National Part Service 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

WraageU-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve 

Alaska 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Establis•ed and Maintainable Access to Inholdings Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment 

February 2008 

Approved: 

Date 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

Established and Maintainable Access to Inholdings 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska 

February 2008 

The National Park Service (NPS) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in 2007 to 

evaluate a proposal to authorize access to inholdings under Section 111 0(b) ofthe Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) for established and maintainable routes and 

methods of access within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (WRST), Alaska. 

Issuing ANILCA 11 l0(B) Right-of-Way Certificates of Access (RWCA) to inholders is 

necessary to describe and document their legal methods and means and to assure their access 

interests. To protect park resources and minimize potential impacts to park resources and values, 

the NPS would identify these routes and methods of access, including the suite ofmaintenance 

methods and tools the inholder may use to ensure the surface tread is useable as intended. 

Established and maintainable routes and methods of access qualifying for consideration in this 

EA are those that currently exist, have not resulted in unacceptable impacts to park resources and 

values, and can be maintained in their present condition and character essentially within their 

existing footprints. Examples of established access facilities include constructed and bladed 

roads, off-road vehicle (ORV) trails, airstrips, and waterlines. 

The NPS has selected Alternative 2, the NPS and Environmentally Preferred Alternative, to issue 

ANILCA 11 l0(b) RWCA to inholders with established and maintainable access in the park. 

Written comments were received from the State of Alaska, ANILCA Implementation Program; 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA, et. al.); and five individuals. These comments 

were generally of a clarifying nature, supported the proposed action as described, or expressed 

no significant objections to the proposed action. The public comments received did not change 

the conclusions in the EA about the environmental effects ofthe action. The NPS responses to 

substantive public comments, including errata for the EA, are attached in Appendix A. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Two alternatives were evaluated in the EA. 

No Action Alternative 

This alternative represents a continuation ofthe existing uses of access facilities to inholdings in 

the park and preserve, and provides a baseline for evaluating the changes and impacts ofthe 

proposed action alternative. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the NPS would continue to consider requests for access under 

ANILCA section 1110(b) on a case-by-case basis. In response to an application for an ANILCA 

2 
11 lO(b) RWCA, the NPS :would conduct an environmental analysis ofthe proposal and 

determine ifthe individual route, method, and means is adequate and feasible. Processing 

applications would be based on procedures and timeframes specified in the ANILCA regulations 

at 43 CFR 36.10 and the policies and approach outlined in the 2007 NPS Alaska Region Access 

to Inholdings User Guide. 

The NPS would not develop a comprehensive program to issue RWCAs and actively analyze and 

manage established and maintainable access facilities. Landowners would continue to use 

established access facilities to their property unless unacceptable impacts to park resources occur 

from unauthorized uses ofNPS lands or the property owner contacts the NPS and requests a 

RWCA. Otherwise, NPS management of access to inholdings would consist ofmaintaining 

inventories of access facilities and discussions with landowners regarding access to their 

property across park lands. 

Proposed Action Alternative: Implement a Program to Authorize Right-of-Way 

Certificates of Access for Established and Maintainable Access to Inholdings (the NPS and 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative) 

Under this alternative, NPS would develop and implement a program for authorizing established 

and maintainable access to inholdings. Those access facilities meeting the assessment criteria for 

both administrative requirements and technical management objectives would qualify for 

inclusion. The NPS would actively manage and monitor landowner or other valid occupier 

operations ofmotorized vehicles across federal public lands on established and maintainable 

facilities for access to state and private inholdings as provided by ANILCA Section 1110(b) and 

its implementing regulations. This action would not affect the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, 

or airplanes, which are currently permitted under ANILCA Section 1110( a). The NPS would 

accomplish its objectives by working with landowners that submit applications for ANILCA 

1110(b) R WCAs, which describe the routes and methods of access, facility geometry and 

location, vehicle class, maintenance operations, and other appropriate terms and conditions to 

protect park resources. Such RWCAs would also include appropriate terms and conditions with 

maintenance options to enable landowners to maintain their established access facilities in their 

existing footprint and consistent with their current level of development. 

The RWCA would include those resource protection measures deemed necessary to ensure 

consistency with Title 43 CFR 36.10 (e) (1) and 36.9(b) criteria. The NPS would attach specific 

protection measures to individual RWCAs to address unique resource protection needs. 

Protection measures for a specific authorized access facility may change over time to reflect 

changing resource conditions or access needs. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The public was involved in scoping access issues over the past three years in conjunction with 

the NPS Alaska Region's effort to develop the Access to Inholdings User Guide. The NPS 

conducted meetings with inholders in affected communities during the week ofMay 14, 2007, 

and posted a newsletter on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) 

webpage in early June to announce the NPS intent to complete the subject EA. The NPS mailed 

3 
or emailed copies ofthe one-page newsletter to 153 addresses, including the Alaska 

Congressional delegation; state and federal agencies; Native tribes, governments and 

organizations; (15) environmental groups; resource development organizations, local groups; and 

(95) individuals, mostly landowners. Other scoping activities included consultation with the 

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers about wetlands impacts and use ofNationwide Permits; the NPS 

Water Resources Division Wetlands Specialist about NPS policy and procedures for wetlands 

management; the State ofAlaska, Department ofNatural Resources, regarding the Access User 

Guide provisions and principles; and, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Anchorage, Alaska, regarding the presence ofthreatened and/or endangered species in the 

subject area. The Interim User's Guide to Accessing Inholdings in National Park Service System 

Units in Alaska was released in July 2007. 

The Established and Maintainable Access to Inholdings Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment was placed on the PEPC website on November 28, 2007, where it was available for 

public review and comment through January 31, 2008. A press release announcing the 

availability ofthe EA and the public comment period was issued on November 28, 2007. The 

news release was aired by radio stations in Valdez and Glennallen, Alaska, during the public 

comment period and was published in the Copper River Record and the Anchorage Daily News. 

Additionally, the news release was sent governmental agencies, organizations, and interested 

individuals. Letters, emails, and phone calls were made to WRST's private land owners to notify 

them that the EA was available for public review. Park staff also had informal discussions with 

land owners to brief them on the EA's contents. 

DECISION 

The NPS decision is to select the Proposed Action Alternative: Implement a Program to 

Authorize RWCA for Established and Maintainable Access to Inholdings (the NPS and 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative), along with the mitigating measures. 

Mitigating Measures 

The mitigation measures described in section 2.3 .4 ofthe EA (pages 2-13 to 2-15) are adopted as 

part ofthe selected alternative: Implement a Program to Authorize RWCAs for Established and 

Maintainable Access to Inholdings. These measures describe actions to avoid or reduce impacts 

to wetlands, hydrology, aquatic habitat and fish, soils and substrates, native plants, cultural 

resources, migratory birds, and wilderness. 

Rationale for the Decision 

Implementing a program to authorize RWCAs for established and maintainable access to 

inholdings resolves a long-standing concern with private landowners, the NPS, and the interested 

public regarding access to inholdings across federal public park lands in WRST. The program 

will result in the descriptions and documentation of access methods and means to provide 

adequate and feasible access for landowners and valid occupiers while protecting park resources 

and values and avoiding unacceptable impacts. The proposed program complies with ANILCA 

Section 111O(b) and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR Part 36.10 and results in fewer 

4 
impacts to park resources than the No-Action Alternative. The decision provides a management 

process with assessment criteria for determining which access facilities qualify for RWCAs and 

which access facilities would require additional future environmental analyses. For those 

landowners and valid occupiers whose access fit the criteria described in this EA and apply for 

and obtain their ANILCA RWCAs, the final documentation will reduce potential 

misunderstanding between the landowners and the NPS and provide certainty for adequate and 

feasible access for the landowners. Plan implementation will assure protection ofpark resources 

in accordance with ANILCA, the Organic Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Wilderness Act, and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. 

Significance Criteria 

The preferred alternative will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This 

conclusion is based on the following examination the significance criteria defined in 40 CFR 

Section 1508.27. 

(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even ifthe 

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

This EA evaluated the effects ofthe preferred alternative (plan implementation) on aquatic 

resources and fish, cultural resources, inholdings, public access and recreation, soils, vegetation 

and wetlands, and wilderness. Implementation ofthis decision would have negligible adverse 

effects on aquatic resources and fish; minor beneficial effects on cultural resources; moderate 

beneficial effects on the uses and values of inholdings; minor adverse and beneficial effects on 

public access and recreation; negligible adverse effects and minor beneficial effects on soils; 

minor adverse effects and negligible beneficial effects on vegetation and wetlands; and minor 

beneficial effects on wilderness. No significant adverse impacts would occur and there would be 

no significant restriction ofsubsistence users or uses. 

(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

Implementation ofthe selected alternative would not affect public safety to any known or 

appreciable degree either adversely or beneficially. 

(3) Unique characteristics ofthe geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetland, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical 

areas. 

A few of the existing access facilities are located in designated wilderness. ANILCA Section 

707 directs that wilderness be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, except as 

otherwise expressly authorized by ANILCA. Title XI provides specific exceptions to the 

Wilderness Act for the purposes of access, including the uses ofsnowmobiles, motorboats, and 

airplanes. 

(4) The degree to which effects on the quality ofthe human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial. 

5 
The effects on the quality ofthe human environment are not likely to be highly controversial, 

and the action will result in no new, negligibly new, and possibly minor beneficial environmental 

effects. Neither the content nor the number of comments received during the 60-day comment 

period indicates a high level of controversy exists. 

(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks. 

No impacts associated with this action are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 

(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent offuture actions with significant 

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

This action only addresses established and maintainable access facilities. Construction of new 

access facilities or major modifications to existing access facilities will require separate NEPA 

analysis. Issuing RWCAs for established and maintainable access facilities does not set a 

precedent for future actions. 

(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. Significance exists ifit is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant 

impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or 

by breaking it down into small component parts. 

This action will enable the NPS to provide inholders with adequate and feasible access to 

inholdings while protecting natural and other values. This programmatic EA considers 

cumulative impacts, and we conclude the action is not related to other actions ofindividual 

insignificance that will amount to cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. 

(8) Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places or may cause 

loss or destruction ofsignificant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 

The RWCAs will include specific protection measures to address unique resources. The 

likelihood ofloss or destruction of known scientific, cultural, or historic resources from 

implementation ofthe selected alternative is extremely remote. 

(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or 

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of1973. 

Implementation ofthe selected alternative will not adversely affect any known endangered or 

threatened species or its habitat. 

(10) Whether the action threatens a violation ofFederal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposedfor the protection ofthe environment. 

6 
No federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection ofthe environment 

will be violated by implementing this alternative. 

FINDINGS 

The levels of adverse impacts to park resources anticipated from the selected alternative will not 

result in an impairment ofpark resources that fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or that are key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park. 

The selected alternative complies with the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 for :floodplains and wetlands. There 

will be no restriction of subsistence activities as documented by the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, Section 810(a) Summary Evaluation and Findings. 

The National Park Service has determined that the selected alternative does not constitute a 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations ofthe Council 

on Environmental Quality (40 CPR 1508.9), an environmental impact statement is not needed 

and will not be prepared for this project. 

7 
ATTACHMENT A 

NPS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS and ERRATA 

For the 

Established and Maintainable Access to Inholdings 

Environmental Assessment 

Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska 

This attachment amends the subject environmental assessment (EA) and provides NPS responses 

to public comments. 

NPS RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Comments were received from the State ofAlaska and the National Parks and Conservation 

Association (jointly submitted with The Wilderness Society, Alaska Center for the Environment, 

and the Defenders ofWildlife). Five comment letters were received from individuals. 

The NPS has read and considered all comments received. Responses to substantive comments are 

provided below. "A substantive comment is defined as one that leads the NPS to: (1) modify an 

alternative, including the proposed action; (2) develop and evaluate an alternative not previously 

given serious consideration; (3) supplement, improve, or modify the environmental analysis; (4) 

or make factual corrections (CEQ NEPA Regulations 1503.4)." The comments addressed below 

are those judged to be substantive. 

The comments are quoted or paraphrased, and the NPS responses follow in italics. 

State of Alaska SOA Comment #1: Page 1-10, Permits and Approvals Needed to Implement 

Project. Though no new access facilities are anticipated, the State expressed concern that 

established access facilities may not already have appropriate permits from ADNR for structures 

in fish habitat or below the high water mark in navigable waters. Therefore, the State would like 

to have these permits listed in the appropriate sections ofthe EA. 

Response: 

The NPS specifies in the EA on page 2-12 and criteria (3)and (4) of43 CFR 36.9(b) that any 

R WCA will not violate any applicable air and water quality standards and related facility 

standards pursuant to law and would prevent damage to fish habitat. Furthermore, appendix E 

provides an example R WCA, which states the landowner is responsible for complying with all 

applicable state and federal permits for their access. The NPS, however, will add to the EA the 

possible need for landowners to obtain a fish habitat permit and/or water use permit where 

applicable. 

SOA Comment #2: Page 2-13, 2.3.4.2, Hydrology. "The third bullet references a 100-year 

flood event as the standard for replacement of failed structures such as bridges." 

8 
Response: The mitigating measure is to accommodate a major flood. A 100-year event is an 

example ofan ideal design ofa replacement structure to avoid impacts to fish and habitat. The 

NPS will work with individual landowners to ensure this mitigating measure is tailored to their 

particular situation without creating new impacts outside the footprint ofthe existing access 

alignment. 

SOA Comment #3: Page 2-14, second complete bullet. "We support the general intent ofthis 

mitigating measure; however, we are concerned that exceptions may occasionally be necessary, 

e.g. terrain may limit available options to stay further away from water bodies. We request the 

FONS! clarify that the Service will consider exceptions on a case-by-case if small amounts of 

cutting are necessary to achieve a sustainable access solution. We also request clarification that 

this mitigation measure is included for purposes ofRWCA authorizations, not other authorized 

uses ofparklands such as subsistence cutting for house logs or firewood." 

Response: 

The NPS will work with individual landowners to ensure that this stipulation can be tailored to 

their particular situation. For example, the NPS may require the landowner to place large 

woody debris within the aquatic zone rather than remove the material from the area. Authorizing 

R WCAs does not change management ofsubsistence or other authorized uses. 

SOA Comment #4: Page 2-14, 2.2.4.6, Cultural Resources. "The last sentence says, "No 

adverse effects to historic properties would be authorized." It would be helpful to clarify in the 

FONS! that a mitigating measure to avoid such adverse affects could include minor 

realignments, assuming the realignments were small enough to remain within the scope ofthis 

EA for "established" access." 

Response: 

No new adverse effects to historic properties would be authorized by this EA because access 

facilities containing features deemed eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places would 

require further analysis and be addressed by additional NEPA and NHPA compliance. 

Consultation with the SHPO applies both inside and outside the access footprint. Ifan historic 

resource could be avoided within the disturbance footprint, then this could be authorized, but 

only after the consultation with SHPO. 

SOA Comment #5: Page 2-16, 2.5.2, RS 2477 rights-of-way. "We appreciate the 

acknowledgement of RS 2477 rights-of-way in this document; however, the introductory 

paragraph uses the term "asserted'' and "assertions" inappropriately in the first part of the first 

sentence. The term asserted has certain legal implications that do not apply to all ofthese routes. 

The RS 2477 routes listed in the general management plan have been identified by the State, 

which is different from an active assertion process undergoing court adjudication." 

Response: 

The NPS has modified the EA to replace the term "asserted" with "identified potential". 

9 
SOA Comment #6: Page 2-16, Table 2-4, Summary Impacts ofAlternatives. Under the 

Preferred Alternative for Public Access & Recreational Use, there is a reference to "posted 

motorized access restrictions." In light ofthe Alaska Access Users Guide, we assume such 

postings would not affect motor vehicles that are generally allowed on adjacent parklands, e.g. 

snowmachines, over portions ofthe route crossing federal public lands. In contrast, the 

references "signs limiting vehicular use ofthe access route." For clarity, we request the FONS I 

indicate that such postings would not restrict public access via snowmachine (recognizing that 

private property owners may certainly post their private property as they please). 

Response: 

While this comment does not require a change in the EA or FONSL we anticipate that park 

visitors who encounter some access driveways and roads need to be informed that these are not 

open to the general public. The NPS intent with signs is to prevent unauthorized motorized uses 

that would not be allowed on adjacent public lands. The signs will alert and inform the public 

that these driveways and roads are access to private lands and not a general public access road. 

The NPS agrees signs on federal park lands should be phrased appropriately so as not to limit 

motorized access authorized by ANILCA 111 0(a), such as snowmachines during periods with 

adequate snow cover, motorboats, or airplanes. The signs will prohibit unauthorized uses of 

highway vehicles, heavy equipment, or OR Vs. Keeping unauthorized motorized vehicle uses off 

ofinholder access facilities would reduce both impacts to the travel surface and user conflicts. 

SOA Comment #7: Page 3-4, 3.1.1.1, Jack Lake burbot populations. Current population data for 

Jack Lake burbot is lacking. ADF&G conducted some limited studies on burbot in Jack Lake in 

both 1988 and 1989. These were one-event samples, which only estimated "catch per unit effort" 

with baited hoop traps and collected length information. Abundance estimation work was not 

conducted. Unless the NPS has additional information documenting "overharvest," care should 

be taken in stating that burbot populations were over exploited. The text does not reference a 

source ofthe reported information. 

Response: The information presented in the EA is consistent with information reported in 

ADFG Technical paper 292 by Simeone, WE and J Kari. In this report, Tom Taube, ADFG 

Area Fisheries Biologist states "The popularity ofburbot and lake trout in lakes located near the 

road system has caused populations ofthese fish to be over harvested ... " 

SOA Comment #8: Page 4-8, 4.3.1.2, Cumulative Effects, first sentence. As with the statement 

at 3 .1, the statement that fish populations are experiencing downward trends appears overstated. 

While there may be some localized decreases in fish populations due to site-specific impacts, we 

are not aware that this is a widespread problem throughout the Park. We request that such 

discussions focus more on site-specific impacts and avoid the unintended implication that fish 

populations are declining on a park wide basis. 

Response: The analysis addresses the affected area as described on page 3-1, which is a 

relatively small portion ofthe entire park/preserve. The description offish populations within 

the affected area adequately reflects the analyst's professional opinion after reviewing available 

information provided by the National Park Service, the Alaska Department ofFish and Game, 

other researchers, and traditional ecological knowledge. 

10 
SOA Comment #9: Page C-3, Section 810 Evaluation, last sentence on page. The State 

discourages use ofthe term "sport hunting" because it has resulted in a negative connotation in 

rural Alaska. State regulations no longer uses "sport hunting" because the term implies that all 

non-subsistence hunting is strictly for "sport" as opposed to others forms ofpersonal use. The 

basic reference "general hunting" is appropriate in this context. 

Response: The EA is amended to delete the term "sport hunting" to use simply "hunting" as 

adequate to describe general hunting. 

SOA Comment #10: Page C-4, ANILCA 810 analysis, Affected Environment. The final 

sentence in the first paragraph ofthe ANILCA Section 810 Analysis in Appendix A on page C-4 

reads: 

To engage in subsistence activities within Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve, 

individuals are not required to live in a resident zone community, but they must 

live in a rural Alaskan community or area that has a positive customary and 

traditional use determination for the species and area they wish to harvest. 

This statement accurately defines eligibility for subsistence uses ofthe Preserve under the 

Federal subsistence regulations. However, Preserve lands also are open to hunting, trapping, and 

fishing under State regulations unless specific closures to non-federally qualified subsistence 

users have been implemented. We request a correction/clarification in the final decision 

document. 

Response: The NPS amended the EA sentence to specify what is being described as eligibility 

under federal subsistence regulations: 

To engage in subsistence activities within Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve under 

federal subsistence regulations, individuals are not required to live in a resident zone 

community, but they must live in a rural Alaskan community or area that has a positive 

customary and traditional use determination for the species and area they wish to 

harvest. 

Because the state authorizations are listed in the previous paragraph ofthe 810 analysis, we do 

not think it necessary to repeat that information in this paragraph. 

SOA Comment #11: Page J-2, Text Box A. "The accompanying explanation notes that "the 

agency can consider and grant access ..." in wilderness. After checking with Service staff, we 

understand that the intent ofthis statement is to address 4(c) ofthe Wilderness Act; however, in 

the context ofthis EA, the language may inadvertently appear to imply that the agency may 

decline to consider adequate and feasible access, which would not be consistent with ANILCA 

11 l0(b). If this language is used again in future EAs concerning access to inholdings, we 

recommend a clarification." 

11 
Response: 

The NPS language does not intend to imply we may decline to consider adequate and feasible 

access to an inholding, merely that we can consider motorized access across designated or 

eligible wilderness areas in the study area. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 1: "It will be important to address the impacts ofthe 28 active 

facilities whose maintainability was not determined, and therefore not considered in this EA, 

particularly for those that ford fish bearing streams. The 28 existing access routes that do not fit 

the evaluation criteria established in this EA and all future access requests will be separately 

reviewed in subsequent environmental documents prepared consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act." 

Response: 

These 28facilities are beyond the scope ofthis proposal and their impacts are considered in the 

cumulative analysis. Most ofthese access facilities cross fish bearing streams hence do not meet 

the criteria for consideration in this EA; they may be addressed in the future collectively or on a 

case by case basis. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 2: The process and criteria outlined in the Access to Inholdings 

EA is a significant federal action which should warrant evaluation under an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

Response: 

As documented in the EA and FONS!, this proposal does not result in significant impacts to park 

resources and values, and as such, is not considered a major federal action warranting an EIS. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 3: We have concerns that increased awareness ofRWCAs, 

particularly on the longer routes and remote airstrips that provide access deeper into the park, 

will attract recreational users. This is a source ofpotential conflict with subsistence users and, as 

such, it should be evaluated in the EA. Our concern is not that these R WCAs will restrict 

subsistence access, rather that they will increase recreational access that causes conflict with 

subsistence users. 

Response: 

Most ofthe established access facilities covered under this EA are proximal to the road system, 

in developed areas, and/or are already known by local residents and many park visitors. 

Because their physical current character would essentially remain the same, we do not 

anticipate any substantive change in recreational use patterns. Nothing in this federal action 

would affect authorized recreational access or any subsistence access or use. These access 

facilities would not be advertised and other mitigation could occur, such as signage indicating 

the route is for authorized uses only. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 4: Subsistence should be an impact topic. The EA needs to 

evaluate the cumulative impact to subsistence from all 60 potential R WCAs. Any further NEPA 

compliance on RWCAs should discuss impacts to subsistence. 

12 
Response: 

An analysis ofthe potential impacts to subsistence from the proposed action is provided in the 

810 analysis at Appendix C. The EA is revised at 1.4.2.2 to clarify as documented in the 810, 

that the proposal would have at most a negligible effect on wildlife and a minor effect on 

subsistence fish resources. Effects to fishery and habitat would be reduced over the status quo 

by mitigation measures required by the proposal. There would be no direct impact on allowed 

means ofsubsistence access, and competition for subsistence resources on federal lands is not 

expected to increase. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 5: The lack of specific access facility detail makes it challenging 

to provide concrete, substantive feedback, particularly regarding those facilities located in 

designated or eligible Wilderness, as identified in Table 4.3. Ofparticular concern is the Kotsina 

Trail which, according to Table 4.3, consists of a bladed route through 8 miles of designated 

Wilderness. What is the current status ofthis route? Will additional stipulations to protect the 

adjacent wilderness be included in any potential RWCA for this route? We are also concerned 

about the proposed issuance ofRWCA's on approximately 60 miles oftrails and 3 miles of 

landing strips located in eligible Wilderness. It is not clear how the issuance ofRWCAs in 

eligible Wilderness areas may impair or negatively impact the viability of future Wilderness 

designation upon these lands. 

Response: 

All inholders who would be considered under this EA for an ANILCA RWCA must submit an SF299 application (with NPS assistance ifneeded), which would describe facility details. The 

private lands in the upper Kotsina have been accessed by ORVs,fixed-wing aircraft, and 

snowmachine. Each method is somewhat unique and may require review to determine whether it 

does not have new impacts to park resources by confining operations to the established footprint 

as outlined in the EA. This would be the same for all potential authorized R WCA facilities 

regardless whether they are located in wilderness. 

Some existing access facilities to inholdings were included in those areas designated as 

wilderness. Wilderness values will be addressed by provisions in the R WCA that confine use to 

the established footprint. The Kotsina Trail was developed as a bulldozed roadbed that currently 

traverses both private Native lands as an ANCSA 17(b) easement and through designated 

Wilderness. Where it is an ANCSA 17(b) easement, the route provides access to public federal 

lands and is not addressed in this EA. Established and sustainable access to inholdings will not 

change the eligibility ofthese lands for wilderness designation. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 6: We request to be notified and provided the opportunity to be 

involved in some form ofreview of each individual RWCA when the application is made and as 

the terms and stipulations are being determined. 

Response: 

WRST proposes to set up a spreadsheet on the park webpage so interested parties can track the 

status ofSF 299 applications. 

13 
NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 7: We recommend that the Park Service establish a consistent 

signage strategy for the marking and identification of access facilities and associated park 

boundaries. Signage should clarify that the access facility is not a recreational trail established 

by the Park Service nor maintained by the private land owner for the purpose of providing access 

to public parklands. 

Response: 

See SOA response #6. We plan to have a consistent signage program that educates the public 

and clarifies that these access routes are for authorized users only. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 8: In the event that the public should damage an access facility, we 

request that Park Service clarify who will be held responsible for the right-of-way's repair. 

Response: 

The NPS will address potential threats to park resources and damage to a facility travel surface 

through education. The NPS believes consistent signage, however, will reduce the likelihood of 

unauthorized uses and damages. NPS could pursue cost recovery from perpetrators, as 

warranted and appropriate, from injury to resources and facilities on NPS lands. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 9: We recommend that the Park Service clarify the source and 

method by which property owners will be required to obtain approved, clean gravel for the 

maintenance ofthe right-of-way across parklands. We recommend that the Park Service 

consider making a clean gravel source available for rights-of-way maintenance. 

Response: 

Approvals to use NPS borrow materials for private use is outside the scope ofthis EA and is not 

considered part ofthis proposal. The NPS will work with landowners to identify sources ofweedfree fill and gravel on non-federal lands. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 10: We have concerns in relation to criteria #6, which pertain to 

the grades of the facilities in review: What is the basis for accepting grades between 20-40% for 

50 feet in length or less than 10% ofthe total as acceptable and not needing to be relocation or 

mitigation? These grades may contribute to environmental impacts beyond what the NPS 

considers acceptable and may need mitigation beyond the scope of that which is permitted in 

Appendix B. Accordingly, what level of enforcement and financial responsibility will the NPS 

assume to ensure that slope-related problems are mitigated? 

Response: 

The NPS criteria and guidelines are described in Table 2.2 ofthe EA are meant to prevent 

impacts outside the established footprints. As stated on page 2-12 ofthe EA, there may be a joint 

landowner and NPS on-site evaluation offacilities prior to authorization to assure the access 

14 
meets the criteria in table 2.2. The NPS has already inspected many ofthe existing access 

facilities considered in this EA. Ifreasonable alignment alternatives exist or mitigation measures 

are available, then they would be required or recommended so long as no new disturbance area 

is created. For any segments with > 20% grade the RWCA will require a surface tread of 

durable character to keep vehicles in the alignment. The "watershed" ofa 50foot section is not 

large enough to accumulate enough water to cause significant erosion. Regular maintenance to 

maintain water control features and the tread surface in steeper sections will be subject to 

agency monitoring to prevent unacceptable environmental impacts. The 10% "allowance" of 

steeper segments is to ensure that established alignment minimizes the use ofsteeper grades to 

the extent possible and only a small portion ofthe access exceeds the >20% grade standard. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 11: The goal appears to be to mitigate wet trails before they cause 

sedimentation into surface water or further degradation and widening, but it seems that for these 

criteria, the lengths and depths are ambiguously chosen and applied. Access Facility Assessment 

Criteria, presented within Table 2.2, needs to be clarified, with definitions oftrail features (ruts, 

depression muck hole, etc.) within the text ofthe document or appendices. Specific questions on 

this section are as follows: 

There appears to be conflict between the criteria that state: no ruts exceed 8" depth over 10' of 

length, no depressions or muck holes exceed 8" depth over 2' of length, and no persistent ponded 

water exceeding 4" depth and 1 O' length. 

How do you decide the difference between a rut and a depression? 

Response: 

A rut is caused by the passage ofa wheel when the tread surface can 't support its weight. The 

downward force ofthe wheel shears and displaces the soil beneath it, forcing the soil to bulge 

outwards and upwards beside the wheel. The shearing and displacement is most likely to occur 

on fine textured soils under saturated soil conditions. These typically occur at break-up when 

frozen subsoils restrict internal drainage or during periods ofexcessive precipitation when 

surface water accumulation exceeds the rate at which water can percolate through the soil 

profile. It is uncommon on course textured soils. On organic soils, surface materials are 

typically more subject to in-place abrasion and churning rather than shearing and displacement. 

Ruts then, are caused by the passage ofwheeled traffic and typically appear as a characteristic 

linear depression and two rises ofdisplaced soil within the width ofa relatively level tread 

surface cross section. Ruts generally occur in pairs, as both wheels impact the surface and 

maybe evident from a single passage where the individual tread marks are visible or would be 

expressed as two deeper ruts generated from multiple passes. Ruts on grades tend to channel 

water. Ruts on flats tend to hold water. A "depression " is a large scale failure ofthe tread 

surface that extends across the entire width ofthe tread surface. It is generally caused by 

repeated passage across a section ofthe trail that is saturatedfor long periods oftime such as 

an area in a low lying section that ponds surface water. It is also common on organic soils 

subject to repeated vehicle passage. Depressions can develop from ruts where repeated passage 

enlarges ruts to the point that they cover the entire width ofthe tread. Ruts and depressions are 

managed differently. Ruts can often be re-graded with displaced materials used to re-shape the 

15 
tread surface. Depressions often require the importation offill material or trail hardening, and 

a broad-scale evaluation ofwater management and necessary mitigation. 

Is a depression 8" below the average undisturbed ground surface or could it also be below the 8" 

rut? 

Response: 

Rut and depression depth would be measured below the normal surface tread elevation. 

Because oftheir nature, a rut could develop within a depression, but a depression could not form 

within a rut. 

Why can a wet muck hole be 8" deep and while ponded water is only allowed to be 4" deep? 

Response: 

A wet muck hole is typically a feature that has formed on organic soils or is a mineral soil 

depression. It is a clear indication ofsurface failure. Eight inches is the set allowance, after 

which mitigation is required. Ponded water is a major contributing factor to surface failure. 

Prolonged ponding saturates surface soils and ultimately leads to rutting and the development of 

depressions on fine textured and organic tread surfaces. Areas with prolonged ponding are an 

indicator ofinadequate water control and require mitigation at an early stage to prevent more 

extensive degradation. 

What are "normal conditions" under which a trail is supposed to be mud free? 

Response: 

Mud-free travel surfaces exist when there is no accumulation ofwater on the surface or 

saturation in surface soils. This is normally the period in the spring after minerals soils are 

thawed to the depth to provide free flow ofwater through their soil profile; and periods when 

precipitation rates do not exceed a soil's infiltration and internal percolation rates. 

Is there a significant difference in trail conditions between a segment that has 4" of ponded water 

for up to 10' of length and one that has running surface water for up to 50' in length? 

Response: 

Ponded water saturates surface soils that can lead to surface tread failure and degradation. 

Running water erodes and transports tread material down slope. It can cause sheet, rut or gully 

erosion and sediment deposition problems ifunchecked. The management ofthe two conditions 

is different, although they can be related as running water often pools in low areas andforms 

ponded sections oftread. The first step in mitigating ponded sections is to attempt to eliminate 

the source ofthe water. This would be to divert water offtread surfaces up slope from the 

ponded areas. This is accomplished by constructing rolling grade dips at the top ofgrades and 

along sloped sections at appropriate intervals. This is also the mitigation for running water 

issues. For the ponded areas themselves, the mitigation is to improve local drainage. Mitigation 

can include importing cap material to elevate the surface; the development ofside ditches to 

16 
improve drainage and provide material to elevate and crown the tread; the development of 

supplemental ditches and drains; or other form oftrail hardening. 

Where "water is directed offtread surface in a manner to prevent tread surface erosion and 

sedimentation". Is this after it has run along the trail for 50'? 

Response: 

Ideally, water would be directed offofthe tread surface at the top ofthe grade. Water could 

also be managed within the 50feet segment by crowning, in-sloping or out-sloping the tread 

surface to direct water to an in-side ditch or to the side slope. Direct fall line alignments would 

be discouraged and recommended contour alignments would provide opportunities to utilize the 

native side slope to receive surface sheet flow. Additional water control in the form ofrolling 

grade dips or other water control feature could also be integrated into the 50foot segment if, 

and as needed. 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 12: The second paragraph on page 1-2 appears to imply 

that off-road vehicle (ORV) use is allowed under ANILCA 11 lO(a) for traditional 

activities, yet this is not accurate. While 43 C.F.R. § 36.11 may purport to authorize ORV 

use as a special access method, NPS should clarify that this authority does not derive 

from ANILCA 1110( a) as a type of access for traditional activities. 

Response: 

The NPS does not intend to make any such implication. The phrase" traditional 

activities" and "regulations to address ORV access" are in two different sentences. 

ANILCA 111 0(a) allows for special access for traditional activities and for travel to and 

from villages and homesites, but it only authorizes the uses ofsnowmachines (with 

adequate protective snow and ice cover), motorboats, airplanes and non-motorized 

surface transportation methods. Special access methods are regulated by 43 CFR Part 

36.11, which includes the use ofOR Vs on designated routes and areas. We agree 

ANILCA 11l0(a) does not authorize the use ofORVs, and 43 CFR 36.1 l(g) prohibits the 

use ofOR Vs except on designated routes and areas in accordance with EO 11644 or as 

identified pursuant to §36.10 (Access to Inholdings) and §36.12 (temporary access). 

NPCA, et. al. Comment No. 13: The EA refers to relevant portions of the park's General 

Management Plan (GMP) on page 1-7 in describing the relationship between this EA and other 

planning documents, NPS should explain how this process fits with the actual language cited 

from pages 16 and 18 ofthe GMP: The use of ORVs for access to inholdings may be allowed 

under 43 CFR 36.10 by the superintendent on a case-by-case basis on designated routes ... The 

use of ORVs for access to inholdings will only be allowed upon a finding that other traditional 

methods ofaccess will not provide adequate and feasible access. (Emphasis added). 

Specifically, does this EA satisfy NPS' finding requirement from the GMP, will NPS make this 

finding on an individual basis as they address each RWCA, or has NPS abandoned the finding 

requirement? 

17 
Response: 

The proposed federal action evaluated in this EA is providing adequate and feasible access to 

established and maintainable inholdings under Title 111 0(b) ofANILCA, and not 111 0(a), which 

governs special access. Special access regulations require a finding that such ORV use would 

be "compatible with the purposes and values" ofthe park (43 CFR 36.11 (g)(2)). No finding is 

made or is necessary in this federal action because the R WCAs will be issued to qualified 

applicants pursuant to access to inholding regulations at 43 CFR 36.10. 

Individual Comment #1: "Since this E.A. covers only approx. 25% ofALL access facilities, it 

seems like the study could have addressed these facilities in greater detail by specific reference. 

That way the 60 or so affected inholders would be able to comment with more meaningful 

remarks. Also, the remaining 75% ofthe inholders would be able to anticipate their plight with 

more clarity." 

Response: 

This EA provides the parameters for issuing R WCAs to inholders iftheir route, uses, and 

maintenance provides adequate andfeasible access and protects park resources as determined 

by the five criteria in 43 CFR 36.l0(e)(i-v). We have chosen not to list access within WRSTthat 

may meet these criteria because until the owner or valid occupier's application (SF-299) is 

completed, we do not know which applications would be covered by this EA. 

Individual Comment #2: One commenter inquired to determine ifhis inholding access was 

covered by the EA, but was dismayed to find out neither the Nugget Creek Trail or Kotsina Trail 

met the criteria. Nugget Creek trail apparently crosses fish bearing streams and the Kotsina Trail 

is braided along its alignment through wilderness for approximately 1⁄4 mile. 

Response: 

The Nugget Creek and Kotsina Trails both cross fish-bearing streams and there are sections of 

the Kotsina Trail that may need to be rerouted. Hence these facilities may need to be addressed 

in a subsequent NEPA document. The NPS is interested in working with the inholder to address 

adequate and feasible access to his inholding. 

Individual, Comment #3: "I was surprised to read that the local rural residents have no RWCA 

restrictions similar to the subject EA coverage. The report tells me that they enjoy less restrictive 

access to hunt or fish (maintainable or not), than any inholder (landowner) does. I was also left 

with questions concerning the existence of any RWCA restrictions on native Land inholders, 

recreational users, landing strip users, and waterline utility users." 

Response: 

Private land owners receiving R WCAs will have authorization to take action on and along their 

access route on public lands and to perform maintenance tasks that are unavailable to other 

users, such as those engaged in subsistence or recreation. 

Individual, Comment #4: One commenter complained he could not find the key phrase defined 

in ANILCA 111 0(b) "adequate and feasible for economic and other purposes." 

18 
Response: 

The EA is amended to include the definition ofadequate andfeasible access. ANILCA 111 O(b) 

implementing regulations at 43 CFR Part 36.10 (regulation noted in the EA) provides the 

following pertinent definition: "Adequate and feasible access means a route or method ofaccess 

that is shown to be reasonably necessary and economically practicable but not necessarily the 

least costly alternative for achieving the use and development by the applicant on the applicant's 

non-federal land or occupancy interest. " 

Individual, Comment #5: "Recreation is classified as an "other purpose" (page 2-1 ). Recreation 

is partially defined on page 3-10. As it pertains to me, my ATV use ofthe access trails to my 

inholdings is categorized as recreational for site-seeing and for the sheer enjoyment ofATV 

riding." 

Response: 

The EA is amended on page 2-1, section 2.1.1 to specify other inholder land use purposes to 

include recreation on their property. Chapter 3 describes resources and values that could be 

affected by the NPS decision, including recreation. 

Individual Comment #6: "Rather than put in a large bridge or culvert to accommodate a major 

flood, depending on the specific situation, it may make sense to build something smaller. 

Depending on particulars ofthe locale, a bigger structure may have more environmental impact 

than a smaller one, which is replaced after flood episodes and might also cost less. It would be 

good ifNPS staff had the flexibility to consider this option when reviewing access routes with 

landowners." 

Response: 

See response to SOA #2. The NPS will work with landowners on a case by case basis to ensure 

that ifa structure is selected it will be sized and designed so as to mitigate impacts, not add to 

them. 

Individual Comment #7: "The NPS should address the burden ofrequiring the inholders and 

neighbors to provide invasive species free fill." 

Response: 

Controlling and eliminating invasive plants species is a major concern and was evaluated in this 

programmatic EA. Ifexotic plants get established they, could result in significant impacts to 

park resources and ecosystems. See response to NPCA #9. The NPS will work with landowners 

to locate sources ofweed-free fill. 

Individual Comment #8: "These are your standards, you should not require others to design 

100-year flood plan standards in excess ofwhat was there." 

Response: 

See response to State ofAlaska comment # 2. 

19 
Individual Comment #9: "Our access was established in 1960 (and unbeknownst to the State, 

so was their RS 24 77 Rights; that is now known as RST-001) and was in those times dedicated 

as a TUS access corridor to FEDERAL SURVEY 4892 in 1968 making it "otherwise dedicated" 

when ANILCA was instituted; therefore, our access was not available to be designated as part of 

the WRST. I short, Alaska Possesses Title to that land; Alaska dispenses ownership rights or use 

ofits land, not the NPS." 

Response: 

Access under ANILCA 111 0(b) does not affect the status or validity ofaccess under other state 

and federal authorities (such as RS 2477). · 

The State ofAlaska has listed many RS 2477 rights ofway in Alaska, including many within NPS 

units. The NPS acknowledges these listings, however, a 2005 decision ofthe US. Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau ofLand 

Management, 425 F.3d 735, 2005) declared that only a federal court has the authority to 

determine the validity ofan asserted RS 2477. The Secretary ofthe Interior has stated that 

Department ofInterior agencies will be guided by that Tenth Circuit opinion. There have been 

no court determinations ofRS 2477 rights ofway in NPS units in Alaska. Until an RS 2477 is 

determined to be valid by a federal court, the NPS will work with landowners to issue an 11l0(b) 

R WCAs for access on whatever routes are needed for such access. 

These comments concern access to the commenter's property. NPS staffis available to discuss 

specific issues concerning this access with the commenter. 

Individual Comment #10: "Our access is protected and provided by§ 11 lO(a) ~ " ... and for 

travel to and from villages and homesites ....Nothing in this section shall be construed as 

prohibiting the use of other methods oftransportation for such travel and activities on 

conservation system lands where such use is permitted by this Act or other law." (ANILCA) 

(emphasis added) Other law being Alaska State Law. Nothing in Alaska Statute prohibits us 

from freely using highway vehicles to traverse a driveway, roadway or any existing facility 

designed for such use. We are, however, authorized by Alaska Statute 19.30.400 to use and 

maintain our access/driveway. Additionally, Alaska granted us surface ownership rights to this 

access route; we are not signing for a permit to utilize our own property. 

Response: 

The reference to "other law" in ANILCA §11 l0(a) provides that §1110 shall not be construed as 

a limitation ofother statutory authorizations or allowances. Consequently, § 1110 does not 

prohibit uses otherwise allowed by other statutes. However, the referenced provision does not 

repeal the laws and regulations protecting park resources including the prohibition ofORV use 

in park areas except in certain circumstances. The State authorities referenced in the comment 

are preempted by the federal prohibition. 

20 
ERRATA 

1. Page 1-1, Paragraph 1: The EA is amended to include the definition of "adequate and 

feasible access" in the first paragraph ofthe EA. ANILCA 111 O(b) implementing 

regulations at 43 CFR Part 36.10 provide the following pertinent definition: "Adequate 

and feasible access means a route or method ofaccess that is shown to be reasonably 

necessary and economically practicable but not necessarily the least costly alternative 

for achieving the use and development by the applicant on the applicant 's non-federal 

land or occupancy interest. " 

2. Page 1-9, Section 1.4.2.2: The EA is revised to clarify as documented in the ANILCA 

810 Evaluation (Appendix C, page 3) that the proposal would have at most a negligible 

effect on subsistence wildlife resources rind a minor effect on subsistence fish 

resources. 

3. Page 1-10, Permits and Approvals Needed to Implement the Project: The EA is 

amended to include the possible need for inholders to obtain a fish habitat permit or 

water use permit from the State ofAlaska, where applicable. 

4. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1: The EA is amended to specify other inholder land use purposes 

to include recreation "on their property". 

5. Page 2-16 of the EA: The term "identified potential" replaces the term "asserted" or 

"assertions" in response to the State's comments regarding RS 2477 right-of-way. 

6. Page C-3, Appendix A, ANILCA 810 Evaluation, last sentence on page. The EA is 

amended to delete the term "sport hunting" to use simply "hunting" as adequate to 

describe general hunting. 

7. Page C-4, Appendix A, ANILCA 810 Evaluation, Affected Environment, final sentence 

in the first paragraph: The NPS modifies the sentence to specify what is being 

described as eligibility under federal subsistence regulations: To engage in subsistence 

activities within Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve "under federal subsistence 

regulations", individuals are not required to live in a resident zone community, but they 

must live in a rural Alaskan community or area that has a positive customary and 

traditional use determination for the species and area they wish to harvest. 

21