Great Redwood Trail Agency
FAQs
Answers to the questions we hear most from the community, drawn from the Great Redwood Trail Master Plan. Pick a topic or search below.
FAQ Categories
Find answers to the most frequently asked questions. Choose from the categories below, or use our handy Search Tool above.
Trail Basics, Timeline & Segment Priorities
When will the Great Redwood Trail be ready, or is there a completion date?
There’s no single completion date for the whole 300+ mile trail. The GRT is being developed segment by segment, typically in 3- to 10-mile projects, as GRTA and local partners secure funding, complete environmental review, and finish design and permitting for each piece. Some sections are already open to the public (in and around Ukiah, Willits, Eureka, and Arcata, for example), some are under construction or in active planning, and many more are still “proposed.” Given the trail’s remote and geologically challenging terrain, especially through the Eel River Canyon, with its 28 tunnels and dozens of aging bridges and trestles, a fully connected trail could take decades to complete.
Master Plan source
Ch. 6 (Table 21, Prioritization Results), Ch. 7.1 Overview, p. 26 “What’s Next”
Is the Great Redwood Trail a walking trail, a bike trail, or a train?
It depends on where you are. In Marin and Sonoma Counties (the trail’s southern segment), SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) is building a “rail-with-trail,” which is a paved multi-use pathway alongside its passenger train. From the Sonoma/Mendocino County line north through Mendocino, Trinity, and Humboldt Counties, GRTA is developing a trail-only corridor with no train service. Along the whole route, the trail itself is a shared, multi-use path for walking, biking, and (in most areas) horseback riding.
Curious about a specific section of the trail? Check out our interactive map.
Master Plan source
p. 3 (SMART/GRTA segment overview), Glossary “Rail-with-Trail”
Does the SMART train connect to the trail, and when will it reach the Healdsburg station?
Yes — SMART’s rail line and its adjacent SMART Pathway (already more than 39 miles built, with more planned) run through Sonoma and Marin Counties and connect to the Great Redwood Trail corridor at the Sonoma/Mendocino County line. SMART leads and manages that southern segment independently of GRTA, including the timeline for reaching stations like Healdsburg, so we’d point you to SMART directly for the latest schedule on that project.
Master Plan source
p. 42 (Great Redwood Trail Act / SMART’s role), p. 44–45
When will the trail connect Ukiah and Willits, or Ukiah and Cloverdale?
These specific connections don’t have a funded construction date yet, but they’re on our radar. Community members specifically flagged the Willits–Ukiah stretch as a priority because it currently isn’t bike-friendly, and the segments that would close that gap (North Ukiah, Redwood Valley, Laughlin Grade, South Willits) are identified in the Master Plan’s prioritization matrix, though most are still “proposed” and awaiting funding and design. The Willits area has more momentum: the Willits segment is under construction, and North Willits and Outlet Creek Canyon are “planned,” Tier 1 priority segments. Between Ukiah and Cloverdale, the Russian River Wilds, Hopland, and South Ukiah segments are proposed but not yet funded for construction.
Master Plan source
Table 21 (p. 282), community input p. 96–97
Is GRTA coordinating with other nearby transportation projects, like Caltrans’ plans for the 255 Expressway or new connections around Arcata, Manila, and Eureka?
Regional connectivity is one of our core prioritization principles. Segments that link to existing trails and population centers like Arcata and Eureka are given priority, and the Manila and Samoa/Fairhaven segments are both identified as near-term (Tier 2) priorities. The Master Plan doesn’t speak specifically to Caltrans’ 2025 Route 255 Corridor Management Plan, but coordinating with Caltrans and other regional projects on safe crossings and eventual connections around Humboldt Bay is exactly the kind of work GRTA takes on as segments move into design. Residents with specific coordination ideas are encouraged to reach out to GRTA directly.
Master Plan source
Table 21 segments 42–43 (p. 282), Ch. 6.1 Key Takeaways (p. 283)
Trail Design, Surface & Accessibility
What will the trail look like, and how wide will it be?
It varies by location. The Master Plan calls for three trail types, chosen based on the surrounding community, expected use, and terrain:
- Paved multi-use trail (8–16 ft wide, asphalt or concrete): best suited to cities, towns, and high-demand areas; about 36% of the trail (85 miles).
- Crushed stone multi-use trail (8–12 ft wide, compacted crushed stone): a transition trail type for suburban and rural areas; about 32% of the trail (75 miles).
- Backcountry trail (2–6 ft wide, gravel or native soil): for remote, rugged, or landslide-prone terrain, such as the Eel River Canyon; similar in feel to the Pacific Crest Trail.
All trail types are designed to be shared by pedestrians, cyclists, and (except in the narrowest backcountry segments) equestrians. Trailheads and rest areas will eventually include amenities like restrooms, seating, water, and shade where feasible.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Trail Types, p. 111 (Figure 18), p. 107
Will bikes be allowed on the trail? Is it a bike trail the whole way?
Yes — cyclists (including e-bike riders) are one of the trail’s core planned user groups across all trail types. In paved and crushed-stone sections, cyclists share the path with pedestrians and equestrians; in narrower backcountry sections, the trail is closer to a rugged single- or double-track and may be less bike-friendly. There isn’t a separate, bike-only route.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Trail Users, p. 109–110 (Table 11)
Will e-bikes be allowed, and will they be safe to ride?
E-bikes are anticipated as a normal part of trail use. The Master Plan lists cycling on an e-bicycle as a defined trail user type and recommends considering charging stations for e-bike batteries at trail amenities. Community members specifically asked for speed guidelines to keep the trail safe for everyone, and GRTA has identified developing e-bike and power-driven mobility device safety policies, in partnership with others, as a next step; those specific rules aren’t finalized yet.
Master Plan source
p. 49 (“What We Heard”), Table 11 (p. 109–110), p. 141
How accessible will the trail be for wheelchair users and people with complex mobility needs?
Accessibility is a top design priority, not an afterthought. The Master Plan commits the trail to meeting or exceeding ADA and U.S. Access Board (ABA) standards, and to going further with “universal design.” For example, sizing rest areas, seating, and interpretive elements to work for wheelchairs, power-driven mobility devices, and adaptive equipment, and providing charging stations for electric wheelchairs where power is available. Over two-thirds of the trail (the paved and crushed-stone segments) is being designed as a fully accessible multi-use trail. It won’t be possible to make every backcountry mile disability-accessible given the terrain, but GRTA is developing a documented process for any accessibility exceptions, consistent with federal guidance.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Accessibility, p. 105–108
What’s happening with the trail’s tunnels — are they safe, and how will they be cleared?
There are 28 tunnels along the corridor, inherited from the former railroad, and a number are partially or fully collapsed, with some drainage, rockfall, or old timber-framing issues inside. Where a tunnel is structurally sound, it will be reused as part of the trail, with lighting (some tunnels will need user-activated lighting) and surfacing improvements. Where a tunnel has collapsed, GRTA’s approach is to temporarily route the trail around it, which may require easements or agreements with adjacent property owners while funding is secured for repairs. Some tunnels, like the Island Mountain tunnel, are also home to bats, so managing that habitat safely is part of the planning process.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.4 Maintenance, “Tunnels” p. 266 (Recommendation MA-11)
Getting to the Trail: Maps, Wayfinding & Transportation
Where can I find a map of the trail, or a schedule of what’s being built when?
You can access a public, trail-wide map and project tracker on our website. Information can also be found in the Master Plan’s Appendix E (“Project Mapbook”), which includes maps and details for each of the trail’s 43 planned segments, and Chapter 6 (Table 21) shows each segment’s status — existing, under construction, planned, or proposed — and priority tier. As individual segments move into design and construction, we’ll post updated maps and details for that specific area.
Master Plan source
Appendix E: Project Mapbook; Table 21 (p. 282)
Will there be parking or public transportation to reach the trail?
Yes, that’s a planned part of trail infrastructure. Trailheads are being designed with parking in mind, including “park-and-ride” style access at some locations, and the Master Plan recommends locating trailheads near existing public transit stops where feasible, along with future shuttle partnerships in some areas. Community members specifically asked for more vehicle parking (not just bike racks) at trailheads, and that feedback shaped the trailhead design guidance.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.3 Trail Support Facilities, p. 160–169; p. 96 (community input)
Has a logo or symbol been chosen for the trail?
Yes. The Great Redwood Trail’s logo and wayfinding sign family feature an elk as the main visual element, paired with a stylized redwood tree line. You’ll see this motif on trailhead signs, kiosks, and mile markers as segments are built, and wayfinding is added. Full branding and wayfinding guidelines are in Appendix D of the Master Plan, and the design also allows for local co-branding (custom artwork of regional flora or fauna) where the GRT overlaps with community trails.
Master Plan source
Appendix D: Branding Guidelines & Wayfinding Concepts, p. 137–138
Camping & Overnight Use
Can I camp overnight along the trail if I’m biking, hiking, or riding horseback the whole length? Will there be campgrounds?
Camping is planned as part of the trail’s amenities, but it isn’t built out yet in most areas. The Master Plan calls for two types of campgrounds as segments are developed: developed campgrounds (accessible by road, with more amenities) and backcountry campgrounds (reachable only via the trail or an adjacent waterway, for multi-day hikers, cyclists, and equestrians). Design details vary by the expected user type. Until more campgrounds are built, we encourage trail users to use local lodging options in the towns along the route.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.3 Campgrounds, p. 170–173 (Table 14)
Property Owners & Neighbors
Are you taking my land to build the trail?
No. The trail is being built within the existing rail right-of-way that GRTA already holds — the roughly 231-mile corridor GRTA inherited from the former North Coast Railroad Authority when it was created in 2022 under the Great Redwood Trail Act (SB 69), through a process called railbanking (see next question). That right-of-way is generally 100–200 feet wide. The Master Plan doesn’t call for acquiring additional private land beyond this existing corridor; 81.8% of the land directly adjacent to the corridor remains privately owned, and GRTA’s work stays within its own right-of-way.
Master Plan source
p. 42 (Great Redwood Trail Act), p. 92 (Table 9, land ownership)
What does railbanking mean for me as a landowner?
Railbanking is the federal process that lets an unused rail corridor be preserved for possible future rail use while being managed as an interim public trail in the meantime. Under SB 69, GRTA was created to railbank the former Northwestern Pacific rail line north of the Sonoma/Mendocino County line; the corridor from Willits to Humboldt Bay was railbanked in fall 2022, with filings underway to extend that from Sonoma County to Willits. As the interim trail user, GRTA becomes legally and financially responsible for managing that right-of-way. Railbanking doesn’t change ownership of your own adjacent land — it affects only the status of the rail corridor itself.
Master Plan source
Ch. 7.2 Railbanking, p. 286; Glossary “Railbanking”
How do I find out what type of access GRTA has on my property? What do "fee title," "easement," and "right-of-way" mean?
Right-of-way (ROW) is the Master Plan’s term for the land GRTA holds the right to operate the trail on — either because GRTA owns it outright (fee title) or holds an easement over it. Fee title means GRTA owns the land itself. Easement means GRTA (or its predecessor railroad) holds the legal right to use the land for the rail/trail corridor, while the underlying property remains owned by someone else. Because this varies parcel by parcel, the best way to find out what GRTA holds on land adjacent to yours is to contact GRTA directly with your parcel information — staff can look up the specific title or easement records for that section of the corridor.
Master Plan source
Glossary “Right-of-Way,” p. 25; Ch. 5.2 Governance, Easements p. 217
If a trail user leaves GRTA property and gets hurt on my land, am I liable? How am I protected from being sued?
California law generally protects you. Under California Civil Code sections 846 and 846.1, when someone enters private property for recreational purposes, including wandering off a trail, the landowner is generally immune from liability for that person’s injuries. That protection has three exceptions: if you willfully or maliciously failed to warn of a known hazard, if you received payment for the person’s use of the property, or if you expressly invited them onto your land for a purpose beyond general recreational access. Outside those exceptions, in most situations you would not be liable. If you’re interested in collaborating with GRTA on trail access or improvements on your land, GRTA can enter into a tailored license or lease agreement that spells out insurance, maintenance, and liability terms.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.3 Operations, “What about Liability Risks?” p. 248
Can GRTA share its insurance information so neighboring landowners can file claims if a trail user commits a crime on our property?
The Master Plan doesn’t set up an arrangement like this, largely because the liability protection described above (Civil Code 846/846.1) already shields landowners from most liability related to trail users entering their property. Claims against a landowner’s own insurance generally shouldn’t be necessary in those situations. If you have a specific incident or ongoing concern, we’d encourage you to raise it directly with GRTA staff.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.3 Operations, p. 247–248 (no specific insurance-sharing provision found)
Is there data on how trails affect property values, or on trails and wildfire risk?
On wildfire: yes. Research cited in the Master Plan indicates that roads and lightning strikes — not trails or trail users — are the primary source of wildfire ignitions in remote, backcountry areas. GRTA plans to coordinate with CAL FIRE and other fire agencies on trail design, closure protocols during high fire danger, and campfire policy in remote sections like the Eel River Canyon. On property values: the Master Plan doesn’t include a property-value study specific to the GRT. This is a good candidate for a dedicated fact sheet, and we’re flagging it as a follow-up item.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.3 Operations, “Wildfires,” p. 228 (citing Morrison 2007; Bar Massada et al. 2011)
Safety, Security & Encampments
How will user safety be handled in remote sections of the trail — both for injuries and personal safety?
Personal safety and security are treated as core design requirements. Design tools include keeping the trail well-used and visible (avoiding concealed or isolated stretches), lighting and, where appropriate, security cameras in select areas, and access-control features like fencing or setbacks near sensitive adjacent land. Operationally, GRTA plans to coordinate with local law enforcement and emergency service providers (including memoranda of understanding in some counties) and to use trail docents — staff or trained volunteers — to help monitor the trail, respond to emergencies, and coordinate with law enforcement and fire departments. Trail closure protocols are also planned for conditions like wildfire, flooding, or severe weather to reduce the need for emergency rescues.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Access Control, p. 134; Ch. 5.2 Trail Docents, p. 212–213; Ch. 5.3 Trail Closures, p. 229
Who will police the trail, and how will homelessness, crime, and garbage be handled? Will this raise costs for local communities?
GRTA expects that, like many trails, some sections may see temporary encampments, particularly near towns with services. The plan’s approach favors compassionate, people-first engagement, partnering with social service agencies, hosting community cleanups (GRTA has already done several since 2022, especially around Ukiah, Willits, Arcata, and Eureka), and using active trail use itself (events, programming, more “eyes and ears” from the public) to help deter unauthorized camping and crime, since research shows well-used trails tend to reduce crime compared to an abandoned rail corridor. On the legal side, the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson clarified that local governments could enforce anti-camping rules on public property; California’s subsequent guidance (Executive Order N-1-24) directs agencies to pair that enforcement authority with compassionate services. Day-to-day enforcement will be handled through coordination with contracted or local law enforcement agencies rather than a dedicated GRTA police force. The Master Plan doesn’t provide a specific cost estimate for local jurisdictions.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.3 Operations, “People Experiencing Houselessness,” p. 232–234
I’ve heard there’s some controversy over how people experiencing homelessness are treated during trail construction and maintenance. Can you address that?
We want to be straightforward: this is a more detailed question than the Master Plan itself answers. It’s a good candidate for a dedicated fact sheet — one that draws on GRTA’s past press releases, our contracted property managers’ terms, and staff reports from the Executive Director and Operations team — and we’re flagging it as a follow-up item for the website rather than answering it fully here.
Master Plan source
Flagged for a new fact sheet — not fully covered in the Master Plan
Tribal Engagement & Cultural Resources
There are Wailaki and other tribal sacred sites along the proposed trail. How will you make sure the trail doesn’t disturb them?
Identifying and protecting culturally sensitive areas, including sacred sites, ancestral lands, and sensitive cultural resources, is built into the Master Plan’s design process. For every segment, GRTA commits to: consulting early and often with the relevant tribes, including formal government-to-government consultation; identifying culturally sensitive sites and plant species before design begins; funding and conducting all required cultural resource surveys (including those required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) with tribal participation; and designing trail elements to avoid or minimize interference with sacred spaces once identified. This work will happen tribe-by-tribe and site-by-site, since different tribes have distinct cultural histories and relationships to specific places along the corridor.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Culturally Sensitive Areas, p. 124; Table 3, p. 53
How are coastal and formerly-coastal tribes involved with this project? Have you met with local tribes that have concerns?
Yes. Tribal engagement has been an ongoing part of the Master Plan process. GRTA and the planning team held informal discussions, formal government-to-government consultations, and an in-person/webinar series with tribal representatives, including a dedicated webinar with representatives from 11 distinct California Native American tribes. GRTA’s approach is that tribes should be involved however they choose to be, from advisory roles to co-management of specific trail sections. For example, Blue Lake Rancheria has expressed interest in owning and stewarding the section of trail contiguous to its trust lands.
Master Plan source
Ch. 2: Tribal Input and Community Engagement, p. 47–55 (Table 3, Table 4)
What is GRTA doing to support healing for tribal members, given the history of harm connected to the railroad corridor?
The Master Plan is explicit that the rail corridor’s history, including its role in California’s history of tribal genocide, forced relocation, and cultural erasure, is part of the context GRTA is operating in, and that this legacy shapes how the trail is being planned. Concrete commitments include consulting with tribes on trail naming within their ancestral lands, installing interpretive signage and tribal artwork developed by tribal community members, considering a memorial for Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) in close collaboration with tribes, and creating paid opportunities for tribal members in stewardship, monitoring, and interpretive roles. This is described as an ongoing relationship rather than a single program, and GRTA continues to work directly with tribes on how these commitments are carried out.
Master Plan source
p. 21 (Tribes and Tribal Communities); Table 3, item 12 (p. 53)
How many jobs will be available to Native American people during construction and operation of the trail?
The Master Plan doesn’t commit to a specific number, but job creation for tribal members is an explicit goal: GRTA plans to explore contracting opportunities that draw on local tribal cultural knowledge, create paid stewardship roles (construction monitoring, guided excursions, trail monitoring, maintenance), and explore a tribal hiring preference. During tribal engagement, representatives specifically suggested that job postings be shared with Native entities first; an idea GRTA is carrying into its hiring and contracting approach.
Master Plan source
Table 3, item 7 (p. 53); Table 4, p. 54; Ch. 4.2 p. 124
How is GRTA addressing opposition to the trail from some tribal members and private ranch owners?
For tribal concerns, GRTA’s approach is ongoing, direct consultation, respectfully engaging tribes early and often, and adjusting segment design (routing, access, cultural resource protection) based on what’s heard, since concerns and relationships to the land differ tribe by tribe. For ranch owners and other agricultural landowners, GRTA works through tailored agreements — for example, honoring existing livestock crossing easements, designing fencing and wildlife/livestock crossings in active grazing areas, and ensuring ranchers retain access to check cattle and maintain fences near the corridor. Community and tribal engagement are described as an ongoing process throughout the Master Plan, not a one-time consultation.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.3 Operations, “Livestock and Ranches,” p. 246; Ch. 2, p. 47–55
Economic Benefits, Funding & Jobs
Will the trail’s budget or funding depend on federal money or grants from the current administration?
No single funding source. GRTA’s biggest current funding commitment is $50 million in state Proposition 4 (2024 climate bond) funds — $650,000 for planning, $42.35 million for design and construction, $3 million for environmental remediation in the Eel River Canyon, and $5 million for tribal cultural resource preservation. Beyond that, GRTA is pursuing a mix of federal grants, local agency partnerships, and nonprofit/philanthropic funding for individual segments. Federal funding is one piece of that mix, and it can be uncertain — for example, a related project (a Class I bike path near Humboldt Bay led by the Harbor District) lost its federal INFRA grant funding in August 2025 and is now seeking replacement funding — which is part of why GRTA is intentionally diversifying funding sources rather than relying on any single one.
Master Plan source
Ch. 7.4 Funding, p. 298–299; Project Plan Table (p. 371–372, Humboldt Bay Harbor District entry)
How does the trail pay off economically? Where do the tourist dollars get spent?
The Master Plan’s Economic Benefits Assessment estimates the completed Great Redwood Trail (northern segment) will generate about $102.6 million in benefits annually, from 6.2 to 9.2 million trips per year — roughly a third of those from visitors from outside the area. Each daily visitor trip is estimated to generate about $64 on meals at local restaurants, $60 at retail stores, $52 on bicycle and equipment rentals, and $93 on lodging — money that flows directly into the small towns and businesses along the trail. Statewide, outdoor recreation is one of California’s fastest-growing economic sectors, generating over $90 billion and nearly 700,000 jobs.
Master Plan source
p. 20–21; Appendix A: Economic Benefits Assessment
Will building and maintaining the trail create jobs?
Yes. Local residents are expected to benefit from new employment opportunities to plan, construct, maintain, and monitor the trail, and the corridor could also support jobs in vegetation management and remote-area firefighting access. The Master Plan doesn’t provide a specific jobs number for the GRT itself, but it does cite the statewide outdoor recreation sector’s roughly 700,000 jobs as context for the industry the trail is part of.
Master Plan source
p. 20–21
Environment & Habitat
How can we establish pollinator habitat along the length of the trail?
The Master Plan doesn’t call out pollinator habitat by name, but it builds toward the same goal: restoring disturbed slopes and stream corridors with native plant species (rather than ornamental or non-native ones), managing invasive plants and noxious weeds in partnership with local tribes and resource specialists, and treating ecological restoration — including native revegetation — as a standard part of each segment’s design. There’s also an explicit invitation for tribal ecological and ethnobotanical knowledge to help guide plant selection. A dedicated pollinator corridor isn’t currently a named project, but it fits well within this framework, and community suggestions like this one are exactly the kind of input GRTA is looking for as individual segments move into design.
Master Plan source
Ch. 4.2 Revegetation, p. 132–133; Ch. 5.4 Invasive Plants, p. 266; Table 3, item 4 (p. 53)
Trail Management & Maintenance
How will the trail be protected and maintained over its life?
Trail management is organized around governance, operations, and maintenance. GRTA, together with local partner agencies (which may include tribal, federal, state, county, city, and nonprofit entities), plans and funds Operations & Maintenance (O&M) for each segment before it’s built — including staffing (an Operations and Maintenance Division with field staff and, potentially, trail docents), routine maintenance standards, and funding through state and federal budget appropriations, nonprofit partnerships, and grants. Many local partners already have license agreements with GRTA to build and maintain specific segments in their jurisdictions, and the Master Plan sets recommended practices that new or renewed agreements are expected to follow.
Master Plan source
Ch. 5.1 Purpose and Goal, p. 205; Table 18, Table 19