FD 35095
Docket Yard · docketyard.org/d/FD-35095 · entries shown: all, newest first
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION – CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION--A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA
Caption from the Board’s record.
10 filings, 6 decisions and 666 environmental comments observed here; last checked 10 Oct 2026, 21:36 UTC; last new entry 31 Aug 2026, 20:44 UTC.
Entries
-
(printed as 11/18/2025)Comment
-
(printed as 11/27/2024)CommentEI-33647Alaska Railroad CorporationAnnual status report.Brian Lindamood, Project Manager · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 10/31/2023)Comment
-
(printed as 10/21/2022)CommentKathryn Floyd
-
(printed as 10/12/2022)CommentEI-32618Venable, LLPKathryn Floyd · Washington, DC
-
(printed as 7/27/2022)Comment
-
(printed as 6/3/2022)CommentEO-3692Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/30/2022)CommentEI-32036Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 3/4/2022)CommentEO-3683Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/22/2022)CommentEI-31971Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 11/16/2021)CommentEO-3682Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 10/19/2021)CommentEI-31969Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 9/1/2021)CommentEO-3681Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 7/26/2021)CommentEI-31968Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 6/1/2021)CommentEO-3680Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/26/2021)CommentEI-31967Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 3/2/2021)CommentEO-3502Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/1/2021)CommentEI-30054Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 11/30/2020)CommentEO-3307Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 10/22/2020)CommentEI-27018Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 7/30/2020)CommentEI-26972Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/28/2020)CommentEI-26971Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/3/2020)CommentEO-3283Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/31/2020)CommentEI-26970Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 11/5/2019)CommentEO-3184Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 10/30/2019)CommentEI-26739Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/15/2019)CommentEO-3108Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 7/26/2019)CommentEI-26542Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/7/2019)CommentEI-26541Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/7/2019)CommentEO-3105Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/30/2019)CommentEI-26540Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/26/2019)CommentEO-3104Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/1/2019)CommentEI-26539Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 11/20/2018)CommentEO-3103Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 11/2/2018)CommentEI-26538Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/31/2018)CommentEO-3022Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/2/2018)CommentEI-26351Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/22/2018)CommentEO-2999Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/24/2018)CommentEI-26308Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/31/2018)CommentEI-26307Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 12/5/2017)CommentEO-2958Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/1/2017)CommentEI-26241Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 9/8/2017)CommentEO-3102Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/1/2017)CommentEI-26537Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/23/2017)CommentEO-3101Venable LLPKathyrn Kusske FLoyd
-
(printed as 5/1/2017)CommentEI-26536Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 3/22/2017)CommentEO-2894VenableKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/17/2017)CommentEI-25847Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/17/2017)CommentEI-25846Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/16/2017)CommentEO-2893Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/1/2017)CommentEI-25845Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 6/23/2016)CommentEO-3100Venable LLPKathyrn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/29/2016)CommentEI-26535Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 12/4/2015)CommentEO-2700Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/30/2015)CommentEI-21231Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 9/11/2015)CommentEO-2648Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/31/2015)CommentEI-21033Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/29/2015)CommentEO-2555Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/1/2015)CommentEI-20974Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 3/16/2015)CommentEO-2518Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/6/2015)CommentEI-20962ARRCBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/6/2015)CommentEI-20927HDRElizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 2/2/2015)CommentEI-20945Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 12/11/2014)CommentEI-20727AK SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 12/10/2014)CommentEO-2692Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/8/2014)CommentEI-20685ARRCBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 10/31/2014)CommentEI-20718Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 9/18/2014)CommentEI-20545Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/19/2014)CommentEO-3099Venable LLPKathyrn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/31/2014)CommentEI-26534Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/29/2014)CommentEO-2271Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/29/2014)CommentEI-20458Alask Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 3/14/2014)CommentEO-2242Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/31/2014)CommentEI-20403Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/23/2014)CommentEI-20385Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 1/23/2014)CommentEI-20384Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 1/14/2014)CommentEO-2222Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 12/19/2013)CommentEO-2213Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/18/2013)CommentEI-20365Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 11/12/2013)CommentEI-20353Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 11/12/2013)CommentEI-20352Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 11/1/2013)CommentEI-20364Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 10/25/2013)CommentEO-2183AK SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/30/2013)CommentEO-2174Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 9/13/2013)CommentEO-3098Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/27/2013)CommentEI-20278Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/20/2013)CommentEI-20261Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 7/19/2013)CommentEI-20253Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 5/31/2013)CommentEO-3097Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/30/2013)CommentEI-20186Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 3/7/2013)CommentEI-20135Venable LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 2/25/2013)CommentEO-2039Venable LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/4/2013)CommentEI-20114Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 12/28/2012)CommentEO-2007Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/26/2012)CommentEI-19159Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 12/4/2012)CommentEO-1993Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 11/26/2012)CommentEI-19077Alaska SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 11/21/2012)CommentEI-19107HDR, Alaska Railroad CompanyElizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 11/5/2012)CommentEI-19119Alaska Railroad CompanyBarbara Hothkin
-
(printed as 10/31/2012)CommentEI-18981Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 9/28/2012)CommentEO-1962Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/10/2012)CommentEI-18962AK SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 8/28/2012)CommentEO-1950SHPOJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 8/15/2012)CommentEI-18952Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/10/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 8/10/2012)CommentEO-1940HDR AlaskaElizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 8/8/2012)CommentEO-1937AK SHPOSina Duvall
-
(printed as 8/6/2012)CommentEO-1935Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 8/3/2012)CommentEI-18944Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/3/2012)CommentEI-18943Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/1/2012)CommentEI-18949HDR, AlaskaElizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 8/1/2012)CommentEI-18945HDRElizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 7/27/2012)CommentEI-18948Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 6/15/2012)CommentEI-18917Alaska Railroad CompanyBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 5/25/2012)CommentEO-1902Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/4/2012)CommentEI-18890US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMaureen de Zeeuw
-
(printed as 5/3/2012)CommentEI-18889Dorsey & Whitney, LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 5/3/2012)CommentEO-1893Dorsey & Whitney, LLPKathryn Floyd, Jay Johnson
-
(printed as 5/2/2012)CommentEI-18888Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/2/2012)CommentEI-18887Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/1/2012)CommentEI-18886Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 5/1/2012)CommentEI-18885US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMaureen de Zeeuw
-
(printed as 5/1/2012)CommentEI-18884Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/30/2012)CommentEI-18883US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMaureen de Zeeuw
-
(printed as 4/27/2012)CommentEI-18881Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 4/17/2012)CommentEO-1887Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 4/16/2012)CommentEI-18873U.S. Coast GuardJames Helfinstine
-
(printed as 4/2/2012)CommentLesli Schick
-
(printed as 3/30/2012)CommentEO-1883Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/29/2012)CommentEI-18869Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/29/2012)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 3/29/2012)CommentEO-1882Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/19/2012)CommentEO-1874Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/13/2012)CommentEO-1872Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/5/2012)CommentEO-1867Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 3/1/2012)CommentEI-18846HDR, Inc.Elizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 3/1/2012)CommentEI-18845Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/1/2012)CommentEI-18844Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 3/1/2012)CommentEI-18834Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/27/2012)CommentEI-18832Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/27/2012)CommentEI-18829Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/27/2012)CommentEO-1863Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/27/2012)CommentEO-1861Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/24/2012)CommentEI-18828Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/24/2012)CommentEI-18827Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/24/2012)CommentEI-18826Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/24/2012)CommentEI-18822Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/23/2012)CommentEO-1865HDR, Inc.Elizabeth Grover
-
(printed as 2/23/2012)CommentEO-1855Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/21/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/21/2012)CommentEI-18818Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 2/17/2012)CommentEO-1864Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/16/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/15/2012)CommentEO-1862Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/14/2012)CommentEI-18824Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/14/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/14/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/13/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/13/2012)CommentEI-18811Alaska Railraod CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentEI-18810Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentEO-1859Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentEO-1850Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentEO-1849Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/10/2012)CommentJudith Bittner and Shina Duvall
-
(printed as 2/9/2012)CommentEI-18809Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/9/2012)CommentEO-1847Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 2/9/2012)CommentEO-1844Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 2/2/2012)CommentEI-18793Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 1/30/2012)CommentEI-18797Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
served (printed as 1/26/2012)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE THAT COURT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 1/17/2012)CommentEO-1840Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 1/12/2012)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 1/3/2012)CommentEI-18802Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 12/30/2011)CommentEI-18772Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 12/19/2011)CommentEI-18796Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/12/2011)CommentEO-1813Office of the GovernorRandy Ruaro
-
(printed as 12/1/2011)CommentEI-18795Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/1/2011)CommentEI-18763Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/23/2011)CommentEI-18762HDR Alaska, Inc.Elizabeth Grover
-
served (printed as 11/21/2011)Decision41518Entire BoardDECISION GRANTED AN EXEMPTION FOR ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION (AARC) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE APPROXIMATELY 35 MILES OF NEW RAIL LINE CONNECTING THE PORT OF MACKENZIE DISTRICT IN SOUTH-CENTRAL ALASKA TO A POINT ON ARRC'S EXISTING MAIN LINE NEAR HOUSTON, ALASKA. THE EXEMPTION IS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION CONDITIONS.
-
(printed as 11/21/2011)CommentJeff Bruno
-
(printed as 11/21/2011)CommentEO-1800Dorsey & WhitneyKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/26/2011)CommentEO-1788Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 10/24/2011)CommentShina Duvall
-
(printed as 10/24/2011)CommentShina duVall
-
(printed as 10/11/2011)CommentEO-1799STB Board Members
-
(printed as 9/7/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 8/17/2011)CommentEI-18691Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/15/2011)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 8/12/2011)CommentEI-18801Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 8/1/2011)Motion230740Motion/Petition/RequestAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 7/22/2011)CommentEI-18689Knikatnu, Inc.Kim Morris
-
(printed as 7/22/2011)CommentAnn Rappoport
-
(printed as 7/13/2011)Environmental230612Environmental MaterialsAlaska Public Interest Research Group
-
(printed as 7/13/2011)CommentEI-21189Sierra ClubFinal attachments and certificate of service.Jessica Yarnall · San Francisco, CA
-
(printed as 7/13/2011)CommentEI-21188Sierra Club2nd of 3 submissions with remaining exhibits.Jessica Yarnall · San Francisco, CA
-
(printed as 7/13/2011)CommentEI-21187Sierra ClubI will submit another form with the remaining attachments (there were only 4 fields here).Jessica Yarnall · San Francisco, CA
-
(printed as 7/5/2011)CommentEI-18690Eklutna, Inc.Jim Arnesen
-
(printed as 6/30/2011)Comments230516Environmental CommentHonorable Mark Begich
-
(printed as 6/29/2011)CommentEI-18635Knikatnu, Inc.Raymond Theodore
-
(printed as 6/28/2011)CommentEO-1726Eklutna, Inc.Marc Lamoreaux
-
(printed as 6/28/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 6/27/2011)CommentEI-18634Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/24/2011)CommentEI-18633Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/17/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 6/16/2011)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 6/14/2011)CommentEI-18623Alaska PIRGSteve Cleary
-
(printed as 6/14/2011)CommentEO-1718Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 6/13/2011)CommentEO-1717Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/13/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 6/9/2011)Comments229898Environmental CommentSierra Club
-
(printed as 6/9/2011)CommentEI-18622Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentEI-18619Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 6/7/2011)CommentJudy Bittner and Doug Gasek
-
(printed as 6/2/2011)CommentEI-21186Sierra ClubNathaniel Shoaff · San Francisco, CA
-
(printed as 6/2/2011)CommentEI-18617Knik Tribal CouncilRichard Porter
-
(printed as 5/27/2011)CommentEI-18615Self/IndividualColleen Bostwick
-
(printed as 5/26/2011)CommentEI-18616Matanuska-Susitna BoroughCarol Varderman
-
(printed as 5/25/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 5/23/2011)CommentEI-18626Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/20/2011)CommentEI-18614Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/19/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 5/19/2011)CommentEO-1712Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd and Jay Johnson
-
(printed as 5/16/2011)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 5/13/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 5/13/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn, Judy Bittner, Kathryn Kusske
-
(printed as 5/13/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 5/11/2011)CommentEI-18610Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/10/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 5/9/2011)Comments229491Environmental CommentState Of Alaska
-
(printed as 5/9/2011)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 5/9/2011)CommentEI-18555Robert Shumaker
-
(printed as 5/9/2011)CommentEO-1709ACHP and Alaska SHPOCharlene Vaughn and Judy Bittner
-
(printed as 5/6/2011)Motion229466Motion/Petition/RequestAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 5/6/2011)CommentEI-18607Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 5/6/2011)CommentEI-18606Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 5/6/2011)CommentEO-1708Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 5/4/2011)CommentEI-18605Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 5/4/2011)CommentEO-1707Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 5/4/2011)CommentEO-1706Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 5/2/2011)Comments229490Environmental CommentU S Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10)
-
(printed as 5/2/2011)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 4/28/2011)Motion229409Motion/Petition/RequestAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 4/28/2011)CommentEI-18547Audrey FaulknerPlease let me know if you cannot open the enclosed attachment. A hard copy was mailed yesterday, which included attachments.anchorage, ak
-
(printed as 4/28/2011)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 4/25/2011)CommentEI-18545Stephen M. Sims
-
(printed as 4/25/2011)CommentEI-18544Todd HeckerWasilla, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/21/2011)CommentEI-18553Patrick Sharrock
-
(printed as 4/20/2011)CommentEI-18603Matanuska-Susitna BoroughFran Seager-Boss
-
(printed as 4/18/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 4/7/2011)CommentEO-1703Self / IndividualLynn Gattis
-
(printed as 4/6/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn
-
(printed as 4/6/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 4/6/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 4/6/2011)CommentEO-1700Alaska SHPO and ACHP
-
(printed as 4/6/2011)CommentEO-1699Alaska SHPO and ACHP
-
(printed as 4/5/2011)CommentEI-18805Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 4/5/2011)CommentJudy Bittner
-
(printed as 4/5/2011)CommentEI-18600Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 3/31/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn
-
(printed as 3/31/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 3/30/2011)CommentEO-1697Knik Tribal CouncilRichard Porter
-
(printed as 3/28/2011)CommentEI-18598Alaska Railroad CorporationBarbara Hotchkin
-
(printed as 3/28/2011)CommentEO-1696Knik Tribal CouncilRichard Porter
-
(printed as 3/25/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn
-
(printed as 3/25/2011)CommentUSEPA, Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section
-
(printed as 3/23/2011)CommentEI-18804Knik Tribal CouncilRichard Porter
-
(printed as 3/17/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 3/17/2011)CommentEO-1694Alaska SHPO and ACHP
-
(printed as 3/17/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 3/16/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 3/14/2011)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 3/14/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 3/14/2011)CommentEI-18594CIRI, Inc.Kim Cunningham
-
(printed as 3/14/2011)CommentDoug Gasek
-
(printed as 3/11/2011)CommentEI-18593Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 2/25/2011)CommentEO-1689Self / IndividualGary Thompson
-
(printed as 2/23/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 2/21/2011)CommentEO-1688Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/11/2011)CommentEI-18592Tyonek Native CorporationJohn McClellan
-
(printed as 2/10/2011)Comment
-
(printed as 2/3/2011)CommentEI-18591Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/20/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn
-
(printed as 1/20/2011)CommentCharlene Vaughn
-
(printed as 1/20/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/19/2011)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 1/19/2011)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 1/19/2011)CommentEO-1685Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/19/2011)CommentEO-1597Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 1/7/2011)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 12/20/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/20/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/17/2010)CommentEI-18588USACE - Alaska DistrictBenjamin Soiseth
-
(printed as 12/17/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/16/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/16/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/15/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/15/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/15/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/15/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 12/13/2010)CommentEI-18586Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/13/2010)CommentEO-1677Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/8/2010)CommentEI-18585USEPA - Region 10Jennifer Curtis
-
(printed as 12/8/2010)CommentEO-1676USEPA - Region 10Jennifer Curtis
-
(printed as 12/8/2010)CommentEO-1675USEAP - Region 10Jennifer Curtis
-
(printed as 12/8/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 12/8/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 12/3/2010)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 12/2/2010)CommentEI-18583USEPA - Region 10Jennifer Curtis
-
(printed as 12/2/2010)CommentErik Johnson
-
(printed as 12/2/2010)CommentEO-1672Gary Thompson
-
(printed as 12/2/2010)CommentEO-1671USEPA - Region 10Jennifer Curtis
-
(printed as 12/1/2010)CommentEI-18582Gary Thompson
-
(printed as 12/1/2010)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 11/29/2010)CommentEO-1664ACHP and Alaska SHPONajah Duvall-Gabriel and Tracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/29/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/23/2010)CommentEO-1663Gary Thompson
-
(printed as 11/22/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/22/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/19/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 11/19/2010)CommentNajh Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 11/19/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/12/2010)CommentEI-18576Native Village of EklutnaMarc Lemoreaux
-
(printed as 11/12/2010)CommentEI-18459Native Village of EklutnaMarc Lamoreaux
-
(printed as 11/12/2010)CommentEO-1660ACHP and Alaska AHPONajah Duvall-Gabriel and Tracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/12/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 11/9/2010)CommentEI-18578Native Village of EklutnaMarc Lamoreaux
-
(printed as 11/1/2010)CommentEO-1662Knik Tribal CouncilRichard Porter
-
(printed as 10/28/2010)CommentEO-1659Knik Tribal CouncilDebra Call and Richard Porter
-
(printed as 10/28/2010)CommentEO-1587Knik Tribal CouncilDebra Call
-
(printed as 10/26/2010)CommentEI-18458Martin Buser
-
(printed as 10/26/2010)CommentEO-1658Happy Trails KennelsMartin Buser
-
(printed as 10/19/2010)CommentEO-1657VariousPotential Parties to the Programmatic Agreement
-
(printed as 10/19/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 10/19/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 10/18/2010)CommentAlaska SHPO Staff
-
(printed as 10/5/2010)CommentEI-18575Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/5/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 10/4/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabriel
-
(printed as 9/30/2010)CommentTracie Krauthoefer
-
(printed as 9/29/2010)CommentAlaska SHPO and Staff
-
(printed as 9/27/2010)CommentNajah Duvall-Gabreil
-
(printed as 9/22/2010)CommentEI-18336Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/19/2010)CommentEI-18573Office of Governor Sean ParnellRandall Ruaro
-
(printed as 9/16/2010)CommentEO-1649Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/16/2010)CommentEO-1523Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/14/2010)CommentEI-18571Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/13/2010)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 9/13/2010)CommentMaria Shepard
-
(printed as 9/1/2010)CommentRandall Ruaro
-
(printed as 8/31/2010)CommentEI-18570Office of Governor Sean ParnellRandall Ruaro
-
(printed as 8/27/2010)CommentEO-1647Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/26/2010)CommentEO-1646Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/26/2010)CommentEO-1497Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/24/2010)CommentEI-18274Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/23/2010)CommentJohn Fowler
-
(printed as 8/10/2010)CommentEI-18252Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/5/2010)CommentEI-18569Alaska Railroad CorporationBrian Lindamood
-
(printed as 8/5/2010)CommentEO-1645Dorsey & Whitney LLPJay Johnson
-
(printed as 8/3/2010)CommentEI-18250Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/2/2010)CommentCharlene Dwin Vaughn
-
(printed as 8/2/2010)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 8/2/2010)CommentEO-1482Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/30/2010)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 7/29/2010)CommentEO-1644Lynn Gattis
-
(printed as 7/27/2010)CommentEI-18568Lynn Gattis
-
(printed as 7/15/2010)CommentEI-18567Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/15/2010)CommentEI-18251Matanuska-Susitna BoroughJohn Duffy
-
(printed as 7/12/2010)CommentEI-18566Patrick Sharrock
-
(printed as 7/7/2010)CommentEO-1643Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/15/2010)CommentEI-18222Knik-Fairview Community CouncilB.H. Tilton
-
(printed as 6/10/2010)CommentEO-1466Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/28/2010)CommentEI-18211Dorsey & WhitneySee attachments. Hard copies will follow by mail.Kathryn Kusske Floyd · Washington, DC
-
(printed as 5/25/2010)CommentEI-18215U.S. Army Corps of EngineersBenjamin Soiseth
-
(printed as 5/24/2010)CommentEI-18192Willow Chamber of CommerceJim Huston
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentEI-18189Daniel E. Smith
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentEI-18188Rebecca Painter
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentWillie Taylor
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentJoseph Wright
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentEI-18185Robert Shafer
-
(printed as 5/18/2010)CommentEI-18184Garvan Bucaria
-
(printed as 5/17/2010)CommentEI-18183Lance BaskinWasilla, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/17/2010)CommentEI-18182Robert Gilliland
-
(printed as 5/17/2010)CommentEI-18181Tina Dobson
-
(printed as 5/14/2010)CommentEI-18179Joe and Pat Wilson
-
(printed as 5/13/2010)CommentEI-18178Gary D. Thompson
-
(printed as 5/13/2010)CommentEI-18177Patrick L. Sharrock
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)Comments227052CommentDaniel B. Robertson
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)CommentRichard Parkin
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)CommentJames W. Balsinger
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)CommentEI-18158Mike Whedbee
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)CommentEI-18157Grace Whedbee
-
(printed as 5/11/2010)CommentEI-18156Mike Whedbee
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18172Fred HirschmannTO: Surface Transportation Board RE: STB Finance Docket No. 35095 SUBJECT: Environmental Comment by Fred Hirschmann David Navecky Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423-0001 Attention: STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Dear Mr. Navecky, I would like to go on record as being opposed to all rail routes leading from the existing Alaska Railroad line to Point MacKenzie and the deepwater port the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has been trying to develop. If a route must be selected, then the longest Willow Route follows high ground with the least disruption to recreation areas, residential areas and sensitive wetlands. The route that the borough seems to prefer, the Houston Route, crosses myriad wetlands that will require an inordinate amount of fill. A good share of that route, especially in the vicinity of the lakes south of Houston and around Papoose Lakes and Crooked Lake, are open marshy fens, basically quaking bogs where wetland vegetation covers former glacial kettle lakes. It’s inconceivable to me that a railroad grade could or should be built through such a non-weight bearing environment. Winter frost heaving coupled with wetland subsidence of the railroad bed will make train derailment a distinct possibility. Wetlands are the worse location for a major fuel spill. We will see that problem firsthand over the weeks to come in Louisiana. Millions of dollars are being sunk into the Port at Point MacKenzie with virtually no economic return to the taxpayers of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough or federal taxpayers. A ship or two a year has used the facility. The Borough cites the development of perhaps hundreds of mines and logging most of our boreal forest to supply a steady stream of railroad cars. Past logging has proven unprofitable and the dreamed of mines simply don’t exist. Anchorage already provides railroad and port facilities and this hasn’t spurred massive resource development in Alaska’s Interior. This huge push to extend the railroad reminds me of the former boondoggle of building massive grain elevators for barley that would be grown at Delta. The predicted agricultural boom never happened, but millions of dollars were spent. Real Estate speculation in the vicinity of Port MacKenzie has been the tail wagging the dog concerning millions of dollars being spent to develop this area. This is the same location that has garnered so much national ridicule as being one of two Alaska locations for the infamous “Bridges to Nowhere.” Our former Borough Mayor, a local realtor, began much of the push to develop the Port and build road, railroad and bridge infrastructure. Years later, there are just a few people living and working anywhere around the Port. It has been a huge drain of taxpayer dollars. Sincerely, Fred Hirschmann 3660 S. English Bay Dr. Wasilla, AK 99654 Phone: 907-373-3750Wasilla, AK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18170Randi HirschmannTO: Surface Transportation Board RE: STB Finance Docket No. 35095 SUBJECT: Environmental Comment by Randi Hirschmann David Navecky Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423-0001 Attention: STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Dear Staff, If we have to recommend a new extension of the Alaska Railroad from The Parks Hwy to Port McKenzie, please consider following the Willow Route. I think this route will have the least impact on our pristine recreational areas, wildlife, and wetland areas. The Houston route is the most detrimental and harmful to our wetlands and bisects some of the most pristine and frequently used recreational lands in South Central Alaska. Along the Houston route are numerous streams, creeks, lakes and wetlands that are home to an abundance of birds, fish and wildlife with many species using this area for breeding and raising their young. A railroad grade greatly changes the natural flow of wetlands. The Draft EIS states that initially only 2 trains a day will come through the selected route. The Draft EIS ignores the possibility of greater railroad traffic. It is important to look at the possibility of fuel oil, coal and other hazardous materials being transported by the trains going to Port McKenzie. Wetlands are the worse place to have a fuel spill. We have had major derailments on the Alaska Railroad with tankers of fuel being spilled. The Big Lake Route would be my second choice, because it crosses drier glacial till, but is less desirable due to human population density involved. From very early public meetings a few years ago, the Alaska Railroad and the Mat Su Borough seemed to prefer the Houston Route, which offers the shortest distance the railway would have to be built. They, of course, are looking at the bottom line even though at the most recent public meetings last month, they stated they have no preferences. They want the route that will be the most economic to develop, but will have the greatest damage to our wetlands, wildlife and pristine country. Remember too, wetlands are expensive to fill and a railroad grade built on boggy terrain is subject to frost heaving and subsidence due to the soggy organic base. Also to my dismay, I have heard that the survey team who conducted the surveys of the three possible routes to Port McKenzie was advised to put most of their money into the Houston route. It is very frustrating and disappointing to think that the private for profit Alaska Railroad and a very pro development Mat Su Borough can carry so much weight and preferential influence in this decision. One wonders if these public meetings are more of a formality than a process that really represents the individual. Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments, Randi HirschmannWasilla, AK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18169Evelyn Frances VadlaHaving homesteaded and now living near the Big Lake Route of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Project, I am opposed to the development of this route. We cherish the tranquility, the purity of air, the space around us. Why do we need it now?Big Lake, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18168J. A. Oneyanchorage, aK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18167Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI)STB Finance Docket No. 35095 CIRI Comment Letter AttachedKim Cunningham · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18166Ryota AbeRef: Port MacKenzie Rail Project (STB Finance Document Docket # 35095) Mr. Navecky, Please accept the attached letter with corrections in replacement of the Comments I email a few minutes ago. I found several typos that potentially affected the intended meaining of the comments. Sorry for the confusion. Thank you.Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18165Alaska DOT&PFcomments on draft EIS Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction of a rail extension to Port MacKenzie AlaskaAllen Kemplen · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18164Port of AnchorageWilliam Sheffield · Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18162State of AlaskaDave Navecky May 10, 2010 STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street S. W. Washington, DC 20423-0001 Dear Mr. Navecky: Re: STB Finance Docket No. 35095, Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension to Port Mackenzie, Alaska; Issuance of Draft Environmental Impact Statement The State of Alaska has reviewed the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB’s) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s (ARRC) Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project. The comments in this letter represent the consolidated views of the state’s resource agencies. General Comments • The inclusion of a permanent access road parallel to the tracks will increase the project footprint and environmental impacts substantially. It will involve increased wetland fill, additional clearing, and longer culverts leading to fish passage issues. The need for an access road should be evaluated in the final EIS. As a rule, the majority of the existing ARRC alignment does not have an access road. If an access road is determined necessary, additional road-specific mitigation measures must be developed and evaluated in consultation with ADF&G and other applicable resource agencies and included in the final EIS. • Access into 4(f) resources is an issue. The State disagrees with the characterization that existing section-line easements are unlikely to be potentially viable access points into the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge (SFSGR). Appendix M.1.c.2 (Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation; page M-30), states that “It is possible that individuals could also access the refuge via section line easements, though it is unlikely due to the lack of public parking areas and the privately –owned agricultural parcels that would have to be crossed to enter the refuge via section line easements (Paulsen pers. Comm., 2009a).” This is restated again in Appendix M.1.d.2 (page M-38) under Impacts to 4(f) resources. While it is correct that the agricultural parcels in the area have had some section-line easements vacated, section-line easements and roads still exist and provide access around those agricultural parcels. Additionally, all section-line easements within agricultural parcels were not automatically vacated. Some remain, and are connected to public access easements around numerous lakes located on and adjacent to the agricultural parcels. The lack of a designated parking lot does not invalidate the potential use of existing valid section-line easements by the public. The public can park along existing borough road ROW’s in the area or make arrangements with private land owners for parking, and enter the SFSGR by walking along section-lines. The SFSGR is managed cooperatively by ADF&G and ADNR. The final EIS should reflect communications with the area managers regarding access into the refuge, not solely Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) personnel. In addition, the text of that communication with the MSB was not included in the review materials. • Moose impact mitigation is an issue that has not been sufficiently addressed in this document. Mitigation measure 33 instructs the applicant to develop, in consultation with resource agencies, a strategy to reduce moose mortality caused by train impacts. This approach is grossly insufficient and circumvents the EIS process. Developing mitigation measures in the proposed manner does not bind the applicant to any course of real action, is ambiguous as to how much input resource agencies may have, and does not allow for public comment. Project-specific moose-related mitigation measures, on a route-by-route basis, must be included in the final EIS. These measures must include not only collision-related mitigation, but habitat fragmentation (e.g. properly designed and placed underpasses), and construction-related impacts. More work and direct interaction with local Division of Wildlife Conservation staff is necessary before the EIS can be finalized. • Mitigation Measure 46 provides direction to the applicant to develop, in consultation with resource agencies, mitigation measures to address impacts to the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge (SFSGR) if the Mac West Route is authorized. This approach is grossly insufficient and circumvents the EIS process. Developing mitigation measures in the proposed manner does not bind the applicant to any course of action, is ambiguous as to how much input resource agencies may have, and does not allow for public comment. Specific measures to mitigate impacts to the SFSGR need to be included in the final EIS. These measures should include, but not be limited to, compensatory mitigation, retention of public access to the refuge, and impacts to fish and wildlife. More work and direct interaction with local ADF&G and DNR staff is necessary to develop acceptable mitigation before the EIS can be finalized. • Mitigation Measure 48 provides direction to the applicant to develop, in consolation with resource agencies, mitigation measures to address impacts to state parklands and recreational areas if the Willow Route is authorized. Again, this approach is grossly insufficient and circumvents the EIS process. Developing mitigation measures in the proposed manner does not bind the applicant to any course of action, is ambiguous as to how much input resource agencies may have, and does not allow for public comment. Specific mitigation measures need to be proposed as part of the final EIS and should include, but not be limited to, compensatory mitigation and public access components. More work and direct interaction with local DNR and ADF&G staff is necessary to develop acceptable mitigation measures before the EIS can be finalized. • The draft EIS has not sufficiently addressed impacts to public use of area resources. Access to fish and game resources on public lands must be maintained across each potential alignment. Hunting and fishing activities are not limited to officially designated trails. It is not acceptable for this project to result in blockages of free access to state resources on public lands. Route-specific measures to provide passage across the alignment must be determined and included in the final EIS. These measures must include, but not be limited to, crossings at intervals frequent enough to allow historic usage patterns. Structures designed to pass humans across the alignment should also be designed to allow moose and other wildlife to cross (see attachment). More work with appropriate agencies and user groups to develop acceptable mitigation is necessary before the EIS can be finalized. • The words “practicable” and “reasonable requirements” are used throughout the document. Neither of these words are defined in the glossary. No where is it addressed that the land manager needs to concur on what the ARRC considers to be practicable and reasonable or in some cases be informed that they have made this decision. Additionally, both practicable and reasonable are heavily used in the mitigation measures, making it difficult to determine what exactly the ARRC is proposing for mitigation. What role does the landowner have in the decision making process to determine what is practicable and reasonable? For example, mitigation measure 19.2.8.2(38) states: “Public access and use of the statutory easements as established by the reasonable requirements of Alaska Statute 38.05.127...” What does the ARRC consider to be the reasonable requirements of a statute? • Authorizations issued by the state are subject to valid existing rights. The project description provided by the ARRC appears to indicate that they would like to vacate all valid existing rights or at least control them. Please note that an EIS does not provide the legal authority to accomplish this type of restriction. Section Specific Comments: Table S-2 Summary p. 32 The table listing “potential Impacts” to agriculture may be under reporting the amount of acres affected. The table lists “Acres in agricultural use lost:”, but this number does not account for agricultural lands that are still undeveloped. These undeveloped acres are still protected for future agricultural use by AS 38.05.321. 2.1.1.2: Rail Line Access Road For rail line construction and post-construction operations, ARRC would build a permanent access road parallel to the rail alignment and within the 200 foot ROW. ARRC would construct the access road before the rail line and would use the access road for construction of the proposed rail line. ARRC would not maintain the access road as a public road. As stated in the draft EIS, the right-of-way will be permanently cleared and no fence or other linear separation is being proposed or reviewed in the EIS. How does the applicant plan to block access to the road in an area that has high recreation and access use by the public? 2.1.1.5: Acquisition of Materials for Rail Line Construction ARRC would obtain fill material from cut-and-fill activities during railbed construction, and to the extent practicable, would adjust the design profile grade to balance cut and fill quantities. If needed, ARRC would obtain additional fill material from borrow sources within the ROW or off site. Additional fill material from off site sources need to be from legal gravel extraction locations or the land manager needs to concur on the location. A permit or lease may be required. 2.1.1.9 Grade Crossings Where the proposed rail line could cross a trail that is officially recognized, meaning specifically established within currently-adopted plans by ADNR and/or MSB or are established within these plans at the time of construction or ROW conveyance (whichever occurs first), and are located on state, MSB property, or whose locations are provided for by recorded ROW or easement…. The state officially recognizes trails through plans, state issued authorizations and recorded ROW, easements and plats. The definition provided by the ARRC does not include recorded plats and state issued authorizations. Please add this to the definition of an officially recognized trail. ARRC would coordinate with the trail owner and consult with the user groups as appropriate where the crossing location could have to be relocated…or where multiple crossings within one mile might be consolidated. What role does the land owner and user groups have in the decision making process? It states that the ARRC will coordinate with the trail owner and user groups, but not that they need concurrence. What happens if the groups do not agree on relocation of a trail? Additionally, there is specific guidance on how to legally relocate an RS 2477 route. The method described in 2.1.1.9 does not necessarily fulfill these requirements (i.e. 11 AAC 51 and more specifically 11 AAC 51.065). 2.1.1.10 & 2.1.1.6 Construction Staging Areas and Communication Towers The ARRC will attempt to place construction staging areas and communication towers within the right-of-way. It is not addressed what the applicant will do if they are not within the ROW. How will they work with the land owner? Do they foresee permits or leases being applied for? One of the towers appears to be adjacent to the Iditarod National Historic Trail and other official trails. How will the ARRC work with the land managers to identify the locations and possible effects any needed access roads and towers may have? 2.1.1.10 Terminal Reserve Area A reserve area usually indicates that the railroad will take ownership of the land. Is the ARRC proposing to take ownership of the existing recreation facilities within the proposed Terminal Reserve Area? 6.4.3.2 Cultural Landscapes See Appendix M below There are more contributing trails identified in Figure 6-5 than the maps illustrating the trails listed in 2.1.1.9 (official trails identified for crossings). Are there going to be crossings provided for these contributing routes, especially any currently used trails? This difference in the trail illustrations is not specifically addressed in the document. 13.1.5.1 Common Impacts to Land Use Existing land use for a small portion of land in proximity to the proposed ROW would be permanently changed, and any non-rail activities within the proposed ROW would require an ARRC-issued entry permit. Page 13.1-12 Where are these small portions located? What sorts of changes are foreseen? Please note so that the affected land owner can specifically comment in regards to the permanent changes. One could read the above statement to be a broad general statement or one describing the creation of stranded inholdings that would require ARRC permits for a land owner to monitor and manage their land. 13.2.4.2 Trails Unofficial trails can also include means of accessing public or navigable waters on state land (11 AAC 38.05.127), riparian buffers along those waters (11 AAC 51.045), or trails along Section lines (11 AAC 51.025). Page 13.2-14 The State disagrees that 11 AAC 96.020 and 11 AAC 51.025 easements are unofficial trails. They can be developed or undeveloped, but not unofficial. Also, the above sentence is not explicitly included in the glossary definition of an “unofficial trail” (Page GL-18). Section line easements are valid existing rights established by operation of law when DNR acquired the lands (AS 19.10.010), and the ARRC may have to provide crossings in the future as described under provisions of 11 AAC 51.025. If the applicant desires to vacate an 11 AAC 51.025 easement, there are specific regulations that outline the steps required to accomplish this (11 AAC 51.065). 13.2.5.1 Operations Impacts • The rail line could block access to and along public and navigable water bodies with access rights reserved through AS 38.05.127 (as described in Title 11 AAC 51.045). This would result in a change in recreational access patterns to certain waters. Because of the frequency of these access points, it is anticipated that users would identify an alternative location for recreational access to navigable and public waters that was not affected by the proposed rail line. Given the ARRC definition that access needs to be officially recognized at the time of construction or ROW acquisition (which ever occurs first), how will any alternate access be legal across the rail line if it doesn’t already exist at time of construction? The rail line is a linear feature, and traveling to an area not affected by the proposed rail line could be a substantial diversion. Additionally, if access is blocked at one stream, and forces the public to use an alternate route, how will the public legally travel back to the stream they are attempting to access without trespassing on public or private land (or the railbed)? Table 13.3-2 Known Hazardous Material Sites and Regulated Facilities of Concern 4) If the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination is undetermined, how do you know that the proposed project is outside of this contaminated site? 13.1.4.1 Existing Land Ownership Private Land: “…Private land in the vicinity of the proposed rail line is characterized as forested and some agricultural, and development is typically low-intensity, residential. Development typically occurs near lakes and ponds and linearly along highways. there are areas of private land in the vicinity of the proposed rail line east of the northern portion of the Willow Segment, around Big Lake, and agricultural land associated with the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area between the Mac West and Mac East segments.” This summary of Private Land identifies agricultural lands but does not address patent restrictions placed upon some of them. All private land within the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area are subject to AS 38.05.321. Some of the private land identified as being east (and possibly west) of the northern portion of the Willow segment also have AS 38.05.321 agricultural use restrictions. Note that several times in Chapter 13.1 the DEIS states that there is no data available to determine land ownership in the proposed ROW. The land ownership is then assumed to be publicly owned by the State of Alaska. This data is available and the final EIS should contain accurate land ownership information for all of the proposed routes. 13.1.4.3 Existing Zoning Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area: “… Land titles are subject to a recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions to promote agricultural use. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions limit improvement sites, residential locations, and subdivision of the original farm unit.” These lands are subject to a perpetual covenant for the benefit of all Alaska residents and running with the land that restricts or limits the use of the land for agricultural purposes. No conversion of these lands to non-agricultural use is allowed. This Draft EIS does not address this patent restriction or outline the process by which these restrictions could be removed. The anticipated economic feasibility of the land's productivity for agricultural pursuits has not been realized. The Point MacKenzie Agricultural Area has several active dairies, livestock operations, and several thousand acres of hay are in production. How has the Draft EIS concluded that the goals for agriculture have not been met? In 1997, AS 38.05.321 was amended to ease restrictions on the subdivision of agricultural land. Prior to 1997 AS 38.05.321 allowed agricultural parcel owners to subdivide into as many subdivision of at least 40 acres as they wanted to. AS 38.05.321 limited agricultural parcel owners to a maximum of 4 subdivided parcels of at least 40 acres. This was an additional restriction not a lessening of restrictions. 14.4 Socioeconomics, Affected Environment What impact will there be to taking on agricultural covenants? How does farm equipment cross the rail line if it bisects a parcel? 19.2.2.2 SEA’s Preliminary Mitigation Measures 17) During final design of the project, the Applicant shall conduct all siting, design, and development of the rail line and associated facilities according to the reasonable requirements within the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Please define “reasonable requirements” and how disagreements between the ADNR/ADFG and the applicant on these requirements will be resolved? 19.2.8.2 SEA’s Preliminary Mitigation Measures 38) In coordination wit the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), the Applicant shall ensure that project-related bridges and culverts placed on navigable or public waters, as determined by the ADNR, are designed and installed to accommodate: • Navigation by recreational boat users in a manner that shall not impede existing uses, to the extent practicable, and • Public access and use of the statutory easements as established by the reasonable requirements of Alaska Statute 38.05.127, Access to Navigable or Public Water. Who determines what is “practicable” and the “reasonable requirements” of a statute? This could actually not be a mitigation measure, since the ARRC could find that it’s not “practicable” and the statute is “unreasonable”. How will disagreements between ADNR and the applicant on the use of this mitigation measure be resolved? 19.2.9.2 SEA’s Preliminary Mitigation Measures 39) What is the timeline and funding source for the plan under #39? 40) The Applicant shall consult with the appropriate management agencies, including the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to ensure that project-related bridges and culverts are signed, constructed, and maintained to accommodate travel by winter modes of transportation (snow machine, dog sled, etc.) on streams and rivers used for recreational access, as determined under mitigation measure 38. How will it be determined under mitigation measure 38? Winter access on a water body is not confined to a 38.05.127 easement. Is the ARRC just referring to water determined navigable and not the bulleted items? Also, the ADFG is included as an agency under mitigation measure 40, but not 38. Please explain what the ARRC envisions the role of ADFG to be in regards to this measure. 41) The applicant shall consult with resource management agencies including the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and appropriate trial user groups regarding provision, access, and design of crossings for trail easements with intersect with the rail line. Consultation shall include concerns related to general dispersed-use access, informal public trails on state land, blazed section lines, and long stretches of rail line without designated public crossings. A blazed section line could be a developed legal easement. Why is the ARRC consulting about general dispersed-use access, informal public trails on state land and long stretches of rail line without designated public crossings, since these are defined as “unofficial trails” that will not have crossings? Is this mitigation since the EIS states no legal crossings will be constructed? 48) If the Surface Transportation Board authorizes the Willow Segment, the Applicant shall consult with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to develop and implement measures, including consideration of the replacing acreage used for rail right-of-way, to minimize impacts to the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, Little Susitna State Recreation River, and Willow Creek Recreation Area to the extent practicable. Is the railroad swapping their land or paying for new land to replace acreage? Otherwise, this is not necessarily a mitigation measure. Appendix M: Draft Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation Iditarod National Historic Trail Historic sections of the trail and historic sites associated with the trail may be subject to Section 4(f) if deemed historically significant; however, the portion of the trail in question for this project (Knik to Susitna River) is considered ineligible for inclusion on the National Register as a historic trail segment according to the Iditarod National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (BLM 1986) and is therefore not subject to the provisions of Section 4(f) under this condition. DNR has been unable to locate an ineligibility determination for the Knik to Susitna River Primary Trail of the Iditarod National Historic Trail. Please provide a more specific citation with the required concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer and/or Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Otherwise, remove this statement. The cultural resources analysis conducted through the Section 106 process for the proposed rail extension identified dog sledding associated with the INHT including improvements made from 1967 through 1978 for the Iditarod Race as a cultural landscape potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Per the Cultural and Historic Resources section of the draft EIS, dog sledding associated with the Iditarod National Historic Trail and Iditarod Race are “considered a cultural landscape and assumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register” (6.4.3.2, Page 6-19). Since Part 1 of the draft EIS states that this is eligible (not potentially), please provide a 4(f) review. In addition to the above issues, the Iditarod Trail is a recreation trail that is collocated with an RS 2477 route and has a recorded state easement (ADL 222930) and survey (ASLS 830001 Goose Creek to Susitna Station). Please provide documentation as to why the RS 2477 route and recorded easement with platted survey for an active recreation route do not qualify under a Section 4(f) review. Officially Recognized Trails These trails would be closed temporarily during construction and crossings could be relocated or consolidated with other trails if they exist nearby to reduce the number of crossings of the rail line in proximity to one another. Trail closures, though temporary, could affect user enjoyment though ARRC would time construction activities during the most appropriate timeframe to limit impacts to trails…Impacts such as closure of trails during construction would be temporary and would not result in permanent impairment of the features of the resource that qualify it as a Section 4(f) resource. Only the temporary closures are discussed, not the permanent relocations and consolidations. What are the impacts of relocating and consolidating the trails? This concludes the State’s response to the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension DEIS. We look forward to working closely with the SEA and the applicant to address any outstanding issues. Please contact me at (907) 269-7476 or by email at donald.perrin@alaska.gov if you questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Don Perrin Project Management and Permit Coordinator Alaska Department of Natural Resources Attachments: 1. Mitigation table comments 2. Guidelines for moose mortality mitigation 3. Current agriculture land maps cc: Mike Bethe, ADF&G Ken Bouwens, ADF&G Ellen Simpson, ADF&G Wyn Menefee, ADNR Sandy Singer, ADNR Lesli Schick, ADNR Erik Johnson, ADNR Wayne Biessel, ADNR Attachment 1 The following table lists the State’s comments on the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation measure Recommendation Comment 19.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils VM-1 NR 19.2.2 Water Resources VM-2 Retain VM-3 Amend Include ADF&G Special Area Permit in list of state permits. VM-4 Amend Remove …to the extent practicable." VM-5 Amend Include "...and access road…" after "…rail line…". Clarify that the applicant will ensure connectivity for all wetland drainages. VM-6 Retain VM-7 Retain VM-8 Retain VM-9 Retain VM-10 Amend insert: "...in consultation with ADF&G Division of Habitat and..." after "structures". Clarify that an ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit will be required to cross specified anadromous streams. VM-11 Amend Include "...in consultation with ADF&G..." after "Applicant". VM-12 Retain SEA-1 Retain SEA-2 Retain SEA-3 Retain SEA-4 Amend include "all" after "mark". SEA-5 Retain SEA-6 Retain SEA-7 Retain SEA-8 Amend Clarify that all travel off the ROW must be approved by the land owner. SEA-9 Retain SEA-10 Amend Clarify that gravel mining below the OHW mark of anadromous streams would require authorization (not just consultation) from ADF&G. SEA-11 NR SEA-12 Retain SEA-13 Amend Add that no storage of fuel would be allowed within 100-feet of anadromous waterbodies. SEA-14 Amend add: "..and, in the case of fish-bearing streams, ADF&G." to the end of the sentence. SEA-15 Retain SEA-16 Amend add: "blockages to free-fish passage" after "to avoid". Clarify that the applicant accepts the responsibility to clear all blockages, including those related to beaver activity and perched culverts, under the alignment for the life of the rail line. Also, culverts must be designed to allow fish passage at low flows. SEA-17 Amend Remove the word "reasonable". SEA-18 NR SEA-19 Retain SEA-20 Amend add: "and natural condition." after "contours". SEA-21 Remove SEA-22 Retain 19.2.3 Biological Resources VM-13 Retain VM-14 Retain VM-15 Retain VM-16 Retain VM-17 Retain VM-18 Retain VM-19 Retain SEA-23 Retain SEA-24 Amend Clarify that ADF&G will make the final determination on whether a stream is fish bearing. SEA-25 Amend Add "anadromous and resident fish streams" and "moose calving area" to the list of potential highly sensitive areas. SEA-26 Retain SEA-27 Retain SEA-28 Amend Refer to appropriate BMPs contained in the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA). SEA-29 Retain SEA-30 Retain SEA-31 Amend Include all work below the Ordinary High Water mark of all fish bearing streams to possible work. Remove the word "reasonable". SEA-32 Amend replace: "… not narrow an anadromous water body between its mean high water lines…" with "…not modify an andromous water body below the ordinary high water mark…" SEA-33 Amend Add recommendations outlined in attachment A into this mitigation measure. SEA-34 Retain SEA-35 Retain SEA-36 Retain New Free fish passage will be maintained across the project reach for the life of the project. This includes, but is not limited to, blockages through culverts and bridges caused by beaver activity and perched culverts. New Wetlands cataloged as anadromous under AS 16.05.871 will be avoided. Fill will not be placed within anadromous wetlands. New Public access to fish and wildlife resources shall be maintained during construction and operation to the maximum extent practicable. 19.2.4 Cultural Resources VM-20 NR VM-21 NR 19.2.5 Climate and Air Quality VM-22 NR VM-23 NR 19.2.6 Noise and Vibration VM-24 NR VM-25 NR VM-26 NR SEA-37 NR new The Applicant shall consult with and obtain fish habitat permits from ADF&G for pile driving activities and use of explosives near anadromous streams. 19.2.7 Transportation VM-27 NR VM-28 NR VM-29 NR VM-30 NR VM-31 NR VM-32 NR 19.2.8 Navigation VM-33 Retain VM-34 Retain SEA-38 Retain 19.2.9 Land Use VM-35 Retain VM-36 Retain VM-37 NR VM-38 NR VM-39 NR VM-40 NR VM-41 NR VM-42 Amend VM-43 NR VM-44 NR VM-45 Retain VM-46 NR SEA-39 Retain SEA-40 Amend Include guidelines recommended into SEA-33 into these crossings to allow large mammal passage. SEA-41 Amend Revise to read: The Applicant shall consult with resource management agencies including the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and appropriate trail user groups, to develop and implement measures regarding provision, access and design of crossings for trail easements trails that intersect with the rail line. Consultation shall include concerns related to general dispersed use access, informal public trails on state land, blazed section lines section line easements and long stretches of rail line without designated public crossings. SEA-42 NR SEA-43 Retain SEA-44 NR SEA-45 NR SEA-46 Amend Change to: If the Surface Transportation Board authorizes the Mac West Segment, the Applicant shall consult with the ADF&G and DNR to develop and implement mitigation measures to address impacts to the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. Mitigation measures will include, but not be limited to, compensatory mitigation and public access to the refuge. SEA-47 Retain SEA-48 Retain SEA-49 Amend Include ADF&G SEA-50 NR SEA-51 NR SEA-52 Retain SEA-53 NR Attachment 2 ADF&G guidelines for Moose Mortality Mitigation (accommodates most other large wildlife ) • Provide undercrossings in areas of natural moose travel areas where possible, with a maximum spacing of one to two miles between undercrossings. • Place additional undercrossings in high use areas. • Provide an open line-of sight through undercrossings and under bridges. • Provide an openness of 2.0 or greater for moose undercrossings. • Reduce sound levels coming from above and echoes within undercrossing structures. • Provide upland (non-submerged and non-iced) corridors through and approaches to all undercrossings. • Provide suitable walking surface (e.g., cover rip-rap with soil) across the alignment. • Provide minimum of 12 feet clear opening above ground/snow line of sight (i.e., with 2 feet of snow cover need 14 feet clearance from ground surface). • Configure access road and railroad crossings separately with open space in between. Do not design one long undercrossing under both prisms. • Consider fencing or other measures to keep animals from entering area between the access road and railroad alignments. • Institute snow removal policy and procedures to eliminate berms that may block access across the alignment."Don Perrin · Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18161Marjorie McLarenMy husband and I own property on West Papoose Lake and are opposed to the construction of a rail line on Pt McKenzie that would seriously restrict recreational travel in the Matsu area. The ability to cross rail lines by snowmobile or other means would be greatly restricted, severely limiting winter access and activities in the area. Furthermore, the routes cross lots of wetlands, causing construction and ongoing maintenance issues and potential environmental damage from runoff and access roads. Further, we question the purpose and need for this project. The Port is not deepwater and will need to be dredged just like Anchorage. For two trains a day (forecast), those trains can go to Anchorage. There is no pressing need to build this rail line when one already exists that could absorb the volume. In summary, we oppose the project as being unnecessary, environmentally harmful, severely damaging to recreation in the area as well as being unnecessarily expensive for any benefit" received."Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18155Grace Whedbee
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18154Sharon L. Berg
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18153Douglas and Sharon Smole
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentLinda Oxley
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)CommentEI-18150Tara OneyIn Regards to STB 35095 As a resident for 12 years on Point Mackenzie I think that the railroads plan to follow the roads would be catastrophic to our quality of life. Noise pollution and danger to children and wild life in the area. Point Mackenzie is also a critical land to protect the run off into cook inlet. There are alternate routes they can take that would be healthier for residents and wild life.Point Mackenzie, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/10/2010)Comment
-
(printed as 5/9/2010)CommentEI-18152Kevin C. Berg
-
(printed as 5/9/2010)CommentEI-18148Daniel E. SmithMay 9, 2010 To: David Navecky STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20423-001 Re: Proposed Alaska Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie; Draft EIS After review of the Draft EIS it appears as if the Willow route makes the least sense from many perspectives. As noted in the Draft EIS, it is the most expensive, crosses the most streams and rivers and cuts through the most recreation areas. Of particular concern is the impact on Recreation Areas. On occasion we find a rare place worth more than another for some inherent qualities that exist within that area and we attempt to preserve those qualities and that area so that they may be enjoyed. Such is the case with the Recreation Areas that the Willow route proposes to cut through. The Draft EIS points out the obvious drawbacks, such as noise, vibration, negative hunting and wildlife impacts, access restriction across RR right of way (trespass) and other limitations that will be imposed on the recreation areas referenced. The affected recreation areas are close enough to population centers that they actually get used by many people for the purpose that they were intended and not as preserves or refuges where access is limited by a more remote situation. In short, people use and enjoy these places for the qualities they have to offer. I know of no one who currently defines their recreation activities in these areas to include the presence of a railroad. The Willow railroad spur will not enhance recreational activities. A railroad corridor through these recreational areas will in fact have an adverse affect on all recreation activities. Recreation, be it in the form of snowmachine riding, skiing, hunting, fishing, or just the quiet enjoyment of a unique area, is the purpose for which these Recreation Areas were established. Please select a route other than the Willow route. Sincerely, Daniel E. Smith 8945 Emerald Dr. Anchorage, Alaska 99502 (907) 244-1811Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/7/2010)CommentGreg Strong
-
(printed as 5/7/2010)CommentEI-18147Peter SedgwickAs a land owner in Point MacKenzie area I would like to make an input to the proposed railway extention in STB 35095. My major concern is the safety of the railway/road crossings. I feel the Mac West route would have the lowest impact on the residence and have the fewest vehicle driving across the track.Victorville, CA
-
(printed as 5/7/2010)CommentEI-18146Joan Egelandconcerning the port mackenzie rail extension project: I do not want the Houston alternative, I don't think any of the alternatives are ideal but especially not Houston. I don't like the fact that it separates state recreation areas that are highly used by people in the big lake area. I don't like the high impact it will have on the wetlands surrounding the area.Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 5/7/2010)CommentEI-18145Eric E EgelandThank you for all of your hard work. I am submitting my comments on what I desire to see as an outcome in the Pt. Mac project IF it is to happen. First off I am not in favor of the extension b/c of its impact on wetlands in the Valley. My biggest concern is that which ever rout is picked that the Houston Route be AVIODED IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I write my comments as a long time Alaska photographer and birder. I believe that the impact to wetlands would be disasterious to migratory bird habitat and life cycle. The area just east of the Papoose Lk area has many groups and populations of Trumpertor Swans, Sand Hill Cranes, many species of geese and to nurmourous of ducks to name. I am asking that the routes of Willow and Big Lake be choosen before the Houston route.Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 5/6/2010)CommentEI-18144John StrasenburghSTB Finance Docket 35095. To whom it may concern: These are my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska. STB Finance Docket 35095. If there is a build option, I support “Mac East” at the south end and “Houston South” at the north end. However, there is considerable question in my mind as to the financial viability of the rail extension. I have seen the “Benefit-Cost Assessment of the Port McKenzie Rail Extension,” prepared by Steve Colt and Nick Szymoniak, Institute of Social and Economic Research, dated March 10, 2008. I believe the assumptions that form the basis of this analysis are unrealistically optimistic (e.g., “coal to Agrium”) and that before proceeding to a build alternative, further cost-benefit analysis must be performed to confirm that this proposed extension makes financial sense. The only acceptable build option, in my opinion, is the “Mac East/Houston South” alternative. The DEIS considers Section 4(f) of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and discusses the impacts that a rail extension, under each alternative, on public parks, refuges, and recreation areas. Such impacts to 4(f) resources under the Mac West, Willow, and Houston North alternatives are significant and unacceptable, and these alternatives must be ruled out. Feasible alternatives exist in Mac East for the southern portion and Houston South for the northern portion, both of which have minimal impacts to 4(f) resources. Although the Big Lake alternative has minimal impacts to 4(f) resources, it has impacts to residences and archeological resources, where Houston South does not. Hence, if the rail extension is to be built, the Mac East/Houston South route is the only acceptable alternative, and is the only one I would support. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.Talkeetna, AK
-
(printed as 5/6/2010)CommentEI-18143Ken HilfikerIn the last days of the legislative session, approximately $57 million was added to pay for part of an environmental impact study and also part of the rail starting at the Point McKenzie dock heading North. This appropriation was made without public meeting or public input. Since no final decision has been made on the four options for the rail, one of which is do not build", I think the appropriation of funds is premature. If a decision to issue a permit is made in the future, the funds could be allocated at that time. South Central Alaska already has three deep water ports (Whittier, Seward, and Anchorage-which is only a couple miles from Point McKenzie) that are accessible by rail. Building a rail spur at Point McKenzie that has no permitted connection has the potential to be labeled the ”rail to nowhere” and an embarrassment to Alaskans and our government. In addition, I do not agree with the position of DNR as quoted in the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the Rail Extension to Point McKenzie stating that the Willow route which divides the Willow Creek and Nancy Lake State Recreation Areas has “no facilities or specific resources within that area that would be adversely affected”. Since I recreate in Nancy Lake State Recreation Area nearly every month of the year, I can tell you the noise from the current location of the railroad detracts from the wilderness experience I have on Red Shirt Lake. The current location of the track is 8 miles away. Putting a railroad within 1 mile of Red Shirt Lake will decrease the recreational experience in one of the Mat-su nicest recreation areas. Since the building of the rail is years away if at all, I feel there are more pressing needs for these state funds, such as the Bullet Gas Line. The bullet line will ensure continued diverse, economic growth to South Central Alaska and I prefer to be warm in my home in the next decade. Thank you for your consideration Ken Hilfiker"
-
(printed as 5/5/2010)CommentEI-18142Gary SwearerWe feel if a RR spur must be built, the MOST sensible route would be the Willow Route"."Wasilla, Alaska
-
(printed as 5/5/2010)CommentEI-18141Alaska Survival5/5/10 Comment on Draft EIS Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension To Point MacKenzie by the Alaska Railroad Corporation THIS IS TO SUPPORT THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF THIS RAIL EXTENSION WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT BY FEDERAL FUNDS. THIS SUBSIDIZED PROPOSAL THREATENS THE NON-RESOURCE EXTRACTIVE ECONOMY AND RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE RAILBELT. On the face of it, why would a mere 30 –48 mile new rail line threaten the integrity of the railbelt current economy? The current Alaska State and MatSu Borough administration desire this proposed project in order to jumpstart a mining and timber harvest boom along the railbelt and to expand the current Port MacKenzie. The administrations are inflating the number of construction jobs and the economic profit. The costs to our environment are not figured into their profits. This new rail does not promote long term growth and development because it will negatively impact the current economy of the Susitna Valley by bringing development and environmental destruction to fish and game habitat, water quality, dedicated and undedicated trail systems, structured and dispersed recreation areas, fishing and hunting. It will blow a hole through undeveloped forests now creating developed access that will cause irrevocable changes. The 2007 Mat Su Borough funded Cole report states that the non-consumptive uses of the resources in the borough exceed the consumptive uses by a ratio of about 20 to 1 which in dollars is $363 million in tourist expenditures compared to $18 million for consumptive uses such as commercial logging. The Alaska Department of fish and Game, Division of Sport Fishing has estimated that for 2007, in southcentral Alaska, $989 million($561million residents, $428 million non-residents) was spent by sport fishers on fishing trips, equipment, and development and maintenance of land use. The “Opportunity to go fishing has a value often difficult to measure in dollars. But it is an important part of the economy and a vital source of income to many in small towns and cities.” Why am I mentioning these figures for an area larger than the proposed extension? If this proposed rail is to jump start an industrial economy, then our current economy for the railbelt and the Mat Su Borough is affected by the cumulated impacts. This proposal would detrimentally lower the quality of life for the residents of Willow, Houston, and Big Lake by the noise and environmental pollution, and displacement of trails and homes. The money that has been spent on this whole process, and the subsidies to design and build the project would be better spent on developing the Port of Anchorage. The ARRC has an agenda to spray herbicides on their rail line as a vegetation control strategy. They are not dedicated to finding non-herbicide alternatives to control in spite of overwhelming majority public opinion and comment against herbicides. Thus, they will want to spray this new line and we will have to deal with these toxins ending up in our waters, fish and wildlife and our bodies causing much illness. A development project like this will cause the influx of invasive plant species. And since the powers that be have made this the new boogy man and provided many federal and state grants to fight such, eventually there will be herbicide applications to control invasive plants. Why was there no draft EIS plan in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek libraries since the cumulative impacts will affect these areas? This is a deficiency in the process. The National Marine Fisheries Service will be looking and commenting on the draft after the public comment period closed for the critical habitat designation for the Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. But the public will not have access to that comment. This is a deficiency in the process. In conclusion, the No Action Alternative is necessary for a project that will wipe out wetlands, property, rural living and recreational venue and non-extractive economies. There is no real economic justification besides being based on “long-term possibilities” of increasing an industrial economy. NO MITIGATION MEASURES COULD EVER BE ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSSES. Becky Long, Board of Director, Alaska Survival Box 320, Talkeetna AK 99676 Issues320@hotmail.com 5/5/10 Comment on Draft EIS Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension To Point MacKenzie by the Alaska Railroad Corporation THIS IS TO SUPPORT THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF THIS RAIL EXTENSION WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT BY FEDERAL FUNDS. THIS SUBSIDIZED PROPOSAL THREATENS THE NON-RESOURCE EXTRACTIVE ECONOMY AND RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE RAILBELT. On the face of it, why would a mere 30 –48 mile new rail line threaten the integrity of the railbelt current economy? The current Alaska State and MatSu Borough administration desire this proposed project in order to jumpstart a mining and timber harvest boom along the railbelt and to expand the current Port MacKenzie. The administrations are inflating the number of construction jobs and the economic profit. The costs to our environment are not figured into their profits. This new rail does not promote long term growth and development because it will negatively impact the current economy of the Susitna Valley by bringing development and environmental destruction to fish and game habitat, water quality, dedicated and undedicated trail systems, structured and dispersed recreation areas, fishing and hunting. It will blow a hole through undeveloped forests now creating developed access that will cause irrevocable changes. The 2007 Mat Su Borough funded Cole report states that the non-consumptive uses of the resources in the borough exceed the consumptive uses by a ratio of about 20 to 1 which in dollars is $363 million in tourist expenditures compared to $18 million for consumptive uses such as commercial logging. The Alaska Department of fish and Game, Division of Sport Fishing has estimated that for 2007, in southcentral Alaska, $989 million($561million residents, $428 million non-residents) was spent by sport fishers on fishing trips, equipment, and development and maintenance of land use. The “Opportunity to go fishing has a value often difficult to measure in dollars. But it is an important part of the economy and a vital source of income to many in small towns and cities.” Why am I mentioning these figures for an area larger than the proposed extension? If this proposed rail is to jump start an industrial economy, then our current economy for the railbelt and the Mat Su Borough is affected by the cumulated impacts. This proposal would detrimentally lower the quality of life for the residents of Willow, Houston, and Big Lake by the noise and environmental pollution, and displacement of trails and homes. The money that has been spent on this whole process, and the subsidies to design and build the project would be better spent on developing the Port of Anchorage. The ARRC has an agenda to spray herbicides on their rail line as a vegetation control strategy. They are not dedicated to finding non-herbicide alternatives to control in spite of overwhelming majority public opinion and comment against herbicides. Thus, they will want to spray this new line and we will have to deal with these toxins ending up in our waters, fish and wildlife and our bodies causing much illness. A development project like this will cause the influx of invasive plant species. And since the powers that be have made this the new boogy man and provided many federal and state grants to fight such, eventually there will be herbicide applications to control invasive plants. Why was there no draft EIS plan in the Talkeetna and Trapper Creek libraries since the cumulative impacts will affect these areas? This is a deficiency in the process. The National Marine Fisheries Service will be looking and commenting on the draft after the public comment period closed for the critical habitat designation for the Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. But the public will not have access to that comment. This is a deficiency in the process. In conclusion, the No Action Alternative is necessary for a project that will wipe out wetlands, property, rural living and recreational venue and non-extractive economies. There is no real economic justification besides being based on “long-term possibilities” of increasing an industrial economy. NO MITIGATION MEASURES COULD EVER BE ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSSES. Becky Long, Board of Director, Alaska Survival Box 320, Talkeetna AK 99676 Issues320@hotmail.comBecky Long · Talkeetna, AK
-
(printed as 5/3/2010)CommentEI-18140Duane ManeyI have reviewed the EIS for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension and it appears very obvious that the Willow route has the most severe negative impact to the environment in many accounts. It would have huge impacts to all classes of wetlands as well as several creek crossings. The Willow corridor would disrupt prime basically untouched wilderness/forested areas with huge impacts to wildlife. The Houston and Big Lake routes are through fairly populated and developed areas. The Big Lake route would have little impact to the environment, and Houston route would have slightly more impact but still nothing as severe as the Willow route. The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area is a very pristine natural park full of wildlife and scenic Alaskan beauty, but still within close proximity to communities, and also with good accessibility. The State Of Alaska DNR has performed a wonderful job throughout the decades preseverving its beauty and pristiness. Accessing and exploring the park is like going back in time. Its quiet and serene, in a very theraputic way. Constructing a railroad adjacent to it would be a travesty to say the least. Building a railway to a dock that is really unwarranted since we already have rails to three deep water ports in the southcentral area seems like a waste of time and money. The Willow route is also the most expensive and time consuming due to both permitting and construction procedures, having to build through wetlands and creek crossings. As you can tell I am very much opposed to the Willow route, and actually opposed to the extension project in its entirety. I know that the MSB is in a financial bind with many problems to resolve in their fast gromwing communities, therefore I see the railway as a way for them to make revenue in many areas once it is built. However at the stake of ruining a very special wonderful piece of Alaskan splender it is not worth the price we would pay in the end for the loss. It would be a shame. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your consideration in regard to my concerns. Duane ManeyAnchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/29/2010)CommentEI-18138E. Joe GriffithLetter re: Comments on DEIS Alaska Railroad Corp. Construction and Operation of Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaksa (2 pg letter and 2 attachments).Palmer, AK
-
(printed as 4/29/2010)CommentEI-18134Julie PetersonThe use of the area around our cabins will be destroyed if they put the railroad inside this recreational area. From the environmental way of looking at it, I would like to make the following coments. 1- The railroad bed will create a dam" that is 35 miles long. This will keep the surface and ground water from flowing as it is now. We will have more wet lands with big puddles of water. The Willow route is mostly predominately morine soil were the Houston routes are predominately bog and out wash. The Bourgh informed the Alaska Fish and Game that they would have to build bridges over any wet lands that were identified as "bog" or 'out wash." The Willow Route is along a glacial moraine that is above the water table and has less chance of impact on the lakes, rivers or wells. 2- There are more cultural and historic sites along the Huston route. 3- The displacement of wildlife is about the same for the Willow and the Huston route. However the Loons in Crooked lake will be effected by the noise and most likely not mate or lay their eggs. 4- The railroad would directly affect private property within several miles of the route with noise and vibration, restricting recreational use of trails, additional safety issure and visual impact; not to mention the potential of spills in a populated area. Property value will be reduced, quality of life will decrease, and the quiet enjoyment of our land will be effected. So why put the railroad were it effects the most people? Very few people would be effected by the Willow route."
-
(printed as 4/28/2010)CommentEI-18135Ed Manning II
-
(printed as 4/28/2010)CommentEI-18132Radlinski, Nicholas J.I can't help but to believe as a resident of the locale where the Port Mac RR extension is under consideration that it is a foolish waste of time and resources when the road system is readily available. If more freight is needed to be moved, than more trucking would adequately solve the problem. The roads are not overcrowded, so my vote will be to scrap the project in it's entirety as folly. Sincerely, Nicholas J. RadlinskiHouston, AK
-
(printed as 4/28/2010)CommentEO-1465Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/27/2010)CommentEI-18133Jim Sawhill
-
(printed as 4/22/2010)CommentEI-18131Kenneth Farmerin Chater 11 - Grade Safety and Crossing Delay, You publish a schedule of expected delays at anticipated road crossing. For connector 3 you identify two road crossings; Ayrshire Avenue and West Carpenter Lake Road. However, in actual fact, The connector crosses three roads, Ayrshire Road, West Carpenter Lake Road, and Farmers road, all within the space if a half mile. No Mention is made of the crossing of Farmers road which woul occur within one hundred yards of the crossing of West carpenter Lake Road. Farmers Road is perpendicular to Aryshire Road and is used as an access Road to several homes on or near Carpenter Lake. If the connector 3 route were to shift a couple of hundred yards to the west and south, it would only need to cross one road, Ayrshire road, saving two unnecessary and extremely inconvenient crossings.Wasilla, AK
-
(printed as 4/22/2010)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 4/21/2010)CommentEI-18127Toby RiddellLocating the rail adjacent to Point MacKenzie Road would create several problems with development of our community. The Point MacKenzie Comprehensive Plan identifies the area around the “T” intersection at Point MacKenzie Road and Ayrshire Road as the best location to develop a community town center. Situating the rail next to Point MacKenzie Road would prohibit development to the West side of the road and promote “strip type” development from the intersection all the way to Port MacKenzie on the East side of the road. The Point MacKenzie Community Council supports the Mac West route since it would have the least impact on our growth and allow better access for residents, business, and visitors. Wasilla and Palmer are both trying to relocate or abandon rails through their cities due to traffic congestion and access problems. Our home on Carpenter Lake is off of Farmers Road and we would have to cross the rail twice (Mac East/Connector 3) in order to get to work and back home if both crossings are “on grade”. Although we sincerely welcome and support the economic opportunities associated with the rail line, it is important to plan for the growth of our community in order to avoid or limit negative impacts from development. Toby and Kay Riddell 12503 S. Farmers Rd. Wasilla, AK 99654 (907) 373-7768Wasilla, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/21/2010)CommentEI-18104Otto Rebischke
-
(printed as 4/19/2010)CommentEI-18103Dana L. Olson
-
(printed as 4/19/2010)CommentEI-18102Sandra D. Berean
-
(printed as 4/19/2010)CommentEI-18098Lev ShvartsAs a landowner in Willow, I'm very concerned about both the environmental impact of the proposed branch through Willow, and the loss of trail access and recreational opportunities the branch through Willow will undoubtedly bring. This would be a devastating loss to a community that caters to recreational interests, and the loss of trail access would be disastrous. I'm deeply against running the proposed rail line through Willow. Houston wants it, give it to them. Don't run it through Willow.Winchendon, MA
-
(printed as 4/15/2010)CommentEI-18101Ray Debenham
-
(printed as 4/15/2010)CommentEI-18100John G.R. Wolfe
-
(printed as 4/14/2010)CommentEI-18199Knik - April 14, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/14/2010)Comment
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18198Willow - April 13, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18125Nina Zwahlen
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18120Victor Stanculescu
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18118Daniel N. Russell
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18114Duane Nixon
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18110Lynda Barcome
-
(printed as 4/13/2010)CommentEI-18095James FaiksI understand that the primary objective of this rail extension is to facilitate the movement of freight between interior Alaska and a port. Since the Anchorage port is further away and has very little land for staging industrial projects, extending the RR to the port at MacKenzie does make sense. I believe the Willow route should be selected for the following reasons: 1. It is the most direct route from the interior to a port. 2. It has the least impact on dedicated recreational trails. 3. It crosses or impacts less private property than the other 2 routes. 4. It will not cross any major roads, and only a few minor ones. 5. Although this route requires the construction of more rail miles, the reduced cost of road and trail crossings and the fewer land condemnations and conflicts with private land owners could make it the most cost effective route. 6. If a road were to be constructed later adjacent to the Rail, it would greatly reduce commercial traffic though downtown Big Lake. 7. As the port becomes more successful, increased Rail traffic to it along the Willow route will be the least disruptive for the majority of the population. 8. The Willow route follows a glacier moraine and might avoid more wet lands than the other two routes. I encourage you to select the Willow route.Big Lake, AK
-
(printed as 4/12/2010)CommentGrace Whedbee
-
(printed as 4/12/2010)CommentJohn Himmelright
-
(printed as 4/12/2010)CommentEI-18197Houston - April 12, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/12/2010)CommentEI-18115Big Lake Community CouncilWilliam O'Hara
-
(printed as 4/12/2010)CommentEI-18096Douglas DebenhamRe: Houston south route for the railroad. Please do not use this route for the railway. There are many cabins and recreational areas on this route that would be adversely affected. I have spent the last almost forty years of my life enjoying the areas around crooked lake in particular. Please give careful consideration to the Willow route as this would affect fewer people. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this request. Sincerely, Douglas R. Debenham, M.D.Eagle River, AK
-
(printed as 4/11/2010)CommentEI-18094Lynndeen KnappThe option that should be taken out of the picture is the Big Lake route. There is most environmental and cultural damage with this path. There are the wetlands, moose habitat, cranes nesting in this area to be considered. There is the other things such as spliting up the neighborhood, safety with the school and finally the sound carries so far in the quiet of the winter. Please concider the Willow option with more distance from Red shirt Lake. Thank you LynndeenBig Lake, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/9/2010)CommentDuring the April 7, 2010 Public Hearing held in Big Lake, Alaska regarding the MacKenzie railroad project on the STB draft EIS, the STB was asked by the audience if they had seen or read the 2009 Big Lake Comprehensive Plan. Enclosed is the PDF document of the Big Lake Final Plan that the community developed for the long term (20+ year) vision and recommended developments for the Big Lake community. This plan was developed and adopted by Big Lake community stakeholders over many years, extensively reviewed in Public Hearings, and endorsed in 2009 by the Mat-Su Assembly under ordinance as the guiding community planning document. The document can be found online at http://ww1.matsugov.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1906&It emid=238 and it is also attached electronically for the public record and your consideration. This official planning document for Big Lake is a detailed all-encompassing community planning tool, including existing and future trail strategies that are entirely consistent with the presentation and recommendations made by Big Lake Trails, Inc. (Dan Kruse, Vice President), which is also enclosed in PDF format for your reference and record. Please review the comprehensive planning document as you consider this very important decision as it accurately reflects the opinions and sentiments of the majority in Big Lake and what you heard and was submitted at the Big Lake Public Hearing held on April 7, 2010 with the STB regarding the draft rail project EIS. Restating our April 7, 2010 position, Big Lake Trails, Inc. supports the Willow rail route, with the Big Lake route as a poor second choice, and completely opposes any and all of the Houston rail routes given the severe impacts it will have to the existing MSB approved historic and regionally significant recreational trail system and to a large segment of greater Big Lake area private property owners. Sincerely, Dan Kruse Vice President Big Lake Trails, Inc. trails@biglaketrails.org www.biglaketrails.orgDan Kruse · Big Lake, AK
-
(printed as 4/9/2010)CommentEI-18092Royce R. Rock
-
(printed as 4/8/2010)CommentEI-18196Wasilla - April 8, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/8/2010)CommentEI-18124Yvonne Sumner
-
(printed as 4/8/2010)CommentEI-18117Richard C. Sumner
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18195Big Lake - April 7, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18126Noreen Austermuhl
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18123Mike Whedbee
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18122Greg Strong
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18121Gregory E. Strong
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18113Big Lake Trails, Inc.Dan Mayfield
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18111Bryan and Lori Ladd
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18091Phillip SaundersJust writing to say I'm in full support of the Alaska rail line extension to Port MacKenzie. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.Anchorage, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/7/2010)CommentEI-18090Greg Strong
-
(printed as 4/6/2010)CommentMike Whedbee
-
(printed as 4/6/2010)CommentEI-18194Anchorage - April 6, 2010Public Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 4/6/2010)CommentEI-18119Lincon L. Snow, Sr.
-
(printed as 4/6/2010)CommentEI-18116Stuart C. Rader
-
(printed as 4/6/2010)CommentEI-18112Marc Lind
-
(printed as 4/5/2010)CommentEI-18089Ben DemboskiSTB Finance Docket 35095 Alaska Railroad Point Mckenzie rail extension. Please do not build this Extenxion to Willow Alaska. it will cross parklands and ruin Hunting and fishing in the area. My family depends on the Moose and Salmon I get every year from this area. Houston Alaska is a better choice. Respectfully, Ben DemboskiChugiak, Alaska
-
(printed as 4/1/2010)CommentKit Brandt
-
(printed as 3/30/2010)CommentEI-18078Alaska State LegislatureRepresentative Paul Seaton
-
(printed as 3/28/2010)CommentEI-18076Howard HancockDraft EIS - Alaska Railroad - Port MacKenzie Rail Extension: As a property owner in Willow, AK, the major impacts for me are from 1)train/rail noise, both from initial construction and ongoing future operations and 2)Parks and Recreational/Trails resources. Noise of course will increase for all build alternatives, but the swamps in the Willow route will carry and echo train sound more than other wooded routes to Houston or Big Lake would. Per the DEIS noise would have severe" impacts. More parks and recreational trails will be impacted in the Willow area than in other areas, per the DEIS. I am a frequent winter user of the parks and trails in the Willow area and do not want to see them bisected and disrupted by a rail line. My preference is to see the Mac East, Conn 3, Houston, Houston South or Houston North alternatives. This route would have the least impact on recreational park and trail users and would not impact or create crossings over the Parks highway or Big Lake Road or Willow Creek."
-
(printed as 3/19/2010)CommentEI-18073John PetersThis Railroad Connection 2 will run right thru my house and my business and storage yard , I oppose this direction for your unneeded spur. Even if it didn't go thru my house and property I would still oppose all the noise pollution that it would bring. I am over a mile away from the main line right now and can hear it's noise. There are alot of houses around here and the most logical route would be the Conn 3 . There is nobody out there. I am sure if you pick conn. 2 you will be meet by protest . My wife and myself have close to thirty years invested in these business's and house and will not just give it away without a fight. John + Teresa Peters Lakeway Woods block 1 lots 11,12,13 (907) 892-7108 (WE HATE NOISE) No On Connection 2 It will go through our storage yard Home and consignment business. This is for our retirement, PLEASE don't go this way. Teresa PetersBig Lake, Alaska
-
(printed as 3/19/2010)CommentEI-18072John PetersThis Railroad Connection 2 will run right thru my house and my business and storage yard , I oppose this direction for your unneeded spur. Even if it didn't go thru my house and property I would still oppose all the noise pollution that it would bring. I am over a mile away from the main line right now and can hear it's noise. There are alot of houses around here and the most logical route would be the Conn 3 . There is nobody out there. I am sure if you pick conn. 2 you will be meet by protest . My wife and myself have close to thirty years invested in these business's and house and will not just give it away without a fight. John + Teresa Peters Lakeway Woods block 1 lots 11,12,13 (907) 892-7108 (WE HATE NOISE)Big Lake, Alaska
-
(printed as 3/18/2010)CommentEO-1463Recipients of the Draft EISDraft EIS, Chapter 22, Draft EIS Circulation List
-
served (printed as 3/16/2010)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, AND OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE DRAFT EIS IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 3/16/2010)CommentOffice of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section
-
(printed as 3/11/2010)CommentJames Balsinger
-
(printed as 2/24/2010)CommentEI-18068Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/22/2010)CommentMelinda O'Donnell
-
(printed as 2/18/2010)CommentEI-18067Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/16/2010)CommentMelinda O'Donnell
-
(printed as 2/16/2010)CommentLinda Brenner
-
(printed as 2/5/2010)CommentEI-18065Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/3/2010)CommentLinda Brenner
-
(printed as 2/3/2010)CommentEO-1419Dorsey Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/3/2010)CommentEO-1418Dorsey & Whitney LLPKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/31/2009)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 12/22/2009)CommentEI-18007Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/14/2009)CommentEI-17988Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/25/2009)CommentRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 11/9/2009)CommentDonald Perrin
-
(printed as 11/9/2009)CommentLinda Brenner
-
(printed as 10/29/2009)CommentEI-17987Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/20/2009)CommentEI-17986Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Brown
-
(printed as 10/16/2009)CommentEI-17985Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/9/2009)CommentEO-1370Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 10/9/2009)CommentEO-1369Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/2/2009)CommentEI-17984Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/13/2009)CommentEO-1368Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 8/12/2009)CommentMargie Goatley
-
served (printed as 7/17/2009)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
-
(printed as 7/2/2009)CommentToby Riddell
-
(printed as 6/25/2009)CommentEI-17983Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/15/2009)CommentEI-17982Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 5/26/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 4/13/2009)CommentEO-1373NoneRobert Chlupach
-
(printed as 4/13/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 3/31/2009)CommentEI-17979Gary Thompson
-
(printed as 3/31/2009)CommentEI-17978Eklutna, Inc.Curtis McQuenn
-
(printed as 3/20/2009)CommentEO-1365Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 3/18/2009)CommentEI-17977Willow Creek Historical SocietyF. LeRoi Heaven
-
(printed as 3/4/2009)CommentEI-18565NOAA - Alaska RegionRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 3/2/2009)CommentEI-17976Willow Dog Mushers AssociationErin McLarnon
-
served (printed as 2/27/2009)Decision39748SecretaryDECISION INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502(B).
-
(printed as 2/9/2009)CommentEO-1364Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 2/6/2009)CommentAnn Rappaport
-
(printed as 2/5/2009)CommentEO-1362Various Tribal OrganizationsVarious Tribal Organizations as Potential Section 106 Consulting Parties
-
(printed as 2/5/2009)CommentEO-1361Various Interested PartiesPotential Consulting Parties in the Section 106 Process
-
(printed as 2/5/2009)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 1/30/2009)CommentEO-1359Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/30/2009)CommentKaja Brix
-
(printed as 1/27/2009)CommentEI-17972Ray Debenham
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-17975Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/26/2009)CommentEI-17974Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/14/2009)CommentEI-17973Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/6/2009)CommentEI-17971Matanuska-Susitna BoroughJohn Duffy
-
(printed as 12/31/2008)CommentEO-1357Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/31/2008)CommentEO-1356Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/5/2008)Motion224121Petition For ExemptionAlaska Railroad Corporation
-
(printed as 11/18/2008)CommentEmerson Krueger
-
(printed as 10/6/2008)CommentEI-15639Knikatnu, Inc.Raymond Theodore
-
(printed as 9/29/2008)CommentEO-1355Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 9/16/2008)CommentEI-17969Native Village of TyonekEthan Kaufman
-
(printed as 8/15/2008)CommentEI-13282Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 7/23/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 7/3/2008)CommentEI-13283Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 6/19/2008)CommentJudith Bittner
-
(printed as 6/2/2008)CommentEI-17968Shaun Debenham
-
(printed as 5/29/2008)CommentLinda Oxley
-
(printed as 5/29/2008)CommentEI-7364Friends of the LakesGrace Whedbee
-
(printed as 5/27/2008)CommentEI-7363Roy Debenham
-
(printed as 5/13/2008)CommentEO-1060Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/24/2008)CommentEI-7198Lance Baskin
-
(printed as 4/22/2008)CommentEI-13281Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/21/2008)CommentMaureen de Zeeuw
-
(printed as 4/17/2008)CommentEO-1354Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/16/2008)CommentMaureen de Zeeuw
-
(printed as 4/15/2008)CommentEI-7362Lance Baskin
-
(printed as 4/14/2008)CommentEI-7116Greg Strong
-
(printed as 4/10/2008)CommentEI-13280Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 4/2/2008)CommentEI-7055John F. Donohue
-
(printed as 3/31/2008)CommentEI-7054Leslie W. Hosek
-
(printed as 3/25/2008)CommentEI-7001Talkeetna Community CouncilPlease see attached letter, also copied here: David Navecky STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Surface Transportation Board 395 E. Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20423 March 21, 2008 Dear Sir: At its regular meeting on March 3, 2008, the Talkeetna Community Council, Inc. Board agreed to send you the following initial comment on the draft Scope of Study/ARRC proposed alternatives for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension. We agree with and support the Willow Area Community Organization (WACO) in its opposition to the routing of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension through the community of Willow (Railroad Corridor #3). This route has a potential for serious negative impacts in that it crosses numerous high-use community trails and a large number of anadromous fish streams in area west of Willow. Thank you for considering our input. Sincerely, Ellen M. Wolf Secretary Talkeetna Community Council P.O. Box 608 Talkeetna, AK 99676Ellen Wolf · Talk, Alaska
-
(printed as 3/25/2008)CommentEI-6999Robert StumpRobert Stump 8133 Summerset Dr. Anchorage Alaska,99518 907-563-0326 David Navecky STB Finance Docket No. FD-35095-0 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 205423 I am commenting on the rail connection to Port Mackenzie. To Whom it may concern: I am a long-time resident of Alaska and I have some concerns about the proposed routes for the railroad. I live in Anchorage and own a business there also. In the summer, me, my wife and children enjoy boating and jetskiing in the Big Lake and Willow areas. In the winter we go snow machining in both areas as well. My parents and two sisters live in the Wasilla/Houston areas, as well as my daughter-in-law and two young grandchildren. So, I care very much for the the Valley's development as well as Quality of Lifestyle and Living". I have several concerns about the proposed railroad route. I want to focus on the "Water Resources". The proposed railroad dissects the watershed drainage, and will act as a dam to interrupt the natural flow of surface water. Most of the public land is wetlands. The Wetlands support a plethora of plants and wildlife, as well as the habitat and breeding area. In 2006, rainwater made the lakes rise 18.75", thus, overtopping the lakes. Because there is no public water utility in the area, All are on private wells. Any pollution could contaminate the water supply for the entire area. Since I have so many family members living out in the Valley, I am concerned for their health, if this railroad goes in. I have studied all of the proposed routes, and the direct route to Willow (the one to the west) route makes the most logical sense. This route appears to have the least impact on private land and the least impact on the lake systems and the Trails. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Robert Stump 8133 Summerset Drive. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 907-563-9326"
-
(printed as 3/24/2008)CommentEI-6978Steve & Marian Charles
-
(printed as 3/24/2008)CommentMary Anderson
-
(printed as 3/24/2008)CommentEI-6973Patrick L. Sharrock
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7011Steve Charles
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7008Friends of the LakesPlease find attached the fourth set of pages of petitions with around 600 signatures from the people who live and recreate in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. These signatures were gathered in just over a week. There was no door-to-door canvassing or booths set up. The petitions were merely set on counters in a few shops and carried by local property owners. The fact that almost everyone who saw the petition signed it with no pressure or additional information (other than the route alternatives map), should demonstrate that the majority of citizens are in favor of the Willow route which has been the official preferred route since 2002. The original signatures will be sent USPS. Additional petitions will be sent later as they are crossing in the mail.Grace Whedbee · Big Lake, Ak
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7007Friends of the LakesPlease find attached the third set of pages of petitions with around 600 signatures from the people who live and recreate in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. These signatures were gathered in just over a week. There was no door-to-door canvassing or booths set up. The petitions were merely set on counters in a few shops and carried by local property owners. The fact that almost everyone who saw the petition signed it with no pressure or additional information (other than the route alternatives map), should demonstrate that the majority of citizens are in favor of the Willow route which has been the official preferred route since 2002. The original signatures will be sent USPS. Additional petitions will be sent later as they are crossing in the mail.Grace Whedbee · Big Lake, Ak
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7006Friends of the LakesPlease find attached the second set of pages of petitions with around 600 signatures from the people who live and recreate in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. These signatures were gathered in just over a week. There was no door-to-door canvassing or booths set up. The petitions were merely set on counters in a few shops and carried by local property owners. The fact that almost everyone who saw the petition signed it with no pressure or additional information (other than the route alternatives map), should demonstrate that the majority of citizens are in favor of the Willow route which has been the official preferred route since 2002. The original signatures will be sent USPS. Additional petitions will be sent later as they are crossing in the mail.Grace Whedbee · Big Lake, Ak
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7005Friends of the LakesPlease find attached the first pages of petitions with around 600 signatures from the people who live and recreate in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. These signatures were gathered in just over a week. There was no door-to-door canvassing or booths set up. The petitions were merely set on counters in a few shops and carried by local property owners. The fact that almost everyone who saw the petition signed it with no pressure or additional information (other than the route alternatives map), should demonstrate that the majority of citizens are in favor of the Willow route which has been the official preferred route since 2002. The original signatures will be sent USPS. Additional petitions will be sent later as they are crossing in the mail.Grace Whedbee · Big Lake, Ak
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7004Kevin FrankI would like to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed Houston South route for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Project. We own a recreational property nearby and have serious concerns about the impact of having a railway so close. Please keep in mind that this area has many recreational and permanent residents. While we recreate there at our 'weekend' residence, we may one day live there full time. If we did, this would be in keeping with the high rate of growth in the Big Lake area. Continued development needs to be considered not just the present state of the area. We have seen many changes in the recent past and expect the same to continue. While we don't strive to halt 'progress' we worry about how the presence of the rails and their use might compromise the quality of our lives and the value of our property. The area is well known for its winter recreation opportunities. Snow machining is a popular activity. Trails follow former seismic lines and transit the area connecting rural and 'road based' properties. In this instance, the rails will offer a dangerous interruption of existing trails. With young riders in the family, we would prefer there not be any additional distractions, obstacles or hazards. Considering the comment 'impacts fewer developed parcels’, please consider current AND future 'developed' parcels. We are there now and 'fewer' doesn't offer much consultation. Also, the comment 'avoids designated state refuges and recreation areas' doesn't hold as much sway with us as we use much of the public land that is NOT 'designated' and thus are disproportionately impacted. Consider the true future costs of 'moderate expenditure of train energy'. With skyrocketing fuel prices, 'moderate’ could become 'significant'. Also, consider the likely real costs of soil conditions. It would probably be wise to investigate this more thoroughly before making a decision. In short, we do not support the Houston South route since it most greatly impacts us and may represent a greater cost than estimated. Look at future land use projects and population distributions instead of using a static (and likely dated) model of what is 'developed'. We moved out to the area to enjoy the peace and quiet that Anchorage sometimes doesn't offer. We didn't bargain for a railway so near by. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this matter.Anchorage, AK
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)Comment
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-7000Brian GrenierHi, Just commenting that the proposed railway will impact the native moose population to a high degree during years of high snowfall. The moose will seek the railway as it is easier to walk on that route. Once on the railway, they are reluctant to move off as it is difficult to get back up again. Perhaps non-lethal means of removing the moose off the railway could be considered.Willow, AK
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6996Kenneth WhedbeeBig Lake, Ak
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6987Friends of the LakesJames Pereira
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6986Doug and Shari Smole
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6984Doug Smole
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6983Karen Nugen-Logan
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentMelissa Whitaker
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentRobert Mecum
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6980Donna Quante
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentDon Perrin
-
(printed as 3/21/2008)CommentEI-6972Kevin C. Berg
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)Comment
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)CommentEI-6994Wanda Sue StumpWanda Sue Stump 8133 Summerset Dr. Anchorage Alaska,99518 907-349-4672 David Navecky STB Finance Docket No. 35095 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 205423 I am commenting on the rail connection to Port Mackenzie. To Whom it may concern: I am a life-time resident of Alaska and I have some concerns about the proposed routes for the railroad. I live in Anchorage and have a business here also. My family, along with my employees, recreate frequently in the Big Lake, and the Willow area. We Boat and Jet Ski and do winter Snow Machining in both areas. We do spend more time in the Big Lake area than in the Willow area, as it is easier and shorter distance than Willow. Since I have lived in Alaska all my life, I have watched the Valley develop. The new rail will foster new development along the route, no matter which route is picked. It will also provide a new route for snow machines, and atv's. I was born 9 months after the 1964 Earthquake" and saw pictures of what happened to my parent's property here in Anchorage after that earthquake. Because of that, I have always been concerned about Earthquakes. The Castle Mountain earthquake fault concerns me with this new railroad going in. It appears that the Houston South route is right over that fault. I wouldn't think this would be a prudent choice, not to mention the proposed rail bed runs through a lot of critical wetlands. I have studied all of the proposed routes, and the direct route to Willow (the one to the west) route makes the most logical sense. This route appears to have the least impact on private land and the least impact on the lake systems and the Trails. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Wanda Sue Stump 8133 Summerset Drive. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 907-349-4672"
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)CommentEI-6988Sven and Andrea Haltmann
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)CommentEI-6985Gary Thompson
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)CommentEI-6971Kevin C. Berg
-
(printed as 3/20/2008)CommentEI-6970Daniel Robertson
-
(printed as 3/18/2008)CommentEI-6976Benjamin David Demboski
-
(printed as 3/18/2008)CommentEI-6975Jill Aho
-
(printed as 3/18/2008)CommentEI-6974Dave Demboski
-
(printed as 3/17/2008)CommentEI-6771Friends of the LakesBen and Laurie Northey
-
(printed as 3/17/2008)CommentEI-6767Alaska Railroad CorporationStephenie Wheeler
-
(printed as 3/17/2008)CommentEI-6751Cynthia Davis
-
(printed as 3/17/2008)CommentEI-6749Kevin C. Berg
-
(printed as 3/12/2008)CommentEI-6761Friends of the LakesRick Scott
-
(printed as 3/12/2008)CommentEI-6752Jean C. Payne
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7086Kevin Hite
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7085Cindy Hite
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7084Byron Kohfield
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7083Tom Fondell
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7082Debbie Lurk
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7081Ron Lurk
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7080Jerry Hupp
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7079Martha A. Valliant
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7078Bill Seitz
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7077Ed Barber
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7076Pat Barber
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-7069Anchorage Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-6762Friends of the LakesSusan & Mike Cuzzocreo
-
(printed as 3/11/2008)CommentEI-6757Patrick L. Sharrock
-
(printed as 3/10/2008)CommentEI-7072Wasilla Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/10/2008)CommentLinda Oxley
-
(printed as 3/10/2008)CommentEI-6750Grace Whedbee
-
(printed as 3/10/2008)Comment
-
(printed as 3/8/2008)CommentEI-6765Friends of the LakesRoss Clement
-
(printed as 3/8/2008)CommentEI-6764Freinds of the LakesCarolyn McClintock
-
(printed as 3/8/2008)CommentEI-6763Friends of the LakesDeanna Swaney
-
(printed as 3/7/2008)CommentEI-6759Gregory E. Strong
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-7114Ken Thorall
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-7113Lance Wilson
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-7112Dana Olson
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-7111Jill Parson
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-7073Houston Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-6755Brenda Jager
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-6754George Howard
-
(printed as 3/6/2008)CommentEI-6753Kenneth Farmer
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-17966Matanuska-Susitna BoroughLynne Woods, Robert Wells, John Duffy
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7105Paul McLarnon
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7104Harry Banks
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7103Brenda McCain
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7102Willow Chamber of CommerceJim Huston
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7101Pat Eckhoff
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7100Charles Wade
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7099Sarah Richardson
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7098Tony DeLucia
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7097Erin McLarnon
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7096Mellissa Williams
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentErin McLarnon
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-7071Willow Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/5/2008)CommentEI-6748Bob Chlupach
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7094Kevin Berg
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7093Jill Pock
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7092Mary J. Walter
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7091Tina Cardoso
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7090Noreen Austermuhl
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7089Lance Wilson
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7088Dana Olson
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7087Houston CouncilmemberRoger Purcell
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-7070Big Lake Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/4/2008)CommentEI-6758Gregory E. Strong
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-17967Pat Wilson
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-7110Brian Twohy
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-7108Joseph Roche
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-7107Koreen Robinson
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-7074Knik Scoping MeetingScoping Meeting Transcripts
-
(printed as 3/3/2008)CommentEI-6756David Wurts and TC Wait
-
(printed as 2/28/2008)CommentEI-6760Gregory E. Strong
-
(printed as 2/28/2008)CommentEI-5832Wes Hamrick
-
(printed as 2/20/2008)CommentSerena Sweet
-
(printed as 2/20/2008)CommentDonald Perrin
-
(printed as 2/17/2008)CommentEI-5978Steve WisdorfI have 2 major concerns about the Houston routes. These routes pass through the Big Lake Recreational Area and by Horseshoe and West Lake. 1. These two lakes are at the beginning of one of the drainage systems in the area. The lakes are feed directly from the wetland swamps that the rail road will pass through. Also these rainbow trout lakes are a still a few that are not yet invaded by Northern Pike. This railroad on this route would act as a dam and would affect the water flow, temperature, and water level of these two lakes and probably others in the surrounding area and down stream. This would affect the quality of life and create environmental damage. 2. Big Lake is the premier recreation area in the Mat-su Borough. It is also a rapidly growing area. Putting a railroad through this area will create conflict with snow machines and will create noise pollution. This route is passing directly through the most populated and quickest growing areas of all the routes selected. With a growing population and the area with of most use, this route will have the most adverse affects on the community.Anchorage, Alaska
-
served (printed as 2/12/2008)DecisionDECISION PROVIDED (1) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; (2) NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; (3) NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETINGS; AND (4) REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT SCOPE.
-
(printed as 2/12/2008)CommentTribal Scoping Letter
-
(printed as 2/12/2008)CommentAgency Scoping Letter
-
(printed as 1/30/2008)CommentEI-5831Gregory Strong
-
(printed as 1/14/2008)CommentEI-5830Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/14/2008)CommentEI-5829Cathi Kramer and Bill O'Hara
-
(printed as 1/4/2008)CommentEO-1059Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 1/4/2008)CommentEO-811Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/28/2007)CommentEI-5828Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 12/10/2007)CommentEI-5827Gregory Strong
-
(printed as 12/3/2007)CommentEI-5826Gregory Strong
-
(printed as 11/21/2007)CommentEO-810Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/13/2007)CommentEI-5825Mayer BrownKathryn Kusske Floyd
-
(printed as 11/1/2007)CommentEI-5824Big Lake Chamber of CommerceMarcy Coman
-
(printed as 10/24/2007)CommentEI-5823Big Lake Community CouncilWilliam O'Hara
Nothing of that kind in this docket.