    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        H.R. 2801, IZEMBEK AND ALASKA PENINSULA REFUGE AND WILDERNESS
                   ENHANCEMENT AND KING COVE SAFE ACCESS ACT

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          Wednesday, October 31, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-51

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    38-772 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                   NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
                  DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Jim Saxton, New Jersey
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
    Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas              Chris Cannon, Utah
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
    Donna M. Christensen, Virgin         Jeff Flake, Arizona
        Islands                          Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Grace F. Napolitano, California      Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey                 Carolina
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam          Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Jim Costa, California                Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
    Dan Boren, Oklahoma                  Louie Gohmert, Texas
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Tom Cole, Oklahoma
    George Miller, California            Rob Bishop, Utah
    Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts      Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Dean Heller, Nevada
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York         Bill Sali, Idaho
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island     Doug Lamborn, Colorado
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin                  Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
    Lois Capps, California               Vacancy
    Jay Inslee, Washington
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    Joe Baca, California
    Hilda L. Solis, California
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
        Dakota
    Heath Shuler, North Carolina

                         James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
                       Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
                     Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
                     Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, October 31, 2007......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of West Virginia.................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Hall, H. Dale, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Mack, Hon. Stanley, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough............    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Mylius, Dick, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
          Alaska Department of Natural Resources.....................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Raskin, David, President, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife
          Refuges....................................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    22
        Trumble, Della, President, King Cove Corporation.............    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Whittington-Evans, Nicole, Assistant Regional Director, The
          Wilderness Society.........................................    26
            Prepared statement of....................................    28

       LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2801, TO PROVIDE FOR THE INCLUSION OF
     CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL LAND IN THE IZEMBEK AND ALASKA PENINSULA WILDLIFE
    REFUGES AND WILDERNESS IN THE STATE OF ALASKA AND FOR THE GRANTING OF A
      RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SAFE AND RELIABLE ACCESS FOR THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF
        KING COVE, ALASKA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (IZEMBEK AND ALASKA
     PENINSULA REFUGE AND WILDERNESS ENHANCEMENT AND KING COVE SAFE ACCESS
                                      ACT)

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, October 31, 2007

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m. in Room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Honorable Nick J.
    Rahall, II [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Rahall, Young, Kildee,
    Christensen, Napolitano, Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Inslee,
    Herseth Sandlin, Gilchrest and Bishop.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
              IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will
    begin.
        Today's hearing is on H.R. 2801, legislation introduced by
    the gentleman from Alaska, the Committee's Ranking Member and
    my good friend, Don Young. In essence, the bill provides for a
    land exchange between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    State of Alaska and the King Cove Corporation in order to allow
    for a road to be constructed through a national wildlife refuge
    and wilderness area.
        Lands acquired from the state and the corporation would be
    added to refuge wilderness under the legislation. The road
    would be for the purpose of providing access between the
    communities of King Cove and Cold Bay.
        H.R. 2801 revisits a controversy which has received
    congressional attention in the past. In 1998, during the
    Clinton Administration, Congress approved $37.5 million in an
    effort to provide a hovercraft connection and other health and
    safety enhancements as an alternative to construction of the
    road between King Cove and Cold Bay.
        This included $20 million for a hovercraft, including
    construction of a road, docks and marine transport facilities,
    $15 million to improve the airstrip in King Cove, and $2.5
    million for equipment and telemedicine improvements at the King
    Cove Health Clinic.
        In today's hearing, the Committee will get an update on how
    the Clinton Administration's 1998 road alternative has been
    implemented and consider the revised approach set forth in H.R.
    2801.
        At this point I will recognize the Ranking Minority Member,
    Mr. Young, for any opening comments he wishes to make.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Today's hearing is on H.R. 2801, legislation introduced by the
    gentleman from Alaska, the committee Ranking Member, Don Young.
        In essence, the bill provides for a land exchange between the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Alaska, and the King Cove
    Corporation in order to allow for a road to be constructed through a
    national wildlife refuge and wilderness area. Lands acquired from the
    state and the corporation would be added to refuge wilderness under the
    legislation. The road would be for the purpose of providing access
    between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay.
        H.R. 2801 revisits a controversy which has received congressional
    attention in the past. In 1998, during the Clinton Administration,
    Congress approved $37.5 million in an effort to provide a hovercraft
    connection and other health and safety enhancements as an alternative
    to construction of the road between King Cove and Cold Bay. This
    included $20 million for a hovercraft, including construction of a
    road, docks and marine transport facilities, $15 million to improve the
    airstrip in King Cove, and $2.5 million for equipment and telemedicine
    improvements at the King Cove Health Clinic.
        In today's hearing, the committee will get an update on how the
    Clinton Administration's 1998 road alternative has been implemented and
    consider the revised approach set forth in H.R. 2801.
                                     ______

       STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that you
    scheduled this hearing today on H.R. 2801. This gives the
    Committee a chance to hear about developments on the issue we
    first debated in 1997 and 1998.
        Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the money that you
    mentioned as being spent for hovercraft and for clinics and
    improvements to the airport are well and good, but it doesn't
    solve the basic problem.
        It was at the insistence of Senator Stevens and myself that
    that money be spent because we knew the needs in King Cove and
    the people who live there, and we did not think even at that
    time, because of weather conditions, that they would be able to
    meet the necessities of King Cove and the population that lives
    there.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, it is a native village. King
    Cove is located in a remote corner of the world. Its
    transportation options are limited to riding a boat, a
    hovercraft, on frequently rough waters and flying in an
    airplane in and out of a mountain valley that is plagued by
    strong crosswinds and persistent fog.
        They are seeking access to an all-weather airport, a 10,000
    foot runway and 6,500 cross-runway just 25 miles away. The
    problem is that a designated wilderness area of the Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge stands in the way.
        I will not say that conserving Izembek's natural resources
    is unimportant. You won't hear anyone in King Cove say that
    Izembek should be sacrificed for a greater good. They subsist
    on the fish and wildlife affected by a road, and they will be
    the last to cause them harm.
        I believe, Mr. Chairman, after the hearing today you will
    know that we can have wildlife and the habitat and a road.
        I recently heard someone, and it really still bothers me,
    say those people in King Cove chose to live there, and they
    don't have any special rights of safe and reliable access. Mr.
    Chairman, I submit the King Cove people were there first, not
    the Federal government.
        People chose to live in King Cove before the Carter
    Administration and before Congress chose to make their
    aboriginal lands a wilderness area, by the way, without any
    input from the local people. King Cove's access problem stems
    from government actions, not their own. Without this Federal
    intrusion on their aboriginal lands, we wouldn't be here today.
        H.R. 2801 offers a sweetheart deal, and I say that, a
    sweetheart deal, for the government. King Cove and the State of
    Alaska will give up 61,000 acres of pristine land--let me
    stress that, Mr. Chairman; 61,000 acres of pristine land--in
    exchange for a 206-acre road corridor and a 1,600-acre Federal
    inholding that is unrelated to the road. Forty-five thousand
    acres of lands added to the refuge will be designated as
    wilderness.
        Frankly, as I have said before, I am not thrilled with this
    deal. It is a sweetheart deal for the government. I think it
    does a disservice to the King Cove people, but again that is
    their decision, and I will support that decision, which is why
    I introduced the bill.
        The bill contains terms that no other state, to the best of
    my knowledge, has ever had to comply with in order to secure
    access rights for its citizens, and this deal points to a
    disturbing trend of the Federal government, which is to extract
    more than a fair share from American citizens in return for the
    right to use a small piece of Federal land.
        There is also a double standard at play. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service has a network of roads in the Izembek Refuge
    right now, a network of roads, so on one side of the Bay the
    government employees, sport hunters and environmentalists get
    to enjoy the Cold Bay Airport and the local road system. On the
    other side of the Bay 25 miles away, people wonder how they
    will get to a hospital when the weather is bad. I believe, Mr.
    Chairman, that is just wrong.
        As I said, Mr. Chairman, this deal is very good for the
    Federal government, very good for the refuge, but I agreed to
    introduce this bill at the strong urging of my constituents in
    the East Aleutians, and with the support of Alaska's Governor
    Palin I will put aside my personal reservations about the terms
    of the deal in the interest of getting this vital, life-saving
    road built.
        It is hard for me to hear stories about the people in King
    Cove clinging to life while waiting for weather to clear. I
    really hope we can move this deal forward. With that, I look
    forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

             Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you scheduled a hearing today on
    my bill, H.R. 2801. This gives the Committee a chance to hear about
    developments on an issue that we first debated in 1997 and 1998.
        King Cove is a recognized Native Village located in a remote corner
    of the world. Its transportation options are limited to riding a boat
    or hovercraft on frequently rough waters, and flying an airplane in-
    and-out of a mountain valley that is plagued by strong crosswinds and
    persistent fog. They're seeking access to an all-weather airport with a
    10,000-foot runway and 6,500-foot crosswind runway just 25 miles away.
        The problem is that a designated Wilderness Area of the Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge stands in the way.
        I will not say that conserving Izembek's natural resources is
    unimportant. You won't hear anyone from King Cove say that Izembek
    should be sacrificed for a greater good. They subsist on the fish and
    wildlife affected by a road, and they would be the last to cause them
    harm.
        But we can have wildlife--and habitat--and a road.
        I recently heard someone say, ``Those people in King Cove choose to
    live there, and they don't have special rights to safe and reliable
    access.''
        I submit that King Cove was there first, not the federal
    government. People chose to live in King Cove before the Carter
    Administration and Congress chose to make their aboriginal lands a
    Wilderness Area. King Cove's access problem stems from government
    actions, not from their own. Without this federal intrusion in their
    aboriginal lands, we wouldn't be here today.
        H.R. 2801 offers a ``sweetheart deal''--for the federal government,
    that is. King Cove and the State of Alaska will give up 61,000 acres of
    pristine land in exchange for a 206-acre road corridor and a 1,600-acre
    federal inholding that is unrelated to the road. 45,000 acres of the
    lands added to the Refuge System will be designated as Wilderness.
        Frankly, I am not very thrilled with this uneven deal. I do not
    like new Wilderness designations. The bill contains terms that no other
    State, to the best of my knowledge, has ever had to comply with in
    order to secure access rights for their citizens. And this deal points
    to a disturbing trend of the federal government, which is to extract
    more than a fair share from Americans citizens in return for the right
    to use a small piece of federal lands.
        There is also a double-standard at play. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service has a network of roads in the Izembek Refuge. So on one side of
    the Bay, the government employees, sport hunters and environmentalists
    get to enjoy the Cold Bay airport and the local road system. And on the
    other side of the Bay, people wonder how they'll get to a hospital when
    the weather is bad. This isn't right.
        As I said, this deal is very good for the federal government, but I
    agreed to introduce this bill at the strong urging of my constituents
    in the East Aleutians. And with the support of Alaska's Governor Palin,
    I will put aside my personal reservations about the terms of the deal
    in the interest of getting this vital, life-saving road built.
        It's hard for me to hear stories about people in King Cove clinging
    to life while waiting for the weather to clear, and I really hope we
    can move this deal forward. With that, I look forward to hearing from
    today's witnesses.
                                     ______

        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I do believe sometime we are going
    to have a short, four-minute film. If you will indulge me? Is
    that correct?
        Male Voice. Yes.
        Mr. Young. And will that be played now or when?
        Male Voice. When Stanley Mack goes.
        Mr. Young. When Stanley Mack goes. It will be played at
    that time.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Young, for your very heartfelt
    statement. It sounded very interesting. I appreciate your
    bringing this to our committee's attention, as well as many
    constituents of yours that I know are on this first panel.
    Would you like to introduce them?
        Mr. Young. I believe they will introduce themselves and
    give their recognition. I could introduce them all, but, very
    frankly, they have their roles and I believe they can best
    present their points of view in the manner in which they are
    chosen.
        The Chairman. Well, let me first welcome The Honorable Dale
    Hall, who is perhaps not a constituent of yours, but we feel is
    like a constituent of this committee. He has been here a number
    of times, and we welcome you, Director Hall, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior, back to our
    committee.
        We also have on this first panel Dick Mylius, the Director
    of the Division of Mining, Land and Water, Alaska Department of
    Natural Resources; The Honorable Stanley Mack, the Mayor of the
    Aleutians East Borough; Della Trumble, the president of King
    Cove Corporation; David Raskin, the president of Friends of
    Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; and Nicole Whittington-Evans,
    the Assistant Regional Director of The Wilderness Society.
        Dale, I guess do you want to kick it off, and then we will
    go down the list I just enumerated and each one can reintroduce
    themselves.

      STATEMENT OF H. DALE HALL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
                SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
    here again, Mr. Young, Mr. Grijalva. It is good to see you all
    again, and I do enjoy coming over here. I know that sometimes
    it doesn't feel that way, but I believe it is very helpful.
        Male Voice. You might think that.
        Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. That is why I work for the Federal
    government.
        You know, the Act that we are here to talk about today,
    H.R. 2801, would do a land transfer from the Fish and Wildlife
    Service of a little over 1,600 acres, but 206 of that is the
    real issue of discussion I think for most people. The 206 acres
    of land go through the wilderness area of Izembek National
    Wildlife Refuge.
        We also understand and the Administration appreciates the
    hardships that Mr. Young talked about a little earlier, and in
    that spirit the Administration will support H.R. 2801 and ask
    that it be amended, though, to ensure that full NEPA analysis
    is included in the process. This would allow people to fully
    see what at least at this point we believe are the values
    associated with this for the American people and for the
    wilderness system.
        I will not attempt to speak for our friends here from King
    Cove. We have met on several occasions, and they will do a much
    better job talking about the issues that they face than I will,
    but I would like to focus on what our responsibilities are, and
    those responsibilities in this case are simply to look at the
    value of the land exchange, the value for the people, both
    those that care about the wilderness system, and refuges, the
    value of the natural resource base that is there and to try and
    come up with a conclusion that is beneficial to the American
    people both today and in the future.
        The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is a very unique
    refuge. At 300,000 acres, it is still the smallest refuge in
    Alaska, but yet with that almost all of the black brant of the
    United States live there. Taverner's Canada geese and emperor
    geese inhabit the Izembek Lagoon, and Steller's eiders, a
    listed species, lives there as well and spends their molting
    period, their flightless period, in that area.
        The land exchange, as you will probably see on maps later,
    is right at the end of the national wildlife refuge boundary
    line next to the lagoon. This area would traverse through
    there, and in exchange for that 206 acres, about a nine mile
    corridor across the refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System
    would receive over 40,000 acres back into wilderness. That is
    about a 200:1 ratio.
        My position has been in the past and continues to be that
    wilderness areas are very important inside the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, but if the law does allow for the
    transfer and land exchange to take place in a wilderness area
    it is my belief that the bar should be high. I am not sure how
    much higher the bar could be than 200 acres for every acre
    removed.
        In addition to that, we would receive some very significant
    wetlands known as Martinson's Marsh, if I am saying that
    correctly, that I have been to and seen. I have visited the
    area myself. I have walked on the lands that we could walk on.
    I flew over the townships that would be contributed in place of
    this, and in my view as an average American going up there, not
    knowing biologically so much about Alaska, it is what I
    envisioned wilderness would look like.
        When you fly over that country, you can see the caribou
    trails. It is areas where the tundra swans nest, and these are
    areas that we will receive in exchange for the 206 acres.
        In total, we will get over 61,000 acres for the 1,600. The
    other areas, as were alluded to earlier, are on an island where
    we and the Coast Guard have some holdings that even our refuge
    manager does not believe that they are at the category of
    discussion that the 206 acres are at Izembek.
        As we go through that and look at the land exchange, I do
    want to reiterate again that our role is not whether or not
    there should be a road. Our role is, is there a fair land
    exchange taking place here for the American people? Is there a
    benefit to the wilderness system? Is there a benefit to the
    refuge system and is there a benefit to the wildlife concerned,
    and at the same time trying to understand what benefits need to
    accrue to the people that live in the area.
        There are a few things in the bill that we would like to
    see amended. There is Section 4 that talks about the lands and
    the return of lands if the road is not able to be built. Our
    concern on that is that we would be willing, if the bill were
    passed and we complete the process, to wait until all the
    permits were in place and they had all of the necessary
    requirements, but once construction begins and land exchange
    takes place we believe that is it.
        There is no land return policy as far as we are concerned
    after going through all this. That is something very serious to
    us, and I believe Section 4 creates some uncertainty there, and
    I think that that should be addressed.
        There are other technical issues in this bill, but we would
    be glad to work with the Committee or have our attorneys work
    with the Committee on balancing laws, ANCSA and ANILCA and the
    Wilderness Act and different things that are there, but all in
    all we look forward to working with you.
        If NEPA is done, you know, we have not budgeted to do that,
    and that would be something we would talk with the future with
    the Appropriations Committees about, but at this point the
    Administration supports this bill with those amendments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

     Statement of H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the
    Committee, I am H. Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (Service), and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
    H.R. 2801, the ``Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Refuge and Wilderness
    Enhancement and King Cove Safe Access Act.'' This Act would convey land
    from the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to the State of Alaska for
    the purpose of constructing a road, and would convey other non-Federal
    lands to the Izembek and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuges and
    designate a portion of those additions as Wilderness.
        When evaluating proposals such as the one outlined in H.R. 2801, we
    must ensure that any change in the public estate improves the
    ecological and social values available to the public. In that spirit,
    the Administration could support H.R. 2801 if it is amended to ensure
    that a full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the
    proposed exchange is required, including an analysis of the impacts of
    the road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The NEPA analysis
    would provide a full disclosure of the impacts and benefits of the
    exchange and allow for public input into the decision-making process.
    The Service is currently reviewing the proposal to assess the potential
    benefits, values, and costs to wildlife and wilderness areas. These
    efforts will help inform the NEPA process. Additionally, we have
    identified some technical issues in the legislation that we believe
    must be addressed.
    Background
        The communities of King Cove and Cold Bay are located in the
    westernmost region of the Alaska Peninsula. These communities are
    accessible only by sea or air. King Cove and Cold Bay are separated by
    less than twenty miles, but there is no road between the two
    communities. For many years the residents of the Aleutians East Borough
    and King Cove have advocated building a road between King Cove and Cold
    Bay, across the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness for both transportation
    accessibility and safety. Until last year transportation options
    between the communities were limited to private boats and commuter air
    service. Residents believe that the area's stormy weather makes these
    modes of transport unsafe, especially during medical emergencies when
    rapid transport to Anchorage hospitals requires reaching Cold Bay's
    all-weather airport.
        In 1997, legislation was introduced in, but did not pass, the House
    and Senate that would have resulted in construction of a road through
    the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness to address critical health and safety
    needs of the King Cove community. To address these needs, Congress
    appropriated $37.5 million for a compromise in the Fiscal Year 1999
    Consolidated Appropriations Bill that addressed the critical health and
    safety needs while avoiding building a road through the Izembek Refuge
    and Wilderness. Specifically, $20 million was provided to construct a
    road-hovercraft link between King Cove and Cold Bay, $15 million was
    for improvements to the King Cove airstrip, and $2.5 million was for a
    major renovation of the King Cove health clinic. The State of Alaska
    determined that King Cove's location in a valley prevented improvements
    to the airport to accommodate jets. Roughly $9 million of the funds
    were then spent on a hovercraft and additional funds were directed to
    the road.
        In 2006, the Aleutians East Borough constructed a one-lane gravel
    road from the King Cove airstrip to a temporary hovercraft dock four
    miles away where a hovercraft now carries up to 49 passengers, an
    ambulance, and cargo to and from Cold Bay. An additional 14 miles of
    road beyond the temporary hovercraft dock have been completed or are
    under construction. The road does not extend into the Izembek Refuge or
    Wilderness, a requirement of the 1999 legislation providing the funding
    for the road. This marine-road system was the preferred alternative
    evaluated in a 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement completed by
    the Army Corps of Engineers. That FEIS, which contained a partial
    analysis of a road only alternative, concluded that impact intensities
    for the road only alternative varied from negligible to significant.
        After six months of training and practice runs, on August 7, 2007,
    the hovercraft known as the Suna-X began its commercial service runs
    between King Cove and Cold Bay. King Cove residents, however, continue
    to seek a road linking their community with Cold Bay due to concerns
    about the reliability of the hovercraft in severe weather and
    uncertainty about future funding for the operational costs associated
    with the hovercraft.
        The Administration recognizes the legitimate needs of Alaska
    residents to have access to medical, dental, and other health care. At
    the same time, we must also fulfill our obligation to the American
    public to ensure that any decisions we make regarding lands held, and
    resources managed, in the public trust are decided in the best
    interests of the American public. I have personally visited Izembek
    Refuge and its significant wildlife values, and have flown over the
    areas being proposed for conveyance; I have met with the residents of
    King Cove and Cold Bay and discussed this issue with them.
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge
        At approximately 315,000 acres, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is
    the smallest and one of the most ecologically unique of Alaska's
    refuges. Most of the Refuge, about 300,000 acres, was designated as
    Wilderness in 1980 under the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act. Izembek is internationally renowned for having some
    of the most striking wildlife diversity and wilderness values in the
    northern hemisphere.
        At the heart of the Refuge is the 150-square mile Izembek Lagoon.
    The lagoon and its associated state-owned tidal lands have been
    protected by the State of Alaska since 1960 as the Izembek State Game
    Refuge. Here, shallow, brackish water covers one of the world's largest
    beds of eelgrass, creating a rich feeding and resting area for hundreds
    of thousands of waterfowl. Virtually the entire world's population of
    Pacific black brant, Taverner's Canada goose, and emperor goose inhabit
    the lagoon each fall. Steller's eiders, a species listed as threatened
    under the Endangered Species Act, molt and winter in Izembek and
    Kinzarof Lagoons.
        In addition, the corridor between Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons,
    through which the road proposed by this legislation would extend, is
    heavily used as a migration route and winter habitat for the Southern
    Alaska Peninsula caribou herd. Steller's eiders and sea otters, listed
    as threatened species, Pacific black brant, emperor geese and harlequin
    ducks use Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons extensively.
        To date, the Department of the Interior and the Service have
    opposed proposals to build a road through the Izembek Refuge and
    Wilderness because of the impact on wilderness values and biological
    resources within the refuge. Over the last year and a half the Service
    has met numerous times with representatives of the State of Alaska, the
    Aleutians East Borough, and the King Cove Corporation to discuss
    various interests in lands that now comprise the acreage described in
    H.R. 2801. The bill offers more than 61,000 acres in exchange for 1,600
    acres of National Wildlife Refuge lands. Of that, more than 41,000
    acres would be exchanged to make up for 206 acres of wilderness lands.
    These proposals would offer approximately 38 acres for every acre of
    wetlands and wildlife habitat, and over 200 acres for every acre of
    wilderness exchanged.
    Technical Considerations
        We have reviewed H.R. 2801 and identified a number of technical
    provisions we believe warrant further attention from the Committee as
    it considers this bill. For example, we encourage the Committee to
    review and amend the bill to remedy legal deficiencies or conflicts
    with established federal land laws such as sections 22(g) and 22(i) of
    the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the wilderness withdrawal
    provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
    Additionally, we note the need for a number of technical corrections
    concerning characterizations of ownership and management status of
    lands in the vicinity of the proposed road corridor, as well as various
    acreage figures provided in the bill. We would also be glad to provide
    you with more information on the lengthy and inclusive public
    involvement process leading to the 1980 designation of Wilderness
    within the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
        Moreover, we have significant concerns about Section 4 of the bill,
    which would provide for immediate reconveyance of the 61,723 acres of
    non-federal lands back to non-federal ownership if a court injunction
    prohibits construction of the road or the State or King Cove
    Corporation determine that the road cannot be feasibly constructed or
    maintained. As written, this provision shifts the risks of the road
    project largely to the public trust. In the event of this reconveyance
    there is no provision for a similar reconveyance of the road corridor
    back to federal ownership, nor is there provision for mitigation or
    rehabilitation of lands damaged by incomplete construction activities.
    Additionally, we are concerned about the timeline for which the
    Secretary must complete a cooperative planning process; we need to
    better understand the compatibility and construction authorization
    provisions of the legislation; and treatment of new and existing King
    Cove Corporation roads provisions. We hope our continuing review will
    assist in this understanding.
        We are happy to meet with your staff to discuss these issues in
    further detail.
    Conclusion
        In conclusion, I look forward to working with you as you move
    forward on this important issue. The Administration could support
    passage of this legislation if it were amended to ensure a full NEPA
    analysis on the exchange. We have also identified a number of technical
    changes and issues with the bill that we would like to work with you
    on, as well. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and am happy
    to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mylius?

     STATEMENT OF DICK MYLIUS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND
           AND WATER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Mylius. Good afternoon, Representative Rahall and
    Members of the Committee, including Congressman Young. My name
    is Dick Mylius. I am here on behalf of the State of Alaska. I
    am the Director of the Department of Natural Resources,
    Division of Mining, Land and Water.
        We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this
    afternoon in support of H.R. 2801, legislation that would
    authorize the land exchange between the State of Alaska, the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and King Cove Corporation to
    secure road access between the Alaskan communities of King Cove
    and Cold Bay.
        These communities are located on the Alaska Peninsula and
    are accessible only by air and water. A short overland link
    between these communities would provide residents of King Cove
    with safe, dependable and economic all-weather access to the
    airport at Cold Bay. The need for this road link has been
    identified in land and transportation plans for at least 25
    years, including the Alaska Department of Transportation's
    Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan in 2004.
        This overland link is necessary because both air and water
    access to King Cove is treacherous in the frequent stormy water
    so common to the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Cold Bay has a much
    larger, safer airport, and the residents of King Cove need
    better access to that facility for health and safety, including
    for emergency medical evacuation.
        A combination road and hovercraft system established under
    the King Cove Health and Safety Act passed by Congress several
    years ago has not safely nor efficiently resolved access
    problems.
        The land exchange would add valuable and significant
    acreage to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife
    Refuges. Much of the land that would be added to the refuges is
    currently owned by the State of Alaska. Specifically the State
    of Alaska is offering 43,093 acres or all of the state-owned
    land within two townships located northeast of Izembek Refuge
    in exchange for a 206-acre easement dedicated to the State of
    Alaska through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
    Wilderness.
        The undeveloped land that the state is offering is
    surrounded on three sides by refuge lands and is habitat for
    brown bears and caribou. The state land includes the lower
    portion of the Cathedral River, which drains the western flanks
    of Pavlof Volcano, one of the most active volcanoes in Alaska.
    It is de facto wilderness land. This land was included in a
    recent state oil and gas lease sale, although no bids were
    received on these tracts.
        The 7,900 acres being offered to the Izembek Refuge by King
    Cove Corporation includes valuable waterfall habitat that
    straddles Kinzarof Lagoon at the head of Cold Bay. This land is
    an inholding within the existing Izembek Wilderness Area.
        The road easement that the state would acquire will run
    approximately 13 miles through the Izembek National Wildlife
    Refuge. More than half of this road already exists as primitive
    roads that were originally built during World War II. The total
    length of new road that is through the wilderness area is only
    6.3 miles.
        The combined offers from the State of Alaska and King Cove
    Corporation would immediately add 51,000 acres to the Izembek
    and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. All of the
    state land that is being offered in this exchange would be
    designated wilderness by this legislation. The state would
    acquire approximately 206 acres and encompass the road.
        The state would also acquire a 1,600-acre Federal inholding
    on Sitkinak Island, which is a predominantly state-owned island
    of land located south of Kodiak Island.
        The State of Alaska recognizes the unique value of Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge. In 1972, the Alaska legislature set
    aside the state-owned land within Izembek Lagoon and adjacent
    offshore lands as a state game refuge. These state lands
    contain the eel grass beds that are the very heart of the
    Izembek Refuge.
        As part of this proposal, the state would add another 4,000
    acres of state-owned lands in Kinzarof Lagoon at the head of
    Cold Bay to that state game refuge. The exchange will require
    approval by our state legislature as the state lands quite
    likely have unequal, but greater, fair market value than the
    Federal lands being exchanged.
        The state is well aware of concerns expressed by various
    groups who are opposed to this legislation. Some are concerned
    about the precedent set by building a road through a wilderness
    area, yet when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
    Act was passed in 1980, Congress specifically recognized that
    transportation facilities may be needed across the 58 million
    acres of Federal wilderness lands in Alaska.
        The Alaska Lands Act requires congressional approval for
    such transportation routes through wilderness, which is why we
    are before this committee today. There are also concerns about
    increased public access to the refuge wilderness.
        The refuge and the wilderness area are already accessible
    from Cold Bay by existing roads. Through planning and
    enforcement of existing refuge regulations, the impact of the
    limited number of new users from King Cove can be mitigated.
        In summary, the State of Alaska supports this legislation
    and stands ready to commit over 43,000 acres of state land to
    the National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness System. We urge the
    Committee to approve this bill, and I thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you about this legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mylius follows:]

       Statement of Dick Mylius, Director, Alaska Department of Natural
                  Resources Division of Mining, Land and Water

        Good Afternoon Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Congressman Young,
    and Members of the Committee on Natural Resources.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon in
    support of H.R. 2801, legislation that would authorize a land exchange
    between the State of Alaska, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    King Cove Corporation to secure road access between the Alaskan
    communities of King Cove and Cold Bay. These communities are located on
    the Alaska Peninsula and are accessible only by air or water.
        A short overland link between these communities would provide
    residents of King Cove with safe, dependable, and economic all weather
    access to the airport at Cold Bay. The need for this road link has been
    identified in land and transportation plans for at least twenty five
    years. Most recently it was included in the Alaska Department of
    Transportation's Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan, adopted in 2004.
        This overland link is necessary because both air and water access
    to King Cove is treacherous in the frequent stormy weather so common on
    the lower Alaska Peninsula. Cold Bay has a much larger, safer airport
    and the residents of King Cove need better access to that facility for
    health and safety, including emergency medical evacuations. A
    combination road and hovercraft system, established under the King Cove
    Health and Safety Act passed by Congress several years ago, has not
    safely nor efficiently resolved access problems.
        The land exchange that is before you today is the result of
    numerous meetings between the Alaska Regional Office of the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the City of King Cove, the Aleutians East
    Borough, King Cove Native Corporation, and the State of Alaska.
        The land exchange would add valuable and significant acreage to the
    Izembek and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. Much of the
    land that would be added to the refuges is currently owned by the State
    of Alaska. Specifically, the State of Alaska is offering to exchange
    43,093 acres, or all of the state owned land contained in Township 53
    South, Range 85 West, Seward Meridian and Township 54 South, Range 85
    West, Seward Meridian in exchange for an easement dedicated to the
    State of Alaska, through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
    Wilderness.
        This undeveloped state land is surrounded on three sides by
    existing refuge lands and is habitat for brown bears and caribou. This
    state land includes the lower portion of the Cathedral River, which
    drains the western flanks of Pavlof Volcano, one of the most active
    volcanoes in North America. It is de facto wilderness land. This state
    land was included in a recent state oil and gas lease sale, although no
    bids were received on these tracts.
        The land being offered to the Izembek Refuge by King Cove
    Corporation includes valuable waterfowl habitat that straddles Kinzarof
    Lagoon at the head of Cold Bay. This land is an inholding within the
    existing Izembek Wilderness area, and would become part of that
    wilderness area through this legislation.
        The road easement that the state would acquire will run
    approximately 13.3 miles through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
    More than half of this 13.3 mile road already exists today as primitive
    roads that were originally built during World War II. Of the 13 miles,
    only 8.9 miles is within Refuge Wilderness, and of that, 2.6 miles is
    an existing unimproved road that was built prior to Wilderness
    designation. The total length of new road through the Wilderness area
    is only 6.3 miles.
        The proposed road begins on the northeast side of Cold Bay, near
    the hovercraft terminal, and terminates on the southern boundary of the
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge where it adjoins a state owned road
    leading into Cold Bay. The exact location of the easement will be
    determined in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The combined offers from the State of Alaska and the King Cove
    Corporation would significantly increase the size of the Izembek and
    Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. Specifically, the exchange
    will result in an increase of approximately 51,000 acres of Refuge
    lands, 43,093 acres contributed by the state and 7,900 contributed by
    the King Cove Corporation. All of the state land that is being offered
    in this exchange would be designated Wilderness by this legislation.
        The state would acquire approximately 206 acres that encompass the
    road. The state would also acquire an additional 1,600 acres of federal
    land on Sitkinak Island. The 1,600-acre parcel of federal land on
    Sitkinak Island is a former Coast Guard station that is a federal
    inholding on the predominantly state-owned island. Sitkinak Island is
    located south of Kodiak Island and is used primarily for cattle
    grazing.
        The State of Alaska recognizes the unique value of the Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge. In 1972, the Alaska Legislature set aside the
    state-owned tidelands within Izembek Lagoon and adjacent offshore state
    lands as a State Game Refuge. These state lands contain eel grass beds
    that are the very heart of Izembek Refuge.
        As part of this proposal, the state is offering to add more than
    4,000 acres of state-owned tidelands in Kinzarof Lagoon, at the head of
    Cold Bay, to the State Game Refuge.
        The exchange will require approval by our state legislature as the
    state lands are quite likely of unequal, but greater, fair market value
    that the federal lands being exchanged.
        The state is well aware of concerns expressed by various groups who
    are opposed to this legislation. Some are concerned about the precedent
    set by building a road through a Wilderness Area. Yet, when the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed in 1980, Congress
    specifically recognized that transportation facilities may be needed
    across the 58 million acres of Federal Wilderness lands in Alaska. The
    Alaska Lands Act requires Congressional approval for such
    transportation corridors through Wilderness, which is why we are before
    this committee today.
        There are also concerns about increased public access to the refuge
    wilderness. The refuge and wilderness area are already accessible from
    Cold Bay by existing local roads. Through planning and enforcement of
    existing refuge regulations, the impacts of the limited number of new
    users from King Cove can be mitigated.
        The State of Alaska supports this legislation and stands ready to
    commit over 43,000 acres of state land to the National Wildlife Refuge
    and Wilderness system. We urge the Committee to approve this bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about this
    legislation.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Mayor Mack?

               STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STANLEY MACK,
                     MAYOR, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH

        Mr. Mack. Chairman Rahall, at this time I would like to
    present this video to give you a feel of the area that we are
    talkingabout and some of our transportation problems.
        [Whereupon, a video was shown.]
        [NOTE: The video has been retained in the Committee's
    official files.]
        The Chairman. Mayor?
        Mr. Mack. Chairman Rahall, thank you. Good afternoon. Thank
    you for allowing us to watch that video as part of this
    testimony.
        Congressman Young and other Members of the Committee, my
    name is Stanley Mack, and I thank you for this opportunity to
    testify before you today. I was born in the native village of
    King Cove and raised there. I come in front of you today to
    testify in favor of H.R. 2801. This bill is critical for the
    indigenous Aleuts, and we have come a very long ways to tell
    you why.
        Mr. Chairman, the passage of this bill is a win/win
    situation for all interested parties--the U.S. Government,
    lovers of the wildlife and wilderness, and the Aleut people.
    You have before you a proposed land exchange of an
    unprecedented magnitude, more than 61,000 acres of land from
    the King Cove Corporation and State of Alaska.
        What the bill provides is 206 acres for a single lane
    gravel road through the very small portion of the Izembek
    Refuge. Approximately 97 acres would be the wilderness section
    of the refuge.
        Mr. Chairman, Cold Bay is the third largest airport in
    Alaska. Our problem is having safe, reliable, affordable and
    dependable access to Cold Bay Airport.
        Also, please imagine our surprise and frustration when we
    learned the Federal government made a wilderness out of the
    Izembek Refuge land with no consultation with the Aleut people
    of King Cove.
        We do acknowledge that Congress tried to solve our
    transportation problem about 10 years ago with the King Cove
    Health and Safety Act. Unfortunately, the Act has failed to
    solve our problem. The hovercraft was built and operated and is
    in operation in King Cove at least on those days when our
    weather is agreeable, meaning the winds are laying down.
        The hovercraft does not meet the expectations of the
    feasibility report. It is clear that the hovercraft will not be
    able to operate anywhere near the 12 month/365 day schedule. It
    is prohibitively expensive to operate the hovercraft now, and
    the cost will only go up.
        A copy of the financial proforma is available on our
    website and as an attachment to this testimony. Detailed
    financial projections have concluded that a $500,000 to
    $700,000 annual subsidy is going to be required. Therefore, our
    common sense solution remains a road.
        Mr. Chairman, there is a concern about setting a precedent
    of allowing a new road in the Izembek Wilderness. Today there
    are more than 14 miles of roads traversing the Izembek
    Wilderness and another 35 miles in the Izembek Refuge. In fact,
    there are roads that lead and are used today to the real heart
    of the Izembek Refuge, and I really want to emphasize the heart
    of the Izembek Refuge. That is the eel grass beds in the
    Izembek Lagoon.
        You can trailer your boat and drive it right to the Izembek
    Lagoon where the internationally significant migratory
    waterfowl stop for about two months in the fall to feed. It is
    nonsense to suggest that we would risk damaging the land that
    feeds us.
        Mr. Chairman, we grew up in this wilderness. We have hunted
    and fished in the wilderness all our lives. We know our
    grandchildren and their grandchildren will do the same. We need
    the freedom, safety and peace of mind to have a road connection
    to Cold Bay Airport.
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2801 authorizes a land exchange of
    61,723 acres of state and King Cove Corporation land, of which
    45,493 acres will be designated as wilderness by this bill.
    Please understand this is a single lane gravel road. Finally,
    let me emphasize that the road will be constructed with highway
    trust funds through the State of Alaska.
        Mr. Chairman, we must have this road for our people to have
    a quality of life that all Americans expect and to protect the
    life, health and safety of the Aleuts and all people in King
    Cove. This bill is the only way to truly solve the King Cove
    issue. It is fair and just to the American people and to the
    people of King Cove.
        Mr. Chairman, we urgently ask that the Committee pass this
    bill. It is critical to the needs of our people. They are
    Americans that deserve the same quality of life that other
    Americans enjoy.
        Thank you for this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mack follows:]

                Statement of The Honorable Stanley Mack, Mayor,
                             Aleutians East Borough

        Good Afternoon, Chairman Rahall, Congressman Young, and other
    members of the Committee. My name is Stanley Mack and I thank you for
    the opportunity to testify before you today and tell you about the
    Native village of King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula where I was born
    and raised. My Aleut ancestors have lived and subsisted in the King
    Cove area for more than 4,000 years.
        I come in front of you today to testify in favor of the ``Izembek
    and Alaska Peninsula Refuge and Wildlife Enhancement and King Cove Safe
    Access Act of 2007''. This bill is critical for the indigenous Aleuts,
    and we have come a very long way to tell you why. In addition to my
    personal life experience and knowledge that I will share with the
    committee today, I am also the mayor of the Alaska Aleutians East
    Borough, the local government equivalent to a county in the lower 48.
    Six communities, having a total population of about 2,500, make up the
    Aleutians East Borough.
        Mr. Chairman, the passage of this bill is a win-win situation for
    all interested parties--the U.S. Government; lovers of wildlife and
    wilderness; and the Aleut people. You have before you a proposed land
    exchange of an unprecedented magnitude. More than 61,000 acres of land
    from the King Cove Corporation and State of Alaska are being offered to
    the federal government in exchange for 1,800 acres. Of these 61,000
    acres being offered to the federal government, more than 45,000 acres
    are being recommended for wilderness status. What the bill provides is
    206 acres for a road corridor through a very small portion of the
    Izembek Refuge. Approximately 97 acres would be in the wilderness
    section of the refuge.
    Why Have We Asked for a Road Link for Decades Between the Two
            Communities?
        Cold Bay is the 3rd largest airport in Alaska with a 10,000' main
    runway and a 6,500' crosswind runway and our only access to the outside
    world. It was built by the U.S. military in 1942 with help from the
    residents of King Cove as part of the Aleutian campaign. It is one of
    the most accessible airports in Alaska, and its existence in Cold Bay
    is the primary reason for Cold Bay's ability to continue to exist.
    Contrast that to the community of King Cove, which is about 10 times
    larger than Cold Bay, only 30 miles away, and we rely on an airstrip
    precariously located between two, volcanic mountain peaks.
        Flights are subject to the extreme weather that we experience
    throughout the year with high winds and periods of thick fog being the
    most common culprits, resulting in delayed or canceled flights about
    50% of the time. The 11 air fatalities, in and around the King Cove to
    Cold Bay corridor since the early 1980's, are another testament to our
    weather conditions. Our problem is having safe, reliable, affordable,
    and dependable access to the Cold Bay airport.
        Our weather is some of the most treacherous in the world with 15-20
    foot seas in winter and winds often more than 50 miles per hour
    throughout the year. In winter, we are further tormented with storm
    winds in excess of 100 mph. In summer, we are plagued by dense fog.
        Also, please try to imagine our surprise and frustration when we
    learned that federal legislation made a ``wilderness'' out of the
    Izembek Refuge lands with no consultation with the Aleut people of King
    Cove. King Cove Aleuts eventually came to the difficult realization
    that their federal government, and other Izembek Refuge user groups,
    did not even care enough to ask what the area's indigenous residents
    had to say about this designation. And because there's no road between
    King Cove and Cold Bay, the 800 residents of King Cove can't avail
    themselves to a world-class airport that members of their families
    helped to build. So this is why we continue to lobby for a road that we
    believe has been unfairly kept from us and is a common sense solution
    to our problem.
        But, we do acknowledge that the Congress tried to solve our
    transportation problem about ten years ago with the King Cove Health
    and Safety Act. Unfortunately, the Act has failed to solve our problem.
    After working for almost a decade on a marine link under the terms of
    the Act, it is clear that this bill was passed in the good faith notion
    that a hovercraft and/or ferry would solve our transportation problem.
    It is now equally clear that it will not work for us as a long-term
    solution.
        The hovercraft is built and operational in King Cove, at least on
    those days when our weather is agreeable, meaning the winds are lying
    down. This is what we know now that we didn't know when Congress
    granted us this funding:
        1) The hovercraft does not meet the expectations of the feasibility
    report. Given the variability of the winds and weather, we cannot
    forecast the operational windows that will give us reliability. It is
    clear that the hovercraft will not be able to operate anywhere near a
    12 month/365 day schedule. Current conditions allow about 80 %
    operations, but this will go down once the winter weather begins in
    earnest. This kind of uncertainty will simply not provide the people of
    King Cove the health, safety and quality of life they deserve.
        2) It is prohibitively expensive to operate the hovercraft now and
    costs will only go up. Given the choice between a hovercraft and
    conventional ferry, the hovercraft had the smaller operational cost.
    It's like a public transit system anyplace in the United States
    requiring a major governmental subsidy. A copy of the financial pro
    forma is available on our web site (www.izembekenhancement.org).
    Detailed financial projections have concluded that a $500,000 to
    $700,000 annual subsidy is going to be required. This annual subsidy is
    simply not in the realm of fiscal or political reality for a government
    organization the size of the Aleutians East Borough. Therefore, our
    common sense solution remains the road.
    Many Roads Already Exist in the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness.
        We have heard talk of impacts about waterfowl and caribou from the
    road we must have. There is concern of setting a ``precedent'' of
    allowing a new road in the Izembek wilderness. Today, there are more
    than 14 miles of roads, traversing the Izembek Wilderness and another
    35 miles in the Izembek Refuge. In fact, there are roads that lead and
    are used today to the real heart of the Izembek Refuge, the eelgrass
    beds of the Izembek Lagoon. You can trailer your boat and drive it
    right to the Izembek Lagoon where the internationally significant
    migratory waterfowl stop for about two months in the fall. (See 1995
    letter from G. Siekaniec attached).
        The land that is called Izembek (a name ``bestowed'' by a Russian
    in 1827) has been the Aleut people's backyard for 4,000 years. The land
    that is designated the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (a name
    ``bestowed'' by the federal government, without anyone in King Cove
    being consulted) has been King Cove's backyard now for almost 50 years.
    Aleuts will be here, living and caring for this land, even as the names
    on maps may change. I suggest that we know how to ``leave no mark'' on
    the land, otherwise how do you square the successful co-existence of
    our people with this land for all these centuries? It is nonsense to
    suggest that we would risk damage to the land that feeds us.
        Mr. Chairman, Aleuts don't need a regulation to define wilderness
    for them. We grew up in this wilderness. We have hunted and fished in
    this wilderness all our lives. We know our grandchildren and their
    grandchildren will do the same. We need the freedom, safety and peace
    of mind of having a road connection to the Cold Bay airport.
    What H.R. 2801 Provides
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2801 authorizes a land exchange of 61,723 acres
    of State and King Cove Corporation land of which 45, 493 acres will be
    designated as wilderness by this bill. This will be the first
    wilderness designated in a national park or refuge Alaska in over 25
    years. In return, the State of Alaska will obtain a 206 acre road
    corridor and a 1600 acre island near Kodiak which the Coast Guard will
    soon surplus. The bill requires special protection for the environment.
    Please understand this is a single lane, gravel road.
        Finally, let me emphasize that the road will be constructed with
    highway trust funds through the State of Alaska. We are not asking for
    federal funding to construct or maintain this road.
        Mr. Chairman, we love our rugged homeland, but this is a life and
    death issue to the Aleut people. We are completely supported by all
    local governments, our tribes, the State of Alaska, the Aleut
    Corporation, and the Alaska Federation of Natives in this endeavor.
        We must have this road for our people to have a quality of life
    that all Americans expect and to protect the life, health, and safety
    of the indigenous Aleuts and all people in King Cove. To ensure that
    Congress will act on request, we and the State of Alaska have proposed
    an unprecedented land exchange which will benefit all Americans.
        We want to thank the State of Alaska and Governor Sarah Palin and
    her predecessor Frank Murkowski for the state's strong support of this
    proposal. The state has truly been a partner to us every step of the
    way. We also want to thank the Aleut Corporation, the Agdaagux Tribe
    and the Alaska Federation of Natives for their strong support. We also
    want to thank the shareholders of the King Cove Corporation for putting
    its own resources, the land, into this proposed exchange. The key lands
    at Mortensen's Lagoon are a critical part of this proposal and could
    only have been made available because of the willingness and need for
    the King Cove shareholders to take care of the life, health, safety and
    quality of life of the King Cove residents.
        In your consideration, please let science, common sense and
    fairness be the standards used to evaluate our offer. We urge this
    Committee to approve this bill.
    Conclusion
        I want to close with a passage from a book which describes the
    difficult situation which the exchange will address. Noted author Tony
    Horwitz, author of the popular bestseller (``Confederates in the
    Attic'') described the wind in King Cove in his book ``Blue Latitudes''
    which tracked the legendary voyages of Capt. James Cook:
        ``The wind blew so hard that I (Horwitz) was almost crawling on all
    fours by the time I reached the end of the pier.'' Quoting one of the
    King Cove locals: ``This is a nice day today. Last month we clocked the
    wind at one hundred thirty seven miles an hour.''
        Horwitz also quoted Capt. James Cook--``This country is more rugged
    than any part we had yet seen.''
        This bill is the only way to truly solve the King Cove issue. It is
    fair and just to the American people and to the people of King Cove.
    Mr. Chairman, we urgently ask that the Committee pass this bill. It is
    critical to the needs of our people. They are Americans that deserve
    the same quality of life that other Americans enjoy. I thank you for
    your time and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        Submissions for the record:
        1.  Alaska Federation of Natives Resolution
        2.  Agdaagux Tribal Resolution
        3.  Aug. 7, 1995 - Letter from Greg Siekaniec, Izembek Refuge
    Manager
        4.  Questions and Answers on H.R. 2801
        5.  Northern Economics Study re: Hovercraft
        6.  ``Blue Latitudes''--Excerpt
        [NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
    files.]
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Trumble?

                STATEMENT OF DELLA TRUMBLE, PRESIDENT,
                         KING COVE CORPORATION

        Ms. Trumble. Good afternoon, Chairman Rahall, Congressman
    Young and other congressional Members of the House Natural
    Resources Committee. My name is Della Trumble. I am an Aleut
    and was born and raised in King Cove, Alaska.
        It is my privilege this afternoon to speak to you on behalf
    of all the shareholders of the King Cove Corporation, of which
    I am the president, and as a member of the Agdaagux Tribe of
    King Cove and all other residents of King Cove.
        I speak to you today as an Aleut, a mother, a shareholder,
    an Alaskan and a citizen of the United States. I am deeply
    connected to the land that you know as the Izembek Refuge
    through my ancestors, who have lived and subsisted on this
    wilderness for 4,000 years. They speak through me today in
    asking for your support of H.R. 2801.
        On behalf of my ancestors, I look to the future of the
    lands that are the Izembek Refuge. I ask you to hear me now in
    a way that we were not heard when this wilderness designation
    was first established years ago.
        I remain puzzled and angered by the fact that the
    designation of these lands as wilderness were made without a
    single public hearing in King Cove. The records state that
    meetings were held in Cold Bay and Anchorage, but not in King
    Cove, the community most affected by the decision to create
    wilderness.
        I would be proud to show you the beautiful community that
    is King Cove, nestled between sea and volcanic mountains. Gale
    force winds and fog can dominate our weather. Air travel
    between our community airstrip and the all-weather airport in
    Cold Bay is delayed or canceled about half the time.
        This may sound like a minor inconvenience, unless of course
    it happens on a day when a child becomes suddenly very ill or a
    fisherman is injured or an elder is found unconscious. Then it
    is anguish for some families in King Cove, and it has brought
    tragedy.
        Since 1979, 11 people have died flying between King Cove
    and Cold Bay in bad weather. Even today, pregnant women must
    leave town and temporarily relocate to Anchorage for six to
    nine weeks before their due date for fear of premature labor.
    In fact, my niece was born at sea on the galley table of a
    fishing vessel. The reason was her mothers' premature labor
    forced her to endure a dangerous three-hour ocean voyage
    because of prohibitive weather.
        Because predictable, dependable and safe transportation
    access in and out of King Cove is essential for our sustainable
    future and a major enhancement to our quality of life, it
    continues to be our most important priority. We have advocated
    for decades now to have this access to the Cold Bay airport, an
    airport that King Cove residents helped to build during World
    War II.
        As the president of the King Cove Corporation, I take my
    responsibilities seriously. I recognize that I have a duty to
    my shareholders to pursue those actions that will improve the
    quality of their lives and the lives of future generations in
    ways that are direct, quantifiable and which reflect our deep
    and abiding connection to the land.
        We come before you today not with our hat in hand. We are
    offering more than 18,000 acres of King Cove Corporation lands
    as part of the land transfer proposal that is contained in this
    legislation.
        This land is very important to our shareholders and the
    nation. It has some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in
    the area and is accessible to the Cold Bay Airport. It is
    highly valued by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key
    addition to the Alaska Peninsula and the Izembek Refuge
    complex.
        Some of our critics suggest that most of our lands, and
    those being offered by the State of Alaska, do not have equal
    value to the lands we are seeking for our road easement. This
    is simply not true.
        This Committee will probably hear today that this land is
    not threatened and therefore not necessary to add to the Refuge
    and Wilderness System. That is insulting to us. The Aleuts have
    been good stewards of all this land for 4,000 years. Are we to
    be punished because of this good stewardship?
        These King Cove Corporation lands are important to us both
    culturally and for subsistence, but the need for safe, reliable
    and affordable travel for our Aleut indigenous people is even
    more important.
        Now we are proposing to return a significant portion of
    those lands to the Federal government to resolve this
    transportation access problem. Please let our voices be heard
    this time. We are here in good faith to ask that the value of
    this land exchange be given an objective and thorough review.
    Please, we ask to pass H.R. 2801 so our people can finally have
    the access they deserve.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Trumble follows:]

          Statement of Della Trumble, President, King Cove Corporation

        Good afternoon, Chairman Rahall, Congressman Young and other
    Congressional members of the House Natural Resources Committee.
        My name is Della Trumble. I am an Aleut and was born and raised in
    King Cove, Alaska. It is my privilege this afternoon to speak to you on
    behalf of all the shareholders of the King Cove Corporation, of which I
    am the President. I am also speaking as a member of the Agdaagux Tribe
    of King Cove, and for all other residents of King Cove.
        I speak to you today as an Aleut, a mother, a shareholder, an
    Alaskan and a citizen of the United States. I am deeply connected to
    the land that you know as the Izembek Refuge through my ancestors, who
    have lived and subsisted on this wilderness for 4,000 years. They speak
    through me today in asking for your support of H.R. 2801.
        My father came from the village of Belkofski, about 20 miles from
    King Cove. This village has since ceased to exist, in part because of
    its remote location and difficult access, which made living there
    impossible. ``Disappearing'' villages are phenomena that our Aleut
    culture has had to endure. We have lost a number of villages because of
    isolation and the lack of transportation that other Americans including
    Indigenous residents of the lower 48 take for granted.
        As a mother, and on behalf of my ancestors, I look to the future of
    the lands that are the Izembek Refuge. I ask you to hear me now in a
    way that we were not heard when this wilderness designation was first
    established many years ago.
        As an Aleut, and a U.S. citizen, I remain puzzled and angered by
    the fact that the designation of these lands as wilderness were made
    without a single public hearing in King Cove. The records state that
    meetings were held in Cold Bay and Anchorage, and not in King Cove--the
    community most affected by the decision to create wilderness.
        No one from the federal government ever let us tell our story and
    why the wilderness would cut us off from the outside world with no hope
    of protecting our life, health, safety and quality of life. That is why
    we continue to fight for a just and fair solution to this problem. The
    passage of H.R. 2801 will provide that solution.
        I would be proud to show you the beautiful community that is King
    Cove, nestled between sea and volcanic mountains. Gale force winds and
    fog can dominate our weather. One result is that air travel between our
    community airstrip, located between two mountain peaks, and the all-
    weather airport in Cold Bay, is delayed or canceled about half of the
    time. This may sound like a minor inconvenience, unless of course it
    happens on a day when a child becomes suddenly very ill, or a fisherman
    is injured, or an elder is found unconscious. Then it is anguish, and
    for some families in King Cove, it has brought tragedy. Since 1979,
    eleven people have died flying between King Cove and Cold Bay in bad
    weather.
        Even today, pregnant women must leave town and temporarily relocate
    to Anchorage for 6-9 weeks before their due date for fear of
    unpredictable weather, premature labor and complications. We think
    about this all the time because in a town as small as King Cove, we
    know who is facing this situation. In fact, my niece was born at sea on
    the galley table of a fishing vessel. Her mother's premature labor
    forced her to endure a dangerous 3-hour ocean voyage because of high
    winds and blizzard conditions.
        Because predicable, dependable, affordable and safe transportation
    access in and out of King Cove is essential for our sustainable future
    and a major enhancement to our quality-of-life, it continues to be our
    most important priority. We have advocated for decades now to have this
    access to the Cold Bay airport--an airport that King Cove residents
    helped to build in World War II.
        As President of the King Cove Corporation, I take these
    responsibilities seriously. I recognize that I have a duty to our
    shareholders to pursue those actions that will improve the quality of
    their lives and the lives of future generations in ways that are
    direct, quantifiable and which reflect our deep and abiding connection
    to the land. It is my intent here today to do just that with my
    testimony in favor of H.R. 2801.
        We come before you today not with our ``hat in hand.'' We are
    offering more than 18,000 acres of King Cove Corporation lands as part
    of the land transfer proposal that is contained in this legislation.
    This land is very important to our shareholders and the nation. It is
    some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in the area. It is
    accessible to the Cold Bay Airport, and it is highly valued by the Fish
    and Wildlife Service as a key addition to the Alaska Peninsula and the
    Izembek Refuge complex.
        Some of our critics suggest that most of our lands, and those being
    offered by the State of Alaska do not have equal value to the land we
    are seeking for our road easement. This is simply not true.
        We also hear and this Committee will probably hear today that this
    land is not threatened and therefore not necessary to add to the Refuge
    and Wilderness Systems. That is insulting to us. The Aleuts have been
    good stewards of all this land for 4,000 years. Are we to be punished
    because we have been good stewards of our land?
        Congress rejected that same argument in 1980 when the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed. Most of the
    Izembek Refuge and more than 50 million acres of ``non-threatened''
    lands were turned into wilderness in 1980 by this Committee under
    ANILCA. Nevertheless, Congress deemed these ``non-threatened'' lands as
    necessary for protection in the wilderness system. Such statements are
    confusing to us.
        These King Cove Corporation lands are important to us, both
    culturally and for subsistence, but the need for safe, reliable and
    affordable travel for our Aleut indigenous people is even more
    important.
        The federal government's objective for the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act in the early 1970's was the settling of all aboriginal
    land claims throughout the state in order to access the oil wealth in
    northern Alaska. Now, we are proposing to return a significant portion
    of those lands to the federal government to resolve this transportation
    access problem that another arm of the federal government created for
    us.
        Please let our voices be heard this time. We are here today in good
    faith to ask that the value of this land exchange is given an objective
    and thorough review. Please pass H.R. 2801 so our people can finally
    have the access they deserve.
        Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairmen and members of the committee.
    I'll be happy to take any questions that you have.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin?

                 STATEMENT OF DAVID RASKIN, PRESIDENT,
              FRIENDS OF ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chairman Rahall, Representative
    Young and Members of the Committee. My name is David Raskin. I
    am president of the Friends of Alaska National Wildlife
    Refuges. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R.
    2801.
        Our volunteer organization works with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service to protect and enhance the 16 national wildlife refuges
    in Alaska. Our membership includes Alaskan natives, sportsmen,
    business leaders, conservationists and concerned citizens
    throughout Alaska.
        I also offer this testimony on behalf of the National
    Wildlife Refuge Association, whose membership is comprised of
    current and former Fish and Wildlife staff, more than 100
    affiliate groups nationwide.
        We strongly oppose H.R. 2801, which includes a proposal to
    build a nine mile road through the biological heart of the
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness for the ostensible
    purpose of giving King Cove emergency medical access to jet
    service at Cold Bay.
        Since hovercraft service now provides King Cove rapid
    access to Cold Bay, the proposed road simply is not needed.
    Congress previously rejected a road through the Izembek isthmus
    because of unacceptable harm to wildlife and wilderness.
        Instead, Congress appropriated $37.5 million to improve the
    King Cove medical clinic and airport and purchase the $9
    million state-of-the-art hovercraft which has performed at
    least 16 rapid medical evacuations to Cold Bay. With millions
    of American children having no health care coverage whatsoever,
    it seems indefensible to spend further Federal funds on a
    health care problem that has been solved.
        The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge was established in
    1960 to protect critical habitat for the Pacific black brant.
    The heart of this internationally recognized refuge is a narrow
    isthmus between Kinzarof and Izembek Lagoons, which contains
    two of the largest eel grass beds in the world on which the
    Pacific brant and other avian species depend for survival.
        Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly declined to
    exchange lands for a 33 mile road connecting King Cove and Cold
    Bay, stating the road through the key wildlife habitat and
    designated wilderness is not in the public interest.
        The Army Corps of Engineers determined that an isthmus road
    would have the most significant environmental impact of all six
    alternatives they considered. They recommended the road
    hovercraft link to Cold Bay.
        King Cove accepted $37.5 million from the Federal
    government, and the Suna-X hovercraft now operates successfully
    from the dock in Leonard Harbor just five miles from King Cove
    Airport. In 20 minutes it transports 50 passengers, an
    ambulance and cargo to Cold Bay. As of July 19, the Suna-X had
    transported more than 1,090 passengers, 110 vehicles and
    110,000 pounds of freight.
        Traveling 33 miles around Cold Bay on a gravel road could
    have deadly consequences in a medical emergency, particularly
    during high winds, ice, winter avalanches and blowing and
    drifting snow. Extreme high tides, coupled with high winds,
    could severely damage the road and would pose profound dangers
    and severe health risk to an ill passenger subjected to an
    estimated 110 minute trip on a rugged, remote road.
        The folly of relying on road travel is eloquently described
    in the testimony of Terry Mack, a long-time Alaska resident and
    former EMT in Cold Bay. ``I witnessed the power and fury of
    nature, which causes me to question the sensibility of
    constructing a gravel road for the purpose of medical
    evacuation. While proponents suggest that a road is necessary
    for safety because planes and boats are sometimes grounded by
    inclement weather, I know that road vehicles are also useless
    under such conditions.''
        However, the hovercraft can operate in wave heights over 10
    feet and winds over 45 miles per hour that occur less than one
    percent of the time. Despite the success of the hovercraft and
    the substantial cost to build and maintain even more road, King
    Cove has asked Congress to reverse its previous decision.
        They spent the $26 million and completed only one-third of
    the road. Finishing the remaining 12 miles and constructing
    another 16 miles through the isthmus to Cold Bay will likely
    cost even more than that with annual maintenance costs
    extremely high in this harsh climate.
        It is unreasonable for King Cove to come back to Congress
    10 years later and ask for a road that cannot be justified.
    Meanwhile millions of Americans nationwide have no access to
    any health care whatsoever.
        The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that
    providing health care under SCHIP to one child for one year
    costs $1,335. The Federal dollars to construct just the isthmus
    portion of the road could provide health care for nearly 12,000
    needy children next year.
        We suggest that the residents of King Cove and Aleutians
    East Borough ask the State of Alaska to maintain the hovercraft
    as they do for the Alaska Marine Highway System. It makes sense
    to spend less to subsidize and maintain the faster and safer
    hovercraft.
        In 2003, Aleutians East Borough committed to pay half of
    the estimated operating cost of $860,000, but reliable
    information indicates that that may be cut in half and could be
    covered by passenger and cargo revenue, leaving Aleutians East
    Borough with little or no cost.
        The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Secretary
    of the Interior to maintain the biological integrity, diversity
    and environmental health of the system. The offered lands are
    under no present threat and will not compensate for the major
    irreversible impacts of the proposed road.
        Only three weeks ago during the oversight hearing on the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, Director Dale
    Hall stated that roads through refuges typically cause problems
    and do not contribute to the purposes of refuges. Since both
    law and policy are in conflict with the road through the heart
    of the refuge, the road must be rejected.
        President Theodore Roosevelt established the National
    Wildlife Refuge System in 1903, which includes Izembek,
    internationally recognized for its significant wetlands and
    importance for migratory birds.
        Representing 56 native villages, the Association of Village
    Council Presidents has reaffirmed to this committee its
    opposition to the proposed road because of severe threats to
    the important subsistence food on which they depend.
        The hovercraft has proven to be the fastest, safest and
    most cost effective way for King Cove to have reliable
    emergency access to Cold Bay without impacting one of America's
    and the world's great national treasures.
        We Alaskans urge Congress to reject House Bill 2801. Thank
    you very much for your consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Raskin follows:]

            Statement of David Raskin, President, Friends of Alaska
                  National Wildlife Refuges, Anchorage, Alaska

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
        My name is David Raskin, president of the Friends of Alaska
    National Wildlife Refuges. On behalf of the Friends of Alaska NWRs, I
    thank you for the opportunity to offer comments about H.R. 2801, the
    Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement and King
    Cove Safe Access Act. The Friends of Alaska NWRs is an all-volunteer
    organization that works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
    to protect and enhance the 16 National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. Our
    membership is diverse, including Alaskan sportsmen, educators, business
    leaders, conservationists, and concerned citizens in cities, towns, and
    villages. We have regional representatives all around Alaska, including
    two Alaska Natives who coordinate activities with five of the largest
    refuges. Our priority programs include rural outreach, in which we send
    members to villages to work with Native youth in science education
    camps, and the removal of invasive species that threaten the habitat of
    many of our refuges. We also conduct community outreach programs to
    educate the public about the values of wildlife refuges and involve
    local citizens in working with their local refuges.
        I offer this testimony also on behalf of the National Wildlife
    Refuge Association, whose membership is comprised of current and former
    Fish and Wildlife staff, more than 140 Affiliate groups nationwide, and
    thousands of private citizens across the country who support our
    nation's wildlife refuges.
        The Friends of Alaska NWRs strongly opposes H.R. 2801, which
    includes a proposal to build a road through the biological heart of the
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge on the Alaska Peninsula. The proposed
    road seeks to connect the villages of King Cove (population 807) and
    Cold Bay (population 80). However, this legislation is a solution in
    search of a problem. Since the 98-foot Suna-X hovercraft has begun
    regular service between King Cove and Cold Bay, a viable, operational,
    and successful link between the two communities now exists. Further,
    the new medical clinic in King Cove provides an added level of security
    to deal with medical emergencies.
    Background
        King Cove is 25 air miles from Cold Bay, site of Alaska's third-
    longest runway that provides scheduled commercial jet service to
    Anchorage. However, during inclement weather, the short flight from
    King Cove to Cold Bay can be dangerous; 11 people have died in
    accidents flying between these villages since 1979. On the basis of
    their public safety concerns, residents of King Cove have sought the
    construction of a road to Cold Bay since the mid-1990s. Nine miles of
    this proposed road would cut through the Congressionally-designated
    Wilderness of the 315,000-acre Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
        Congress addressed the road issue in 1998 after King Cove residents
    argued that they lacked adequate access to medical and airport
    facilities. Having decided that a road through the heart of the Izembek
    refuge would be unacceptably harmful to wildlife and Wilderness,
    Congress responded by allocating $37.5 million for medical and airport
    improvements and a 98-foot, state of the art hovercraft that has
    already provided 16 rapid and successful medical evacuations to Cold
    Bay Airport. At a time when millions of American children have no
    health care coverage whatsoever, it strikes us as unconscionable and
    wasteful to allocate further taxpayer dollars to address a health care
    challenge that has already been solved. Further, a road through this
    majestic, federally designated Wilderness would likely have devastating
    impacts on wildlife, resulting in habitat fragmentation, disturbance,
    and pollution.
    Izembek NWR--A Haven for Wildlife
        The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1960 to
    protect critical habitat for the Pacific black brant. At 417,533 acres,
    it is the smallest of the 16 Alaskan refuges, and more than 95% is
    designated Wilderness under the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act. Although the refuge was specifically established to
    protect almost the entire world population of Pacific black brant,
    other abundant wildlife includes brown bears, moose, caribou, wolves,
    seals, seal lions, sea otters, five species of salmon, and numerous
    species of migratory birds. At the heart of the refuge is a narrow
    isthmus bordered by Kinzarof and Izembek Lagoons. They contain some of
    the largest eelgrass beds in the world, on which the Pacific brant and
    other avian species depend for survival.
        More than 98% of the world's Pacific black brant feed voraciously
    on the eelgrass in the Izembek lagoon in order to fuel up prior to
    their nonstop, 3000-mile trip to Mexico. The nearby wetlands offer
    nesting sites for thousands of birds. During migrations, more than a
    half million birds use this refuge and its sensitive wetlands. The
    importance of the Izembek refuge was accorded world recognition in 1986
    under the Reagan Administration when it became the first wetland area
    to be designated as a Wetland of International Importance by the RAMSAR
    Convention. In 2001, it was also designated as a Globally Important
    Bird Area. Given the remarkable wildlife and habitat values represented
    in the refuge, a road through the heart of Izembek would run counter to
    all that it represents.
        The FWS has consistently rejected a road through the Izembek
    Wilderness because of its serious environmental impacts. From 1995-
    1997, the FWS declined offers from the King Cove Corporation to
    exchange lands for a right-of-way through Izembek Refuge in order to
    construct a 26-mile road connecting King Cove and Cold Bay. When road
    proponents sought legislation in 1997 to approve a road, the FWS
    objected and stated that a road through key wildlife habitat and
    designated Wilderness was not in the public interest. A compromise was
    reached when $37.5 million was included in the FY 1999 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act to implement The King Cove Health and Safety Act.
    This legislation funded a road-hovercraft link between King Cove and
    Cold Bay and improvements to the King Cove Airport and clinic.
    Following passage of that Act, in 2004 the Army Corps of Engineers
    completed the King Cove Access Project EIS and recommended construction
    of a road-hovercraft link between King Cove and Cold Bay, thereby
    avoiding the Refuge. For comparison purposes, the EIS evaluated the
    impacts of a road from King Cove to Cold Bay, which was found to have
    the most significant impacts to wildlife of all six alternatives they
    had considered.
        By early 2006, the Aleutians East Borough (AEB) completed a one-
    lane 5-mile gravel road from the King Cove airstrip to an interim
    hovercraft dock in Lenard Harbor for the Suna-X hovercraft. This vessel
    cost $8.8 million and can transport up to 50 passengers, an ambulance,
    and cargo. The permanent hovercraft dock was to be built another 13
    miles further--right up to the edge of the Izembek NWR. However, the
    AEB ran out of money in January 2006 and did not complete the road to
    the distant hovercraft dock. The road-hovercraft link from King Cove to
    Cold Bay has been used since late 2006 and has provided 16 successful
    emergency medical evacuations as of July 2007.
    Impacts to Wildlife
        Constructing a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge
    would have numerous negative impacts on wildlife and would degrade the
    critical wetlands habitat and wilderness quality of the refuge. The
    isthmus through which the road would be constructed is extremely
    narrow; standing in the center, one can see the Izembek Lagoon to the
    north and the Kinzarof Lagoon to the south. Pacific black brant gorge
    on the eelgrass beds of Izembek Lagoon before their non-stop journey to
    wintering grounds in Mexico. Birds and wildlife, such as brown bears,
    travel between the two lagoons, sometimes more than once a day, in
    search of food exposed by receding tides. Caribou use the isthmus as a
    wintering ground and as a corridor when traveling to and from wintering
    grounds beyond the refuge, and brown bear traverse the area to reach
    their winter dens.
        The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that in administering a
    refuge, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Refuge Manager,
    shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
    environmental health of the System are maintained. Under this mandate,
    a road through the heart of the refuge is incompatible with the mission
    of the refuge and must be rejected. Road construction, traffic, and
    maintenance could cause irreversible harm to the eelgrass beds and
    wetlands that are vital to many migratory birds. Every passing vehicle
    would flush birds, wasting their valuable energy as they work
    intensively to build up enough strength and resources for their
    migration. A road through this isthmus would also disrupt wildlife
    movement and result in increased animal mortalities. The Department of
    Interior has repeatedly rejected this proposed road. Only three weeks
    ago during the October 9, 2007 oversight hearing on the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, in response to a question about
    a road proposed through Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge in South
    Carolina, FWS Director Dale Hall stated that roads through refuges
    typically cause problems and do not contribute to the purposes of
    refuges.
    Quantity vs. Quality
        H.R. 2801 offers a land exchange in an attempt to buy support for
    this unwise proposal. In exchange for 206 acres upon which the road
    would be built, the legislation would provide 61,000 acres to the
    refuge. At first glance, this might appear to be a beneficial proposal,
    but the offered lands do not provide comparable habitat value to
    compensate for the major, irreversible impacts of the proposed road on
    fish, wildlife, and wetlands. While these lands may have value to
    wildlife, we are unaware of any threats that would compromise their
    integrity. Consequently, even for biological reasons alone, there is no
    compelling justification for Congress to consider such an exchange.
    A Problem Already Solved
        Aside from the substantial and tangible threats to wildlife
    embodied in this proposal, the road proponents ignore the crucial
    point: Congress solved this problem when it appropriated $37.5 million
    in 1998. Despite their expenditure of these funds that met their stated
    needs, King Cove and AEB officials continue to maintain that this road
    is necessary for medical emergencies.
        When Congress considered and denied a similar proposal in 1998 for
    a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, they cited the
    significant anticipated habitat and wildlife losses described in the
    Environmental Impact Statement by the Army Corps of Engineers. Instead,
    Congress appropriated $37.5 million to fund a road-hovercraft link
    between the two villages and improvements to the King Cove Airport and
    clinic. Of the $37.5 million in federal funds, $2.5 million was spent
    to improve the King Cove Medical Clinic and $9 million was used to
    purchase the hovercraft that is currently operating successfully
    between nearby Lenard Harbor and Cold Bay. The remaining $26 million in
    American taxpayer dollars was spent to build 15 miles of a planned 17-
    mile, one-lane gravel road from the King Cove Airport to a hovercraft
    dock more distant from King Cove and adjacent to the Izembek
    Wilderness.
        The interim hovercraft dock in Lenard Harbor, just five miles from
    King Cove Airport, has been the launch point for at least 16 successful
    medevacs aboard the impressive Suna-X, where ailing King Cove residents
    have quickly and safely reached the Cold Bay Airport. In such cases,
    the ambulance drives directly aboard the hovercraft for a 20-minute
    ride across Cold Bay on a cushion of air. The 98-feet-long and 50-feet-
    wide Suna-X travels at speeds up to 58 mph and can carry 50 passengers
    and 22 tons of freight, including cars, trucks and an ambulance in case
    of emergency. As of July 19, 2007, the Suna-X had transported more than
    1,090 passengers, 110 vehicles, and 110,000 lbs of freight.
        In the event of a medical emergency, traveling all the way around
    Cold Bay on a 26-mile gravel road could have life or death
    consequences, particularly in winter when conditions include
    avalanches, high winds, ice, and blowing and drifting snow. In
    contrast, the hovercraft can travel in wave heights of up to 10 feet 6
    inches and in winds over 45 miles per hour. Historical data indicate
    that winds exceeding this velocity occur less than 1% of the time.
    Despite the success of the hovercraft and the exorbitant costs of
    building and maintaining a road without a clear purpose, King Cove is
    once again asking Congress to permit and fund the previously denied 9
    miles of road through the heart of the Izembek Refuge Wilderness.
    A Costly and Challenging Road
        The route of the proposed Izembek Isthmus road is through fragile
    rolling tundra dotted with wetlands and prone to high snowdrifts. The
    rest of the road traverses areas of steep slopes and unstable volcanic
    soils prone to avalanches. Gravel is scarce in remote areas of Alaska
    and must be shipped in, and re-routing and construction delays raised
    the cost of the already-completed 15 miles of road to $26 million in
    2006. At the rate of more than $1.73 million per mile, the additional 9
    miles would have cost at least $15.6 million in 2006 and will be more
    by the time it could be constructed.
        Construction cost alone is adequate justification to reject the
    proposed road. However, this does not even include the cost of
    maintenance, which in this harsh climate could be exorbitant. In
    addition, it does not include the costs of installing and maintaining
    the required cable barriers on both sides of the one-lane road that
    would be designed to offer some protection to the refuge wilderness
    from illegal and damaging off-road vehicle traffic. According to the
    Washington State Department of Transportation, cable-barrier protectors
    cost an estimated $44,000 per mile, with an additional $2,000-$5,000
    per mile for annual maintenance. That amounts to at least $400,000 to
    install the barriers and up to $45,000 annually to maintain them.
        Frequent snowstorms, avalanches, icing conditions, and extreme high
    tides, coupled with high winds would pose serious dangers for drivers
    and would be especially hazardous for ill passengers subjected to an
    arduous and lengthy trip on this rugged and remote road. The claim that
    a road would improve health and safety totally ignores statistics from
    other parts of Alaska that show remarkably high rates of fatalities due
    to inclement weather and hazardous road conditions. According to the
    Alaska Department of Transportation, motor vehicle accidents in the
    year 2000 cost Alaska $475 million dollars. Even when conditions would
    allow travel, the journey would be slow and dangerous. Contrary to the
    stated purpose of the road, it is likely that using the proposed road
    would increase dangers and travel time, thereby posing additional
    health and safety risks to King Cove residents. Although the hovercraft
    may not operate during the infrequent periods of extremely high winds,
    the road would be subject to the additional hazards of ice, drifting
    snow, and poor visibility. Such conditions could make the road
    impassable and would likely close the Cold Bay Airport to jet traffic,
    rendering rapid medical evacuation moot.
    Transportation in Remote Areas
        The Friends of Alaska NWRs understand the difficulties faced when
    living in such a remote area and the challenges presented by such a
    harsh environment. Indeed, some of our own members live and have lived
    in Cold Bay and even more remote parts of Alaska. Many members of the
    Friends of Alaska NWRs, including myself, have volunteered our time to
    visit and complete projects at the Izembek NWR. We are familiar with
    the area, the habitat and wildlife, the weather and terrain, and the
    problems that confront the citizens of King Cove and Cold Bay. To that
    end, the Friends of Alaska NWRs have offered to help our fellow
    Alaskans to obtain needed access to medical services.
        If the issue is funding the operation of the hovercraft, we suggest
    that King Cove and AEB officially request that the State of Alaska
    maintain the hovercraft just as they do for the vessels of the Alaska
    Marine Highway System. Instead of spending a substantial amount of
    State road maintenance funds for an unnecessary, undesirable,
    dangerous, and ineffective road, it makes more sense to spend far less
    money to subsidize and maintain a faster and safer mode of transport,
    just as the State does for marine transportation throughout Southeast,
    Southcentral, and Western Alaska. If a physician is needed at the King
    Cove Clinic, that is a different, effective, and less costly problem to
    solve than to build the proposed road. We have offered to assist the
    citizens of King Cove to solve that problem.
        It is neither fair nor reasonable for the people of King Cove to
    have received and expended $37.5 million of American tax dollars that
    solved their expressed needs for health and safety and then come back
    again with the request for a road. The Suna-X hovercraft has already
    demonstrated that it is a successful operational solution to the
    problems the Aleutians East Borough raised in 1998. Although we
    recognize that the residents of King Cove may occasionally have
    difficulty obtaining emergency healthcare, millions of Americans
    nationwide suffer from not having access to any healthcare whatsoever.
    During the ongoing debate over the State Child Health Insurance Program
    or SCHIP, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of
    providing basic health care to one child for one year is $1,335. With
    the additional dollars needed just to construct the additional 9-miles
    of road, Congress could fund health care for nearly 12,000 children
    next year.
    Conclusion
        Congress should reject H.R. 2801, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula
    Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement and King Cove Safe Access Act.
    Congress already solved this problem in 1998 with an appropriation of
    $37.5 million to upgrade the King Cove Airport and medical clinic,
    purchase a state of the art hovercraft, and build a road to the
    hovercraft dock. In 2003, the Final Environmental Impact Statement
    completed by the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated several alternatives
    for transportation between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay.
    The King Cove Access Project EIS considered for comparison the
    ``Isthmus road alternative'' and concluded that a 9-mile road would
    inflict the most harm on this environment.
        President Theodore Roosevelt created the National Wildlife Refuge
    System in 1903 to provide safe havens for wildlife. The Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge has been repeatedly recognized internationally
    for its globally significant wetlands and values and importance for
    migratory birds. It was the first wetlands area in North American to be
    recognized under the Ramsar Convention as a Wetland of International
    Importance in 1986. The Wilderness Act of 1964 called upon Americans to
    set aside places ``where the earth and its community of life are
    untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
    remain.'' When Congress has already conferred such protections on
    federal lands, it is incumbent on decision-makers to utilize creative
    alternatives that satisfy other stated needs. We believe that the
    current solution has met the needs of the citizens of King Cove. The
    success of the hovercraft has proven that it is the simplest, fastest,
    safest, and most cost-effective way to provide reliable emergency
    access to medical facilities while protecting one of America's and the
    world's great natural treasures.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.
        Ms. Evans, we will hear from you, and then the Committee
    will recess for votes on the House Floor and return for
    questioning.

       STATEMENT OF NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, ASSISTANT REGIONAL
                    DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

        Ms. Whittington-Evans. Good afternoon, Chairman Rahall and
    Committee Members. I am Nicole Whittington-Evans with the
    Wilderness Society's Alaska office, which works with a number
    of interests throughout the state, including tribal interests.
        I appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2801. I
    offer this testimony on behalf of the Wilderness Society, the
    Blue Goose Alliance, Environmental Defense, National Audubon
    Society, Sierra Club and Trustees for Alaska. To date, over 20
    national and Alaska based groups have opposed H.R. 2801. This
    road would be incompatible with the primary purposes of the
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and fragment the ecological
    heart of the refuge.
        I have been fortunate to spend time at the Izembek National
    Wildlife Refuge, and my most recent trip was about two weeks
    ago. I have visited both the communities of King Cove and Cold
    Bay, talking with people about the proposed road.
        Thanks to Aleutians East Borough representatives and the
    generosity of Della Trumble, I toured King Cove, flew through
    its airport and drove the completed portion of the new 17 mile
    road. I also flew over the proposed exchange lands during my
    visits.
        The history of wilderness designation in the refuge
    demonstrates overwhelming support for wilderness, including
    Alaska Governor Keith Miller. The 10 years preceding
    designation of the Izembek Wilderness included an extensive
    public process, including extensive outreach to the public and
    the state, Federal and joint governmental proposals spanning
    several congressional sessions. Throughout that time, a road
    between King Cove and Cold Bay did not surface as a priority
    issue in the public debate.
        On many occasions, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    consistently declared any such road and its construction
    through the refuge to be incompatible and extremely damaging,
    and there has been no assigned space changed in those findings
    and conclusions to this day. In fact, protecting Izembek's
    wilderness habitat has been a priority of every Administration
    since it was identified by President Ronald Reagan as a
    wetlands of global significance.
        However, the current Administration at the Department of
    the Interior apparently believes that the well documented
    incompatibility and subsequent ongoing damages from
    construction and operation of such a road can be mitigated by
    an exchange of lands now outside the refuge.
        Past Administrations have considered exchanges to be in the
    public interest if the lands being received by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service are of higher quality than those being excised
    from a refuge, among other things. This is not the case with
    this exchange.
        Izembek Refuge is not only internationally renowned for its
    hundreds of thousands of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds,
    but also for its brown bear, moose, caribou, wolf, seal, sea
    lion, sea otter and all five species of salmon, among other
    wildlife species.
        The Steller's eider, sea lion and sea otter are listed as
    threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and their habitat
    must be protected according to provisions in the Endangered
    Species Act.
        These sensitive, internationally significant and
    ecologically valuable wetlands and waterfowl will face
    irreparable damage and significant impacts from a road.
    Frequent road traffic will cause the birds to flush, decreasing
    the ability to build up the reserves required for their arduous
    migration south.
        The 2003 Army Corps of Engineers environmental impact
    statement analyzing transportation alternatives for King Cove
    stated that such a road project would involve the following
    impacts: Destruction of tundra and wetlands habitat through
    fill and dredge activities for the road footprint, staging
    areas and gravel pits; accelerated erosion and stream
    sedimentation, decreasing water quality;
        Behavioral changes in animals, such as avoidance of the
    road area due to noise and activity and/or attraction to camp
    garbage; increased consumptive use, reducing waterfowl,
    caribou, wolf and brown bear populations; increased highway
    vehicle and ORV access, significantly expanding the area
    experiencing human disturbance; an overall increased human
    presence, resulting in increased energy expenditures by
    disturbance sensitive species;
        Decreased productivity of habitat and food base, for
    example, impacts of road dust and reduced productivity of eel
    grass beds due to siltation; continued wind and water erosion
    and introduction of sediments and contaminants needed to reduce
    water quality; animal behavioral changes, such as avoidance of
    the road corridor, disruption of migratory patterns, increased
    likelihood of vehicle and wildlife collisions; increased
    vehicle accidents; littering; and violations requiring response
    by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies.
        The EIS also highlights the impacts from the proposed road
    on subsistence opportunities and the numerous small streams and
    coastal wetlands along the northern shore of Kinzarof Lagoon
    which are used by salmon to reach spawning areas.
        The potential impact to subsistence resources, namely the
    Pacific black brant and other migratory waterfowl, have spurred
    the Association of Village Council Presidents to oppose the
    road.
        Just 11 days ago President Bush expressed concerns over the
    nation's migratory bird habitat. The President stressed that
    this is a national issue and instructed Interior Secretary
    Kempthorne to produce a State of the Birds report by 2009. The
    question leads me to ask will this report measure our country's
    protection of one of the world's critically important migratory
    waterfowl sites?
        We believe the road does not offer a reliable or safe
    transportation link. I have brought a photo of a maintenance
    crew attempting to clear the Grant Point Road in the Cold Bay
    area in winter as quickly as it was filling back in. I have
    brought copies for committee Members and would like to submit
    this photo for the record.
        The community of King Cove now has two consistent
    transportation options--airplane and hovercraft--to Cold Bay,
    and we would gladly help them obtain funding for a third
    consistent option, namely Coast Guard transport between these
    two communities for emergency situations with a year-round
    Coast Guard station in Cold Bay. Compared to other communities
    that are also dependent on the Cold Bay Airport, the residents
    of King Cove have a good situation.
        For all of these reasons, including legal and other
    concerns regarding the bill outlined in greater detail in our
    written testimony, we believe the road and land exchange
    proposal should be rejected.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Whittington-Evans follows:]

    Statement of Nicole Whittington-Evans, Associate Regional Director and
     Alaska Refuge Program Director, Alaska Office, The Wilderness Society

        Good Morning Chairman Rahall and Committee Members. I am Nicole
    Whittington-Evans, Associate Regional Director and Alaska Refuge
    Program Director of The Wilderness Society's Alaska office. I
    appreciate the opportunity to address the panel today, October 31,
    2007, regarding the hearing topic H.R. 2801.
        I offer this testimony on behalf of The Wilderness Society (TWS),
    an organization with over 300,000 members and supporters. Joining TWS
    in our comments are the Blue Goose Alliance, Environmental Defense,
    National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club. Many of these groups and
    18 other associations sent a letter to Congress in June stating our
    united opposition to the land exchange for the purposes of building a
    road between the two small communities of King Cove and Cold Bay. This
    road would be incompatible with the primary purposes of the Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge and fragment the ecological heart of the
    Refuge; violating the very foundation of its congressionally designated
    Wilderness and place at risk the integrity of its internationally
    significant and strategically vital waterfowl wetlands habitat for many
    species of waterfowl located at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula
        As a long-time resident of Alaska, I have been fortunate to visit
    many of the special places that characterize the beautiful, wild
    landscapes and spectacular wildlife habitat of Alaska. On two
    occasions, I was fortunate to spend time at the Izembek Refuge and see
    firsthand the lands and water holding the distinction of being
    nominated by President Ronald Reagan as the first U.S. site to be
    recognized under the Ramsar Convention as an internationally important
    wetland. I have stood at the edge of the wilderness to see the narrow
    peninsula where the proposed road would be constructed. From that
    vantage point, I could see both the Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons (the
    Lagoons Complex). In between these lagoons are rolling hills and
    valleys of soft, spongy and fragile tundra dotted by abundant marshes,
    lakes and pools of water.
        While visiting Izembek Refuge, I witnessed the Lagoons crowded with
    Pacific black brant, Emperor geese, and the threatened Steller's eider.
    At that time, I did not see them, but a local expert described to me
    the wildlife that use the isthmus as a travel corridor, foraging area
    and home in vivid detail. I could picture the caribou, wolves, grizzly
    bears, foxes and other wildlife that use the isthmus as a travel
    corridor, hunting zone and home during winter or summer.
        During my trips to Cold Bay, I chartered a small plane to view the
    lagoon complex from the air and looked down on the lands proposed for
    excision in H.R. 2801. In order to build the proposed road, the bill
    would remove Wilderness protection from 206 acres of critical wildlife
    habitat on that narrow wetland isthmus between the Izembek and Kinzarof
    Lagoons ultimately removing them from the refuge via an exchange. In
    return, the Refuge would get almost entirely unrelated and notably
    dissimilar habitat. Only some of the parcels included in the exchange
    would qualify to be designated as Wilderness.
    Important Historical Context Regarding This Wilderness and Proposed
            Road
        When at the Izembek Refuge, I read through the historical files
    that chronicled the extensive outreach during the 1970s to State
    officials and policymakers, the Alaska media, and the public. I
    reviewed many of the comments submitted regarding what was then
    proposed Wilderness. The files show overwhelming support for the
    Wilderness, including a letter from the Governor of Alaska. In total,
    ten years transpired from the time the Izembek wilderness was proposed
    to when Congress granted Wilderness designation to the recommended
    Refuge lands. That decade-long process included town meetings,
    hearings, debates, numerous editorials and opinion pieces, outreach to
    multiple Native organizations, and state, federal, and joint
    governmental proposals spanning several Congressional sessions. All
    this outreach and discussion provided ample time and opportunities for
    public discourse and final decisions, eventually leading to the
    comprehensive 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    (ANILCA).
        Yet, throughout that time a road between King Cove and Cold Bay was
    not an issue of debate and was raised only once at the Cold Bay
    wilderness hearing in 1970, posed as a question which was politely
    answered by an official. Further, throughout the many House and Senate
    hearings leading to passage of ANILCA, the road issue was not raised
    nor was it advocated by the very able members of the Alaska
    Congressional delegation. In fact, the next time a road was discussed
    as a possible link between the two towns, occurred during the Bristol
    Bay Cooperative Management Plan studies and planning sessions, circa
    1982-83. The detailed analyses in that plan made clear that such a road
    would be incompatible with the purposes for which Izembek NWR had been
    established, adding that it would cause significant, long-term, ongoing
    and irreparable damage to important fish, wildlife, habitat and
    wilderness values of that refuge. That analysis and discussion was
    authored by several U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists and
    then approved and supported by their Alaska Regional Director. From
    that time to today, the compatibility determination, descriptions and
    likely impacts from building a road between the two towns has remained
    unchanged. On many occasions and in many published and circulated
    documents, the FWS has consistently declared any such road and its
    construction through the refuge to be incompatible and extremely
    damaging. There has been no change in those findings and conclusions to
    this day.
        What has changed is the administration at the Department of the
    Interior, which apparently feels that the well-documented
    incompatibility and subsequent ongoing damages from construction and
    operation of the road can be ``mitigated'' by an exchange of lands now
    outside the Refuge for the relatively small amount of Refuge Wilderness
    land immediately, directly and harmfully impacted by building the
    currently described road. This exchange would give thousands of acres
    of mostly undeveloped land to the refuge, and most of this land is
    under no threat of development.
        Mr. Chairman and members, The Wilderness Society and each of the
    organizations joining our testimony today endorse and support the
    original 1982-83 statements of incompatibility and the numerous similar
    subsequent declarations by the FWS throughout the past 25 years.
    Further, we strongly believe that the resulting damages would not be
    mitigated to any measurable or satisfying extent by the proffered
    exchange lands--given their disjunctive locations, generally lower
    wildlife and habitat values, and type of developments on some parcels
    and lack of documented threats to any of the offered lands.
    Summary
        The Alaska community of King Cove is asking for costly and damaging
    road access to the Cold Bay airport. The proposed road would cut
    through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness, raising
    serious concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife populations.
    Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is a globally significant wildlife
    sanctuary and has been recognized on the Ramsar Convention List of
    Wetlands of International Importance.
        Congress already rejected the Izembek road proposal in 1998,
    approving instead a marine connection between King Cove and Cold Bay, a
    connection that is operational today, and that has already proven
    itself in completing several emergency evacuations. Recently renewed
    efforts to construct the road include a proposed land exchange that
    would nominally compensate for any loss of Wilderness as a result of
    the road. Equally important, is that the lands being offered in the
    exchange do not represent comparable wildlife habitat value.
        The proposed land exchange would add acreage to the refuge but not
    wildlife value. More specifically, the value of any exchange lands
    would be diminished if the ecological heart of the refuge is lost. More
    specifically, the value of any exchange lands would be made de minimus
    if the negative impacts described by FWS biologists for more than 25
    years become reality. The road would sever these fragile refuge
    wetlands, leading to the degradation of significant ecological
    habitats. Construction, operation and maintenance will entail filling
    wetlands, modifying drainages, potential spillages and pollution, dust,
    noise, on-land barriers and over-land turmoil and disruptions.
        A road would destroy wilderness values and create serious threats
    to sensitive bird populations, brown bears, caribou, and many other
    wildlife species. Citing potential harm to the critical habitat of the
    Pacific black brant is why the Association of Village Council
    Presidents, which represents 56 indigenous Native villages within
    Western Alaska, opposes the King Cove Road.
        Recently, on Saturday, October 20, President Bush expressed
    concerns over the nation's diminishing migratory bird habitat. The
    President stated, ``I don't know if you know this or not, but each year
    more than 800 species of migratory birds brave stiff winds, harsh
    weather and numerous predators to fly thousands of miles. Their final
    destination is the warm climate of the American south, the Caribbean or
    Mexico, where they stay for the winter. These amazing travelers will
    then return to their breeding grounds in the north. And as they span
    these distances, they fascinate and bring joy to millions of our
    citizens. A lot of folks across the country love to watch birds. One of
    the things we've discussed here is a significant environmental
    challenge we face here in America, and that is birds are losing the
    stopover habitats they need and depend on for their annual
    migrations.''
        The President stressed that this is a national issue requiring
    national attention. He also announced an initiative to have Department
    of the Interior Secretary Kempthorne produce a State of the Birds
    Report by 2009. This report will help the U.S. bring more of America's
    bird species into a healthy and sustainable status. The question we
    need to ask is will this report measure our country's protection of one
    of the world's critically important migratory waterfowl sites; lands
    that the U.S. now protects, but would put at risk by constructing a
    road adjacent to the Kinzarof Lagoon, which is heavily used by brant
    and other waterfowl.
        Furthermore, a road through Izembek's Wilderness will cost
    taxpayers millions of dollars. Congress has already helped finance the
    most cost effective mode of transport between King Cove and Cold Bay--a
    specially designed marine hovercraft-ferry system.
        Our organizations support helping the people of King Cove improve
    their transportation link to Cold Bay and have consistently encouraged
    them to seek a safe and dependable marine transportation link. The
    currently available hovercraft-ferry system provides a reasonable,
    financially feasible, safe and practical transportation link between
    King Cove and Cold Bay. It avoids the need to complete a road across
    multiple avalanche zones, unstable volcanic soils and a designated
    Wilderness area. Further, a road would not ensure a safer, reliable
    transportation link. Keeping the roads open during winter months would
    be extremely difficult, if not impossible, when snow is drifting. Even
    routine maintenance of a road that is built on wetlands would be
    challenging and very costly to taxpayers. The hovercraft reportedly has
    already successfully transported a number of med-evac patients from
    King Cove to Cold Bay.
        The road proposed in H.R. 2801 would cut through the protected
    Wilderness of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Over a decade of
    public debate and meetings were held prior to the Congressional
    designation of these lands as Wilderness, to be sure that qualified
    lands were added into the Wilderness System, that watersheds were
    permanently protected, and known conflicts were addressed. A road is
    incompatible with the purposes of Izembek refuge, and would legally
    contradict the King Cove Health and Safety Act, which Congress adopted
    to specifically prohibit a road through Izembek Wilderness. Continuing
    the Congressional protection of this internationally significant
    wildlife habitat and important public land for future generations makes
    sense. The road and land exchange proposal should be rejected.
        The remainder of my testimony provides greater detail on the issues
    I have mentioned and describes additional legal concerns raised by the
    bill's provisions as well as other matters of deep concern to The
    Wilderness Society and other opponents of this unneeded measure.
    The Heart of the Wildlife Refuge
        Congress established the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
    Wilderness in 1980 as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act to safeguard the refuge's extraordinary value. The
    Izembek refuge was established to protect the Pacific black brant and
    its habitat along with other migratory waterfowl and other birds.
        At the center of the 417,533-acre Izembek National Wildlife Refuge
    are two lagoons, the Izembek and Kinzarof. These lagoons are separated
    by a narrow isthmus just 3 miles wide. Combined, the lagoons, their
    immediate watersheds, and the isthmus--the Lagoons Complex--make up the
    ecological heart of the refuge. The area has been recognized
    internationally for having some of the most striking wildlife and
    wilderness values in the northern hemisphere.
        The Izembek/Kinzarof Lagoons Complex has been repeatedly recognized
    internationally for its global significance. Specifically, the refuge
    was:
          Identified under the RAMSAR Convention in 1986 and was
    the first wetlands area in North America on the List of Wetlands of
    International Importance;
          Included as a Marine Protected Area in order to provide
    lasting protection for this Lagoon Complex;
          Recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of global
    significance in 2001 by Birdlife International in partnership with
    National Audubon Society;
          Listed as a Sister Refuge with Russia's Kronotskiy State
    Biosphere Reserve in 1991 through a U.S.--Russian Governmental
    Agreement on Cooperation in Environmental Protection; and
          Celebrated as globally significant for its habitat value
    and role in biodiversity protection by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and
    The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
        The refuge also qualifies as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird
    Reserve Network Site. Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is best known
    for its world-class waterfowl and shorebird habitat. The Lagoons
    Complex provides breeding, molting, nesting, refueling, staging and
    resting grounds for:
          virtually the entire world's populations of Pacific black
    brant (150,000) and Emperor geese (55,000);
          a significant portion of the world's ``threatened''
    population of Steller's eiders ( 150,000) which were listed as
    threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1997; and
          many other migratory and resident waterfowl, including
    Pacific golden plovers, rock sandpipers, dunlins, ruddy turnstones,
    semipalmated plovers, western sandpipers and Izembek tundra swans,
    which are the only essentially nonmigratory breeding population in
    North America.
        The Izembek/Kinzarof Lagoons Complex is important for so many bird
    species due to the presence of some of the world's largest eelgrass
    beds. More than 98 percent of the world's Pacific black brant converge
    on Izembek Lagoon each year to feed on the eelgrass in preparation for
    their 3,000 mile, 55 hour non-stop flight to wintering grounds in
    Mexico. The birds feed on eelgrass for approximately eight weeks before
    their long flight south that usually begins in early November. Emperor
    and Canada geese rely on the eelgrass in the lagoons for nutrients as
    do invertebrates, and marine mammals.
        A road through this ecologically sensitive habitat would fragment
    and degrade the integrity of the Lagoons Complex. This will result in
    impacts that extend well beyond the road and affect the integrity of
    the entire refuge. Birds and mammals use the lagoons, isthmus wetlands,
    tundra and tidal flats to nest, feed, transit and forage--the species
    hardest hit will be those whose essential habitat would be directly or
    indirectly impacted by road construction, maintenance, and traffic. In
    particular, Pacific brant, Steller's eiders, Emperor geese, caribou,
    tundra swans, brown bears, sea otters, sea lions, seals and whales
    would be impacted. Many of these species are rare, declining or even
    listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
        In addition, the narrow isthmus between Izembek and Kinzarof
    Lagoons is a crucial travel corridor--the only path between the west
    and east sides of the refuge--for wide-ranging species such as bears,
    caribou, and wolves. The Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, a population
    that has declined from about 10,000 to fewer than 1,000 in the last 10
    years, uses the isthmus as the only migration corridor between calving
    and wintering grounds. The isthmus is also an important winter foraging
    area for these animals. Moreover, the caribou are known to spend the
    entire winter on the isthmus.
        Some of the highest densities of brown bears on the Lower Alaska
    Peninsula are found in the Joshua Green River Valley, an area within
    three miles of the isthmus and proposed road corridor. Low levels of
    human disturbance have helped maintain the high habitat value of this
    area for brown bears. Bears use the isthmus frequently to forage and
    roam in their search for food. Harbor seals, sea otters, Steller's sea
    lions, and whales frequent the productive waters surrounding the
    refuge. Sea otters, seals, and sea lions spend time along the coast and
    in the lagoons. Both sea otters and Steller's sea lions are listed as
    Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
    Lagoons
        Recognizing that both Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons are essential to
    the wildlife is an imperative first recognized by the establishment of
    the Izembek Refuge in 1960. Brant fly back and forth between the
    lagoons to forage, Emperor geese use Kinzarof Lagoon while often
    foraging in the upland tundra area for crowberries; and the endangered
    Steller's eider's prefer Kinzarof. Last winter, Izembek Lagoon froze-
    over several times, making Kinzarof Lagoon particularly important for
    the survival of the wildlife. Both lagoons are essential to wildlife,
    and the Lagoon Complex comprises vital, high quality habitat for many
    species. Degradation or loss of this habitat complex cannot be
    mitigated by offering distant uplands or areas not used by those
    species. Population declines will occur in many species that rely on
    this habitat complex. Such losses may be substantial.
    Studies Detail the Harmful Impacts of the Road
        In August 1999 the FWS prepared the King Cove Briefing Report. And
    once again in an unchanged affirmation of the 1982 conclusions found
    that the road alternative is contrary to the purposes of the refuge and
    foresaw unacceptable environmental impacts if a road was constructed on
    refuge lands through the wilderness area. The Service supported further
    study and consideration of other alternatives, such as a marine link,
    which would provide increased travel safety, economic growth and fewer
    ecological impacts. Other State and Federal studies of the same period
    also documented the road as the most destructive and costly alternative
    and similarly favored the marine ferry concept.
        A June 2003 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), conducted
    by the Army Corps of Engineers, examined the potential threats of the
    proposed road from King Cove to Cold Bay. The report stated that there
    is sufficient information available to conclude that the road
    alternative would not qualify as an environmentally preferable
    alternative. The report noted that the determination is based in part
    on the largest footprint (287.0 acres) among the alternatives. The
    report documented the potential scope of the construction, noting the
    need for 36.7 acres of placement of fill material in waters of the U.S.
    including wetlands, of which 2.09 acres are below HTL; 254 stream and
    drainage crossings requiring 8 bridges and 19 culverts across fish
    bearing streams. There would be direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
    on the lands and on wildlife--citing caribou, swans, bears and wolves.
        The report also stated that if the road between King Cove and Cold
    Bay were completed, it would be open for travel by all residents,
    placing no restrictions on the numbers or types of vehicles. Estimates
    of traffic rates on the road are unavailable, but vehicular traffic is
    likely to be variable both on a daily and seasonal basis. Increased
    traffic is also expected beyond that needed for access to Cold Bay
    Airport (for example, the Peter Pan Seafood's Corporation has
    previously indicated that it would truck about 1 million pounds of
    products per year to the Cold Bay airport via the road). Increased
    traffic and transit by large and noisy vehicles would further
    exacerbate the impacts on waterfowl usage of those vital habitats,
    thereby increasing unnecessary stress and negative effects.
        The report also noted that the road has the greatest potential of
    any alternative to adversely affect subsistence harvest due to its
    potential to create great competition between residents of Cold Bay and
    King Cove. Greater access could lead to distributional changes in
    wildlife, such as caribou, brown bear, and wolves. This impact on
    subsistence use due to enhanced access would be negative and
    potentially significant.
    Other Native Stakeholders Oppose the Road
        The potential damage to subsistence use is a primary reason that
    the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), the recognized
    tribal organizations and non profit Alaska Native Regional Corporation
    for its 56 member indigenous Native villages within Western Alaska, has
    opposed the King Cove Road. In 1998, the AVCP passed a resolution
    opposing the road. On October 17, 2007, I received a letter from Myron
    Naneng, President of the AVCP reaffirming their opposition and citing
    their interest and concern for the critical habitat of our Pacific
    black brant that use the area for staging and feeding during their long
    and treacherous spring and fall migrations.
        The resolution notes that ``the people of the Y-K Delta are primary
    stakeholders of waterfowl, our customary, and traditional use of birds
    has long been used as part of our diet and culture and because of the
    destructive development and habitat loss conducted by those areas in
    the Pacific Flyway through out the 1960's, 70s, and 80's significantly
    affect waterfowl populations resulting in curtailing our subsistence
    hunters and gather's practice.''
    Congress already rejected a road and funded an alternative
        Congress determined that a road through Izembek Wilderness is not
    in the public's best interest when, in 1998, it passed the King Cove
    Health and Safety Act. With this legislation, Congress addressed King
    Cove residents' health and safety concerns by providing $37.5 million
    to upgrade King Cove's medical facilities, improve the airstrip in King
    Cove, purchase a hovercraft, construct marine terminals in King Cove
    and Cold Bay, and build an unpaved road between the town of King Cove
    and the connecting marine terminal.
        Congress reiterated its intention not to permit a road through
    Izembek's designated Wilderness in the King Cove Health and Safety Act,
    Section 353:
        In no instance may any part of such road pass over any land within
    the Congressionally-designated wilderness (d) All actions undertaken
    pursuant to this section must be in accordance with all other
    applicable laws.
        After passage of the King Cove Health and Safety Act, Alaska
    Senator Ted Stevens sponsored a rider on an appropriations bill that
    directed a 17-mile road be built from King Cove to a hovercraft
    terminal. Construction for this road began in March, 2004. More than
    $25 million dollars have been spent for this road, which remains
    unfinished. Construction costs continued to escalate as crews
    confronted numerous obstacles, including unstable volcanic soils in the
    area. Avoiding the unstable soils has meant rerouting the road onto the
    sensitive shores of Cold Bay, where winter ice scouring and spray will
    increase maintenance costs. All of that effort and additional cost
    remains puzzling to observers since it would move the existing ferry
    terminus in Lenard Harbor, which is only seven miles from King Cove, to
    a point 10 miles further away and requires longer transits across steep
    mountainous terrain where winter travel conditions would be made even
    more treacherous.
    Hovercraft Ferry is as Successful as Congress Intended
        A portion of the $37.5 million in taxpayer funds was used to
    acquire and equip a hovercraft, a type of vehicle most often used by
    commercial and military operators in such conditions as ice floes,
    mudflats, beaches and tundra. Unique to the hovercraft is its ability
    to land without a traditional dock or harbor.
        The near 100-foot hovercraft has been operating for about a year
    and in the past year has been used successfully in 15 medical
    evacuations helping King Cove residents cross the 20 miles across the
    bay to reach the Cold Bay airport. The hovercraft, powered by four MTU
    2000 diesel engines, is the largest hovercraft ever built in the U.S.
    The craft seats 49 passengers and travels an average of 52 mph. On flat
    water with a light load, the hovercraft can maintain speeds in excess
    of 578 mph. In reasonable weather, fully loaded, cruise speed is around
    40 mph and the hovercraft can complete the one way trip from King Cove
    to Cold Bay in 15 minutes. The hovercraft can operate routinely in
    waves of more than 6 feet and winds up to 46 mph.
    Road Extension Would be Costly; Wouldn't Consistently Be Available.
        The road now being proposed to extend the incomplete $25 million 17
    mile segment and connect King Cove and Cold Bay could be an additional
    cost to taxpayers that does not make sense. Due to high winds and
    drifting snow, roads in Cold Bay are difficult to keep open in winter
    months. Last year several roads in Cold Bay, including the current road
    to the airport, were closed due to the inability to keep the road
    plowed. Throughout the year, the cost of keeping another road open and
    maintained would require a significant financial increase of staff and
    equipment, as well as extravagant use of scarce materials such as
    gravel and fill.
    Quality v. Quantity of Lands Offered for Exchange
        The exchange lands being proposed would not provide habitat
    comparable to or able to compensate for loss or degradation of the
    Lagoons Complex. Indeed, no amount of exchange lands can compensate for
    the irreversible impacts a road would have on these globally
    significant and unique wildlife habitat values.
        State Townships: The two townships offered by the State
    (approximately 43,000 acres) do not include comparable wetlands
    habitat. The southernmost state township is entirely uplands, with some
    bear denning habitat, but virtually no value for waterfowl. The more
    northern township has some wetlands with viable caribou and brown bear
    habitat, but is of little value for the many species of waterfowl found
    in the lagoons and isthmus wetlands complex. The state townships also
    have no current development threat, and offer minimal conservation
    benefit. They are located entirely outside the watershed of the Izembek
    National Wildlife Refuge and will be costly to inventory and administer
    due to access limitations.
        King Cove Corporation lands: Corporation owned lands offered along
    the eastern shore of Cold Bay (relinquished ANILCA selections,
    approximately 5,430 acres, are primarily uplands with little to no
    value for caribou or important waterfowl species, such as Pacific
    Brant, Emperor geese and Threatened Steller's eiders.
        Lands offered in the Mortensen Lagoon parcel, approximately 10,800
    acres, include wetlands with some swan and shorebird habitat value, but
    this area does not attract the high level levels of use by key species
    such as Pacific brant, Emperor goose or the Threatened Steller's eider
    compared to the Lagoons Complex. The FWS 1997 King Cove Road Briefing
    Report indicates that the Mortensen Lagoon area is a ``medium use''
    area for Canada goose and Northern pintail, whereas the lagoons and
    isthmus complex is a ``high-use'' area for the Threatened Steller's
    eider and virtually the entire world's population of Pacific brant and
    Emperor geese. Additionally, the Mortensen Lagoon parcel contains
    significantly less tidelands, especially important for shorebirds, and
    is inadequate compensation for the tremendous impact a road would have
    on the critically important Lagoon Complex. Further, a road already
    bisects these Corporation lands, and will continue to be used, which
    likely precludes wilderness qualification and diminishes further the
    conservation value of these lands.
        The ``bookend'' parcels at the mouth of Kinzarof Lagoon, about
    2,500 acres, contain high waterfowl habitat value, but currently have
    no development threat. As such, these lands offer limited compensation.
    These parcels are located within the zone of influence of road
    construction, operation and maintenance and therefore may sustain
    diminished usage and reduction in value.
        State Refuge Lands: The exchange proposal includes an offer to make
    Kinzarof Lagoon a State refuge. Although Kinzarof Lagoon is valuable
    from a conservation perspective historically Alaska has not made State
    Game Refuge management a priority. For example, Izembek State Game
    Refuge was established in 1972 and still has no management plan and
    virtually no state refuge personnel overseeing refuge activities. In
    state ownership, the future of Kinzarof Lagoon would remain in question
    and may sustain unavoidable negative impacts from road construction,
    operation and maintenance thereby limiting its benefit to Izembek
    refuge.
    Legal Concerns
        As currently written, H.R. 2801 also raises a number of legal and
    policy concerns. More specifically, before Congress adopted ANILCA in
    1980, its committees and members spent hours debating the proper
    balance between access and conservation on the bill's conservation
    lands. The result was Title XI, the access and transportation title,
    which provides a process for authorizing the construction of
    transportation corridors through conservation lands like the Izembek
    Wilderness. That process requires the FWS to detail findings about the
    potential impacts of the road on the refuge that it would cross.
    Because the proposed road would bisect designated Wilderness, the
    process would also require presidential review and congressional
    approval of the proposed road corridor. These important protections
    designed by Congress to balance access with the need to protect
    designated Wilderness would be stripped under these bills.
        The bills would convey to the State fee title to the 206-acre road
    corridor through Wilderness, instead of merely an easement as the State
    originally requested. Conveying fee title to the State would not only
    allow road construction through the Wilderness, but opens the road
    corridor to possible future developments, such as pipelines. Although
    construction of a road under any circumstances would be bad news for
    the Izembek Wilderness, if the road proposal goes forward, the FWS
    would be better able to protect the wilderness area from excessive harm
    if an easement were conveyed to the State rather than full fee title to
    the road corridor. An easement would give the State the right to
    construct and maintain a road along the chosen route but would leave
    full ownership of the corridor under the management of the FWS.
        Equally problematic is that the legislation would not provide for
    appraisals or valuation of land. Under existing law, the federal
    government must undertake an appraisal before proceeding with a land
    exchange, in order to ensure that the exchange is based on equal value;
    an exchange that is not based on equal value may proceed only if the
    Secretary determines that the exchange is in the public interest. FLPMA
    Sec. 206; ANILCA Sec. 1302(h). Most of the lands proposed to be
    exchanged under S. 1680 and H.R. 2801 have never been formally
    appraised or valuated. If these bills become law, they likely never
    will be formally appraised or valuated, as Section 4(d) (1) waives any
    such requirement. Without an appraisal, neither the landowners nor the
    public can effectively evaluate the fairness and relative benefits of
    the proposed exchange.
        The bills provide (Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)) that support facilities for a
    road constructed under this subsection shall not be located on
    federally owned land in the Izembek NWR, but do not disclose what
    facilities will be needed or where they will be located. Such
    facilities could be substantial, and could potentially be located on
    State tide lands in the Kinzarof Lagoon or within lands to be conveyed
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service under the exchange agreement. Without
    treatment or specific parameters in the bills, these sites have no
    physical or environmental constraints and could be located in any
    number of sensitive areas, resulting in significant impacts to refuge
    values. If the road proposal moves forward it is imperative that the
    location, size and parameters of these sites be fully disclosed in the
    legislation and reasonable constraints invoked.
    Other policy questions center on:
        Section 4(c) (3) (C) would deem the as-yet undetermined road route
    to be compatible with the purposes for which the Izembek National
    Wildlife Refuge was established. This language would circumvent the
    existing requirement that any activity proposed within a National
    Wildlife Refuge be approved only if it is found to be compatible with
    the purposes for which the refuge was established. See 16 U.S.C.
    Sec. 688dd. The compatibility review provides an important mechanism
    for the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the impacts of proposed
    activity, such as construction and operation of a road, wildlife, and
    habitat resources of the refuge. By bypassing this requirement, the
    bills remove important protection of existing law from a Wilderness
    area in a refuge.
        Section 4(d)(2) would deem the use of existing roads and the
    construction of new roads on King Cove Corporation land located within
    the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to access the proposed road to be
    consistent with ANCSA Sec. 22(g) and not to interfere with the purposes
    for which the refuge was established. ANCSA Sec. 22(g) applies the
    ``compatibility'' requirement to lands within certain National Wildlife
    Refuges that are conveyed to Native corporations pursuant to ANCSA. By
    bypassing the compatibility requirement on these lands, the bills
    remove an important protection of existing law.
        Section 4(c)(3) provides for a multi-entity cooperative planning
    process for the proposed road across the Izembek Wilderness, and
    Section 4(c)(3)(D) provides that construction of the road along the
    route recommended by the Secretary pursuant to that process ``is
    authorized in accordance with this Act.'' This language could be used
    by road proponents to seek to avoid compliance with federal legal
    requirements--in addition to those that are explicitly waived--that
    usually govern construction of new roads.
        Section 4(c)(4) provides for the reconveyance of land by the
    Secretary to the State or the King Cove Corporation if a court enjoins
    use or construction of the road, or if the State or the King Cove
    Corporation chooses not to proceed with construction of the road. There
    is no parallel provision for the reconveyance of land by the State or
    the King Cove Corporation to the United States. Land within designated
    Wilderness of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge should not be
    conveyed outside the refuge; but if it is conveyed and road
    construction does not go forward, the land should be returned to the
    United States.
        Section 4(g) provides that the Secretary must administer the land
    acquired pursuant to the land exchange ``subject to valid existing
    rights.'' Information about any valid existing rights must be disclosed
    and considered before the land exchange is approved; as such rights
    could subject the new Wilderness lands to incompatible access and other
    claims that may undermine their value as additions to the Izembek
    Wilderness.
        For all of these and other reasons we oppose the land exchange and
    proposed road from King Cove to Cold Bay through Izembek National
    Wildlife Refuge's lagoons complex and designated Wilderness. Thank you
    for this opportunity to bring these important concerns to the
    Committee.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38772.001

        .epsThe Chairman. Thank you.
        The Committee will stand in recess for approximately 15
    minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Inslee [presiding]. We will reconvene the meeting.
        Thank you very much. I have assumed the chair from our
    great Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here.
    I have a couple questions, if I may.
        Mr. Hall, I wanted to ask about your testimony about the
    NEPA analysis. Your written testimony says, ``The
    Administration could support passage of this legislation if it
    were amended to ensure a full NEPA analysis on the exchange.''
        For the purposes of your question, does a full NEPA
    analysis mean inclusion of the no action alternative, or do you
    contemplate that the road would be mandated by the legislation
    subject to consideration of alternatives such as location?
        Mr. Hall. Well, I think that really depends on how the bill
    is passed. If a bill is passed that says you will have a road
    then the alternatives would be on how to build the road, but if
    the legislation simply authorizes the construction of a road
    then we would do the full NEPA per NEPA guidelines that start
    with an election and go through the other alternatives.
        Mr. Inslee. I just want to make sure I understand the
    Administration's position on that.
        Would you support legislation that in effect mandated
    construction of the road and allowed a NEPA analysis only to
    alternatives such as location, or would you insist on at least
    evaluating a no action alternative no matter what?
        Would you encourage us to pass legislation that would allow
    a no action alternative as part of the NEPA process? I guess
    that is the way to ask the question.
        Mr. Hall. Well, in the negotiations with the Administration
    on what their position is, because they have not come out with
    a statement of Administration position other than this
    testimony, and we talked about NEPA. At least my understanding
    was we would look at NEPA as NEPA is mandated by its own law,
    which includes all alternatives.
        The discussions really evolved around making sure that
    there was a fair analysis of what we are gaining and what we
    might be losing, the impacts, the values gained and maybe the
    assets lost so that the public could see the full disclosure of
    what is going on there. That was the gist of my discussions
    with the Administration.
        Mr. Inslee. I appreciate that. I think I understand what
    you are saying. I think it is an important point.
        Some of today's testimony suggests that the refuge is a
    very difficult place to build a road--the topography, volcanic
    soils, some of the wetlands. I wanted to ask Mr. Mylius--I hope
    I have pronounced that name right--from the state.
        I just wondered if you could address the engineering
    feasibility and the cost of completing the construction from
    King Cove to Cold Bay and maybe just address some of the
    challenges for administering the road as far as maintenance,
    policing, accidents, melting tundra from global warming and the
    like.
        Mr. Mylius. Mr. Chairman, in terms of road costs there was
    an estimate done in 2003 that it would be a $23 million
    construction cost for the road. With current prices going up,
    it would be a little bit more than that.
        In terms of construction, I am not sure if this represents
    any more significant challenges than large parts of Alaska. A
    lot of Alaska is very wet. This area is not underlain by
    permafrost, so the global warming and melting permafrost would
    not be an issue down there.
        There has been some reconnaissance work done for possible
    routes, and they have identified a route that would be the
    least I guess probably wet and the least impact on the wetland,
    so it is feasible to build a road. It has been looked at.
        In terms of maintenance, the state already does road
    maintenance out of both King Cove and Cold Bay, so we have
    already got maintenance staff in those communities.
        Mr. Inslee. I just wonder if any of the other witnesses
    want to comment on any of those issues. We would welcome your
    comment.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. Thank you very much. This is a difficult
    area as I understand it from the descriptions and the
    environmental impact statement. It is an area that is not very
    flat. There are a lot of big depressions and difficult soils
    and areas that would have to be filled a great deal.
        It would require a substantial amount of gravel, and gravel
    is not in abundant supply in these areas. It would require,
    therefore, a lot of maintenance, more so than a typical road,
    you know, that would be put on a hard bed. This is not a hard
    bed.
        So the challenges for building this road, as well as for
    preventing it from impacting the lagoons and so on, as Ms.
    Whittington-Evans alluded to, are I think substantially
    greater.
        I have lived in Alaska a long time. I have visited a lot of
    places. I have been to many refuges. I have been to Izembek and
    looked at the areas. This is not an easy place to build a road.
        Mr. Inslee. Go ahead.
        Mr. Mack. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Inslee. Yes?
        Mr. Mack. Stanley Mack. I was born and raised in King Cove.
    I have hunted and fished in the Izembek area all my life. I beg
    to differ on the road construction.
        There is gravel available. There are a network of roads
    throughout the refuge and into the wilderness that was built by
    the military in World War II. Those roads still exist with
    minimum maintenance, so to that degree I believe that
    everything for road construction is readily available.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Whittington-Evans. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would just like
    to add that what we understand, from the $37.5 million that was
    appropriated under the King Cove Health and Safety Act, $26
    million of those were spent on the 17 mile road, of which
    approximately one-third is completely finished.
        We believe that continuing the road through the isthmus,
    through the wetlands of the isthmus, will be considerably more
    challenging than the terrain that they have experienced in most
    of that 17 mile road portion with the exception perhaps of the
    mountainous region with the unstable volcanic soils where right
    now the road does not connect because they haven't been able to
    build that section of it.
        It is an average of $1.7 or so, as I understand it, or $1.5
    million per mile, and I think that that would be increased
    somewhat, if not significantly, for the isthmus portion of the
    road.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
        I would like to yield to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr.
    Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I looked over there and
    thought gee, Nick, you have grown in the last 15 minutes.
        I have a little bit of a problem. Mr. Raskin, are you an
    engineer?
        Mr. Raskin. Actually, I have had engineering classes.
        Mr. Young. Are you an engineer?
        Mr. Raskin. I do not practice in engineering.
        Mr. Young. OK. Nicole, are you an engineer?
        Ms. Whittington-Evans. No, I am not an engineer.
        Mr. Young. I want to ferret that out because we are talking
    about costs.
        This is the state's road. Is that correct, Mr. Mylius?
        Mr. Mylius. Yes.
        Mr. Young. It will be a state road?
        Mr. Mylius. Yes, this would be a state road.
        Mr. Young. And the state will build this road with the
    cost, and if they didn't think it was a worthwhile project the
    stat would not build it. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mylius. Correct.
        Mr. Young. So I want to make that perfectly clear.
        Mr. Raskin, are you a resident of Homer or of Arizona?
        Mr. Raskin. I am a resident of Homer.
        Mr. Young. You are? How come your phone numbers all are in
    Arizona?
        Mr. Raskin. That is because I just went down there to work
    on a home that----
        Mr. Young. Oh, we have a home in Arizona? That is
    interesting.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes, because it is so icy in the wintertime.
        Mr. Young. I understand that.
        Mr. Raskin. We go down there.
        Mr. Young. The reason I ask that is because if you had a
    residence in Homer, the road from Homer to Anchorage goes
    through what?
        Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
        Mr. Young. The road from Homer to Anchorage goes through
    what?
        Mr. Raskin. Through what?
        Mr. Young. What does it go through?
        Mr. Raskin. It goes through the Kenai Refuge.
        Mr. Young. The Kenai Refuge. OK.
        Having said that, Mr. Mayor, and I also heard the testimony
    about how the hovercraft was working. I was in the room when
    that road was rejected, and the hovercraft and the clinic and
    the airport extension was to try to save lives because the
    roads were rejected by the Senate side and a couple senators.
        The community of King Cove, Mr. Chairman, had no input, but
    it was my decision at that time and Senator Stevens' that we
    were going to try to save lives. We didn't know whether that
    hovercraft would work. I want to make that clear.
        We did not think, even if we improved the clinic, that we
    could get a doctor to stay there. As far as improving the
    airport, I have flown out of the airport in 100 mile an hour
    crosswinds, which I will never do again, by the way, so I know
    the danger there I am going to say.
        The statement that the hovercraft works. Now, Mr. Mayor or
    any one of you who are involved, why doesn't the hovercraft
    work. If it does work, in what conditions?
        Mr. Mack. Congressman Young, thank you. The hovercraft, the
    best I could explain it, and this is one of the first
    hovercrafts of this size built in the United States. We had no
    idea what we were getting into in regard to the hovercraft. The
    best way to describe this hovercraft is like a hockey puck on
    an air hockey platform.
        As it floats around there you could blow it with your
    breath in a different direction, so the turbulence on this
    hovercraft or the turbulent weather that the hovercraft is
    going to encounter and has already encountered demonstrates
    that it is very unstable.
        The area in Cold Bay is so turbulent. I think I best
    describe it as where the storms are born, and it just is very
    unstable. That is the best I can describe it, Congressman.
        Mr. Young. Again, I have heard testimony here today that
    traffic could support the hovercraft with $700,000 a year. How
    many cars are in King Cove?
        Mr. Mack. When they are fully running I would say in the
    neighborhood of 200.
        Mr. Young. OK. Now, what do you charge for a car to go to
    Cold Bay?
        Mr. Mack. Oh, I would have to defer to my administrator.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Mack. Roughly $150.
        Mr. Young. OK. So we would have to take 200 cars, every one
    of them to travel back and forth every day for 365 days to pay
    for the hovercraft.
        Now, why would anybody want to take a car to Cold Bay
    anyway unless they wanted to fly them out?
        Mr. Mack. That is the only reason they would want to go
    there.
        Mr. Young. So there is no market to sustain the cost of
    that hovercraft with Cold Bay?
        Mr. Mack. That is correct.
        Mr. Young. Now, it was also stated there were 16 medivacs
    by the hovercraft. We saw the film. How many were not able to
    be made by the hovercraft? We saw one on the film.
        Mr. Mack. There have been--well, let us see. Maybe I can
    defer to you, Della.
        Ms. Trumble. Congressman, technically since the hovercraft
    has been in operation, and just to step back a second we are
    thankful that we have it. It has helped and contributed more
    than what we had in the past. It just unfortunately isn't the
    answer.
        We have had 19 to 20 medivacs this past 10 months. You
    know, we almost average two a month. Technically all of them
    made it because of one thing. The contributing factor was that
    the weather was good and it allowed us. There was one occasion
    where it was iffy, and they technically pushed it to get over
    there. It took them two hours.
        Mr. Young. They took a chance is what you are saying?
        Ms. Trumble. They took a chance.
        Mr. Young. Just like the airplane, and we lost 11 lives on
    the airplane because we don't have a road.
        Ms. Trumble. Exactly.
        Mr. Young. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I want to have a
    second round probably.
        Mr. Kildee [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Every time I turn around. I mean, I did take a
    shower this morning. I can tell you that right now.
        Mr. Kildee. We all love you so much, Don. We just don't
    want to sit next to you.
        The gentleman from Utah?
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Young, why do you think I am
    sitting way down here?
        Let me ask a couple of questions. I apologize for not being
    here for the verbal testimony as well. First, Mr. Mylius from
    the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Do state laws and
    regulations ensure that roads are going to be designed and
    constructed to minimize potential impacts in Alaska?
        Mr. Mylius. Mr. Chairman or Congressman, when the state
    builds, most of our roads are built with highway trust funds
    and they require environmental impact statements as part of
    their construction and so they address environmental impacts as
    part of their design and construction.
        Mr. Bishop. There are those who have said that none of the
    lands that the state exchanges are threatened, and therefore
    they have no real wilderness value.
        Do you want to comment on the value of the lands the state
    is willing to exchange?
        Mr. Mylius. Congressman, the State of Alaska owns over 100
    million acres of land, and a lot of those lands don't have
    immediate development prospects for them, but the state was
    given that land with the idea that some day a lot of those
    lands could be developed.
        When you look it over, a large part of Alaska doesn't have
    immediate development threat, including most of the wilderness
    land that is already designated. When Congress set aside those
    lands as wilderness in ANILCA in the Lands Act, that wasn't a
    criteria that they be threatened with development.
        Nonetheless, these specific lands have been looked at for
    oil and gas development in the past. The state actually
    included them in a recent oil and gas lease sale, so they do
    have some potential for development.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Mayor, if I could just ask you, and once
    again I apologize for not having been here for the verbal
    testimony, but I am intrigued by the line in the background
    statement or the briefing statement about the number of fatal
    accidents. The King Cove Airport is located between mountains,
    adverse conditions, and fatal accidents or delays in
    transportation of some of the sick.
        You have been talking about that with the Ranking Member.
    How many fatal accidents have occurred? Can you give me some
    estimation of the number and the kinds of things we are talking
    about here as far as loss of life by the present situation?
        Mr. Mack. There has been recorded 11 of them, sir, in
    traffic.
        Mr. Bishop. Multiple accidents or single accidents?
        Mr. Mack. One multiple accident there on the approach to
    Cold Bay. Weather conditions were such, and it was in the
    night. This was several years ago. That quickened our desire
    for a connection between the two airports.
        Mr. Bishop. So the contention is a road would have
    alleviated that concern? It would not have happened?
        Mr. Mack. Yes, it would have.
        Mr. Bishop. So it is a matter of life that we are talking
    about?
        Mr. Mack. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate those answers.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Kildee. We will have a second round.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to bring this up,
    but I think it is very frustrating when I see the type of
    propaganda that is put before the Congress.
        This is on the press table. That is a doctored picture.
    That is a doctored picture. That is a dishonest picture. That
    road does not even exist, and that mountain is there, but it is
    nowhere near this road.
        This is an attempt to make propaganda to take and convey
    the untruths about this road. In fact, I believe this letter
    was sent in to Evan Hirsche, President of the National Wildlife
    Refuge Association, and it explained all the inaccuracies. They
    never got a letter back.
        [NOTE: The picture referred to can be found on page 35.]
        Mr. Young. If anybody in the press wants to look at this
    letter, I think you ought to do it and ask groups why they put
    out this kind of nonsense. If you are honest and you have a
    legitimate point of view, you don't need to use propaganda.
    This is truly propaganda. I am just disappointed frankly. In
    fact, Mr. Chairman, it diminishes the credibility of witnesses
    who would use this type thing.
        If I am not mistaken, Mr. Hall, and this is not for you as
    far as this article goes, but in fact you are the one that is
    deciding and has decided that the 61,000 acres does have
    wildlife potential and it has in fact wilderness potential, and
    41,000 acres under this bill would be in fact, would it not, a
    wilderness?
        Mr. Hall. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Young. And we would be giving up how many acres of
    wilderness?
        Mr. Hall. Two hundred and six.
        Mr. Young. Two hundred and six. And analyzing it, you
    decided that was what the right thing was to do?
        Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Young. Not about the road. Just the exchange, the value
    for 200 acres for every acre that the Aleut Corporation and the
    King Cove was giving up. I believe it is 200 acres I believe
    for every acre they get back. Is that about right?
        Mr. Hall. It is a little over 200.
        Mr. Young. And there have been statements that it would
    disturb wildlife, brant geese, et cetera, et cetera, and your
    analyses of the land exchanged, it improves the habitat of
    waterfowl and wildlife?
        Mr. Hall. We haven't done that analysis yet. That is part
    of what we are talking about having an analysis
        There is an analysis discussed in the bill. The
    Administration would just like it to be identified as NEPA.
    That is the sort of thing that we believe and I believe that
    once the facts are out it will show in an honest, unbiased
    analysis that there is a real benefit, a net substantial gain
    for the American people, for the refuge system and for
    wilderness as a result of this trade.
        In order to be fair and recognize other viewpoints, we are
    saying let us do NEPA and let us have a full disclosure
    document that talks about it.
        Mr. Young. My good state man, the state agrees with that or
    you wouldn't be giving up that land?
        Mr. Mylius. Yes, Congressman Young. The state believes that
    the land we are giving up clearly has wilderness values. They
    are similar in the sense that both areas are valuable for
    caribou and brown bear.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Mayor or Madam Chairman, would you like to
    comment on anything before I excuse myself. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Congressman Young. Yes. In regard to
    the isthmus and its relationship to the migratory birds, in our
    attachments we have a letter from the refuge manager in 1995
    demonstrating the impact on the Pacific black brant in the
    Izembek Refuge, and that is referring to the Izembek Lagoon. It
    also demonstrates the migratory pattern of the Pacific black
    brant that is in question in regard to endangered or threatened
    species.
        I sat on the Co-Management Council of the Alaska Migratory
    Birds, and we have tried to prohibit or tried to gather more
    information because of the fact that in our relationship with
    Mexico and with Russia we are having a difficult time trying to
    capture the exact numbers that are being taken in these areas.
        In our attachment the refuge manager, Greg Sekanik, writes
    and tells about the impact and what is happening in the Izembek
    Lagoon today. It has nothing to do with the roads that are
    there already. If there was a question about the traffic on the
    roads, it certainly would have been demonstrated there.
        There is a request to address the impacts on these
    waterfowls coming from the aircraft traffic over the area at
    this particular time and the boat traffic in the Izembek
    Lagoon.
        Mr. Young. Della?
        Ms. Trumble. Thank you, Congressman. I technically don't
    have anything to comment on except to say one thing that has
    been a concern and just kind of reinforces a little bit what
    you said in the beginning.
        We have lived in this region for thousands of years. We
    continue to do so. We want to protect whatever is in that
    refuge system probably more so than anybody in this United
    States because we subsist off of those lands. We will never do
    anything that is going to contribute to us not being able to.
        If anybody doesn't believe that and wants to really
    understand what it is like to live up there, don't come out and
    visit us for a day or two. Spend the year. Bring your family.
    You come out there and spend a year. If something happens, and
    God willing it doesn't, then you will know exactly what we go
    through and what we have for decades and continue to go through
    every day.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I am out
    of time.
        Mr. Hall, where do you live?
        Mr. Hall. Well, now I live in Springfield, Virginia.
        Mr. Young. OK. I ask this question because I am being a
    little bit tongue in cheek, but we worry about the brant, and
    we should, you know. They are shooting them in Mexico and they
    are shooting them in Russia, and we are worried about the
    brant.
        I ask you. How many times have you driven by on a highway?
    Now, maybe these brant here are a little dumber. I don't know,
    but we have maybe not the brant we are talking about. We have a
    goose that lives right along the George Washington Parkway by
    the hundreds. I mean, cars go zoom, zoom, zoom. Not 200 cars,
    but thousands of cars. You see them every day. They come from
    Springfield.
        If anybody has ever been near any highway where there is
    grass year-round you have geese. They seem to wave at the cars.
    By the way, does anybody play golf around here? I mean, they
    own the golf course.
        The idea that this little nine-mile road now is going to
    destroy or deter or change the brants' habitat or pattern is
    just not understanding waterfowl.
        Mr. Hall. I think a more fair analysis, because what you
    are seeing when you are driving around the road are wintering
    waterfowl, and what we are talking about in Alaska is the
    production, the nesting and the breeding.
        Mr. Young. I beg to differ. That is where you are wrong,
    Mr. Hall.
        Most of these geese here winter here, and they have
    goslings here. If you haven't seen any goslings, you will see
    hundreds of goslings. They take care of the goslings, and the
    goslings grow up to be even more geese, and we have more geese
    than we know what to do with and a lot of other geese you know
    what, but go ahead.
        Mr. Hall. I think the fairness part is because you do have
    geese that overwinter and then oversummer as well and nest even
    in the lower 48, but I think a more fair analysis is to say in
    the prairie pothole country of the United States where a lot of
    nesting birds nest and in Canada, you know, there are roads
    through those areas, and I think that that is the kind of thing
    that in fairness let us talk about it.
        I am not sure that there is a refuge in the lower 48 that
    doesn't have roads on it really to get to almost any part of it
    that you want.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, along those lines, if I am not
    mistaken the Izembek is the smallest refuge we have in the
    State of Alaska. We have 47 million acres, is that correct, in
    the state?
        Mr. Hall. We have over 50 million.
        Mr. Young. Over 50 million acres of refuge in the State of
    Alaska.
        I got to thinking when someone told me that 300,000 acres
    of land. There is only one state that has a larger refuge, and
    that is the State of Louisiana. This is the largest refuge in
    the lower 48 other than one in Louisiana, yet it is considered
    a small refuge. I just want to sort of put that together.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other questions.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. I will let the Chair conclude now. Thank God you
    are back. I looked over and Inslee was there. I said my God,
    Nick grew up.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Let me ask one final question. It
    is for all of the witnesses on the panel.
        What are the potential risks of building a road through
    this refuge, and why do you consider these to be acceptable or
    unacceptable? Who wants to take the first crack?
        Male Voice. Start right down the line.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Hall. Are you starting with me? In looking at the
    risks, there are always risks involved in any kind of
    construction, especially near water, and this road pathway
    certainly skirts the lagoon. There are risks with the potential
    for erosion.
        There are risks--and I think the risks are always you put a
    calculation on them as how high the risk is--about traffic
    interfaced with caribou or even bears crossing across. There
    are risks associated with anything that you do in construction.
        Our responsibility in the Fish and Wildlife Service is to
    really look to see what are the levels of those risks and how
    do they compare with the rest of the package, as it were, `and
    the benefits that are gained against the risks of possible
    losses.
        In my opinion, as I said earlier when you were out of the
    room, Mr. Chairman, I believe going through NEPA and having a
    full disclosure and an unbiased analysis in my opinion I think
    it will show a very clear net benefit to the American people
    and to the refuge system and to the wilderness program to have
    this kind of exchange on this very high bar that has been set
    of 200 plus to one.
        But I think that is why we in the Administration are asking
    for NEPA to be done so the people that disagree with that can
    see the facts.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mylius?
        Mr. Mylius. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Hall summed up the
    risks pretty well. From the state's perspective, additional
    risk could be that the cost for building the road could be
    higher than we estimate that it is.
        I think a lot of the environmental risks can be minimized.
    The road location isn't nailed down. You know, partly because
    of construction costs, as well as environmental reasons, the
    goal would be to minimize the impact on waterfowl habitat. The
    proposed corridor that is shown on maps largely does try to
    stay as far away as it can from the key waterfowl areas, which
    are Izembek Lagoon and Martinson's Lagoon, the actual wetland
    areas.
        I think you also have to consider the risks of not building
    the road, which is the health and safety concerns; that there
    could be lives lost because people can't be medically
    evacuated, so I think you have to look at both the risks of
    proceeding, as well as the risk of not proceeding.
        The Chairman. Mayor Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I agree with The
    Honorable Dale Hall and his analysis, and I too agree that a
    good NEPA process and an EPA or environment impact statement is
    done to demonstrate exactly the impacts you are going to have
    and design this road.
        The benefits to me just for the safety and reliable access
    to that runway that connects King Cove to the outside world is
    a tremendous benefit and a health concern.
        For the migration of wildlife, I have lived in Cold Bay for
    15 years building a power plant and operating it over there
    after the first one burned in 1985. I watched the caribou run
    back and forth across the runway. In fact, the Department of
    Transportation had to scare them off before the airplanes came
    in. You know, every Sunday I would take my family out. We would
    watch the caribou run back and forth across the roads. Traffic
    doesn't bother the aircraft.
        I have hunted out there for wildlife or birds, and I have
    watched them fly over the top of the roads. Many of the sports
    hunters come out there. That is the only impact there is on
    wildlife and birds.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Trumble?
        Ms. Trumble. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly believe and
    agree on behalf of the community of King Cove that the risk is
    that this road doesn't get built and we will lose more people.
    That is something that we live with and are concerned about
    every day.
        As far as any risks associated, I agree with Mr. Hall and
    Mr. Mylius and Mayor Stanley that we do go through a good
    process, that we make sure that we don't do anything to harm
    the wildlife because, like I say, we have protected them and
    will continue to protect them for as long as we are out there
    and will live out there.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Raskin?
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    address my comments to the risk to health and safety. In fact,
    the risk to health and safety is increased by constructing and
    attempting to utilize this road.
        Right now if we look historically, there has been some
    inaccuracy in what has been presented. Of those 11 deaths that
    occurred since 1979 through 1990, only one crash involved a
    medical evacuation, and that crash occurred near the so-called
    all-weather Cold Bay Airport, which is not an all-weather
    airport.
        The other crash, the other major crash, was on a flight
    from Kodiak to King Cove with sportsmen with a pilot who had
    never flown into the area and should never have been flying in
    that area, so we have only one fatal crash involving a medivac
    by air, and it occurred near the so-called Cold Bay all-weather
    airport.
        Now, when you compare that to the risk of this road the
    problem is that you have a hovercraft now that can operate not
    in just 30 mile an hour winds, but in excess of 45 mile an hour
    winds and in excess of 10 foot seas.
        I have discussed this with the experts. This has been
    demonstrated both in Alaska and in the North Sea out of
    Scotland. This is an extremely durable, reliable craft that can
    endure all of these conditions. So the hovercraft has proven
    itself and, as Ms. Trumble said, they have had 19 successful or
    20 successful medivacs with the hovercraft. It has not failed.
        Traveling that road--I live in Alaska. I know what road
    conditions are like, and I live in a much milder area than King
    Cove and Cold Bay, and yet our roads are icy. We have accidents
    all the time. That is why in response to Congressman Young's
    question, now that my wife and I are in our seventies we can't
    deal with that ice very easily where we live.
        King Cove and Cold Bay are much more difficult, and that
    road would go through extremely difficult terrain. The entire
    road would comprise 33 miles, and to travel 33 miles under
    winter conditions with ice, wind and so on is going to increase
    the health risk and encourage people to undertake health risks
    that they should not take. We are very sympathetic to the
    concerns of the people in King Cove, and we feel that the road
    is only going to cause them more health risks rather than less.
        Furthermore, it took $26 million to complete only one-third
    of the 17 mile road, and we are talking about a total of 33
    miles. It will cost at least three times that to complete the
    proposed 33 mile road.
        So all of these are risks--economic, health safety--which
    argue against that road, and we are always happy to try to help
    those people that live out there to work on the problem because
    we are concerned about their issues out there, but this is not
    the solution.
        The solution, if they need one extra safety valve, it is a
    Coast Guard helicopter that would be available to conduct
    medical emergency evacuations on those rare days like the one
    percent of the time when the winds are too great for the
    hovercraft to operate. That is the solution, not this road.
        The Chairman. Ms. Whittington-Evans?
        Ms. Whittington-Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think there
    are a variety of risks associated with building this road.
        One of these areas I have already talked a little bit about
    earlier today, which is the financial risk of building the road
    to the Federal coffers. We have spent $26 million on a road, a
    17 mile road, that is now one-third completed.
        The average cost per mile that I mentioned earlier today,
    actually the jury is not out yet. We don't know how much the
    average cost per mile of the 17 mile road is going to be
    because two-thirds of it still needs to be finished, and we
    really don't have a sense for that.
        I believe that building the road through the wetlands area
    of the isthmus is going to take more money because of many
    culverts, bridges, stream crossings, pools of water that will
    need to be diverted around, the undulations within the tundra
    that will affect all kinds of things--soils, gravel, the amount
    of gravel that is needed, the type of road that would need to
    be built in order to deter snow from accumulating in these
    valleys, if you will, within the tundra area.
        I think that we are looking at an extremely expensive
    project, and it is an expensive project that potentially those
    funds could be used to better serve other individuals and many
    more individuals such as the health care issue that Mr. Raskin
    brought up earlier today. We have many people in the United
    States who don't have access to good health care.
        I say this knowing that the residents of King Cove do have
    alternatives, and they have more alternatives right now than
    the other communities that depend on the Cold Bay Airport to
    get to Anchorage. They are in a pretty good situation
    considering the remote area that they live in. So I think
    financial costs are a significant risk and one that Members of
    Congress should be considering in making this decision.
        I think human safety issues, as Mr. Raskin brought up, are
    also considerable. We will see vehicles stranded. Roads have a
    way of creating accidents. You know, this is going to be a very
    remote road. There is going to be a lot of blowing snow, poor
    visibility in the winter months and particularly cars will end
    up going off the road.
        Some of them may be stranded, people trying to get
    somewhere perhaps consider leaving their cars when the wind
    child is extraordinary out there. The mountainous terrain could
    see rock slides and other types of land slides, potential
    avalanches. Again, the worst case scenario is the road will
    create collisions and ultimately deaths as a result of putting
    it in, so I don't see the road being the best alternative for
    human health and safety.
        I think there are risks to subsistence resources, and the
    draft and final EIS that was put together by the Army Corps of
    Engineers discusses these. Again, this is why the Association
    of Village Council Presidents, which represents 56 native
    villages in western Alaska, opposed this in the late 1990s and
    are opposing it again today. They recognize that there will be
    potential impact to Pacific black brant and other migratory
    waterfowl that they depend on for their subsistence culture and
    resources.
        I went through a whole list of environmental impacts that
    would occur as a result of building this road. Without going
    through all those again, I will just highlight some. We will
    see the destruction of habitat to tundra and wetlands,
    accelerated erosion and stream sedimentation that will decrease
    water quality. We will see behavioral changes in animals.
        We will see increased access and consumptive use as a
    result of this, reducing wildlife population numbers over time.
    We will see increased highway vehicle and ORV access, which
    will without a doubt impact the area in a variety of different
    ways.
        One of the things that hasn't been brought up yet is the
    whole concept of putting a cable barrier along the road to try
    to stop people from taking their ORVs off of the road and into
    the wetland or the wilderness area of the isthmus. I think the
    cable barrier itself presents a lot of problems both for
    wildlife migration, as well as risk to health and human safety.
        In the Palmer area of Alaska where I live we have witnessed
    a person being decapitated by a cable when they were driving
    too quickly on their ORV and did not see the cable. I don't
    think that that is out of the realm of possibility that people
    will be driving quickly under certain conditions on this road
    on their ORVs.
        There will be an overall increase of human presence;
    decreased productivity of habitat; continued wind and water
    erosion; animal behavior changes, as I already mentioned;
    increased likelihood of collisions; increased vehicle
    accidents.
        Overall right now the caribou population in the area, the
    Southern Alaska Peninsula herd, has suffered some significant
    reductions, and I believe the hunting season has been called
    off for that population. They use the isthmus area as a
    significant migration corridor. It is the only way that they
    get from their wintering grounds to their calving grounds.
        Sometimes they overwinter on the isthmus, and this road
    will without a doubt affect some of their migration patterns
    and could potentially disturb them on a regular basis during
    some of the harshest environmental conditions during wintertime
    that they need to live through.
        Brown bears and other carnivores will be affected by this.
    Water quality, you know, affected stream areas and spawning
    areas could reduce the number of salmon in the area. The road
    itself with additional human access will affect brown bears,
    change behavior patterns for them.
        Overall the human access into brown bear population areas
    generally results in increased mortality from things like
    hunting and defense of life and property, so I think overall
    there are many, many types of risks associated with this road,
    and we would encourage the Congress to not agree to passing
    this legislation and reject the idea of this road.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I think you listed some responses.
        I am going to recognize Mr. Young first, and then I will go
    to the panel.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I apologize to my King Cove residents. I have a gentleman
    who lives in Homer who has access through a refuge on a road to
    Anchorage hospitals or to the Homer hospital. I have another
    witness that lives in Palmer that has access to the hospital in
    Palmer--brand new, by the way--and to Anchorage.
        We are talking about nine miles of road like it is the end
    of the earth. They did not, the people of King Cove, ask to be
    put near a wilderness area. They were never consulted. There
    was never a hearing in King Cove. There was no comment from the
    people in King Cove.
        Now we have basically outside organizations and those that
    do not live there nor understand the potential threat to their
    children, their mothers and fathers and their lives themselves.
    There would not be this problem if in fact that area hadn't
    been declared a wilderness.
        For what reason I do not know, a huge airfield in the area.
    This is expansion, not the original Izembek. A huge expansion
    with roads in it and declared a wilderness area. They actually
    have isolated a community from the rest of the world.
        And you talk about the hovercraft. The hovercraft is an old
    hovercraft, Mr. Chairman. You say it is new. It is old, and the
    people that use it say it doesn't work. The state will tell you
    it costs $700,000, so we ought to go to the state and have the
    state subsidize it. They are not going to do it because there
    are only a few people out there.
        Every life that is lost, and remember someone said well,
    there were only 10 lives and one was an accident and the pilot
    shouldn't have been flying, yada-yada-yada, but they didn't
    count those that didn't get off the ground and those that were
    sick and lost their lives. That wasn't counted.
        I think it is unfair, Mr. Chairman, to not do this when the
    state agrees with it, the Aleut Corporation agrees with it, the
    Borough agrees with it, the Fish and Wildlife Department says
    it is the best exchange they got pound for pound. To have
    interest groups that have no contact with the area say we can't
    do this because it might hurt wildlife is wrong.
        Now, I lived the pipeline battle, and they said the caribou
    couldn't and wouldn't cross the pipeline. We spent over $50
    million building walkways for the caribou over the pipeline.
    The caribou never use that pipeline. Never have They go under
    the pipeline.
        Now, I will tell you what does use the pipeline and those
    walkways is the brown bear or the grizzly bear. They get up
    there and run down the pipelines like a highway.
        So if we start deciding how animals and birds are going to
    react there is little science to prove in fact that man itself
    is the cause for the deterioration or destruction of wildlife
    unless it is actually the taking of wildlife.
        Now, we just heard someone say there is a tremendous amount
    of traffic that will be increased. There is no highway to Homer
    from King Cove. There is no highway to Anchorage. There will be
    no one who goes down there because that is a long way down
    there. There will maybe be 100 cars maximum that will use that
    road. Maybe.
        I think the mayor and the president will probably say this
    road will be used for different reasons, but the primary reason
    will be for the evacuation of our loved ones when they are ill.
        I think it behooves this Congress to act in a positive way
    instead of people and organizations that have no contact with
    them and have to live there. Like Della said, if you go out and
    live a year and go through this then you have a right to say
    something. Until that time, let them live their lives as they
    should.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. I have
    said enough. I am not filibustering. It is time to get out of
    here.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        OK. I will let you have the final word, Ms. Trumble.
        Ms. Trumble. Thank you. I was hoping that was the case.
        In all due respect, Nicole and David, you know, we have
    asked time and time again when we are going through this
    process come talk to us. Work with us because we are willing to
    work with everybody.
        When we look at these statements it is really hurtful and
    discouraging to see what is happening here and at the level
    that it does. We live our there. You don't. When you talk about
    driving from Homer to Anchorage for medical services on an icy
    road you are driving on pavement. We are driving on a gravel
    road with snow and ice, and that is worse conditions because of
    the gravel.
        We have a resolution from AFN. When we talk about the
    hovercraft you said there is only one-third of that road
    complete. That is wrong. This is a 17 mile road. Fourteen of
    those miles are complete.
        I had tried to make so many--I have this list. This issue,
    yes, is about health and safety, but it is also about the peace
    of mind. When you looked at that video and saw that airplane
    landing at the airstrip in King Cove--you left Cold Bay. You
    made it out of there. The weather was fine. That is what you
    put up with. Ten minutes later is what we are talking about
    because we live in a mountainous area.
        This is about the freedom and just the peace of mind to go
    from one community to the next. Cold Bay is the only way that
    we can get out to the outside world.
        We thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your time and the
    Committee.
        The Chairman. The Chair wishes to thank the entire panel
    and to remind them the record will be open for an additional 10
    days following today's hearing.
        I will have additional questions to submit for the record.
    Other Members may have additional questions as well. You will
    have those 10 days to submit responses and any additional
    material you desire to submit.
        Any further comments from my colleagues?
        [No response.]
        The Chairman. If not, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]