@Bob Wick (BLM)
AKLT NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
On December 29th, 2022, Congress directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to conduct the National Scenic Trail feasibility study for the Alaska Long Trail.
The National Scenic Trail (NST) system comprises 11 long trails around the country, including the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest Trail. The NST designation opens doors to more federal funding in the future and will be critical to the development of an Alaskan long trail. The designation would also bring more nationwide recognition, leading to increased visitation and business to communities along the route. The NST designation does not set restrictions to specific trail use (motorized can be included), and decisions on the trail use are left with land managers such as municipalities, boroughs, and state and federal agencies. The feasibility study is now underway, led by the BLM and expected to be completed by the end of 2025. We hope that the study results in a positive recommendation to the Congress to designate the Alaska Long Trail as a National Scenic Trail.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the draft of the National Scenic Trail feasibility study for the Alaska Long Trail for public comment March 13th - April 14th. The BLM plans to submit the final study to Congress by the end of 2025.
ALASKA TRAILS KEY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT STUDY
1. Include a route on general state lands through the Talkeetna Mountains from Hatcher Pass to Talkeetna with a connecting trail to Willow, as “a suitable route”. The current "suitable route" from Wasilla to Denali State Park along Parks Highway, which is a motorized route that follows the road within 30-100 feet, could serve as a motorized braid of the AKLT in addition to the backcountry route through the Talkeetnas.
2. Add several "suitable routes" in Anchorage area: incorporate a route from Indian into Anchorage (Powerline Pass, South Fork Rim, and Tour of Anchorage trails) and a route going north from Anchorage (Chester Creek, Ship Creek trail and Glenn Highway trails) as well as the Arctic to Indian Traverse. Anchorage is a major transportation hub that is already well-connected to trails north and south of the city.
3. Add hiking trails in Chugach State Park between Eagle River and Pioneer Peak as “suitable routes”.
4. Include separated pathways between Cantwell and Denali NP as "suitable routes" as a missing link for an end-to-end route between Seward and Fairbanks.
KEY FINDINGS IN THE DRAFT STUDY
-
Out of nine objectives required to be evaluated by an NST feasibility study by the National Trails System Act, eight were met. Objective 4 was not met due to 1) the opposition of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly that “specifically opposes the designation of the Alaska Long Trail as an NST on Borough-owned land because of the use restrictions and loss of local control over the trail” and 2) Ahtna, Inc opposition to the study route where it crosses Ahtna lands.
-
A suitable end-to-end route has not been identified between Seward to Fairbanks due to opposition from Ahtna Incorporated (in the Denali Zone). However, two suitable end-to-end route networks greater than 100 miles in length (consistent with NTSA Section 3(b)’s definition of an extended trail) were identified:
-
From Seward to Ahtna lands near Summit Lake for a length of 435.3 miles.
-
From Ahtna lands near Denali Park to Fairbanks, for a length of 204.8 miles
-
-
Suitable routes cross 3.9 miles of private land. “It is assumed that condemnation [eminent domain] would neither be authorized by Congress nor necessary for the suitable routes to be completed.” and “Where on private land, willing owner access agreements could be led by a nonprofit organization, the state, or local jurisdiction with authority.”
-
Suitable routes omit Anchorage and Talkeetna mountains.
-
The total estimated cost of developing the trail would be $16,317,000 (low) to $34,965,000 (high) for the 233.1 miles of suitable identified gaps routes between Seward and Fairbanks.
-
The USFS is recommended to serve as the lead federal administering agency for the trail if designated as an NST. The BLM could also serve as the administering agency, as the suitable routes through the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and Matanuska-Susitna Valley zones (until crossing the Yentna and Susitna rivers) are similar to the Iditarod NHT, and BLM has been serving in that capacity as the Iditarod NHT administrator since 1978.
-
Not a finding but an important point: Non-federal land managers retain their authority along trail segments on their lands. " Trail administration encompasses a variety of activities, mostly accomplished with the collaboration of partners. Trail administration does not include “management” activities, which are the purview of the land agencies and landowners that manage the lands upon which the trail resources occur. Comprehensive management plans align management activities on federal lands and determine partnership opportunities on non-federal lands. Non-federal segments may be managed by voluntary means such as cooperative and certification agreements, easements, and actions by a range of entities, including nonprofit organizations. All trail management activity on non-federal land is strictly voluntary.” (Page 94) Further, "...cessation of state or local government authority is not an option in establishing or protecting the proposed trail system... [T]he establishment of an NST designation under the NTSA neither extends federal authority over private, local, state, or tribal lands, nor imposes use restrictions, nor restricts existing rights or authorities, except through voluntary cooperative agreements..." (Page 86)
Map of suitable AKLT routes from the draft study (in green)
KEY INFORMATION EXCERPTS FROM THE DRAFT STUDY
Land management and local government authority
“The NTSA provides for a federal agency to administer an NST and NHT in perpetuity, in cooperation with a variety of partners that includes other federal agencies, state and local agencies, Tribes, local communities, and private landowners. Trail administration encompasses a variety of activities, mostly accomplished with the collaboration of partners. Trail administration does not include “management” activities, which are the purview of the land agencies and landowners that manage the lands upon which the trail resources occur (see comparative lists below). Comprehensive management plans align management activities on federal lands and determine partnership opportunities on non-federal lands. Non-federal segments may be managed by voluntary means such as cooperative and certification agreements, easements, and actions by a range of entities, including nonprofit organizations. All trail management activity on non-federal land is strictly voluntary.” (Page 94) "As described in Section 1.3 Study Approach cessation of state or local government authority is not an option in establishing or protecting the proposed trail system... [T]he establishment of an NST designation under the NTSA neither extends federal authority over private, local, state, or tribal lands, nor imposes use restrictions, nor restricts existing rights or authorities, except through voluntary cooperative agreements..." (Page 86)
Private property
"- Respect for private property rights and valid existing rights is prioritized in assessing the suitability of the proposed trail system. - Federal condemnation of private land or cessation of state or local government authority will not be considered as an option in establishing or protecting the proposed trail system in the feasibility study. (Page 9) “Approximately 48.8 miles of the identified gaps exist on private land. The administering agency and/or nongovernmental organization can cooperate with willing private landowners to execute written easements, donations, full-fee acquisition or cooperative agreements for trail purposes, as is common on hundreds of miles of the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide NSTs. Condemnation, which is the legal mechanism used when public interest takes precedence over private ownership, is only available under NTSA for limited exceptions; it was used on only two trails (Pacific Crest Trail and Appalachian Trail) as of 2019. Public input indicates that condemnation is not supported, therefore the feasibility study does not consider this tool when evaluating the physical feasibility of the Alaska Long Trail.” (Page 69)
Motorized, hunting, trapping, subsistence
“Considering Alaska’s tradition of subsistence living, the ability for Alaskans and visitors to access the land for fishing, hunting, and trapping, etc. represents a vital characteristic of the culture that should not be negatively affected by the study route. Much of the subsistence activity that occurs in this region depends on backcountry access along routes designated for motorized use. Limiting access to motorized vehicles could decrease the ability for Alaskans and visitors to participate in the subsistence use activities that have historically occurred in this region.” (Page 72) "Existing agency policies regarding motorized/non-motorized use for any given trail segment would not change as a result of this feasibility study. For example, the use of motorized off-road vehicles with a curb weight of up to 1,500 pounds and highway vehicles with a curb weight of up to 10,000 pounds is authorized on or off an existing trail on general domain State lands (i.e., DMLW lands) without an authorization (see the Generally Allowed Uses Fact Sheet by visiting https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/cdn/pdf/factsheets/generally-allowed-uses.pdf). Exceptions or restrictions to the State’s allowed use occur within some legislatively designated areas and other special management categories like State Parks, as provided for in State statutes or regulation4. If designated as an NST, allowed travel modes on specific trail segments would be determined by the realities of terrain and the management policies of individual landowners and agencies." (Page 89)
The study is not a management plan
“The study is not a management plan. If the trail is designated, a comprehensive management plan would be prepared by the assigned federal administering agency [16 U.S.C. 1244]... Public Reflections on Desirability, namely public recreation use (including motorized and non-motorized use and traditional activities), trail corridor protection, landowner issues, maintenance and community connections, would be addressed in a subsequent management plan.” Reference: Page 11
Factors to determine desirability of specific segments
"Factors to determine desirability: 1. Trail Corridor Protection – The existence of a current or proposed managed route recognized in a trail plan. 2. Maximum Recreation Potential – Routes that are not on a road, that best minimize user conflict, and that facilitate an outdoor recreation experience. 3. Agency Support – Routes that stakeholders have identified as being in alignment with existing trail management goals. " (Page 70)
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT NST