain 

its trails, we reviewed allocation data in agency budget documents for 

fiscal years 2006 to 2012. We also collected and reviewed evidence from 

national, regional, forest, and ranger district officials about how funds are 

allocated for trail maintenance activities. In addition, we examined the 

agency’s use of external resources in conducting trail maintenance, 

including laws, regulations, and agency guidance regarding the Forest 

Service’s authority to use external resources. To obtain information on 

factors, if any, affecting trail maintenance efforts and options that could 

improve such efforts, we asked agency officials at all levels about both 

topics. Further, we convened a discussion group to gather the 

perspectives of Forest Service officials representing all nine regions on 

what options, if any, could improve trail maintenance efforts. We also 

selected a nonprobability sample of 16 organizations representing a 

variety of trail user, conservation, and industry perspectives and 

interviewed representatives of these organizations about their views on 

Forest Service trail conditions, factors influencing trail maintenance by the 

agency, and options related to maintenance efforts. The views of these 

stakeholders are not generalizable to all trail user, conservation, and 

industry organizations, but they provided various perspectives on the 

Forest Service’s trail maintenance efforts. We also interviewed officials 

from three other federal land management agencies—the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

National Park Service—to learn about their trail maintenance programs, 

as well as Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey to learn about current 

research on trail design. (See app. I for further details on our objectives, 

scope, and methodology.)

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to June 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The 193 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service as 

national forests and grasslands are collectively known as the National 

Forest System. These lands are located in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

the Virgin Islands and make up about 9 percent of the United States’ total 

land area (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Forest Service Lands and Regions

Note: The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

Stewardship of the National Forest System is carried out through nine 

regions that oversee 155 national forests; the forests, in turn, oversee 

more than 600 ranger districts. Each region encompasses a broad 

geographic area and is headed by a regional forester, who reports directly 

to the Chief of the Forest Service and provides leadership for, and 

coordinates the activities of, the various forests within the region. Each 

forest is headed by a supervisor, who allocates the budget and 

Forest Service’s 

Organization
 

Page 5 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

coordinates activities among the various ranger districts within the forest. 

Ranger districts, in turn, are headed by a district ranger, who conducts or 

oversees on-the-ground activities such as construction and maintenance 

of trails; operation of campgrounds; management of wildlife habitat; and 

the sale and harvest of forest products, including timber. Ranger districts 

vary in size from 50,000 acres to more than 1 million acres. Collectively, 

these field units are overseen by the Chief of the Forest Service, who 

operates out of the Forest Service’s national headquarters in Washington, 

D.C. The Chief and other headquarters officials provide broad policy and 

direction for the agency, monitor the agency’s activities, and inform 

Congress about agency accomplishments. In fiscal year 2012, the Forest 

Service had nearly 34,000 full-time-equivalent employees, about 

97 percent of whom were in the field, and an enacted budget of about 

$5.6 billion.

At the close of fiscal year 2012, the Forest Service reported having about 

158,000 miles of trail used for both recreation and management.2 (See 

table 4 in app. II for information on the Forest Service’s trail mileage, 

usage, and visitors.) Under the National Forest Management Act of 

1976,3 the Forest Service manages its lands for multiple uses—such as 

timber harvesting, watershed and wilderness protection, protection of fish 

and wildlife habitat, forage for livestock, and recreation—and the agency’s 

trails provide access both for agency officials managing lands and for 

people visiting those lands. Located throughout Forest Service lands, 

these trails include many that existed before national forests were 

established and are managed under various land management 

authorities. For example, the Forest Service manages about 32,000 miles 

of trail in designated wilderness areas, which, under the Wilderness Act of 

1964, are to be administered so as to leave them unimpaired for future 

use and enjoyment and to protect and preserve their wilderness 

character, among other goals.4

 

2

A forest trail is one that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and use of the national forests. The Forest Service’s trail mileage has 

fluctuated over time (see app. II), in part because, according to a Forest Service official, 

data collection on existing trails has been improved by the agency and, in part, because 

new trails have been added and existing trails have been decommissioned.

Trails in wilderness areas are thus usually 

3

Pub. L. No. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949 (1976), as amended.

4

Pub. L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890 (1964), as amended, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-

1136.

Forest Service’s Trail 

System
 

Page 6 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

less developed and more rugged than nonwilderness trails. The Forest 

Service’s trail system also includes parts of national scenic and historic 

trails established under the National Trails System Act of 1968.5

 These 

long, national scenic trails—such as the Appalachian and Pacific Crest 

Trails—are to “provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for 

the conservation and enjoyment of . . . the area through which such trails 

may pass.”6

The Forest Service’s trails program aims to ensure recreation 

opportunities, public safety, and backcountry access through operation, 

maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of forest trails. Forest 

Service trails are categorized by trail type, trail class, and the managed 

use of each trail. Trail type reflects predominant trail surface and general 

mode of travel for each trail. The three trail types are standard (or “terra”) 

trails, which have a surface consisting predominantly of earth; snow trails, 

which have a surface consisting predominantly of snow or ice; and water 

trails, which have a surface consisting predominantly of water (but may 

include portage routes over land). The majority of Forest Service trails are 

terra trails, and in some cases, a trail may be classified as a terra trail in 

the summer and a snow trail in the winter. All Forest Service trails must 

also be categorized by trail class, which are general categories reflecting 

the prescribed scale of development for each trail. Specifically, class 1 

trails are minimally developed, such as those with natural fords instead of 

bridges in wilderness areas, and are designed to provide a challenging 

recreation opportunity, usually in a natural and unmodified setting. 

Conversely, class 5 trails, such as those found at visitor centers or highuse recreation sites, are fully developed, have gentle grades, and are 

often paved. About half of National Forest System trails are class 3 trails, 

which may have some minor obstacles, such as rocks, and generally 

pose a moderate level of challenge to users. (For more information on 

National historic trails, such as the Oregon Trail, closely 

follow a historic travel route of national significance.

 

5

Pub. L. No. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919 (1968), as amended. The federal portion of the trails 

system consists of 30 national trails (11 scenic and 19 historic trails, both of which 

categories must be designated by Congress) covering more than 60,000 miles, with over 

1,000 recreation trails. The Forest Service administers 6 national scenic and historic trails: 

Arizona National Scenic Trail, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, Florida National 

Scenic Trail, Nez Perce (Nee Mee Poo) National Historic Trail, Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The Forest Service also 

manages 15 other national scenic and historic trails in cooperation with the Department of 

the Interior, state and county governments, and private entities.

6

16 U.S.C. § 1242(a)(2). 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

miles of trails by trail class, see table 5 in app. II.) All Forest Service trails 

must have at least one managed use, which reflects the mode(s) of travel 

appropriate on a trail, given its design and management. For example, a 

trail may be designed and actively managed for hiker and equestrian use, 

although other uses, such as bicycling, might be allowed.

Information on a trail’s type, class, use, and related design parameters is 

applied by land managers to set trail management objectives, which 

document each trail’s intended purpose and how it is to be managed. 

Forest Service trails are to be maintained to the agency’s national quality 

standards for trails, which describe conditions that trail users can expect 

to encounter and the level of trail quality the Forest Service plans to 

provide. For example, the standards state that trails and trailsides will be 

free of litter and human waste.

Maintenance to keep trails in good condition may include, among other 

tasks, clearing encroaching vegetation and fallen trees, as well as repair; 

preventive maintenance; and replacement of trail signs, water drainage 

features, trail bridges, and other trail structures. For reporting purposes, 

the agency divides trail maintenance activities into three categories: 

(1) miles maintained, (2) miles meeting standard, and (3) miles improved. 

The Forest Service defines these categories as follows:

• Miles maintained: includes miles of trail on which at least one 

maintenance task was performed to quality standards during a given 

year, indicating that one or more—but not necessarily all—needed 

maintenance tasks were completed.

• Miles meeting standard: includes all trail miles that meet quality 

standards and have been maintained in accordance with a specific 

maintenance cycle associated with each trail’s management objective. 

Maintenance cycles vary by trail; some trails, for example, may be on 

annual maintenance cycles, and others may be on 3- or 5-year cycles. 

Thus, a trail can meet the Forest Service’s standards even if it was 

not maintained in a given year.

• Miles improved: includes all trail miles where any improvements were 

made during a given year through activities such as widening the trail 

and adding or improving trail bridges or trail components, such as 

barriers, trail surfacing, kiosks, and wildlife viewing platforms.

The Forest Service sets performance targets for miles maintained and 

miles improved, and collates accomplishment data from local units, 

Trail Maintenance 

Reporting 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

including national forests or ranger districts, and reports data for each 

category in the agency’s annual budget justification to Congress.

In addition to using its own appropriations and staffing, the Forest Service 

is authorized to use volunteer labor and nonfederal funds in carrying out 

trail maintenance activities. Specifically, the Volunteers in the National 

Forests Act of 1972 authorizes the Forest Service to recruit, train, and 

accept the services of volunteers for a variety of activities related to 

national forests, including trail maintenance.7

In working with volunteers, the Forest Service generally uses two different 

types of agreements to outline expectations and address liability: 

volunteer agreements or challenge cost-share agreements.

The agency may provide 

these volunteers transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence 

support. The National Trails System Act also authorizes federal agencies, 

including the Forest Service, to encourage volunteer and volunteer 

organization involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and 

management of trails, where appropriate. Under this act, volunteer work 

may include operating programs to organize and supervise volunteer trailbuilding efforts; conducting trail-related research projects; or educating 

and training volunteers on methods of trail planning, construction, and 

maintenance. Agencies are also authorized to provide volunteers with 

equipment, tools, and technical assistance.

8 Volunteer 

agreements are signed by individuals or groups who are interested 

primarily in volunteering on a particular project or activity—for example, a 

local organization sponsoring a volunteer day for its members; such 

volunteers constitute the majority of volunteers to the Forest Service. 

Under a volunteer agreement, the Forest Service assumes liability for 

these individuals while they are volunteering, which authorizes the 

volunteers to collect workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job.9

 

7

Pub. L. No. 92-300, 86 Stat. 147 (1972), as amended.

Other volunteers are covered under challenge cost-share agreements, 

8

According to an agency official, the Forest Service does not track how many volunteer 

and challenge cost-share agreements are signed at the local level each year. The agency 

does track national cost-share agreements and reports on them in the agency’s annual 

budget justification.

9

Under the Volunteers in the National Forests Act of 1972, volunteers are considered 

federal employees for tort claims purposes.

Forest Service’s Authority 

to Use External Resources
 

Page 9 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

which outline the relationship between the Forest Service and a partner 

organization, identifying an exchange of funds or services between the 

agency and the partner group.10 In this type of agreement, the partner 

organization certifies that it has liability insurance covering its volunteers. 

Generally, this type of agreement is used with certain organizations 

having long-standing relationships with the agency, such as youth and 

conservation corps.11

In addition to having the authority to accept volunteer labor, the Forest 

Service has authority to accept and use nonfederal funds to support trail 

maintenance. The Cooperative Funds Act authorizes the Forest Service 

to accept money received as contributions toward cooperative work in 

forest investigations or protection, management, and improvement of the 

National Forest System.12 Under the act, the Forest Service may also 

apply for and receive grants under certain circumstances.

The Forest Service has undertaken a large planning effort regarding the 

use of recreational motor vehicles in national forests and grasslands. 

Each national forest is to identify the minimum road system needed for 

safe and efficient travel and for administration, use, and protection of the 

National Forest System; roads that are no longer needed are to be 

decommissioned or considered for other uses, such as for trails. In 

addition, in 2005, the Forest Service promulgated a regulation known as 

the travel management rule, which, among other things, requires each 

national forest and grassland to identify and designate the roads, trails, 

and areas open to motor vehicles. In deciding whether to designate trails 

for motor vehicle use, the rule directs the Forest Service to consider, 

among other criteria, the need for and availability of resources to maintain 

and administer the trail if it were designated.

 

10Under challenge cost-share agreements, the partner’s share can be in the form of cash, 

volunteer services, or in-kind contributions such as equipment.

11The Forest Service employs a number of different youth crews, such as those from the 

Student Conservation Association and Northwest Youth Corps, to maintain trails. In 

addition to groups from outside the agency, the Forest Service also supports its Youth 

Conservation Corps program, an outdoor summer job and training program designed for 

youth aged 15-18.

12Act of June 30, 1914, 38 Stat. 430, as amended by Pub. L. No. 104-127, Title III, § 372, 

110 Stat. 1015 (1996).

Travel Management 

Planning Process
 

Page 10 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

The Forest Service has more miles of trail than it has been able to 

maintain, resulting in a long-standing deferred maintenance backlog. 

Trails not maintained to the Forest Service’s standards may inhibit trail 

use and harm natural resources, and deferred maintenance can lead to 

increased maintenance costs in the future.

The Forest Service is unable to regularly maintain many of its 158,000 

miles of trails. According to Forest Service data, over the last 5 years the 

agency performed at least some maintenance on an average of about 

one-third of its trail miles annually, with officials telling us that some trails 

had not received any maintenance in the last 10 years. For fiscal year 

2012, the agency reported that it accomplished at least some 

maintenance on about 37 percent of its trail miles, or 59,274 miles of trail, 

exceeding its fiscal year 2012 target of 46,580 miles. Maintenance 

conducted ranged from minimal maintenance, such as pruning brush, to 

more extensive maintenance, such as repairing a bridge. In addition to 

maintenance, the agency improved about 1 percent of its trail miles each 

year over the last 5 years. Improvements could include, for example, 

adding platforms or upgrading trail surfaces. According to an agency 

official, the agency focuses more on conducting needed maintenance 

than on improving existing trails or constructing new ones. Over the past 

5 years, from 17 to 41 percent of overall trail miles met Forest Service 

standards each year, with 26 percent (or about one-quarter) of trail miles 

meeting standards in fiscal year 2012. Figure 2 shows mileage totals for 

various measures relating to maintenance conducted and trail conditions 

over the past 5 fiscal years.

Forest Service Has 

Substantial Unmet 

Trail Maintenance 

Needs, Resulting in 

Multiple Negative 

Effects

More Trails Exist Than Are 

Being Maintained, Leading 

to a Persistent Backlog in 

the Hundreds of Millions 

of Dollars
 

Page 11 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 2: Forest Service Trail Miles, Miles Maintained, Miles Meeting Forest 

Service’s Standards, and Miles Improved, Fiscal Years 2008-2012

The lack of annual maintenance has led to a persistent deferred trail 

maintenance backlog, whose value in fiscal year 2012 was estimated by 

the Forest Service at $314 million. The Forest Service estimated an 

additional $210 million for that year in three other trail maintenancerelated needs: annual maintenance, capital improvement, and operations. 

Together, these four estimates—deferred maintenance, annual 

maintenance, capital improvement, and operations—constitute the 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

agency’s annual estimate of its trail maintenance needs, which totaled 

about $524 million in fiscal year 2012 (see table 1).13

Table 1: The Forest Service’s Estimated Trail Maintenance Needs for Fiscal Years 2006-2012

Year Deferred maintenancea Annual maintenanceb Capital improvementc Operationsd Total

2006 $245,340,617 $53,056,992 $186,147,732 $24,590,348 $509,135,689

2007 224,165,294 52,620,623 128,443,693 16,574,566 421,804,176

2008 279,890,135 69,718,156 179,626,539 27,294,242 556,529,072

2009 293,954,942 69,661,704 165,123,504 22,088,815 550,828,965

2010 295,565,533 60,286,784 122,193,855 23,344,787 501,390,959

2011 295,744,022 66,573,536 114,663,581 21,090,602 498,071,741

2012 314,177,808 66,155,852 121,059,392 22,318,420 $523,711,472

Source: Forest Service.

a

Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed when it should have been, including 

repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of an asset—in this case, trails—to restore it to serviceable 

condition.

b

Annual maintenance includes repair, preventive maintenance, or cyclic maintenance needed to 

maintain serviceability.

c

Capital improvement refers to new construction, alteration, changing a trail’s original function (e.g., 

changing from a hiking trail to an all-terrain-vehicle trail), or expanding or changing a trail’s capacity.

d

Operations refers to the Forest Service’s estimate of annual operations costs for the trail 

maintenance program.

These estimates, however, may understate the scale of the agency’s 

maintenance needs. Estimates are based on trail condition surveys 

conducted by local Forest Service staff on a random sample of 

approximately 1 percent of the agency’s trail miles each year—the 

minimum number of trail miles that the agency has determined is required 

to generate a statistically valid estimate of its maintenance needs.14

 

13These estimates are based on a sample of surveyed trails and are therefore subject to 

sampling error, which is usually expressed as a margin of error or confidence interval. 

Although the Forest Service did not provide the margin of error for its 2012 estimate in its 

most recent budget justification to Congress, the agency calculated an 80 percent 

confidence interval that resulted in a margin of error of 4.3 percent (±$23 million) of the 

estimate. A Forest Service official confirmed with us that a 95 percent confidence interval, 

which is a more typical confidence level, would be 6.6 percent (±$34 million) of the 

estimate.

Some 

staff we interviewed, however, told us they do not always complete the 

14According to agency officials, surveys are to be conducted annually on 1 percent of trail 

miles for trail classes 1-4 and on 20 percent of trail miles for class 5 (312 miles of over 

158,000).
 

Page 13 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

surveys or ensure that they are providing accurate information for all trails 

included in the sample. They cited a number of difficulties associated with 

carrying out the surveys, including lack of available or trained personnel 

and a cumbersome and inefficient process that requires the surveyor to 

use a land-measuring wheel to measure the length of the trail and to carry 

a data dictionary while manually recording trail data.15 Forest Service 

headquarters officials told us they were taking steps to streamline the 

data collection process; these steps are discussed later in this report.

Trails not maintained to the Forest Service’s standards have a range of 

negative effects, including inhibiting trail use and posing potential safety 

hazards, harming natural resources, and adding to agency costs. Among 

the 18 national forests included in our review, officials at 15 forests cited 

various negative effects on visitors; officials from 10 forests specifically 

cited potential safety hazards as a consequence of deferred 

maintenance. For example, fallen logs across trails can impede hikers or 

block horseback, mountain bike, or OHV riders entirely (see fig. 3). 

Officials from one forest noted that a safety hazard could arise from their 

inability to remove standing dead trees along a trail. Officials from another 

forest said that trail bridges needing replacement could be hazardous 

(see fig. 4), and officials at two other ranger districts cited concerns that 

users could get lost attempting to follow overgrown trails. Most forests we 

visited did not have trails that were closed because of deferred 

maintenance, but officials from a number of forests noted that they had 

some trails that were “functionally closed” because they were so 

overgrown or crowded with downed trees. Officials from several forests 

indicated that they had installed signs at trailheads warning of potential 

hazards. Outside the agency, nearly all the stakeholders we interviewed 

said they were concerned with the condition of the Forest Service’s trail 

system and the agency’s inability to maintain it adequately.

 

15Land-measuring wheels—consisting of a wheel mounted on a light frame—are used to 

determine distances, area, and acreages. As a surveyor pushes the frame, a meter 

records each revolution of the wheel.

Unmaintained Trails 

Inhibit Trail Use, Harm 

Natural Resources, and 

Add to Agency Costs
 

Page 14 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 3: Trail Before and After Clearing Following a Windstorm, Nez PerceClearwater National Forests, Idaho, 2011

Figure 4: Example of a Failing Bridge, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 

Montana

Unmaintained trails can also harm natural resources. For example, 

according to officials we interviewed at several forests, erosion resulting 

from unmaintained trails can create ecological damage. Trails with poor 

or unmaintained drainage features can deposit sediment into streams, 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

degrading water quality and potentially affecting species, such as 

cutthroat trout. Officials at one forest stated that deferred maintenance 

had prevented them from conducting trout recovery activities in their 

forest. Officials from three other forests added that waterlogged or 

obstructed trails, which force visitors to create alternate routes around 

obstacles, have negative effects on the visitors, as well as on resources. 

For example, on one trail, OHV riders created trenches in a meadow to 

avoid water on the trail (see fig. 5), and, according to an agency official, at 

$100,000 per mile of trail, fixing the rutting by installing boardwalks to 

raise the trail above the surrounding meadow would be cost prohibitive. 

Another official gave an example of horseback riders’ creating new 

stream crossings to avoid unsafe bridges. In addition to being potentially 

dangerous, such new crossings could damage resources by depositing 

additional sediment in creeks.

Figure 5: Visitor-Created Alternate Route to Avoid a Wet, Muddy Trail, BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest, Montana
 

Page 16 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Delaying maintenance can also increase the effort required to perform 

routine maintenance and lead to increased maintenance costs in the 

future, as we have previously reported in other contexts.16

• Water-eroded trenches: If drainage features such as water bars or 

drainage dips—which direct water away from trails to reduce 

erosion—are not regularly cleaned out, the drainage features can fail, 

and water can flow down the trail, creating deep trenches over time 

(see fig. 6). As a result, expensive maintenance is later needed to 

restore the trail in its existing location or to reroute it.

Forest Service 

estimates of deferred maintenance needs include the one-time cost to 

conduct maintenance that has been deferred, but these estimates do not 

quantify the extent to which costs have increased over time as 

maintenance continues to be delayed. One forest official gave two 

examples of circumstances in which deferred maintenance could later 

increase costs—although the extent to which costs would increase 

depends on such factors as length of trail segment needing to be 

restored, distance from trailhead, and soil type—as follows:

• Inadequate trailside brush removal: If brush alongside trails is not 

routinely removed, vegetation may grow and eventually take over the 

whole trail. Such overgrowth is especially common in areas of heavy 

rainfall, such as the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast, where, 

officials said, a trail can become overgrown in 5 years or less. Once a 

trail is overgrown, heavy maintenance is required to chop through 

roots and reestablish the trail’s tread.

Officials from another forest told us that some trails in their forest are 

maintained so infrequently that by the time crews get to them, so much 

maintenance has been deferred that the trails need to be completely 

rebuilt. As one official said, “The longer one waits to fix a problem, the 

harder it will be to fix.” 

 

16GAO, Federal Real Property: Government’s Fiscal Exposure from Repair and 

Maintenance Backlogs Is Unclear, GAO-09-10 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2008). We did 

not quantify the extent to which delaying maintenance on trails might increase costs. 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 6: Deep Trenches Due to Inadequate Drainage, Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest, Washington, and Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Georgia

The Forest Service relies on a combination of internal and external 

resources to help maintain its trail system. For example, the agency 

allocates some of its congressionally appropriated funds to support trail 

maintenance. In addition, the agency received about $100 million under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for trail 

maintenance activities. External resources used by the agency for trail 

maintenance include volunteer labor and funding from federal programs, 

states, and other sources. 

The Forest Service uses a variety of internal funding sources to support 

trail maintenance, according to officials we spoke with. The agency 

receives annual appropriations from Congress for capital improvements 

and maintenance, which it allocates to a variety of budget line items, 

including trails. This trails allocation is the agency’s primary source of 

funding for trail maintenance activities. In fiscal years 2006 through 2012, 

the agency’s annual trails allocation ranged from a low of about 

$73 million to a high of about $88 million, averaging about $80 million 

(see fig. 7).

To Maintain Trails, the 

Forest Service Relies 

on a Combination of 

Internal and External 

Resources 

Internal Resources Include 

Funds Allocated to Trails 

and to Other Agency 

Programs
 

Page 18 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 7: Estimated Trail Maintenance Needs, Compared with the Forest Service’s 

Trails Allocation, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2012

Not all of this money goes directly toward trail maintenance, however. As 

with other agency programs, a portion of the overall trail maintenance 

allocation is retained at the Forest Service headquarters level to cover 

agency overhead costs, before the remainder is distributed to the 

regions.17

 

17According to agency documents and an agency official, the Forest Service receives 

appropriations by program and does not receive a general administration or management 

appropriation. As a result, the agency charges each program its share of indirect and 

support costs through “cost pools.” These indirect and support funds pay for district 

rangers’ salaries, administrative support, information technology equipment and support, 

human resources, rent and utilities, and other common services. The amount each Forest 

Service program contributes toward these expenses is based on the number of each 

program’s full-time-equivalent staff.

The regions likewise use a portion of the trails allocation to 

cover costs at the regional level before in turn distributing funds to 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

individual forests for trail maintenance activities. For fiscal years 2010 

through 2012, from 29 to 32 percent of the trails allocation was held at the 

national level for overhead costs. The regions also reported holding trails 

allocations at the regional level for purposes such as overhead costs, 

capital investment projects, and emergency reserves, before the 

remainder was distributed to forests.

Headquarters officials told us that since fiscal year 2007, they have used 

a historical model to determine how trails allocations should be distributed 

to each region. According to an agency budget official, the model 

evaluates three primary elements: the inventory of trails in the region, 

including trail miles and classes; status of the travel management 

planning process; 18 and the region’s performance relative to agency 

priorities. For fiscal years 2011 through 2013, headquarters officials 

prorated and adjusted regional funding to meet national and regionspecific needs identified by the agency’s national and regional recreation 

directors, such as allocating funds to address an epidemic of mountain 

pine beetles in the Rocky Mountains. Regional portions of the Forest 

Service’s trails allocation varied substantially; in fiscal year 2012, for 

example, after national cost pools were accounted for, regions received 

trails allocations ranging from $3.1 million to $9.7 million (see table 6 in 

app. III).19

After receiving their trails allocations, the regions in turn direct funding to 

national forests, and, regional officials told us, they take a variety of 

factors into account when doing so. As is done at the national level, six of 

the nine regions consider total number of trail miles, and one of these six 

also considers emerging issues, such as mitigation of mountain pine 

beetles, when determining annual allocations. Another region recently 

initiated a new process in which it gives a base administration amount of 

$60,000 to each forest, plus an additional amount tied to each “user visit” 

 

18According to officials, the Forest Service intends to complete the travel management 

planning process by the close of fiscal year 2014. At the time of our review, about 

84 percent of forests had completed the planning process, according to these officials. 

19Some of the variation in the amounts of trails allocations distributed to the regions can 

be attributed to some regions’ receiving funds to help administer and manage national 

scenic and historic trails. In fiscal year 2012, the agency allocated $7.5 million of its 

$82 million trails allocation to support national scenic and historic trails.
 

Page 20 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

to the forest.20

In addition to the Forest Service’s trails allocation, the agency allocates 

funding to other programs that help support trail maintenance activities.

Officials from another region noted that their region’s trails 

allocations to national forests are based on the amount of work forests 

can accomplish toward regional targets and extra trail needs, such as 

bridge replacements. Four of the nine regions noted that they hold back a 

portion of the trails allocation for capital investment projects related to 

trails. For example, one region funds one large trails capital investment 

project each year, valued at $125,000 to $250,000. According to regional 

officials, they established this practice to address high costs related to 

large capital investment projects, such as complex bridges, because a 

single large project could deplete a forest’s entire trails allocation 

otherwise, and no other trail maintenance would be performed.

21

 

20Information about the number of visitors to each national forest comes from the National 

Visitor Use Monitoring program, which, according to agency documents, the Forest 

Service implemented to estimate the volume and characteristics of recreation visitation to 

the National Forest System, as well as the benefits recreation brings to the American 

public. 

For example, officials from one forest reported that because trails staff 

also work for recreation programs, part of their salaries are paid from the 

national forest recreation and wilderness allocation, as well as from the 

trails allocation. Officials from this forest said interns and wilderness 

rangers funded through the national forest recreation and wilderness 

allocation do trails work in addition to interacting with visitors. The officials 

said that this practice has been very effective for addressing trail 

maintenance needs. Officials at other forests reported accomplishing trail 

maintenance through activities funded by the agency’s integrated 

resource restoration allocation. This allocation was implemented on a 

pilot basis in certain regions in fiscal year 2012. Incorporating several

existing allocations, the new allocation is intended to support actions to 

restore or sustain water quality and watershed processes, including road 

and trail restoration activities. Officials from some forests noted that 

because unmaintained trails may produce erosion adversely affecting 

water quality, they had used some of their integrated resource restoration 

allocation to conduct trail maintenance. Additionally, officials from a 

number of forests that had experienced wildland fires said they had used 

burned area emergency response allocations to address some trail 

21Forest Service officials told us the agency’s financial systems do not track how much 

funding from other programs supports trail maintenance.
 

Page 21 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

maintenance needs on forests and rangelands affected by fires. These 

funds are available to support emergency response projects on lands 

damaged by wildfires.22

In addition, the Forest Service allocated about $100 million of the funding 

it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act) to trail maintenance and decommissioning activities, 

which some forest officials told us they used to help address their trail 

maintenance backlogs.23

 

22Burned area emergency response activities are postfire actions on National Forest 

System lands to prevent or minimize unacceptable erosion and loss of soil productivity, 

deterioration of water quality and downstream damage, changes to ecosystem function, 

establishment of nonnative invasive species, and degradation of cultural and natural 

resources.

The amount of Recovery Act funds for trail 

maintenance and decommissioning distributed to the regions ranged from 

$540,000 to the Intermountain Region to over $19 million to the Pacific 

Southwest (see table 7 in app. III for information on Recovery Act funds 

allocated to regions and states). Of the 90 trail maintenance projects 

supported by Recovery Act funds, agency documents show that 

76 addressed deferred maintenance, including 27 that repaired or 

replaced bridges. For example, Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon 

received $1,400,000 to refurbish and repair trails to improve public 

access and hiker safety, which officials told us they used for a number of 

activities, including replacing 22 bridges and some signs (see fig. 8).

23Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). These funds were to be obligated by September 30, 2010, 

and Forest Service headquarters officials told us that nearly 100 percent of the Forest 

Service’s total Recovery Act funds had in fact been obligated by the deadline. The 

Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General has reported on agency trail 

maintenance-related expenditures under the Recovery Act, including questionable 

expenditures such as those related to unallowable costs charged by a cooperator. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act: Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance Projects: Trail 

Maintenance and Decommissioning, 08703-0004-SF (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2012).
 

Page 22 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 8: Bridge Replacement and Signs Paid for with Recovery Act Funding, Mt. 

Hood National Forest, Oregon

In addition to internal resources, Forest Service officials reported using a 

number of external resources to support trail maintenance efforts, 

including volunteer labor and funding from other federal programs, states, 

and other sources. Volunteer labor is a particularly important resource for 

trail maintenance. In fiscal year 2012, the Forest Service reported that 

1.2 million volunteer labor hours—or the equivalent of 667 full-time 

volunteers, valued at $26 million—directly supported its trail maintenance 

activities.24

 

24The Forest Service began collecting data on volunteer hours for trail maintenance 

activities beginning in fiscal year 2011; previously, trail maintenance volunteer hours were 

included as part of volunteer hours counted for all recreation, heritage, and wilderness 

programs. The agency calculates the value of volunteer labor by multiplying reported 

volunteer hours by an hourly rate. Beginning in 2010, the Forest Service based its 

calculations on a rate for the value of volunteer time estimated by the nonprofit 

philanthropic network Independent Sector, which was $21.79 per hour in 2011. The 

Independent Sector describes itself as a “leadership network for nonprofits, foundations, 

and corporate giving programs.” (

By comparison, in that same year, the Forest Service had the 

equivalent of 666 full-time trails employees.

http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time,

accessed March 15, 2013).

External Resources 

Include Volunteer Labor 

and Funding from Federal 

Programs, States, and 

Other Sources
 

Page 23 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

The contributions of volunteers to trail maintenance may be higher than 

these figures indicate because volunteer hours may be underreported. 

According to agency documents, Forest Service staff are required to 

report the number of hours volunteers work on trails, but, according to an 

agency headquarters official, there are no annual agency targets for 

working with volunteers, and not all staff find the data valuable. Therefore, 

Forest Service staff may see little benefit in taking the time to collect and 

enter volunteer data, and, consequently, not all volunteer hours may be 

recorded. Moreover, some agency officials and stakeholders told us that 

not everyone who conducts maintenance on Forest Service trails is under 

a volunteer or challenge cost-share agreement, and informal contributions 

are not captured in the agency’s volunteer data. For example, an official 

from one forest said that some visitors carry saws with them and remove 

deadfall or other vegetation they come across while using trails. These 

informal volunteer activities are not technically authorized or recorded in 

agency data, but an official from one forest said that forest officials 

“welcome the help.” 

Regarding external funds, all agency officials we interviewed at forests 

and ranger districts reported receiving external sources of funding from 

several sources, including other federal and state agencies. While the 

Forest Service tracks national grants and challenge cost-share 

agreements,25 it does not centrally track external funding received by 

national forests and is unable to fully quantify how much total external 

funding the agency has received for trails. One key source of funding for 

trail maintenance is the Recreational Trails Program. Under this program, 

the Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, makes funds available to 

states to award for trail maintenance or trail assessments. In fiscal year 

2013, $80.2 million was set aside for this program nationally and was 

apportioned to the states. According to the officials we interviewed, states 

often grant a portion of these funds to national forests for trail 

maintenance or construction.26

 

25At the national level, the Forest Service reported receiving nearly $5.9 million in fiscal 

year 2012 in contributions for trails from partners under challenge cost-share agreements. 

The agency did not provide information on grants specifically related to trails. 

Officials from one forest we interviewed 

26Grants may also be made to private organizations; municipal, county, or state 

governments; and other federal agencies. The Federal Highway Administration does not 

track recipients of funding at the state level and is therefore unable to calculate how much 

Recreational Trails Program funding has supported the Forest Service.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

stated that they used funds from this source to install signs and reroute 

trails, and officials from another forest stated that they used the funds for 

major projects, including trail bridges. A third forest used $150,000 in 

Recreational Trails Program grant funding, combined with a grant from a 

local nonprofit, to pay for a professional trails assessment.

Officials from many forests we interviewed also told us they received 

state grants to support maintenance of trails for motor vehicles from their 

state’s OHV program. Some states use funds collected from OHV 

registration fees to provide grants to local entities, including national 

forests, to maintain and improve trails for motorized users. Officials at one 

forest stated that the forest’s ranger districts receive approximately 

$400,000 per year from their state’s OHV registration fees, which the 

districts use to fund special projects, hire trails crews, and buy supplies to 

complete trail maintenance on Forest Service land. Officials at a ranger 

district stated that they received $239,000 per year in state OHV funding, 

which they used to fund a nine-person crew to maintain trails, among 

other activities. An official from this ranger district stated that much of the 

trail maintenance work funded by this grant was used to restore 

unauthorized routes that OHV users had created. Officials from another 

forest told us they receive $10,000 to $20,000 per year to maintain snow 

trails, plus an additional $10,000 to $20,000 per year to support OHV 

patrols, from their state’s OHV program.

Officials from some forests we interviewed stated that they have also 

relied on funding from Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000 to conduct trail maintenance.27

 

27Pub. L. No. 106-393 (2000), as amended. The Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000 was enacted to help address fiscal difficulties confronting 

rural counties after steep declines in federal timber sales during the 1990s, which 

significantly decreased revenues to counties from timber sales on national forests 

managed by the Forest Service and on some public lands managed by the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. The act, which covers all national forest lands 

and certain Bureau of Land Management lands in western Oregon, was initially enacted in 

2000 and has been reauthorized several times, most recently for a 1-year extension in 

2012. As reauthorized, the act comprises three principal titles, the second of which has 

benefitted Forest Service trail maintenance. In this report, we refer to the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 as the Secure Rural Schools Act.

Under Title 

II of the Secure Rural Schools Act, projects may be funded for certain 

land management purposes that benefit federal lands, including projects 

related to the maintenance or obliteration of Forest Service roads, trails, 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

and infrastructure.28

Officials from some forests told us they receive external funding for trail 

maintenance from other sources. For example, officials from one forest 

told us that the National Forest Foundation was raising funds to address 

trail maintenance issues in one area of their forest,

Officials at one forest we interviewed stated that they 

had received from $18,950 to almost $97,000 in Title II funds each year 

and that their trail maintenance projects have relied heavily on this 

funding. Another forest reported receiving from $157,000 to $317,000 in 

Title II funding annually since 2009 for trail maintenance. These funds 

have allowed the forests to address some of their deferred maintenance 

backlog, as well as to complete annual maintenance. The authority to 

obligate funds for these projects is scheduled to expire in 2013, and 

officials at this forest stated that if they lost the funding, they would no 

longer be able to fund their seasonal trails crews and would be dependent 

on volunteers for needed maintenance, adding that some of their lessused trails would “go back to nature.” 

29 and that grant 

programs have been integral to their efforts to address deferred 

maintenance. They stated that in fiscal year 2012, the forest received 

nearly $200,000 in grants that they used to pay for a prison crew to 

maintain trails on the forest. Officials at a different forest told us that they 

received a $30,000 grant from an OHV manufacturer, using the funds to 

improve a trailhead and maintain OHV trails. Some forests also receive 

funding from trail user or outfitter fees that help fund trail maintenance. 

For example, officials at one forest told us that they collect about 

$30,000 to $40,000 annually in OHV user fees, some of which fund trail 

maintenance. Officials at another forest stated that they collect around 

$100,000 annually in outfitter and guide fees, which they use for various 

road and trail projects.

 

28Projects are identified by local resource advisory committees established under Title II of 

the act. These committees are to contain 15 members representing diverse local interests. 

For more information on these committees and Title II in general, see GAO, Update on the 

Status of Merchantable Timber Contracting Pilot Program, GAO-10-379R (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 4, 2010).

29The National Forest Foundation was created by Congress in 1991 to encourage, accept, 

and administer private gifts of money and of real and personal property to benefit Forest 

Service activities.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

In our interviews with agency officials, including those at the national, 

regional, forest, and ranger district levels, we found that national forests 

and ranger districts combine funding and personnel resources in different 

ways to accomplish trail maintenance. Officials from a number of ranger 

districts told us that they rely on a combination of resources to maintain 

an effective trail maintenance program; as one regional official put it, the 

trail maintenance program “is held together by Band-Aids and baling 

wire.” For example, a ranger district in one forest we visited used state 

grant dollars to pay for maintaining motor vehicle trails while volunteers 

conducted most maintenance on trails closed to motor vehicles. Officials 

from another forest told us that they use their trails allocation to pay for 

their basic trails program, including trails crew salaries and overhead 

costs, and grants and other external funding to pay for on-the-ground trail 

maintenance. An official in one district described his district’s trails

program as having a “large quiver of financial resources,” which includes 

the trails allocation, state OHV grant funding, and partnerships with 

various organizations that contribute funding. Officials from this district 

also said that they benefit from a statewide trails crew that works on trails 

open to motor vehicles; the crew is paid for by the state’s OHV program 

and works on motor vehicle trails on public lands throughout the state.

Additionally, a number of forests we visited stated that they combined 

funding sources with volunteer or other labor sources to maintain their 

trails. For example, some forests have local groups who adopt trails or 

coordinate trail workdays, thereby taking responsibility for trail 

maintenance on one trail or trail segment. One ranger district we 

interviewed used its Secure Rural Schools Act Title II funding to pay for a 

trails crew on one side of the district, while relying entirely on volunteers 

on the other side. In another ranger district, officials reported that most of 

the maintenance of trails closed to motor vehicles is done by volunteers 

and that for heavy maintenance, such as tree removal, the district 

borrows a machine from another district. Some forests we visited are 

seeking new ways to complete trail maintenance. For example, officials 

from several of the forests and ranger districts we interviewed in Arizona, 

Colorado, and Idaho stated that they sometimes use prison crews 

because the crews are inexpensive and complete high-quality work. An 

official from one forest told us that although the forest must pay for the 

foreman and materials, it pays prisoners only $0.50 per day. As a result, it 

can generally accomplish maintenance work for 60 percent of what it 

would ordinarily cost to contract out the work, although an official noted 

that it takes forest officials more time to manage prison crew contracts 

than regular contracts.

Resources Are Combined 

by National Forests in 

Different Ways
 

Page 27 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

According to agency officials and stakeholders we spoke with, a number 

of factors complicate the Forest Service’s trail maintenance efforts, 

including (1) factors associated with the origin and location of trails, 

(2) some agency policies and procedures, and (3) factors associated with 

management of volunteers and other external resources. No single factor 

was identified as the most problematic; the types of factors identified, and 

the extent to which they complicate trail maintenance, varied across 

forests and regions.

The origin of many system trails as legacy trails, roads converted to trails, 

or user-created trails, as well as the location of trails in designated 

wilderness or in areas affected by insect or disease outbreaks, wildland 

fire, or other natural events, complicate trail maintenance by requiring 

more frequent and resource-intensive trail maintenance efforts.

Factors associated with the origin of many trails present a variety of 

complications in maintaining them, according to a number of agency 

officials and stakeholders we interviewed. Many Forest Service trails are 

legacy trails created for purposes other than recreation, such as access 

for mining, timber harvesting, or firefighting. Some of these trails were 

carved straight up steep slopes, leaving erosion-prone trails requiring 

continual maintenance; even on less-steep slopes, if a trail is built along a 

hill’s fall line—the natural line down which water flows—it will naturally 

erode over time. Other trails were built through meadows, resulting in 

standing water on certain stretches, or in other problematic locations, 

such as on a stream bank (see fig. 9 for examples of these conditions). In 

addition, as part of the travel management process, many forests in 

recent years have converted Forest Service roads into trails open to 

motorized vehicles. Not all forests have been affected by these 

conversions, but officials from some forests said that conversion of 

hundreds or even thousands of miles of roads to motor vehicle trails had 

added new trail maintenance challenges and strained already-limited 

budgets.30

 

30The agency is unable to determine how many miles of road have been converted to 

trails as part of the travel management process. It therefore cannot calculate the extent to 

which road conversions have contributed to the trail maintenance backlog.

Some officials told us they need heavier equipment and 

engineering expertise to address maintenance issues on many roads 

converted to trails; for example, as a result of one road-to-trail conversion, 

Varied Factors 

Complicate the 

Maintenance of 

Forest Service Trails

Origin and Location of 

Many Forest Service Trails 

Require More Frequent 

and Resource-Intensive 

Maintenance Efforts 

Trail Origin
 

Page 28 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

the trail system in one forest we visited had gained a two-lane car bridge 

across a wide river (see fig. 10).31

Figure 9: Legacy Trails in Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Georgia, and 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Montana

Further, unauthorized trails created by 

users, which are not part of the agency’s official trail system, take time 

and resources away from maintaining system trails because officials must 

address safety and resource concerns associated with the trails, 

according to officials we interviewed. Some officials told us their forests 

have hundreds of miles of user-created trails; in some areas, more of 

these trails exist than system trails.

 

31The bridge was in good condition when we visited, but officials said that maintaining or 

replacing the bridge in the future would be expensive and difficult, given the ranger 

district’s current trails allocation of about $300,000-$350,000 each year. Complex bridges 

can cost from $100,000 to over $1 million to replace, according to officials we interviewed.
 

Page 29 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Figure 10: Road Bridge Adopted into Mt. Hood National Forest’s Trail System, 

Oregon

Many legacy and user-created trails are not sustainable over the long 

term, according to recent research and agency officials and stakeholders. 

These trails occupy terrain that is subject to severe erosion, require 

considerable ongoing maintenance, and do not meet users’ needs without 

ecological damage. As a result, such trails require a disproportionate 

share of resources to maintain—akin to bandaging a wound that will 

never heal, in the words of one official. For example, one stakeholder told 

us about a Forest Service bridge to a waterfall, whose railing had been 

replaced 10-15 times in the past 20 years because the bridge was 

situated where, during severe weather, water would rush over a nearby 

cliff and rip out the handrail. The stakeholder commented that relocating 

the bridge would be more sustainable in the long term than continually 

repairing it. Similarly, officials from a Pacific Northwest forest told us that 

some of their forest’s trails were built with major design flaws, such as 

trail segments where snow never melts. These officials said they have 

considered rerouting such sections to make them more sustainable, but 

doing so would require environmental review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, which, they said, would be expensive; on the 

other hand, not going through this process contributes to the agency’s 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

backlog of deferred maintenance.32

Maintaining trails located in wilderness areas or areas affected by insect 

or disease outbreaks, wildland fire, or other natural events can also be 

resource-intensive, in addition to being complicated by other factors. 

About 20 percent of the Forest Service’s 158,000 miles of trails are 

located in designated wilderness areas, which can present challenges 

because of the prohibition against use of motorized equipment in 

designated wilderness and the remote location of many wilderness 

trails.

Many officials and stakeholders 

emphasized that despite the up-front costs of rerouting and reconstructing 

unsustainable trails, maintaining well-designed trails is much more costeffective over the long term. For example, one official noted, the majority 

of the agency’s trail maintenance costs are related to moving trails crews 

and equipment to the trails that need maintenance, and that welldesigned trails cost less to maintain in the long term because crews do 

not have to visit them as often.

33 Regarding motorized equipment, officials and stakeholders hold 

different opinions about the legal prohibition against using chain saws and 

other motorized equipment in wilderness areas. Some officials and 

stakeholders told us this prohibition results in more time and effort to 

remove downed trees because maintenance crews must instead use 

nonmotorized tools, such as crosscut saws.34

 

32Agency officials told us that in some cases, trails can be rerouted without going through 

a detailed environment analysis. 

In certain situations, land

managers may obtain an exemption from regional foresters allowing use 

of motorized tools to meet the minimum requirements for the protection 

and administration of a wilderness area, but requesting such an 

exemption is at the discretion of the local Forest Service manager, and 

some officials told us that certain managers are not inclined to request 

such exemptions, given the agency culture to preserve wilderness 

33Section 4 of the Wilderness Act prohibits the construction of temporary roads or 

structures, as well as the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and other forms of 

mechanical transport in wilderness areas, unless such construction or use is necessary to 

meet the minimum requirements for administration of the area, including for emergencies 

involving health and safety. Generally, the land management agencies have regulations 

that address the emergency and administrative use of motorized equipment and 

installations in the wilderness areas they manage.

34A crosscut saw is a saw with a handle at each end, designed for use by two people to 

cut trees across the grain.

Trail Location
 

Page 31 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

character.35 In contrast, many officials and stakeholders we interviewed 

said that the general prohibition against power tools is not a complicating 

factor because crosscut saws are as efficient or nearly as efficient as 

chain saws, and chain saws are heavier to transport.36

The Forest Service’s trail maintenance efforts are also complicated when 

trails are located in areas affected by insect or disease outbreaks, 

wildland fire, and other natural events. National forests in some western 

states have suffered heavily from a mountain pine beetle epidemic, which 

has left many dead or dying trees that are starting to fall, sometimes 

across or near trails. Officials from one forest told us their forest’s entire 

trails program does little beyond removing hazardous trees because 

beetles have killed so many trees. Officials in other parts of the country 

told us that their trail maintenance programs were being affected by other 

insects, such as the hemlock woolly adelgid, or by diseases, such as 

laminated root rot in Douglas-fir trees.

Several officials 

told us that accessing wilderness trails, often located deep in the 

backcountry, requires considerable time and effort. For example, officials 

from one forest said that it may take hours to drive to a wilderness 

trailhead, take 1 to 2 days to hike to the site needing maintenance, and 

require crews to stay overnight—adding to the cost and complexity of 

backcountry trail maintenance.

37

 

35The Forest Service uses a process called the minimum requirements decision guide to 

identify, analyze, and select management actions that are the minimum necessary for 

wilderness administration. According to a headquarters official, the vast majority of 

exemptions authorized by the Forest Service are for emergencies, such as wildland fire 

response or search and rescue, but some exemptions have also been granted for trail 

maintenance. According to agency data, from 9 to 16 waivers were approved in each of 

the last 5 years to allow the use of mechanized tools for trail maintenance purposes in 

designated wilderness. About one-third of these exemptions were for chain saw use; onethird for rock drills; and the remaining third for use of other mechanized equipment, such 

as generators, wheelbarrows, and battery-powered tools. The agency does not maintain 

data on requested exemptions, only on those that are approved.

Wildland fire also complicates 

36This issue has been much debated, and the Forest Service’s Missoula Technology and 

Development Center in Missoula, Montana, is reviewing current knowledge and issues 

regarding the safety and efficiency of crosscut saws and chain saws with a report 

expected by January 2015.

37The hemlock woolly adelgid is a small, aphidlike insect native to China and Japan, which 

is responsible for extensive mortality and decline among hemlock trees in the eastern 

United States. Laminated root rot is caused by a fungus that decays roots of susceptible 

conifer trees. As a result, the trees may die because they can no longer take up water and 

nutrients, or they may be uprooted during windstorms.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

trail maintenance. According to officials, a number of steps may be 

needed before a trail can be reopened after a wildland fire, such as 

removing hazardous trees, relocating drainage features, and stabilizing 

rocks. In addition, a number of forest officials told us that other natural 

events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and windstorms, 

sometimes complicated their trail maintenance. For example, in the 

Pacific Northwest, officials from two forests told us that storms may cause 

flooding and landslides that easily wash out trails because of the region’s 

loose volcanic soils.

Additional factors complicating the Forest Service’s trail maintenance 

activities include the absence of a career path or training program for 

trails staff, which can limit agency expertise; burdensome data collection 

efforts; and certain administrative procedures that take time away from 

conducting maintenance on the ground.

• Career path, training. Many officials noted that the Forest Service has 

no career path or training programs for trails staff, which makes it 

difficult for the agency to develop and retain professional expertise 

and leadership for the trails program. For example, because full-time, 

permanent trails positions do not always exist at the district or forest 

levels, the agency often hires temporary or permanent-seasonal 

employees to maintain trails.38

 

38Permanent-seasonal employees are guaranteed employment for a certain number of 

hours each year, according to an agency official. For example, permanent-seasonal 

employees may be guaranteed full-time employment by the Forest Service for a certain 

number of 2-week pay periods, followed by a certain number of pay periods when they are 

on nonpayment status. Temporary positions are for part-time or seasonal employees.

These employees, however, often 

work for only one or two summers, requiring local officials to hire and 

train new trails employees the following season. Several officials and 

stakeholders told us that because of retirements and attrition, the 

agency has lost almost all of its trails expertise in recent years, and 

other officials noted that certain technical skills—such as using 

crosscut saws, working with horses, or blasting rock—are becoming 

more difficult to find when seeking new trails employees. The Forest 

Service currently has no national, standardized training for these 

skills. (Staff training, retention, and expertise are discussed in more 

detail later in this report.)

Various Agency Policies 

and Procedures Can Limit 

Agency Trails Expertise 

and Take Time Away from 

Trail Maintenance on the 

Ground 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

• Collecting trail condition data. Many local trail managers told us that 

the effort needed to collect trail condition data each year is 

burdensome and takes time away from conducting on-the-ground trail 

maintenance—an important consideration given the limited resources 

available to them. Many also said they do not use the collected 

information for making decisions, such as setting priorities, at the local 

level and use it only for upward reporting. Agency headquarters 

officials, however, emphasized to us the importance of data collection 

for estimating trail maintenance costs nationwide, as well as for 

providing information on trail conditions to local officials.

• Administrative procedures. Officials and stakeholders also identified a 

number of administrative and other factors that complicate trail 

maintenance, some of which are outside of the agency’s control:

• Efforts to reduce travel costs. Many officials said that agency 

efforts to reduce travel costs have hindered their ability to 

complete trail maintenance on the ground, especially on remote 

trails. Several officials told us that trails crews who in the past may 

have been allowed to spend the night near a work site must now 

travel back and forth each day to avoid food or lodging costs. As a 

result, more time is spent transporting crews—up to several hours 

each way—and less time is spent completing work on the ground.

• Environmental review processes. Other officials and stakeholders 

said that analyses required under the National Environmental 

Policy Act can be expensive and time-consuming, thereby 

detracting from actual maintenance activities. Routine trail 

maintenance does not require detailed environmental analysis, but 

the agency sometimes performs such an analysis for new trail 

construction, trail relocations, and other substantial trail work.

• Budget timing. The Forest Service does not always have a final 

budget in place for a given fiscal year until spring, which some 

officials said affects their ability to plan and execute trail 

maintenance. For example, one official said, they cannot sign and 

execute contracts until they have an approved budget, which may 

happen late in the fiscal year when contractors are already 

committed to other projects. Also, officials from one forest told us 

that because of their forest’s high elevation and persistent 

snowpack, they can work only during a 6-to-8-week window in late 

summer. Timing of the budget, along with a short season, can 

make it hard to complete trail maintenance.
 

Page 34 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Although volunteers and other external resources were repeatedly cited 

as important to the agency’s trail maintenance efforts, officials and 

stakeholders we interviewed identified a number of complications related 

to working with volunteers, including insufficient agency emphasis on 

managing volunteers; the time and effort it takes to coordinate, train, and 

supervise them, which decreases the time officials can spend conducting 

maintenance; safety and liability concerns that limit local use of 

volunteers; and the tenuous nature of partnerships. In addition, officials 

noted that managing other external resources for trail maintenance, such 

as time required to research and apply for grants, can detract from 

performing maintenance on the ground.

• Emphasis on volunteers. According to some agency officials and 

stakeholders, the Forest Service recognizes but does not always 

sufficiently emphasize managing volunteers when it hires and trains 

trails employees. Congress and the executive branch, including the 

Forest Service, have recognized the importance of volunteers to 

complement the agency’s work in trail maintenance and other 

activities. For example, Executive Order 13195, issued in 2001, 

directs agencies to engage volunteers in all aspects of trail planning, 

development, maintenance, management, and education, as outlined 

in the National Trails System Act. The Forest Service has also 

emphasized the importance of volunteers in the chapter on volunteer 

management in the Forest Service Manual. Even so, at the forest and 

district levels, volunteer management is generally a collateral duty, 

and collaboration with and management of volunteers are not clear 

expectations of trails staff. One official pointed out that it takes the 

“right type of Forest Service employee to build partnerships,” stating 

that the agency should be more diligent in hiring trails coordinators 

with collaboration skills. Moreover, some officials and stakeholders 

pointed out that the Forest Service provides limited training to staff 

who manage volunteers. For example, one official noted, the agency 

conducts quarterly web-based workshops on working with volunteers 

but offers little additional training to field staff who work with 

volunteers. (Volunteer management is discussed in more detail later 

in this report.)

• Coordinating, training, and supervising volunteers. Many Forest 

Service officials told us, and we have previously found, that 

coordinating, training, and supervising volunteers take effort, as well 

Managing Volunteers and 

Other External Resources 

Can Take Time Away from 

On-the-Ground 

Maintenance
 

Page 35 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

as time away from other tasks;39 in the words of many officials we 

spoke with, “Volunteers aren’t free.” Officials from the majority of 

forests we visited told us that they did not have sufficient staff or 

resources to effectively manage additional volunteers; three forests 

reported turning away volunteers as a result. In contrast, officials from 

other forests we visited told us that they never turned away volunteers 

and had the capacity to manage more volunteers, particularly when 

groups are skilled and can perform maintenance on their own. On the 

other hand, some groups are not capable of operating without 

supervision; several officials said that undirected or unsupervised 

volunteers or youth crews may damage trails and that Forest Service 

crews sometimes have to revisit volunteer-maintained trails to repair 

volunteer-caused damage or complete maintenance not done to 

Forest Service standards.

• Safety or liability concerns. Officials and stakeholders also told us that 

factors related to safety and liability sometimes complicate working 

with volunteers. For example, some forests do not allow volunteers to 

use chain saws, while other forests vary in their certification 

requirements for volunteers to use equipment such as crosscut saws 

or chain saws. Officials and stakeholders told us that some forests 

require a 40-hour training session to use chain saws, while other 

forests require a 1-day or weekend course. Moreover, some but not 

all forests accept saw certifications awarded by other forests. Many 

officials told us that safety is a top priority, and managers are 

sometimes hesitant to allow volunteers to use equipment if they risk 

being hurt and filing a workers’ compensation claim. Volunteers are 

considered federal employees under the Volunteers in the Forest Act 

for tort or workers’ compensation claims. Since workers’ 

compensation is generally covered by local units, one claim may 

consume a local unit’s entire annual trails allocation, according to 

some officials and stakeholders.

• Tenuous nature of partnerships. Some officials told us that 

relationships with partners can be tenuous, which can make 

volunteers less willing to work with the agency. In some cases, 

volunteer groups will support the Forest Service as long as the 

agency is supporting their values but can turn into adversaries if the 

agency makes a decision they do not agree with—for example, if, to 

 

39GAO/RCED-89-182. 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

protect natural resources, the agency closes a trail volunteers like. 

Volunteers also may develop a sense of trail ownership. Such pride of 

ownership may confer an advantage as volunteers try to do a good 

job maintaining trails, but, according to officials, it can also present 

challenges when volunteer groups want to influence agency decisions 

about trail maintenance priorities.

• Applying for and managing external funding. Officials we interviewed 

also observed that, as in working with volunteers, it takes time to 

apply for external funding and manage requirements associated with 

this funding, which allows less time for actual trail maintenance. For 

example, officials told us, it takes time and effort to seek and apply for 

external grant funding and to meet requirements for such outside 

funding once received. Officials from one forest said they could not at 

the time manage additional grants because they did not have the time 

or staff, and officials from other forests said it is hard to keep up with 

reporting or other administrative requirements for trails projects 

funded with external resources. Nevertheless, some officials told us 

that even with the additional effort needed to comply with these 

requirements, external funding is critical to their trail maintenance 

efforts.

Agency officials and stakeholders identified numerous options aimed at 

improving Forest Service trail maintenance, which generally fell into the 

following categories: (1) assessing the sustainability of the trail system, 

(2) improving certain policies and procedures associated with the Forest 

Service’s management of the trails program, and (3) better using 

volunteers and other external resources.

Many officials at all levels of the agency, as well as some stakeholders 

we met with, stated that the Forest Service’s trails program might benefit 

if the agency were to systematically assess its trail system. In 2010, the 

Forest Service issued a document titled A Framework for Sustainable 

Recreation, in which the agency presented a strategic vision and guiding 

principles to achieve sustainability in all aspects of its recreation program, 

including trails. As part of this vision, the Framework noted the 

importance of the Forest Service’s evaluating its infrastructure 

investments and program costs to identify “the gap between program 

needs and available resources . . . along with options for closing the gap.” 

Many officials and stakeholders we interviewed told us that trail systems 

Stakeholders Have 

Identified Numerous 

Options for Improving 

Trail Maintenance 

over the Long and 

Short Terms

Assessing the 

Sustainability of the Trail 

System
 

Page 37 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

should be “right-sized”; that is, units should assess their trail inventories in 

light of the resources available for maintenance and take steps, such as 

closing trails or portions of trails or reducing the maintenance on certain 

trails, so as to narrow the gap between funding and maintenance needs 

consistent with the Framework. One approach that the Forest Service 

used in the mid-2000s is the agency’s recreation facilities analysis 

process, which assessed recreation sites—such as campgrounds, dayuse sites, and some trailheads (but not trails themselves)—to “assist 

forests in creating a sustainable program that aligns recreation sites with 

visitors’ desires, expectations, and use.” This process resulted in 

relatively few decommissioned sites,40

Trail assessments could also improve the physical sustainability of 

individual trails. Numerous stakeholders and officials noted the 

importance of sustainability in the trail system, stating that redesigning 

legacy trails and relocating unsustainable trail segments—through 

rerouting steep segments to reduce erosion, for example—would 

substantially reduce maintenance work over the long term. Some of these 

officials and stakeholders acknowledged the potential for considerable 

up-front costs to relocate unsustainable trail segments but stated that 

long-term maintenance costs would be significantly lower for welldesigned trails. One Interior agency official said that a potential strategy 

would be to address unsustainable trails in feasible portions by 

undertaking trail reroutes and redesigns on a certain percentage of the 

trail system each year. For example, by annually addressing 5 percent of 

the system, the agency would have “solved its trail problems” within 

but a headquarters official told us 

the process benefited local units by helping them identify a variety of tools 

to address the gap between program needs and available resources. 

Similar to this past approach, the Forest Service is developing a process 

intended to help forests achieve a trail system that meets community 

needs, does not harm natural resources, and can be maintained with 

available resources. Headquarters officials told us the agency had not yet 

determined how it will implement the process or the time frames for doing 

so.

 

40A Forest Service official told us that public pressure to keep sites open and a lack of 

ranger district funding to decommission sites led to the closure of few sites. Some 

stakeholders and officials noted drawbacks to the concept of “right-sizing” the trail system, 

with stakeholders, in particular, expressing concern that such a process would close trails 

and decrease access to forests. Moreover, agency headquarters officials also noted that 

such a process would be expensive and time-consuming because of the required analysis 

and process for public involvement.
 

Page 38 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

20 years, according to this official, and be better positioned to address 

needed yearly trail maintenance.

Some officials indicated that training Forest Service employees on 

sustainable trail design might also improve trail sustainability, noting that 

agency field staff may not have a full understanding of how to assess 

trails for sustainability or how to redesign or relocate unsustainable trails 

because the agency has provided little guidance or training on this. As 

noted, the agency does not have a robust trails training program, and 

while the concept of trail sustainability is discussed in some of the 

agency’s guidance on trail design, little hands-on training is provided to 

show field staff how to implement this guidance on the ground.

Although the Forest Service offers little training on assessing 

sustainability, some forests we visited had already taken steps to assess 

the sustainability of their trails and to identify and implement opportunities 

to reroute or otherwise improve them, consistent with the Framework. For 

example, one forest surveyed 250 miles of trail and is analyzing data from 

its assessment to identify unsustainable trails and set priorities for work, 

including identifying trails to add, decommission, or reroute. Other forests 

we visited were taking other approaches toward more sustainable trails. 

For example, one forest assessed its road and trail systems together—

rather than focusing on just roads and trails used by motorized vehicles—

as part of its travel management planning. The forest has undertaken a 

separate analysis to look at the efficiency of its current approach to 

managing and maintaining its trail system. Another forest we visited was 

conducting systematic assessments on particular trails or trail systems 

throughout the forest; officials told us they had decided not to spend 

money on unsustainable trails and were actively relocating these trails. 

This forest had assessed all of its OHV trails, for example, and, on the 

basis of this assessment, had repaired and rerouted certain trails and 

implemented seasonal and weather-related closures.

On the other hand, not all forests have assessed the sustainability of their 

trails or identified opportunities for improvement, and because such 

assessments—and subsequent changes to trail systems—can be costly, 

time-consuming, and contentious, the agency has not undertaken or 

promoted such assessments nationwide. Without doing so, however, the 

agency may continue to devote substantial resources to maintaining 

inadequately designed trails. For example, officials we spoke with at one 

forest were in the process of rebuilding trails destroyed by a fire and told 

us that rebuilding the approximately 300 miles of trail affected by the fire 

would cost almost $750,000. They had not, however, assessed the 
 

Page 39 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

sustainability of those trails to determine the extent to which rerouting 

unsustainable trail sections now would save the agency funding and 

resources later.

Some officials and stakeholders also identified a number of options 

related to improving Forest Service policies and procedures to better 

manage the trails program, including the following:

• Implement standardized trails training. Some officials and 

stakeholders stated that the agency would benefit from a training 

curriculum about basic trail design, construction, and maintenance—

to go beyond the sustainability training noted earlier—aimed at 

providing basic field skills to staff responsible for trails. The agency 

does not have a robust trails training program, and a number of 

officials and stakeholders said that training was needed on basic field 

skills. The Framework states that the agency is to train staff and 

develop needed skills. Agency headquarters officials agreed that 

training is important and would be best conducted in the field, but they 

noted that because providing in-person training in the field is 

expensive, the agency has shifted heavily to web-based training. 

Nevertheless, given the nature of trail maintenance work, some 

officials emphasized to us the importance of conducting such training 

in person. Without in-person training, agency staff may not have the 

skills they need to perform on-the-ground trail maintenance activities.

• Improve expertise by recruiting and retaining skilled trails employees.

The Framework calls for the agency to improve its expertise by 

recruiting and retaining staff with needed skills. As noted earlier, 

however, the agency has had difficulty hiring and retaining skilled 

trails employees. Many officials stated that taking steps to hire and

retain skilled trails employees would improve trail maintenance; this 

option was of particular interest to a number of regional 

representatives we spoke with. For example, officials from one forest 

said, revised job descriptions might help recruit trails employees who 

are more knowledgeable about trail maintenance and management. 

Further, according to some officials, if the agency could create 

incentives for skilled trails employees, such as hiring them at higher 

pay or having greater opportunities for promotion, they might be more 

likely to stay in trails positions, and the agency could retain their 

expertise. Other officials said that it would also be helpful if the 

agency’s hiring policies made it easier to move temporary workers 

into permanent positions. Without policies and practices that promote 

Improving Forest Service 

Policies and Procedures
 

Page 40 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

hiring and retention of skilled employees, the agency cannot ensure 

that it has the needed expertise to maintain trails.

• Improve data collection practices. Many officials told us that the 

agency could streamline or otherwise improve practices for collecting 

trails condition data to make the process less burdensome and the 

data more useful. Agency officials, acknowledging that the surveys 

are time-consuming, said they are pursuing an initiative to streamline 

how the data are collected—an initiative that has been under way 

since 2006. Specifically, one official told us the agency intends to 

replace the current system—which requires staff to fill out paper 

surveys while on the trail and then manually enter the information into 

an agency database—with a process for electronic field data 

collection that relies on handheld tablet computers, synchronized with 

a wireless distance-measuring device, which automatically upload 

collected data to the database. Officials told us they hope to introduce 

the new process in 2013 or 2014.

• Assess how the agency distributes trails funding. Some officials told 

us that the agency may benefit from changing the way it distributes its 

trails allocation funds to regions and forests. Some officials told us 

that trails allocation funding should be linked to the number of visitors 

forests receive. Other officials disagreed, however, noting that the 

agency’s multiple-use mission is to accommodate different 

recreational experiences, including solitude and a wilderness 

experience on little-used trails. Moreover, some expressed concern 

about the reliability of agency data on visitor use and relying on these 

data as the basis for distributing funds. The trails program currently 

has a working group composed of regional trail coordinators who are 

evaluating the national process for distributing trails allocation funds 

and potential alternatives, including reviewing existing distribution 

models used by regions to see if any might be applicable at the 

national level. A headquarters official noted that, since each region 

experiences different circumstances, the exercise has been difficult 

because the working group is finding that one model does not 

necessarily fit the needs of the entire country. This official added that 

it is not clear when or if a new model will be applied to distribute trail 

maintenance funding but said that the agency is aiming to implement 

a new process in fiscal year 2014.

• Improve the sharing of best practices across the agency. Some

officials and stakeholders told us that the agency could improve how it 

shares best practices or success stories related to trail maintenance 

across the agency. For example, officials from one forest said they 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

had few opportunities to share with other forests what they had 

learned over the last few years about designing sustainable trails.

Recognizing the considerable time volunteers donate to trail maintenance 

efforts, some officials and stakeholders stated that improving 

management of volunteers would make working with them easier and 

more effective. This option is consistent with the vision the agency has 

presented in the Forest Service Manual, which articulates the agency’s 

goal to recruit, train, and use the services of volunteers to complement its 

trail maintenance and other work. Officials and stakeholders identified a 

number of ways to enhance the agency’s use of volunteers and 

partnerships, including the following:

• Make volunteer and partnership management a clear expectation for 

trails staff, and increase training. As noted earlier, even with the 

agency’s emphasis on using volunteers—articulated in the Forest 

Service Manual—the agency has not established collaboration with 

and management of volunteers as clear expectations for trails staff 

responsible for working with volunteers, and training in this area is 

limited. Given the value of volunteer hours devoted to Forest Service 

trail maintenance in fiscal year 2012—equivalent to nearly one-third of 

the agency’s trails allocation—some officials and stakeholders said 

that making collaboration with and management of volunteers clear 

expectations for trails staff (e.g., through performance evaluation 

standards) and offering relevant training could enhance the agency’s 

management of volunteers, as well as better reflect the central role 

that volunteers play in trail maintenance. Other officials said that the 

agency should consider hiring dedicated volunteer coordinators at the 

forest and ranger district levels. A headquarters official told us that the 

Forest Service has been slow to update its policies and practices to 

reflect its increasing reliance on volunteers, in part because the 

agency has not made it a priority—as evidenced by the agency’s 

treatment of volunteer management as a collateral duty. 

Nevertheless, without making collaboration with and management of 

volunteers a clear expectation for trails staff who work with volunteers 

and offering relevant training, the agency cannot be sure it is fully 

capitalizing on the assistance volunteers can offer.

• Improve consistency of volunteer management policies, including 

certifications. A number of officials and stakeholders said that making 

agency policies, regulations, and certification processes more uniform 

would make it easier for people to volunteer for the agency. Several 

brought up the issue of inconsistent saw certification requirements 

Improving Management of 

Volunteers and Other 

External Resources
 

Page 42 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

across districts and forests, stating that having consistent procedures 

for certifying volunteers would make it easier for volunteers to help 

maintain trails in more than one forest. To address this issue, the 

agency is developing a proposed directive to provide national 

guidance for training and certification in saw use, which would apply 

to both crosscut saws and chain saws. A headquarters official said 

that the agency originally intended to have the new saw directive 

finalized by summer of 2013 but that it now planned to seek public 

comment on the proposed directive in fall 2013 before it is made final.

• Address liability concerns. A number of officials and stakeholders said 

that changing how the agency handles workers’ compensation claims 

may increase local volunteer participation. To overcome local officials’ 

reluctance to use volunteers for fear that a workers’ compensation 

claim might consume their entire trails allocation, some officials 

suggested that having a national funding source to pay workers’ 

compensation claims would make local managers more willing to use 

volunteers for trail maintenance. A headquarters official told us that 

the Forest Service had explored moving to a national funding source 

in the past but had rejected the possibility because of the agency’s 

interest in diverting less funding to cost pools overall. In addition, 

some officials and stakeholders said that changing how liability is 

handled in challenge cost-share agreements—under which liability 

generally rests with partner organizations—might increase volunteer 

participation if the agency were to assume this liability, because more 

organizations would be willing to volunteer under these agreements. A 

headquarters official said that the Forest Service is considering such 

changes, which would potentially require new legislation, so that the 

agency could take on liability for volunteers under both volunteer and 

challenge cost-share agreements. In addition, officials told us, the 

agency is preparing guidance on using both challenge cost-share and 

volunteer agreements simultaneously to address liability concerns in 

certain situations.

Some agency officials and stakeholders also identified ways they believe 

the Forest Service could better leverage external funds. For example, 

some officials and stakeholders said, forests could seek more grants to 

be used for trail maintenance, and officials from one forest said that units 

might benefit from hiring full-time grant administrators, who could help 

identify and administer available grants. Other officials said it would be 

helpful to have a headquarters official coordinate and share grant 

opportunities and new funding sources with field units. Headquarters 

officials acknowledged they could improve how they coordinate and 

distribute information on available funding to the field, but they also told 
 

Page 43 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

us that the agency does not have enough staff to dedicate someone to 

looking for and informing field units of grant opportunities.

Charged with managing and maintaining some 158,000 miles of trails 

across the National Forest System, the Forest Service largely succeeds 

in offering trail users recreational opportunities ranging from solitary 

wilderness hikes to OHV access. The agency continually brings together 

personnel, equipment, and funding from numerous different internal and 

external resources to maintain trails—and indeed, the forests we visited 

were generally able to maintain their most popular trails and address 

safety concerns. Nevertheless, maintenance issues abound, and given 

the magnitude of the trail system, including many unsustainable trails, 

and limited available resources, the agency is facing a maintenance 

problem it is unlikely to completely resolve. Without conducting an 

analysis of trails program needs and available resources, consistent with 

the agency’s Framework for Sustainable Recreation, and assessing 

potential ways to narrow the gap between them, the agency is likely to 

continue operating in a reactive mode, addressing short-term 

maintenance needs without a long-term understanding of how to better 

address the issue. The agency has recognized the importance of trail 

sustainability in reducing needed maintenance—for example, through its 

Framework—but it has not yet translated this emphasis into action in the 

form of training on sustainable design or local assessments that 

reevaluate both the uses of trails and their physical condition with longterm sustainability in mind. Even with such steps toward sustainability in 

the long term, however, certain agency policies and procedures may still 

make it difficult to keep up with maintenance needs in the short term. For 

example, the cumbersome approach to collecting and recording trail 

condition data, which the agency has been trying to streamline through 

electronic data collection since 2006, can hinder maintenance activities. 

Further, without policies that help in recruitment and retention of skilled 

employees—or basic, standardized in-person employee training on trail 

skills and on-the-ground maintenance—the agency may find itself without 

sufficient expertise to conduct needed maintenance. Furthermore, even 

with its extensive reliance on volunteers and the vision set forth in the 

Forest Service Manual, the agency continues to assign its employees 

volunteer management as a collateral duty and has not made 

collaboration with and management of volunteers clear expectations of 

trails staff or offered substantial relevant training. Without short- as well 

as long-term steps to adjust and streamline such policies and procedures, 

the Forest Service is likely to continue falling behind in maintaining its 

Conclusions 
 

Page 44 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

trails, spending scarce resources on unsustainable trails and presiding 

over degraded visitor experiences and natural resources.

To enhance the overall sustainability of the Forest Service’s trail system, 

consistent with the vision articulated in A Framework for Sustainable 

Recreation, and to reduce the trail maintenance backlog, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to 

take several actions to improve the agency’s trail maintenance approach 

in both the short and long terms.

To improve agency management of its trails program in the long term, 

particularly in light of the gap between program needs and available 

resources, the agency should take the following two actions consistent 

with the agency’s Framework for Sustainable Recreation: 

• In line with the Framework’s emphasis on evaluating infrastructure 

investments and program costs, (1) ensure that the agency’s 

management of its trails program includes an analysis of trails 

program needs and available resources and (2) develop options for 

narrowing the gap between program needs and resources.

• In line with the Framework’s emphasis on sustainability, and to 

enhance trail sustainability over the long term, (1) improve guidance 

and increase training on sustainable trail design and (2) when 

appropriate, begin systematic, unit-level trail assessments that 

reevaluate trails with long-term sustainability as a goal.

To improve the agency’s ability to keep up with its maintenance goals in 

the short term and reduce its maintenance backlog, the agency should 

take the following two actions:

• Take steps to improve policies and procedures related to trail 

maintenance. Such steps should include implementing electronic 

collection of trail condition data and offering more standardized inperson training on trail skills and on-the-ground maintenance. They 

could also include, for example, changing policies and practices to 

improve recruitment and retention of employees with trail expertise.

• Recognizing the importance of volunteers for trail maintenance, take 

steps to improve management of volunteers, including by ensuring 

that collaboration with and management of volunteers are clear 

expectations of trails staff and offering relevant training.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 45 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

We provided a copy of this report for review and comment to the 

Department of Agriculture. In written comments responding on behalf of 

the Department of Agriculture, which are reproduced in appendix IV, the 

Forest Service generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. 

The Forest Service emphasized its commitment to implementing its 

Framework for Sustainable Recreation, including improved guidance and 

training on sustainable trail design. It also stated its commitment to 

improving policies and procedures related to trail maintenance, including 

implementing electronic collection of trail condition data, exploring options 

to improve recruitment and retention of employees with trails expertise, 

and improving collaboration with and management of volunteers. The 

agency noted, however, that its ability to take action in some of these 

areas, such as providing in-person training on trails skills, may be limited 

by budgetary constraints. The Forest Service also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the 

Chief of the Forest Service, appropriate congressional committees, and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix V.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Our objectives were to examine (1) the extent to which the Forest Service 

is meeting trail maintenance needs, and effects associated with any 

maintenance not done; (2) resources, including funding and labor, that 

the agency employs to maintain its trails; (3) factors, if any, complicating 

agency efforts to maintain its trails; and (4) options, if any, that could 

improve the agency’s trail maintenance efforts.

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws and agency documents, 

including agency handbooks and other guidance. We interviewed Forest 

Service officials in headquarters and received information from all nine 

regions about trail maintenance needs and effects associated with any 

deferred maintenance. We also interviewed officials from a nonprobability 

sample of 18 national forests located in five of the nine Forest Service 

regions; we visited 16 of these forests and interviewed officials from 2 

more. (Table 2 shows the forests included in our review.) During these 

visits, we held semistructured interviews with officials to learn about their 

trail maintenance programs; we also examined trails on which 

maintenance had been deferred, as well as trails that were well 

maintained. We selected these forests to represent variation in 

geography, proximity of forests to urban and rural areas, trail mileage,

and type and intensity of trail use, although findings from this selection of 

forests are not generalizable to the entire population of national forests. 

We obtained data on the Forest Service’s trail inventory for fiscal years 

2008 to 2012 from the agency’s Infrastructure database (known as Infra). 

To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed relevant documentation 

and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report.

Table 2: National Forests Included in GAO’s Review

Region number Region name National forest State 

1 Northern Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Montana

Bitterroot National Forest Idaho and Montana

Gallatin National Forest Montana

Idaho Panhandle National Forests Idaho

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Idaho

2 Rocky Mountain Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Colorado

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Colorado and Wyoming

Pike and San Isabel National Forests Colorado

3 Southwestern Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Arizona 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Region number Region name National forest State 

Cibola National Forest New Mexico

Coronado National Forest Arizona 

 Gila National Forest New Mexico

6 Pacific Northwest Gifford Pinchot National Forest Washington

Mt. Hood National Forest Oregon

 Willamette National Forest Oregon

8 Southern Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest Georgia

 Cherokee National Forest Tennessee

 Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests South Carolina

Source: GAO.

To evaluate the resources the Forest Service employs to maintain its 

trails, we reviewed agency budget documents for fiscal years 2006 to 

2012. We also collected and reviewed evidence from national, regional, 

forest, and ranger district officials about how funds are allocated for trail 

maintenance activities. In addition, we examined the agency’s use of 

external resources in conducting trail maintenance and also the laws, 

regulations, and agency guidance governing the Forest Service’s 

authority to use these resources. During our visits to national forests, we 

discussed and reviewed documentation related to their use of external 

funds for trail maintenance. We also interviewed an official from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration to learn 

more about the Recreational Trails Program, as well as an official from 

the Colorado Department of Natural Resources’ Parks and Wildlife 

division to learn about the state’s grants program for trails used by OHVs. 

To evaluate the extent to which volunteers maintain trails, we reviewed 

agency volunteer data available for the most recent fiscal years, 2011 and 

2012. To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed relevant 

documentation and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the 

data; we found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. We also interviewed headquarters officials to discuss 

volunteer management policies and officials at regions and forests to 

discuss the benefits and drawbacks of using volunteers to maintain trails. 

We also conducted semistructured interviews with representatives from a 

nonprobability sample of 16 nongovernmental organizations about their 

organizations’ efforts to help the Forest Service maintain trails and about 

their views on Forest Service trail conditions. We selected these 

organizations to represent a variety of trail user, conservation, and 

industry perspectives. The views of representatives from these

organizations are not generalizable to other nongovernmental 

organizations, but they provided various perspectives on the Forest 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Service’s trail maintenance efforts. (Table 3 lists the organizations we 

interviewed.)

Table 3: Organizations GAO Interviewed

Organization Geographic coverage

Back Country Horsemen of America National

BlueRibbon Coalition National

Friends of Northern Arizona Forests Regional

International Mountain Bicycling Association International

National Association of Forest Service Retirees National

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council National

Oregon Equestrian Trails Regional

Pacific Crest Trail Association Regional

Panhandle Trail Riders Association Regional

The Partnership for the National Trails System National

Professionals for Managed Recreation National

Professional Trailbuilders Association National

Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association Regional

Washington Trails Association Regional

Western Environmental Law Center Regional

The Wilderness Society National

Source: GAO.

To obtain information on any factors complicating trail maintenance and 

what options, if any, could improve it, we asked agency officials at all 

levels about both topics. Further, we convened a structured discussion 

group to gather perspectives from knowledgeable Forest Service officials 

representing all nine regions regarding challenges to maintaining trails 

and options for improving trail maintenance. We convened the discussion 

group via conference call and used web-based software to compile 

participants’ comments. In our interviews with nongovernmental 

organizations, we asked for their views on challenges faced by the 

agency in performing trail maintenance and their views on any options for 

improvement. We also interviewed officials from three other federal land 

management agencies—the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service—to 

learn about these agencies’ trail maintenance programs. We interviewed 

an official from Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey to learn about current 

research on trail design.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to June 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Selected Trails Data from the 

Forest Service’s Infra Database

Page 50 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

The tables in this appendix provide information on the Forest Service’s 

National Forest System trail inventory from the agency’s Infra database. 

Table 4 shows, for each region, total trail miles, wilderness miles, miles 

open to motorized vehicles, and miles closed to motorized vehicles. It 

also provides estimates of annual visitors to each region. Table 5 shows 

trail miles by trail class for each region.

Table 4: Forest Service’s National Forest System Trail Inventory and Estimated Number of Visitors, as of May 2013

Region 

numbera Region

Total trail 

miles

Wilderness 

miles

Miles open to 

motorized 

vehicles

Miles closed to 

motorized 

vehicles

Estimated 

number of 

visitorsb

1 Northern 28,151 5,466 12,405 15,746 9,378,000

2 Rocky Mountain 19,011 4,549 7,035 11,976 27,962,000

3 Southwestern 9,993 3,398 1,324 8,669 18,185,000

4 Intermountain 29,348 5,233 13,370 15,978 22,422,000

5 Pacific Southwest 15,374 4,997 4,689 10,685 26,673,000

6 Pacific Northwest 25,326 6,105 10,338 14,988 15,428,000

8 Southern 11,133 904 1,908 9,225 28,993,000

9 Eastern 16,737 1,268 7,632 9,105 15,701,000

10 Alaska 1,439 92 577 862 1,138,000

Total 156,512c 32,014 59,278 97,234 165,880,000

Source: Forest Service.

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding.

a

The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

b

This information, which comes from the agency’s National Visitor Use Monitoring program, refers to 

the overall number of visitors to forests in each region, and encompasses all recreational activities on 

those lands, not solely trail use. The program is completed in 5-year cycles; the annual estimate for 

the number of visitors in fiscal year 2012 is based on visitation data collected from fiscal years 2007 

through 2011.

c

For purposes of this table, we obtained the most current information available during our review, that 

is, data as of May 2013. Because of routine fluctuations in trail inventory, however, total trail miles as 

of May 2013 (156,512) differ from total trail miles as of the close of fiscal year 2012 (158,104) 

discussed elsewhere in this report.

Appendix II: Selected Trails Data from the 

Forest Service’s Infra Database
Appendix II: Selected Trails Data from the 

Forest Service’s Infra Database

Page 51 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Table 5: Forest Service’s National Forest System Trail Inventory, by Region and Trail Class, Fiscal Year 2012

Trail classes

Region numbera Region name 1 2 3 4 5 Total trail milesb

1 Northern 1,285 9,918 12,185 5,264 15 29,039

2 Rocky Mountain 950 6,393 9,510 1,261 50 18,769

3 Southwestern 1,803 4,926 4,056 483 19 11,469

4 Intermountain 2,067 9,686 12,954 3,433 35 28,512

5 Pacific Southwest 472 3,872 8,818 1,729 65 15,349

6 Pacific Northwest 715 5,401 16,029 2,590 75 25,447

8 Southern 347 1,698 8,012 1,177 16 11,261

9 Eastern 689 3,514 10,287 2,319 29 16,850

10 Alaska 115 380 860 41 8 1,408

Total miles in 

trail classes 8,443 45,787 82,711 18,297 312 158,104

Total percentage 

in trail classesc 5.3 29.0 52.3 11.6 0.2

Source: Forest Service.

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding.

a

The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

b

Total trail miles include trails for which the trail class has not been specified, a total of 2,554 miles.

c

The total percentage in trail classes excludes trails for which trail class is not specified (2,554 miles, 

or 1.6 percent of trails) and therefore does not total 100 percent.
Appendix III: Forest Service Trails-Related 

Budget Data

Page 52 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

The tables in this appendix provide information on the Forest Service’s 

trails allocations. Table 6 provides trails allocation data by region for fiscal 

years 2006 to 2012. Table 7 describes American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act funding, by region and state, to support trail 

maintenance and decommissioning projects.

Table 6: Forest Service Trails Allocations Distributed to the Regions, Fiscal Years 2006 to 2012

Dollars in thousands

Region numbera Region name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

1 Northern $8,547 $8,245 $9,804 $9,699 $9,682 $10,799 $9,699 $66,475

2 Rocky Mountain 4,352 5,878 6,296 6,525 8,513 8,599 7,308 47,471

3 Southwestern 2,637 2,604 3,004 3,238 3,232 3,422 3,108 21,245

4 Intermountain 4,862 4,830 5,185 6,334 7,522 7,612 6,634 42,979

5 Pacific Southwest 5,683 6,224 6,846 6,701 6,789 7,651 6,701 46,595

6 Pacific Northwest 6,052 5,700 6,198 6,234 6,223 7,422 6,296 44,125

8 Southern 6,210 6,337 7,330 7,511 7,148 7,395 6,922 48,853

9 Eastern 4,913 4,782 4,937 5,566 5,906 5,890 5,478 37,472

10 Alaska 3,461 3,208 3,593 3,626 3,812 3,831 3,562 25,093

Total $46,717 $47,808 $53,193 $55,434 $58,827 $62,621 $55,709 $380,309

Source: Forest Service.

Note: Numbers may not total because of rounding.

a

The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

Table 7: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funding in Support of Forest Service Trail Maintenance and 

Decommissioning Projects, by Region and State

Region numbera Region name State 

Number 

of projects

Recovery Act 

funding Total

1 Northern Montana 2 $6,095,000 $6,095,000

2 Rocky Mountain Colorado 2 2,950,000 2,950,000

3 Southwestern Arizona 5 1,636,000

 New Mexico 15 3,548,000 5,184,000

4 Intermountain Nevada 3 540,000 540,000

5 Pacific Southwest California 6 19,123,000 19,123,000

6 Pacific Northwest Oregon 6 13,285,000

 Washington 4 2,332,000 15,617,000

8 Southern Alabama 1 1,415,000

 Florida 2 1,200,000

 Georgia 1 751,000

Appendix III: Forest Service Trails-Related 

Budget Data
Appendix III: Forest Service Trails-Related 

Budget Data

Page 53 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Region numbera Region name State 

Number 

of projects

Recovery Act 

funding Total

 Kentucky 2 758,200

 Mississippi 1 600,000

 North Carolina 4 6,200,000

 Puerto Rico 2 900,000

 Tennessee 2 850,000

 Virginia 3 3,265,000 15,939,200

9 Eastern Eastern Regionb 2 4,046,000

 Illinois 2 600,000

 Michigan 3 2,180,000

 Minnesota 2 2,721,000

 Missouri 1 200,000

 New Hampshire 1 100,000

 New York 1 850,000

 Pennsylvania 1 2,900,000 13,597,000

10 Alaska Alaska 9 13,382,000 13,382,000

1 or 4c Idaho Idaho 7 9,205,000 9,205,000

Total, all regions 90 $101,632,200 $101,632,200

Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service data.

a

The Forest Service does not have a region 7.

b

These Eastern Region projects served more than one state. For example, one project supported 

high-priority trail projects in Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and Vermont.

c

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds were distributed by state. Idaho includes portions of 

both the Northern and Intermountain regions, but the Forest Service budget official providing this 

information did not know which region the Recovery Act funding supported.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 54 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 55 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-13-618 Forest Service Trail Maintenance

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant 

Director), Ellen W. Chu, Tanya Doriss, Richard P. Johnson, Lesley 

Rinner, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. 

Important contributions were also made by Kurt Burgeson, Justin Fisher, 

Carol Henn, Paul Kinney, Dan Royer, and Kiki Theodoropoulos.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361430)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.