RTP review panel recommends grants for adaptive equipment, trail maintenance and dozens of smaller projects; divides limited education set‑aside

SALT LAKE CITY — A state Recreation Trails Program review committee on Thursday recommended a package of awards that would fund adaptive recreation equipment, trail maintenance and a variety of smaller trail and stewardship projects across Utah, while splitting a small education set‑aside among top applicants.

RTP administrator Evan Bich told the panel the non‑motorized RTP pool for this round was $1,887,000 and reminded members of the Federal Highway Administration’s distribution guidance: 30% of funds typically go to motorized projects, 30% to non‑motorized and 40% to mixed or diverse uses. He also said the motorized panel did not use its education allocation, making roughly $94,356 available to the non‑motorized reviewers.

Why it matters: The committee’s recommendations move to the Utah Recreation Infrastructure Advisory Committee and then the Utah Department of Transportation for final approval on June 25. The decisions will direct how more than $1.8 million in federal RTP dollars are spent on trails, access, safety and education across cities and public lands in the coming year.

What the committee recommended

- Full recommendations for two of the meeting’s top‑ranked requests: an adaptive recreation pilot for Utah State Parks and a multi‑site trail maintenance project for the Bears area (both were recommended by voice vote). Committee discussion praised the adaptive pilot’s equipment choices and philanthropic match and noted a recent state legislative interest in adaptive recreation expansion.

- Partial and full recommendations across many other projects. After debate about budgets and the program’s priorities the committee approved funding for a mix of equipment and construction projects (examples: a Cedar Mountain Nordic grooming grant, small‑dollar equipment for a BLM field office, climbing infrastructure work from a local climbing nonprofit). Several projects were recommended at partial amounts to allow the committee to spread limited funds across multiple priorities.

- Education set‑aside split. The committee agreed to allocate the limited education cap across several high‑impact applicants rather than spend the full 5% on one application. The Utah Avalanche Center (forecasting and trailhead education) and a pair of stewardship/guide‑training programs (Science Moab and Steward Moab) received prioritized sums from the education pool; committee members said avalanche forecasting had the clearest statewide safety return on dollars and that on‑site trailhead ambassadors and guide‑training offered measurable benefits to high‑use sites.

Key debates

Budget clarity and allowable match: Multiple reviewers pressed applicants for clearer budgets and questioned whether certain items (for example, landscaping or decorative boulders proposed as applicant match) are allowable under FHWA RTP rules. The committee repeatedly discussed funding specific line items (paving, drainage, safety features) rather than ornamental landscaping.

Scale and timing for large projects: Panelists weighed whether to fund large regional projects now or ask applicants to return with tightened scopes and stronger match commitments. On land acquisition requests the committee asked applicants to resolve easements and NEPA requirements before award (Federal Highways staff confirmed NEPA documentation is required prior to purchase).

Education versus construction: Panelists repeatedly returned to whether limited education dollars should prioritize statewide public‑safety activities (avalanche forecasting and trailhead ambassadors) or spread across many smaller training programs; they ultimately split the pot so multiple high‑impact activities could proceed at reduced levels.

Quotable: “The total RTP available funding amount this year was $1,887,000,” said Evan Bich as the committee began its review. “Thirty percent to motorized, 30% to non‑motorized and 40% to diverse projects — there is some flexibility, but the education cap remains tight.”

What’s next

The committee’s recommendations will be forwarded for administrative processing and final approval at the transportation commission meeting in late June. Several applicants were asked to return with clarified budgets, letters or easements and narrower scopes where reviewers requested them. Where the panel recommended partial funding, staff said they will work with applicants to define exactly which line items will be reimbursed.

The review panel emphasized that recommendations can be adjusted administratively to fund priority elements (for example, paving/drainage only, or anchors and safety hardware rather than aesthetic items) and that applicants can reapply next cycle with a tightened scope.