Forest Service Trails: Long- and Short-Term Improvements Could Reduce Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability
Published: 2013-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 one-quarter 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among otheractions, 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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  operational in 1990, was not planned to gather such data.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.
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.
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).
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  the Virgin Islands and make up about 9 percent of the United States’ total  land area (see fig. 1).
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  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.
subsections: section_title: Forest Service’s Trail System
paragraphs: At the close of fiscal year 2012, the Forest Service reported having about  158,000 miles of trail used for both recreation and management. (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, 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. Trails in wilderness areas are thus usually  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. 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.”follow a historic travel route of national significance.
National historic trails, such as the Oregon Trail, closely  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 high- use 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  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.
section_title: Trail Maintenance Reporting
paragraphs: 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,  including national forests or ranger districts, and reports data for each  category in the agency’s annual budget justification to Congress.
section_title: Forest Service’s Authority to Use External Resources
paragraphs: 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. 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 trail- building 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. Under the act, the Forest Service may also apply for and receive grants under certain circumstances.
section_title: Travel Management Planning Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Forest Service Has Substantial Unmet Trail Maintenance Needs, Resulting in Multiple Negative Effects
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: More Trails Exist Than Are Being Maintained, Leading to a Persistent Backlog in the Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
paragraphs: 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.
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 maintenance- related needs: annual maintenance, capital improvement, and operations.  Together, these four estimates—deferred maintenance, annual  maintenance, capital improvement, and operations—constitute the  agency’s annual estimate of its trail maintenance needs, which totaled  about $524 million in fiscal year 2012 (see table 1).
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   Some  to generate a statistically valid estimate of its maintenance needs.staff we interviewed, however, told us they do not always complete the  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   Forest Service  a data dictionary while manually recording trail data.headquarters officials told us they were taking steps to streamline the  data collection process; these steps are discussed later in this report.
section_title: Unmaintained Trails Inhibit Trail Use, Harm Natural Resources, and Add to Agency Costs
paragraphs: 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.
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,  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.
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. 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:
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.
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.”
section_title: To Maintain Trails, the Forest Service Relies on a Combination of Internal and External Resources
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Internal Resources Include Funds Allocated to Trails and to Other Agency Programs
paragraphs: 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).
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.cover costs at the regional level before in turn distributing funds to   The regions likewise use a portion of the trails allocation to  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; 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 region- specific 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).
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”  to the forest.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.
Officials from another region noted that their region’s trails  In addition to the Forest Service’s trails allocation, the agency allocates  funding to other programs that help support trail maintenance activities.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  maintenance needs on forests and rangelands affected by fires. These  funds are available to support emergency response projects on lands  damaged by wildfires.
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. 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).
Pub. 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).
section_title: External Resources Include Volunteer Labor and Funding from Federal Programs, States, and Other Sources
paragraphs: 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   By comparison, in that same year, the Forest Service had the  activities.equivalent of 666 full-time trails employees.
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, 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. Officials from one forest we interviewed  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   Under Title  Self-Determination Act of 2000 to conduct trail maintenance.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,  and infrastructure.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 less- used trails would “go back to nature.”
section_title: Resources Are Combined by National Forests in Different Ways
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Varied Factors Complicate the Maintenance of Forest Service Trails
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Origin and Location of Many Forest Service Trails Require More Frequent and Resource-Intensive Maintenance Efforts
paragraphs: 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. 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,  the trail system in one forest we visited had gained a two-lane car bridge  across a wide river (see fig. 10). 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.
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  backlog of deferred maintenance.emphasized that despite the up-front costs of rerouting and reconstructing  unsustainable trails, maintaining well-designed trails is much more cost- effective 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 well- designed trails cost less to maintain in the long term because crews do  not have to visit them as often.
Section 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. character. 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. 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.
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. Wildland fire also complicates 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.
section_title: Various Agency Policies and Procedures Can Limit Agency Trails Expertise and Take Time Away from Trail Maintenance on the Ground
paragraphs: 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. 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.)
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.
section_title: Managing Volunteers and Other External Resources Can Take Time Away from On-the-Ground Maintenance
paragraphs: 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  as time away from other tasks;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.  in the words of many officials we
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  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.
section_title: Stakeholders Have Identified Numerous Options for Improving Trail Maintenance over the Long and Short Terms
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Assessing the Sustainability of the Trail System
paragraphs: 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  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, day- use 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, 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.
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 well- designed 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  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  sustainability of those trails to determine the extent to which rerouting  unsustainable trail sections now would save the agency funding and  resources later.
section_title: Improving Forest Service Policies and Procedures
paragraphs: 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  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  had few opportunities to share with other forests what they had  learned over the last few years about designing sustainable trails.
section_title: Improving Management of Volunteers and Other External Resources
paragraphs: 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  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  us that the agency does not have enough staff to dedicate someone to  looking for and informing field units of grant opportunities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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 long- term 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  trails, spending scarce resources on unsustainable trails and presiding  over degraded visitor experiences and natural resources.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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 in- person 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
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  Service’s trail maintenance efforts. (Table 3 lists the organizations we  interviewed.)
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Trails Data from the Forest Service’s Infra Database
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Forest Service Trails-Related Budget Data
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.