Comment EI-18143
Received or sent (printed as 5/6/2010)
In 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"
Submitted by: Ken Hilfiker
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-18143 · back to the docket sheet