STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER SOUTHCENTRAL REGION

Transcription

1 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER SOUTHCENTRAL REGION Administrative Decision Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Public Easement and Permits Project Overview The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW), Southcentral Regional Land Office (SCRO) received an application packet for public access easements and permits for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a railroad across DMLW managed lands between Pt. MacKenzie and Houston. The Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough is the applicant for all easements, and the Alaska Railroad Corporation is the applicant for the construction related permits. The scope of this decision is intended to only authorize construction permits and easements within the following described areas: Authorization # MTR Description Width Approx Acres Trans Corridor S15N04W East 254 of Section 19 in Tract 13 of ASLS ADL S15N04W East 300' of Section 19 in Tract 19A of ASLS East 300' of Section 30 and Section 31 in Tract 10 of ADL S15N04W ASLS ADL S15N04W East 300' of Section 31 in Tract 7 of ASLS ADL S14N04W East 300' of Section 7 in Tract 3 of ASLS Section 24, excluding ADL Iditarod Trail and ADL ADL S16N05W State Water ADL S16N04W Section 7: NW1/4NW1/4NW1/4NW1/ Section 15: 4 acres within small tract of DNR managed ADL S17N04W land Section 24: Iditarod National Historic Trail (ADL ADL S16N05W /ASLS ) Rail Crossing ADL S17N04W Section 20: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Horseshoe Lake ADL S17N04W Section 31: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Crooked Lake ADL S16N05W Section 24: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Diamond Lake, tributary of the Little Su ADL S14N04W Sections 7,8,17,18: Crossing of a To/Along easement near Baker Farm Road

2 Additional authorizations requested by the applicants are listed in the Summary of Authorizations Requested section below. The final determination and description of approved authorizations are described in the Proposal and Recommendation for Issuance of Public Easements and Land Use Permits section of this document. Background The Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) propose to connect Port MacKenzie to the ARRC s rail system by constructing and operating a new rail line. The new rail line would extend from Port MacKenzie to the ARRC s existing main line just south of Houston, Alaska. Port MacKenzie is a deepwater port on the north side of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet, located in Southcentral Alaska. An initial application was received from the MSB on April, 19, 1999, for SCRO managed lands within the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project (PMAP) only. The application was serialized as ADL The application was not adjudicated at the time of application, pending the completion of the federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and decision by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to authorize a rail project. Four parcels within the agricultural project, in State ownership at the time of application, were made subject to ADL should the application be adjudicated by DNR. Between 2008 and 2011, the STB prepared an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and regulations implementing NEPA and STB rules. On November 21, 2011, the STB completed the NEPA process and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) (Docket No. FD 35095). The ROD grants ARRC s request for the construction and operation of a rail line, subject to the requirement that ARRC build the route described within the ROD and in accordance with environmental mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. An amendment to the application for ADL , reflecting the STB decision, was received on February 27, A final project description, following the agency review, was received from the MSB in January, Description of the Pt. MacKenzie Rail Extension Alignment The entire proposed rail alignment is generally described below from south to north by segment name (Figure 1), not just those portions of the route on DMLW managed land. Segment 1 This 4.9 mile segment begins at the embankment of the Bi-Modal Bulk Facility of Port MacKenzie and proceeds northwest until milepost (MP) K4.4 where it exits to the Port District. Within the Port District, there will be a separated-grade crossing for the Figure 8 Loop Trail at MP K2.4 (Figure 2: Crossing 17). At MP K5.5, the rail line will cross an unnamed stream near Baker Farm Road (an unimproved section line easement road) with a 3-span bridge (Figure 2: Crossing 16). The bridge crossing will be constructed immediately to the north of the existing road to accommodate pedestrian access and maintain resident fish passage. Segment 1 ends shortly after the bridge crossing at MP K5.5. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 2 of 43

3 The hydrology of this stream and its associated wetlands has been impacted and altered by the previous construction of Baker Farm Road. Likewise, the road has since washed out due to the inadequate installation of culverts. The MSB is currently evaluating options to remove the damaged road, restore impacted wetlands, and replace the short road accessing the PMAP with an improved extension of Reddane Avenue. The extension of Reddane Avenue is noted in ASLS , Sheet 5, dated 9/24/1980 and recorded with the Palmer Recording District, document number The Point MacKenzie Agricultural Sale Brochure (DNR 1982) also noted the planned extension of this road. DNR authorizations in this segment are only for the crossing at Baker Farm Road and the adjacent public easement at the unnamed stream at MP K5.5. Segment 2 This 8.3 mile segment continues north of the unnamed creek near Baker Farm Road through the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. The segment continues northwest from the unnamed stream near Baker Farm Road and runs parallel to Guernsey Road until ending at the intersection with Ayrshire Avenue near MP K14. This segment includes an at-grade road and trail crossing of West Ayrshire Avenue at MP K13.9 (Figure 2: Crossing 13). West Holstein Avenue at MP K9.9 will be a separated-grade bridge and trail crossing (Figure 2: Crossing 14). Reddane Avenue at MP K7.9 will be either a separated-grade or at-grade road and trail crossing (Figure 2: Crossing 15). Reddane Avenue will be extended eastward to provide an additional PMAP connection to Point MacKenzie Road, as described in Segment 1. A terminal reserve area, to facilitate the arrival and departure of trains, will be constructed in this segment. DNR authorizations in this segment are for the development of easements reserved by the State on five parcels. No DNR managed Fee Simple land is in this segment. The terminal reserve will be located on private property west of the proposed rail alignment and is outside the scope of this decision. Segment 3 This 6.5 mile segment begins just north of the intersection of Ayrshire Avenue and Guernsey Road. This segment continues with a 18 ft culvert installed at MP K15.23 for a trail crossing (Figure 2: Crossing 12), proceeding northwest past the northeast end of My Lake, then curves back northeast, crossing a 5-span bridge at the outflow of Diamond Lake (Figure 2: Crossing 11) and a 3-span bridge over the Iditarod National Historic Trail (Figure 2: Crossing 10). The rail line then crosses over a 3-span bridge at its intersection with the Iditarod Race Trail at MP K17.95 (Figure 2: Crossing 9), curving northwest and then northeast before heading straight north across an at-grade road and trail crossing for Susitna Parkway at MP K19.7 (Figure 2: Crossing 8), ending near West Papoose Twins Road (Figure 2: Crossing 7). DNR managed land in this segment includes a one mile section of the rail alignment, the crossing of public water at the outflow of Diamond Lake, the crossing of the Iditarod National Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 3 of 43

4 Historic Trail/RST-118 easements and one new trail connection proposed by the MSB to link the Iditarod Race Trail with Susitna Parkway and the Crooked Lake Trail. Segment 4 This 7.4 mile segment begins at the at-grade road and trail crossing of West Papoose Twins Road at MP K20.4 (Figure 2: Crossing 7), continuing north to MP K27.7. The alignment crosses an unnamed tributary to the Little Su River on a 3 span bridge structure at MP K20.7 (Figure 2: Crossing 6). Trending northward, the alignment passes between East Papoose Twins Lake and Crooked Lake, crossing an area of hilly terrain. At MP K22.8, the alignment will cross another unnamed tributary of the Little Su River (Figure 2: Crossing 5). A 5-span bridge at this location will provide an undercrossing of both the stream and three relocated recreational trails, including Flat Lake (Iron Dog Trail), Iron Dog Connector (Big Lake Trail #5), and the Houston Lake Loop Trails. The remaining 4.9 miles will be on a gradually rising plain to an area on the north side of Muleshoe Lake and ending north of Little Horseshoe Lake. DNR authorizations in this segment are for the crossing of State water at MP K20.7 and K22.8, a small 600 wide inholding and one trail reroute to a DNR managed section line easement. Segment 5 This 4.2 mile segment begins north of Little Horseshoe Lake and continues northeast. This segment will cross several gravel ridges that parallel several lakes in the area. This segment includes four crossings: three trail crossings and one road crossing. At MP K27.88 the alignment will cross the Houston Lake Loop Trail and Big Lake Trail #1 where a four span bridge will provide an undercrossing to maintain trail connectivity and drainage for the outlet of Little Horseshoe Lake (Figure 2: Crossing 4). At MP K28.4, there will be an at-grade crossing for a Mental Health Land Trust (MHLT) gas pad lease access road. At MP K30.19, there will be an at-grade crossing for Big Lake Trail #2 (Figure 2: Crossing 2). The final crossing of this segment is located at MP K31.6, which will be an at-grade road and trail crossing for Millers Reach Road (Figure 2: Crossing 1). DNR authorizations in this segment consist of two section line easement trail reroutes. Segment 6 This 1.8 mile segment begins at Miller s Reach Road and will then tie into the ARRC main line near ARRC Mainline MP 174, stretching from MP to MP , without crossing the Parks Highway. The existing track will be a redesigned configuration of the mainline and siding including 1.5 miles of track construction within the existing railroad right-of-way. This connection will facilitate the movement of trains both northbound and southbound in a Y configuration. No DNR managed land is within this segment. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 4 of 43

5 Figure 1

6 Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 6 of 43 Figure 2

7 Summary of Authorizations Requested DNR Easements The Mat-Su Borough has requested a public easement for the following locations (Figures 3 to 5): o Crossing of the developed section line easement for Baker Farm Road and a 50 wide perpetual public access easement retained in State ownership directly adjacent to Baker Farm Road at the southern end of the Pt. MacKenzie Agricultural Project. o One mile segment in Section 24 of T16N, R5W, Seward Meridian, directly north of My Lake. This segment also includes a crossing of ADL , a 400 easement for the Iditarod National Historic Trail (which is collocated with the 100 RST-118 easement), the crossing of public water, and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each steam bank established under AS for the outlet of Diamond Lake. o Small approximately 200 segment of State land east of Dion Lake. o Crossing of public water and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each stream bank established under AS at an outlet of Crooked Creek, located approximately 1,800 west of Finger Lake. o Crossing of public water and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each steam bank established under AS for the outlet of Horseshoe Lake, located approximately 0.5 miles east of East Papoose Twins Lake. o 1000 segment of State land within a narrow inholding of DNR, DMLW managed land surrounded by Mental Health Land Trust managed land, approximately 0.5 miles west of Colt Lake and 0.5 miles southwest of Muleshoe Lake. The Mat-Su Borough has requested to develop the following easements reserved in patent by the State (Figure 3): The 254 wide transportation corridor easement along the eastern tract boundary of Tract 13 in ASLS , as identified and reserved in the State of Alaska Patent No (ADL ) and recorded with the Palmer Recording District on 7/17/2006, document number ADL , on the east 300' of Section 19 in Tract 19A of ASLS , as identified and reserved in the Contract for the Sale of Real Property (ADL ) and recorded with the Palmer Recording District on 4/16/2003, document number ADL , on the east 300' of Section 30 and Section 31 in Tract 10 of ASLS , as identified and reserved in the State of Alaska Patent No (ADL ) and recorded with the Palmer Recording District on 2/6/2004, document number ADL , on the east 300' of Section 31 in Tract 7 of ASLS , as identified and reserved in the State of Alaska Patent No (ADL ) and recorded with the Palmer Recording District on 5/6/2003, document number ADL , on the east 300' of Section 7 in Tract 3 of ASLS , as identified and reserved in the State of Alaska Patent No (ADL ) and recorded with the Palmer Recording District on 9/3/2003, document number

8 The Mat-Su Borough has requested the development of DNR managed Section Line Easements (SLE) for the purpose of rerouting specific trails at three locations and developing one new trail connection within the project area. Big Lake Trail #1 rerouted to a 25 section line easement in Section 32/33 of T18N, R03W, Seward Meridian (Figure 6). Iron Dog (Flat Lake Connector Trail), Houston Lake Loop and Iron Dog Connector Trail (Big Lake Trail #5) Reroutes (Figure 7). Houston Lake Loop, Big Lake Trail #1 and Big Lake Trail #2 Reroute (Figure 9). Crooked Lake/Susitna Parkway Trail connection to the Iditarod Race Trail (Figure 8). DNR Permits The ARRC has requested permits required during construction activities from the Southcentral Regional Office, including temporary structures and cross country travel. The cross country travel permit includes all DNR-Southcentral Regional Land Office managed land and water for the entire route during construction of all segments through the final grading and laying of track, not just travel to the locations of the temporary structures. Additional DNR Southcentral Regional Land Office Authorizations Requested Proposed vacation of a section line easement, approximately 1 mile in length, where the rail alignment is collocated with the section line. The section lines are: T16N, R4W, Seward Meridian: West side of Section 6 T16N, R5W, Seward Meridian: East side of Section 1 T16N, R5W, Seward Meridian: Small portion of the south side of Section 1 and north side of Section 12 T16N, R4W, Seward Meridian: Small portion of the south side of Section 6 and north side of Section 7. Legal Description, Width and Acreage The lands wherein these authorizations are located are described as follows: Authorization # MTR Description Width Approx Acres Trans Corridor S15N04W East 254 of Section 19 in Tract 13 of ASLS ADL S15N04W East 300' of Section 19 in Tract 19A of ASLS ADL S15N04W East 300' of Section 30 and Section 31 in Tract 10 of ASLS ADL S15N04W East 300' of Section 31 in Tract 7 of ASLS ADL S14N04W East 300' of Section 7 in Tract 3 of ASLS ADL S16N05W Section 24, excluding ADL Iditarod Trail and ADL State Water ADL S16N04W Section 7: NW1/4NW1/4NW1/4NW1/ ADL S17N04W Section 15: 4 acres within small tract of DNR managed land ADL S16N05W Section 24: Iditarod National Historic Trail (ADL /ASLS ) Rail Crossing Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 8 of 43

9 Authorization # MTR Description Width Approx Acres ADL S17N04W Section 20: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Horseshoe Lake ADL S17N04W Section 31: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Crooked Lake ADL S16N05W Section 24: Crossing of state water at the outlet of Diamond Lake, tributary of the Little Su ADL S14N04W Sections 7,8,17,18: Crossing of a To/Along easement near Baker Farm Road Authorization # MTRS Description LAS See attached maps Cross Country Travel Permit LAS S17N04W20, 31 S16N05W24 S14N04W7,8,17,18 Temporary structures needed during construction activities Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 9 of 43

10

11 Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 11 of 43

12

13 FIGURE 6

14 Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 14 of 43 FIGURE 7

15 Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 15 of 43 FIGURE 8

16 Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 16 of 43 FIGURE 9

17 Administrative Record DMLW files containing information pertinent to this authorization include: Casefiles ADL , , , , , , LAS and which are the subject of this decision. Casefile ADL : Iditarod National Historic Trail, 400 wide easement Casefile RST 118: Knik to Susitna, 100 wide easement Casefile ADL /MHT : Iron Dog Connector/Houston Lake Loop Trail Casefile ADL /MHT : Iron Dog Trail Casefile ADL 79861: Kucera Drive, Section Line Easement Road Casefile ADL 18248: FAA VORTAC Site Casefile ADL : Closed DOT application for a transportation corridor Casefile LUP SCM /ADL : Kucera Airstrip Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project Casefile and the following specific parcel files relevant to this authorization: o Casefile ADL o Casefile ADL o Casefile ADL o Casefile ADL o Casefile ADL Legal Authority Legal authority is established by Public Law (73 Stat. 141), 11 AAC 51, AS and 43 USC DNR is authorized to execute easements and permits on State land under the provisions of AS , AS , AS , 11 AAC 51, 11 AAC , 11 AAC and 11 AAC Title The State acquired title to the general State land within this authorization under Statehood entitlement General Grant 106, patent number that was issued on 09/28/1965 and General Grant 207, patent number that was issued on 7/26/1968. The State owns submerged lands below the Ordinary High Water line wherein these projects are located, per the Alaska Statehood Act (Public Law ), Equal Footing Doctrine, Submerged Lands Act (43 USC ) and any specific reference contained in a conveyance document. Section Line Easements (SLE): State Statute, AS , allows for the development of SLEs for certain access purposes. Title to the land is not required in order to authorize the upgrade and construction of a road or trail within a legally established SLE. Pursuant to AS and regulations implementing this statute, lands sold by the State are subject to a public access easement to and along public and navigable waters. Easements created by this statute are retained in State ownership for the benefit of all Alaskans. Four AS easements are crossed by this project. They are serialized for this authorization as ADL , ADL , ADL and ADL The State manages Reserved Statute 2477 routes established during territorial days, per former United States Code 43 USC 932. The route RST-118 Knik to Susitna is subsequently recognized under Alaska Statute based on its documented construction by the

18 Alaska Road Commission beginning in 1912, when the land was unreserved public land held by the federal government (Alaska Road Commission Route 20A). For lands within the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project: The State acquired title under MH-86, patent number that was issued on 4/20/1966. The surface estate was conveyed or is under contract for conveyance in fee simple to private ownership by the State for agricultural use and development only. The retained State interests currently include: o Agricultural covenants retained under AS o Section Line Easements not previously vacated o 254 transportation easement, where retained in title documents o ADL to be issued to the MSB, where retained in title documents State Area Plans and Classification The State lands within this proposed project all are in the Southeast Susitna Area Plan (SESAP), finalized by DNR, DMLW in April Units and Subunits within this Authorization Big Lake Houston Unit o Subunit H-22 o Subunit H-23 Knik-Pt. MacKenzie Unit Subunit H-22 is designated General Use and classified as Resource Management Land to be managed for multiple uses. H-23 is designated General Use and classified as Resource Management Land to be managed for protection of wetlands and an anadromous stream and its various tributaries. The Little Susitna River is classified Wildlife Habitat and Water Resources. The designation and management intent for navigable waterbodies that cross or are surrounded by State land are the same as those of the upland tract, except that those portions of navigable, anadromous streams where spawning and rearing occur are designated Habitat. Navigable rivers and lakes that are not within general state land are designated General Use and classified as Resource Management Land to be managed for multiple uses. The section of the project in the Knik-Pt. MacKenzie Unit was not classified in the SESAP. Given that the adjacent land is agricultural and the retained State interest is in the agricultural covenants, per the guidelines in Chapter 4 of the SESAP, the land is designated Agricultural. The small inholding of DMLW managed land in Section 15 of T17N, R4W, Seward Meridian was not classified in the SESAP. Chapter 4, Page 7 outlines that parcels not adjacent to other State land are to be designated General Use and classified as Resource Management Land. None of these classifications preclude the development of a rail line. The Region has determined that the activities described herein do not conflict with the management intent or guidelines listed in the SESAP, provided that the applicant complies with the provisions and stipulations of the required agency permits. Third Party Interests The following third party interests were identified in the project area: ADL Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 18 of 43

19 Casefile ADL /MHT : Iron Dog Connector/Houston Lake Loop Trail Casefile ADL 18248: FAA VORTAC Site Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Casefile ADL : Matanuska Electric Association MHT : Storm Cat Energy Corporation 176 adjacent land owners. All 3 rd parties identified were sent a copy of the public notice. Public Notice and Agency Notice An agency review occurred on April 16 th to May 30 th, An additional review of the applicant s response to the agency comments occurred on August 14 th to August 28 th, 2012, following submittal of additional project clarification and information from the applicant not included in the first review. Agencies sent a copy of the notice included: DMLW-Easements, DMLW-Permits, DMLW-Leasing, DMLW-State Trails, DMLW-Realty Services, DMLW-Municipal Entitlements, DMLW-Planning, DNR-Division of Agriculture, DNR-Office of History & Archaeology, DNR-Division of Parks, DNR-Pipeline Coordinator s Office, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Mental Health Trust Authority, University of Alaska, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation Administration, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Wasilla Soil & Water Conservation District. Easements issued under the authority of AS are exempt from the best interest finding requirements of AS (e). However, AS requires public notice before issuing an easement if the Director has determined the easement is not functionally revocable. By evaluation of the nature and duration of the intended use it has been determined these easements are not functionally revocable. Therefore, a 30 day public notice was conducted in order to gather input before the final decision by the Department is made to ensure that issuance of the proposed land use permits, easements and section line development will be in the best interest of the State of Alaska. The public notice was posted on the State of Alaska Public Notice website from January 22 nd to February 21 st, In addition, the notice was sent to the following parties: City of Wasilla, City of Houston, Big Lake Community Council, Knik-Fairview Community Council, Willow Area Community Organization, Cook Inlet Regional Incorporated, Knikatnu Inc, Knik Tribe, Iron Dog, Willow Dog Mushers Association, Alaska State Snowmobile Association, Big Lake Trails Inc, Iditarod Historic Trail Alliance, Aurora Dog Mushing, Alaska Trails, Iditarod Trail Committee, Willow Trails Committee, Anchorage Snowmobile Club, MatSu Resource Conservation & Development Inc, Alaska Outdoor Council, Mat-Su Trails & Park Foundation, Wasilla Postmaster, Big Lake Postmaster, all of the agencies listed above under the agency review and 176 adjacent land owners and third party interests. Multiple comments were received as a result of the agency and public notices. Issues identified from the comments are described in the Management Issues section below. Management Issues Twenty-four issues were identified as a part of the agency and public notice for this project and are addressed below. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 19 of 43

20 Issue 1: Proposed Project Inconsistent with the Agricultural Restrictions Comment 1 The railroad extension and terminal reserve area is inconsistent with the agricultural restrictions and it is not within DNR s authority to issue a decision that is contrary to Alaska Statute. Comment 2 This easement is for a non-agricultural purpose and would affect 114 acres of privately held, fee simple, land with agricultural covenants; therefore contrary to the purpose of the agricultural project area. Comment 3 Is it legal for a railroad to buy agriculturally restricted land? : DNR agrees that the agricultural restrictions must be removed by the applicant(s) prior to construction activities. DNR does not have the authority to remove agricultural restrictions created under AS , in part or for an entire parcel. Any individual or agency can purchase agricultural land, but the agricultural restrictions are still valid. Any authorization will be issued contingent on the applicants successful removal of the agricultural covenants prior to construction activities commencing. If the applicant is unsuccessful in removing the covenants, the applicant will be required to amend their application and select a route around the parcels in question. Any modification in the alignment will require additional public and agency review for any DNR managed land or retained interests. Issue 2: Additional Permits and Authorizations Required Comment 1 ADF&G, Division of Habitat issued conditional Fish Habitat permits for the requested stream crossings. However, the permits were based upon the available project information as of March, 2011, which was not yet finalized for construction. Our issued permits contained a stipulation that required updated project plans and detailed construction sequencing information be submitted prior to construction. It was further stipulated that no in-water work would be allowed until these plans were incorporated into our permits in the form of permit amendments. ADF&G has not yet received this updated information. The supporting materials provided with this notice appear to imply that the ADF&G Fish Habitat permits for the listed stream crossings are completely finalized, which is not the case. ADF&G has not yet received detailed applications for temporary stream crossings within the alignment or for temporary access roads off the alignment for construction. The general conceptual drawings associated with the easement request do not contain enough detail for us to make a determination. We may require Fish Habitat permits for stream crossing or for the installation of temporary bridges or culverts crossing all fishbearing water bodies. The type of allowable crossing will depend on whether the water body contains anadromous fish species, the crossing location, the season, and the anticipated type and amount of use. Timing restrictions may apply to the installation and use of these crossings. ADF&G reserves the right to determine if a particular water body contains fish and what type of crossing would be allowable. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 20 of 43

21 Comment 2 The applicants should apply directly to the Trust Land Office (TLO) for easement acquisition on Trust lands. The issuance of this authorization does not alleviate the necessity of the applicant to obtain all other required authorizations for this project. Any permit or easement issued by DNR will specify that failure to obtain all other authorizations will constitute a violation of the stipulations. Additionally, DNR will require copies of the ADFG, DMLW-Water and TLO permits for the project file prior to construction activities. Issue 3: Section 106 Compliance Comment The MSB is a signatory and therefore maintains certain responsibilities with respect to the Programmatic Agreement Among Surface Transportation Board, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska. Any proposed trail reroutes need to take into consideration and reflect the commitments made during the Section 106 consultation process for the Iditarod Dog Sledding Historic District, the signed Programmatic Agreement (PA) and as a participant in the Working Group called for in the PA. MSB Clarification The Applicant will adhere to requirements of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and will continue to consult with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate consulting parties regarding historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE); identifying and determining effects on historic properties from the project; and minimizing, mitigating, or avoiding adverse effects to these historic properties. The MOU requires Working Group participants (Alaska Railroad [ARRC], Matanuska-Susitna Borough [MSB], and Knik Tribal Council [KTC]) to participate in ongoing tasks assigned in the PA to ARRC, to be done in consultation with STB and SHPO, including: consulting on the Iditarod Dog Sledding Historic District (IDSHD) workshops and Implementation Plan to avoid, mitigate, or minimize adverse effects on the IDSHD; consult on and participate in annual training for contractors; consult on treatment of historic properties; and consult on and participate in documenting the results of work conducted under the PA and MOU in the Annual Reports. The Project Team will adhere to design standards outlined in the Iditarod Dog Sledding Historic District (IDSHD) Workshop Summary and Implementation Plan that were developed in consultation with STB, SHPO, and persons interested in the IDSHD. Any permit or authorization issued by DNR will also stipulate compliance with AS , the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 21 of 43

22 Issue 4: 30 Day Public Notice Not Sufficient Comment 1 A thirty day notice period is insufficient to fully address the issues raised in DNR s public notice. It is my understanding this minimal comment time is routinely reserved for very small, uncontested projects, where the issues are straight forward, unambiguous and undisputed. I hereby make a formal request that this comment period remain open for at least another 60 days. This will allow me, and others, time to understand and address the multi-layers of permits, public notices and federal and state reviews, that are required for this massive project. Comment 2 I have not had adequate time to address this proposal in greater detail. Per 11 AAC (e), a 14 day notice is required for the trail reroutes to a section line easement, since DNR is not the underlying landowner for all of the SLE s requested and the proposal has the potential to affect traditional access. Given the number of potentially affected parties, SCRO concluded that a 30 day public notice for the trail reroutes would be necessary, not the 14 days required by regulation. Easements issued under the authority of AS are exempt from the best interest finding requirements of AS (e). However, AS requires public notice before issuing an easement if the Director has determined the easement is not functionally revocable. The PMRE project has been determined to be functionally irrevocable consistent with (c) and was subject to a 30 day public notice. This project overall is subject to permitting actions by multiple agencies, each of whom have afforded a public comment period when appropriate to their respective processes. Additional review time will be afforded should any significant change in the proposed project occur, as previously noted in the response to Issue #1 above. A 30 day notice is in keeping with standard practices for this type of authorization and a review for an additional 60 days is not warranted. Issue 5: Applicant Should Refile Application Comment DNR s review of MSB s vague and ambiguous 1999 application is untimely. The MSB filed a R/W/E Application with the State of Alaska in early It gives vague generalities about a possible railroad corridor, and the applicant responds to be determined in multiple locations on the form. This application has been lingering in DNR s files for over 12 years with no action, and then, within a 6 month period, DNR has issued a 30 day Public Notice and intends to issue a decision. I object to the untimely and hurried process by which this Application has come to Public Comment and request that MSB be required to re-file its application and honestly state the real issues and scope of the project. Meaningful comment cannot be had if the exact scope of the project is not defined. DNR does not agree that the scope of the project has been defined through a hurried process. DNR notified the applicant after the initial application that DNR was unable to adjudicate the application without first the federal review and decision by the STB. The Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 22 of 43

23 STB review began in 2008, with the final decision issued on November 21, DNR has been working with the applicant throughout this process and has received the required application amendments and project description consistent with the STB decision. An agency review occurred in 2012, followed by the public review in early The application does not need to be refiled, as the scope of the project has been defined and any required amendments have been submitted. Although outside the scope of this decision, it should be noted that both the federal permit reviews & STB process afforded the opportunity for public input. Issue 6: Coastal Zone Review Comment The Environmental Risk Questionnaire is absolutely blank and marked, n/a in multiple locations. Is this R/W/E Appropriate really appropriate for a single agency review? The Questionnaire and single agency review are terms and forms used by the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). This program expired on June 30, The regulations implementing it have since been repealed by the Alaska Legislature. On 6/16/2011, a letter was sent by the ACMP to the applicants informing them that their project is no longer subject to ACMP review. The letter also reiterated that despite termination of the program, the applicant must still obtain any federal, state or local permits, licenses or authorizations required for this project. The questionnaire that DMLW requires for easements and permits was updated by the applicants following the decision by the STB. Issue 7: Width Requested in the Agricultural Project Not Consistent with the STB Decision Comment 1 The STB Record of Decision limits the width of the railroad corridor to a single track rail line within a 200 foot right of way. To the extent the STB s ROD is inconsistent with the MSB s 1999 R/W/E Application, the STB decision should control. (See STB Decision dated 11/21/11, p. 3 para. 3) The STB s determination of environmental impacts associated with the rail line was based on a 200 foot wide single lane track. (STB Decision p. 11 para. 2) Consequently, while the Borough s very old 1999 R/W/E Application requests a 300 foot corridor; they applied for and received federal approval for a 200 foot corridor. Comment 2 The MSB requested easement is 200 feet in width, except for segments within the PMAP [Pt MacKenzie Agricultural Project]. The Division of Agriculture is curious as to why the easement width increases 33% (from, 200 to 300 feet) only on agricultural lands? The Alaska Railroad Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Summary of Project Design and Construction has the following description of the needed ROW: The proposed route would typically have 100 feet of right-of-way (ROW) designated at each side of the proposed track centerline location (total 200 feet wide). This width provides a reasonable safety buffer along the proposed route and is consistent with ARRC standards. It is ARRC' s intent to utilize the proposed route and accompanying ROW for all activities consistent with the Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 23 of 43

24 existing uses of their current ROW.. Areas outside the construction limits would not be directly impacted from construction of this project. Furthermore, only the necessary area required for construction and construction activities within the ROW would be impacted during the construction process. The Division of Agriculture requests that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough provide additional information as to why a 300 foot easement is needed. MSB Clarification The operation of the terminal reserve requires that the north and south ends of the yard tracks be near the same elevation. Since the land between the south edge of Parcel 30 Flyway Farm and Holstein Ave. rises to the north, a fill is needed on the south end and a cut on the north end to keep the yard tracks level. The profile grade between the low drainage way near Baker Farm Road and Reddane Ave. rises at a consistent rate of 0.32%. Compared to variations in the existing ground, this grade requires a significant fill, reaching heights of 38 feet on Parcel 29 and 22 feet on Tract 7. The footprint for this fill requires more than the nominal 200-foot ROW width. Given the difference between the width requested in 1999 and the width approved by the STB in 2011, DNR will require a letter or other form of approval by the STB for the increased width across the PMAP. Any additional width in excess of the surveyed corridor and approved width will be released upon submittal of an approved as-built and final easement. Issue 8: Location of ADL in Public Notice not the Location Reserved in the Contract for Tract 7 Comment The location of the claimed/ reserved easement across Tract 7 is to the east of the vacated section line. It appears from the maps provided as part of the STB record, that the Borough now wishes to have their easement on the west side of the section line, or maybe down the middle -- it is unclear from the maps provided and there is no written description of the exact location of the easement requested. Flyway Farm LLC requests that if an easement is granted pursuant to MSB s Application, that it be clearly identified in the same location that it was in the sale documents, making it east of the section line. Our residence, barns, storage facilities and 100 percent of our hay operations lay west of the vacated section line. We would like to keep as much of our farm as possible, as the rail line down the middle of our property will surely impact our access to the eastern section of our farm. In addition, we anticipate increased noise, dust, and all around disturbance, due to the rail line, and the further away from where we live and produce hay is the most palatable, if not the only location where the easement can legally fall. Per the application submitted in 1999, the MSB applied for the following location across Tract 7: The East 300 feet of the portion of Tract 7 that lies west of the extension of the boundary line between Tract 5 and Tract 13 northward to the boundary line between Tract 21 and Tract 22B. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 24 of 43

25 While the cardinal description is potentially confusing, this is describing the west side of the vacated section line. The contract did incorrectly say that ADL is east of the vacated section line, but the patent subsequently identified that Tract 7 is subject to A public right-of-way easement application, 300 feet wide, under ADL to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, anchoring the location to the application submitted by the Borough in 1999, not the contract. Issue 9: Blocked Farm Access Comment The granting of a continuous easement down the middle of Tract 7 will prevent Flyway Farm LLC from accessing the eastern half of its farm. Flyway Farm has ongoing farming operations on either side of the proposed rail line. In order to reach this land, Flyway Farm must be given access across the railroad tracks, or this property will be inaccessible and farming operations and the federal contracts cannot be fulfilled, Currently, there is no dedicated access being proposed by the MSB for Flyway Farm to access the eastern half of its property. Tract 7 is unique in this respect, as the other ag. parcels are nicely divided on either side of the section line easements. In our case, the section line easement was specifically vacated, and an application for a R/W/E was submitted to allow the potential for a rail line down the middle This application does not go so far as to provide specific access across the railroad corridor, but access is certainly implied. To do otherwise, would allow the R/W/E to constitute a constructive taking of half of our entire farm. Another new development that Flyway Farm has discovered since DNR s Public Notice was issued, is that MSB intends to extend RedDane through to Point MacKenzie Road. While the extension of RedDane may prevent the eastern section of Tract 7 from being completely landlocked, there still remains whether these plans provide reasonable access. Flyway Farm s equipment used in its farming operations involve tractors, bailers and bush hogs that are approximately 12 feet wide and 10 feet tall. There are no plans submitted as part of the 1999 Application for the proposed crossing at RedDane. Flyway Farm reserves the right to comment on specific plans for the extension of RedDane and/or alternative access across the corridor, to ensure that reasonable access to Tract 7 is provided. MSB Clarification The design for Segment 2 is in the beginning stages of a preliminary design. While we are still investigating all design options, including a grade crossing, the bottom line is that Reddane will remain open to traffic across the PMRE corridor. If a lower cost grade separation is selected, it will easily accommodate the farm equipment dimensions quoted. Correspondence with the MSB on 3/13/13 stated to DNR that access to Tract 7 will be assured by them. Any DNR authorizations will stipulate that access across Tract 7 is to be maintained by the applicant. The extension of Reddane Avenue was noted on the survey and plat for the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project, ASLS , Sheet 5, dated 9/24/1980 and recorded with the Palmer Recording District, document number Additionally, the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Sale Brochure (DNR 1982) also noted the planned Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 25 of 43

26 extension of this road. Since the extension of Reddane was previously reviewed and approved in the 1980s, it is not included as a part of the review for this project. Issue 10: No Access Road in the 1999 Application and Subject To Comment MSB s 1999 application does not contain a request for any roadway along side the rail line. The purpose of MSB s 1999 Application was to reserve a corridor for railroad purposes approximately 3 miles long, through the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. The Application is void of any further details, and certainly does not contemplate a access road alongside the rail line. As this is not a current issue, Flyway Farm LLC requests that this issue be foreclosed from future consideration as part of the MSB s 1999 Application. No road was applied for by the applicant and reviewed by DNR for this project. Should the applicant wish to develop a road in the future, a separate application and review will be required. Issue 11: Project within a Drinking Water Protection Area Comment DEC: The proposed railroad extension line currently crosses the Zone A DWPA [Drinking Water Protection Area] for Public Water System [PWS] AK Point Mackenzie Correctional Farm, which is a groundwater well. Please be aware that due to the proximity of this project to the PWS, the PWS could be required to increase their monitoring frequency or to begin monitoring for additional contaminants. [The guidelines entitled DEC / Division of Environmental Health Drinking Water Program: Recommendations for General Construction Projects near a Public Water System for reference for construction practices was included with this comment.] The recommendations provided by DEC for the General Construction Projects near a Public Water System will be included in the stipulations for any permits and easements issued to the applicants for this project. Issue 12: Compliance with STB Stipulations Comment 1 STB Mitigation Measure 5. As stated in comments to the STB, Tract 7 encompasses wetlands, as well as a continuous water flow just under the ground surface, from the eastern portion of Tract 7 to the west. Each spring, before the ground thaws, RedDane becomes a virtual river, with snow melt forming a river that follows RedDane to Guernsey, and then turns south and empties into Falcon Lake. Older geographical maps even show a river flowing within the perimeter of Tract 7. Flyway Farm would like to put DNR on notice of these conditions so that it can monitor and require Mitigation Measure 5 to be followed. Comment 2 STB Mitigation Measure 47: The MSB is required to consult with the ADF&G and ADNR to avoid moose mortality. Tract 7 and other ag. parcels are a virtual Shangri-La for moose during the winter months. They hide in the wind rows that separate each panel of farmland in the evenings, and venture out into the nicely groomed CRP land to feed Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 26 of 43

27 on short willow and trees during the day. We have counted as many as moose per panel, grazing during the winter. This phenomena can be seen in the summer when you walk along the CRP land. All of the trees are cut perfectly even across the top about 10 feet from the bottom, almost like a brush hog has been set real high and groomed the trees at a certain height. A rail through the middle of Tract 7 is a virtual death sentence to 100 s of moose each year, if adequate access is not provided across the railroad tracks at this location. ADFG Clarification on Moose Mortality ADF&G does not share this concern at this specific location (3/29/13 correspondence). Should mortality be higher than expected, steps will be taken to work with the railroad to reduce moose mortality, as required per the existing stipulations. The STB decision requires both mitigation measure 5 and mitigation measure 47 to be followed. Additionally, any permit or authorization from DNR stipulates that an applicant must receive all the applicable authorizations required for a project and must ensure compliance to these and the State s stipulations by its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees. Issue 13: Federal Farm Programs Comment Tract 7 is currently part of a Federal Conservation Reserve and Direct and Counter Cyclical Payment Program(s) also referred to as CRP and DCP. When Tract 7 was purchased in 1999, it was subject to a contract under federal CRP and PCF Programs. Flyway Farm LLC, as purchaser, was give 30 days to apply to the U.A. Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, to become the successor in interest on these contracts. Currently, these same lands are under CRP and PCF contracts through October 1, In brief, nothing can be done with these lands that is inconsistent with these federal programs. There is a procedure for removing lands from these programs, but it requires certain procedures to be followed. The MSB is familiar with these procedures, which requires exact measurements of the land to be removed, an application by the landowner to withdraw the lands from the program, and potential withdrawal penalties. In 2011, the Mat-Su Borough negotiated an easement with Flyway Farm LLC to have certain lands removed from the above mentioned program(s) in order to build a haul road for port development. MSB has made no attempt to negotiate with or meet with the members of Flyway Farm LLC to discuss the amicable release of these lands from the above federal programs. DNR will stipulate that the applicant consult with the land owners in the agricultural district to facilitate the time needed for the notification of the farm agencies prior to work beginning in Segment 2. Upon reviewing the specific contract for Tract 7, DNR agrees that Tract 7 was required to enroll in the above mentioned programs. Additionally, Stipulation 17 states: Any right or interest acquired during the term of this contract and accruing to the benefit of the parcel will remain appurtenant to the parcel, and may not be severed or transferred from the parcel without the prior written approval of the seller. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 27 of 43

28 Given this wording, the notification for the release of the land from the farm programs within ADL should come from DNR to the land owner, not the MSB. DNR will be sending this letter to the owner of Tract 7 and any additional land owner with this contract stipulation prior to the issuance of an Early Entry Authorization for construction activities. Issue 14: Stream Crossing Designs Comment 1 1. Stream crossing designs should assume 200 year events. 2. Culvert crossing designs should be prepared by a certified hydrologist for each crossing with a preference for bottomless arch pipes & box culverts. 3. Crossing design, construction, device installation & restoration work contract specifications should clearly specify that all work shall adhere in accordance to SOA ADF&G standards as per the most recent Memorandum of Understanding with DOT/PF. MSB Clarification to Number 1 In accordance with the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), stream crossings were designed to pass a 100 year event with less than 1 foot of rise in the upstream water surface. At streams where fish passage was of concern, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northwest region criteria were used. However, structures designed to these criteria were still kept to less than 1 foot of headwater rise for the 100 year event. MSB Clarification to Number 2 Seven streams and one river will be crossed by the project. The Little Susitna River is to be spanned by a 120 foot bridge. Five bridges and two embedded culverts will be used to cross the streams. The two embedded culverts were designed to provide fish passage according to the NMFS criteria and were permitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). All crossings were designed under the direction of senior water resource engineers and certified floodplain managers William Rice, P.E. (WI, IL) and Brian Wozniak, P.E. (CO, IL). Design was coordinated locally by Laura Schutte, P.E. (AK). MSB Clarification to Number 3 Although this project is not subject to the referenced Memorandum of Understanding, fish passage location, structure design, construction methods, and restoration were developed through coordination with ADF&G and permits have been granted. ADF&G Response to Comment and MSB Clarifications The conceptual designs we approved all are adequately sized under our criteria. Most of the crossings have been overbuilt to accommodate trails or wildlife crossings at appropriate locations. I have no issues with the MSB response, except I would possibly clarify that we have issued only conditional permits for the crossings, and one crossing is still outstanding due to route changes since the initial application. The applicant will need to provide final drawings and detailed construction plans before they can start work on any of the crossings. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 28 of 43

29 The issues appear to be adequately addressed through compliance with industry standards for design and construction, the existing project stipulations and required permits. Stipulations in the permits and easements will require the applicant to provide DNR with copies of all ADF&G and DMLW-Water permits prior to construction work commencing. Issue 15: Proposed Railroad within the Runway Protection Zones for Private Airstrips Comment 1 Two registered airports are located on Tract 7, and applicable rules relating to airports must be followed. The FAA Office of Airports (ARP) sets guidelines on land uses within a runway protection zone (RPZ). Flyway Farm has two registered strips (AK36) a registered FAA Airport could possibility fall within the guidance established to mitigate the risk to people and property with in this RPZ. ARP recently released a memorandum setting forth guidelines for compatible land use as well as RPZ's around an established airport. They specifically state that coordination must take place with the Airport Engineering Division when any land uses enter limits of an RPZ. They name transportation facilities as an example and specifically identify rail facilities; light, heavy, passenger or freight, as requiring coordination. The new proposed Terminal Reserve lies directly north of Flyway Farm Strip(s), and is potentially in line with the RPZ for these strip(s). While private strips may or may not be affected, this has yet to be determined and has not been disclosed in this proposal. Comment 2 This runway was established in the seventies and has been registered with the FAA as a legal runway, and appears on all the aviation charts. The airport number on the registration is 63AK. The previous owner of the property had everything registered with the FAA and when I purchased the property 6 years ago I had it changed over to my name. This runway is a year round, lighted runway. I live on Lot A-2 on Westlake. I have a home, hanger, cabin, and several outbuildings on this parcel. The runway protection zone guidelines provided by the FAA will be submitted to the applicant, and DNR authorizations will be stipulated to address the FAA s guidelines. Issue 16: Section Line Easements DNR Background: Prior to the agency review, the MSB and ARRC had requested dominant use of the SLEs in the project area. DNR and DOT met with the applicants to clarify that neither DNR nor DOT can grant dominant use of an SLE, as this use is defined by statute. The applicant has since updated the project description to reflect this. Below are the comments by DOT that are relevant to the current project description. Comment 1. Per 11 AAC (f) before any vacation, modification, or relocation of a public easement the petitioner must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that equal or better access is available. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 29 of 43

30 2. Per 11 AAC (g)(1) the petitioner must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that a reasonably comparable, established alternate right-of way or means of access exists that is sufficient to satisfy all present and reasonable foreseeable uses; MSB Clarification In response to #1: No vacation, modification, or relocation of a public easement is requested at this time. In response to #2: No vacation of easements is requested at this time. The MSB requested dominate use of undeveloped SLE and concurrent use of developed SLE. SLE s are dedicated for use as public highways (AS ). The definition of a vehicle that can use an SLE is broad and does include dog sleds, snowmachines and other means of travel that are commonly attributed to a trail. The definition specifically states that devices that are used on stationary rails or tracks do not qualify as vehicles under this statute (AS (12)(A). The applicant has been made aware that the section line interest is not subordinate to the proposed rail project. Unless vacated through the appropriate process, the SLE will remain the dominant right regardless of whether the section line easement is in use at this time, per 11 AAC (b). Issue 17: Trail Closures Comment ADF&G requests that in the process of rerouting existing trails and closing old trails, DNR require that where feasible, the applicant must establish and open the new trail before closing and blocking off the old existing trails. This would nearly eliminate the uncertainty the public might encounter when trying to use trails in the area during the construction period of the Pt. MacKenzie railroad. Comment It is a concern of the TLO that the applicant has not submitted a plan to contain trespass activity from moving beyond the proposed easement area and the ability to generate a long-term financial plan for maintenance and clean-up of the trail system. Comment It is recommended that the applicant be responsible for the construction of the new trails within all of the proposed trail re-route areas and acquiring adequate public easement interest for those areas of trail re-route that will not be located in SLE s. MSB Clarification For the closing of the old trails and construction of the new trails, the project team has developed design standards for signage and kiosks to aid trail users. The signage and kiosks will be placed at key points on trails, trail reroutes, and at crossings to aid trail users of the new reroutes and connections. Examples of the signage are posted on the project website ( The signs developed will be generally consistent with the Alaska State Parks SnoTRAC guidelines. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 30 of 43

31 MSB is actively working with the TLO on the trail reroutes and securing easements/licenses for the trail reroutes within the PMRE project area. The last meetings regarding the trail reroutes between the TLO and MSB were March 13 th and the 28 th, The PMRE project will be responsible for all construction of the trail reroutes for the project area. Bid documents are prepared for the cutting and brushing of the trail reroutes and will be finalized upon DNR's Final Decision and conditions required. The EEA for construction will stipulate that signage will need to be in place to assist travelers, that the applicants are responsible for constructing the routes applied for, and that old trails on DNR managed land or licensed to DNR may not be closed prior to the construction and opening of the new routes. Copies of the authorizations from the TLO will need to be submitted to DNR prior to construction activities. Issue 18: Trail Reroute Tracking Comment ADF&G recommends that all new or relocated trails are assigned an ADL number so they will be accurately tracked and depicted in State of Alaska online and geospatial records. DNR agrees with this comment and will issue ADL numbers for the trails in authorized SLEs to assist in tracking the use in these easements. Issue 19: Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) Crossing Comment 1 The current bridge design depicted in this bridge design may not be an adequate width to provide for safe passage of increased numbers and types of users. If the Iditarod Race Route is relocated onto the Iditarod NHT, the trail underpass may need to be wider than currently depicted. It may not be possible to accommodate safe increases in use without impacting the historic landscape context associated with the narrow trail width. That is, while it may be quite possible to accommodate safe increases in use by widening the trail, perhaps doubling the width of the trail travelway by clearing adjacent vegetation, this could have an impact on the historic setting. Comment 2 Please explain why only one of the three spans can be used at this location. Reducing the functional use of a 400 easement to one 25 span does not allow for the ability to adequately separate trail use in the future. The possibility of having to separate uses is high at this location, given the lack of legal status of many of the adjacent trails. The Iditarod Race Trail is one of the routes that lacks legal status. Whether or not the topography is difficult to navigate on the INHT trail, this is currently the only legal trail easement. How are you addressing that 1) there is a narrow bridge crossing at the largest legal easement crossed by this project, 2) there is also a 100 RS2477 right-ofway underlying this easement, which a 25 crossing will not facilitate, 3) the route has a Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 31 of 43

32 high probability to see increased use as this area develops, if only because it is a legal easement in an area with multiple trails that do not have legal protection. MSB Clarification The Federal Surface Transportation Board went through a lengthy EIS process that included both agency and public comment, neither of which produced any comments indicating the crossing was too narrow to accommodate existing or future traffic. Comments received reiterated that the historic trail passed through difficult topography which tended to limit use and that most travelers used the Iditarod Race Trail to the north that passed over terrain easier to traverse. An additional limiting factor is that the Historic Iditarod Trail is on the National Historic Register and any proposals to widen or significantly improve the trail would likely be denied because it would change the character and setting of the trail and the trail user s experience. The MSB has worked with the property owners at the Iditarod Race Trail crossing (just north of the Historic Iditarod Trail) and have been able to procure a trail easement in that area which will allow for legal access for the foreseeable future. This provides for an additional 25 wide crossing under the rail embankment at a bridge site. The two crossings will accommodate existing and future trail traffic in this area. The Borough has addressed the 400 INHT easement, but the 100 RS2477 right-of-way predates the designation of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and application for this project and has the dominant right at this crossing. DNR did comment to the existence of the RST during the federal review. The 25 proposal does not adequately address the existing rights held by the State under Title 19, and placement of a permanent structure will impede future development of the 100 width for RST-118. The DNR construction and final easement authorization will be predicated on the modification of the proposal as submitted to address this width issue in a manner acceptable to DNR. Once modification is approved, any required stipulations will be included in the authorizations. Issue 20: Airstrip Comment TLO [Trust Land Office] is concerned that a private landowner utilizes a portion of ADL as a runway that originates on the private owner's land and extends into Trust land. The use of a road right of way as part of an airstrip is also a public safety issue. The TLO also questions the validity of the airstrip on Trust land. Title of the subject Trust land was conveyed by the state to the Trust under QCD dated September 20, 1996 and was not subject to a right of way or easement for the airstrip. The TLO manages Trust land according to Trust land principles (AS ) and has an obligation to protect the Trust against undue liability and risk. The activities of the general public on state land under the "Generally Allowed Uses" of state land do not automatically transfer to Trust land. Until proved otherwise, the use of the airstrip on Trust land is unauthorized and considered trespass. It is TLO's obligation to address the need to reduce the Trust's risk from unauthorized uses of Trust land; and we fully intend to pursue the mitigation of this risk. Prior to the management of Trust land being transferred to the TLO, the lands were actively managed by DNR-Division of Lands. The owner of the runway did apply for an Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 32 of 43

33 easement from DNR in 1982, prior to construction activities (ADL ). DNR determined that an easement was not required for the activity and the construction was subsequently authorized under permit number SCM It is not inconsistent with past practices to have authorized the clearing and construction of an airstrip through the permitting process. It is the determination of DNR-DMLW, that the casefile supports that the airstrip was authorized by DNR for the portions currently on Trust land. Issue 21: Houston Lake Loop Reroute Comment 1 Relocate trails extending through oil and gas leased lands such as the one in Section 1, Township 17 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian. The trails described as Big Lake Trail #2 and PMRE Crossing #3 cross through the leased area. Based on multiple uses between dog sleds and motorized ATV or snowmachine traffic, MSB should acquire a larger SLE, a total of 50 wide, 25 at the centerline SLE. ADL is not on Trust land but is adjacent to parcel SM-1919-A (Section 2, Township 17 North, Range 4 West, Seward Meridian) on the southern border of the subject Trust parcel. The Trust and the public use the road to access lands to the west. The road bed is in rough condition and with the increased demand of additional uses will require the road ROW be improved for public safety. Comment 2 The proposed snow machine trail is going directly across the path at the north end of my property in the approach and departure area of the runway. It is in direct striking distance and a major safety hazard for snow machine, four wheelers and aircraft. To impair this runway in any way will greatly affect the value of our airport development, as the runway is the value in the parcels of land. The section line that is proposed for the new trail is also used for ingress and egress by all of the residence with properties on the west side of West Lake, a total of 16 individual lots and currently 9 residences, who frequently park on our property to access their homes. While you may say that the easement can be used as a trail and road, you and I both know that the trail users will choose the easiest path. This is not only a safety hazard; it is also an extreme financial liability on me, as I maintain this road at a considerable annual cost. When its snowing and our plows are out plowing Kucera Drive we are driving at high speed in order to throw the snow as far back off the road as possible. We would not see a snow machine coming head on to the plow until it would be too late. This is a real safety hazard mixing snow machines and vehicles. The second issue that appears not to have been addressed is the stream that runs into West Lake. In the attached documents, you will see the proposed trail crossing at the deepest areas of the wetland and the stream. The area just north of the culverts is a fish (including salmon) spawning area. Snow machine trails are also used by four wheelers. To deliberately direct that type of traffic through this ecologically sensitive area is irresponsible. In addition, because it is a wetland, it is not only swampy, it is like a lake during spring break-up and when it rains. It is not a suitable area for snow machines or ATV to travel and because of the fast moving water as shown in the attached photos; it is a safety hazard for riders and the area eco-system. Attached are photos that were taken in last year s (2012 breakup) showing the amount of water that flows through the culverts and into the lake. This is the water that the Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 33 of 43

34 proposed snow machine trail will be encroaching on. This will be hazardous for machines and riders, fish and the environment, especially during early winter, breakup and anytime it starts to thaw mid winter. Comment 3 Safety issues with proposed trail: Riders going off trail and exploring our property and coming down road to homes Opening up an otherwise isolated area to possible invasion, damage, and or theft Recreational vehicles crossing driveway where cars are present Trail crossing neighbor's active runway Two concreted gates, one on section line by neighbor and one on our property/drive Pets and wildlife in surrounding area which have paths and resting area being used for yrs. Eagles nesting within one thousand feet of the trail The area/road that parallel's trail is plowed creating large burms and obstacles Noise Disturbance: Trail being within one thousand feet from us and our neighbor's front door Disturbance to wildlife, eagle's nesting in summer and moose calving in the spring Alternative Suggestions: Using the North side of the planned railway which would give more of a buffer from private property. Relocating to section line north of our property which would not utilize any private property Do not relocate since there are already multiple trials south of Horseshoe Lake near Westlake's Blvd. Comment 4 The trail reroute for Houston Lake Loop Trail (Big Lake Trail #1) to the section line easement (SLE) between Section 2, T 17 N, R 4 W, SM and Section 1, T 17 N, R 4 W, SM, which connects to the SLE running East-West between Section 2, T 17 N, R 4 W, SM and Section 11, T 17 N, R 4 W, SM is currently developed as a road (Kucera Circle) that leads to Brazil Circle on Little Horseshoe Lake. How will user conflicts be addressed with vehicular traffic to the subdivision and the proposed addition of winter recreation opportunities like snow machining, dog mushing and cross country skiing. In addition, the road and proposed trail reroutes cross an active airstrip. The issue of the active airstrip and the potential lack of width in the existing easement to accommodate safe trail use with the road will need to be addressed. MSB Clarification ADL 79861, Right-of-Way Permit for a 60' ROW within Section 11, T17N, R4W, SM, is for the use of the 50' section line easement. There is no permit or ROW of record for the use of the 50' section line easement in Section 2, T17N, R4W, SM. The trail user conflicts are addressed in the IDSHD [Iditarod Dog Sledding Historic District] workshops by the participants. The participants suggested, and the project team agreed, to use standard snow machine/dog sledding trail signage similar to the Alaska State Parks Snowmobile Trail Advisory Committee (SnoTRAC). Appropriate signage will be placed at key points on trails, trail reroutes (directional signage), and at crossings. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 34 of 43

35 The use of a portion of the east-west section line easements for the trail reroute within sections 2 & 11 is west of Kucera Circle and not developed. The development of the trail within the southern section line easement will be a cleared (Section 2), separated trail north of the road with vehicular traffic in the portion of the developed section line easement. See attached drawing for the location of the road within Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12 for Kucera Circle and Brazil Circle. After reviewing the comments and DNR files, the following major issues are apparent at this location: 1. Safety concerns with authorizing three heavily used trails across an active runway. 2. The dominant use of the SLE is the existing and authorized road (ADL 79861). 3. ADL is plowed in the winter with the snow piled within the undeveloped portion of the SLE, leaving very little to no room for a trail easement. 4. Safety concerns with open water within the undeveloped portion of the SLE. 5. DNR agrees with the TLO that the 25 width proposed by the applicant for the combining of three major trails is not sufficient for the size and separation of multiple uses of these trails. Given the various issues cited above, DNR cannot authorize this trail reroute onto the section line easement at this location. DNR would suggest that the applicant contact the adjacent land owner, the Mental Health Trust Authority, and negotiate a trail easement on Trust land. Should the MSB be unable to negotiate an easement with the TLO, the applicant is welcome to apply in the future for the use of different valid SLEs that could support the rerouting of these trails. A separate application and review will be required for any new development requests for this reroute. The suggestions on alternate locations and concerns expressed by the public are included above to assist the applicant in determining how best to proceed. Issuance of any permits or authorization for construction will be conditioned upon the requirement that the applicant addresses the above issues in a manner that is acceptable to DNR. Issue 22: Susitna Parkway Reroute Comment 1 The Crooked Lake Trail has existed along the east boundary of Section 1 for a longtime. There is precedent for trails to share the right-of-way or run adjacent with the railroad. There is an ATV trail along side the railroad north of Talkeetna. A fence could be built where the trail parallels the railroad to prevent unsafe travel along the railroad bed. Leaving the Crooked Lake Trail on the current east boundary of Section 1 would be to the benefit of the trail users, the railroad, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the State of Alaska, and the property owners along the proposed re-route. This would be less expensive and less damaging to the environment than re-routing a trail through wetlands. Comment 2 Figure 3 is the development to 25 feet in width of the section line north-south between sections 14 and 13, 11 and 12, 2 and 1 of T16N, R05W connecting the Iditarod Race Trail to Crooked Lake Trail. This trail looks to be a new trail. Would it be used to close one of the other crossings and re-route traffic down to the Iditarod Race Trail? Have any Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 35 of 43

36 of the local trail groups (like the Knik Trail Blazers, Alpine Services or Big Lake Trails, Inc.) come forward with interest to groom or maintain this trail? MSB Clarification The north south section line easement will be developed to provide a connection between Iditarod Race Trail and Crooked Lake Trail that currently doesn't exist. This will provide a continuous north south route on the west side of the rail extension. As part of relocating trails, we have worked with the trail user groups mentioned and our intent is to continue to work with the trail user groups for development of the new trails. It would be logical as portion of the trails are abandoned; the new trails will be added to their grooming pool. This is a new trail reroute due to the design of the rail in conflict with the Houston Lake Loop Trail with the angle of the crossing. The new trail reroute design is within the section line easements and provides a continuous route for the Houston Lake Loop Trail (Big Lake Trail #1) While the applicant labeled the map a reroute, the proposed construction of the connection of the Crooked Lake Trail/Susitna Parkway to the Iditarod Race Trail is a new trail and not a reroute of any of the trails involved. Issue 23: Flat Lake Connector Trail Comment Flat Lake Connector Trail, Big Lake Trail Number 6 (ADL ) also known as the SVWT (Susitna Valley Winter Trail) Lakes Trail is proposing a grade separated bridge crossing that is co-located with a creek that connects to West Papoose Lake. This trail re-route may cause a problem with dog mushers and snowmachiners with the line of sight reduced greatly with the horseshoe shaped trail. On the Southeast section of this re-route approximately 1500 feet of trail runs parallel to the rail road grade, what would be done to keep the users on the trail and not short-cut this re-route, by just hoping over the tracks? Also included in Figure 2 is the Iron Dog Trail, Big Lake Trail Number 5 (ADL B) re-route. This trail will be re-routed to the north-south section line between sections 21 and 22 of T17N, R04W. This section line re-route ties in well with the north south section for the Huston Lake Loop, Big Lake Trail 1, although for the east west traffic on the Iron Dog Trail will now have to negotiate a tight 40 degree turn south onto the section line and within a half mile another tight 90 degree turn on the southern eastwest section line between section 21 and 28 of T17N, R04W. Line of sight and safety between multiple winter uses are of concern in this section. Will the grade separated crossing accommodate large snow grooming equipment that can easily stand 25 feet tall? MSB Clarification a. The vegetation in the horseshoe shaped area for the trail reroute is scrub wetlands. Therefore, the line of sight will not be reduced within the trail relocate area. The project Engineers designed the curves and sight distance to accommodate a 100' long vehicle/sled dog team with a minimum 60' turn radius. b. Brush and tree buffers will remain between the rail and trail. The vegetation between the rail and trail is heavily treed within this area. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 36 of 43

37 c. The Iron Dog Connector Trail will be abandoned within 17N04W22 with the concurrence of Kevin Kastner, Executive Director of the Iron Dog Race. The new route from Big Lake race start will continue west across Mirror Lake and Flat Lake to the north south section line easements between sections 27 & 28 (north of Flat Lake). d. The section line easements developed for the trail reroutes will be brushed to accommodate a safe sight distance. e. Large tracked grooming vehicles have a blade on front that allows for pushing snow off trails. It is MSB's assumption this method will be used to keep vertical distance open under bridges during extreme high snow conditions. A stipulation pertaining to the brushing and grooming of these routes will be included in the EEA and final easement. For the MSB Clarification under c. above: While this trail is called the Iron Dog Connector Trail, it is a public trail with a license from the TLO that is held by DNR-Division of Parks, not the Iron Dog Race officials. Additionally, the sections of the easement on DNR managed land are issued to SCRO. It is the land manager, license and easement holders the applicant should be consulting with. Issue 24: Crooked Lake Trail/Susitna Parkway Trail Connection Location Comment 1 The proposed Crooked Lake Trail/Susitna Parkway Section Line Reroute of 2.4 miles would take the trail through an area of substantial wetlands. The section line goes through a lake on the east boundary of Section 2 (Lot 3). There is a steep hill on the east side of that lake. There is a lake on our lot (Lot 4) that drains along the west boundary of Section 1 into the Little Susitna River. Even using this trail through the wetlands in the winter with marginal snow conditions will cause considerable erosion, and summer use would be an environmental disaster. Has a study been done to evaluate the potential impact on the wetlands and water quality? Who will be responsible for the expense of maintaining the proposed re-routed trail? It may look good on the map, but the physical reality is far different. Trail users are likely to resort to going off the trail onto private property to avoid the wetlands and the steep hills that parallel the wetlands. Comment 2 Currently, the University is in the feasibility/conceptual development process for our lands within Section 12, TI6N, R5W, S.M. Also, the University is currently working with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) in acquiring Lot II, West Big Lake Subdivision, Plat which is coincident with W. Susitna Parkway on in northern boundary and contains said section line easement on its western boundary. The planned access for both of the above-referenced properties is the western section line easement within Sections I and 12, Tl6N, R5W, S.M. The proposed road will be constructed to MSB standards for a rural road. We understand ML&W's intent to provide for new construction of a 25' wide winter-use trail within said section line easements. However, the University position remains that it is critical to reserve road access for subdivision development. These subdivision lots will add to the tax base of the MSB and help to meet the fiduciary responsibility of the University by generating income for student scholarships within the State of Alaska. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 37 of 43

38 Comment 3 Section Line Easements lie across the terrain without any respect to topographic or environmental conditions. Section lines are simply boundaries of Sections within Townships. So it stands to reason that some section line easements are not safe for public uses or for all modes of transportation. The information concerning a portion of the proposed route is based on my many trips along the route mentioned here. It is my professional opinion that the route is unsafe and poses a hazard to novice users. That portion that I am referencing is as follows: The section line easements abutting the Section Line common to Sections 1 & 2, T16N, R5W, S.M., within West Big Lake Subdivision. Problematic conditions found along the above mentioned section: 1. At the intersection of the section line and Susitna Parkway (South Big Lake Road), the swamp was probed during the establishment of South Big Lake Road ROW. It was discovered that the peat and bog is 25 feet deep at this location. During some winters the area remains unfrozen and snowmachiners and four wheelers travel far out of the right-of-way to get around the marshy area. The SLE runs through the center of the wettest area. 2. Traveling north from the bog the easement inclines reaching an existing grade of nearly 18%. 3. At the northern corner common to Lot 3 and Lot 4 West Big Lake Subdivision is a steep drop as you travel north of about 32%. The hill steepens as you near the top when traveling south up this grade. This grade cannot be avoided and poses the greatest hazard to the public. 4. The easement crosses a pond which lies on both sides of the section line approximately half way between the north and south boundaries of Lots 3 & 4. The easement continues north from the pond and runs in the drainage creek of the pond for about 200 feet. In most winters open water can be found in the creek. Due to the above factors, it is my recommendation that the new north-south trail be located within the 600 foot wide easement located just west of and parallel to the proposed trail. The 600 foot width would provide room for maneuvering around adverse topographic and environmental concerns and hazardous conditions. The 600 foot wide easement connects the Iditarod Trail on the south to Crook Lake Trail on the north. This location would provide for the same objective of the proposed new trail route, but with greater flexibility. The 600 wide easement also avoids University of Alaska owned lands, which is one of the intended purpose of the new trail. Lands beneath this SLE are only partially owned by DNR, with one of the major land owners being the University of Alaska. Given the University response notifying DNR that they intend to develop part of the SLE for use as a road, it is foreseeable that the only portion available for a new trail is the extreme western 25 of the SLE, which has wetland, terrain and grade issues that appear to not support a safe trail alignment. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 38 of 43

39 DNR agrees with Comment 3, that the 600 wide inholding allows for this trail connection, avoids University land and will provide greater flexibility for the placement of this trail. Correspondence with the MSB on 3/13/2013 and 3/29/2013 stated that the Borough would like to pursue the proposed connection mentioned in the 600 wide inholding. DNR will deny the location as requested and approve this new trail within the 600 inholding located west of this section line between the Iditarod Race Route and Susitna Parkway, continuing north to the Crooked Lake Trail. Survey A DNR approved as-built survey is required to determine proper location and compute accurate acreage. Prior to construction, the ARRC must survey and identify Ordinary High Water for purposes of documenting state title locations. Upon completion of construction, the Mat-Su Borough will be required to provide DNR with an approved survey for the entire constructed project. The Borough shall contact the DNR Technical Data Management and Support Office (Survey Unit) for detailed pre and post construction as-built survey instructions. A preliminary draft survey shall be submitted to the DNR Technical Data Management and Support Office for review and approval prior to the final submission to the DNR, DMLW, SCRO. The final easement will not be issued until the as-built survey has been approved by the DMLW. The survey must meet the standards of the Survey Section prior to the expiration of the Early Entry Authorization for construction. Fees Per 11 AAC (c)(5) a land use fee can be waived or reduced if the federal, state, or municipal agency demonstrates to the Director s satisfaction that the waiver or reduction is in the public interest. This project meets the requirements for a fee waiver. No fee will be assessed for these authorizations. Performance Guarantee Per 11 AAC (Performance Guaranty), the applicant shall furnish security acceptable to the Department in the amount of $38,486,253, which will be conditioned upon compliance with all terms of the permit. The amount of the performance guarantee also reflects that the alignment crosses through different vegetative terrain including wetlands, uplands, submerged lands, riparian zones, and the fact that the agricultural covenants within the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project are in place at the time of this decision. Should the agricultural covenants not be lifted, the potential removal and/or alteration of any construction activities leading to/from the agricultural project will be required. The performance guarantee will be subject to release upon the remittance of a DNR approved as-built survey and fulfillment of all General and Special stipulations. Insurance Per 11 AAC (Insurance), the applicant shall secure and maintain in force during the term of the permit, insurance in the amount and type that the Department determines necessary to protect the permittee and the state. Prior to construction, the ARRC will be required to submit a letter demonstrating that they are self-insured. DNR will not authorize construction unless the coverage is deemed sufficient to address any assurances needed for this project. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 39 of 43

40 Term of the Early Entry Authorization (Permits) An initial revocable permit will be issued for brush clearing for the proposed route only, to allow time for the applicant to address any remaining items required for the EEA. An EEA will be issued for the construction and survey of this project following the submittal of any requested additional information and compliance with 11 AAC 02. The term of the EEA/Permits will be for five years from the date of signature by DNR. They may be extended if requested by the applicant and approved by SCRO. Term of the Easement The term of the public easement authorization will be until the lands are no longer used for the above-stated purpose. Non-Compliance DNR Land Administration System records indicate that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Alaska Railroad Corporation are not in a state of non-compliance with the terms of any other DNR authorizations. Easement Revocability This authorization has been determined to be functionally irrevocable per AS (c), given the nature of the use and the structures involved. This determination does not preclude DNR from issuing additional authorizations or preclude any existing authorizations, including statutorily designated easements. Economic Benefit and Development of State Resources As per AS (a), the Department of Natural Resources considered three criteria to determine if this project provides the greatest economic benefit to the State and the development of its natural resources. These include direct economic benefit to the State, indirect economic benefit to the state and encouragement of the development of the State s resources. The rail line would provide an indirect economic benefit to the State by providing an additional mode of transportation to Port users and an economical alternative for the movement of bulk materials in the region. This development could encourage the expansion of private investment, employment opportunities and the development of the State s natural resources by providing for a more cost effective means for the transportation of materials. Proposal & Recommendation for Issuance of Public Easements and Land Use Permits In consideration of all sections and criteria listed above, it has been determined that this project is consistent with the overall classification and management intent for this land and would be a benefit to the State of Alaska, with the changes to the requested authorizations noted below. Public Easements for the Rail Alignment (outside of the PMAP) The following locations are approved as described: ADL : The crossing of public water and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each steam bank established under AS for the outlet of Diamond Lake. ADL : Crossing of public water and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each steam bank established under AS at an outlet of Crooked Creek, located approximately 1,800 west of Finger Lake. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 40 of 43

41 ADL : Crossing of public water and a 50 wide perpetual public easement on each steam bank established under AS for the outlet of Horseshoe Lake, located approximately 0.5 miles east of East Papoose Twins Lake. The following locations within ADL are approved as described: One mile segment for the rail alignment in Section 24 of T16N, R5W, Seward Meridian, directly north of My Lake (excluding ADL and ADL ). Small, approximately 200, segment of State land east of Dion Lake segment of State land within a narrow inholding of DNR, DMLW managed land surrounded by Mental Health Land Trust managed land, approximately 0.5 miles west of Colt Lake and 0.5 miles southwest of Muleshoe Lake. The following locations require additional modification or stipulations: ADL : The DNR construction and final easement authorization will be predicated on the modification of the proposal as submitted to address the width issue in a manner acceptable to DNR. Once modification is approved, any required stipulations will be included in the authorizations. ADL : Please see the Easements within the Agricultural Project section below. Easements within the Agricultural Project Authorization for the development of the easements retained in patent is approved contingent on: The agricultural restrictions must be lifted prior to any construction activities. ADL : the crossing of the public easement directly north of Baker Farm Road is partially in the PMAP. The agricultural restrictions must be lifted prior to construction activities that are in the PMAP, even if they occur in the public easement or the section line easement that is within the PMAP. Access to both sides of Tract 7 is maintained. MSB needs to provide survey and documentation from the STB for the additional width requested for the easement across the agricultural project. Any lands within the 300 not included in the final easement for ADL will be unencumbered and released. DNR will provide letters to the affected farmers required for the federal farm programs, per their contract stipulations. Section Line Easement Development Requested for Trails PMRE Crossing #2 (Figure 6) is approved as described. Crossing #5 (Figure 7) is approved with the following stipulations: o Any agency permits required by the TLO for the reroutes are approved and copies submitted to SCRO for the project file. o Any platted routes that connect private inholdings to the SLEs and the existing trail system are maintained. For the Crooked Lake Trail/Susitna Parkway Link (Figure 8): the new trail linking these existing trails will be located within the existing 600 DNR inholding, previously serialized as ADL and not on the section line easement requested. The request for the development of the SLEs for the Houston Lake Loop Reroute (Figure 9) is denied. The denial is due to multiple factors, including the safety concerns with multiple trails crossing an active airstrip, and that there is not enough room in the SLE for the trails with the existing authorized and plowed road named Kucera Circle. DMLW would suggest that the applicant contact the main landowner in the area, Mental Health Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 41 of 43

42 Trust Authority, and request a separate easement from them for these trails. Should the MSB be unable to negotiate an easement with the TLO, the applicant is welcome to apply in the future for the use of different SLEs that could support the rerouting of these trails. A separate application and review will be required for any new development requests for this reroute. The Borough will have to coordinate with underlying land owners prior to construction of any authorized trail reroute within an SLE. Additional Authorizations The project description submitted by the applicant states that they are currently evaluating the possibility of removing Baker Farm Road. While the MSB did not apply at this time for this action, SCRO would like to inform the Borough that a formal vacation, per 11 AAC , will be required prior to the removal of this road. The proposed vacation of a section line easement, approximately 1 mile in length, where the rail alignment is collocated with the section line cannot be granted by this decision. The SLE will need to be formally vacated, as outlined in 11 AAC , prior to construction activities. Permits/Early Entry Authorizations Copies of the ADFG, DMLW-Water and TLO permits will be required prior to work commencing. SCRO recommends granting a Land Use Permit to the ARRC for the purpose of clearing timber and brush along the route for the purposes of future construction and surveying activities. The clearing activities are allowed within the appeal period since they are revocable in nature, per 11 AAC 02. The ARRC will be required to remediate for the vegetation removed upon revocation of this permit. This permit does not negate any additional requirement for a separate permit or approval from the Division of Forestry. Construction and temporary structure permits must adhere to the process outlined in the Appeal Process below and will not become effective until the 31 st day after issuance of this decision if no appeal is received. It is therefore recommended that SCRO issue a public access easement and permits described in this section pursuant to AS This review and decision is based on the January 2013 project description submitted by the MSB. If any additional or new access routes or modifications to the project description are required for construction of the rail alignment, a written request must be submitted to SCRO. An additional agency review and public notice may be required for any permit or easement amendments or new authorizations. The State will assume no responsibility for maintenance of the easement or improvements constructed on State land or liability for injuries or damages attributed to that construction. This authorization is subject to all valid existing rights in and to the land covered under this authorization, including all section line easements not formally vacated. The State of Alaska makes no representations or warranties, whatsoever, either expressed or implied, as to the existence, number or nature of such valid existing rights. Administrative Decision: Port MacKenzie Railroad Extension Page 42 of 43

43