By KEVIN MCCABE
In Alaska, trails are not just for recreation. They are essential for subsistence, transportation, and keeping communities connected. Yet the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has quietly changed the rules for the federal Recreational Trails Program, cutting out municipalities, tribes, and nonprofits that have long built and maintained the backbone of Alaska’s trail system.
Under the new policy, eligibility for the FY26 Recreational Trails Program is restricted to projects on state park lands and their access routes. Nonprofits can apply only if they partner with state parks, while local governments and tribal entities are told to look elsewhere. The suggestion is to apply to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But that fund is geared toward land acquisition, not trail maintenance, and has neither the scale nor the flexibility to replace the Recreational Trails Program. This shift is not about efficiency. It is about centralizing power, money, and control.
The Recreational Trails Program is federally administered by the Federal Highway Administration and funded by the gas taxes paid by off-highway users. It is based on the user-pay, user-benefit principle and requires a fair distribution of funding: 30% to motorized, 30% to non-motorized, and 40% to diversified projects. This balance has kept Alaska’s trail system strong and equitable.
The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation’s decision threatens to upset that balance. Motorized users are the largest contributors to the fund and the biggest users of our trails, and most of that activity takes place on borough and tribal lands, not within state parks. If Recreational Trails Program money is limited to state park lands, there is a serious risk that the federally mandated motorized allocation will go unspent or be misdirected. That is not only unfair to users who pay in, but also inconsistent with federal intent.
Despite EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s assurances during a recent roundtable in Alaska that he is working to make the NEPA process less restrictive, the state division has justified its new restriction by pointing to federal environmental review requirements and claiming that limiting eligibility will “streamline” oversight.
When you strip away the language, it amounts to consolidating roughly $1.5 million in expected FY26 Recreational Trails Program funds under direct Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation control. Past fiscal maneuvers make one wonder if this is yet another attempt to steer money toward the Alaska Long Trail, a project that looks glamorous on paper but comes with price tags that should give any fiscally honest policymaker pause.
According to a 2025 feasibility study, developing just 233 miles of identified gap segments between Seward and Fairbanks would cost between $16.3 million on the low end and $35 million on the high end, with annual administration and upkeep alone adding up to $1 million to $4.4 million each year. State capital budget filings also show proposed Alaska Long Trail projects topping $9.5 million for just 14 segments, mostly in Anchorage, and another package of nine projects approved by lawmakers that could cost up to $3.7 million.
At a time when rural Alaskans rely on trails for daily life, harvest routes, school access, and emergency transport, diverting trail dollars into a costly, monument-sized project that benefits a few is not smart stewardship. It is political theater.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Administrative Order No. 359 asked state agencies to seek efficiencies. But real efficiency means doing more with less for all Alaskans, not cutting out the communities who need trails the most, nor sidelining the volunteers and nonprofits who have carried the load for decades.
This new policy undermines collaboration, reduces fairness, and turns a user-funded program into a tool for state bureaucracy. It raises important questions: Was the State Recreational Trail Advisory Committee consulted? Did the division solicit public input from communities most impacted? And has the Federal Highway Administration even approved this narrowing of eligibility?
Alaskans deserve transparency and accountability. The Recreational Trails Program was never meant to be monopolized by one agency or one flashy project. It was designed to serve all users across the breadth of Alaska, in a way that reflects how we live, travel, and recreate.
It is time for the Department of Natural Resources and the Governor’s Office to step in, reverse this decision, and restore broad eligibility. Our trails are not political props or monopolized funding streams. They are a shared heritage that belongs to every Alaskan.
If we let this policy stand, we risk losing the very partnerships and volunteer energy that have kept Alaska’s trails open. Alaskans should speak up now. Contact your legislators and the Department of Natural Resources and demand that Recreational Trails Program funds remain fair, balanced, and accessible to all.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.
Kevin McCabe: The next governor must make Port MacKenzie a priority
Kevin McCabe: Ranked-choice voting cheats voters, but Alaskans are fighting back
Kevin McCabe: The intentional delay of a Senate bill leaves revenue reform in legislative limbo
We keep our snow machines registered and some of those registration fees go toward trails. Motorized vehicles that travel on state lands are supposed to be registered but it isn’t enforced. I wonder how many ATV’s or heavy duty trail rigs, which cause the most damage to public use trails, are even registered and contributing anything. Such vehicles are automatically registered at point of purchase new from a dealer and then if there is a bank loan registration is supposed to be continued. How many though do not renew once the registration has lapsed. Hence there is a large % of users not contributing anything. I just realized our side by side has a lapsed registration albeit it rarely leaves our property and is used mostly for moving wood etc. Lastly, those of us who hike trails on state lands don’t contribute that I am aware of. I am a hiker and do appreciate trails that have some maintenance but does the state ever maintain hiking trails beyond just building them? I have never seen any trails on state land receive maintenance unless it is some non profit with maybe some grant money. Case in point the Gold Cord trail – a once well built trail that has suffered from heavy traffic and erosion and has not seen any maintenance since it was built almost 20 years ago. I would not expect the proposed corridor to be treated any differently maintenance wise despite taking so much to build.
Subsistence, transportation, and keeping communities connected, eh? Certainly there’s enough here to line a few pockets, Kevin! As the sodbuster said, “Milking time!”
Commissioner Boyle??? One more serious let down. This is not okay. Thank you Rep. McCabe for highlighting this issue.
i appreciate you taking time to write an opinion piece on trails. I am not a fan of the long trail. My opinion the cost of maintenance would be too high for the amount of usage and economic benefit too small to the few communities near the route. However I do not see how if the money has to be used in state parks the Long Trail route benefits as most of it is outside state parks. I do support the organizations efforts to improve access to state parks. State parks are used by both motorized and non motorized users and where recreation is most concentrated. If you really are talking about 1.5 million for 2026, 30% is for non motorized use is not going far. $500,000 is not building much trail. The best use of this money is probably maintenance and improving access to the most heavily used areas which now happen to be state parks. I was at Hatcher Pass Reed Lakes trail head last week. There were probably 100 cars parked there. No facilities were available at the trail head other than an iron ranger. The trail to Reed Lakes is an embarrassment to the State of Alaska. The DOT is going to waste 1 million dollars on another Knik arm study. The same million would go a long way into enhancing the trail to Reed Lakes. This is an area that is proven to be driving economic development and deserves investment.
Thank you Representative McCabe for revealing the one sided view of DNR specifically Parks. These monies should be used to provided trail maintenance outside of the State Parks. Grant monies used by our local non profit grooming organization puts every dime back into the local economy. Providing a safely marked groomed trail on 60 miles of river, from where the road ends to a Post Office and a State operated Airport. Some of uses range from the Ididarod to Freight hauling for the multitudes of people who live and recreate along our Non Profit maintained trail. There are many other groups that have a similar story as ours. Maximizing the best bang for the buck. Truly the proposal as written is a total disservice to ALL Alaskans especially those footing the bill, the motorized users.
I am a retired chief Ranger for the southern District of the Kenai area from 1984 till 2014 most specifically for Kachemak Bay State Park .
Frankly, you can’t blame or put the soul blame on the division of parks. Remember, they are under the direction of the department of natural resources and the governor. I am quite convinced that this new policy is being directed downwards from the governor’s office, not from the directors office of Alaska State Parks.
State Parks are terribly underfunded. They were during my tenure and they still are. I can only speak to the funding for Kachemak Bay State Park. For the last many years, there has virtually been no funding for professional trail crews.
Currently, there’s only one Park Ranger to cover the southern end of the Kenai Peninsula from Ninilchik to Kachemak Bay. At one time there were at least four Rangers three natural resource tax and funding for several Alaska conservation corp employees.
The problem is much more complex than the trails grant program State Parks is literally relying on community volunteers to maintain trails which is a great thing to do however, it’s a hit and miss methodology that does not provide for a consistent workforce to perform all of the maintenance duties on trails trailhead public use cabins campsites, latrines, and maintaining the tools and equipment
I agree that the trails grant program should be open to more than just State Parks. However, you cannot blame State Parks specifically for this policy.
The Municipality of Anchorage is planning to spend $15-18 million for less than one mile for Fish Creek Trail. Rep McCabe’s estimate of $16-35 million for 233 miles sounds like an extremely LOW estimate.
I don’t think there are any tribal governments getting this money to begin with.