Izembek National Wildlife Refuge land exchange road corridor: draft environmental impact statement

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge
Land Exchange/Road Corridor
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Executive Summary
DOI DES 12-8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-i
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................... ES-i
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... ES-ii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. ES-ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... ES-iii
LIST OF REFERENCES......................................................................................................... ES-iv
ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1
ES-1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................ES-1
ES-1.2 Proposed Action........................................................................................ES-1
ES-1.3 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................ES-4
ES-1.4 Alternatives...............................................................................................ES-7
Alternative 1 – No Action.....................................................................................ES-8
Alternative 2 – Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment...........................ES-8
Alternative 3 – Land Exchange and Central Road Alignment ...........................ES-14
Alternative 4 – Hovercraft Operations from the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind Cove (Six days per week) ...............................ES-16
Alternative 5 – Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements ........ES-16
ES-1.5 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................ES-19
ES-1.6 Summary of Impacts...............................................................................ES-21
Alternative 1 – No Action...................................................................................ES-22
Alternative 2 – Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment and
Alternative 3 – Land Exchange and Central Road Alignment ...............ES-22
Alternative 4 – Hovercraft Operations from the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind Cove (Six days per week) ...............................ES-23
Alternative 5 – Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements ........ES-23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-ii
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Comparative Summary of Road Alternatives ............................................ES-12
Table ES-2 Comparative Summary of Alternatives .....................................................ES-20
Table ES-3 Land Exchange Parcels under Alternatives 2 and 3 ...................................ES-21
Table ES-4 Lands Potentially Affected under Alternatives 4 and 5 .............................ES-21
Table ES-5 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts ...................................................ES-24
Table ES-6 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Alternative and
Resource .....................................................................................................ES-25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1 Project Area Map .........................................................................................ES-3
Figure ES-2 Proposed National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Adjustment .........................ES-9
Figure ES-3 Alternative 2 – Southern Road Alignment.................................................ES-11
Figure ES-4 Alternative 3 – Central Road Alignment ...................................................ES-15
Figure ES-5 Alternative 4 (Hovercraft from Northeast Hovercraft Terminal) ..............ES-17
Figure ES-6 Alternative 5 (Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock
Improvements) ...........................................................................................ES-18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-iii
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
2003 EIS King Cove Access Project Environmental Impact Statement
(USACE 2003)
Act Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009; Public Law 111-11,
Title VI, Subtitle E
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Selected King Cove Corporation lands selected under rights under the Alaska
Lands Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Service U.S. Fish and & Wildlife Service
U.S. United States of America
USC United States Code
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-iv
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
LIST OF REFERENCES
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2010. U.S. Terminal Procedures Publication. Alaska
Volume 1 of 1. Effective 23 September 2010 to 18 November 2010.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. King Cove Access Project Environmental
Impact Statement. Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. Draft July 2003. Final December 2003.
Record of Decision January 22, 2004.
Walker, A. M. 2010. Personal communication regarding operations of the King Cove Airport.
Aviation Safety and Security Officer. Central Region, Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities. November 1, 2010. Joan Kluwe. URS.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-1
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1.1 Introduction
In the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, Title VI, Subtitle E)
(Act), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exchange lands within the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge for lands owned by the State of Alaska and the King Cove Corporation
for the purpose of constructing a single lane gravel road between the communities of King Cove
and Cold Bay, Alaska if it is in the public interest. In the Act, Congress directed the Secretary of
the Interior to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the terms of
the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 USC 4321
et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). Congress specified that
the EIS must analyze the land exchange, potential road construction and operation, and a specific
road corridor through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Izembek Wilderness that is
to be identified in consultation with the State of Alaska, the City of King Cove, and the
Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove (Section 6402(b)(2)). Upon completion of the EIS, the Act
requires the Secretary of Interior to determine whether the proposed land exchange and road is in
the public interest.
If determined to be in the public interest, the land exchange would enable construction and
operation of a single lane gravel road between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay,
Alaska, that would provide King Cove residents road access to the Cold Bay Airport. Congress
responded to continuing concerns about reliable access for health and safety purposes on the part
of the King Cove Corporation, the City of King Cove, the Aleutians East Borough, and the
Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead federal agency for the EIS. Cooperating
agencies are:
Federal: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (Corps)
Federal Highway Administration/Western Federal Lands
Tribal: Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove
Native Village of Belkofski
State: State of Alaska
Borough: Aleutians East Borough
Local/Other: City of King Cove
King Cove Corporation
ES-1.2 Proposed Action
The proposed action is the exchange of land between the federal government, the State of
Alaska, and the King Cove Corporation for the purpose of constructing and operating a single
lane gravel road between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay, Alaska. As provided in
the Act, the road “shall be used primarily for health and safety purposes, (including access to and
from the Cold Bay Airport) and only for noncommercial purposes.” The use of taxis, commercial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-2
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
vans for public transportation, and shared rides is exempted from the prohibition on commercial
uses of the road.
Congress identified the federal and non-federal lands involved in the exchange and provided
guidance regarding the administration of the exchanged lands (Sections 6401 and 6404 of the
Act) (Figure ES-1). Legal descriptions of lands proposed for exchange are included in
Appendix B of the Draft EIS.
• Approximately 206 acres of federal land (surface and subsurface estate) of the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge would be conveyed to the State under the land exchange. The
final acreage to be exchanged would be determined by the width and location of the road
corridor including safety turnouts as determined in each of the road alternatives
considered. The boundary of the Izembek Wilderness would be modified to exclude the
road corridor. (The specific lands to be exchanged for the road corridor were not
identified in the Act; 2 road corridor alternatives are evaluated in this EIS.)
• Approximately 1,600 acres (surface and subsurface estate) within the Alaska Maritime
National Wildlife Refuge on Sitkinak Island, including land withdrawn for use by the
U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and approximately 170 acres of refuge-managed land
would be transferred to the State.
• Approximately 43,093 acres of land owned by the State of Alaska, adjacent to the North
Creek and Pavlof Units of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, would be
conveyed to the United States (U.S.) and added to the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife
Refuge as wilderness. This includes the subsurface estate, but does not include
submerged lands including tidelands, lakes, rivers, and streams to be retained by the State
of Alaska.
• Approximately 13,300 acres of land owned by King Cove Corporation (surface estate but
excluding tidelands and submerged land of rivers, streams, and lakes determined
navigable for purposes of title through federal judicial or administrative procedures),
located near Mortensens Lagoon and the mouth of Kinzarof Lagoon, would be conveyed
to the U.S. and added to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The Kinzarof Lagoon
parcel would also be added to Izembek Wilderness. As a part of the exchange, the King
Cove Corporation would also relinquish its selection of 5,430 acres in Izembek
Wilderness (selected lands) on the east side of Cold Bay made under the terms of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
The Act directed that the exchange could not be finalized before the parcel of state land located
in Kinzarof Lagoon had been designated as part of the State of Alaska Izembek State Game
Refuge. The Alaska Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Izembek State Game Refuge
Land Exchange Bill into law (HB 210 Chapter 119 SLA 10) satisfying this requirement.
The proposed road corridor would connect the road terminus at the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal, approved in the King Cove Access Project EIS (2003 EIS) (USACE 2003), which is
approximately 22 miles north of the City of King Cove, with the existing Cold Bay road system.
Two road corridor alternatives are evaluated in this EIS. Both were developed in consultation
with the State, the City of King Cove, and the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove as required by
Section 6402 (b)(2) of the Act.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-3
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-1 Project Area Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-4
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
The proposed road corridor would be approximately 19.4 to 21.6 miles long and 100 feet wide.
The proposed routes would cross Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (including Izembek
Wilderness) and lands owned by the King Cove Corporation. The Service would execute an
administrative boundary adjustment in the vicinity of Blinn Lake; an area that is currently
designated as Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, but administered by Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge, would become part of Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. As directed in
Section 6402 (f), both of the proposed road corridors evaluated in this EIS were designed to
minimize adverse impacts to refuge resources, require the transfer of the minimum acreage of
federal land, and to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate existing roads into the corridor.
The proposed road would be single lane (i.e., 13 feet wide), gravel surfaced with appropriate
safety turnouts (11 feet wide), and a chain barrier or bollard barrier on each side. The average
road footprint width would be 41.4 to 47.6 feet for the central and southern alignments,
respectively. These features meet design requirements established by the Act in Section 6043(a).
If the Secretary of the Interior finds that a land exchange is in the public interest, an enforceable
mitigation plan for road design and construction as required in Section 6043(e) will be developed
as a part of the land exchange process, building upon mitigation measures identified as part of
this EIS, with provisions to avoid wildlife and fish impacts and to mitigate wetlands loss.
Should the land exchange be found in the public interest but a construction permit is not
authorized, or upon expiration of congressional legislative authority, the land exchange would be
void, and federal and non-federal lands would remain in, or would be returned to, the ownership
status prior to the exchange (Section 6406 of the Act). In general, the Act’s legislative authority
expires 7 years from the date of the Act, unless a construction permit has been issued. Upon
issuance of a construction permit, legislative authority would be extended for 5 additional years.
ES-1.3 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed land exchange, as provided in the Act, is to transfer to the State of
Alaska all right, title, and interest to a road corridor that would allow the construction, operation,
and maintenance of a single lane gravel road between the communities of King Cove and Cold
Bay, Alaska. The proposed road is to be used primarily to address health and safety issues,
including reliable access to and from the Cold Bay Airport, and only for noncommercial
purposes.
If the Secretary of the Interior finds that a land exchange and construction of the proposed road is
in the public interest, then the applicant (not currently defined, but likely to be the State of
Alaska) would submit an application to the Corps which would then determine compliance with
the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines.
In carrying out its compliance responsibilities, the Corps must define the basic and overall
project purpose. The basic purpose is used to determine if a given project is water dependent and
requires access or proximity to, or siting within, a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose.
The overall purpose is an independent assessment of the project purpose by the Corps to
accommodate a range of alternatives for consideration and to determine the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The basic project purpose is to provide a
transportation system between the City of King Cove and the Cold Bay Airport. The overall
project purpose is to construct a long term, safe, and reliable year round transportation system
between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-5
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Objectives to be achieved by the proposed action include:
• Providing a safe, reliable, affordable transportation system between the City of King
Cove and the airport in Cold Bay, Alaska;
• Addressing health and safety issues for King Cove residents, including timely emergency
medical evacuations when needed and improved access to health care services not
available in King Cove through access to the Cold Bay Airport;
• Balancing the needs of the communities, the national wildlife refuges (including
wilderness), and ecosystem functions in the area;
• Transferring the minimum federal acreage necessary for the proposed road corridor;
• Developing an environmentally sensitive project design to minimize impact to wildlife,
fish, plants, and their habitats, subsistence uses, wilderness character, and wetlands; and
• Selecting a road corridor that makes use of existing trails and roads to the maximum
extent practicable.
The need for the proposed action is broader than the focused purpose specified in the Act. The
project needs arise from the underlying issues related to transportation to and from the
community of King Cove. Three needs are identified: health and safety, quality of life, and
affordable transportation.
Health and Safety: Reliable and Safe Transportation for Medical Care, including
Emergencies and Evacuations
The State of Alaska, City of King Cove, King Cove Corporation, Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove,
and Aleutians East Borough have identified the need for a road connecting the City of King Cove
to the Cold Bay Airport as the only safe, reliable, and affordable means for year round access to
medical services not available in King Cove, including infrequent, but time-sensitive medical
emergency evacuations. Residents of the City of King Cove believe a road is necessary due to
the limitations of medical care available in the region.
For cases requiring emergency care exceeding that available at the King Cove Clinic, medical
evacuations from the King Cove community arrive first at the Cold Bay Airport via aircraft,
hovercraft, and marine vessels, depending upon weather conditions and availability of transport
modes. Helicopters are not always available, as they must be mobilized from as far away as St.
Paul Island, where Coast Guard Search and Rescue helicopters are stationed. During the winter
commercial fishing season, Coast Guard helicopters are temporarily stationed at Cold Bay to
monitor commercial fishing and to provide emergency medical evacuations from commercial
fishing vessels in the Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean. At the airport, assistance is provided by the
Anna Livingston Memorial Clinic. The clinic does not have full time physicians on staff and has
less medical staff available than the King Cove Clinic. Evacuated patients are then transported
to medical facilities offering more advanced care in Anchorage, Alaska, Seattle, Washington, or
elsewhere. Other options for emergency medical evacuation services are not available.
The Cold Bay Airport has one of the longest civilian paved runways in Alaska at 10,415 feet and
has the only crosswind runway in the vicinity of King Cove and Cold Bay. It has fully
operational instrument approach capabilities. The King Cove Airport has a 3,500-foot gravel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-6
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
runway equipped with medium intensity runway lighting, runway end identifier lights, and an
automated surface weather observation system. The runway has a non-precision instrument
approach procedure, which is limited to approaching only from the east. By federal regulations,
the instrument approach procedure for King Cove Airport is not authorized at night and the final
5.2 mile leg should be flown visually (FAA 2010). The State of Alaska recommends daytime-only
use of the runway due to topographic obstructions on the approaches and unpredictable
winds (Walker 2010).
A hovercraft began operating in 2007 when service was
established as a result of the 2003 EIS and Record of Decision
(USACE 2003). The hovercraft service was established to
improve access to the Cold Bay Airport for health and safety
needs, and other general transportation purposes. The
hovercraft was operated by the Aleutians East Borough, but
operations did not attain the frequency of service proposed in
the 2003 EIS nor the projected revenues. Higher than
anticipated costs, including the costs of retaining sufficient
available trained captains and crew, a low operational
threshold for freezing temperatures (icing), wind speed, and
wave height were factors in the suspension of hovercraft
service in November 2010. To date, operations have not
resumed. Upon completion of the permitted road and
Northeast Hovercraft Terminal, the Aleutians East Borough
may attempt to reinstitute hovercraft service between the new
Northeast Hovercraft Terminal and Cross Wind Cove
Terminal. The estimated completion date of the permitted
road and terminal facility is in the latter part of 2012.
When weather and other factors restrict use of aircraft or the hovercraft, private fishing vessels
have been used to transport passengers, including medical emergencies, to the Cold Bay Dock.
Severe weather can prevent safe operations or access by fishing vessels because the community
of Cold Bay does not have a boat harbor. Boat access is limited to the Cold Bay Dock, where
passengers either have to climb a steel ladder, or are lifted to the deck of the dock via a winch
system used to load/unload cargo from fishing boats.
Residents of the City of King Cove emphasize that access to the Cold Bay Airport is essential.
Safe and reliable transportation to advanced medical care, including emergency medical care, is
not available. They state that the proposed land exchange and construction of a road to the
airport in Cold Bay will establish a safe and reliable land connection between the communities
and provide access to advanced and emergency medical care.
Quality of Life
Residents of the City of King Cove state that improved access to the Cold Bay Airport would
enhance their quality of life by providing reliable access the Cold Bay Airport, and from there to
Anchorage and Seattle for health care services, including emergency medical evacuations when
needed. King Cove residents have stated that a road would eliminate most of the issues about the
unreliability of the current transportation modes in accessing the Cold Bay Airport. Road access
As the Draft EIS was
approaching completion,
the Aleutians East Borough
sent the Service a letter
stating they will not
resume hovercraft service
in the foreseeable future.
Due to the timing of the
letter, we are unable to
restructure the analysis of
consequences to reflect this
change in the Draft EIS.
The Final EIS will reflect
this change and other
changes that are made in
response to public
comments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-7
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
would provide peace of mind, particularly during extended periods of inclement weather that
prevent marine and air travel. In addition, access to the Cold Bay Airport would provide the
students, school board, borough assembly members, and medical service providers residing in
King Cove with enhanced opportunities to travel out of their community. Residents would be
able to meet with government officials in Anchorage and Juneau more reliably and to visit
extended families living in other communities.
Affordable Transportation
Affordable, reliable, and practical transportation is not available for the residents of the City of
King Cove to access the Cold Bay Airport. Air transportation is limited by weather, availability
of aircraft, and the topographic constraints of the King Cove Airport. Similar to other rural
communities in Alaska, flights to and from the King Cove Airport are sometimes delayed or
cancelled due to weather. Cost can be an issue for King Cove residents, not all of whom can
afford air fares for a family flying back and forth between the communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay, or the associated lodging costs when a continuing flight out of Cold Bay is missed or
when weather prevents getting back to King Cove from Cold Bay on a return trip.
The hovercraft service has proven more expensive and more difficult to keep in service than
originally expected. Ridership and associated revenues have been lower and operations and
maintenance costs higher than projected. Keeping the minimum number of trained crew required
for operations, including backup when crewmembers are sick, has been difficult and has resulted
in cancellation of scheduled service. Operating thresholds include wave heights not exceeding 6
feet and wind speeds not exceeding 30 miles per hour. In addition, freezing temperatures cause
operational challenges (icing), which sometimes inhibit hovercraft service.
The State of Alaska, City of King Cove, Agdaagux Tribe, King Cove Corporation, and Aleutians
East Borough believe that a cost-efficient, reliable surface transportation system, specifically a
road, is needed between the City of King Cove and Cold Bay Airport. The transportation system
must be affordable for local families, and be constructed, operated, and maintained at a cost that
can be borne by local or state government. The transportation must be practical in the context of
the Cold Bay and King Cove area, so that it can be operated and maintained without undue
requirements for specially trained personnel or specialized equipment, and can provide safe,
reliable, affordable transportation with the least amount of interruption by weather conditions.
ES-1.4 Alternatives
The Service evaluated five alternatives in the EIS, guided by the purpose and need, the Act, and
NEPA. The Act directs the Secretary of Interior to prepare an EIS that will analyze the impacts
of a proposed land exchange with the State of Alaska and the King Cove Corporation for the
purpose of construction and operation of a road between the communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay, Alaska.
• The Act requires the analysis of at least one road alternative that is developed in
consultation with the State of Alaska, the City of King Cove, and the Agdaagux Tribe of
King Cove.
• The Act specifies several elements to minimize adverse impacts of the road corridor on
adjacent refuge lands, including a cable barrier on each side of the road, unless a different
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-8
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
barrier type is required by the Record of Decision for the EIS; transferring the minimum
acreage of federal land required for the construction of a road corridor; and incorporating
roads that are in existence. Mitigation elements identified in the Act include the
avoidance of wildlife impacts and mitigation of wetland loss, and the development of an
enforceable mitigation plan.
• NEPA requires documentation of the alternative development process, including
alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis.
• NEPA requires the analysis of a No Action alternative and the analysis of a reasonable
range of alternatives.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Under Alternative 1, the Service would not enter
into a land exchange with King Cove Corporation
and the State of Alaska for the purpose of
constructing a road between King Cove and Cold
Bay, Alaska. Current modes of transportation
between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay
would continue to operate, including air, personal
marine vessels, ferry service approximately twice
per month in the summer season, and seasonal
hovercraft service. This alternative assumes that
The Aleutians East Borough would reinstitute
hovercraft service between the new northeast
terminal and Cross Wind Cove in 2013. Scheduled
hovercraft service would be three days per week
during the months of April through October.
Alternative 2 – Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment
Alternative 2 proposes a land exchange between the federal government, State of Alaska, and
King Cove Corporation as described in the Proposed Action. The estimated amount of federal
land exchanged in this alternative for the road corridor would be 201 acres, including 131 acres
in Izembek Wilderness, assuming a 100-foot corridor width.
Under this alternative, the Service would execute an administrative boundary adjustment in the
vicinity of Blinn Lake, in accord with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) Section 103(b). An area that is currently designated as Alaska Peninsula National
Wildlife Refuge, but administered by Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, would become part of
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (Figure ES-2).
As the Draft EIS was approaching
completion, the Aleutians East Borough
sent the Service a letter stating that they
will not resume hovercraft service in
the foreseeable future. Due to the
timing of the letter, we are unable to
restructure the analysis of consequences
to reflect this change in the No Action
alternative in the Draft EIS. While the
Borough does not plan to operate the
hovercraft, all other aspects of the No
Action alternative remain the same.
The Final EIS will reflect this change
and other changes that are made in
response to public comments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-9
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-2 Proposed National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Adjustment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-10
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
The southern road alignment (Figure ES-3, Alternative 2) would originate at the terminus of the
King Cove Access Road (currently under construction) in the vicinity of the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal. The initial 6 miles would be co-located with the central alignment
(Alternative 3). The southern alignment would cross 2 fish bearing streams, and continue along
gently rolling hills. At a point 6 miles north of the Northeast Hovercraft Terminal, the southern
alignment would depart from the central alignment in a westerly direction, and stay south of the
ridge line that separates the watersheds of the Kinzarof and Izembek lagoons. The alignment
would continue westerly, avoiding lakes, and crossing 6 more fish bearing streams. At about
12.4 miles from the start, the southern alignment would again be co-located with the central
alignment and follow Outpost Trail (which transitions to Outpost Road) in a southwesterly
direction to a point just north of Blinn Lake. At that point, the southern alignment would depart
from the central alignment, following an existing primitive road for approximately 1.4 miles
around the east and south side of Blinn Lake to intersect with Outer Marker Road (Figure ES-3,
Alternative 2). The route would continue south along Outer Marker Road to its intersection with
St. Louis Road, and then follow St. Louis Road to terminate at the refuge/state boundary.
The portion of the alignment that is exclusive to the southern alignment (not co-located with the
central alignment) would be located only in the watershed of Kinzarof Lagoon. The co-located
alignment would be located in the watersheds of Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons. The road
corridor would be located approximately ½ mile to 1 mile north of Kinzarof Lagoon. This
alignment is intended to strike a compromise between minimizing disturbance to Black Brant
(through distance from Kinzarof Lagoon) and disrupting caribou migration through the isthmus.
The route was designed to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, minimize stream crossings,
and to accommodate terrain considerations.
The values used in the comparison of Alternatives 2 and 3 including the number and type of
drainage structures, fill quantities, and typical roadway sections and design details presented in
tables and figures are estimates calculated for analysis purposes. Final project design and
construction details may be different. Additional design criteria are discussed in the Draft EIS.
The road for Alternative 2 would be classified as a Rural Minor Collector, with rolling terrain
and a design speed of 20 miles per hour. It would be a single-lane gravel road with turn-outs.
The road would include a barrier along both sides of the roadway to prevent vehicles from
accessing the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness lands adjacent to the
road. Table ES-1 shows the characteristics of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 roadways.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-11
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-3 Alternative 2 – Southern Road Alignment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-12
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Table ES-1 Comparative Summary of Road Alternatives
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and
Southern Road
Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and
Central Road
Alignment
Road Corridor in Acres, Assuming 100-Foot
Width 236 262
Total Length of Corridor (miles) 19.4 21.6
Road Corridor in Acres Proposed for Exchange
from National Wildlife Refuge 201 227
Road Corridor in Miles Proposed for Exchange
from National Wildlife Refuge 16.5 18.7
Road Corridor in Acres Proposed for Exchange
from Izembek Wilderness 131 152
Road Corridor in Miles Proposed for Exchange
from Izembek Wilderness 10.8 12.5
Road Corridor in Acres on Lands Owned by King
Cove Corporation 35 35
Road Corridor in Miles on Lands Owned by King
Cove Corporation 2.9 2.9
Total Road Footprint of New Construction in
Acres 107 100
Average Road Footprint Width in Feet 47.6 41.4
Maximum Road Footprint Width in Feet 91 92
Minimum Road Footprint Width in Feet 30 30
Width of Traffic Lane in Feet 13 13
Width of Safety Turnout in Feet 11 11
Miles of Road Construction 18.5 20.0
Miles of Road Constructed/Reconstructed on
Existing Roads/Trails 6.0 9.0
Miles of Road Constructed on Lands with No
Previous Road 12.5 11.0
Miles of Existing Road in Exchange Corridor
Requiring No Construction 0.9 1.6
Number of Turnouts for Passing 136 158
Drainage Structures 162 173
Bridges 1 1
Culverts or Bridges 7 1
Cross Culverts (Pipes) 154 171
Material Site(s)* 1 1
Total Fill Quantity in Cubic Yards 256,000 302,000
Fill Quantity from Material Site in Cubic Yards 182,000 231,000
Material Site Footprint in Acres 6 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-13
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and
Southern Road
Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and
Central Road
Alignment
Acres of Wetlands Filled for Road Construction 3.8 2.4
Quantity of Fill in Wetlands for Road
Construction in Cubic Yards 20,000 to 25,000 11,000 to 15,000
Disposal Sites 0 0
Quantity of Unusable Excavated Material in
Cubic Yards 0 0
Acres of Uplands Reclaimed with Excavated
Material 0.3 2.4
Temporary Barge Landing Sites 2 2
Area of Barge Landing Site in Acres 0.5 0.5
Acres of State Tidelands in Barge Landing Site Less than 0.1 Less than 0.1
Fill Quantity for Barge Landing Site Development
in Cubic Yards 1,200 1,200
Fill Quantity Below High Tide Line in Cubic
Yards 1,000 1,000
Upland Fill Quantity in Cubic Yards 200 200
Note: *One site identified; if that site is not sufficient, other sites may be located in the future to generate the
same estimated quantity on private lands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-14
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 3 – Land Exchange and Central Road Alignment
Alternative 3 proposes a land exchange between the federal government, State of Alaska, and
King Cove Corporation, as described in the Proposed Action. The estimated amount of federal
land exchanged in this alternative for the road corridor would be 227 acres, including 152 acres
in Izembek Wilderness, assuming a 100-foot corridor width.
Under this alternative, the Service would execute an administrative boundary adjustment in the
vicinity of Blinn Lake, in accord with ANILCA Section 103(b). An area that is currently
designated as Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, but administered by Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge, would become part of Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (Figure ES-2).
The central road alignment (Figure ES-4, Alternative 3) would originate at the terminus of the
King Cove Access Road (currently under construction) in the vicinity of the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal. The initial 6 miles would be co-located with the southern alignment
(Alternative 2). The alignment would cross 2 fish bearing streams, and continue along gently
rolling hills. At a point 6 miles north of the Northeast Hovercraft Terminal, the central
alignment would depart from the southern alignment and wind north and then westerly through
steep hills and around lakes of the isthmus divide to Outpost Trail. The alignment would be co-located
with the southern alignment, along Outpost Trail (which transitions to Outpost Road) to
an intersection north of Blinn Lake. The central alignment would depart from the southern
alignment north of Blinn Lake, continuing along Outpost Road to intersect with Outer Marker
Road to the west of Blinn Lake. The route would continue south along Outer Marker Road to
intersect with St. Louis Road, terminating at the refuge/state boundary.
The central alignment would be located in the watersheds of Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons. The
alignment was designed to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and high value habitat for
breeding, nesting, and migrating waterbirds, to reduce disturbance or impacts to species and
habitat in both Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons, while also considering land mammal (caribou,
bear, furbearers) movement and habitat use of the isthmus. This alignment seeks to minimize
impacts to wetlands and lake-dependent resources, avoid or minimize stream crossings, and to
accommodate terrain considerations.
The values used in the comparison of Alternatives 2 and 3, including the number and type of
drainage structures, fill quantities, and typical roadway sections and design details presented in
tables and figures are estimates calculated for analysis purposes. Final project design and
construction details may be different.
The road for Alternative 3 would be classified as a Rural Minor Collector, with rolling terrain
and a design speed of 20 miles per hour. It would be a single-lane gravel road with turn-outs.
The road would include a barrier along both sides of the roadway to prevent vehicles from
accessing the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness lands adjacent to the
road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-15
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-4 Alternative 3 – Central Road Alignment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-16
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 4 – Hovercraft Operations from the Northeast Hovercraft Terminal to Cross
Wind Cove (Six days per week)
Alternative 4 is the Proposed Action in the 2003 EIS.
This alternative, as proposed in the 2003 EIS, has not
been fully implemented to date. However, actions
authorized by the Record of Decision are ongoing.
Continued activities for development of the access road
and the Northeast Hovercraft Terminal were contracted
in 2011 for construction in 2012. The alternative
considered in this EIS would not require further
construction activities; the alternative will consider
operations of the hovercraft, as described in the 2003
EIS, for service 6 days per week between the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal and the Cross Wind Cove
(Figure ES-5, Alternative 4).
Alternative 4 would be located on lands owned by
King Cove Corporation and the State of Alaska. A
land exchange would not occur, though lands
previously selected within Izembek Wilderness by the King Cove Corporation under ANSCA
would eventually be conveyed.
Alternative 4 consists of the following major components:
• Use existing hovercraft and existing terminal at Cross Wind Cove
• Completion of contract to construct Northeast Hovercraft Terminal and access road
• No additional ground disturbing activities beyond what was identified in the 2003 EIS.
Alternative 5 – Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements
Alternative 5 would use a ferry to travel 14 miles between a terminal in Lenard Harbor and a
substantially modified Cold Bay dock (Figure ES-6, Alternative 5). This alternative is similar to
an alternative that was analyzed in the 2003 EIS, with the exception of project elements that have
been permitted or constructed to date, including the access road to the site, a terminal building
with associated utility infrastructure, and a parking area. However, the Lenard Harbor terminal
structure has been damaged by a storm, and would have to be replaced. Upgrades to the parking
area and security fencing would also be necessary. Ferry service would be provided 6 days per
week.
Alternative 5 would be located on lands owned by King Cove Corporation, The Aleut
Corporation, and the State of Alaska. A land exchange would not occur, though lands previously
selected within Izembek Wilderness by the King Cove Corporation under ANSCA would
eventually be conveyed.
As the Draft EIS was approaching
completion, the Aleutians East
Borough sent the Service a letter
stating that they will not resume
hovercraft service in the
foreseeable future. Alternative 4
does not assume that the Borough
is the operator of this alternative,
only that the existing hovercraft
would be used. All other aspects
of the alternative remain the same.
The Final EIS will reflect this
change and other changes that are
made in response to public
comments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-17
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-5 Alternative 4 (Hovercraft from Northeast Hovercraft Terminal)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-18
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Figure ES-6 Alternative 5 (Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-19
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 5 consists of the following major components:
• Lenard Harbor ferry dock and terminal
• Major modification of the existing Cold Bay dock by adding a wave barrier, vehicle ramp
system for on- and off-loading vehicles at water level, and a pedestrian walkway
• A displacement monohull, open deck ferry with ice-breaking capabilities
• One material site, one disposal site for unusable excavated materials, and one temporary
barge landing site/staging area required for construction.
ES-1.5 Comparison of Alternatives
Table ES-2 shows a summary of the five alternatives, including cost. Lands potentially affected
by the proposed project are summarized in Tables ES-3 and ES-4. Complete descriptions of the
exchange parcels are included in Appendix B of the Draft EIS.
Six parcels are involved in the proposed land exchange under Alternatives 2 and 3. Upon
completion of the land exchange proposed under Alternatives 2 or 3, Izembek State Game
Refuge would also include state lands and water in the vicinity of Kinzarof Lagoon, in accord
with the Izembek State Game Refuge Land Exchange Bill.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would not include a land exchange, but would potentially affect 3 parcels.
In addition, the lands selected by King Cove Corporation within Izembek Wilderness would
eventually be conveyed to the Corporation if Alternative 4 or 5 were implemented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-20
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Table ES-2 Comparative Summary of Alternatives
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange
and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange
and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4:
Hovercraft
Operations
(No Land
Exchange)
Alternative 5:
Lenard Harbor
Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvements
(No Land Exchange)
New Footprint in
Acres
0 107 100 0 1.9
Acres Removed
from Izembek
Wilderness
5,430
(selected lands)
131
(road corridor)
152
(road corridor)
5,430
(selected lands)
5,430
(selected lands)
Acres Added to
Wilderness
0 44,491
(includes State parcel
and Kinzarof parcel)
44,491
(includes State parcel
and Kinzarof parcel)
0 0
Acres of Land
Selection
Relinquished in
Wilderness
0 5,430 5,430 0 0
Estimated Area of
Exchange Parcel
for Road Corridor
0 201 227 0 0
Acres Removed
from Alaska
Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge
(Sitkinak Island)
1,619 1,619
New Acres of
Wetlands Filled on
Corporation Lands
1.1 1.1 0.4
New Acres of
Wetlands Filled on
Wilderness Lands
2.7 1.3
New Acres of
Wetlands Filled on
Refuge Lands (not
Wilderness)
0 0
Total New Acres of
Wetlands Filled
0 3.8 2.4 0 0.4
Construction Cost
in Millions
0 $20.7 $22.7 0 $27.1
Maintenance/
Annual Operation
Costs
$1.0 Million $149,000 $158,000 $2.0 Million $2.3 Million
Lifecycle Cost in
Millions
$26.3 $23.4 $25.7 $44.4 $70.2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-21
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Table ES-3 Land Exchange Parcels under Alternatives 2 and 3
Parcel Current Surface Owner
Current
Subsurface
Owner
Estimated
Area
(Acres)
Current Management
Regime
Road Corridor Federal –Service and Federal
Aviation Administration Federal
201± Alt 2
227± Alt 3
Wilderness and
National Wildlife
Refuge; Withdrawal for
Federal Aviation
Administration
Sitkinak Island Federal – Coast Guard and
Service Federal 1,619± Airstrip, Coast Guard
Base
State Lands State – Department of Natural
Resources State 41,887± General Use
Mortensens
Lagoon
Native Corporation – King
Cove Corporation
Native
Corporation –
The Aleut
Corporation
8,092± Private
Kinzarof Lagoon Native Corporation – King
Cove Corporation Federal 2,604± Private
King Cove
Corporation
Selected Lands
Federal – King Cove
Corporation Selection Federal 5,430± Wilderness
Table ES-4 Lands Potentially Affected under Alternatives 4 and 5
Parcel Current Surface
Owner
Current Subsurface
Owner
Area
(Acres)
Current
Management Regime
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal Site
King Cove
Corporation, State State No new
footprint
Private; construction
site
Lenard Harbor
Ferry Terminal Site
King Cove
Corporation, State
The Aleut Corporation,
State 0.5 Private
Cold Bay Dock Site State State Less than
0.1 acre
Public Dock (owned
by Aleutians East
Borough)
King Cove
Corporation Selected
Lands
Federal – King
Cove Corporation
Selection
Federal 5,430± Wilderness
ES-1.6 Summary of Impacts
The impact criteria for direct and indirect, and cumulative effects are:
• Intensity – the magnitude of change in the resource condition
• Duration – how long would a change last
• Extent – the geographic area would be affected
• Context –rare or protected resources that would be affected.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-22
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
The summary ratings shown for each resource are:
• No Effect – the alternative would not affect resources
• Negligible – generally low intensity, temporary, local, and do not affect unique resources
• Minor – generally low intensity, temporary, local, although common resources may have
more intense longer term impacts
• Moderate –common and important resources may have higher impact levels and unique
resources may have lower impact levels
• Major – generally medium or high intensity, long term or permanent, regional or
extended, and important or unique
Table ES-5 shows a graphic summary of direct and indirect effects for each alternative, by
resource. Table ES-6 shows a narrative summary of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for
each alternative, by resource. The following paragraphs provide a brief narrative overview of
generalized impact analysis conclusions.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Effects would generally be negligible to minor, except for moderate effects to fiscal resources,
analyzed as a component of socioeconomics. The effects to fiscal resources include the cost for
operation of the hovercraft, which would continue to require an annual subsidy of approximately
$1 million. The negligible to minor effects to other resources would be from ongoing operations
of the hovercraft and the eventual conveyance approximately 5,430 acres in Izembek Wilderness
to King Cove Corporation selected under ANCSA. King Cove Corporation’s right to select the
parcel in Izembek Wilderness pre-dates the establishment of the wilderness. Effects from
hovercraft operations have both beneficial and adverse effects. Startle response in animals is an
example of a minor adverse effect of hovercraft operations. Reinstituting a seasonal hovercraft
service for medical evacuation is an incremental addition to existing aircraft transportation, and
although not optimal, this improvement in public health and transportation options in the region
may be considered a minor beneficial effect.
Alternative 2 – Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment and Alternative 3 – Land
Exchange and Central Road Alignment
The analysis of impacts for Alternatives 2 and 3 are very similar. While there is some variation
in the potential impacts based on the different alignments, both alternatives would have major
effects to public health and safety, transportation, land ownership and use, wilderness, public
use, cultural resources, fish and essential fish habitat, and birds. The major beneficial effects to
public health and safety and transportation would include increased opportunity for people in the
City of King Cove to travel to the Cold Bay Airport for access to specialized medical services.
The road alternatives would result in distinctive changes transportation options, patterns, and
costs, and add a full-time transportation link between the communities of King Cove and Cold
Bay.
The proposed exchange of federal, state, and King Cove Corporation lands would have a major
adverse impact to Izembek Wilderness; approximately 131 acres would be removed from
Izembek Wilderness under Alternative 2 and 152 acres would be removed under Alternative 3
for the respective road corridor, which would fragment the wilderness and impact natural quality,
undeveloped quality, and opportunities for solitude. Approximately 44,491 acres would be
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-23
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
added to Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness under either alternative,
which would be a major beneficial effect.
The land exchange would affect land ownership and public use on the parcels previously
managed as state or private land which would become wilderness or national wildlife refuge.
These major effects are considered neither adverse nor beneficial.
Ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the road in increased access into
previously unroaded areas could have a moderate to major adverse impact on archaeological
sites. Increased harvesting pressure on streams could result from increased access, which could
have a major adverse effect on fish resources. Road construction and operation would have a
major adverse effect on Tundra Swan, Brant, Emporer Goose and Common Loon populations,
and a moderate effect on other breeding birds, migrating birds, and wintering birds. In addition,
Alternative 2 would have a major adverse effect on caribou. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a
moderate adverse effect on bears.
Alternative 4 – Hovercraft Operations from the Northeast Hovercraft Terminal to Cross
Wind Cove (Six days per week)
The effects from implementation of Alternative 4 would generally be negligible to minor;
however, effects to fiscal resources and public health and safety would be major, and effects to
transportation and wilderness would be moderate. The major adverse effects to fiscal resources
would include the cost for operation of the hovercraft, which would continue to require an annual
subsidy of approximately $2 million. The major beneficial effects to public health and safety
and the moderate beneficial effects to transportation would result from regularly scheduled year-round
transportation from the City of King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport, and the availability of
the hovercraft for most emergency medical evacuations. Minor to moderate adverse effects to
wilderness would result from increased hovercraft operations; intermittent noise or visual
disturbances would occur in localized areas, which would affect wilderness qualities.
Negligible to minor adverse effects to other resources would be similar to Alternative 1, resulting
from ongoing operations of the hovercraft and the eventual conveyance approximately 5,430
acres in Izembek Wilderness to King Cove Corporation selected under ANCSA.
Alternative 5 – Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements
Effects from implementation of Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 4 in that there
would be major effects to fiscal resources and public health and safety, moderate effects to
transportation, and negligible to minor effects to other resources. The major adverse effects to
fiscal resources would include the cost for operation of the ferry, which would require an annual
subsidy of approximately $2.3 million. The major beneficial effects to public health and safety
and the moderate beneficial effects to transportation would result from regularly scheduled year-round
transportation from the City of King Cove to the Cold Bay dock, and the availability of the
ferry for most emergency medical evacuations. Negligible to minor adverse effects to other
resources would include impacts associated with the construction and new footprint of the
Lenard Harbor ferry terminal, improvements to the Cold Bay dock, and disturbance due to
operations of the ferry.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-24
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Table ES-5 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-25
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Table ES-6 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Alternative and Resource
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Air Quality
Overall
Effects
The total estimated annual
emissions would consist of
small emission sources,
operating intermittently, and
spread out over a relatively
large area. The effects would
be negligible.
This alternative would reduce
emissions from hovercraft
operations to zero, but would
contribute to an overall
increase in emissions. The
total estimated annual
emissions would consist of
small emission sources,
operating intermittently, and
spread out over a relatively
large area. Overall effects to
air quality would be minor.
Effects on air quality would be
similar to Alternative 2, minor.
There would be negligible
direct effects on air quality in
the immediate vicinity of the
hovercraft. The total estimated
annual emissions would consist
of small emission sources,
operating intermittently, and
spread out over a relatively
large area. The overall effect
would be negligible.
There would be effects on air
quality in the immediate
vicinity of the ferry. The total
estimated annual emissions
would consist of small
emission sources, operating
intermittently, and spread out
over a relatively large area.
The overall effect on air quality
would be negligible to minor.
Cumulative
Effects
New sources of emissions by
2013 would include possible
construction dust from Cold
Bay Airport improvements, and
traffic on a completed road to
the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal. Operation of the
hovercraft would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects.
Increases in road traffic would
shift from other modes of
travel. The contribution of this
alternative to cumulative
effects would be minor.
The contribution to cumulative
effects would be similar to
Alternative 2, minor.
Activities that have the
potential to emit air pollution in
the area around the hovercraft
operations (boat traffic, aircraft
passes, and vehicles, for
example) are already included
in the background, or ambient
air, which is expected to meet
air quality standards. The
contribution to cumulative
effects would be negligible.
Activities that have the
potential to emit air pollution in
the area around the ferry
operations (boat traffic, aircraft
passes, and vehicles, for
example) are already included
in the background, or ambient
air, which is expected to meet
air quality standards. The
contribution of this alternative
to cumulative effects is would
be negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-26
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Climate
Overall
Effects
The estimated total of 620 tons
per year of carbon dioxide
emissions is not expected to be
perceptible, and the effect to
climate from Alternative 1
would be negligible.
The estimated total of 877 tons
per year of carbon dioxide
emissions is not expected to be
perceptible, and the effect to
climate from Alternative 2
would be negligible.
The estimated total of 912 tons
per year of carbon dioxide
emissions is not expected to be
perceptible, and the effect to
climate from Alternative 3
effects would be negligible.
The estimated total of 2,075
tons per year of carbon dioxide
emissions is not expected to be
perceptible, and the effect to
climate from Alternative 4
would be negligible.
The estimated total of 938 tons
per year of carbon dioxide
emissions is not expected to be
perceptible, and the effect to
climate from Alternative 5
would be negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
Global climate change effects
currently have a high enough
intensity that perceptible
changes around the globe have
occurred. When compared to
other global actions,
Alternative 1 is expected to
have a negligible contribution
to cumulative effects.
The contribution to cumulative
effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, negligible.
Geology and Soils
Overall
Effects
Negligible to minor effects may
include shoreline erosion from
wave action generated by the
hovercraft during departures
and arrivals, and refueling on
land.
Though impacts from
Alternative 2 would be reduced
in the period following the
project completion,
construction would disturb a
total of 107 acres of surface
and shallow subsurface soil
along the road corridor and 0.5
acres at a construction staging
area near the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal.
Approximately 111,000 cubic
yards of geologic resource
material would be excavated
during cut and fill activities.
The effect would be moderate.
Effects of Alternative 3 would
be similar to those in
Alternative 2, disturbing a total
of 100 acres of surface and
shallow subsurface soil along
the road corridor and 0.5 acres
at a construction staging area
near the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal. Approximately
99,000 cubic yards of geologic
resource material would be
excavated during cut and fill
activities. The effect would be
moderate.
Effects may include shoreline
erosion from wave action
generated by the hovercraft
during departures and arrivals,
and refueling on land. Because
the hovercraft would operate
more often than in Alternative
1, the effect would be
negligible to minor.
There would be no effects on
geology and soils from
operation and maintenance of a
ferry. Minor effects would
occur due to dock construction
activities, because of the
disturbance to submerged
sediments as a result of
dredging and pile driving.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-27
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
The continuing effects from the
operation of the hovercraft 3
days per week, April through
October, would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on geology
and soils in the EIS project
area.
The resulting erosion of soil in
areas disturbed by construction
or staging could lead to water
channelization of runoff, and
would add to existing effects
on geology and soil resources.
The cumulative effect would be
moderate.
Cumulative effects would be
similar to those discussed under
Alternative 2, moderate.
Cumulative effects would be
the same as described under
Alternative 1. Although the
frequency of hovercraft
operations under this
alternative would be greater,
the incremental addition to
cumulative effects would
remain negligible.
There would be negligible
incremental additions to
cumulative effects as a result of
construction activities on less
than 1 acre at the Lenard
Harbor site. Cumulative
effects would be the same as
described under Alternative 1,
negligible.
Hydrology
Overall
Effects
Impacts to water resources and
water quality related to
Alternative 1 would result in
negligible effects. These
effects may include fuel and
sewage releases at the docking
locations and along the
preferred routes.
Effects to hydrologic processes
would occur as a result of fill
placement in approximately 3.8
acres of wetland, and the
installation of an estimated 162
drainage structures along the
road. The uncontained release
of hazardous materials and
from stream turbidity generated
by streambank construction
activities could also occur. The
increase in sediment load from
road runoff would impact the
quality of water bodies which
are considered essential fish
habitat. The effect would be
moderate.
Effects to hydrologic processes
would occur as a result of fill
placement in approximately 2.4
acres of wetland, and the
installation of an estimated 173
drainage structures along the
road. The uncontained release
of hazardous materials and
from stream turbidity generated
by streambank construction
activities could also occur. The
increase in sediment load from
road runoff would impact the
quality of water bodies which
are considered essential fish
habitat. The effect would be
moderate.
Impacts to water resources and
water quality related to the
implementation of Alternative
4 would result in negligible
effects. These effects may
include fuel and sewage
releases at the docking
locations and along the
preferred routes.
The greatest impacts to water
quality include increase in
turbidity due to dredging and
pile driving activities at the
Lenard Harbor ferry terminal
and modifications at the Cold
Bay Dock and refueling of the
ferry in open-water at the Cold
Bay dock. As construction
would be limited to less than 1
acre adjacent to the existing
hovercraft site, activities would
have negligible effects on
hydrologic processes within the
project area. Effects from
operation and maintenance of a
ferry could include effects from
the release of hazardous
materials such as fuel, battery
acid or hydraulic fluid, which
would also be negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-28
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
The continuing effects from the
operation of the hovercraft 3
days per week, April through
October, would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on
hydrology and hydrologic
processes in the EIS project
area.
Long-term maintenance of
stream crossings would be
additive to those impacts
derived during construction
activities. Effects could
include potential non-point
source pollution and unlawful
stream crossings along the
margins of the road corridor by
the general public. Effects
would be moderate.
Effects as a result of the land
exchange and construction
under Alternative 3 are similar
to those described under
Alternative 2, moderate.
Cumulative effects would be
the same as described under
Alternative 1. Although the
frequency of hovercraft
operations under this
alternative would be greater,
the incremental addition to
cumulative effects would
remain negligible.
There would be negligible
incremental additions to
cumulative effects on water
resources and water quality
within Cold Bay. The impacts
from ferry vessels may include
fuel and sewage releases at the
docking locations and along the
preferred routes of the ferry
vessels.
Hazardous Materials
Overall
Effects
The hovercraft operations
would have negligible impacts
regarding hazardous materials.
Fuel spills are a low probability
event, but could affect water
quality.
Effects from hazardous
materials could occur during
construction from the
uncontrolled release of fuel,
battery acid or hydraulic fluid,
though it is of low probability
with proper handling. Effects
would be minor to moderate.
Effects of Alternative 3 are
similar to those described under
Alternative 2, minor to
moderate.
The hovercraft operations
would have negligible impacts
regarding hazardous materials.
Fuel spills are a low probability
event, but could affect water
quality.
During operations no re-suspension
of the contaminated
sediments in marine waters
would be expected, but this
would occur during dock
construction. The ferry would
be refueled over water at the
Cold Bay dock which would
present a risk of a fuel spill of
hazardous materials. The
overall effect is considered
negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
This alternative would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on the
management of hazardous
materials.
There are no foreseeable future
actions in the immediate
vicinity that would affect the
management of hazardous
materials. A fuel spill on land
would have a minor cumulative
effect to existing uses and a
moderate cumulative effect if it
occurred in wetlands or a water
body.
Effects as a result of the land
exchange and construction
under Alternative 3 are similar
to those described under
Alternative 2, minor to
moderate.
This alternative would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on water
quality.
The land exchange would not
be implemented; thus there are
no impacts regarding the
transfer of responsibility of
contaminated sites. There
would be negligible
incremental additions to
cumulative effects as a result of
construction or operation
activities on less than 1 acre at
the Lenard Harbor site.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-29
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Noise
Overall
Effects
There would be no new noise
generating activities under
Alternative 1. The noise
effects, at 65 dBA at 1,000 feet
from the operation of the
hovercraft at the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal would be
negligible.
Construction activities for
Alternative 2 would have a
moderate effect on noise, at
72.2 decibels 200 feet away.
Road traffic could have an
intermittent noise level of 56.5
decibels 50 feet away, which
would be a minor effect. Noise
from the hovercraft would not
be present. The overall effect
on noise would be minor.
Construction and operation
activities would have similar
minor effects as those for
Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 has similar effects
to that of Alternative 1, and
would include 3 additional trips
per week and operations year-round.
Noise effects do not
accumulate over time.
Therefore, effects on the noise
environment would be
expected to remain negligible.
Construction activities for
Alternative 5 would have a
moderate effect on noise, at
82.5 dBA from 200 feet away.
Operation of the ferry would
have an overall negligible
effect on noise, both because it
is quieter than a hovercraft, and
hovercraft noise would be
eliminated in this alternative.
Overall effects of Alternative 5
on noise are considered
negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
Operation of the hovercraft
from the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal would result in a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on noise.
A project that would have the
potential to also affect traffic
noise in the area is the
completion of the road to the
Northeast Hovercraft Terminal.
Operations of an additional
road would result in a minor
contribution to cumulative
effects on noise.
Cumulative effects associated
with Alternative 3 would be
similar to cumulative effects
associated with Alternative 2.
The acreage of the road
corridor parcel proposed for
exchange would be greater
under Alternative 3, but the
footprint of the proposed road
would be less. The
contribution to cumulative
effects would be minor.
Cumulative effects associated
with Alternative 4 would be
similar to cumulative effects
associated with Alternative 1.
Due to the logarithmic nature
of additive noise levels, the
relative distance to these
actions, and the intermittent
nature of all of these sources,
the cumulative noise effects
due to Alternative 4 would be
negligible.
Noise-generating activities in
the area around the ferry
operations (boat traffic, aircraft
passes, and vehicles, for
example) are already included
in the background, or ambient
noise levels. Alternative 5
would have a negligible
contribution to cumulative
effects on noise.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-30
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Terrestrial and Aquatic Plant Communities
Overall
Effects
There would be no new effects
on vegetation.
Alternative 2 would result in
the addition of approximately
52,583 acres of native cover
types (some are non-vegetated)
to the National Wildlife Refuge
system while relinquishing
ownership of 1,820 acres of
native cover types; a net gain of
approximately 50,763 acres,
while also maintaining
ownership of 5,430 acres of
native cover types on the King
Cove Corporation selected
parcel. Construction would
cause the loss of approximately
107 acres of native plant
communities along the
proposed road corridor and the
loss of less than 1 acre of native
vegetation at 2 temporary barge
landing sites. The overall effect
would be moderate.
Alternative 3 would result in
the addition of approximately
52,583 acres of native cover
types (some are non-vegetated)
to the National Wildlife Refuge
system while relinquishing
ownership of 1,843 acres of
native cover types; a net gain of
approximately 50,740 acres,
while also maintaining
ownership of 5,430 acres of
native cover types on the King
Cove Corporation selected
parcel. Construction would
engender the loss of
approximately 100 acres of
native plant communities along
the proposed road corridor and
the loss of 0.5 acre of native
vegetation at 2 temporary barge
landing sites. The overall effect
would be moderate.
Increased operation of the
hovercraft from a new location
at the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal may create more
opportunity for the spread of
invasive species in the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge
vicinity, The effect would be
minor.
Invasive species are located in
Cold Bay and are also likely
present in the King Cove
vicinity. These species may be
transported to new locations by
operation of the ferry terminal.
The effect would be minor.
Cumulative
Effects
There would be no effects on
vegetation.
Past actions affecting
vegetation in or adjacent to the
project area are few and minor
because this remote location is
largely undeveloped. The
completion of the road to the
Northeast Hovercraft Terminal
would contribute to effects on
vegetation. The opportunity
for invasive species to spread
within the Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge vicinity would
increase. Cumulative effects
would be moderate.
Cumulative effects would be
similar to those discussed under
Alternative 2, moderate.
The completion of the King
Cove Access Project may
contribute to effects on
vegetation. There would be a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects to
vegetation due to
implementation of
Alternative 4.
The completion of the King
Cove Access Project may
contribute to effects on
vegetation. There would be a
minor contribution to
cumulative effects to
vegetation due to
implementation of
Alternative 5.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-31
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Wetlands
Overall
Effects
Alternative 1 would result in no
new effects on wetlands.
Approximately 12,726 acres of
wetland would be gained, and
993 relinquished. An estimated
total of 3.8 acres of wetland
would be filled and 162
drainage structures would be
constructed. The effect of
modifications to wetland
hydrology and vegetation
would be moderate.
Approximately 12,726 acres of
wetland would be gained, and
989 relinquished. An estimated
total of 2.4 acres of wetland
would be filled and 173
drainage structures would be
constructed. The effect of
modifications to wetland
hydrology and vegetation
would be moderate.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, with no new
effects identified.
The result of construction of
Alternative 5 would include the
loss of wetland or wetland
functions on less than 1 acre of
beach system wetlands. The
operation of a ferry would not
have any effect on wetlands.
The overall impact would be
minor.
Cumulative
Effects
There would be no effects on
wetlands.
Past actions affecting wetlands
in or adjacent to the project
area are few and minor because
this remote location is largely
undeveloped. The completion
of the road to the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal would
contribute to effects on
wetlands. Cumulative effects
would be moderate.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 2, moderate.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, with no new
effects identified.
The completion of the road to
the Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal involves fill to
wetlands. The road from the
King Cove Airport to Lenard
Harbor also involved fill.
Cumulative effects would be
minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-32
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Fish and Essential Fish Habitat
Overall
Effects
There would be no new effects
on fish. Continuing noise
would have a negligible effect
on fish.
Alternative 2 involves 8
crossings of anadromous or
fish-bearing streams, but
effects to anadromous species
habitat is not anticipated to be
measurable. Increased
harvesting pressure on streams
could result from increased
access. Because of the latter,
the effect could be major.
Alternative 3 involves 2
crossings of anadromous or
fish-bearing streams, but
effects to anadromous species
habitat is not anticipated to be
measurable. Increased
harvesting pressure on streams
could result from increased
access. Because of the latter,
the effect could be major.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, and considered
negligible.
It is unlikely that essential fish
habitat would be affected by
dock construction or ferry
operation. The effect would be
negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
Effects from the operation and
maintenance of Alternative 1
would be primarily associated
with vessel noise. There would
be a negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on fish and
essential fish habitat under
Alternative 1.
Increased harvesting pressure
on streams could result from
increased access. The
cumulative effect, because of
established fishing in the area,
could be major.
Cumulative effects would be
similar to those discussed under
Alternative 2, major.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, negligible.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1, and considered
negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-33
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Birds
Overall
Effects
The use of the hovercraft is
most likely to affect seabirds
and waterfowl since those
groups are more likely to occur
in Cold Bay, but it is likely that
birds have become habituated
to boat and aircraft activities in
the area. The overall effect
would be minor.
The land exchange would result
in a net increase in the amount
of land managed as national
wildlife refuge and wilderness.
Izembek Wilderness and its
bird habitat would be
fragmented by the land
exchange.
Alternative 2 would have a
major effect on Tundra Swans,
Brant and Emperor Goose,
moderate effects on other
breeding birds and other
migrating/wintering birds, and
minor effects on seabirds.
The land exchange would result
in a net increase in the amount
of managed as national wildlife
refuge and wilderness.
Izembek Wilderness and its
bird habitat would be
fragmented by the land
exchange.
Alternative 3 would have a
major effect on Tundra Swans,
Brant and Emperor Goose,
moderate effects on other
breeding birds and other
migrating/wintering birds and
minor effects on seabirds.
The effect of Alternative 4 on
birds would be similar to
Alternative 1, with slightly
higher effects due to the
increased frequency of
operations. The overall effect
would be minor.
The noise and sight of the ferry
as it crosses the open waters of
Cold Bay may startle flocks of
seabirds and waterfowl,
causing them to alter their
behavior. Increased human
activity at these locations could
cause birds to avoid the areas.
Oil or other contaminant leaks
from ferry operations are
possible and could affect small
numbers of seabirds and
waterfowl depending on the
location and magnitude of the
spill, and the prevailing winds.
Because the ferry would
operate once a day, and the risk
of spills is small, the overall
effect would be minor.
Cumulative
Effects
The completion of the King
Cove Access Road may result
in more waterfowl hunting at
Kinzarof Lagoon and the
northeast side of Cold Bay,
which could disturb other birds
as well. The cumulative
contribution of Alternative 1
would be minor.
Past and present actions that
have, and may continue to
affect birds in the project area
include loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of habitat on
breeding and wintering grounds
and along migratory routes.
This includes existing
disturbance from local hunters
and Cold Bay Airport
operations. Alternative 2
would contribute a moderate
effect on most migratory and
breeding birds, major for
Tundra Swans, Brant and
Emperor Goose and a minor
effect on seabird species.
Cumulative effects would be
similar to those discussed under
Alternative 2, minor to major.
The cumulative effects of
Alternative 4 would be similar
to that described in Alternative
1, minor.
The completion of the King
Cove Access Road is expected
to result in more human
activity and waterfowl hunting
at Kinzarof Lagoon and the
northeast side of Cold Bay.
The overall contribution of
Alternative 5 to effects on birds
is considered minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-34
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Land Mammals
Overall
Effects
The noise and sight of the
hovercraft as it begins
operations at the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal and lands
at Cross Wind Cove may startle
land mammals, causing them to
alter their behavior briefly.
The area adjacent to the
Northeast Hovercraft Terminal
is designated as “medium
density – spring, summer, and
fall” habitat for brown bear.
This site is also designated as
“high density – winter
range/migration corridor”
habitat for caribou, which are
considered to be important.
Because the frequency of
disturbance is low, the
summary impact would be
negligible to minor.
The effect of the land exchange
is expected to result in a net
increase in the amount of high
quality habitat managed in
perpetuity for wildlife.
Potentially damaging
development would not occur
because the land would be
managed as refuge or
wilderness. The acquisition of
land in the northern portion of
the project area would be
beneficial to caribou as it is a
high density migration corridor,
and it is adjacent to calving
areas. Behavior changes,
increased human access, and
collisions with vehicles could
occur with the Alternative 2
road. Effects to brown bears
are considered major for the
isthmus area but moderate for
the project area. The effects to
caribou would also be
moderate, but the effects could
be major if caribou migration is
interrupted. However, the
likelihood of that outcome is
judged to be low. The overall
effect would be minor for small
mammals and furbearers and
moderate for large mammals.
The effects of Alternative 3 are
similar to that of Alternative 2.
The road's central route could
increase potential effects to
migrating caribou, and
essentially bisects large
mammal habitat between
Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons.
Effects to brown bears are
considered major for the
isthmus area but moderate for
the project area. The effects to
caribou would also be
moderate, but the effects could
be major if caribou migration is
interrupted. However, the
likelihood of that outcome is
judged to be low. The overall
effect would be minor for small
mammals and furbearers and
moderate for large mammals.
The noise and sight of the
hovercraft as it begins
operations at the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal and lands
at Cross Wind Cove may startle
land mammals, causing them to
alter their behavior briefly.
Because the frequency of
disturbance is low, the
summary impact would be
minor.
Although the noise and sight of
construction and the operation
of the ferry may temporarily
startle land mammals, it would
be a predictable disturbance
occurring in a limited area.
Human activities at the Lenard
Harbor Ferry Terminal and
Cold Bay Dock would likely
have a negligible effect on land
mammals, but the effects on
caribou from construction of
the terminal could be minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-35
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
Past and present actions that
have, and may continue to,
affect land mammals in the
project area include sport and
subsistence hunting and
trapping, wildlife viewing and
management. Because the
project area is in a national
wildlife refuge, past and
present actions that would
affect wildlife have been
purposefully limited. Very few
land-disturbing activities have
taken place in the refuge. The
completion of the King Cove
Access Road (near Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge) is
expected to result in greater
hunter access to large mammals
in the project area, and more
disturbance in previously
undisturbed areas. The overall
contribution of Alternative 1 to
cumulative effects is
considered negligible.
Past and present actions that
have, and may continue to,
affect land mammals in the
project area include sport and
subsistence hunting, wildlife
viewing and management.
Because the project area is in a
national wildlife refuge, past
and present actions that would
affect wildlife have been
purposefully limited. Very few
land-disturbing activities have
taken place in the refuge. The
completion of the King Cove
Access Road (near Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge) is
expected to result in greater
hunter access to large mammals
in the project area, and more
disturbance in previously
undisturbed areas. Alternative
2 would contribute to
cumulative effects because of
the increase in area readily
accessible to humans. The
overall effect would be
moderate to large mammals
and minor for small mammals
and furbearers.
Cumulative effects associated
with Alternative 3 would be
similar to those associated with
Alternative 2. Although
potential direct and indirect
impacts to caribou could be
greater under Alternative 3
because of more proximity to
migration patterns, the
contribution to cumulative
impacts would remain
moderate to large mammals
and minor for small mammals
and furbearers.
The overall contribution of
Alternative 4 to cumulative
effects would be considered
minor, slightly higher than for
Alternative 1 because of the
increase in weekly frequency
and activities during winter use
periods by caribou.
The overall contribution of
Alternative 5 to cumulative
effects would be considered
minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-36
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Marine Mammals
Overall
Effects
Behavioral effects on harbor
seals, killer whales, harbor
porpoise, and gray whales from
the hovercraft operations could
occur as a result of vessel
noise. However, they are
unlikely to leave the area as a
result. The no travel zone in
the north end of Cold Bay
should minimize disturbance
effects. The impact of
Alternative 1 would be
negligible to minor.
Construction and operation and
maintenance of the southern
alignment road is unlikely to
affect, killer whales, harbor
porpoise, and gray whales.
Harbor seals could be slightly
affected as they haul out on
King Cove Corporation lands
adjacent to Kinzarof Lagoon
and Sitkinak Island. The
summary impact level would
be negligible to minor.
The effects of Alternative 3 are
similar to that of Alternative 2.
The summary impact level is
considered negligible to minor.
Direct and indirect effects of
Alternative 4 on harbor seals,
killer whales, harbor porpoise,
and gray whales, and the
mechanisms by which they
occur, would be the same as
described for Alternative 1.
Year-round operation could
increase habituation to noise.
There would also be seasonal
effects, in that some species or
their food sources not present
in the winter. The overall
effect would be negligible to
minor.
Noise generated from
construction activities,
including pile-driving,
associated with modifications
to the existing Cold Bay dock
would not likely disturb harbor
seals, killer whales, harbor
porpoise, and gray whales.
Operations would elicit noise
similar to fishing vessels
already operating in the area,
and the ferry would be slow-moving
enough that all marine
mammals could avert
collisions, though they may be
temporarily displaced from
feeding areas. Effects to
marine mammals would be
negligible to minor.
Cumulative
Effects
Past and present actions that
have, and may continue to,
affect harbor seals, killer
whales, harbor porpoise, and
gray whales in the project area
include commercial fishery-related
mortality, entanglement
in fishing gear, subsistence
harvest and boat strikes.
Alternative 1 would result in a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects.
The contribution to cumulative
effects by Alternative 2 is
similar to that for Alternative 1,
negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects by Alternative 3 is
similar to that for Alternative 1,
negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects by Alternative 4 is
similar to that for Alternative 1,
negligible.
The contribution to cumulative
effects by Alternative 5 is
similar to that for Alternative 1,
negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-37
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Threatened and Endangered Species
Overall
Effects
Given the mitigating
restrictions under which the
hovercraft previously operated,
particularly the exclusion zone
in northern Cold Bay, and
limited service, disturbance
effects on Steller’s Eiders,
Yellow-billed Loons, Kittlitz’s
Murrelets, northern sea otters,
and Steller sea lions from the
operation and maintenance of
the hovercraft as proposed
under Alternative 1 would be
negligible to minor.
Construction and operation of
the southern road corridor
could disturb Steller’s Eiders
and Yellow-billed Loons
during the fall through spring.
Eiders are particularly
vulnerable to disturbance
during pre-migration staging in
the spring and the molt in the
fall. Kittlitz’s Murrelets could
be disturbed during the
breeding season but the
disturbance would be limited to
occasional flyovers as they are
not expected to nest near the
road corridor. Construction
and operation of the southern
alignment road could elicit
disturbance responses from sea
otters using northern Kinzarof
Lagoon during the summer
months. There would be no
effect to sea lions, as they do
not normally occur in the
project area. The overall effect
to threatened and endangered
species would be minor, except
for Steller’s Eiders, which
experience moderate effects.
The central road alignment
could lead to substantial
increases in waterfowl hunting
pressure in Izembek Lagoon
due to improved access for foot
and all-terrain vehicles travel.
Izembek Lagoon is an
important molting area for
thousands of Steller’s Eiders in
the fall, coinciding with the
timing of waterfowl hunting for
Brant and other species. The
direct and indirect impacts are
considered moderate for
Steller’s Eiders and minor for
Yellow-billed Loon, and
Kittlitz’s Murrelet. Similar to
Alternative 2 the effects on sea
otters would be minor, with no
effects to Steller sea lions.
The effects of Alternative 4
would be similar to Alternative
1, although the frequency of the
hovercraft's operations would
increase. Given the mitigating
restrictions under which the
hovercraft previously operated,
particularly the exclusion zone
in northern Cold Bay,
disturbance effects on Steller’s
Eiders, Yellow-billed Loons,
Kittlitz’s Murrelets, Northern
Sea Otters, and Steller Sea
Lions from the operation and
maintenance of the hovercraft
as proposed under Alternative 4
would be negligible to minor.
Noise generated from
construction activities,
including pile-driving,
associated with modifications
to the existing Cold Bay dock
would not likely disturb
Steller’s Eiders, Yellow-billed
Loons, or Kittlitz’s Murrelets,
because they are not present in
the summer construction
season and/or do not frequent
the dock area. Operations
would elicit noise similar to
fishing vessels already
operating in the area, and the
ferry would be slow-moving
enough that all wildlife could
avert collisions. Effects to
threatened and endangered
species would be negligible to
minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-38
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
The completion of the King
Cove Access Road may result
in more waterfowl hunting at
Kinzarof Lagoon and the
northeast side of Cold Bay,
which could disturb
overwintering Steller’s Eiders
and Yellow-billed Loons,
resting/foraging sea otters and
pups, and a few sea lions. The
overall contribution to
cumulative effects of this
alternative would be negligible
to minor.
The contribution of the
construction and operation of
Alternative 2 to cumulative
impacts would include that
described in Alternative 1. The
overall contribution to
cumulative effects of this
alternative would be moderate
for Steller’s Eider and
negligible to minor for other
threatened and endangered
species.
The contribution of the
construction and operation of
Alternative 3 to cumulative
impacts would include that
described in Alternative 1. The
overall contribution to
cumulative effects of this
alternative would be moderate
due to the effects on Steller’s
Eider.
The contribution of the
construction and operation of
Alternative 4 to cumulative
impacts would include that
described in Alternative 1. The
overall contribution to
cumulative effects of this
alternative would be negligible
to minor.
The contribution of the
construction and operation of
Alternative 5 to cumulative
impacts would include that
described in Alternative 1. The
overall contribution to
cumulative effects of this
alternative would be negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-39
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Land Ownership and Use
Overall
Effects
Under Alternative 1, a road
corridor connecting King Cove
and Cold Bay would not be
built and no land exchange
would occur. Current land use
would remain unchanged, and
management plans would
remain in effect. The
conveyance of King Cove
Corporation selected lands
would continue, and includes
5,430 acres currently in
Izembek Wilderness. The
overall impact of Alternative 1
on land ownership, use, and
management would be minor.
Under Alternative 2, creation of
a road corridor connecting the
communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay and the associated
land exchange involving State,
federal and King Cove
Corporation lands would have
an effect on land use and land
management. Federal lands
underlying the road corridor
and on Sitkinak Island would be
transferred to State ownership
for management under State
Area Plan or State Game
Preserve provisions. State
owned and King Cove
Corporation owned/selected
lands would be transferred to or
be retained in federal ownership
for management under National
Wilderness or National Wildlife
Refuge provisions. King Cove
Corporation would relinquish
its selection of the lands east of
Kinzarof Lagoon, though they
could make a new selection
elsewhere. However, the
replacement acreage may not
have the same characteristics as
the selected lands, which
directly adjoin patented King
Cove Corporation land and are
reasonably accessible from the
village. The summary impact
of Alternative 2 on land use and
management would be
considered major.
The direct and indirect effects
on land ownership, use, and
management would be nearly
identical to Alternative 2.
Additional refuge lands would
be required for right of way to
accommodate this alignment.
The summary impact of
Alternative 3 on land use and
management would be
considered major.
The effects of Alternative 4,
with respect to land ownership,
management, and use are
identical to those of
Alternative 1. The overall
impact would be minor.
The effects of Alternative 5,
with respect to land ownership,
management, and use are
identical to those of Alternative
1and 4. The overall impact
would be minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-40
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
Relevant past actions include
the entitlement and selection of
King Cove Corporation land
under ANCSA, and the
enactment of ANILCA that
designated national wilderness
areas throughout the state,
including the Izembek
Wilderness. The incremental
contribution of Alternative 1 to
cumulative effects on land
ownership, use, and
management would be minor.
Relevant past actions include
the entitlement and selection of
King Cove Corporation land
under ANCSA, and the
enactment of ANILCA that
designated national wilderness
areas throughout the state,
including the Izembek
Wilderness. Given the nature
and implications of the
ownership change, the
contribution to cumulative
effects would be major.
Cumulative effects for
Alternative 3 would be nearly
identical to Alternative 2,
differing only in the location
and amount of federal acreage
exchanged for the road
corridor. The incremental
contribution of Alternative 3 to
cumulative effects to land use
and management would be
major.
The contribution to cumulative
effects for Alternative 4 is the
same as Alternative 1 for land
ownership, use, and
management. The cumulative
effect would be minor.
The contribution to cumulative
effects for Alternative 5 is the
same as for Alternatives 1 and
4 for land ownership, use, and
management. The cumulative
effect would be minor.
Socioeconomics
Overall
Effects
While transportation modes
and costs are expected to be
held constant, the effects to
population, demographics and
employment would be
negligible. The Aleutians East
Borough would continue to
subsidize the hovercraft at
roughly $1 million annually,
which would be a moderate
fiscal impact.
Alternative 2 would reduce
consumer transportation costs,
and eliminate the borough’s
hovercraft subsidy. There
would be few effects to any
other socioeconomic indicators.
Effects to employment,
population and demographics
would be negligible. Effects to
consumer transportation costs
and fiscal effects to local
governments would be
moderate.
Alternative 3 would reduce
consumer transportation costs,
and eliminate the borough’s
hovercraft subsidy. There
would be few effects to any
other socioeconomic indicators.
Effects to employment,
population and demographics
would be negligible. Effects to
consumer transportation costs
and fiscal effects to local
governments would be
moderate.
Effects would be similar to
Alternative 1. The cost to the
consumer would be the same,
and effects to population,
demographics and employment
would be negligible. The
Aleutians East Borough would
continue to subsidize the
hovercraft at roughly $2
million annually, which would
be a major fiscal impact.
Alternative 5 would have
negligible socioeconomic
effects to the cities of King
Cove and Cold Bay because the
expected changes in
employment, economic activity
in transportation, and
population would be slight.
Consumer transportation costs
between to the 2 cities would
continue in excess of $100 per
passenger trip, if vehicle-based
travel costs are included. The
Aleutians East Borough would
subsidize the ferry at more than
$2 million annually, which
would be a major fiscal impact.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-41
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
This alternative would
generally perpetuate existing
conditions; with no additional
contributions to cumulative
effects on socioeconomic
indicators.
Fiscal effects to the local
government have been
previously influenced by a
subsidy of the hovercraft
operations. This alternative
would have a moderate
(beneficial) contribution to
cumulative effects on fiscal
resource for local government
because of the hovercraft
subsidy would cease.
Alternative 2 would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on other
socioeconomic indicators.
Fiscal effects to the local
government have been
previously influenced by a
subsidy of the hovercraft
operations. This alternative
would have a moderate
(beneficial) contribution to
cumulative effects on fiscal
resource for local government
because of the hovercraft
subsidy would cease.
Alternative 3 would have a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on other
socioeconomic indicators.
Fiscal effects to the local
government have been
previously influenced by a
subsidy of the hovercraft
operations. This alternative
would have a major (adverse)
contribution to cumulative
effects on fiscal resource for
local government and a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on other
socioeconomic indicators.
Fiscal effects to the local
government have been
previously influenced by a
subsidy of the hovercraft
operations, and subsidy of a
ferry would be possible under
Alternative 5. This alternative
would have a major (adverse)
contribution to cumulative
effects on fiscal resource for
local government and a
negligible contribution to
cumulative effects on other
socioeconomic indicators.
Transportation
Overall
Effects
Operation of the hovercraft on
a 3-times-a-week schedule
provides an additional
transportation link for the
region, which would benefit
approximately 1,000 projected
passengers per year. The
hovercraft would not operate
year-round, and may operate at
the previous 70 percent
reliability level, reducing
opportunity for emergency
charters. The summary impact
on existing transportation
systems and conditions is
considered to be minor.
A road would add moderate
traffic to existing transportation
facilities over 2 years during
the construction phase.
Alternative 2 would result in
distinctive changes in
consumer transportation
options, patterns, and costs.
The road would provide a new,
full-time transportation link
between the communities of
King Cove and Cold Bay. The
summary impact on
transportation would be major.
The summary effect of
Alternative 3 is similar to that
of Alternative 2, major.
Operation of the hovercraft on
a 6-times-a-week, year-round
schedule provides an additional
transportation link for the
region, which would benefit
approximately 1,500 projected
passengers per year. The
former 70 percent reliability
level may reduce the
opportunity for emergency
charters. The summary impact
on existing transportation
systems, with an increased
number of weekly operations,
would be moderate.
A ferry would provide another
form of transportation, besides
air, between the cities of King
Cove and Cold Bay, benefitting
about 1,500 passengers a year.
The ferry would operate
similarly to that of the prior
hovercraft service, with greater
frequency and reliability in
poor weather. The summary
impact for Alternative 5 on
transportation is considered to
be moderate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-42
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cumulative
Effects
Public revenues and
expenditures have been
previously affected by
hovercraft operations.
Alternative 1 would continue a
moderate (adverse) fiscal
cumulative effect.
The presence of a road could
lead to more surface vehicles
and increase traffic in both
cities over the long-term.
Additional traffic could
instigate further road
improvements and new
construction within the
communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay. The contribution of
Alternative 2 to cumulative
effects on transportation would
be major.
The summary cumulative effect
of Alternative 3 is similar to
that of Alternative 2, major.
Public revenues and
expenditures have been
previously affected by
hovercraft operations.
Alternative 4 would continue a
major (adverse) cumulative
effect.
Public revenues and
expenditures have been
previously affected by
hovercraft operations.
Alternative 5 would continue a
major (adverse) cumulative
effect.
Public Health and Safety
Overall
Effects
Operation of the hovercraft on
a seasonal 3 times a week
schedule would not meet
community needs for year-round
public health and safety.
The hovercraft would be
available only in the summer
months for emergency charters.
The summary effect is minor.
Under Alternative 2, there
would be increased opportunity
for people in the City of King
Cove to travel to the Cold Bay
Airport for access to specialized
medical services. Road
transportation, while too slow
for some emergencies, would
be available most days. The
road would introduce new law
enforcement responsibilities.
The summary effect to public
health and safety would be
major (beneficial).
The summary effect of
Alternative 3 is similar to that
of Alternative 2, major
(beneficial).
In Alternative 4, the hovercraft
would have regularly scheduled
trips for 6 days/week year-round
and could be available
for emergency medical
evacuations most times. The
historical approximately 70%
reliability rate may reduce
availability for emergencies, but
it could also substitute when
weather conditions are adverse
for air transport. The summary
effect to public health and
safety would be major.
In Alternative 5, the ferry
would have regularly scheduled
trips for 6 days/week year-round
and would be available
for emergency medical
evacuations most times. Ferry
operations typically have a high
reliability rate. It is somewhat
slower than other transport
options, so may not be suitable
for some emergencies. The
summary effect to public health
and safety would be major.
Cumulative
Effects
Operation of the hovercraft in
Alternative 1 provides a minor
cumulative effect for public
health and safety because there
would be an additional option
for medical evacuation
(hovercraft) for part of the year.
Emergency medical transports
have historically been primarily
conducted by air and
hovercraft. The addition of
road transportation, while not
suitable for all emergencies,
would have a major cumulative
effect on the range of options
available.
The summary cumulative effect
of Alternative 3 is similar to
that of Alternative 2, major.
Operation of the hovercraft in
Alternative 4 on a year-round
basis provides a major
contribution to cumulative
effects on this resource.
Operation of the ferry in
Alternative 5 on a year-round
basis provides a moderate
cumulative effect for public
health and safety because it
would supplement existing air
transport, maximizing
opportunity for emergency
travel.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-43
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Environmental Justice
Overall
Effects
Alternative 1 would have a
minor (beneficial) impact on
human health and no new
impacts on subsistence
activities. Alternative 1 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse impact to minority or
low income communities,
Therefore the summary
conclusion is no adverse effect.
Alternative 2 would have a
major (beneficial) impact on
human health and a minor
(beneficial) impact on
subsistence activities for the
minority and low income
communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay. Alternative 2 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse impact to minority or
low income communities.
Therefore the summary
conclusion is no adverse effect.
Alternative 3 would have a
major (beneficial) impact on
human health and a minor
(beneficial) impact on
subsistence activities for the
minority and low income
communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay. Alternative 3 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse impact to minority or
low income communities.
Therefore the summary
conclusion is no adverse effect.
Alternative 4 would have a
major (beneficial) impact on
human health and a negligible
(beneficial) impact on
subsistence activities.
Alternative 4 would not have a
disproportionate adverse
impact to minority or low
income communities.
Therefore the summary
conclusion is no adverse effect.
In Alternative 5, a ferry would
be available year-round to
provide transport to Cold Bay
under weather conditions not
amenable to travel by
helicopter, plane, boat, or
hovercraft. The direct and
indirect effects of ferry
operation and maintenance
would be a major effect for
human health and a negligible
(beneficial) effect to
subsistence activities.
Alternative 5 would not have a
disproportionate adverse impact
to minority or low income
communities. Therefore the
summary conclusion is no
adverse effect.
Cumulative
Effects
The contribution of Alternative
1 to cumulative effects on
human health would be minor,
and would have no contribution
to cumulative effects on
subsistence resources and use
patterns. Alternative 1 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse cumulative impact to
minority or low income
communities.
Alternative 2 would result in
negligible to minor cumulative
effects in access to and
competition for subsistence
resources. It would result in a
major cumulative effect in
access to health resources, and
potential road injuries.
Alternative 2 would not have a
disproportionate adverse
cumulative impact to minority
or low income communities.
Alternative 3 would contribute
the same cumulative effects as
those in Alternative 2,
negligible to minor for
subsistence, and major for
health. Alternative 3 would not
have a disproportionate adverse
cumulative impact to minority
or low income communities.
Alternative 4 would increase
the availability of
transportation to medical
services as compared to current
(baseline) conditions.
Implementation of Alternative
4 would not contribute to
cumulative effects on
subsistence resources, access to
subsistence resources, or
competition for subsistence
resources. Alternative 4 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse cumulative impact to
minority or low income
communities.
Alternative 5 would increase
the availability of
transportation to medical
services as compared to current
(baseline) conditions.
Alternative 5 would not
contribute to cumulative effects
on subsistence resources,
access to subsistence resources,
or competition for subsistence
resources. Alternative 5 would
not have a disproportionate
adverse cumulative impact to
minority or low income
communities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-44
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Public Use
Overall
Effects
In Alternative 1, there would
not be a land exchange and
public use of existing parcels
would remain the same. The
conveyance of a selected parcel
to King Cove Corporation
would be subject to the
requirements of Section 22 (g)
of ANCSA. Future public uses
of the parcels would be subject
to authorization by the private
land owner. The overall impact
would be negligible.
The transfer of state and Native
Corporation lands to federal
management would restrict
activities to those permitted in
a wilderness or national
wildlife refuge. The exchange
would constitute a noticeable
change in land management
and types of uses. The effects
on public use from the land
exchange would be major.
Alternative 3 would have the
same effects as Alternative 2,
major.
In Alternative 4, there would
not be a land exchange and
public use of existing parcels
would remain the same. The
conveyance of a selected parcel
to King Cove Corporation
would be subject to the
requirements of Section 22 (g)
of ANCSA. Future public uses
of the parcels would be subject
to authorization by the private
land owner. The overall impact
would be negligible.
In Alternative 5, there would
not be a land exchange and
public use of existing parcels
would remain the same. The
conveyance of a selected parcel
to King Cove Corporation
would be subject to the
requirements of Section 22 (g)
of ANCSA. Future public uses
of the parcels would be subject
to authorization by the private
land owner. The overall impact
would be negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
The cumulative impacts of
Alternative 1 are considered
negligible, due to the low levels
of use on the parcel selected by
the King Cove Corporation.
This alternative could increase
opportunities for prohibited
access of motorized vehicles.
Increased access to hiking areas
could expand areas used for
berry-picking, photography,
and other low-impact public
uses. The overall contribution
to cumulative effects would be
minor.
Alternative 3 would have the
same contribution to
cumulative effects as
Alternative 2, minor.
The direct and indirect impacts
of Alternative 4 are considered
negligible, due to the low levels
of use on the parcel selected by
the King Cove Corporation.
The cumulative impacts of
Alternative 5 are considered
negligible, due to the low levels
of use on the parcel selected by
the King Cove Corporation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-45
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Subsistence
Overall
Effects
There would be no new effects
to subsistence under
Alternative 1.
Effects from implementation of
Alternative 2 could include
displacement of subsistence
resources increased access to
the area around Kinzarof
Lagoon, 50,763 acres added to
federal subsistence
management, and increased
competition for resources in
that area. The summary impact
would be negligible to minor.
Alternative 3, the Central Road
Alignment, was designed to
avoid or minimize impacts to
wetlands and high value habitat
for breeding, nesting, and
migrating waterbirds, and land
mammals. As a result, direct
effects to these subsistence
resources would be lessened.
Additionally, 50,737 acres
would be added to federal
subsistence management. The
summary impact would be
negligible to minor.
Impacts to subsistence would
include displacement of
subsistence resources,
increased access to the area
around the Northeast
Hovercraft Terminal, and
increase subsistence uses in
that area. Impacts would be of
low intensity, long term in
duration, local to regional in
extent and affect resources that
are common in context. The
impact of operation and
maintenance activities to
subsistence under Alternative 4
would be negligible.
The ferry would be operated
within concentrated subsistence
use areas for waterfowl,
salmon, and crab in Lenard
Bay. During operation, the
ferry would transit through a
waterfowl concentration area
near Delta Point and Nurse
Lagoon on the western side of
Cold Bay. Impacts to
subsistence would include
displacement of subsistence
resources, increased access,
and increased subsistence uses.
The summary impact would be
negligible.
Cumulative
Effects
Alternative 1 would have no
contribution to cumulative
effects on subsistence resources
or activity.
Alternative 2 would result in
negligible to minor
improvements in access to
subsistence resources.
Alternative 3 would result in
negligible to minor
improvements in access to
subsistence resources.
Alternative 4 would contribute
little to cumulative effects on
subsistence resources, access to
subsistence resources, or
competition for subsistence
resource as subsistence
activities are unlikely to
increase above present levels.
The summary cumulative effect
would be negligible.
Alternative 5 would contribute
little to cumulative effects on
subsistence resources, access to
subsistence resources, or
competition for subsistence
resource as subsistence
activities are unlikely to
increase above present levels.
The summary cumulative effect
would be negligible.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-46
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Cultural Resources
Overall
Effects
No effects to cultural resources
would occur in Alternative 1,
since no new actions would
occur.
Ground disturbing activities
associated with the
construction of the road and
staging areas could result in
direct effects to surface or
subsurface prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites.
Excavation or looting of
archaeological sites caused by
the introduction of increased
access could occur. The
summary impact level for
cultural resource could be
moderate to major.
Effects of Alternative 3 are
similar to those described under
Alternative 2, moderate to
major.
No effects to cultural resources
would occur in Alternative 4,
since no new actions would
occur.
There is low potential for
inadvertent damage to
previously undetected cultural
resources that could occur
during the construction or
operation of a dock. The
summary impact would be
minor.
Cumulative
Effects
No contribution to cumulative
effects to cultural resources
would occur in Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 could contribute
to cumulative effects on
cultural resources. The
cumulative effect would be
moderate to major.
Alternative 3 could contribute
to cumulative effects on
cultural resources. The
cumulative effect would be
moderate to major.
No cumulative effects to
cultural resources would occur
in Alternative 4.
Cumulative effects to cultural
resources for Alternative 5 are
considered to be minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-47
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Visual Resources
Overall
Effects
Air and marine activity would
continue at current levels.
Such actions are transient, and
do not impact vividness, reduce
intactness, or reduce unity in
existing visual quality. Future
use of the King Cove
Corporation selected parcel
would be subject to the
requirements of Section 22 (g)
of ANCSA. Overall, the direct
and indirect impacts of
Alternative 1 are negligible.
Alternative 2 would transform
the landscape by introducing a
road to a currently road less
area. The proposed roadway is
expected to be compatible with
the existing landscape, and the
area would retain very high
scenic quality. The summary
impact would be moderate.
Effects of Alternative 3 would
be similar to those of
Alternative 2, moderate.
Visual access to the Izembek
Lagoon would be improved;
however similar benefits would
likely not be realized for the
Kinzarof Lagoon.
Operation of the hovercraft
would introduce weak visual
contrast to the surrounding
landscape. Movement of the
hovercraft across Cold Bay
would be noticeable. Periods
where the vessel was in view
would be episodic and
transient. The 6-day operations
schedule is expected to be
consistent with the landscape
character of the communities of
King Cove and Cold Bay, and
the current use of Cold Bay.
Future use of the King Cove
Corporation selected parcel
would be subject to the
requirements of Section 22 (g)
of ANCSA. Overall, the direct
and indirect impacts of
Alternative 4 are negligible.
Minor effects to visual
resources are expected as a
result of implementation of
Alternative 5. Improvement
and use of the Lenard Harbor
and Cold Bay docks would
contribute in a positive way to
the overall landscape character
of the communities of King
Cove and Cold Bay. The open
deck of the ferry would
promote access to views of
Cold Bay and the surrounding
landscape.
Cumulative
Effects
Alternative 1 is expected to
result in negligible cumulative
impacts to visual resources.
It is expected that the effects
that may result with
implementation of Alternative
2 would be additive to those
associated with the King Cove
Access Road and relocation of
the hovercraft terminal.
Alternative 2 is expected to
have a moderate contribution to
cumulative effects on visual
resources.
It is expected that the effects
that may result with
implementation of Alternative
3 would be additive to those
associated with the King Cove
Access Road and relocation of
the hovercraft terminal.
Alternative 3 is expected to
have a moderate contribution to
cumulative effects on visual
resources.
Alternative 4 is expected to
result in negligible cumulative
impacts to visual resources.
Consistent use of the
hovercraft, combined with the
associated roadway and
hovercraft terminal would
improve the landscape
character of the surrounding
communities of Cold Bay and
King Cove, and would afford
additional views of Cold Bay
and the surrounding landscape.
The contribution of Alternative
5 is expected to result in overall
beneficial impacts to visual
resources in the communities of
Cold Bay and King Cove.
Cumulative effects of the
combined actions would be
minor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ES-48
LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS
Alternative 1:
No Action - Existing Air and
Marine Service
Alternative 2:
Land Exchange and Southern
Road Alignment
Alternative 3:
Land Exchange and Central
Road Alignment
Alternative 4: Hovercraft
Operations from the
Northeast Hovercraft
Terminal to Cross Wind
Cove 6 days per Week
Alternative 5: Lenard
Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay
Dock Improvement
Wildernes