[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.]