FD 34658
Docket Yard · docketyard.org/d/FD-34658 · entries shown: all, newest first
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION-CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION-RAIL LINE BETWEEN NORTH POLE AND DELTA JUNCTION, AK
Caption from the Board’s record. Sub-dockets, included below: FD 34658 (Sub-No. 1)
7 filings, 9 decisions and 297 environmental comments observed here; last checked 11 Oct 2026, 01:36 UTC; last new entry 31 Aug 2026, 20:33 UTC.
Entries
-
(printed as 7/31/2014)CommentEI-20506Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/24/2014)CommentEI-20445Mark Peterburs
-
(printed as 12/5/2013)CommentEO-2197Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 12/4/2013)CommentEI-20357Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 10/29/2013)CommentMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 7/24/2013)CommentEI-20258Alaska Railroad CorporationMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 4/24/2013)CommentEI-20180ARRCMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 2/6/2013)CommentEI-20120Alaska Railroad CorporationMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 10/26/2012)CommentEI-18986Alaska Railroad CorporationMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 8/6/2012)CommentEO-1934HDR, AlaskaTracie Krauthoefer- Section 106 Contact List
-
(printed as 7/31/2012)CommentEI-18947HDR, AlaskaTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 7/24/2012)CommentEI-18946Native Village of TetlanPatricia Young
-
(printed as 6/25/2012)CommentEI-18925HDR AlaskaTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 6/25/2012)CommentEO-1913Alaska Railroad CompanyBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 6/20/2012)CommentEI-18921ALCOMLTC Russell Price
-
(printed as 6/5/2012)CommentEI-18907HDR Alaska, Inc.Tracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 6/5/2012)CommentEO-1905HDRTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 5/24/2012)Comment
-
(printed as 5/14/2012)CommentEI-18901Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/24/2012)CommentEI-18880Alaska Railroad CorporationMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 4/16/2012)CommentEI-18872U.S. Coast GuardJames Helfinstine
-
(printed as 4/12/2012)CommentEI-18871Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/6/2012)CommentMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 11/8/2011)CommentEI-18739HDR AlaskaTracie Krauthoefer for STB
-
(printed as 11/4/2011)CommentEI-18737AK SHPOShina Duvall
-
(printed as 9/26/2011)CommentEI-18681AK SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/14/2011)CommentEI-18674AK SHPOShina Duvall
-
(printed as 9/14/2011)CommentEO-1759AK SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/13/2011)CommentEI-18672Northern Rail ExtensionMark Peterburs
-
(printed as 9/8/2011)CommentEO-1754Alaska SHPOShina Duvall
-
served (printed as 8/12/2011)DecisionDECISION GRANTED ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER FILED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 8/11/2011)CommentEO-1753SHPOJudith Bittner, SHPO
-
(printed as 8/2/2011)MotionAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 7/19/2011)CommentBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/2/2011)ReplyU S Environmental Protection Agency
-
served (printed as 2/17/2011)DecisionDECISION GRANTED A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE 10-DAY FILING REQUIREMENT IN 49 C.F.R. § 1104.7(b).
-
(printed as 2/16/2011)MotionU S Environmental Protection Agency
-
(printed as 1/28/2011)MotionAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 2/22/2010)CommentReinhard W. Koenig
-
(printed as 2/2/2010)CommentReinhard W. Koenig
-
served (printed as 1/6/2010)Decision40274Entire BoardDECISION GRANTED AN EXEMPTION FOR ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN APPROXIMATELY 80-MILE EXTENSION OF ITS EXISTING EIELSON BRANCH FROM THE COMMUNITY OF NORTH POLE TO DELTA JUNCTION, AK, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
-
(printed as 12/16/2009)Letter226170Letter/TelegramAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 12/16/2009)CommentEI-18009Alaska Railroad CorporationThomas Brooks
-
(printed as 11/30/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 11/25/2009)CommentBlythe Semmer
-
(printed as 11/25/2009)CommentEO-1374VariousSignatories of Programmatic Agreement
-
(printed as 11/24/2009)CommentStefanie Ludwig
-
(printed as 11/23/2009)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 11/13/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 11/6/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 11/3/2009)CommentEI-17939Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/22/2009)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 10/22/2009)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 10/14/2009)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 10/9/2009)CommentTeresa Kubo
-
(printed as 10/2/2009)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 9/29/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 9/24/2009)CommentMelissa Whitaker
-
(printed as 9/21/2009)Environmental225753Environmental MaterialsAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
served (printed as 9/18/2009)DecisionDECISION PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 9/10/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 9/8/2009)CommentEI-17875Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/21/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 7/17/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 6/17/2009)CommentEI-17873Fairbanks North Star BoroughP. Costello/D. Ferree/M. Cox
-
(printed as 6/12/2009)CommentEO-1339EIS Cooperating Agencies
-
(printed as 6/12/2009)CommentD. Vaugh/J. Bittner/K. Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/3/2009)CommentRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 5/28/2009)CommentEO-1293Fairbanks North Star BoroughP. Costello/D. Ferree/M. Cox
-
(printed as 5/28/2009)CommentEO-1292U.S. Army Corps of EngineersChristy Everett
-
(printed as 4/29/2009)CommentEI-17935Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/28/2009)CommentEI-17936Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/1/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 3/30/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 3/30/2009)CommentEI-17870U.S. Department of the InteriorWillie R. Taylor
-
(printed as 3/27/2009)CommentRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 3/18/2009)CommentWillie Taylor
-
(printed as 3/18/2009)CommentEO-1290Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/16/2009)CommentRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 3/2/2009)CommentEI-16440Ivar S. Halvarson
-
(printed as 2/27/2009)CommentRobert D. Mecum
-
(printed as 2/27/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 2/27/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 2/25/2009)CommentEI-16422William Blockcolsky
-
(printed as 2/25/2009)CommentEI-16420Alyeska Pipeline Service CompanyPeter C. Nagel
-
(printed as 2/25/2009)CommentJim Whitaker
-
(printed as 2/25/2009)CommentEI-16418Cheryl Schikora
-
(printed as 2/24/2009)CommentEI-16417Christopher and Debra Curnow
-
(printed as 2/20/2009)CommentEI-16416Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/20/2009)CommentEI-16414Ted and Tracy Morphis
-
(printed as 2/20/2009)CommentEI-16413Jeff Gregory
-
(printed as 2/20/2009)CommentEI-16412John I. Weston, Jr.
-
(printed as 2/19/2009)CommentMike Tinker
-
(printed as 2/19/2009)CommentEthan Birkholz
-
(printed as 2/19/2009)CommentEI-16398Gerald Richards
-
(printed as 2/19/2009)CommentEI-16397Rick Schikora
-
(printed as 2/19/2009)CommentEI-16396Alaska Farm Bureau, Inc.Bryce Wrigley
-
(printed as 2/18/2009)CommentEI-16395Dave Claxton
-
(printed as 2/18/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 2/17/2009)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 2/17/2009)CommentEI-17942U.S. Army Corps of EngineersChristy Everett
-
(printed as 2/17/2009)CommentEI-16415William C. and Joyce A. Whipple
-
(printed as 2/17/2009)CommentSteve Titus
-
(printed as 2/17/2009)CommentEI-16393Bill and Nancy Allen
-
(printed as 2/12/2009)CommentEI-17944U.S. Coast GuardJames Helfinstine
-
(printed as 2/12/2009)CommentEI-16385Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/10/2009)CommentChristine B. Reichgott
-
(printed as 2/10/2009)CommentEI-16381Alaska Trappers AssociationRandall L Zarnke
-
(printed as 2/10/2009)CommentEI-16380Jimmie W. Hill
-
(printed as 2/9/2009)CommentEI-16379Philip F. Pope
-
(printed as 2/9/2009)CommentEI-16378Wayne W. Walker
-
(printed as 2/6/2009)CommentEI-16373Bill Larry
-
(printed as 2/3/2009)CommentEI-16365Alaka Outdoor CouncilRichard Bishop
-
(printed as 2/3/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-17941Federal Transit AdministrationCarrie Deichl
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentVern Aiton, Jacob White, Dean Cummings
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentJim Whitaker
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16362Ted & Tracy MorphisSee attachments: Ted and Tracy Morphis 3811 Erickson Ave #1 Fairbanks, AK 99709 Ted (907) 378-7048 tedm@controlcontractors.com Tracy (907)378-5282 tamorphis@ci.fairbanks.ak.us February 2, 2009 David Novecky STB Finance Docket No. 34658 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street SW Washington, DC 20423-001 RE: Northern Rail Extension Environmental Impact Statement Subject: Public Comments In an effort to address concerns regarding the proposed route(s) for the northern rail extension we would first request that the public comment period be extended. There are several property owners from Salcha to Delta that have vested interest in the areas affected by the proposed route. In an effort to fulfill the “good neighbor” policy of the board we respectfully request the comment period be extended to our neighbors so they have time to comment on a project of this magnitude. Our comments are concerns and suggestions that might mitigate unnecessary and irreversible impacts of noise, vibration, water quality and state land access to hunting, fishing and camping areas. Foremost, we recommend moving the “South Common Segment” farther south to the already designated boundary for the military along the Northern Boundary of Restricted area 2202A. This would negate the need for bridges or culverts in conjunction with the Richardson Clearwater. It would reduce the amount of land closed off to public access to fishing and hunting areas and would minimize the amount of noise and vibration from the railroads daily use. The implementation of bridges or culverts could negatively impact the aqua firs and water quality of the Richardson Clearwater. Culverts or bridges would add to the detrimental environmental changes brought on by the Carla Lake fire in 1998, which left the soil in the headwaters of the river unable to sustain excessive rains. Moving the line farther south would open up access that would otherwise be locked up due to military “NO Trespassing” restrictions along with a dead-zone between the proposed restricted railroad area and the current military restricted area. Moving the line farther south would minimize the amount of noise and vibration that would negatively impact the recreation users along the Richardson Clearwater and the fish and wildlife habitat that thrive there. This shorter, direct and less disputed route would most likely create more costs but would minimize the impact it will have in the current route chosen. We recognize the financial impact and feel it is minimal in comparison to the adverse affect the current route will create. If the STB is not able to implement the “Good Neighbor” policy in regards to this request by considering moving then we would suggest the next step. More studies should be initiated to ensure the sustainability of the water quality, androgenous fish species, wildlife habitat and possible catastrophic effects on Critical Habitat Areas. Studies should also be done that are more current than those referred to in the EIS as mother nature has changed many characteristics of the Richardson Clearwater if not other streams subject to the impacts of the railroad implementation. More studies to the noise and vibration impact the rail line this close to a populated recreational stream will have on seasonal (summer) residents and retirees in this area as well as the wildlife that frequent the Richardson Clearwater and areas surrounding this area. Please consider our suggestions and those from all who are concerned about the affects of the construction and continued use of the railroad. We certainly do not oppose the construction of the railroad but we do object to the proposed location especially of the “South Common Segment”. We do object firmly to the construction of a road along side or in conjunction with the railroad. We would need more time to adequately review the EIS in regards to the use and necessity of a road. Therefore, we request an extended comment period for this purpose. Respectfully, Ted and Tracy Morphis Attachements: Map of South Common Segment Cc: Chris Milles, Fairbanks Regional Director State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land, Water and Mining 3700 University Ave Fairbanks, AK 99709Fairbanks, Alaska
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentOn behalf of the State of Alaska's Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas, and the public, I wish to restate our request for a 60 day extension of the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction and Operation of a Rail Line between North Pole and Delta Junction, Alaska (STB Finance Docket No. 35468). We believe that the public interest would be served by such an extension. The initial 52 day public comment period is simply inadequate for the public to review and comment on an environmental impact statement that, with appendices, is more that 1100 pages in length. Federal land management agencies in Alaska routinely provide a minimum 60 day review and comment period for planning documents, environmental impact statements and proposed revisions to regulations and policies. More often, comments periods of 90 or 120 days are provided. The comment period allowed for this document appears to be a pro forma effort rather than a resonable effort to provide the public with a meaningful review period. We are particularly concerned that the public may not be fully aware of the restrictions on access across any lands or right of way conveyed to the ARR for this extension. These restrictions would prevent the public from accessing public lands that are regularly used for hunting, fishing and other activities. Additional time to review this proposal and identify essential access across the right of way is needed. While we understand that the Department of Natural Resources is working on the issue of public access to state owned lands, it is unclear if a similar effort is underway for access to federal public lands. These lands are important for recreational and subsistence hunting and fishing. We again urge you to extend the public comment period for an additional 60 days. Additionally, consideration should be given to holding additional public meetings which focus primarily on the access issue to both state and federal lands. Thank you. Stan Leaphart Executive Director Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal AreasStan Leaphart · Fairbanks, AK
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16359Courtney BooneI am a land owner on the Richardson Clearwater concerned with the draft EIS for the proposed Northern Rail Extension Project.Pittsburgh, PA
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16358Randall FletcherDear Sirs I and many of my friends have been using the trails along the Little Delta river and across it for many years. These trails also lead to Koole and Bull Lakes. Both are popular fishing, hunting and trapping areas. While I support the idea of rail service to aid military training and to begin the process of a rail line to the lower 48. I hope the existing long time users of the trail systems will not be cut off from access. It looks to me like Donnely #2" would cause the least conflict and appears to be shorter. That is the route I would support. Regardless of the route chosen access to the long time historical users of the trails should not be restricted. Thanks Randall Fletcher 907-452-3455 Box 58597 Fairbanks AK 99711"
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentPlease see attached PDF file for comment.John I. Weston, Jr. · Lynnwood, WA
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16353Mary CorcoranI have two comments regarding the Draft EIS for the Rail O\Line between No. Pole and Delta Junction, AK. I support the AKRR preferred routes as the least impact on private lands and vehicular traffic. I would like clear consideration and accommodation afforded to those who need access to the west side of the route. Such access may need to vary depending on varying water and ice flows etc. Thank you.Delta Junction, Alaska
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16352Luke HopkinsSee attached MS Word doc as the submittal comments for docket 34658 Luke HopkinsFairbanks, Alaska
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16351Ivar HalvarsonThe following are my comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Railroads proposed line extension between Fairbanks and Fort Greely Alaska. First I would like to state that I’m not anti-development and that I believe a future rail route to the lower 48 states through Canada is a positive thing, and in the long run will serve the best interests of the State of Alaska, however I hope that it is completed with good intent and respect for property owners, public land users and fish and wildlife habitat along its route. In particular though, I am concerned with the route that has been proposed within Map Area 5 known as the “South Common Segment”. My family and I are property owners on the Richardson Clearwater which is a very important recreational stream located less than a mile north of the proposed route. The Richardson Clearwater is an approximately 10 mile long spring fed stream that supports a diverse habitat for spanning Salmon, Arctic Grayling, Whitefish and Burbot, as well as Moose, Bears, Eagles, Peregrine falcons, an occasional Caribou and many of Alaska’s fur barrier species. In addition to these year round critters, the Clearwater also is a cherished recreational area for over 25 families, some of whom live their retirement here May through September of each year. Because the Richardson Clearwater is a spring fed stream, its headwaters consist of a series of marshes and smaller streams that work as a natural filter and catch basin for the drainage. It is this area that appears will be most adversely affected by the proposed route. As proposed, the rail line will be laid right through this critical wetlands, and will span two of the primary streams that feed the Clearwater. Believe me when I say that having a train operating in such a critical area is at best undesirable, however the thought that a single mishap with a train carrying hazardous material that could quickly destroy this beautiful area is considered irresponsible and unacceptable to the private property owners in the area. As a property owner in the area, and one that is proud to say spends up to 60 days a year recreating in a cabin I built for my family, I have some strong concerns about the proximity of the proposed route, which including the potential for the substantial noise and vibrations we may now experiences as we try to enjoy the solitude that we have for many years worked for and relished. Thus I respectfully ask that the Surface Transportation Board consider mine and others concerns with respect to the proposed railroads location and its impact to the area. While the potential for noise, vibration, and accidental spills are inherent with railroads, the added impact from the construction and daily railroad operations could have an even larger affect on the geology of the area, and one that could significant alter the fragile aquifer that feeds this beautiful spring fed clearwater stream. Moving the route as far a way as possible from this recreational area, to uninhabited state or federally owned land is a reasonable request given the relatively level terrain encountered, and one that can only help mitigate the impact of a new rail line to the environment and property owners in the area. In early January, I testified to the Transportation Board at a town meeting in North Pole that I would at a minimum, like to see the route follow the existing State Forestry logging road that runs along higher ground south of the Clearwater, which would keep it away from the critical wetlands that are the lifeline of our river. In retrospect I now feel that the line should be moved even further south in this segment to where it’s located just within the north boundary military operating area. This realignment would help reduce noise, vibration, potential hazardous spills, and hopefully any effects on the aquifer that enables this wonderful, spring fed Richardson Clearwater to exist! In addition, its location within the military operating area would eliminate problems associated with illegal track crossings by outdoor users as the military land is already off limits to the public. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this forum. Sincerely, Ivar S. Halvarson and family Richardson Clearwater property owner, Alaska 746 9th Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701Fairbanks, Alaska
-
(printed as 2/2/2009)CommentEI-16348Delta F&G Advisory CommitteeDOCKET 34658 EIS Comments re Alaska Railroad Northern ExtensionVern Aiton · Delta Jct, AK
-
(printed as 2/1/2009)CommentEI-16350Bill & Nancy AllenOur comments are filed as an attachment. We will be sending the original via US Mail. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.Fairbanks, AK
-
(printed as 2/1/2009)CommentEI-16349Patricia VromanRe: STB Finance Docket No. 34658: Concerning the Alaska Railroad Corporation's Proposed Northern Rail Extension, representing a family living in Salcha, Alaska, I wish to submit that the Salcha Alernative 2 is detrimental to the life of the Salcha community since it impacts so many people and residences. Losing Salcha School for even a short time would be a major inconvenience involving busing children to Eielson or North Pole. The school would lose a major section of its grounds without the room to rebuild. The Salcha Ski Trails would be decimated. They were built and maintained with volunteer labor and serve both the local and borough residents and more for ski races. Please do not go ahead with Salcha 2. Residents are concerned about flooding whichever plan is chosen; we hope that the STB/Alaska Railroad will do the best they can to remedy this problem if or when they construct the railroad in the Tanana River area.North Pole, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/30/2009)CommentEI-16345James ParkerI would like to submit public comment on the extension of the Railroad from Eielson AFB to Delta Junction. First crossing the river to the South side is in the best interest of all stakeholders especially the US Army. It opens viable opportunity for the Army to expand training opportunities for the future. Secondly, my main concern is that once the rail is on the South side of the Tanana, is to place it away from waterways especially the spring-fed systems and associated wetlands. There is a bench of slightly higher land that avoids most of the resource rich wetlands. These springs contain extensive fish habitat and should be left undisturbed. For the most part Salcha 1, Central Alternate 1, South Common Segment, and Delta 1 seem to take the higher ground (Bench land). There is one exception and that is within the South Common Segment. Part of this section goes into the upwelling springs of the upper Richardson Clearwater River. There is no need to put a rail into these wetlands when a straighter, more southerly route can be taken. The upwelling springs should not be disturbed for all the water here is potential Coho juvenile rearing habitat and over winter habitat for many animals. It appears this wetland area can be easily avoided, would make the rail straighter, save some mileage, and keep the rail on the bench. Thirdly, I definitively concur with the Delta 1 alternative. There is many reasons not to have the rail through Delta Junction. It would eliminate many conflicts with land and people. I could not think of a better crossing than what is proposed. This crossing is lined up well for future continuance of the line into Canada. It would also appear to have fewer conflicts being on the South Side of the Alaska Highway. In brief, avoiding any rail within wetlands of the Richardson Clearwater River would prevent future environmental issues. I appreciate your considerations of these comments, thank you. in reference to: STB Finance Docket No. 34658Delta Junction, AK
-
(printed as 1/29/2009)CommentStan Leaphart
-
(printed as 1/29/2009)CommentEI-16344Larry DalrympleThis is in reference to STB Finance docket No. 34658 regarding the proposed construction of a rail line between North Pole, Alaska, and Delta Junction, Alaska. For starters, it was absolutely a ludicrous statement to put in this document that it would be a criminal act to cross this rail ROW at a non-designated vehicle or pedestrian crossing point. The ROW between thest two points will be crossed by ATV's and snowmachines, at non-designated points, thousands of times a month, especially in the winter. One existing trail that gets used extensively in the Fall and especially in the winter, is the Blair Lakes trail, near Flag Hill. There must be a crossing installed at that location. Another concern that I have is the use of the bridge on the North Pole/Salcha end of the line. I understand that it will have both a road and rail crossing. If history is any indicator, hunters and others will find a way to use that road/rail crossing, especially in the fall. Those crossings will be a half mile to a mile long, depending on the option chosen, and if ATV's are able to drive on the rail bridges I fear there will be many fatalaties at that crossing. In addition to the above issues, regardless of the mitigation issues being proposed, I estimate that there will be 300-500 moose killed per year on that section of track. I believe the moose kill in this section will far exceed the worse kill ever recorded on the 400 mile section of track between Fairbanks and Anchorage. In fact, I believe the kill by the railroad will match or exceed what hunters take from that Game Management Unit every year. That piece of track runs perpendicular to a major moose migration route, it's entire length. Twice a year, in the Spring and again in the Fall, there are thousands of moose crossings as the moose migrate to the hills in the north in the winter, and to the Tanana Flats, to calve, in the summer. I have observed moose behavior on railroad tracks and all of my experiences have noted that moose do not move off the tracks, onto a cleared area, but instead run in front of the train for some distance, until tired, then turn around and face the train, until struck. I have sent these same comments to the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.Fairbanks, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/29/2009)CommentEI-16343Brad DietrichComments are attached. Responses may be sent via email to: dtrich@ptialaska.net mopapp@alaska.netFairbanks, AK
-
(printed as 1/29/2009)CommentEI-16342U.S. Department of the InteriorPamela Bergmann · Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/28/2009)CommentEI-16324Stuart and Robyn Davies
-
(printed as 1/28/2009)CommentEI-16322Michael E. Jenkins
-
(printed as 1/28/2009)CommentEI-16321Alaska Miners Assocaition, Inc.Steven C. Borell
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-18910Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16325Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16320Ronald Bless
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16319Michael D. Gavin
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16318James Brannan
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16317Murray E HowkI believe the best location for the railroad extension would be Eielson alternate 3. This will keep the railroad closer to the Richardson Hwy and Eielson Air Force Base.North Pole, AK
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-16315Kristy HowkI feel the Eielson Alternate 3 extension of the railroad would be the best for all involved. It is closer to the Hwy and would make less impact to those who have made their homes here in the Eielson Farm area. Thank you, Kris HowkNorth Pole, AK
-
(printed as 1/25/2009)CommentEI-16314Rochel CurtisPreferred Routes: S.3.8 No Action Alternative is my preference. I have yet to see any documented proof of economic feasibility for this project. In addition to this, every single person that I have talked to, in every community that would be affected by this rail route, have expressed this same view, I have yet to speak with one single individual, from these communities, who is in favor of this project. Questions I do not feel have been properly addressed include, but are not limited to: 1. What would draw the tourist to Delta Junction compared to the already existing rail line to Mt McKinley Park and on to South Central Alaska? I have lived in Alaska for 28 years, consider this to be the most beautiful place on earth, travel extensively around the state as a “tourist” but honestly do not see Delta Junction as a tourist attraction. The few things that might be of interest could already be observed by the existing rail line; mountains, the pipeline, agricultural areas, vast open spaces, glacier fed river. 2. Would agriculture transport be economically comparable to trucking? What about military transport? These are two of the main reasons cited for basis for this project, but I am concerned that the cost of the project and the maintenance would make the use of such facilities cost prohibitive for these uses. 3. Is the military going to be financially responsible for a portion of the railroad? If so, what happens if the military bases that this railroad supplies, closes down, as they have been slated to do in the previous base closures by our government? Will this bring the cost of maintaining this line to rest solely on the citizens of our state? 4. Has there been any documented proof that commuter trains are needed along this route? How many commuters are expected to ride this line each day? At what cost per person per ride? Would it be economically comparable to driving? During the many years that I have lived in this area, including 8 years working with the public at Salcha Store, I have seen different commuter resources along this same route come and go, forced out of business by lack of business, most times the commuter vans that serviced this route came by empty or with just a couple passengers riding. 5. In our current state of economic times, is this really the best way to spend government funds? Have you ever heard of the fiasco “The Bridge to Nowhere?” This project, I feel is “The Rail to Nowhere” and I feel equally ashamed of the wastefulness of this project. 6. Concerns about access to recreational areas, by water craft, wheeled vehicles, dog teams and snow machines need to be treated as a major concern for all. These forms of access have been a tradition before you and I walked this earth, and need to be allowed to continue unhindered. Other then my strong vote for the above option, if I had to choose an existing proposed route, the following would be my preferred route. 1. North Common Segment-No comment or concerns 2. Eielson Alternative Segment-No comment or concerns 3. Salcha Alternative Segment #1-I feel that Salcha Alternative Segment #2 would adversely affect the citizens of Salcha, through increased noise, adverse anesthetics, the lose of personal property and the adverse affects on Salcha School, Salcha Ski Trails and the Historic Salchaket Indian burial site. 4. Connector B-This route directly affects my families access to our privately owned recreational cabin on Five-Mile Clear Creek and I am seeking confirmation that this access will be available to all forms of watercraft at all times. I am also concerned that small streams are going to be blocked or dammed, resulting in a lack of adequate water flow into Five-Mile Clear Creek. 5. Central Alternative #2-Central Alternative #1 runs between our recreational cabin on Five-Mile Clear Creek and our moose hunting area. According to your maps, it actually runs right through our moose hunting area, and is affecting an existing trail system that we have cleared and maintained for over 25 years. These trails are not only used for hunting, but for extensive recreational use 6 months out of the year, by not only me and my family, but also by many other users as well. In addition to this, these trails have been traditional used for trapping during the winter months, Access to these trails and beyond are a prime concern for those of us who use this vast trail system. 6. Donnelly #2-No comment or concerns 7. South Common Segment-No comment or concerns 8. Delta #1-I feel that the Delta #2 segment would have an adverse affect on the Delta Junction area by way of increased noise, adverse anesthetics and the lose of personal property. Environmental concerns that I have for this project include: 1. Salmon and grayling migration and spawning streams, how will these issues be addressed? These issues are stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project, but I would like confirmation that these issues are going to be properly addressed before approval is given for this project to ensure that these great resources of our state are not adversely affected in any way. 2. Moose calving areas, what studies have been done to minimize the affects of the rail line on these animals during this critical point in their lives? This is a major concern for those of us who use moose meat as our primary meat source and also for those who enjoy the beauty of this great beast and do not want to see them harmed needlessly. 3. Noise pollution for trail crossings, it is my understanding that the train will have to blow its whistle for each legal rail crossing, including trail crossings. If the rail line Central Alternative #1 is chosen, I foresee the line crossing our trail system a minimum of 4 times in as little as ½ mile stretch. If even as little as 5 trains a day use this rail line, that is 20 train whistles within ½ mile each day. If you have ever stood outside all alone, in the wilds of Alaska, you would know that sounds travel a great distance, and this amount of sound would indeed be a huge amount of noise pollution that is not being taken into consideration.Salcha, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/25/2009)CommentEI-16311Leonard JewkesAlaska Railroad Corp Proposed Northern Rail Extension Additional sutdies of this project should be completed before any decision is made. It's affect on the fish and game resources in the area will be enormous. The ROW that's proposed is a main migration route for moose that travel to and from the foot hills on the north side of the Tanana and the Tanana Flats, thus creating numerous encounters with railroad equipment. The ROW would also run alongside and cross many streams and rivers that are local fish habitat, salmon spawning and water fowl areas. Because of the popularity of the Tanana Flats as a hunting, fishing and recreational area there will be may ROW issues. The ROW will span 100 miles of the Tanana Flats. Additional issues such as private land ownership, safety, and hazardous materials and waste should be addressed. I am opposed to this project.North Pole, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/24/2009)CommentEI-16313Eric StenbergI think that it is important to extend the rail to Big Delta to improve the countries ability to move men and materials for our National Defense System. Long term the rail line should be continued to the Canadian Boarder and connected to the Canadian Rail System. The project as proposed addresses the concerns of protecting the fish and wildlife of the area as well as addressing the problem of the flooding concerns of the Salcha residents. One of the proposed routes directly affects my property on the Old Richardson but this does not change my opinion of this much needed project. This is a sound project and should be approved for construction. I have been in Alaska since 1949, moved to Salcha in 1975 to raise my family and have had to deal with the flooding issues from the day we moved in, but that is what living the Alaskan Experience" is all about. Thank you for providing this forum for me to express "my opinion" as it is probably the only thing I am an expert on. Eric Stenberg"
-
(printed as 1/23/2009)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 1/21/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16312Whitestone Community AssociationPlease see attached comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement about the Alaska Railroad Corporation's Construction of the Northern Rail Line Extension between North Pole and Delta Junction, AK.Steve Selvaggio · Delta Junction, AK
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16309Katie TrifoneAnchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16308Salcha's Neighborly OrganizationSTB Finance Docket No. 34658 For Salcha Route 1 would reduce the interaction of people, vehicles and trains. Route two would give us a new school, but intrude on native burial grounds, back side of the bluff by the school, plus native archeological sites at the mouth of the Salcha river. for some insight to the last several years, www.salcha.org has archived information on it's website. I also put a link on there for public input to your site.Morrie Mills · Salcha, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16307David J. WilliamsTo Whom It May Concern: The DEIS for the proposed Rail Line between North Pole and Delta Junction, Alaska, seems to be a decently put together document. I commend the amount of research used in regards to the wetlands and permafrost. However, while the possible impacts of the temporary construction camps on permafrost were discussed, mitigation measures were not. If mitigation measures are not feasible, that was not mentioned. In addition, I did not see anything dealing with the human waste from the temporary camps. The number to be employed was upwards of five thousand. Will the waste be disposed of onsite—and if so, what effect will that have on the wetlands? If it is taken offsite, how will it be transported, will that require heavy-duty roads, and what effect will that have on the permafrost and wetlands? Thank you for receiving my concerns. Sincerely, David J. WilliamsEagle River, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16306Vanessa Willcox-HealeyFirst I would like to commend you for writing an Environmental Impact Statement that is understandable to the general public. I found the DEIS easy to understand and appreciated that most of the more technical terms were explained in context. One addition I feel would help the reader have a better understanding of the proposed rail extension would be if in each of the maps provided about the alternatives for the rail route the preferred alternative of the Alaska Railroad Corporation was some how denoted. For example in the map of the Eielson alternatives one, two and three it would have been beneficial to have alternative three some how denoted as the preferred alternative. Secondly after reviewing the DEIS I was left with some questions I felt the current document did not cover. In section two, Proposed Action and Alternatives, section 2.3.4 about vegetation resources there is the statement that vegetation would be impacted “through the spread of noxious and invasive plants.” I feel that this statement should have better language; it leaves me with the feeling that the Alaska Railroad Corporation is going to be intentionally bringing invasive species into the area. I think this could be fix with a small amount of rewording. The second question I had was about permafrost. There is some discussion in the DEIS about permafrost, but I wanted to know if there are going to be any issues with the rail tracks themselves melting the permafrost. Also will there be any problems associated with the settling of the tracks do to melting permafrost? This may lead to the need for repairs in the future and further damage done to the surrounding environment. My last concern is the amount of wetlands being filled in or changed because of the project. I know that this is unavoidable if the project goes through, and I hope that a lot of thought goes into which alternatives for the rail route damage the least amount of wetlands. Our wetlands are a valuable resource that should be seriously thought about when the final decision is made. Thank you for considering my comment in this process.Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 1/15/2009)CommentEI-16305Megan HainesDear David Navecky, Firstly let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS concerning the rail line between North Pole and Delta Junction, Alaska. There are a couple issues which I am concerned about. The first issue is the possible disruption of migration patterns for the different species within the proposed project area and how you are going to address this issue. Secondly I am very concerned about the possibility of seismic activity and possible train derailment and consequently any spills and/or injury to people aboard the train. What kind of construction and maitnence techniques do you plan to implement to lessen the likely hood of such an event? I would like to also comment on how readable this DEIS was and to thank you for the clear and understandable writing. Sincerely, Megan HainesAnchorage, AK
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-16330Joshua R. Parsons
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-16329Ken Severin
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-16328Margaret D. Schwartz
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-16327Steven C. Jeffries
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-16304Stuart M. DaviesI am an active farmer and land owner in the area. I feel I am a good steward of the land and have a passion for reasonable development of the land. I would hate to see Pile Driver Slough caught between two active transportation corridors. Please keep the rail line in the current active corridor, Eielson Alternative Segment 3.North Pole, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)CommentEI-16335Robyn Davies
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)CommentEI-16334Eielson Farm CommunityRon Illingworth
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)CommentEI-16333Darcy Etcheverry
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)CommentEI-16332Herbert L. Griffin, Jr.
-
(printed as 1/13/2009)CommentEI-16331Jeff Jacobson
-
(printed as 1/12/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 1/12/2009)CommentBob Thomas
-
(printed as 1/12/2009)CommentEI-16336Steve Vincent
-
(printed as 1/12/2009)Comment
-
(printed as 12/26/2008)CommentEI-16248Ryan RichardSTB Finance Docket No. 34658 I have no environmental concerns and support extending the rail system to Delta JunctionDelta Junction, AK
-
(printed as 12/22/2008)CommentWe cannot tell from the proposed EIS whether you have considered the impacts of the Alaska Railroad being routed along the 5 Mile Clear Creek. The Clear Creek is not featured on any of your maps, and so we are afraid you are not taking into consideration the impacts of building the Railroad along this spring-fed, beautiful creek. South of the Tanana Flats Training Area (TFTA") there are probably 50 private cabins and private landholdings along this creek. If you are recognizing this creek, it should be listed on Figure S-4 of the proposed EIS. The Clear Creek parallels the Tanana River, about one mile west of the Tanana. It empties into a slough of the Tanana opposite Flag Hill. It flows from southeast to the northwest and should be clearly visible in any aerial photos of this area. It starts south of the TFTA, and flows into and across the TFTA, emptying into the Tanana to the north. It would probably run in between your Central Alternatives 1 and 2. It looks like Connector E would cross it, and possibly all of Connectors A, B and C. We wanted to be sure that you are aware of this creek. We are concerned that either alternative might run right on top of the creek or the cabins along it. There are at least three types of fish that are in the Clear Creek: salmon (late summer/fall), whitefish, and grayling. It is a beautiful creek all year round and does not freeze in winter because it is spring fed. People drive riverboats up and down the creek all summer, so any railroad crossings would have to be high enough to allow that to continue. Bob owns about 30 acres along the Clear Creek: Tract E of Alaska State Land Survey 87-200, according to the Survey Plat recorded Nov. 27, 1989 as Plat No. 89-114, Records of the Fairbanks Recording District, Fourth Judicial District, State of Alaska. His patent was recorded in Book 686, Page 0491 on Nov. 28, 1990, as Instr. No 90-21027. If you pull this Survey 89-114, you will see the Clear Creek clearly delineated - it looks like within Sections 11, 13 and 14 of T7S, R4E, FM. The Creek originates further southeast, and flows northwest into Section 10 and 4. We ask that before any EIS or any alternative is approved, that the impacts on the Clear Creek be clearly studied, presented and taken into account. Thank you. Barbara Schuhmann Robert Groseclose"
-
served (printed as 12/12/2008)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 12/12/2008)CommentEIS Filing Section
-
(printed as 12/1/2008)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 12/1/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 11/24/2008)CommentJohn Fowler
-
(printed as 11/12/2008)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 10/31/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 10/29/2008)CommentEI-16326Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 8/19/2008)CommentEI-13269Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/13/2008)CommentEI-13274Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/16/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 7/8/2008)CommentEI-13271Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/20/2008)CommentEO-1051Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/16/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 6/13/2008)CommentEO-1053Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/6/2008)CommentEO-1050Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/27/2008)CommentEI-17929Fairbanks North Star BoroughJim Whitaker
-
(printed as 4/10/2008)CommentEI-13276Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
served (printed as 4/3/2008)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
-
(printed as 2/26/2008)CommentEI-13268Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/15/2008)CommentEI-17928Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/31/2007)CommentEO-1332Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/20/2007)CommentEI-13275Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/22/2007)CommentEO-1052Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
served (printed as 10/4/2007)Decision38195Entire BoardDECISION DENIED ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF APPROXIMATELY 80 MILES OF NEW MAIN LINE TRACK IN THE STATE OF ALASKA AND INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502(B).
-
(printed as 9/24/2007)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/12/2007)CommentDonald Perrin
-
(printed as 8/20/2007)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 7/20/2007)CommentEI-17927Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/6/2007)Motion219714Petition For ExemptionAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 7/6/2007)CommentEI-13277Mayer BrownAdrian Steel
-
(printed as 5/24/2007)CommentEI-13279Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/24/2007)CommentEI-13278Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/24/2007)CommentEO-1055Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/13/2007)CommentEI-13270Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/2/2007)CommentEI-13267Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/24/2007)CommentEI-2854Alaska Farm BureauHa Shoen
-
(printed as 2/13/2007)CommentEO-423Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/9/2007)CommentEI-2831Tanana Chiefs ConferenceRobert Sattler
-
(printed as 1/5/2007)CommentEI-2706Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/3/2006)CommentEO-406Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/12/2006)CommentEO-405Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/6/2006)CommentEI-2705Native Village of MintoPatrick Smith
-
(printed as 9/12/2006)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/8/2006)CommentEI-2703Mayer, Beown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/8/2006)CommentEI-2702Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/24/2006)CommentEI-2701Tanana Chiefs ConferenceRobert Sattler
-
(printed as 8/22/2006)CommentEO-404Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/18/2006)CommentEI-2700Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/18/2006)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 8/16/2006)CommentElaine Sinyon
-
(printed as 8/16/2006)CommentEI-2698Manley Hot Springs VillageElizabeth Woods
-
(printed as 8/7/2006)CommentEI-2480Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/4/2006)CommentEI-2479Ahtna, Inc.Kathryn Martin
-
(printed as 8/2/2006)CommentEI-2478Mayer, Brown, Rowe and MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/1/2006)CommentEO-306Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/31/2006)CommentEI-2477Nenana Native CouncilEdna Hancock
-
(printed as 7/26/2006)CommentEI-2476Doyon, LimitedJamie Nollner
-
(printed as 7/26/2006)CommentEI-2475Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/26/2006)CommentEI-2474Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/24/2006)CommentEI-2473Native Village of EagleIsaac A Juneby, Chief
-
(printed as 7/12/2006)CommentEI-2472Dot Lake Village CouncilWilliam Miller
-
(printed as 7/6/2006)CommentEI-2471Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/28/2006)CommentEO-305Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/1/2006)CommentEI-2470Eielson Farm CommunityRon Illingworth
-
(printed as 6/1/2006)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 5/31/2006)CommentEO-304Mayer,Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/25/2006)CommentEI-2468Commander, Alaskan CommandLieutenant General Douglas Fraser
-
(printed as 4/5/2006)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 3/23/2006)CommentEI-2467Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/23/2006)CommentEI-2466Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/7/2006)CommentEI-2465Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/6/2006)CommentEI-2464Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/1/2006)CommentEO-302Alaskan CommandCOL Paul Curtis
-
(printed as 2/17/2006)CommentEO-301Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/14/2006)CommentEI-2463Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/3/2006)CommentEO-300Mayer, Brown, Rowe & MawKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/23/2006)CommentEI-17926U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLarry Bright
-
(printed as 1/19/2006)CommentEI-1857Murray E. Howk
-
(printed as 1/17/2006)CommentHenri R. Bisson
-
(printed as 1/17/2006)CommentEI-1855Nathan C. Callis
-
(printed as 1/17/2006)CommentChristine Reichgott
-
(printed as 1/17/2006)CommentArleigh Reynolds
-
(printed as 1/13/2006)Comment
-
(printed as 1/13/2006)CommentEI-1824Bob HenszeySTB Finance Docket No. 34658 Attn: David Navecky Environmental Filing Signed original is in the mailFairbanks, AK
-
(printed as 1/13/2006)CommentEI-1823NMFSLawrence Peltz · Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 1/10/2006)CommentEI-1852Valerie Baxter and Dan Rees
-
(printed as 1/9/2006)CommentEI-1851Austin L. Sipes
-
(printed as 1/6/2006)CommentEI-1850Terry Reilly and Tamara Fox
-
(printed as 12/22/2005)CommentBrigadier General Mark Gibson
-
(printed as 12/16/2005)CommentEI-1848John and Yvonne Betters
-
(printed as 12/16/2005)CommentEI-1800Robert ThierolfSummary of Environmental Concerns 1. Destruction of Wetlands 2. Destruction of moose population by train kills 3. Security of train from attacks 4. Destruction of eco-system from spills 5. Theft and destruction of private property 6. Additional loss of state and private lands to US military due to the construction of this route running adjacent to existing military lands.North Pole, Alaska
-
(printed as 12/12/2005)CommentSteve Myers
-
(printed as 12/9/2005)CommentLt. General Douglas Fraser
-
(printed as 12/9/2005)CommentEI-1799Robyn DaviesI attended the meeting on Dec 6th at North Pole to discuss the new railroad from Fairbanks to Delta Junction. As someone who will be directly impacted by one of the proposed routes I have been forced to try to figure out this process. Please let me know if I am correct in the following assumptions. You are currently getting public input into the 3 proposed routes. That will end first of January, all modifications of these routes will be done, and the environmental impact study will be started on each specific route. Environmental impact study could take 2 years. Once done the pros and cons of each route will be evaluated and then a final route chosen. If I am correct that means we may be looking at 2 years when we have a line drawn through our property. Thank goodness we are not trying to sell our land. I can’t imagine anyone would want to move here with the possibility of a railroad running through their yard. Is there still time for a separate route to be identified? As a member of the Eielson Farm Community we are advocating going immediately across the river and then second choice follow the highway and not cross private farm land. I have not heard a real reason for why these two routes are not acceptable. I hear that across the river the land is too bad to build on and yet no test sites have been drilled on this upper portion so no one knows for sure what the cost would be to build in the location that would not impact any private landowners. If you are only looking to make minor modifications to existing routes I think I should let you know my specific concerns even though I really prefer the above route changes. I live at 4800 Eielson Farm Road. The route N3 goes directly behind our house and crosses our property. As owners of farm land we are prohibited from selling land less than 40 acres. It is my belief that if the railroad crosses our land they need to purchase two 40 acre parcels which include our house which was just built 2 years ago at the cost of $600,000+, a hay field and an active field used to grow barley. Plans to clear more land are being reconsidered because of this project. In looking at the map I’m thinking just by angling the railroad a little more towards the highway and putting in a couple more culverts over pile driver slough you could miss our property completely. Hopefully you would go on the other side of the slough and not impact our home with noise and potential danger to our pets. I appreciated the effort it took to get so many people together to answer questions at the meeting on the 6th. However I think you are over estimating the general publics understanding of this process and that such a setting was intimidating to people who are really concerned yet don’t want to feel silly asking questions. Please consider doing more of a presentation and introductions to those attending. Maybe every hour someone could introduce who is there and what part they play in the process. I support the building of the railroad and can live with whatever decision is made as long as it makes sense to me. So far the routes chosen do not make sense when there is so much public land around us. I spoke with the Eielson representative at the meeting and he did not know of a reason why they would refuse to allow the railroad to run along the highway. Thank you for your attention, Robyn Davies PO Box 55266 North Pole, AK 99705 davrobyn@hotmail.com 907-490-6485North Pole, AK
-
(printed as 12/8/2005)CommentSteve Selvaggio
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)CommentEI-1868Mary A. Leith-Dowling
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)CommentEI-1867Michael Phelan
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)CommentEI-1866Jon Dufendach
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)CommentEI-1865Mark Zintek
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)CommentDarell Darland
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1863Resource Development CouncilCarl Portman
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1862Brenda Wilbur
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1861Stuart Davies
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1860Clifford W. Pananen
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1859Robyn Davies
-
(printed as 12/6/2005)CommentEI-1858Margie Schwartz
-
(printed as 11/21/2005)CommentEI-1844Alaska Railroad CorpBrett Flint
-
(printed as 11/21/2005)CommentEI-1843Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/16/2005)CommentMark Yackmetz
-
(printed as 11/14/2005)CommentEI-1841Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/14/2005)CommentEI-1840Eielson Farm CommunityRon Illingworth
-
served (printed as 11/3/2005)DecisionCORRECTS THE BOARD'S DECISION SERVED ON NOVEMBER 1, 2005, IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
served (printed as 11/1/2005)DecisionCONCLUDED THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) IS APPROPRIATE, INVITED COMMENT ON THE EIS PROCESS, AND SET THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SCHEDULE.
-
(printed as 10/17/2005)CommentEI-1839Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentLinda Gehrke
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentMark Yackmetz
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentBrigadier General Mark Gibson
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentColonel Donna Boltz
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentLt General Carrol H. Chandler
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentGary Foreman
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentMichael Holley
-
(printed as 10/12/2005)CommentJames Helfinstine
-
(printed as 9/23/2005)CommentEI-1838Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/26/2005)CommentKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/22/2005)CommentEI-1837Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/22/2005)CommentEI-1836Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/12/2005)CommentKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/29/2005)CommentEI-1835Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/21/2005)CommentEI-1832Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/23/2005)CommentEI-1834Alaska Railroad Corp.Gar Carothers
-
(printed as 5/23/2005)CommentEI-1833Alaska Railroad Corp.Gar Carothers
-
(printed as 5/5/2005)CommentEI-1831ICF ConsultingAlan Summerville
-
(printed as 5/4/2005)CommentKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/22/2005)CommentKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/20/2005)CommentEI-1830Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/20/2005)CommentEI-1829Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/8/2005)CommentEI-1828Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
Nothing of that kind in this docket.