[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF THE EXPANSION OF THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT ON THE MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-564 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held February 3, 1999.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Minge, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Ramstad, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashe, Dan, Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC accompanied by
Richard Schultz, Refuge Manager, Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge............................................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Response to questions from the Committee................. 88
Response to questions from the Committee................. 108
French, Nelson, Executive Director, Friends of the Minnesota
Valley, Bloomington, Minnesota............................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Grams, Hon. Rod, a United States Senator from the State of
Minnesota.................................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Marzulla, Nancie, Defenders of Property Rights, Washington,
DC......................................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Pickard, Lynne, Manager of Community and Environmental Needs
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Walsh, Mary U., Asst. Chief Counsel for Legislation, Dept. of
Transportation, response to questions from the Committee... 111
Additional material supplied:
Committee on Resources, Memo from............................ 70
Hartwig, William F., Regional Director, Dept. of the
Interior, statement by..................................... 82
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPACT OF THE EXPANSION OF THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST.
PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON THE MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 11:22
a.m., in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don
Young, [chairman of the Committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. The hearing will come to order. The purpose of
this hearing today is to take testimony on the impacts of an
airport expansion on one of our premier national refuges, the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge is home to a broad range of wildlife species
which deserve every bit as much protection as do the species
that live in other national refuges, including in Alaska
refuges such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge. Species living in this refuge include
threatened bald eagles, 35 mammal species, 23 reptile and
amphibian species, 97 species of birds, including the tundra
swans, migrating all the way from Alaska.
The new runway expansion will cause so much noise and
disturbance that most of the facilities under the path of the
runway will be relocated. In fact, the refuge will be so
impacted by the noise that the FAA has agreed to pay the Fish
and Wildlife Service over $20 million to compensate them for
taking of their property by virtue of noise.
Yet, with this level of disturbance, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the FAA found that wildlife would not be disturbed
so much that the airport expansion should be stopped. They also
found no impact on the threatened bald eagle and no need for
the protection of the Endangered Species Act in this case. They
found that the wildlife in the refuge will adjust to the noise.
They found that there is little significant evidence that
wildlife will be seriously harmed by the 5,000 take-offs and
landings per month at less than 2,000 feet above those
important migratory bird breeding and resting areas.
I'm not surprised by that. Most of us know that wildlife
adjust to human presence and in some cases actually thrive, and
I have an example of this.
This is my little caribou herd around the wells that have
been drilled in the terrible dastardly deeds of the oil
companies, and are migrating and living there very happily,
scratching their backs on the pipeline, resting their tired,
weary souls under the derricks that exist there. I mean, this
is an example of how animals can adjust.
Most of us know that wildlife adjusts to human presence,
and in some cases actually thrive. Fairfax County, abundant
deer and bird and fox population can attest to that with all
the building around. We've got more deer and everything else
than we've ever had before.
Certainly I would agree that airports must be safe and that
human life and safety come first. However, how many times have
the members of this Committee been told by the Clinton
Administration that important safety projects cannot go forward
because it might--and I stress might--impact wildlife. This
constant excuse has been used many times in Alaska to oppose
vital public safety and health projects.
Mr. Pombo and Mr. Doolittle have heard that in connection
with their efforts to get vital flood control improvements
needed for the safety of their constituents in California,
where we had to save the Blue beetle or the Elderberry beetle.
I know, in fact, that wildlife and human beings can co-
exist. In the coastal plain of Alaska, just like I've shown,
the caribou have increased, the ducks have increased. I'm
showing that picture around to show you they can co-exist. Yet,
some members of this Congress, including some in this room and
that are going to testify later, have agreed to this airport
expansion in Minnesota--have introduced legislation that would
preclude most human activities in the Arctic National Wildlife
Range by designating it as wilderness.
I guess they believe that wildlife in Alaska can't adjust
to human activities, but they can adjust in Minnesota, and I'm
really saddened by that because we've probably put more money
into our wildlife than any other State. But apparently that
wildlife in Minnesota is a lot smarter, and I can't understand
that at all. In addition, the Airport Commission, by taxing
passengers flying through Minneapolis, will pay over $20
million in compensation for the lost use of refuge lands.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects private
property when it must be used by the public. This
administration has consistently threatened to veto every bill
that has been introduced that would reduce the burden on
private property owners when they attempt to seek compensation
for their lost property from the U.S. Government. They have
made the process so expensive, so time consuming, so lengthy,
and so difficult, that only the wealthiest land owners can have
any hope of attaining the compensation guaranteed under the
Fifth Amendment.
Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service demanded and received
compensation for the impacts on the people who use the refuge
without having to file a lawsuit or even threaten a lawsuit.
They demanded compensation and got it. I guess I should not be
shocked at anything by this administration, especially their
hypocrisy.
As you know, I support our refuges. I've introduced a
refuge bill that was signed into law. I have probably sponsored
more refuges laws, and I've worked with the refuge system. I
want refuges to be places where wildlife can thrive, and I want
them to be accessible to the public. I support adequate funding
for the refuges. I agree that refuges and wildlife should not
be used to stop needed projects and development in nearby
communities, but there is a double standard here, my friends.
When I can't build a road that saves lives--and to my knowledge
there have been no lives lost in this Minnesota airport--yet I
have lost 11 lives because this Congress and certain Members of
this Congress, especially from the delegations in Minnesota,
want to have a wildlife refuge inviolate.
There's something wrong with that. There's a double
standard within the Fish and Wildlife Department, there's a
double standard within the Members of Congress that don't see
that they parallel and track one another. There is the ability
to be compatible if we work together. But when you exclude and
put wildlife ahead of the safety of people, you are doing great
damage to, I think, to the system of Congress and the system of
fairness.
I have asked Fish and Wildlife to be fair, and, frankly, to
stop discriminating against the rural people of America. It
seems it's all right if it's close to a large metropolitan area
and you've got the horse power, but when it's a small, little
town and there are only 300 people, they are not important. I
don't like the double standard, and before this is over we're
going to have lots of fun with this issue, especially with the
Fish and Wildlife.
As a Member of Congress I can understand. I don't agree
with it, I don't like it, but I can understand it. That Fish
and Wildlife has this double standard is wrong, it's immoral,
and it is corrupt.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
The Chairman.
I recognize Mr. Vento.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding the
hearing and for drawing together the Minnesota delegation in
support of this support of this wildlife refuge, Mr. Chairman.
And I would just point out on the basis of the Chairman's
remarks--he's got a lot of questions, and I think we have the
answers for them, and I think that this is not comparable to
some of the examples that were cited with regards to the impact
on wildlife and the reasons for the compensation that was and
is provided here. Not one single acre of this wildlife refuge
is touched on the ground by this. This is the issue of an
aircraft overflight issue and a flight path over the sight.
In fact, when this particular refuge was designated in
1976, it specifically had provisions that said it would not
impact the surrounding economic development. Beyond that, I
would point out that not only did they work very hard to come
to an agreement here--and I appreciate the Fish and Wildlife
Service work, the FAA, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission
in Minnesota, the work they did. They did a good job, but they
also--in terms of this compensation--but the Metropolitan
Airports Commission has already paid out $100 million to, in
fact, sound-proof homes in the flight path in Minnesota. And
when they get done, they are going to spend about $300 million
to sound-proof the homes.
And the compensation being offered here--the mitigation
results--something in excess of $20 million--has really little
to do with the impact on the wildlife because that is very,
very difficult to document. It has to do with the center, the
significant center that has been built there that is used for
interpretation and education in that area.
And I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I have a little
experience with this particular airport because as a junior
high school teacher about 22 years ago, I taught directly under
the flight path of the Metropolitan Airport, the international
airport, and I can attest to the fact that it is very
difficult, even with my somewhat modest voice, to in fact
convey the various cognitive notions that I was trying to
convey to those junior high school students.
Now I know I don't have any such problem here this morning,
but I can assure you when the flights go over it is very
difficult, so it really means that the center that has been
developed here and the resources that have been developed here
will probably, in all probability, have to be moved to other
sites to augment this. And we have, literally, tens of
thousands of students, of individuals, that visit this
particular center each year, and it's been of tremendous value.
The agreement, of course, is the culmination of over two
years of negotiations. It's a symbiotic relationship between
all of those that have been involved. The Federal Government
recognized the difficulties associated with creating a refuge
in an urban environment, and we, in fact, responded to that by
limiting it in law.
Beyond that, of course, we have, within law, under the
transportation law, the 4(f) provisions. Whenever a
transportation project, whether it's a road, airport expansion,
or others, they need to, of course, work with the other Federal
resources and entities and land managers in that area.
And beyond that, Mr. Chairman, in the re-framed Fish and
Wildlife law that you helped write, that you structured and
passed through Congress--a compromise--you, in fact, made
special efforts to try and limit the ability of the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the designation process to limit them as to
any rights that they would have as to issues that are trans-
boundary. That's what you did in that particular law. I don't
think I agree with it.
In fact, what my view is, I think that we should be looking
to land managers in most conservation units, whether they're
parks, whether they're wildlife refuges or others, to be
working on a trans-boundary issue with the other entities.
I mean, it's like the Everglades in Florida and the
sheetflow that goes into the Everglades. We have to have an
expectation that they're going to be working with the Corps of
Engineers, with the Florida conversation districts, because of
course what happens in terms of that sheetflow dramatically and
significantly impacts the type of--what happens in the
Everglades, and so we need to expect land managers to be
outside the box, to be outside their boundaries, to be voicing
their concerns, to be representing the resources and the
concerns that they have in the forums, in the States, as
partnerships with the States, with the local governments and
others--certainly other Federal agencies that are involved. And
that is the expectation that we should mandate of Federal land
managers so that they are part of the solution rather than
simply standing off and entering these things and being
involved in simply court cases.
Now, if it's overflight issues that you're concerned about,
I think that the record will show that this Committee has had
an aggressive posture with regards to the protection and
addressing the issues of overflights over parks, over
wilderness, over range lands.
In fact, I think we need a better policy in terms of the
reservation of air space that takes place on the part of our
military. Increasingly, they are, in fact, taking over more and
more air space in the western part of the United States, albeit
for justifiable reasons in their minds' eye. But I think it's
very limiting in terms of what it means, in terms of the use of
the land on the surface and what the impact is on grazing, what
the impact is on recreation.
So we've got a long way to go in terms of addressing this,
and I'm pleased to see the Fish and Wildlife Service in the
area I represent pursuing this. And I certainly welcome Mr.
Schultz, who is here, and the other witnesses: Mr. French from
Minnesota, who works with the Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge. They've done an excellent job, as well as the
administrators with the FAA and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and I hope we can get to some of those questions
you raised, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4564.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4564.002
Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired. I would just
like to again remind you--I just read your website. It talks
about how you spoke up, and your members, and stopped this
criticism of this invasion of this refuge, and then right on
the same page saying how you're going to take and lock up the
ANWR area in my State, and it's a refuge, too.
I mean there is a two double standard here. Another
gentleman says--Daniel Ashe, Assistant Director of Refuge and
Wildlife--certainly hate to be in the position of losing any
aspect of any refuge, but the Minnesota Valley Refuge is an
urban refuge, where urban encroachment is a fact of life and
you're going to have to deal with it. Well, what about my small
towns up north? They are not urban, but they are small
villages, and there are people there and they're being impacted
by actions of this Congress, and you have a double standard,
and that is incorrect.
I'm going to stress that again. A stabilized standard for
all refuges should be put forth. If this was an urban refuge,
it should never have been created as a refuge.
By the way, I think you had something to do with that.
Mr. Vento. I did. I only came here in 1977 to help you with
Alaska.
Mr. Young. I know. I realize that.
Mr. Vento. They sent me here. You needed that help.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. But, again, the reason for this hearing is the
double standard within the agencies and the Members of
Congress. If you believe in a representative form of
government, there has to be some understanding and some belief
that fairness is equal to justice.
The first two witnesses: the Honorable Rod Grams of the
United States Senate--and, boy, if I have kept the Senator
waiting, I really apologize for that; the Honorable Jim Ramstad
of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Minge's statement. He's
involved in an agricultural conference; he's got some serious
problems with regards to pork and other issues and he has asked
to have his statement put into the record in support of this
agreement. Without objection, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Young. Well, it's fine with me. I mean, it's his
district, you know.
Mr. Vento. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minge follows:]
Statement of Hon. David Minge, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota
Mr. Chairman and Members of this subcommittee, thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to speak before this body
regarding the proposed runway expansion of the Minneapolis/St.
Paul International Airport and its effects on the Minnesota
Valley Wildlife Refuge.
I applaud Chairman Young's obvious concern for the well-
being of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and for the
hundreds of species of plants and animals that inhabit the
10,000 acres of this wondrous facility. The Resources Committee
certainly has an obligation to look into any Federal project or
land transaction that could potentially threaten the full and
continued operation of a national wildlife refuge, preserve or
national park.
But I can assure Mr. Young that this refuge, of which a
significant portion lies within the boundaries of my
Congressional District, will see little if any net loss as a
result of the recently proposed airport expansion/refuge
mitigation project. Rather, this collaborative effort by the
Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Metropolitan Airport Commission and the Friends of
the Minnesota Valley should be held up as an example of the
kinds of innovative solutions that become possible through
cooperative efforts.
These types of expansion projects are frequently portrayed
as a clash between technological progress and conservation
efforts, between business expansion and natural resources
preservation, between private and public interests. Yet in this
instance, a very delicately balanced agreement among between
diverse interests was reached to accomplish a common goal.
During my six years in Congress, I have worked closely with
the Friends of the Minnesota Valley and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in their efforts to create and maintain a
unique conservation and educational facility in the Twin Cities
suburban area. I have been extremely pleased with the way the
refuge has been run and with the high quality of educational
services that it provides for students and adults. The
opportunity for people from all over the United States to
enjoy, appreciate and learn about these native species of
wildlife without significant disruption of the animals' natural
habitats is a tremendous resource that we cannot afford to
lose.
I also recognize the importance of maintaining an effective
and efficient transportation infrastructure. As a main hub of
airline transportation, Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport serves not only the citizens of Minnesota but fills a
role as an important junction point for thousands of other
travelers who cross the Mississippi River every year. There is
widespread agreement among state and local leaders in Minnesota
that an expansion of the existing airport is crucial, given the
increased demand for services and the potential for greater
competition among airlines. The only reasonable alternative to
expansion would be the construction of a new airport, an option
that many agree would be worse both economically and
environmentally than expansion.
I am joined by a bipartisan group of eight other Members of
the Minnesota Congressional delegation, who believe that the
proposed airport expansion should be allowed to continue
without hindrance.
When the expansion of our society causes a disruption of a
sensitive environmental area, it is important that we consider
many important factors to determine the least intrusive means
available to accomplish the expansion while falling within
reasonable economic parameters. I believe that the parties
involved in this project have done this. Their plan calls for
compensation to the refuge of an amount no less than $20
million. This funding will allow the refuge to relocate many of
its outdoor classrooms away from the noise of the runway, and
it will allow for the replacement of more than 4,000 acres of
land.
I sympathize with Chairman Young's frustration at not
gaining approval for a project in his home state of Alaska that
he clearly believes is in the best interests of his
constituents. The derailing of a worthwhile project such as
this expansion/mitigation plan will have no effect on the
ultimate passage or defeat of the Alaskan project. The two
projects are not analogous, they are not related and neither
project should have any dependence on the other. Each project
should be discussed and debate on its own merits. In Minnesota,
the stakeholders, including the ardent environmental advocates,
have reached an accommodation. I hope that same can occur in
Alaska.
In a perfect world, the conflicts between society and the
environment would not occur. In a perfect world, the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport would be located in
an area that does not conflict with the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge or any nearby property owners. Certainly, we do
not live in a perfect world.
But when both private and public interests, both business
and environmental advocates, can come together and agree on a
plan that will benefit millions of consumers, businesspeople
and nature lovers--and, at the same time, serve the interests
of economic expansion and progress--we should all take notice.
Mr. Young. In all due respect for my good Senator, you have
other things on your mind today and the rest of the week, so
I'd like to suggest that if you would like to, Senator, go
forth with this discussion we have about an airport. By the
way, how did you vote on the Izembek Road?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROD GRAMS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Grams. I'll tell you about that.
Mr. Young. All right.
[Laughter.]
I'm very interested. I'm really am very interested. You
know, this is a long time coming. Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Grams. All right. Thank you very much. Good
morning, Mr. Chairman, and also members of the Committee. It's
great to see you, and I want to thank you for allowing me to be
a part of this hearing and to provide my testimony.
And first, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point
out that those of us in the Minnesota delegation approach this
issue maybe from different angles, but eventually we end up at
the same point and that is supporting the agreement that you
are examining here today.
First, Mr. Chairman, the legislation you introduced last
year to prevent the implementation of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge Agreement clearly referenced--and what
I've heard this morning is your frustration with the
administration's unwillingness to allow a road through the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
It comes as no surprise that Members of the Minnesota
delegation were split on the Izembek road issue, but I want to
stress that, as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, I voted in support of Senator Murkowski's
legislation to build that road. Later on the Senate floor, I
again supported Murkowski and voted in favor of the bill
because I believe the Members of the Alaska delegation made a
convincing argument about the health and safety of the citizens
of King Cove, Alaska.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have long been, and always will be, a
steadfast proponent of access to our natural resources and
allowing local officials more authority of land use issues.
I've always felt that the Federal Government exercises too much
authority over local units of government in virtually all
matters, but, in particular, with regard to land use decisions.
And far too often the Federal Government has turned Federal
lands into playgrounds for the elite and cordoned them off to
even the most basic of uses, and this problem is only
exaggerated in States such as Alaska, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho,
where the Federal Government owns more land than does all the
citizens of those States combined.
The King Cove situation is a perfect example of a pervasive
belief among government bureaucracies that their programs and
initiatives are more important than the people that they will
impact, or in this matter the health and the safety of the
citizens of King Cove.
Mr. Chairman, my State, too, faces problems with an over-
active Federal Government bent on decreasing access to our
natural resources and zeroing out timber sales on our national
forests. This Committee, last year, marked up legislation
offered by Congressman Oberstar and I to restore access to the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. And thanks to the efforts of
Congressman Oberstar and Vento, a common sense compromise was
found which I hope settles the portage issue for good.
But when Members of Congress advocate more local input and
common sense decisionmaking by the Federal Government, as many
of us have for so long, they are duty bound to support the
Federal Government when it acts consistent with that philosophy
as well. I've always been a strong proponent of bringing the
Federal Government, the local governments, and the private
sector together in a non-adversarial way to reach decisions on
land use and on environmental issues which benefit everyone.
I believe only the most extreme activists really want to
block any progress and reject compromise. In fact, I believe we
must take and make an effort to turn the corner on pitting
property owners against government and businesses against
conservationists. It's always been my belief that all
Republicans share a similar outlook, considering it's a vast
improvement over the confrontational way in which we seem to
approach matters involving our Federal lands. And that is why
all Members of Congress should support the agreement reached on
the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
In Minnesota--one of the most environmentally conscious
States in our country, by the way--all sides came together and
worked together to reach a solution which will protect the
wildlife and the health of the refuge well into the 21st
century and will also allow for the badly needed expansion of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.
Your legislation pointed out that the refuge is unique as
an urban wildlife refuge in a growing metropolitan area, and
you were right. When the refuge was created, this fact was not
missed by Congress. In fact, Public Law 94-466 dedicated one
section to the understanding that flexibility between the
refuge's needs and the needs of a growing city would be
necessary in the future.
Now let me read for the Committee a portion of section 9 of
the refuge enabling legislation, and I quote:
``Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting or preventing the provision of vital public
services, including the construction, improvement, and
replacement of highways and bridges or any other activity which
the Secretary determines to be necessary. Any activity referred
to in this section shall be carried out so as to minimize the
disruption of wildlife and the reduction of recreational and
scenic values of the area.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service did more than comply with this law--they
followed it to the letter. And too often we quarrel about
Federal agencies that interpret laws their way and that ignore
the intent of Congress. But, clearly, both the law and the
intent were met by the agreement and the actions of the Fish
and Wildlife Service in this case.
I believe it's important to remind the Committee that the
agreement does not allow a road to be built into the refuge. In
fact, the agreement does not allow the expansion of the runway
to touch one acre of land within the refuge. The agreement is
aimed at mitigating expected but unmeasurable impacts from the
noise of overflights on wildlife and on visitor enjoyment.
As the Committee is aware, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service cannot exert jurisdiction over the airspace over
refuges as a result of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997--I have just a little bit left, Mr.
Chairman--therefore, organizations like the Friends of the
Minnesota Valley were left with just two options: either take
the matter to court or work with the refuge and other parties
to seek a compromise resolution which benefited everybody. And
I am proud to say that they chose the latter.
You will soon hear from Nelson French, who is the executive
director of the Friends of the Minnesota Valley, and he will
more clearly explain the give-and-take that took place to reach
this agreement. But I can tell you that his organization, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and even the Federal Aviation Administration all
set their differences aside and forged an agreement based on a
few primary points.
First, the agreement will allow for a new runway to be
built at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and
that some impacts will occur as a result. Second, those impacts
are to be mitigated by a cash payment, as you mentioned, of not
less than $20 million. The settlement received from the
Metropolitan Airports Commission will be spent on projects
designed to offset or replace refuge land, facilities, and/or
programs impacted by the runway's construction and future
operation.
And third, Mr. Chairman, all parties agree that the
agreement does provide full compensation to the refuge and that
nothing in the agreement precludes or limits the Fish and
Wildlife Service from continuing to appropriately manage refuge
lands.
So not only does the agreement preserve every acre of
refuge land, it will actually expand its acreage and will allow
it to purchase land within the refuge boundaries. And, further,
not only will the refuge expand, but its programs and
facilities may improve and expand as well. This refuge,
following the agreement, will be a more complete refuge and
remain one of our Nation's premier urban wildlife preserves.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have to come here this
morning and defend this agreement with those who took part in
its creation. The parties to the agreement should be here today
briefing the Committee and Congress on how they approached a
very sensitive environmental issue and came out of it with a
very workable and common sense conclusion. We should be
congratulating them rather than questioning the wisdom of those
actions.
Now I hope the members of the Committee will listen closely
to what took place in Minnesota, and I hope you will leave the
hearing today with a new understanding of what actually
happened and also a new appreciation of the approach that the
participants chose.
Mr. Chairman, I'm confident this agreement will stand up to
scrutiny, and hopefully it will serve as a reminder that local
interests can solve local problems, not only in Minnesota, but
in Alaska and in other States as well, with local solutions in
a way that the Federal Government can and should support.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much, and
also the members of the Committee, for the opportunity to be
here today and provide my statement. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grams follows:]
Statement of Hon. Rod Grams, a Senator in the Senate from the State of
Minnesota
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
Thank you for allowing me to provide my testimony.
First, I think it is important to point out that all of us
in the Minnesota delegation approach this issue from different
angles--but eventually we all end up at the same point and that
is supporting the agreement you are examining today.
First, Mr. Chairman, the legislation you introduced last
year to prevent the implementation of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge agreement, clearly referenced your
frustration with the Administration's unwillingness to allow a
road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. It
comes as no surprise that the Members of the Minnesota
Delegation were split on the Izembek Road issue. But I want to
stress that as a Member of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, I voted in support of Senator Murkowski's
legislation to build that road. Later, on the Senate floor, I
again supported Senator Murkowski and voted in favor of the
bill. I believe the Members of the Alaska delegation made a
convincing argument about the health and safety of the citizens
of King Cove, Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I have long been and always will be a
steadfast proponent of access to our natural resources and
allowing local officials more authority over land-use
decisions. I have always felt the Federal Government exercises
too much authority over local units of government in virtually
all matters--but in particular with regard to land use
decisions. Far too often, the Federal Government has turned
Federal lands into playgrounds for the elite and cordoned them
off to even the most basic uses. And this problem is only
exaggerated in states such as Alaska, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho,
where the Federal Government owns more land than do all of the
citizens of those states combined. The King Cove situation is a
perfect example of a pervasive belief in government
bureaucracies that their programs and initiatives are more
important than the people they will impact--or in this matter,
the health and safety of the citizens of King Cove.
My state, too, faces problems with an overactive Federal
Government bent on decreasing access to our natural resources
and zeroing out timber sales on our National Forests. This
Committee, last year, marked up legislation offered by
Congressman Oberstar and I to restore access to the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area. And thanks to the efforts of Congressmen
Oberstar and Vento, a common-sense compromise was found which I
hope settles the portage issue for good.
But when Members of Congress advocate more local input and
common sense decision-making by the Federal Government, as many
of us have for so long, they are duty bound to support the
Federal Government when it acts consistent with that
philosophy. I have also always been a strong proponent of
bringing the Federal Government, local governments, and the
private sector together in a non-adversarial way to reach
decisions on land-use and environmental issues which benefit
everyone. I believe only the most extreme activists really want
to block any progress and reject compromise. In fact, I believe
we must make an effort to turn the corner on pitting property
owners against government, and businesses against
conservationists. It has always been my belief that all
Republicans shared a similar outlook, considering it a vast
improvement over the confrontational way in which we seem to
approach matters involving Federal lands.
That is why all Members of Congress should support the
agreement reached on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge. In Minnesota, one of the most environmentally conscious
states in our country, all sides came together and reached a
solution which will protect the wildlife and health of the
Refuge well into the 21st century and will allow for the badly
needed expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport
Your legislation pointed out that the Refuge is unique as
an urban wildlife refuge in the middle of a growing
metropolitan area--and you are right. When the Refuge was
created, this fact was not missed by Congress. In fact, Public
Law 94-466 dedicated one section to the understanding that
flexibility between the Refuge's needs and the needs of a
growing city would be necessary in the future. Let me read for
the Committee a portion of Section 9 of the Refuge's enabling
legislation:
``Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting or preventing the provision of vital public
services, including . . . the construction, improvement, and
replacement of highways and bridges . . . or any other activity
which the Secretary determines to be necessary. Any activity
referred to in this section shall be carried out so as to
minimize the disruption of the wildlife and the reduction of
recreational and scenic values of the area.''
Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service did more than comply with this law--they followed it to the
letter. Too often, we quarrel about Federal agencies that interpret
laws their way, and ignore the intent of Congress. Clearly, both the
law and the intent were met by the agreement and the actions of Fish
and Wildlife Service.
I believe it is important to remind the Committee that the
agreement does not allow a road to be built in the Refuge. In fact, the
agreement does not allow the expansion of the runway to touch one acre
of land within the refuge. The agreement is aimed at mitigating
expected--but unmeasurable--impacts from the noise of overflights on
wildlife and on visitor enjoyment. As the Committee is aware, the U S.
Fish and Wildlife Service cannot exert jurisdiction over the airspace
over refuges as a result of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. Therefore, organizations like the Friends of
the Minnesota Valley were left with two options--either take the matter
to court or work with the Refuge and other parties to seek a compromise
resolution which benefited everyone. I am proud to say they chose the
latter.
You will soon hear from Nelson French, Executive Director of the
Friends of the Minnesota Valley. He will more clearly explain the give
and take that took place to reach this agreement--but I can tell you
that his organization, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and even the Federal Aviation
Administration, all set their differences aside and forged an agreement
based on a few primary points.
First: The agreement will allow for a new runway to be built at the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and that some impacts will
occur as a result.
Second: Those impacts are to be mitigated by a cash payment of not
less than $20 million. The settlement received from the Metropolitan
Airports Commission will be spent on projects designed to offset or
replace Refuge land, facilities, and/or programs impacted by the
runway's construction and operation.
Third: All parties agreed that the agreement does provide full
compensation to the Refuge and that nothing in the agreement precludes
or limits the Fish and Wildlife Service from continuing to
appropriately manage Refuge lands.
So, not only does the agreement preserve every acre of Refuge land,
it will actually expand its acreage and allow it to purchase land
within the Refuge's boundaries. Further: not only will the Refuge
expand, but its programs and facilities may improve and expand as well.
This Refuge, following the agreement, will be a more complete Refuge
and remain one of our Nation's premiere urban wildlife preserves.
I regret that I have to come here this morning and defend this
agreement and those who took part in its creation. The parties to the
agreement should be here today brieflng the Committee and Congress on
how they approached a sensitive environmental issue and came out of it
with a workable, common-sense conclusion. We should be congratulating
them, rather than questioning the wisdom of their actions.
I hope the Members of the Committee will listen closely to what
took place in Minnesota. I hope you will leave the hearing today with a
new understanding of what actually happened and a new appreciation for
the approach the participants chose. I am confident that this agreement
will stand up to scrutiny and serve as a reminder that local interests
can solve local problems with local solutions--in a way the Federal
Government can support.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Members of the Committee
for the opportunity to be with you today
Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator, and I do compliment you. I
know how you voted on it. I checked it before you got to the
table.
Senator Grams. Thank you.
Mr. Young. And I do appreciate your comment about--and
again, why I'm disturbed is that, you know, you have a larger
State. You have a lot more people involved, and there is a
double standard here. There was never an attempt by Fish and
Wildlife on the local or the Federal level ever to reach a
compromise with this Congressman on the Izembeck Road, and they
never, ever, ever could prove the facts that they were putting
forth. They were all fictitious. The propaganda that came out
of many of the Congressmen and the other organizations that
oppose the Izembek Road disallowed the safety factor for those
people. And just because there are only 300 and you've got 3
million, I think that's very inappropriate, and I want to
stress that again.
I do thank you, and I know you have other things on your
mind. I don't have any questions. Does anybody have any
questions for the Senator?
Senator Grams. But I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I
agree with you, and I think fairness is a big issue, whether
it's 300 or 3 million. And I will continue to support efforts
like this in the future.
Mr. Young. I thank you, and you're excused if you have to
go. I know you've got other things on your mind.
Mr. Minge, do you have--you're not on--yes, he is; Mr.
Ramstad is on the agenda. I have to go to Mr. Ramstad and then
you'll have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Ramstad--and I know how you voted.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM RAMSTAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Ramstad. That's right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. I also know you're a sponsor of ANWR, an
original sponsor for two years in a row, two terms in a row,
which is in my State.
Mr. Ramstad. That's right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. No, you can testify.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ramstad. But I certainly appreciate the fact that
you're letting me--those factors not withstanding--testify
today, Mr. Chairman. I did support the FY 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, which was a compromise on
the Izembik road, just like we have a compromise before the
Committee today, and----
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. May I compliment Mr. Ramstad on learning so
quickly how to get along on this Committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ramstad. Well, one thing we agree on, thanks to the
chairman's great State, their favorite son, the only native
Alaskan ever to play in the National Football League, who
happens to be my cousin, just got another Super Bowl ring
Sunday blocking for John Elway of the Denver Broncos--number
69, Mark Schlereth. So we can agree on that.
Mr. Young. That's the only reason I bet on Denver, so I can
say that right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ramstad. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the Committee. This agreement, which Senator Grams
outlined, between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, is a practical, reasonable, common
sense solution to the problem of urban encroachment.
The agreement is supported by all parties--the Metropolitan
Airports Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Friends of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Minnesota congressional
delegation.
And, Mr. Chairman, this agreement is a real tribute to all
of these parties who worked very, very hard to craft this
practical, common sense compromise. It will improve the
airport, improve the refuge, and improve Minnesota. I want to
commend, from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Dave
Dombrowski and Nigel Finney, who spearheaded the effort on the
part of the MAC; they are here today; Nelson French, whom
Senator Grams mentioned, representing the Friends of the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and Rick Schultz,
the refuge manager, who does such an outstanding job throughout
the year, every year, managing that great refuge; and Dan Ashe,
who is the Assistant Director of the Minnesota Office of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, who is also, I understand, going to
testify today.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that there have been a few
misunderstandings about the scope of the agreement. For
example, I've seen in certain accounts that the runway is going
to intrude on the refuge. In fact, the runway is not going to
expand into the refuge. It will come no closer than 1.25 miles
from the refuge. So, it is not true that the runway will in
fact extend into or onto the grounds of the refuge. That is
simply not true.
The impact of the refuge on the new runway will be the
increased noise of take-offs and landings. Yes, there will be
more noise, and this was a big concern to me when I first
learned of the proposal. But due to good faith efforts of all
parties involved, this agreement has been reached, which does,
I believe, protect the refuge, increase visitor usage, and
allow for the needed runway expansion without the loss of one
acre--without the loss of one acre of the existing refuge. And
the mitigation, which will amount to not less than $20 million
will allow the refuge to purchase new land and construct a new
visitors' center.
So, again, I just want to thank all of the parties to this
agreement. It proves that government can work when people--
local people--work together with government officials, in this
case from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, from the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and from the refuge.
So, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to
express the concerns of Minnesotans and others who support this
agreement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramstad follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Ramstad, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on an issue of great importance to
the people of Minnesota.
The recent agreement between the Metropolitan Airports
Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge will provide at least
$20 million to mitigate the noise impact of a new runway being
built near the Refuge.
This agreement is supported by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota Congressional delegation.
This agreement is a tribute to each of these parties and
represents a common-sense approach by all sides. It will
improve the airport, improve the Refuge and improve Minnesota.
Regrettably, there have been a number of misunderstandings
about the scope of the agreement. For example, press accounts
have reported that the runway would intrude into the Refuge.
Let me assure everyone that this agreement will not allow the
construction of a runway within the boundaries of the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
The impact on the Refuge of the new runway will be the
increased noise of takeoffs and landings. While I admit this
was a concern to me when I first learned of this project, good-
faith efforts by all parties yielded a comprehensive agreement
that protects the refuge, increases visitor usage, and allows
for the runway expansion without the loss of one acre of the
existing refuge.
In fact, the mitigation funds will allow the Refuge to
purchase new lands and construct a new visitors center.
Each of the parties involved in this agreement, many of
whom are here today, must be commended for working together to
create a pragmatic, common-sense solution to this issue.
Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today to express the concerns of
Minnesotans and others who support this agreement.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Ramstad.
Mr. Minge.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID MINGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Minge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to
briefly state that most of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge
is in the 2nd Congressional District, and we view this as a
tremendous resource, not just for the district and for the
State, but for the entire country, and it's with some regret
that we see any portion of this district compromised. In that
respect we appreciate your solicitude, Mr. Chairman, for the
problems that are faced by the refuge in our State.
There are some very positive things about this agreement,
and certainly Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Grams have already alluded to
several of them. I would like to point out a couple of others.
There has been tremendous pressure to consider the development
of another airport in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan
area. That would take many thousands of acres, and many of
those acres would be environmentally fragile.
This expansion of a runway minimizes the chance that we
will have to have a new airport developed, and if you look at
what happened in Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, and you see what a
new airport means in terms of its impact on the communities
where it's located, you understand that this is no small
consideration. And I think that we should weigh this as we
deliberate the objections that have been raised to the process
that is being undertaken here.
I would also like to emphasize that the Friends of the
Minnesota Valley, headed by Nelson French, have been very
vigilant in contesting anything that would constitute
development that would compromise this refuge. And I think it's
quite a tribute to them and to the compromise that they have
supported this, they recognize that there are additions to the
refuge and a relocation of the center that will actually
enhance the refuge and in the long-run make this a more
valuable resource for our area.
Finally, I would like to say that I have spent a fair
amount of time at the refuge, and as much as I share the
concerns that you have, Mr. Chairman, and several others, about
anything that would constitute a compromise here in a context
that you feel might have been unfairly handled in Alaska, I do
think that we have achieved an accommodation here that is
reasonable.
And I would simply urge that in your State every effort be
made to bring all of the stakeholders together so that, like
was done in Minnesota, you could have those groups that have
been perhaps more contentious, that have been a burr under the
saddle for you, if I may say that, on board and supporting
whatever resolution you feel would be best in your State. And I
think that's what has happened here. Thank you very much.
Otherwise, I have submitted my statement for the record.
Mr. Young. I appreciate that, and I want you to understand,
the purpose of this hearing is not necessarily to criticize the
Valley Commission or the Airport Commission. I am very
concerned about the Fish and Wildlife and asking compensation
of $20 million. Frankly, that does not help the wildlife out at
all. And I also--Fish and Wildlife used arguments on the
national level and on the local level in my area that any
activity on the refuge would diminish the purpose of the
refuge, and yet you know that this is a heavily used refuge
which you are representing. And again, it's a double standard.
And, you know, we tried, with the Fish and Wildlife. We
tried to explain what we're trying to do. We tried. We said we
would build the road without charging the taxpayers one nickel,
and they said it was going to cost $100 million. This is pure
nonsense. We tried to give them more land. We actually had an
increase in the amount of land, and they wouldn't accept that.
They just said, ``No, we're going to tolerate it. This is a
national issue because there are only 300 people involved.''
I can understand your desire not to build another airport
because it does take a tremendous amount of land. I'm not going
to argue the merits of building the other airport. I'm arguing
the merits of how the Fish and Wildlife conducted itself, and
even how the Commission was blackmailed into paying that
compensation of $20 million--and for what? To my knowledge
there is nothing that is going to improve the wildlife at all.
There's not a dollar going to be spent on improvement of
the wildlife. It's usually spent on moving the buildings, re-
establishing new buildings, or buying other private land. It's
not for the wildlife. And you know, it's just a total, total
lack of consideration. This is a classic example where, I
guess, might is right; the few are discarded and the many
survive, and the Federal agency that really is supposed to
represent everybody on an equal basis has frankly, I think,
done the wrong thing--not the people of Minnesota, but the
agency itself.
So, I thank you for your comments and we'll get to the rest
of it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, just a comment. I appreciate my
colleagues' testimony, all of them in support of this
agreement, and I think that we should--there's a vast
difference between an air flight path and a road through a
wilderness refuge in Alaska. I mean, you're comparing apples
and oranges here, and the fact is if there's a case with
regards to any wildlife refuge in Alaska that you're looking
for compensation because of the impact of aircraft overflights,
I would be happy to ally my efforts with yours to gain that
type of compensation in that case. And the fact is, this is
based upon, yes, the education and resource center that has an
overflight path that's going to go over it by virtue of this
extension of the runway.
And in addition to that, there are 4,000 acres--there is
some acreage being added to this refuge to try and compensate
for the impact on the wildlife in that area. But, frankly, as
you had noted rightly, because of the laws that you wrote in
1997 and because of the 1976 law which established this, the
Fish and Wildlife Service really has very little legal standing
to, in fact, pursue the protection of that wildlife. Plus, I
think the science is difficult in terms of making the
justifications for it.
But, nevertheless, they've been successful, even with these
types of handicaps, using the 4(f) provisions of the
transportation law for an aircraft overflight path--a flight
path, not a road--and this is not a wilderness-designated Fish
and Wildlife Service, as was the instance. So, this comparison
is completely erroneous that you are attempting to portray.
That you have a problem in Alaska, I admit that. I am
attempting to designate ANWR's wilderness. I plead guilty with
150 sponsors in the last session. We feel strongly about it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Vento. No, not at this point. But the fact is that this
comparison is completely erroneous. It just has no comparison,
and I think----
Mr. Young. With all due respect, the gentleman knows that
is not true. There is a great comparison; there is a tremendous
comparison.
Mr. Vento. I think in your mind, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. In your mind you think there's no comparison at
all, and I understand that. But in the reality, there is a
double standard here. Now you know and I know that we tried to
reach solutions----
Mr. Vento. Do you have any instance where there is an
aircraft overflight problem in Alaska--an impact--you could
find physical resources? I'd be happy to join you in terms of
trying to mitigate that particular problem. That's the issue
here. It isn't a road. Nobody's putting a road through this
particular wildlife refuge, which isn't a wilderness,
incidentally, as the one in Alaska is. I understand. I respect
your views and your right to hold an opinion on this, but I
think, to say the least, the analogy is confusing.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do take
exception to my colleague's comments from Minnesota because as
I recall, wasn't it just the end of last year when you objected
to an overflight for an airport in Nevada because it was 5,000
feet above a refuge and you said it was totally objectionable
to the wildlife habitat to have an airport that had a proposed
flight path 5,000 feet above the ground? Not 500, not a half-a-
mile away, a mile-and-a-half and 5,000 feet, and you objected
to that.
Now, to come here and say that you don't have any objection
to 500 feet over a wildlife habitat, and yet to have objected
last year to a 5,000 foot or greater seems to me to be, you
know, crossing similar arguments without the same degree of
good faith involved with what we're talking about here. That
was an aircraft overflight.
Mr. Vento. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gibbons. No, I won't yield. I'll yield back to the
Chairman.
Mr. Young. The gentlelady.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from
Minnesota is very good at trying to redefine the problem, but
the question here is, as Fish and Wildlife stated, in their
opinion in this particular case, wildlife could habituate to
the human activity--5,000 flights a day at a low altitude. Yet
in Alaska, there were very, very few vehicles traveling on a
gravel road, and they didn't even give anyone the chance to
even evaluate whether the wildlife could habituate to that
minimum human impact. And that's what this hearing is all
about. It's the inconsistencies of the way the Fish and
Wildlife apply their policies, and this is one of the most
glaring inconsistencies.
So, I don't think we ought to redefine the problem. This
is--definitionally--this is what the problem is about, and for
years we've been asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to really
examine whether wildlife could habituate to human activity, and
obviously in this case it is true.
Mr. Young. The next panel--panel two: Mr. Ashe, Ms.
Pickard, Ms. Marzulla, and Mr. French.
We have a vote, so I'm going to make a suggestion that we
go over and vote and come back as rapidly as possibly, and the
witnesses can go to the restroom if you want to because you
have been sitting here all morning. Approximately, I would say
12:30 p.m. because we have two votes in a row.
[Recess.]
Mr. Young. But we had a series of votes, so it took a
little longer, and we'll try to progress forth.
The first person on the panel is Mr. Ashe, Assistant
Director for Refuges, Fish and Wildlife Service. He is
accompanied by Mr. Schultz, Refuge Manager, Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. Second is Ms. Lynne Pickard, and Ms.
Nancie Marzulla and Mr. Nelson French. Mr. Ashe, you're up.
Mr. Ashe. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. And welcome, by the way, to the Committee, all
committees. You used to work with Mr. Jones; I remember you,
and I hope you haven't gone too far astray, but go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR REFUGES AND
WILDLIFE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD SCHULTZ, REFUGE MANAGER, MINNESOTA
VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and as you
said, my name is Dan Ashe and I am the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife, and Mr.
Rick Schultz is with me today, and he is our manager at
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
And Minnesota Valley Refuge is somewhat unique in the
refuge system, as it is located largely in an urban setting,
co-existing with over 2 million Twin Cities residents. Since
establishment, the refuge has acquired 10,000 of its authorized
14,000 acres, built a state-of-the-art wildlife and
interpretation visitors' center, and developed top-flight
public use programs and facilities.
In establishing the refuge, Congress recognized its urban
setting and the need for the Service to work and balance the
needs of the refuge with the urbanization of the Twin Cities
area. The enabling legislation provided that nothing in this
Act shall be construed as prohibiting or preventing the
provision of vital public services.
Further, under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, the Service has no authority to regulate
air space above a refuge. And since this particular project
will not be built upon refuge lands, the Service had no direct
means to influence it. However, under section 4(f) of the 1966
Department of Transportation Act, the Transportation Secretary
may not approve a project that requires the use of any
publicly-owned land, including wildlife refuges, unless there
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to using that land and
unless the project considers all possible planning to minimize
the resulting harm.
It was under this provision of law that we were able to
work cooperatively with the Metropolitan Airports Commission
and the FAA to ensure that the disturbance to the wildlife and
wildlife-dependent recreation was minimized. It was clear that
the overflights from the proposed runway expansion would
significantly affect noise-sensitive public activities on the
refuge. The intense noise at frequent intervals will
significantly impede normal conversation of refuge visitors.
Our long-standing and traditional outdoor activities, including
conservation education, birding activities, youth waterfowl
hunting, and our visiting public's ability to view wildlife in
its natural setting without significant intrusions will be
compromised.
In view of these noise impacts, FAA correctly determined
that construction and operation of the runway will result in a
constructive use of refuge lands by the airport and are
therefore subject to section 4(f) of the Transportation Act.
Consequently, cooperative discussions among the parties led us
to the agreement that is reflected in the MOU involving the
Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Service, and the FAA.
The MOU provides for mitigation that will replace
approximately 4,000 acres of refuge lands, construct a new
visitor facility away from the aircraft noise, replace
education and interpretive facilities, provide additional
operations funds to support the cost of running two facilities
rather than one, and offset the Service's planning and
administrative costs in support of this project.
Our estimate of this total mitigation project was $26.9
million. Nearly 60 percent of the mitigation will be directed
to land acquisition. To the degree possible, all of these
mitigation projects will be determined through the refuge
comprehensive planning process, which will allow for thorough
public involvement.
Mr. Chairman, the impact of this proposed project on the
refuge are regrettable, but unavoidable. They were outside of
our direct jurisdiction and control. But I must note in
concluding that we are pleased with the agreement reached, and
I believe that both the American people and the citizens of the
Twin Cities region are well-served and that Congress should be
proud of the spirit of cooperation exhibited by these three
agencies and by private citizens as represented by groups like
the Friends of Minnesota Valley.
I hope people like Lynne Pickard and Nigel Finney are proud
of their work, and when our testimony is over I'll provide them
both with the National Wildlife Refuge System blue goose pin as
a very small recognition of their good work in behalf of the
Minnesota Valley Refuge and America's National Wildlife Refuge
System.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking forward, I
think, to the opportunity to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Ashe.
Ms. Pickard.
STATEMENT OF LYNNE PICKARD, MANAGER OF COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS DIVISION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Pickard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Lynne Pickard,
Manager of the Community and Environmental Needs Division at
FAA. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you on behalf
of Susan Kurland, Associate Administrator for Airports, who is
at our Southwest Region Partnership Conference in Texas today.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission's plans for expansion
of the Minneapolis Airport include a new 8,000-foot air carrier
runway and associated development to improve airport capacity,
operations, safety, and reduce airline delays.
In making our decision on whether to approve the project,
FAA evaluated the anticipated impacts on the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge in an environmental impact statement
and in accordance with section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. Section 4(f) is an important
environmental statute, as Mr. Ashe explained. It provides
special protection to publicly-owned parks, recreation areas,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites of national,
State, or local significance.
Section 4(f) applies exclusively to decisions by the
Department of Transportation, including FAA decisions on
airport development. It permits FAA to approve the use of
protected section 4(f) resources for an airport project, only
when two standards are met: (1) there is no feasible and
prudent alternative to the use of section 4(f) resources, and,
(2) the transportation project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
These standards apply whether the use of section 4(f) land
is physical, as in constructing on the land, or constructive.
Constructive use occurs when a transportation project located
near but not in the section 4(f) resource impacts it in a way
that substantially impairs its activities, features, or
attributes. FAA made a constructive use determination with
respect to the Minneapolis Airport project on the publicly-
owned portion of the Refuge closest to the airport.
Specifically, FAA determined that noise increases from
aircraft operating on the new runway would substantially impair
human outdoor educational and environmental interpretive
activities, such as school field trips and scouting visits, as
well as recreational activities such as nature walks, bird
watching, and fishing.
There is no physical use of the Refuge for the airport
project, nor does FAA anticipate adverse impacts on the
ecological integrity of the Refuge. The Department of the
Interior was consulted on potential jeopardy to endangered
species and critical habitat and determined no adverse effect
in this regard.
In accordance with section 4(f), FAA determined there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the constructive use of the
Refuge. There was a very sweeping analysis of alternatives.
Alternatives that were examined and rejected include possible
new sites for an airport, alternative expansion concepts for
the Minneapolis airport, high-speed, inner-city rail, a remote
runway concept linked to the Minneapolis airport by high-speed
transit, the shifting of some aviation users to supplemental
airports in the region, alternative flight procedures that
might avoid the Refuge, and the alternative of taking no action
at all.
Having found no feasible and prudent alternative, FAA
participated in a mitigation plan reflected in the Memorandum
of Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
MAC, with FAA as a concurring party. This was developed during
consultations over a period of two years and provides a
specific program to minimize harm to the refuge.
Mr. Ashe outlined the details of the mitigation. I won't
repeat those, except to say that the Memorandum of Agreement
also recognizes that the Refuge lands that are subject to
constructive use because of aircraft noise will still continue
to function as a diminished value wildlife refuge area under
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management.
The payment of funds by an airport proprietor needing to
use a section 4(f) resource to the agency owning the resource
so that a comparable replacement can be provided is one of
several accepted methods of minimizing harm under section 4(f).
The replacement of section 4(f) lands and facilities, as well
as design measures to minimize harm, are recognized in
published FAA environmental guidance.
FAA has also long recognized that environmental mitigation
associated with an airport capital development project
qualifies as a capital cost of the airport. There are
precedents in FAA experience for the type of mitigation agreed
to for the Minneapolis airport project.
I should also note here that the Metropolitan Airport
Commission is paying the compensation. There will be no FAA
airport improvement program funds used in that compensation. No
Federal funds will be used.
I should point out that section 4(f) mitigation for airport
development is not a frequent occurrence. This is consistent
with the purpose of the statute, which is intended to protect
section 4(f) resources, and to set a high standard for their
use. Simply put, FAA does not issue a sizable number of section
4(f) determinations because we try not to use section 4(f)
resources. Most of our determinations are for uses of urban
parks, such as local parks, ball fields, and publicly-used
school playgrounds because these tend to be the types of
section 4(f) resources in close proximity to airports.
In summary, in formulating the section 4(f) mitigation plan
for the Minneapolis airport project, the relevant agencies
considered the air transportation needs of the region, the
impacts on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the
availability of any feasible and prudent alternatives, and all
possible planning to minimize harm.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, Mr.
Chairman. On behalf of Administrator Jane Garvey and Associate
Administrator Susan Kurland, I would like to say we appreciate
your interest in FAA's perspective on this project, and I would
be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pickard may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Ms. Pickard.
Nancie, you're up next.
STATEMENT OF NANCIE MARZULLA, DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Marzulla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. We are enormously pleased to have the opportunity to
testify before you here today on behalf of Defenders of
Property Rights.
I'm here today to testify or to comment, not on the merits
of the proposal which we do not take a position on, but rather
to comment on the irony of the situation in which the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is here before you asking for over $20
million in payment for the damage to or injury to its property
rights.
And I say irony, because at Defenders of Property Rights we
litigate cases and represent property owners whose
constitutionally-protected property rights have been injured or
damaged as a result of actions taken by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, pursuant to its regulatory authority under
the Endangered Species Act, and in those cases--many, many of
those cases--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is actively
opposing the compensation to pay for the damage to the property
rights of the private land owners, and so we find it ironic for
the Fish and Wildlife Service to be in this posture they are in
today.
With respect to the cases that I refer to and are set forth
in more detail in my written testimony that I've submitted to
you, let me highlight just one example for you today. We
represent John Taylor, an elderly man in his eighties, who
sought permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over
two years--now going on three years--ago to build a one-story
modular home on his small residential lot in Fairfax County,
Virginia. He wants to build the home to accommodate his elderly
wife, who has been ill and is now confined to a wheelchair.
Because Mr. Taylor's land is next to public land on which
there is a bald eagle's nest, the Fish and Wildlife Service
refuses to grant him permission to build the wheelchair-
accessible home unless he agrees to the following conditions.
They include constructing a platform for bald eagles to nest in
the national forest; contribute money--his money--to fund a
salmon restoration plan because eagles like to eat salmon; to
agree to accept full responsibility for any possible harm done
to the eagles if they abandon the nest, even if they leave for
reasons beyond Mr. Taylor's control; and agree to a permanent
deed restriction that forever bars outdoor use of the yard
during the months the eagles like to nest. This would be from
July to November, thus making it unlawful to barbecue, mow the
lawn, or have children playing outside during that time period.
As I said, we represent Mr. Taylor in his attempts to
either obtain permission from the Fish and Wildlife Service to
use his land or to obtain just compensation for the taking of
his property rights. Unless Mr. Taylor agrees to these
preposterous conditions, Fish and Wildlife Service has told me
orally that it will continue to block his building a home on
his land as it has done for this three-year time period. We are
now, in fact, being forced to file a lawsuit on behalf of Mr.
Taylor in Federal court seeking compensation for the taking of
Mr. Taylor's property rights.
But, unfortunately, as I alluded to, Mr. Taylor's case is
not an isolated example. Indeed, his case is typical in that
often the property owner loses the ability to use his land and
is forced to seek compensation in court where the Fish and
Wildlife Service fights him tooth-and-nail opposing the payment
of just compensation. Thus, it is indeed ironic that Fish and
Wildlife Service is here today asking for the payment of the
damage to its property, in the face of its defiant position
toward the constitutionally-protected property rights of
private land owners.
We at Defenders have been before Congress many times
testifying about the need for legislative reform to ensure that
private property owners are paid just compensation for the
taking of their property.
We have also testified on more than one occasion about the
need for reform of the Endangered Species Act, one of the most
Draconian laws on the books in terms of its impact on private
property rights. The problems with the Act are exacerbated by
the expansive application given the Act by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
consistently opposed every attempt to reform the laws to grant
a measure of protection of the rights of private property
owners, which are routinely damaged or destroyed by the Service
acting under laws such as the ESA.
We are pleased to see that the Fish and Wildlife Service
has suddenly discovered the importance of private property
rights--at least its own property rights. Now that the Service
has experienced first hand the destruction of its property
rights by governmental action, we would expect its support for
property rights legislation in the 106th Congress.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marzulla may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Ms. Marzulla.
Mr. French.
STATEMENT OF NELSON FRENCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE
MINNESOTA VALLEY, BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
Mr. French. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I'm
Nelson French, executive director of the Friends of the
Minnesota Valley.
It is indeed an honor to be invited to appear before you
today to speak with you about the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge and the recently-concluded discussions between
the Fish and Wildlife Service, FAA, and MAC regarding the
mitigation of impacts associated with the expansion of the
airport in the Twin Cities.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley was incorporated in
June of 1982 as a non-profit organization and is one of many
similar organizations cooperating with the Fish and Wildlife
Service in local communities across the country. Many of the
members here--many of you who have refuges in your districts--
may be well-familiar with your Friends organizations.
Before we get to the question and topic I was asked to
comment on today, I would like to share with you a bit about
our history and the way in which we have chosen to work within
our community, as I believe it is relevant to the issue being
discussed today.
The dream of having a national wildlife refuge in the
Minnesota Valley was developed in the early 1970's by a group
of citizens called the Burnsville Environmental Council.
Frustrated with their failure to stop the expansion of landfill
operations in the Burnsville portion of the Minnesota River
flood plain, they decided that a more comprehensive approach
was necessary to protect the river bottoms in their community.
As a result, in 1974 the Burnsville group produced a 24-
page booklet that proposed a Minnesota River national wildlife
refuge and recreation area. The Council sent the booklet to
everyone, from local city councils to the President of the
United States. Fortunately, then-Congressman Bill Frenzel
responded by asking the Department of Interior to investigate
the feasibility of establishing a national wildlife refuge in
the valley.
The result was the development in 1975 of a proposal for
such a refuge. The Burnsville Council reached out across the
river and then asked the Bloomington Resources Commission for
help. Together they formed a local group known as the Lower
Minnesota River Valley Citizens Committee. Now that group is
known as the Friends of the Minnesota Valley. This citizens'
committee kept up the contacts between volunteers and invited
people to share in the vision of the refuge proposal along a
34-mile stretch of the Minnesota River.
Countless presentations were made to communities and
community groups up and down the river for the purpose of
educating people about the project, seeking endorsements, and
working out consensus on issues of concern within the
community.
After this engaging process, the citizens' committee was
able to get support and resources from more than 40 private
groups and public groups, including local and national
conservation organizations, chambers of commerce, corporations,
the Jaycees, State agencies, the Minnesota legislature, and
local units of government. Through this process many issues
were worked out between the stakeholders, who had differing
views of the refuge proposal, and consensus was reached.
In July of 1975, then-Senator Walter Mondale and Hubert
Humphrey introduced a bill to establish the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. Then Congressman Oberstar, along with
former Congressmen Frenzel and Hagedorn, introduced a similar
bill in the House of Representatives. By late September, 1976,
both Houses of Congress had passed the authorizing legislation
which we've heard discussed today, and President Ford signed
the bill creating the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
on October 9, 1976--a true community-based and bipartisan
effort. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a
magnificent urban refuge that owes its existence to groups like
the Friends of the Minnesota Valley and our precursor citizens
groups.
Our group did not stop with the establishment of the
refuge, however. Our efforts now are focused more broadly on
protecting the lower Minnesota River watershed and its
environs. Since establishment of the refuge, we have
successfully worked with the congressional delegation and the
State legislature to acquire refuge lands and associated State
properties--two State parks at each end of the refuge--to
construct a visitor and education center, which is now a model
for nationwide use, and provide an excellent environmental
education resource for the Twin Cities public-at-large.
While continuing to work on the basic issues of non-profit
organizational existence, like fundraising and membership
development--and we now have over 600 members--the Friends have
helped enlist volunteers. We have enrolled over 10 percent of
the refuge neighbors in our private lands registry program.
These are voluntary private citizens recognizing the value of
their private property adjoining the refuge.
We have coordinated efforts for water quality monitoring
with 13 public schools in the area. We communicate with
residents of the watershed regularly and raise awareness of
this resource within the Twin Cities, and we are increasingly
fostering partnerships to improve the lower Minnesota River
watershed and ecosystem, a program begun Minnesota River basin-
wide by Governor Carlson eight years ago.
The current situation: In February of 1998, the Friends of
the Minnesota Valley, following this style of working in the
community, began to see if we could develop, in association
with the Airports Commission and other local stakeholders, an
agreed upon solution to the potentially contentious issue of
expansion of the airport.
We knew the 1996 decision by the Minnesota legislature to
expand the airport and route air traffic over the refuge had to
be implemented. After extensive review of the situation, our
organization, in concert with 16 local and national
conservation and community groups supported the concept of
mitigating these impacts associated with the expansion of the
airport.
We co-sponsored, in association with these groups and
others, a public open house at which time representatives from
all three Federal agencies--excuse me--the Airports Commission
and the two Federal agencies--appeared for the first time
together in public to respond to the questions that were
revolving around this issue. The outcome of that meeting was
significant progress towards the necessary development of a
community consensus on the mitigation package.
I can't sit here and say that we don't regret the loss to
the public of the resource that's being lost here--the Black
Dog Lake unit and the Meadow Lake units of the refuge. They
will no longer be available for outdoor, educational, classroom
use, birdwatching and other such things.
We, however, recognize that the airport must expand to meet
the needs of the flying public, and we have contended that
expansion of the airport at this location will result in less
overall environmental and natural resource damage in Minnesota
than would construction of a new airport on a 21-square mile
site affecting many private agricultural landowners.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley----
Mr. Young. How much more do you have?
Mr. French. I have about two minutes.
Mr. Young. Take one minute.
Mr. French. One minute. Okay. We applaud the Airport
Commission, the FAA, and the Service for recognizing the
serious nature of these impacts. We look forward to working
with the Service and the community to develop the National
Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act required comprehensive
conservation plan to further the refuge values in this
watershed.
I now want to respond to the question that the Committee
asked me to respond to. In your letter to us you asked this
question: ``The Committee would appreciate your addressing the
issue of how the Fish and Wildlife Service agreement for
compensation will impact the rights of private property owners
to receive compensation for the constructive use of their land
in connection with the protection of wildlife.'' In analyzing
that question--and I'm not sure we're the ones that need to be
asked that--it is our understanding that private wildlife lands
are not eligible for review under the constructive use
provisions of section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of
Transportation Act.
It is also our understanding that the agreement between the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Airports Commission will have
no impact on the rights of private property owners to receive
compensation for their land through a fee title acquisition
transaction in connection with the protection of wildlife.
This concludes my prepared remarks. We really thank you for
the opportunity to be with you today. Mr. Chairman, and
members, I'll be happy to respond to any questions that you
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. French.
Dan, who instigated, or where did the idea for compensation
to the Fish and Wildlife come from? Was that instigated by your
department, or was that instigated by the FAA?
Mr. Ashe. I think during the process of developing the
environmental impact statement on the proposed runway project
and our comments and response to the analysis of alternatives
in the draft environmental impact statement, it was the Fish
and Wildlife Service who raised the possibility that there
would be a constructive use of the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge and that the 4(f) provisions of the
Transportation Act would apply.
Mr. Young. Actually, the instigating of a fee was started
in your department.
Mr. Ashe. I believe the original proposal for a mitigation
package was transmitted from us to the FAA.
Mr. Young. Okay. Ms. Pickard, where is that money coming
from?
Ms. Pickard. As I said, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission is paying the money.
Mr. Young. And they are getting the money from----
Ms. Pickard. There will be no Federal funds. They may use--
--
Mr. Young. And they are getting the money from where?
Ms. Pickard. They may use airport revenue for the
compensation. They may also use some passenger facility charge
money, and they may use other money that is not within any
knowledge of the FAA, unrelated to the airport.
Mr. Young. Have you studied the constitutionality of this?
You're spending money not appropriated by Congress, and you're
actually putting a tax on the passengers to pay the $20-some-
odd million to Fish and Wildlife, are you not?
Ms. Pickard. You're referring to the passenger facility
charge. Passenger facility charge moneys are eligible for
environmental mitigation related to an airport capital
development project, and this is considered within that scope.
It's local money, not Federal money.
Mr. Young. But it's taxpayers' money; it's not local money.
Ms. Pickard. It is a head tax, if you will----
Mr. Young. And I thought only the Congress could pass tax
law when it comes to redistributing money from one agency to
another agency. So what I'm getting to is the Fish and Wildlife
are circumventing this Committee in the appropriation process.
You're taking over $20 million, and you put down this wish
list--and that's why I asked you, Dan, where it came from--and
you're asking for new employees, you're asking for new
facilities, boardwalks, et cetera, et cetera. And I've got to
ask you, what would have happened if the Commission hadn't
agreed to this? The Commission is not losing any money. They
are taxing people to pay for this. Now if they had not agreed
to this amount of money, could you have stopped this project?
Mr. Ashe. We could not have directly stopped the project,
Mr. Chairman. What we could have done was continue to express
our views about the impacts of the project on the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Federal Aviation
Administration has the responsibility to consider our views and
comments in the conduct of making their decision on the airport
to approve the airport construction project.
Mr. Young. Are you telling me the FAA could have gone ahead
and built this without your blessing?
Mr. Ashe. It's their decision to make. They have a
responsibility, as I read the law, Mr. Chairman, to minimize
and mitigate to the extent feasible the impacts on refuge
lands. We believe that they have done that in good faith and
done that in compliance with the law as we recommended they do.
But had we continued to--had they not agreed to this agreement
and we had continued to express our reservation, then, again,
FAA is the decisionmaker in this case. And, Lynne, I don't know
if you have anything else to offer, but they are the
decisionmaker.
Mr. Young. Well, you see what I'm leading up to. To me,
this looks like sort of a form of extortion because you're not
using money to re-establish any wildlife; you're using it to
build a pretty good layout--a visitors' center, a walkway,
observation towers, observation platforms, new personnel. I
mean, it's a great wish list and I can understand the
Commission doing this.
And, by the way, Mr. French, do you get any of this
compensation money? Your agency? Your group?
Mr. French. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. French. At this point in time we are not getting this
money.
Mr. Young. Are you in this mix of this $20 million at all,
in any way?
Mr. French. At this point in time, no.
Mr. Young. What do you mean at this point in time? Are you
going to apply for it?
Mr. French. The community is discussing--no, we're not
going to apply for it. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The funds as I
understand it will be used to mitigate, through land
acquisition and construction of facilities, the impacts
associated with the new runway.
Mr. Young. It goes back to what I said, Dan. You are
mitigating building the brand new facility, is what you're
doing.
Mr. Ashe. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. What I would do,
though, is disagree with your assertion that we are
circumventing this Congress or circumventing this Committee or
the Congress because the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge is an authorized refuge that's been authorized
specifically in legislation by Congress. The legislation
directs us to establish and maintain a visitor center and
visitor facilities.
The Congress, through the appropriations process, sets the
level of FTE's that the Service can have. So, we can gain
dollars to help us achieve an objective. We can't achieve that
objective unless we have authority granted to us by Congress,
and in this case we do have that authority. So I guess I would
disagree with your assertion that we are circumventing
Congress. We are going to replace--it is our intention to
replace the facilities that we believe will be impacted by the
noise created by this runway expansion.
Mr. Young. Well, another thing is, Dan, you know and I know
that moneys being spent should go either through the Treasury
or should go through the appropriation process. And I'm
concerned primarily with the purchase of land, and it goes back
to private property rights again. Now are you--with the
agency--you have in-holdings or adjacent holdings--are you
enforcing the buffer zone concept that those people have to
sell? Or is it willing buyer, willing seller?
Mr. Ashe. We would acquire land, as we do in every
instance, from willing sellers.
Mr. Young. Without putting any restriction on them or
anything else, like they did in California?
Mr. Ashe. Yes. No, sir; without putting any restrictions on
them.
Mr. Young. Okay, you heard what Ms. Pickard--not Ms.
Pickard, Ms. Marzulla--had to say about in Fairfax--was that in
Fairfax?
Ms. Marzulla. Fairfax County, Virginia.
Mr. Young. Have you got that documented?
Ms. Marzulla. Oh, we do, yes.
Mr. Young. Mr. Ashe, are there any salmon in Fairfax
County?
Mr. Ashe. I've never heard of or seen a salmon in Fairfax
County. That's why it sounds rather far-fetched to me, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to--but I am not familiar with the case
at all.
Mr. Young. Well, I want to suggest, as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary, you get real familiar with that case real quick,
because this is the type of thing that gives you really black
eyes. I mean, I could see possibly the concern for the bald
eagle, although they will nest anywhere they want to nest. I
think they've proved that.
Mr. Ashe. If the reference is to salmon in Fairfax County,
I guess I would posit myself that that reference is in error on
somebody's part, and I would gather that it's probably not our
biologist who is claiming that there are salmon in Fairfax
County.
Mr. Young. Okay, I'm going to suggest----
Mr. Ashe. My guess would be that it might be shad or one of
the other anadromous species of fish that eagles feed on.
Mr. Young. And this senior citizen is supposed to re-
establish the shad run? I'm going to suggest that the two of
you sit down and work this out somewhere along the line because
this is the thing I really like to go to ``60 Minutes'' about,
and I have no reservations about going to ``60 Minutes'' about
this if I can get some assistance in doing it. Because this is
an example of what occurs with the lack of sensitivity within
the agency itself.
And you know I'm not picking on you, Dan. The whole agency
is screwed up, if you want to know the truth.
[Laughter.]
I mean, I've watched it just deteriorate in the last six
years to the point where you have no consolation or no
consideration for the people that you're directly interfacing
with, and we see it probably more in Alaska than in any place
in the Union right now, especially the Izembek operation.
I've got a whole series of questions, you know, that just
absolutely do not parallel what you're saying here in your
testimony, and I won't go into them because my time is up.
The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I think that when we get into
these anecdotal stories that are sort of unrelated to the topic
at hand that it's always good to hear both sides of it before
we pass it over to ``60 Minutes'' or to anyone else.
Mr. Young. Well, I'm saying they had better fix it or it
will be on ``60 Minutes.''
Mr. Vento. Let's have a hearing on it and let everyone know
and put it on the table.
Mr. Young. I want ``60 Minutes.''
Mr. Vento. I know. I know what you want.
Mr. Young. I want to be Bill Clinton; that's what I want.
I'm going to spin this; that's what I'm going to do.
Mr. Vento. I know. You want a little word association game
here, you know. I understand. You know, I think it does not
help in terms of using this as a platform to get up and state,
``We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.''
Well, I've done it, but I don't think it particularly helps
here in terms of what's going on.
The issue with the ticket tax--in fact, the revenues here,
Ms. Pickard, are coming from property taxes. They're coming
from bonded debt; they could come from a variety of different
funds that the Metropolitan Airports Commission has. Is that
correct?
Ms. Pickard. The passenger facility charge would be an
authorized fee on passengers using the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Airport.
Mr. Vento. Oh, I know what it is. I'm just saying that the
money that they are using here may come from a variety of
different sources. They are spending $5 billion to do this
project.
Ms. Pickard. The Metropolitan Airports Commission would
have to address that. I would assume it probably is. We have
only given them our opinion that they could use airport revenue
or they could use passenger facility charges.
Mr. Vento. Well, they are using that money. We don't
approve the money when they spend $100 million to insulate
4,300 homes. The FAA didn't necessarily have to pass judgment
on that. That's their authority to use those dollars. Is that
correct?
Ms. Pickard. Sir, they certainly have authority to use
airport revenue appropriately for environmental mitigation
without FAA approval. We do have to approve the use of
passenger facility charges.
Mr. Vento. Yes. Well, the governance structure--well, they
paid that money out of, I'm sure, part of it out of that, or at
least when it came into existence they planned on paying and
buying--they ended up paying $200 million more for the same
purpose in terms of insulating homes in the area against such
structure. I'm just trying to point out that private property
here is impacted and is compensated where there is a
demonstrated effect or where it has an impact insofar as their
agreement. Now I don't know that it's gone to court to
establish what the property rights issue is.
Mr. Ashe, and Mr. Schultz, who is with you, the Director, I
guess, of this Fish and Wildlife Service area, was there any
suspension of any of the NEPA laws or EIS laws with regards to
this issue?
Mr. Ashe. No. In fact there was complete compliance, and in
fact that is, in my view, one of the major contributing factors
to what led to the positive resolution in this case, was that
we had an agency that took its environmental analysis
responsibilities very seriously, looked at all of the
alternatives, compared the impact of the various alternatives
on the refuge and provided that analysis for both the public
and for the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies to
see. So there was complete compliance as far as I could tell.
Rick?
Mr. Vento. Rick--Mr. Schultz? I guess he's agreeing with
you.
Mr. Schultz. Yes, I feel that. Mr. Chairman, I feel that
FAA and MAC did a very nice job of going through the
environmental compliance documents. They had both the draft
EIS, which was a thorough analysis of the environmental issues
associated with the new runway expansion, plus they had the
final EIS. They also had the 4(f) evaluation which addressed
environmental compliance issues as well.
Mr. Vento. There's a suggestion, of course, that the
information or documentation with regards to the impact on the
fish and wildlife in the area--the fauna and flora--was not as
well-documented, that it was not, in this instance, possible to
document what the impact is. But the 4,000 acres of land that
are going to be purchased here to augment and mitigate this,
will in fact have a positive impact on the fauna and flora in
the area and the purpose and mission of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Is that correct, Mr. Ashe?
Mr. Ashe. I believe it's correct. Rick could probably
provide you with a more specific answer. I'd like him to
address that.
Mr. Vento. Yes.
Mr. Schultz. When we went into negotiations with FAA and
MAC on this issue, we had two basic principles here. One was to
assure that there was a no-net loss of wildlife habitat
associated with the project, and number two, we wanted to
assure that there would be a no-net loss of the opportunity for
the public to view wildlife in its natural setting. And the
compensation that we have agreed to will allow us to fulfill
those principles.
Mr. Vento. I just would, again, want to point out there is
no road going through here. This isn't a wilderness area. And
with response to my colleague from Nevada, I did review just
briefly the Ivanpah Airport issue, and I find that in the
legislation there is a suggestion.
The proposal was to suspend NEPA and to suspend FLPMA and
to override the BLM local policy with regard to--just as
starters. So, it may be that one of my concerns, as the
gentleman stated, was clearly the fish and wildlife or the
impact on the Mojave and other things, but I'd be happy, you
know, to work with him on that particular issue.
And the major point here is, of course, to compensate where
there is an impact on public land and certainly where there is
a legally documented legal impact on private property, as we're
doing, obviously, with these flight paths. And I know this is a
big issue in the West, and I think, obviously, confusing it
with roads through a wilderness wildlife refuge is so----
Mr. Young. The gentleman's time is up. I just want to make
one suggestion. According to this one requirement by the Fish
and Wildlife, they want so many roads and trails built, so many
observation areas built. This is all in the refuge--and parking
lots. I mean, this is going to be built. Is that correct, Mr.
Schultz?
Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The mission of
the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge has two
components to it. One is to restore and protect habitats for
fish and wildlife; the other is to provide wildlife-dependent
recreation and environmental education activities.
Mr. Young. Okay. Why I'm bringing this up is he keeps
talking about a road through a wilderness which was created by
this Congress that already had 40-some odd miles through
Izembek.
Mr. Vento. Well, they are replacing the----
Mr. Young. No; I'm just saying, they are replacing it, but
they are putting it in the refuge, and all we wanted is a
little, old, silly gravel road, just so I can save my people.
May I make a suggestion to the members here? He keeps
referring to the purchase of 4,000 acres. Now, have you
identified those 4,000 acres? Have you talked to those
landowners, and what are their feelings about being purchased?
Mr. Ashe. I think our normal procedure with regard to
refuge acquisition would be to establish a refuge boundary. We
do an environmental analysis. In this case, maybe some parcels
are already within the existing refuge boundary, in which case
we've already done that type of analysis and public input. As I
indicated, our desire in this case is to implement the
mitigation agreement through the development of our
comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge, which will
involve, again, public notification.
Mr. Young. I know my time is up, but I want to get it
straight. If I find one member that is being brow-beaten into
selling his land because you've put a border around him, you're
going to be back before this Committee again.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Young. This is what I'm trying to say: You say you're
going to buy 4,000 acres, and, you know, when you purchase
4,000 acres, $20 million is being raised by users' fees on
people who fly through the Minneapolis Airport. I'm just--I
want to make sure that you're not really using the big, heavy
hammer.
I'm out of time. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that
there is also an active program by the State, the RIM program
and the conservation reserve program--that they have actually
had a series of agreements up and down the Minnesota River
Valley which are quite substantial, and it might be well for
Mr. Schultz to address that since you're concerned. So there
have already been initiatives on those areas.
Mr. Young. Well, I'm not concerned about the State; I'm
concerned about the role of the Fish and Wildlife. That's my
jurisdiction. Now the State can do anything they want to do.
But I'm just saying--I'm very conscious. I've seen this happen
to--Mr. Pombo may ask a question about it later on--but I've
seen it happen in other areas of the United States.
Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ashe, in your prepared statement, you state that in the
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that Fish and
Wildlife Service has no authority to regulate air space above a
refuge. You further state that, ``I want to emphasize again
that no part of this runway will be constructed on either
existing or future refuge lands.''
You also state in your printed testimony that publicly-
owned land under the Transportation Act--``publicly-owned land
from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge of national, State, or local significance.'' If you have
no authority to regulate air space and if none of the refuge
land is going to be used for this runway, how do you tie in
section 4(f) in order to obtain the mitigation money?
Mr. Ashe. I guess I would say, going back to Ms. Pickard
and the testimony of FAA, that section 4(f) contemplates two
types of use of public lands, both physical use--occupying the
property--so if they did our land for a runway or a road, that
would be physical use.
Mr. Pombo. Which you state is not the case.
Mr. Ashe. Is not the case in this instance--or constructive
use, which means the presence of noise generated by aircraft
overflights is essentially rendering our refuge useless, from
the standpoint of achieving the purposes which Congress has
legislated us to accomplish at that refuge. But we have a
public education mission at Minnesota Valley Refuge, where the
public has made substantial investment.
Mr. Pombo. So it's your guess--guess--that 4,000 acres of
the refuge will be rendered useless because of this runway, and
you're going to take the money and buy 4,000 acres somewhere
else in order to mitigate, to make up for the impact.
Mr. Ashe. What we have said is that the noise generated
from the aircraft will make it difficult for us to accomplish
our conservation education and wildlife interpretation mission
on those portions of the refuge, and we have asked----
Mr. Pombo. So it's not a full taking; it's a partial taking
of the use of that part of the refuge.
Mr. Ashe. Well, it's not a taking at all. We are relying on
the constructive use provisions in section 4(f) of the
Transportation Act, which provides for mitigation in this case.
Mr. Pombo. And the constructive use is the partial taking
of that property. The language that you are using is the same
language that refers to private property in that it is a
partial taking use. It is a constructive use of your property,
just as if some other activity limited the use of your
property, it would be a partial taking, a partial taking of
that property, a partial use of that property.
I am somewhat confused as to--with all of the laws that are
out there right now--how you can still have a mitigation and
still require the payment of $20 million on that, because even
in reading your statement, I don't see how you start here and
end up with requiring that $20 million payment.
But I do need to ask you, was a section 7 consultation done
under Endangered Species with FAA on this?
Mr. Ashe. Well, the FAA considered the impacts of the
proposed runway on the federally-listed species that are
present in the Minnesota Valley refuge area in the conduct of
doing their EIS, and the Service reviewed their analysis and
made the determination under the Endangered Species Act that it
was not likely to affect the bald eagle, which is the resident
species there.
Mr. Pombo. Weren't there other endangered species that were
looked at on this as well, or was the bald eagle the only one?
Mr. Ashe. Rick is in a better position. The bald eagle is
the principal species.
Mr. Schultz. Yes, both the bald eagle and the peregrine
falcon are in the area. The peregrine falcon nests on a hacking
box on a NSP power plant tower about two miles away from the
end of the runway.
Mr. Pombo. Excuse me--on a power plant tower?
Mr. Schultz. That's correct.
Mr. Pombo. Okay.
Mr. Young. If the gentleman from California would do me a
favor, I'd like to have you take the gavel. Would you take the
gavel, the gentleman from California?
Mr. Pombo. Yes, I'll take the gavel, but I don't want you
to take me time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. You can do anything you want when you've got the
gavel, buddy.
Mr. Pombo. If I've got the gavel, then I guess I get to
keep asking questions.
Mr. Young. You can ask questions as long as you want, as
long as you've got the gavel.
I just want to ask, when did this project start?
Ms. Pickard. The FAA began our review in the early 1990's,
with the Federal EIS starting in 1994 or 1995. The State
legislature had been dealing with about seven years' worth of
planning studies before that point.
Mr. Young. All right. Before I relinquish this, Richard,
just one thing. I'm still confused about--my interpretation of
the Constitution is the protection of the private property
right holder, and you're not private property. Fish and
Wildlife is public property, and I don't see where you have the
authorization to be compensated by another Federal agency or by
the airport.
You know, if I was really nasty, I'd likely take to filing
a lawsuit to stop this project, because I don't think you have
the authority to do what's been done--either one of you. And if
you read the Constitution very carefully, it says ``use'' and
it refers to the private citizen, not another Federal agency. I
mean it's something I want you to think about for a while. I
know you struck a deal; I understand that. But you're messing
with the constitutional law here and it really concerns me a
little bit.
Mr. Pombo, you're up.
Mr. Pombo. [presiding] I just wanted to get back to the
issue of section 7 consultation. You identified at least two
endangered species that were looked at as part of this. Under
section 7, under the Endangered Species Act, could you have not
stopped the construction of this runway if there was not
sufficient mitigation to mitigate any impact against those
endangered species?
Mr. Ashe. If there were an effect on the endangered species
then we could have, but what we would do under the section 7
process is notify the action agency, in this case FAA, that
there are endangered species present and there is or is not the
likelihood of take in association with the project.
Again, it's the action agency that has the responsibility
to avoid take. The law prohibits take. And it's our
responsibility at the Fish and Wildlife Service to advise
Federal agencies of the potential effects of a project and
whether a project is likely to affect endangered species and
whether a jeopardy situation may arise in the conduct of an
agency conducting their activities. So, it would be our
responsibility to advise them.
In this case we did look at the available information and
made a determination that the activity was not likely to affect
the endangered species.
Mr. Pombo. Under the current interpretation of the
Endangered Species Act, take includes harassment, and it's your
testimony that the 7,000 flights a month present no harassment
or take of the endangered species.
Mr. Ashe. That was our assessment in looking at the
project. I guess I would point out to the Committee--and I
heard a number of members raising issues surrounding the
potential impacts of overflights on species--and I guess I
would just point out that the impacts of overflights on species
are case-dependent. It depends on the species; it depends on
the airport; it depends on the types of aircraft that are
flying; it depends on the time of year that they're flying. And
so, looking at any one instance and the specific facts around
that instance may lead to a different conclusion.
We have a very active, very vibrant bald eagle population
about three miles south of here at Mason Neck National Wildlife
Refuge, itself right in the flight path of National Airport,
and so there are many instances in which wildlife can adapt to
aircraft overflight and do adapt well to aircraft overflight.
There are other situations where they do not adapt well to
aircraft overflight, and it is dependent upon the species and
upon the facts of the specific case.
Mr. Pombo. My time has expired, but I think what you're
hitting on is exactly the problem that a number of members have
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's that at certain times,
depending on whatever conclusion you come to, sometimes these
are okay, and other times they are not okay. And it appears to
a lot of us that there is a regional decision that is made as
to when it's okay and when it's not okay, depending upon what
part of the country it is or whose ox is being gored by it. And
at other times it appears that if there is a sufficient payment
made to Fish and Wildlife Service, a lot of times the problems
aren't as severe as they would be otherwise.
It makes me wonder if my county had raised $20 million in
some kind of a tax and paid Fish and Wildlife off, if we would
have been able to maintain our levees, because we were told no
and we didn't have endangered species. It was potential
habitat. They couldn't find an elderberry beetle for miles
anywhere near the levees that we were trying to maintain, but
there were elderberry bushes there, so it was potential
habitat, so we were told we couldn't do maintenance on our
levee system. I wonder if we would have put $20 million into
some kitty if we could have done it, and that's the question
that a lot of us have.
Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in response to my
colleague from Minnesota, I want to ensure him and his staff
that we are willing to work with you on this Ivanpah bill;
however, it does not, and the language in the bill is
absolutely, specifically clear, that it does not waive any
environmental impact law. It does not waive FLPMA. It's all
stated within the bill that those were to be complied with, and
fully. So, I appreciate your comments, and I look forward to
having my staff work with you on the issue.
Following on with what my colleague from California was
talking about on the endangered species and that, Mr. Ashe, I
know that in the environmental impact statement that was
prepared, there's a quote in there that in essence says that
wildlife or waterfowl appear to readily habituate to frequent
aircraft overflights: ``It is concluded that aircraft noise
within the affected environment would not significantly
diminish the wildlife habitat in the refuge.'' Is that true?
Mr. Ashe. That's true. Well, I would say----
Mr. Gibbons. Now explain to me how aircraft noise, whether
it's in Nevada, Minnesota, California, or Timbucktu, does not
impact wildlife habitat.
Mr. Ashe. I guess what I would say is I think you correctly
quoted our citation in the environmental impact statement. I
think that what we have said is the impacts on wildlife from
the overflight, in our view, were uncertain. We did not feel
that what we knew about the impacts of overflights----
Mr. Gibbons. Well, the uncertainty is not in your language.
It says, ``It is concluded''----
Mr. Ashe. Right.
Mr. Gibbons. [continuing] ``that aircraft noise within the
affected environment would not significantly diminish the
wildlife habitat in the refuge.''
Mr. Ashe. And, again, that's our conclusion, because we did
a literature search, we looked at the available scientific
information on the impacts of similar types of overflights, and
we did not feel that there was a way that we could conclusively
determine that there would be an impact.
Mr. Gibbons. So, I can go back and I can use the same
argument on any other project which has an overflight and say
that you don't have literature or statements available to say
it would impact wildlife habitat.
Mr. Ashe. No, sir. No, sir. I believe what I tried to
explain to the Committee just a few moments ago, and perhaps
did an insufficient job, was that it depends on the type of the
species and the time of the year and the type of aircraft.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, you can't tell me--and I'm an airline
pilot--that an airplane makes a different noise in California
than it does in Minnesota when it's landing or taking off. You
can't tell me that an aircraft makes a different kind of noise
in Nevada than it does in Minnesota.
Mr. Ashe. No, sir; I can't do that, but I can tell you----
Mr. Gibbons. Well, that's what you're trying to tell us.
Mr. Ashe. No, sir. What I'm trying to tell you is that a
lesser snow goose is different from a black brandt, which is
different from a bald eagle, which is different from a white
ibis.
Mr. Gibbons. Absolutely. Now where in the literature is
there that shows that those individual species are impacted by
noise differently than the ones in this refuge?
Mr. Ashe. I think that we do have that information. I would
like Rick Schultz to be able to present that to the Committee.
Mr. Schultz. I have with me today several literature
reviews that talk about the way aircraft impact different
species of wildlife. I can get that out of my briefcase, if you
would like. There has been an awful lot of work done on noise
and aircraft overflights.
Mr. Gibbons. I would like a copy of that, if you would
provide it to my office. I don't know if the Committee needs
it, but I would sure like a copy of it for my office.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection, it will be included as part
of the record if you could provide that.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Gibbons. One final question, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
The use of the term ``urban refuge'' indicates that growth--
urban growth--is a reality that has to be dealt with, and I
think that's pretty much your statement, isn't it? The reality
of urban growth, Mr. Ashe?
Mr. Ashe. I think that we have a refuge that was
established in that context, and Congress gave us specific
direction with regard to our management and stewardship of that
refuge.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, your statement is an urban refuge, where
urban encroachment is a fact of life; you have to deal with it.
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Mr. Gibbons. In many of these cases that we see here in
this body, they deal with urban settings or community settings
within which there are nearby impacts. Those are facts of life,
and whether it's in Nevada or California, not only do we deal
with them, but you have to deal with them as well, and it
distresses me to find that this is a pick and choose sort of an
organization, depending upon whose ox is being gored about how
you deal with the fact of life about urban growth.
In my community we talk about this Ivanpah Airport, and
there is tremendous objection by your organization to a 5,000-
foot overflight that has probably--and I'm going to look very
closely to the species in this book or this publication that's
being presented--may not even be or exist in the proximity of
the area of the Mojave Reserve. And I want to find that out for
certain.
But I think that what you've presented here today says to
me very clearly that it depends upon whose ox is being gored
that you're willing to mitigate or willing to find a way to
allow for urban growth to become a reality and deal with it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Mr. Sherwood. This has been a little interesting to me, and
I'm curious--and it's rhetorical if the Fish and Wildlife
Service is a little bit mystified at the fervor for which some
of these questions come, and I'd like to comment on that a
little bit.
No one in the world should be more interested in the
success of the Fish and Wildlife Service than I. I'm an avid
outdoorsman and a hunter and a fisherman, but I think what
you're feeling today is quite a little animosity of the Members
of Congress toward the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is very
unfortunate. And I think we all need to think about where that
comes from, and it's my opinion where that comes from is we all
have some specific area in which we think the Fish and Wildlife
Service has unnecessarily trampled on the rights of individuals
in our home district.
The second issue that I think that is holding this, that is
keeping this thing going today, is what we feel is an
unconstitutional taxing of U.S. citizens to fill the coffers of
the Fish and Wildlife Service. And I think if your Service is
going to continue to do the work which you obviously want to do
and are trained to do and we agree you should do, that you need
to address those issues. And you don't necessarily have to
address them to me, but I think those are what's on the mind of
the Members of Congress. And I think that if you don't address
them in the long run, it will impact your long-term funding.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Vento, did you have anything more?
Mr. Vento. Well, yes. I know we want to get going, and I
don't want keep members. I appreciate the testimony of the
witnesses, and I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that--maybe I've
got to give my colleagues a copy of the book, ``How to Talk
Minnesotan'' in terms of trying to be understood.
But I think, it seems to me that, first of all, when this
Fish and Wildlife Service area was designated in 1976, it was
limited in terms of it was urban, it was recognized and used
for education and outdoor interpretive purposes, and that's the
reason for the addition of the land. It's to provide areas that
are away from this flight pattern, which, I don't know if you
were here earlier, Mr. Sherwood, when I said I used to teach
under this flight pattern, trying to talk to junior high school
kids. And I guess that's why I developed this small voice I
have.
In any case, the issue is then we come back in 1997 and we
further limit the Fish and Wildlife Service not to be able to
do this. Now we've got 4(f), and they've got under the law, if
you read it, it specifically points out that public land--now
this is one process. Now if you like 4(f) and you think that's
the process that you would like to put other property owners
under, well, let's look at it and do it. But this is also a
restriction on the Fish and Wildlife Service. They've been
restricted many different ways.
And so this is one process. I suspect that most private
property owners wouldn't accept that type of limitation. It
isn't exclusively used. Actually, we provided for soundproofing
of homes in the area, and it's going to be something like
13,000 to 14,000 homes that will be soundproofed in the end by
using this particular fund, so I think the fund is legally
established. They are using other revenues here to pay for
this.
But, you know, to strip away all the powers in the Fish and
Wildlife Service--it seems like some of my colleagues are mad
as hell at you because you were successful in doing what you've
done. Well, I'm not; I favor this. And when this came up I
obviously voiced and sent some letters along to this group to
encourage them to work together, as I think did other members
of the delegation.
Now if there are other ways we can do it--I think what you
all have to face up to is you have tied them down in certain
ways, but I think that we need to get land managers outside of
their boundaries. They need to work on trans-boundary issues.
They have to have a voice in our local communities. I want them
to do that in my State and in my area, and I want them to do
it, frankly, in all the other areas in which we have a national
interest.
Others are trying to quiet them, and if you think this is
going to stop me from pursuing the ANWR designation or
intimidate other members, I think you've got another guess
coming. We are going to continue. This is a process and a
partnership that has worked. You ought to be adopting it rather
than challenging it and trying to intimidate those that are
pursuing it. I think it follows the law, it's good policy, it
works out in terms of partnership. I think we'll get a lot more
done working cooperatively than trying to fight even these
sorts of logical explanations.
Mr. Ashe.
Mr. Ashe. If I could, just for a moment, because I hear
you, Mr. Sherwood, and you certainly make a valid point. And I
guess I would use Minnesota Valley as an example, and I know
that Members of Congress take issue with decisions that are
made by the Fish and Wildlife Service every day, but we have a
refuge at Minnesota Valley and we duplicate that all over the
country and are taking it seriously. And when you see people
here, like Nelson French; Rick Schultz has gone out of his way
in Minneapolis, as did his predecessors, to reach out to the
community and involve the community.
And when Mr. Young expressed his concern earlier about our
planned acquisition program there, I would not only not expect
to see opposition to that, I would expect to see support for
that in Minneapolis because of the good relationship that Rick
and Nelson and his organization have built in the community
there. And the support that you see for this agreement in
Minneapolis is reflective of that good work, which is not to
say that we don't have a lot more to do in terms of building
those types of relationships more and more across the country
and get out of our refuge boundaries and work more with
communities, both on refuge management, endangered species,
conservation, and other things. I think we certainly can do a
much better job of that and are doing, I think the record
shows, a better and better job.
What I would do again is caution--I've heard a couple of
members implying that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
inconsistent in its application, and I would disagree with
that, and I would argue that the Committee does not want us to
take a one-size-fits-all approach to aircraft noise or species
impacts because that reduces our flexibility and our ability to
work with people on the ground to do these kinds of things. And
so I think that we try to do that judiciously. I realize,
again, that, you know, legitimate and reasonable people will
disagree on things like this, about whether we have been.
Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I
was going to point out that they've also--I wanted to try to
emphasize that through the Conservation Reserve Program and
other Federal programs, they have been instrumental in
convincing farm groups on a voluntary basis to set aside land
in this corridor, as well as the State program. In fact, we had
a big signing out there with Secretary Glickman and our
Republican Governor Carlson and many Members. So this has been
a bipartisan effort to keep this going.
Obviously, I understand your interest in using it as a
platform to take a shot at me on some of the issues in Alaska,
but I think that this is something that's working. If you can
get this type of agreement, I would commend you to try and do
it. I know you've got a lot of problems there, and I think they
are much more than what we have.
Mr. Pombo. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and
in terms of whether or not this is going to stop you, nobody
expects it to. And quite frankly, you get it both ways. You get
to take shots at us, and you get your airport approved, so you
get it both ways, so why would you stop?
The problem is, if they treated you the same way that they
treat us, your airport would not have been approved and you
would have gone through years of hassling in order to make it
work and then maybe you'd see that there's another side to
this. I don't think there's anything wrong with this airport. I
think it's fine. I think it's great that we are able to work
out a way that they can build this airport and extend this
runway and do everything else.
The problem is, that's not what we get, and maybe it's
partially because maybe in my area there's not enough money to
make it work for you. Maybe we don't put enough money on the
table to make it work. I don't know, but there is definitely a
different standard. There is definitely a different approach in
dealing with Fish and Wildlife in California than what has
happened with this specific case.
There is no way in the world that you can tell me that it
is the same approach, that it is the same even-handed, ``we'll
work with you, we'll make it work'' approach, because the first
thing they tell us is ``No.'' And maybe we just don't put
enough money in.
The anecdotal story that Ms. Marzulla told about somebody,
an individual property owner, who has a bald eagle's nest near
there is told that putting a house on his property is not in
line with protecting the habitat or not taking that bald eagle
unless he puts enough money on the table or agrees to let you
control his property. Whereas, 7,000 flights a month coming out
of this particular airport is deemed not harassment and not a
significant take of those bald eagles, even the one that's
nesting on the power line--or at the power plant. That one
seems to be doing okay, but if this guy wants to put a modular
home on his property, all of a sudden, hey; he can't do that.
He's harassing this bald eagle.
There's no consistency there. I'd be willing to be you
though that if he put $20 million on the table, you would not
only let him put his modular home in there, you would carry it
in there.
Mr. Ashe. I think, Mr. Pombo, the issue is never money, the
issue----
Mr. Pombo. It is always money.
Mr. Ashe. The issue is always whether or not efforts are
being undertaken to mitigate and minimize the effects of a
particular project.
Mr. Pombo. The bottom line is it is always money. If a
developer is big enough, if the timber company is big enough
that they can put sufficient money on the table or give you
control of enough of their land, their problem goes away. But
if it's a small guy with a few hundred acres, or in this case a
lot, they do not have enough to offer you in order for their
problem to go away.
Mr. Ashe. I disagree with that, Mr. Pombo, and I think we--
--
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Pombo. Well, we can go back and forth on that, but it's
the case. I can cite you case-after-case-after-case where they
were not able to put enough on the table. I can give you cases
in my district where developers who put enough mitigation on
the table were allowed to build and allowed to go, and ones
that did not have the size that they were able to afford to do
it were not allowed to go.
It always comes down to money or control. If they give you
enough of their property, then you will let them go. If they
put enough money on the table, you will let them go. The
species is secondary. It is a method for delivering power and
money to the agency. It is the most effective tool that you
guys have in order to do that.
Mr. Young. [presiding] Mr. Chairman, I deeply admire your
comments. I'm going to let you preside more often.
Just for your information, I've already got an inquiry
about a ``60 Minutes'' show, so you might really want to think
about this. If we can document it, you're going to be on prime
time TV, and we could have lots of fun with it.
So, I want to thank you and thank the witnesses for being
here, and I'm going to suggest again--I heard Mr. Sherwood say
it--there is definitely, as I've said before, Mr. Ashe, your
agency has got a long way to go. I think you've gone too far to
the left. You've lost contact with the people. You talk about
working with people; my people have tried to work. It wasn't
your fault, Dan. Very frankly, I know whose fault it was. The
guy's running for President in the year 2000 and got directly
involved in it, and you have to be a good trooper. But the
injustice of it was totally wrong.
I thank the witnesses. The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:06 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Dan Ashe, Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
I am Dan Ashe, the Assistant Director for Refuges and
Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am joined
today by Mr. Rick Schultz who is the refuge manager of the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee concerning
the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the agreement
reached between the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the
Federal Aviation Administration, and the Service to address the
impacts of the Twin Cities airport expansion project on the
refuge.
The Minnesota Valley NWR was created over 25 years ago as a
result of local residents' strong interest in restoring and
protecting fish and wildlife habitats of the Lower Minnesota
River Valley. These citizens brought together a variety of
interests . . . environmentalists, industry, transportation,
elected officials, the general public, and natural resource
agencies who recognized the value of the natural resources of
the area. Based on their hard work and dedication, Congress
passed Public Law 94-466, the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge Act, on October 8, 1976, which established the
refuge. Unlike most other National Wildlife Refuges, Minnesota
Valley NWR is somewhat unique in that it is primarily located
in an urban setting. In this area, fish and wildlife
populations coexist with over two million Twin Cities
residents.
The mission of Minnesota Valley NWR is two-fold . . . (l)
to restore and protect the important fish, wildlife, and plant
communities of the lower Minnesota river valley and its
surrounding watershed . . . and (2) to provide top quality
wildlife-dependent outdoor recreation and environmental
education to Twin Cities residents. Since establishment, the
refuge has acquired 10,000 of its authorized 14,000 acres, it
has built a state-of-the-art wildlife interpretation and
visitor center, and it has developed top-quality public use
programs and facilities.
In the establishment legislation, Congress acknowledged of
the refuge's urban setting and the need for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to work with industry and transportation.
Section 9 of the Act, entitled ``continued public services''
provides that, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting or preventing the provision of vital public
services, including (1) the continuation of commercial
navigation in the main navigation channel of the Minnesota
River . . .; (2) construction, improvement, and replacement of
highways or bridges, whether or not the highway is a federal-
aid highway; or (3) any other activity which the Secretary
determines to be necessary; if the provision of such services
is otherwise in accordance with law. Any activity referred to
in this section shall be carried out so as to minimize the
disruption of the wildlife and the reduction of recreational
and scenic values of the area, consistent with economic
feasibility.''
Under section 9 of the Act, we interpreted the expansion of
the Twin Cities International Airport to be a ``vital public
service.'' Further, under the Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service has no
authority to regulate airspace above a refuge. However, under
section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. 303), the Secretary of Transportation may not approve a
transportation project which requires the use of any publicly-
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance
unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the
use of such land and unless the project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. This law
applies to projects that make ``constructive use'' of such
lands, including through the type of overflights that would
occur over the refuge in this case.
It was under this provision of law that we worked with the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to ensure that disturbance to wildlife and
wildlife-dependent recreation was minimized. From the onset, it
was the Service's objective to ensure that this project would
not result in a net loss of wildlife habitats and that the
public would not experience a net loss of opportunity to view
wildlife in its natural setting. We believe those objectives
have been achieved.
Let me explain, beginning with some information about the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport expansion project.
At the direction of the Minnesota state legislature in 1989,
the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan
Council began a process to determine the best alternative to
meet the region's commercial aviation needs for the next 30
years. In 1992, FAA and MAC began the public phase of this
planning process by announcing their intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement concerning this project. This
process was known as the dual tract airport planning process
and at that time, several alternatives were considered
including expanding the existing airport and the construction
of a completely new facility in the outlying areas of the Twin
Cities. In December, 1995, FAA and MAC issued a draft EIS.
Comments from the public and affected agencies were then
requested and received.
In March 1996, MAC and the Metropolitan Council submitted
their report to the state legislature which contained
recommendations on the preferred alternative. In response to
this report, the Minnesota state legislature, in April, 1996,
selected the expansion of the existing airport as the preferred
alternative and mandated its implementation.
Among other items, this alternative called for a new 8,000
foot north-south runway to be constructed on the west side of
the existing airport property. I want to emphasize again that
no part of this new runway will be constructed on either
existing or future refuge lands. The south end of this new
runway will be located approximately 1 \1/4\ miles north of the
refuge. Upon completion, however, the new runway will result in
at least 8,000 commercial flights per month either departing or
descending over the refuge at elevations as low as 500 feet.
This translates into at least one flight over the refuge at
relatively low elevations every other minute. Clearly, this
project presented a matter of grave concern for the refuge and
the Service.
As we stated earlier, this particular project will not be
built upon refuge lands, so fish and wildlife habitats will not
be directly used or harmed from the construction activities.
Upon a search of the literature, we were unable to determine
that commercial overflights of wildlife areas would have
significant detrimental impacts upon fish and wildlife
populations common to Minnesota Valley NWR. Some information is
available suggesting disturbance to some species, but the
literature is inconclusive about whether commercial airport
operations have any long term effects upon wildlife species
common to this area.
What is clear, however, is that the overflights will
significantly impact ``noise-sensitive'' public use activities
of the refuge. At Minnesota Valley NWR, the intense aircraft
noise at frequent intervals will, among other things,
significantly impede normal conversation of refuge visitors.
Neither our long-standing and traditional outdoor activities,
such environmental education with inner city youth, nor birding
activities, which require listening to bird songs to verify
visible sightings, will be able to be continued in their
current location due to the aircraft overflights. This includes
our youth waterfowl hunting, where we practice and demonstrate
hunting ethics and proper hunting techniques. Finally, our
visiting public's ability to view wildlife in its natural
setting without significant intrusions will also be
compromised.
In light of these noise impacts, FAA and MAC correctly
determined that the construction and operation of the runway
will result in a ``constructive use'' of refuge lands by the
airport. This constructive use is harmful to refuge programs
and activities and is therefore subject to Section 4(f) of the
1966 Department of Transportation Act.
As mentioned earlier, the Service position was to ensure
that this project would not result in a net loss of wildlife
habitats or a reduction in the public's opportunity to view
wildlife in its natural setting. Towards these ends, we sent a
letter to the FAA during the public comment period on their
draft EIS expressing our concerns that there was not a
sufficient effort to mitigate these effects of the project on
the refuge. Consequently, discussions among the parties led us
to the agreement we now have entered into with the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and concurred in by FAA. We provided MAC
and FAA an assessment of what it believed to be acceptable
compensation for the impacts of the new runway. The five major
components of this mitigation package included (1) the
replacement of approximately 4,000 acres of refuge lands
adversely impacted by noise; (2) the construction of a visitor
contact and environmental education facility located upstream
from existing facilities and away from the aircraft noise, (3)
replacement of other environmental education and interpretive
facilities; (4) an operations trust fund to underwrite the
costs of operating two facilities rather than just one; and (5)
costs associated with the planning and administration of this
project. Based on our best estimates, we valued the total cost
of this mitigation package to be approximately $26.9 million.
Two points should be noted here. First of all, the refuge
will continue to maintain ownership of the lands to be directly
impacted by the overflights--these lands will be managed for
their residual wildlife values. Secondly, the Service agreed to
a cash settlement with the realization that mitigation for this
project was quite complex and could not be easily achieved with
traditional forms of mitigation. We felt that to ensure
quality, mitigation needed to be accomplished over a period of
several years and should be accomplished under the direct
supervision of refuge managers and/or biologists. Through the
Memorandum of Agreement subsequently signed by the Service and
MAC, and concurred with by FAA, the Service received assurance
that the refuge would not experience a net loss of wildlife
habitat and that the public will not experience a net loss of
opportunity to view wildlife in its natural setting.
Nearly 60 percent of the mitigation package will be
directed towards land acquisition. At this time, the Service
has not identified specific lands for acquisition nor scheduled
the construction of replacement facilities. To the degree
possible, all of these mitigation projects will be determined
through the comprehensive conservation plan for Minnesota
Valley NWR. Through this process, which is scheduled for
completion early in the year 2000, the Service will engage the
public and request their assistance in identifying additional
lands and facilities which will offset the impacts of the
airport expansion project upon Minnesota Valley NWR.
We should also mention that the staff at Minnesota Valley
NWR has engaged the public in both the negotiations and
subsequent discussions concerning the airport expansion
project. The original citizens group, the Friends of Minnesota
Valley, has been actively involved and has strongly supported
the service in these efforts. In addition, several private
conservation organizations including the Minnesota River Valley
National Audubon Society chapter, are in support of the
mitigation and associated memorandum of agreement.
In closing, we view the impacts of the airport expansion
project as a regrettable but unavoidable loss to refuge
programs and activities resulting from actions outside our
jurisdiction and control. At the same time, we are very pleased
with the agreement reached between MAC and FAA and we look
forward to working with these two agencies in the future as we
address natural resource issues of Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge.
This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to
respond to any questions you and the members of the Committee
may have.
------
Statement of Lynne S. Pickard, Manager, Community and Environmental
Needs Division, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal
Aviation Administration
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Good morning. I am Lynne Pickard. the Manager of the
Community and Environmental Needs Division in the Office of
Airport Planning and Programming at the Federal Aviation
Administration (``FAA''). I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you this morning to discuss the impact of the
expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(``MSP Airport'') on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge (``Refuge''). I am pleased to appear on behalf of the
FAA Associate Administrator for Airports, Susan Kurland, who is
speaking at our Southwest Region Partnership Conference in Fort
Worth. Texas. today.
I know that this Committee is very interested in exploring
how the MSP Airport project will affect the Refuge, and what
steps the FAA has taken to mitigate any adverse environmental
impacts on the Refuge. My colleagues from the Minneapolis-St.
Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (``MAC'') and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (``USFWS'') will discuss other
perspectives of these impacts, and the work that we have done
jointly to address these issues.
In order to discuss fully the FAA's determination of the
effect of the expansion of the MSP Airport on the Refuge and
the mitigation for the Refuge, I would first like to explain
how the Department of Transportation (``DOT'') and the FAA
interpret and implement Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966.
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 303. This statute applies to
decisions by the DOT to approve transportation projects,
including FAA approval of airport development projects. It
provides special protection to publicly owned parks, recreation
areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state,
or local significance, as well as to land of a historic site
(whether publicly owned or private) of national, state or local
significance. Section 4(f) permits the DOT to approve the use
of these protected resources for a transportation project only
when the Secretary of Transportation (or his or her delegee)
has determined (1) that there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and (2) the transportation
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
resulting from the use. Section 4(f) is an environmental
requirement exclusively applicable to transportation projects
that are subject to approval by the DOT. The FAA is strongly
committed to ensuring that airport development projects that we
approve and fund fully meet environmental protection
requirements.
As the DOT has implemented Section 4(f), our interpretation
of the provision is that it applies not only to the acquisition
of an interest in land but also to situations where serious
impacts result in ``constructive use'' of land.
``Constructive'' use may occur when a transportation project is
constructed near, but not actually on, Section 4(f) lands.
Constructive use of the land occurs where the proximity of the
project may impact the land sufficiently to constitute a
substantial impairment of the activities, features, or
attributes of the resource. The same protection standards apply
whether the use of the land is physical or constructive. When a
transportation project makes constructive use of land, the DOT
and FAA adhere to the requirements of Section 4(f) to find that
there is no feasible and prudent alternative and to include all
possible planning to minimize harm.
With respect to the MSP Airport project, the MAC proposed a
new air carrier runway and associated airport development for
FAA approval. The proposal was mandated by the Minnesota State
Legislature after nearly seven years of planning studies, and
includes a new 8,000-foot air carrier runway on the west side
of the MSP Airport, new taxiways, and associated facilities.
The purpose of these airport improvements is to improve airport
capacity, operations, and safety, and reduce airline delays.
The cost of this project is estimated at $1.8 billion through
the year 2010.
Consistent with its duties under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the FAA prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement (``EIS'') and, in conjunction with the EIS, made a
determination with respect to Section 4(f). The FAA actively
sought public involvement and input throughout the preparation
of the EIS, and coordinated with Federal, state, and local
agencies with environmental jurisdiction and expertise.
Ultimately, the FAA determined that the MSP Airport expansion
would require the physical use of one historic site and the
constructive use of another historic site and of publicly owned
lands of the Refuge.
In making the determination of substantial impairment, the
FAA considered the potential noise impact of the project. The
FAA determined that noise increases would substantially impair
the value of some of the publicly owned portions of the Refuge
near the airport by adversely affecting their use for outdoor
educational and environmental interpretive activities such as
school field trips and scouting visits, as well as wildlife
recreational activities such as nature walks, bird-watching and
fishing. In summary, the noise impact of the new runway was
determined to substantially impair the use of portions of the
Refuge for certain human activities that currently take place
within those areas. According to FAA's analysis, a little over
a thousand acres of Refuge under USFWS ownership would be
adversely affected by an increase in noise levels. In total,
the Refuge comprises over 9,000 acres, interspersed with an
additional 6,900 acres of state and locally owned recreation
areas, in seven discontinuous management units that extend 34
miles and are part of the 80-mile long Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area, and State Trail.
The substantial impairment determination and resulting
constructive use determination were based on the public use
impacts resulting from increased noise levels, and not on
impacts to the Refuge's ecological integrity or wildlife
resources. The Department of the Interior was consulted on the
potential jeopardy to endangered or threatened species and
critical habitat and they determined that there would be no
adverse effects. Based on studies of wildlife compatibility
with aircraft noise, the FAA believes that aircraft noise would
not substantially diminish wildlife habitat or resources in the
Refuge, although the FAA recognizes in its evaluation that it
is difficult to quantify noise impacts to wildlife in absolute
terms. The FAA's determination in this case is reinforced by
the high degree of waterfowl habituation observed at areas
adjacent to existing runways at the MSP Airport. It should also
be noted that the portion of the Refuge in close proximity to
the airport is located near the urban core of the Twin Cities
region and is adjacent to significant rail and road
transportation corridors. These transportation facilities
existed at the time of the establishment of the Refuge and have
always affected the noise environment. Monitored ambient noise
levels in the Refuge in the general vicinity of the airport are
comparable to levels typically encountered in suburban
residential to noisy urban residential areas.
Having made a Section 4(f) constructive use determination,
the FAA determined through its review of the airport
development proposal in the EIS and Section 4(f) documentation
that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of the resource. Alternatives that were examined and rejected
include new sites for an airport, alternative expansion
concepts for the MSP Airport, high-speed intercity rail, a
remote runway concept linked to the MSP Airport by high-speed
transit, the shifting of some aviation users to supplemental
airports in the region, alternative flight procedures to avoid
the Refuge, and the alternative of taking no action at all. As
I have mentioned, none of these alternatives were feasible and
prudent.
The final Section 4(f) requirement is to include all
possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use of
the Section 4(f) resource. As is our practice, the FAA
coordinated with and gave deference to the USFWS, the agency
with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource when
determining appropriate measures to minimize harm. The
resulting mitigation plan reflected in the agreement between
the USFWS and MAC, with FAA as a concurring party, was
developed during detailed consultations among the three parties
over a period of two years.
The agreement, referred to as a Memorandum of Agreement
(``MOA''), provides a specific program to satisfy all possible
planning to minimize harm to the Refuge from the airport
development project. It provides for monetary compensation to
be paid by the MAC to the USFWS to offset the unavoidable
adverse airport project impacts to the Refuge. No FAA Airport
Improvement Program dollars will be used to compensate the
Refuge. The MOA provides that the compensation will be used to
provide the Refuge with replacement land of habitat quality
equal to that impacted by the airport project and to provide
for the construction of ponds, hiking trails, and other
improvements to replace comparable Refuge components adversely
impacted as a result of the airport project. The MOA recognizes
that, in exchange for compensation, heights of structures on
Refuge property near the airport will be limited to be
compatible with aircraft operations, and that aircraft shall
have the right of flight and to make noise over the Refuge
property that is the subject of compensation. Finally, the MOA
acknowledges that USFWS will continue to appropriately manage
Refuge lands that are the subject of the agreement--that is,
the Refuge lands subject to constructive use because of
aircraft noise will still continue to function as a diminished
value Refuge area under USFWS management.
The MOA recognizes that the amount of monetary compensation
will be based on appraised values in conformance with
applicable appraisal standards and regulations. The appraisal
process had not been completed at the time of signature of the
MOA, and accordingly, there is flexible language in the MOA
regarding the $20 million appraised value as of that time. The
$20 million figure is regarded as the ``floor'' of a final
appraisal amount, with amounts to be determined for realignment
compensation and increased operational costs. The appraisal has
recently been completed, and FAA's review of the appraisal is
being finalized.
Monetary compensation mitigation plans are not
unprecedented in Section 4(f) analyses. The provision of funds
by an airport proprietor, such as the MAC, needing to use a
Section 4(f) resource to the agency owning the resource, in
this case, the USFWS, so that a comparable replacement resource
can be provided is one of several accepted means of minimizing
harm under Section 4(f). In the past, compensation has been
used to mitigate adverse environmental impacts where
replacement of land and facilities and/or design measures are
warranted. These mitigation measures are recognized in
published FAA environmental guidance. The FAA has long
recognized that environmental mitigation associated with an
airport capital development project qualifies as a capital cost
of the airport. The association between environmental
mitigation and the airport capital development project is
particularly strong when the mitigation relates to Section 4(f)
because the statutory requirement is for the project to include
all possible planning to minimize harm.
The need for Section 4(f) mitigation plans is not a
frequent occurrence. Indeed, this is consistent with the
purpose of the statute: to protect and preserve Section 4(f)
resources and to set a high standard for using such resources
for transportation projects. Simply put, the FAA has no need to
make many Section 4(f) determinations because the agency tries
not to use Section 4(f) resources. Furthermore, most FAA
Section 4(f) determinations and mitigations are for uses of
urban parks. e.g., local parks, ball fields, and publicly used
school playgrounds, because these tend to be the types of
Section 4(f) resources in close proximity to airports.
However, there are examples of other Section 4(f)
situations involving airport development projects. The Toledo
Express Airport, in a Memorandum of Understanding with a local
park district, agreed to provide land on which to relocate a
campground that was used by an airport project. Near
Cincinnati, a County-owned recreational field was relocated as
a result of a runway extension: the airport proprietor agreed
to replace the field. Lambert St. Louis Airport will fund the
replacement of several urban parks impacted by a recently
approved new runway. There are also instances of the
replacement of softball fields affected by airport development,
and effects on historic property that have been mitigated with
the assistance of funds from the airport proprietor.
At this point, it is worthwhile to note that the Refuge
compensation plan does not stand alone as a solution to address
adverse environmental impacts of the airport development.
Rather, it is only a portion of an overall plan. The scope of
the MSP Airport expansion project is enormous, with the Refuge
accounting for only a portion of potentially affected lands. To
address the entire expansion project, the FAA and the MAC
developed an extensive mitigation plan that needed to account
for a variety of factors. Community noise mitigation and
acquisition will cost many times the amount needed to mitigate
the Refuge. The MSP airport project as a whole encompasses a
range of concerns, from the environmental to the economic, from
the significance of private use and enjoyment of park lands to
the importance of the public benefits of a safe and modern
airport.
In this case, the MAC, the USFWS, and the FAA all agreed
that this compensation plan and the other terms in the MOA
would be the best response to the adverse effects of the MSP
Airport project. The monetary component of the overall plan
will provide the Refuge with replacement land of habitat
quality equal to that which will be affected by the project.
Moreover, it will provide for the construction of ponds, hiking
trails and trail markers, and other necessary site improvements
or replacements.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the FAA takes
its responsibility to the environment and the public very
seriously. In formulating the Section 4(f) mitigation plan for
this project, the relevant agencies considered other
alternatives that might avoid affecting the Refuge. Each
alternative considered involved evaluations of potential
Section 4(f) affected lands. These other alternatives are not
considered feasible and prudent under Section 4(f) standards.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you this morning to discuss an issue that I know is of great
importance to this Committee. Improvements to airport capacity
and safety can be achieved in an environmentally responsible
manner. We at the FAA believe the compensation plan and
mitigation steps for the MSP Airport are an example of how this
balance can be achieved.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. On
behalf of Administrator Jane Garvey and Associate Administrator
Susan Kurland, I would like to say that we appreciate your
interest in the MSP Airport expansion project, and look forward
to any dialogue with you and the Members of the Committee that
may help us improve our work on environmental issues. I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
------
Statement of Nelson T. French, Executive Director, Friends of the
Minnesota Valley
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Nelson
French, Executive Director of the Friends of the Minnesota
Valley. It is indeed an honor to be invited to appear before
you today to speak with you about the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge and the recently concluded discussions between
the USFWS, Federal Aviation Administration and Metropolitan
Airports Commission regarding the mitigation of impacts
associated with the expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley was incorporated June
21, 1982 as a non-profit organization and is one of many
similar organizations cooperating with the USFWS in local
communities across the country. Many of you who have refuges in
your districts are likely familiar with your Friends
organizations.
The Friends envision a healthy Lower Minnesota River
Watershed where an informed citizenry takes personal and group
responsibility to ensure that natural ecological systems and
human economic and social systems coexist in a fashion
sustainable into the future. The mission of the Friends is
supporting conservation and management of the natural and
cultural resources of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed, and
promoting environmental awareness.
Before we get to today's topic, I would like to share with
you a bit about our history and the way in which we have chosen
to work within our community as I believe it is relevant to the
issue being discussed today.
History
The dream of having a national wildlife refuge in the
Minnesota Valley was developed in the early 1970's by a group
of citizens called the Burnsville Environmental Council.
Frustrated with their failure to stop the expansion of land
fill operations in the Burnsville portion of the Minnesota
River floodplain they decided that a more comprehensive
approach was necessary to protect the river bottoms in their
community. As a result, in 1974, the Burnsville group produced
a 24 page booklet that proposed a Minnesota River National
Wildlife and Recreation Area. The Council sent the booklet to
everyone from local city councils to the President of the
United States. Fortunately, then Congressman Bill Frenzel
responded by asking the Department of Interior to investigate
the feasibility of establishing a national wildlife refuge in
the valley. The result was the development, in 1975, of a
proposal for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
The Burnsville Environmental Council reached out across the
river and asked the Bloomington Natural Resources Commission
for help. Together they formed the Lower Minnesota River Valley
Citizen's Committee--now known as Friends of the Minnesota
Valley.
The Lower Minnesota River Valley Citizen's Committee kept
up the contacts between the volunteers and invited people to
share in the vision of the refuge proposal along a 34 mile long
stretch of the Minnesota River. Countless presentations were
made to communities and community groups up and down the river
for the purpose of educating people about the project and
seeking endorsements and working out consensus on issues of
concern within the community. After this engaging process, the
citizens committee was able to get support and resources from
more than 40 private groups including: local and national
conservation organizations; chambers of commerce; corporations;
the Jaycees; State agencies; the Minnesota Legislature; and
local units of government. Through this process many issues
were worked out between stakeholders who had differing views on
the refuge proposal--and consensus was reached.
On July 11, 1975, then Senator Walter Mondale and Hubert
Humphrey introduced a bill to establish the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. Congressman Oberstar, along with
former Congressmen Frenzel and Hagedorn, followed by
introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.
By late September, 1976, both houses of Congress had passed the
authorizing legislation and President Ford signed the bill
creating the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge on
October 9, 1976.
The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a
magnificent urban wildlife refuge that owes it's existence to
the Friends of the Minnesota Valley and its precursor citizen
committee and a community with the willingness to work together
to achieve common goals.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley did not stop supporting
conservation efforts in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
with the establishment of the refuge, however. We knew that our
work had only just begun. Since establishment we have
successfully worked to obtain funds to acquire refuge lands,
construct the Visitor and Education Center, and provide an
excellent environmental educational resource for the twin
cities' public.
While continuing to work on the basic non-profit
organizational survival needs of fund raising and membership,
the Friends have helped enlist volunteers, enroll Refuge
neighbors in the private landowner registry program, coordinate
efforts for water quality monitoring, communicate with
residents of the watershed and the Twin Cities, and foster
partnerships to improve the Lower Minnesota River Watershed and
ecosystem.
The Current Situation
In February, 1998, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley
began working with the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
staff to see if we could develop an agreed upon solution to the
potentially contentious issue of expansion of the MSP airport
and its impacts on the public uses of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. We knew the 1996 decision by the
Minnesota Legislature to expand the MSP International Airport
and route air traffic over the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge had to be implemented. After extensive review
of the situation, our organization, in concert with 16 local
and national conservation and community organizations,
supported the concept of mitigating the impacts associated with
the expansion of Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
In late May, 1998, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley,
Friends of the Mississippi River, Fort Snelling State Park
Association, Izaak Walton League-MN Division, Minnesota River
Valley Audubon Chapter and Minnesota Audubon Council co-
sponsored a public open house and invited representatives from
the Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to brief the
public on the impacts to the Refuge from the airport expansion.
This was the first time that these three agencies were together
in front of the public addressing the issues associated with
the airport expansion and the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. This event was well attended and a lot of good
information was shared between the agencies and between the
agencies and interested citizens. An outcome of this meeting
was significant progress towards the necessary development of
community consensus on this issue.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley regrets the loss to the
public of a significant nationally recognized natural resource
due to the expansion of MSP International Airport--the Black
Dog Lake and Long Meadow Lake Units of the Refuge will
experience significant noise intrusion and will no longer be
available for certain environmental education and natural
resource observation activities.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley recognizes that MSP
International Airport must expand to meet the needs of the
flying public and has contended that the expansion of the
airport at its present location will likely result in less
overall environmental and natural resource damage in Minnesota
than would construction of a new airport.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley has stressed that the
loss of natural resource value to in the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge resulting from the new runway
construction and use must be compensated--thereby placing these
values on the balance sheet. The proposed agreement of not less
than $20,000,000 with the likelihood that total compensation
will be greater as actual replacement costs and operational
costs are factored in is acceptable compensation for this loss
to the community.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley applauds the
Metropolitan Airports Commission, Federal Aviation
Administration and USFWS for recognizing the serious nature of
the impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
and deciding to compensate for the losses.
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley views this as a step in
engaging the Metropolitan Airports Commission as a partner in
conservation in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed,
recognizing that they too are a resident of the watershed and
must take personal group responsibility to insure that the
principles of sustainable development are achieved.
We look forward to working with the USFWS and the community
to develop the National Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 1997
required Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge and mitigate the impacts
through related actions in this plan.
Response to Question From Committee
In your letter to us you had asked the Friends to comment
on this question: ``The Committee would appreciate your
addressing the issue of how the Fish and Wildlife Service
agreement for compensation will impact the rights of private
property owners to receive compensation for the constructive
use of their land in connection with the protection of
wildlife.''
It is our understanding that private wildlife lands are not
eligible for review under the constructive use provisions of
Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. 303). It is our understanding that the agreement between
the USFWS and the Metropolitan Airports Commission will have no
impact on the rights of private property landowners to receive
compensation for their land through a fee title acquisition
transaction in connection with the protection of wildlife.
This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to be with you today. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy
to respond to any questions you and the members of the
Committee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 54564.065