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 on March 13th, and it is open for public comment until April 14th. Alaska Trails' recommendations are below. Please consider submitting your comment to the BLM.
ALASKA TRAILS KEY COMMENTS
Please join us in submitting comment to the BLM
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)
-
1. What does this designation do for the Alaska Long Trail and outdoor recreation in Alaska?Besides offering a competitive economic benefit from increased world-wide recognition, National Scenic Trails receive federal funding for maintenance and administration. In particular, national trails are eligible for annual federal funding for trail crews to clear, brush, and perform repairs. Since the Alaska Long Trail’s proposed route passes through many of Alaska’s most used outdoor spaces, the designation would open up funding to address the existing demand on our trails infrastructure. Read our Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News.
-
2. What is the extent of the federal oversight if the NST designation is approved?The federal oversight of the entire trail is limited to coordination and administration of the trail across multiple ownerships. A National Scenic Trail is federally administered, but not managed: a federal agency is assigned by Congress to administer the trail and coordinate with different state, federal, and local land managers along the trail route for matters of interagency agreements, financial assistance, and resource protection. Land managers maintain full control of land management policies, access, planning and development, visitor use, etc. For the existing national trail in Alaska - the Iditarod National Historic Trail - the administering agency is the BLM. Pages 29-30 (items (e) and (h)) of the National Trails System Act talk about management of trail segments on non-federal lands. The National Trails System Act only has jurisdiction over federal lands. Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture only have jurisdiction over their corresponding lands (national parks, BLM, or national forests) and cannot dictate regulations to non-federal land managers. Typically, other NSTs in the country have a corresponding nonprofit that acts as a "manager" of the trail in addition to the federal administrator. An example in Alaska is the Iditarod National Historic Trail which is administered by the BLM and stewarded by the nonprofit Iditarod Historic Trail Alliance. As the INHT Trail Administrator, BLM facilitates efforts by volunteers and local, state and federal agencies on behalf of the entire trail.
-
3. Does NST designation put restrictions on land use?The NST designation itself does not put special restrictions on land use. Land use policies are set by land managers (for example, municipalities, boroughs, state and federal agencies) that oversee specific trail segments. No federal agency takes control over any non-federal lands if a trail is designated. The management policies of existing segments do not get changed with the designation, and the management policies of future segments get decided by corresponding land managers (boroughs, municipalities, state agencies, etc). Hunting and trapping are allowed along many national trails, especially on non-federal segments. Examples: Ice Age (Wisconsin): Open to hunting on state land. Appalachian Trail: Hunting is allowed on about 1,250 miles of the trail, which includes national forests, state forests, and game lands. North Country Trail: Many sections of the trail are open to hunting because it crosses through many types of public lands and landowners. Pacific Northwest Trail: The PNT does not affect regulations related to hunting and fishing, which are managed by the states and local landowners and land managers. Many sections of the trail are popular with hunters.
-
4. Will motorized use be allowed under the NST designation?Yes, and other NSTs in the country incorporate motorized use (for example, the Continental Divide Trail) on federal lands. On non-federal lands, corresponding land managers make decisions about use and policies, including motorized use. In Alaska, another national trail - the Iditarod National Historic Trail - allows motorized use. The Frequently Asked Questions on the BLM site for the feasibility study specifically address the motorized use: Q: How are motorized uses managed on national scenic trails? A: While Section 7(c) of the National Trails System Act (Act) states that "the use of motor vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited," Section 7(j) allows vehicles to be permitted on certain trails. These may include, but need not be limited to, snowmobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain offroad vehicles, and trail access for handicapped individuals. The feasibility study will examine the appropriateness of motorized trail use along the trail. If Congress designates the Alaska Long Trail as a national scenic trail, they can specify acceptable uses as they did with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which permits the use of motorized vehicles on designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Where allowed, the Act intends for motorized use to occur in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary in accordance with other Federal laws, or any State or local laws. Q: What types of uses could be allowed on a national scenic trail? A: Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. While National Scenic Trails are primarily non-motorized on federal lands, section 7(c) of the National Trails System Act lists several exceptions to this and gives a significant amount of latitude to local land managers and the administering agency for determining what use policies are appropriate for which trail sections. This practice can be seen in other National Scenic Trails, for example the Continental Divide Trail: about 23% of the nearly 3,100 miles of the CDT are multi-use trail systems that include motorized use. Every time a new national trail is added to the system, the NTS Act gets amended with specific language about that trail. The Continental Divide NST is written in the Act with specific permissions for motorized use along the trail. Nothing precludes the Alaska Long Trail to be written into the Act with a similar language.
-
5. Eminent Domain?From “Reference Manual 45 – National Trails System 2019: “When the NTSA was first passed in 1968 it initially established two trails – the Appalachian and Pacific Crest NSTs. As a result, section 7(g) was made applicable to both trails and authorized the use of eminent domain as a last resort when all other means of trail corridor protection has failed. This was one of the most controversial aspects of the Act during Congressional hearings when it was being considered in 1967. The issue raised its head 10 years later when a new wave of trails was being considered for addition in the Act, and as things turned out, most of the trails added in 1978 and 1980 were not only prohibited from using this eminent domain authority, they were denied use of any federal funds at all to protect the trail corridor (with one minor exception). Starting in 1983, newly established NSTs and NHTs enjoyed (but seldom used) a compromise authority called the “willing seller” clause. Although there are variations, the basic language in each trail’s establishment clause stated: "No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be acquired by the United States for the trail except with the consent of the owner of the land or interest in land."
-
6. Where can I find more information?The best place for information about the NSTs is the National Trails System Act 1968 and Reference Manual 45 – National Trails System 2019.The Act gets amended every time a trail gets designated. Another resource is the BLM's Alaska Long Trail NST feasibility study page.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT NST