Comment EI-18141
Received or sent (printed as 5/5/2010)
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.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.com
Submitted by: Becky Long · Alaska Survival · Talkeetna, AK
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35095/comment/EI-18141 · back to the docket sheet