The Bureau of Land Management opened a 30-day public comment period on a draft feasibility study for designating the proposed Alaska Long Trail as a “national scenic trail.”
The public is invited to submit comments until April 14, through the Alaska Long National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study page on the BLM National NEPA Register.
The Alaska Long Trail is envisioned as a 500-mile route extending from Seward to Fairbanks, traversing diverse landscapes including wilderness forests, mountains, rivers, and valleys. The BLM prepared the study in response to congressional direction in the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The purpose was to assess the feasibility, desirability, and suitability of designating the proposed routes associated with the Alaska Long Trail as a national scenic trail. This feasibility study is not a comprehensive plan, and doesn’t authorize implementation actions.
The proposal has garnered both support and controversy.
Advocates, such as the nonprofit organization Alaska Trails, say the trail would enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and boost tourism, potentially attracting more residents to the state. They believe that national scenic trail designation would be a significant investment in Alaska’s outdoor infrastructure.
However, concerns have been raised by many Alaskans. In the Mat-Su Borough, some say the federal designation could impose even more federal control of Alaska lands, potentially hindering local development and activities.
The Alaska Outdoor Council criticized the proposed route, because it may limit access for certain user groups and impact existing trails.
Representing thousands of Alaskans, the outdoor council says the first 130 miles already connects to the Iditarod National Historic Trail, while the next 320 miles parallel the Parks Highway, which has provided public access for decades. Designating this route as a National Scenic Trail would complicate access to state and private lands, requiring federal oversight that could restrict activities like hunting, fishing, and motorized travel.
“The majority of lands/waters along this +300 miles of the proposed Alaska Long Trail are state, private, or ANCSA Native Corporation. Establishing a NST on either side of the Parks Highway. This would dissect these easily accessed lands for 3/4 of Alaska’s population making management that much more cumbersome. Fifty years of public access along the Parks Highway has provided numerous opportunities for hunting, trapping, fishing, wood gathering, residential homes, resource development and year around outdoor recreation access to state and private lands off the highway corridor. Any amount of oversight by the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture would disrupt current use by a majority of urban Alaskans who regularly access state public lands and waters along the Alaska Long Trail proposed route,” the Alaska Outdoor Council says.
The AOC questions the the transparency of Alaska Trails, the nonprofit advocating for the project.
“The Alaska Trails NGO have been far from forthright in their publications and presentation as to what federal management of a National Trails System between Wasilla and Fairbanks would do to complicate the activities of many Alaskans who have accessed state public lands along the Parks Highway corridor since the completion of the Alaska Railroad in 1923,” the outdoor council says.
Instead, AOC suggests alternative routes, such as the historic Copper River Highway, which already has established rights-of-way and historical significance. The AOC has urged policymakers to consider trails that align with Alaskans’ needs rather than disrupting existing land use.
Only Congress has the authority to designate new national scenic trails. The BLM is actively seeking input from affected communities, the State of Alaska, private landowners, the public, and land management agencies to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. The final feasibility study will be submitted to Congress.
To participate in the public comment process visit the Alaska Long National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study page in the BLM National NEPA Register. To learn more about the study, review the Frequently Asked Questions about the proposed trail.
What are your thoughts about the Alaska Long Trail project? Put them in the comment section below.
The river bridging will most certainly be designated as non-motorized (except in winter), which is fine, but atv users pay federal fuel taxes, and are banned from maintained roads. No bridges are built for them by the feds elsewhere. This is a problem.
I like the idea. My concern is that modern ATV’s and UTV’s can be really damaging to trails, even destroying for all other users. I don’t see how you can possibly control access of such vehicles. Trails all over the state have been destroyed unless they cannot be accessed or are patrolled such as in Hatcher Pass. One option might be to have segments that are designed to withstand the heavy vehicular use but it seems so many ATV/UTV recreators seek to destroy as the fun is in the ‘mud-bogging’ aspect. Sadly this is what eliminates all other uses.
NO if we allow any government entities to control any land then it is lost, just look at the National Park Service if given an inch they will take a mile, I say No!
NO. We do not need more federal control, or involvement in lands. The reasons given in this article for support are ridiculous. The only things this will do is waste money, allow liberal intervention in public access, and cause people to not want to live in a federally over regulated State. People move here for LESS regulation, not more.
Isn’t this the kind of boondoggles we are trying to stop in order to get the federal budget under control?
I can’t even imagine the level of spending required to study, plan, engineer, present, hear comments, evaluate, re plan, re engineer, on and on until it is bid, constructed, inspected and maintained. Permit fees will be endless, requiring a new division of administration to manage all aspects of our implementation of this historic trail already memorialized by both paved highways and a railroad. I vote NO.
Maybe I don’t understand the entire idea here, but it seems to me that maybe we don’t need to “fix something that isn’t broken.”
This is nothing more than another federal land grab that will limit State of Alaska and individual property owner ability to use the land one and around the trail. Another dumb idea from the federal government born by people who will never use it.
Land grab and POWER grab. The BLM seeks more power and bigger budget. The lefties want Alaska neutered, bankrupted, and turned into a park for the chicoms and their minions. BLM + left = money hole with a siphon pipe to brandon and Xi and never “drill baby drill”.
This Long Trail idea came from Murkowski.
It is to be her legacy.
The NGO pushing the Long Trail cannot be trusted. This is all about the money that will enrich the NGO. These people are slimy and should be kept at arms length.
Why is it important to build a Federally controlled right of way through Alaska State land? The Secretary of the Interior has full jurisdiction of the proposed Long Trail. Remember the last Secretary under Biden.
With BLM control they will restrict ALL entry into the Long Trail Right of Way.
Just as BLM has restricted access on similar Long Trail routes in the lower 48.
It starts out with all the BLM well rehearsed lines of promising access for all. BUT with every administration they change those promises and access dissolves. That is precisely how the game is played at the BLM, the long game of increments, small bites over time.
I encourage all to stand against the Propose Long Trail. Stand up against the splitting of the South Central Region in half and allowing BLM to dictate to Alaskans our traditional movements within State of Alaska lands.
Just as side bar if BLM wants a Long Trail build it on Federal Land, for example Chitna to MaCarthy
The Tony Knowles Wilderness Extension Trail?
Not! Ridiculous waste of money. Lewis and Clark were actual “discoverers” and “trailblazers.”
The new breed of hikers only help REI, Columbia, and other outdoor brands get rich. Alaskan hikers can find their own way, on their own trails.
Why not build roads to Alaska’s massive rich resources that can make everyone in Alaska lots of Permanent fund income. This means prosperity to every Alaskan of all ages, no roads not income from the sale of these resources that Alaska has more than almost anywhere. Why not unlock it and build roads?
I own a remote cabin in Chase AK that at least one trail version proposed by Alaska Trails NGO would utilize 5+ miles of that myself and all Chase cabin owners and property owners must use to access our properties. The co-opted trail intersects trails going to multiple cabins within a mile or less. We adamantly oppose such a trail. Frankly, we will not give up our rights to use snow machines and ATVs.
I totally agree with the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) in opposing getting a federally designated and controlled NST impacting any state, borough or native lands. Those of us (Alaskans) who want to access our remote properties, want to hunt and fish on state or borough lands, or want to simply recreate on said lands do not want motorized or any other federal restrictions. Who do not want some strangers following intersecting trails accessing our homes, cabin, or properties. We do not want liter and human waste (remember poop does not deteriorate for over a year) contaminating our trails.
Emergency services will be taxed dealing with medical emergencies from out-of-state tourists miles off-road. Not good.
Suzanne, I clicked on the link but am not sure how to make a public comment. Am I supposed to email the two BLM officials listed on the right hand side of the page? Thank you for your info on this proposed trail. One commenter mentioned this was Princess Lisa’s idea. Is this accurate?
The BLM needs to be abolished
Building a trail to make it easy isn’t going to discourage throngs of hippies from coming here. Alaska is hard for a reason – to keep the weak in the cities. I’m against civilizing our wilderness
“Thanks to the state legislature and Governor Dunleavy, the Alaska Long Trail projects have received funding for three years in a row through the state capital budget – a total of over $6.7M!”
Why are we paying for this?
‘https://www.alaska-trails.org/funding-for-the-aklt
No thanks. Why would we want to relinquish more land for them to tell us Alaskans what we can and can’t not do with it. No way. No thanks
“…….potentially attracting more residents to the state. ”
That’s the last thing we should want !
NO !
No Thanks, the Feds have massive amounts of land and control up here already, we already have huge national parks, and the remaining land needs to belong to the state to maintain, control and set up more for private ownership, with trillions of dollars already in debt, I don’t believe their management is very efficient or economical!!
No
I say no because of how 4 wheelers ruin hiking and cross country skiing. Those are healthy and keep people in Alaska from getting so very overweight in winter. Sitting is not much exersize and 4 sitting while tearing UP the beauty of nature is not cool to me.
I live on 25 acres in the area between Healy and Anderson on the east side and right by one of the historic trails in this are that is already there and established, as a local Alaskan, we do not want this additional Alaska Long Trail and it’s not needed. A huge waste of money. Go spend funding elsewhere where it can actual help Alaskans. We already have trails and a lot of people trespassing on to land that is private, going off trails and ruining existing trails. NO thank you!!!
No thanks.
No thanks. If you want to hike trails and keep them maintained and protected use the ones in the national parks. We spend enough money on that all ready. Leave Alaska the way Alaska is. This is why we live here.
No thanks, the park is already too big.
The Park is big enough quit sh—ing on the American Public especially Alaskans we already have all the trails we need and most of us really don’t give a shit about the people outside and what they want leave us and our State alone maybe it’s time for secession from The rest of the states
Seems like Waste, Fraud and Abuse of Tax dollars to me.
NO period
Actual BLM input weblink:
‘https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2030342/595
mtcw: As a veteran of many hikes/bikes/floats over the last 30 years in our great state, I do like the idea of the Alaska Long Trail. However, the additional restrictions added by making it a “National Scenic Trail” would undoubtedly make traditional uses of lands and access unacceptable to the majority of us…and that includes state and private land!
a big time NO, but if she (“Murkowski”) gets this through make her walk it both ways a few times.
Not the first time this has come up. Just go to the website of Alaska Trails, check out staff/board. All environmentalists. Nearly all lifelong “nonprofit” workers. Not one mention of hunting or fishing in any of their bios. I definitely oppose the idea. This is about socialist/government control of land, nothing less. As John Galt mentioned above, the state has given money to this group for three years!
They no doubt also receive grant money from U.S. Aid. Get out the chainsaw!