Source: http://ak.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150908_0000142.DAK.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:14:24+00:00

Document:
For Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove, Native Village of Belkofski, King Cove Corporation, Aleutians East Borough, City of King Cove, Etta Kuzakin, Etta Kuzakin, Plaintiffs: James F. Clark, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of James F. Clark, Juneau, AK; Steven W. Silver, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robertson Monagle and Eastaugh, Reston, VA.
For State of Alaska, Intervenor Plaintiff: Thomas E. Lenhart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alaska Department of Law, Office of the Attorney General, Juneau, AK.
For Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Dan Ashe, Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Geoff Haskett, Regional Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Doug Damberg, Manager, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Michael J. Bean, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks, Defendants: Richard L. Pomeroy, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office (Anch), Anchorage, AK; Stacey M. Bosshardt, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice/ ENRD/ EES, Washington, DC.
For Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Defenders of Wildlife, Wilderness Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Refuge Association, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Intervenor Defendants: Brook Brisson, Katherine G. Strong, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK.
H. Russel Holland, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiff move for summary judgment. This motion is opposed and defendants and intervenor-defendants cross-move for summary judgment. The cross-motions are opposed. Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.
Plaintiffs are the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove, the Native Village of Belkofski, the King Cove Corporation (KCC), the Aleutians East Borough, the City of King Cove, Etta Kuzakin, and Leff Kenezuroff. Intervenor-plaintiff is the State of Alaska. Defendants are Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Department of Interior; Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Michael J. Bean, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks; Dan Ashe, Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Geoff Haskett, Regional Director, United States Fish and Wildlife; and Doug Damberg, Manager, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Intervenor-defendants are Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Defenders of Wildlife, Wilderness Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and the Sierra Club.
The City of King Cove (" King Cove" ) is located on the Alaska Peninsula, which separates the Pacific Ocean from Bristol Bay, an arm of the Bering Sea. King Cove has 938 residents, of whom more than one third are Alaska Natives. King Cove is one of the communities within the Aleutians East Borough (AEB). Another community within the AEB is Cold Bay. Cold Bay is a small community located approximately 18 miles from King Cove and home to the only all-weather airport in the vicinity of King Cove. Both King Cove and Cold Bay are accessible only by air and sea.
(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.
East Borough constructed a one-lane gravel road from the King Cove airstrip to a temporary hovercraft dock four miles away where a hovercraft ... carrie[d] up to 49 passengers, an ambulance, and cargo to and from Cold Bay."  " This marine-road system was the preferred alternative evaluated in a 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement completed by the Army Corps of Engineers."  " King Cove residents, however, continue[d] to seek a road linking their community with Cold Bay due to concerns about the reliability of the hovercraft in severe weather and uncertainty about future funding for the operational costs associated with the hovercraft."  And in fact, the hovercraft service was discontinued in 2011 by the AEB due to " cost and reliability concerns[.]"  In its years of operation from 2007-2011, the hovercraft was used to complete 22 medical evacuations.
Upon receipt of notification by the State and the Corporation of the intention of the State and the Corporation to exchange the non-Federal land for the Federal land, subject to the conditions and requirements described in this subtitle, the Secretary may convey to the State all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land. The Federal land within the Refuge shall be transferred for the purpose of constructing a single-lane gravel road between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay, Alaska.
Pub. L. 111-11, Title VI, Subtitle E, § 6402(a). The OPLMA provided that the road " shall be used primarily for health and safety purposes (including access to and from the Cold Bay Airport)...." Id. § 6403(a)(1)(A).
(ii) an evaluation of a specific road corridor through the Refuge that is identified in consultation with the State, the City of King Cove, Alaska, and the Tribe.
Id. § 6402(b)(2)(B). The OPLMA provided that certain entities " may participate as ... cooperating"
agencies " [d]uring the preparation of the environmental impact statement...." Id. § 6402(b)(3)(A). Entities entitled to participate as cooperating agencies included the State, the AEB, King Cove, and the Agdaagux Tribe. Id. § 6402(b)(3)(B).
The FWS developed and analyzed five alternatives for the proposed land exchange/road corridor: 1) the no action alternative, 2) the land exchange and southern road alignment alternative, 3) the land exchange and central road alignment alternative, 4) the hovercraft operation alternative, and 5) the Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock improvements alternative.
[a]fter another detailed analysis of the financial costs of the Borough's hovercraft, we have concluded that it is not financially feasible or responsible to authorize the re-start of King Cove - Cold Bay hovercraft operations. For more than three years the hovercraft was in operation, it required an annual operating subsidy in excess of $1 million from the Borough's general fund. This amount of annual funding is not sustainable or realistic for a remote, regional local government consisting of six communities with a population of 2500.
occasional wheeled vehicles (in particular an ambulance) and limited cargo. It could use the same route as has been described for the hover-craft in the past. We are looking at building materials and techniques, such as hardening the vessel bottom with replaceable UHMW wear pad to prevent damage to the hull from abrasion on the landing pad, that allow the vessel to use the landing pad at the Northeast Corner which is to be constructed in accordance with the existing plans, specs and permits.
A draft EIS (DEIS) was published and made available for public comment on March 19, 2012. The DEIS discussed the five alternatives set out above. Public testimony on the the DEIS was taken at five public meetings held in Anchorage, Cold Bay, King Cove, and Sand Point. The FWS " received a total of 71,960 submissions on the [DEIS], of these 1,849 were considered unique."  70,111 form letters opposing a road were received, and 390 submissions in support of a road were received.
On April 18, 2012, the FWS contacted the AEB for additional information about the " aluminum landing craft/passenger ferry" because this " information is needed to update the No Action Alternative in the Izembek NWR Land Exchange/Road Corridor EIS. The No Action Alternative must describe what would occur if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes no action in this EIS."  The FWS asked where the landing craft would be moored when not in service, whether " the footprint [will] change at the proposed hovercraft landing location at the Northeast Terminal or at Cross Wind Cove[,]" what the vessel's specifications and estimated operability limits were, what the estimated costs of the vessel were, and what the proposed timeline for purchase and implementation was.
the AEB has outlined a conceptual plan for an aluminum landing craft that might be modified to allow the vessel to use the landing pads at the northeast corner and at Cross Wind Cove. It must be noted that this conceptual plan IS only a concept. There is no vessel and the concept will only be explored further if and only if the Secretary does not find the land exchange is in the public interest.
[t]he concept of a landing craft is simply that: a concept.... This ongoing research was previously suggested for the King Cove to Cold Bay link as simply a POTENTIAL consideration should the Izembek land exchange not be approved. Furthermore, there has been no public discussion of this concept and whether it would be viable and acceptable to the public.
costs will be to acquire and operate such a craft. Consequently, no description of this craft can or should be included in a No Action Alternative.
[t]he [FWS] has unilaterally determined to include a conceptual landing craft operating from existing and authorized facilities at the Northeast and Cross Wind terminals. To be consistent with NEPA, the KCG strongly recommends the [FWS] also include a new alternative that includes the conceptual landing craft with required modifications to existing authorizations in the same manner as the ferry alternative that would require new authorizations from the State and the Corps.
On February 6, 2013, the final EIS (FEIS) was published and made available for public comment. The FEIS stated that the " basic" purpose of the proposed project " is to provide a transportation system between the City of King Cove and the Cold Bay Airport" and that the " overall" purpose of the proposed project " is to construct a long term, safe, and reliable year round transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay."  The FEIS listed the " need[s] for the proposed action" as 1) Health and Safety, 2) Quality of Life and 3) Affordable Transportation. The FEIS acknowledged that these needs were " broader than the focused purpose specified in the" OPLMA, which stated that the purpose of the land exchange, if approved, was " constructing a single-lane gravel road" between King Cove and Cold Bay. OPLMA § 6402(a). The FEIS analyzed the impacts of the five alternatives set out above. The hovercraft and ferry alternatives were considered at the request of the Corps of Engineers, which was a cooperating agency.
to use available information about operability of the conceptual landing craft developed by the EIS consultant for the Service to provide: 6 day a week, ... year-round ability to meet scheduled air service at the Cold Bay Airport; and for 24/7 ability to provide transportation for urgent medical care and for emergency medical evacuation. The 2003 King Cove Access Project provided ... data that were incorporated by the Service in the DEIS and FEIS includ[ing] known wind and wave conditions in Cold Bay and at the Northeast and Cross Wind Cove Terminal as well as the physical and biological factors associated with the terminals. Although used in the DEIS and FEIS for reliability conclusions for the road, hovercraft and ferry alternatives, the Service chose not to validate the key FEIS assumption that no in-water modifications are required for the conceptual landing craft to provide safe and reliable loading and unloading of an ambulance, passengers, and other vehicles.
[w]e engaged in active listening to understand the views of the tribal entities involved here. We viewed our task not to produce a 'balanced' report as to the merits of the road issue overall because we were asked to focus only on one important aspect of the road issue and were instructed to consult only with the relevant tribal communities and medical experts. We believe that this report fairly presents the tribal views in this decision making process and thus meets the Administration's consultation duties under the trust responsibility.
On March 21, 2013, the Secretary also indicated that he would " hold an official meeting in King Cove and receive written and oral testimony on the medical evacuation benefits of the proposed road."  On August 30, 2013, the Secretary traveled to King Cove and Cold Bay for community meetings.
[t]he EIS shows that construction of a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge would lead to significant degradation of irreplaceable ecological resources that would not be offset by the protection of other lands to be received under an exchange.... [B]ecause reasonable and viable transportation alternatives exist to meet the important health and safety needs of the people of King Cove, the final decision of the Department is to adopt the no action alternative as described in the EIS.
would bring increased human traffic, noise, hydrological changes, damage to wetlands, run off, introduction of contaminants, and invasive species. Once a road is in place there would be a certainty of increased human access and activity. Year-round and increased human access radiating off the road corridor via pedestrian traffic or all-terrain vehicles coupled with the physical impacts caused by predictable all-terrain vehicle use on wet soils made possible by the presence of the road would have profound adverse effects on wildlife use and habitats of the narrow isthmus that comprises the Refuge. The likely increased activity associated with the road would also place a strain on Refuge management at a time of decreasing Refuge budget and capacity.
would have a net gain of over 55,000 acres for the National Wildlife Refuge System under the proposed exchange and the parcels proposed to be received by the Service in the exchange include notable resource values such as caribou habitat, brown bear habitat, and Tundra Swan nesting habitat. Some of the parcels to be received would be included within the Izembek Wilderness boundary. However, the Service has determined that the increased acreage would not compensate for the overall values of existing Izembek Refuge lands and Wilderness that would be removed. Nor would the offered lands compensate for the anticipated impacts that the proposed road would have on wildlife and the habitat that surround the road corridor. The lands offered for exchange contain important wildlife habitat, but they do not provide the wildlife diversity of the internationally recognized wetland habitat that is proposed for the exchange, nor would they compensate for the adverse effects of removing a corridor of land and constructing a road within the narrow, irreplaceable Izembek isthmus. Further, the lands proposed for exchange are not likely to be developed, if retained in their current ownership, in ways that would affect the same resources that would be affected by the construction and operation of a road through the Izembek Refuge. Thus, a conveyance of these lands to the United States does not actually offset the environmental impacts from the proposed road construction and operation.
actions to address that long-standing need. Thus, while a marine link may not be preferred by proponents of the road, viable and reliable options to a road exist to meet the public health and safety needs of the King Cove residents.
" [i]n a February 24, 2012 letter to the Corps, the Borough has indicated that it will explore the option of using an aluminum landing craft/ferry to provide a marine-road link between the Northeast Terminal and Cross Wind Cove if the land exchange is not approved. The vessel described by the Borough is a 59-foot by 16-foot landing craft.... According to the Borough, the vessel could accommodate approximately 30 passengers, occasional vehicles/ambulances, and limited cargo. The vessel bottom would be hardened with replaceable wear pads to prevent damage to the hull from abrasion, allowing the vessel to use the former hovercraft terminals. The vessel would operate between the Northeast Terminal and Cross Wind Cove, the same route analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Neither the February 24, 2012 letter to the Corps, nor subsequent correspondence with the Borough contain any description of the frequency of service being considered nor the costs associated with the acquisition and operation of a landing craft/passenger ferry.
On June 4, 2014, plaintiffs commenced this APA action in which they challenge the Secretary's adoption of the No Action Alternative. On July 21, 2014, the State of Alaska's motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this matter was granted, and on July 29, 2014, the State filed its complaint in intervention. Plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs asserted the same five claims for relief in their complaints: 1) a claim alleging that the Secretary violated the OPLMA in a variety of ways, 2) an APA claim, 3) a NEPA claim, 4) an ANILCA claim, and 5) a claim that defendants violated the trust responsibility the federal government has to American and Alaska Native citizens. On December 19, 2014, the court dismissed the portion of plaintiffs' and intervenor-plaintiff's OPLMA claims that were based on allegations that the Secretary failed to make a public interest determination and their APA, ANILCA, and trust claims.

References: § 6402
 § 6403
 § 6402
 § 6402
 § 6402
 § 6402