[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 6067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 25, 1999

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation 
to protect one of the crown jewels of our national wildlife refuge 
system, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. On Wednesday, 
February 3, 1999 I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Resources on 
the impacts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota airport expansion on 
this premier national wildlife refuge.
  This 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. Species living in this refuge include 
threatened bald eagles, 35 mammal species, 23 reptile and amphibian 
species, and 97 species of birds including Tundra Swans migrating all 
the way from Alaska. The displacement of these species could throw 
nature's delicate balance into a tail spin. If we allow the destruction 
of this refuge and these species, it could send a shockwave through the 
entire ecosystem and impact every species in its footprint--a 
devastating biological echo.
  The new runway expansion will cause so much noise and disturbance to 
visitors that most of the facilities under the path of the runway will 
have to 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 $26 million to compensate them for the ``taking'' of their 
property by virtue of the noise and the impact on visitors to the 
refuge. This payment, however, will not mitigate or reduce the harm to 
endangered species, migratory birds, or fish living in the refuge. This 
payment is intended to allow the refuge to build additional buildings, 
relocate visitors facilities, build a new parking lot, and additional 
roads.
  Yet, even with this level of disturbance, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the FAA found that the 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 protections of 
the Endangered Species Act in this case. They found that the wildlife 
in the refuge would adjust to the noise. They found that there is a 
little scientific evidence that wildlife will be seriously harmed by 
over 5,000 takeoffs and landings per month at less than 2,000 feet 
above these important migratory bird breeding, feeding and resting 
areas. In fact, over 2,000 flights will be at less than 500 feet above 
ground level. Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service has not required one 
dollar to be spent to protect the wildlife living in this refuge.
  An environmental impact statement was prepared by the Federal 
Aviation Administration, in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. However, this environmental impact statement makes little 
effort to address the impacts on endangered and threatened species in 
the refuge. Therefore, my view is that the EIS should be redone before 
this project is allowed to proceed.
  I know that wildlife and humans can coexist. In the coastal plain of 
Alaska, oil production and caribou have coexisted and the caribou 
population has increased. I have a picture in my office that 
illustrates that point beautifully. It shows a large herd of caribou 
peacefully resting and grazing in the shadow of a large oil drilling 
rig right on Alaska's north slope.
  Yet some Members of Congress, including some who have agreed to allow 
this airport expansion in Minnesota, have introduced legislation that 
would preclude most human activities in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge by designating that area as a permanent wilderness. I guess they 
believe that wildlife in Alaska can't adjust to human activities . . . 
but wildlife in Minnesota can.
  I want to make it clear that I support our refuges. I sponsored the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997, which is now 
the law of the land. I want refuges to be places where wildlife can 
thrive and I want them accessible to the public. I support adequate 
funding so that our refuges can be open to the public. I agree that 
refuges and wildlife should not be used to stop needed projects and 
development in nearby communities.
  Let's protect the very little habitat for wildlife in these highly 
developed areas of the east. This is truly a last refuge for many of 
these species. Unlike Alaska, which has preserved over 130 million 
acres for protecting the environment, the highly congested and 
developed areas around Minneapolis-St. Paul simply cannot afford to 
lose the little amount of wild spaces left. The United States, as a 
world leader in preserving lands of significant and symbolic value, 
cannot let this sort of degradation occur to its land or wildlife. We 
have only one chance to save the beauty of this natural landscape, the 
crown jewel of America's wildlife refuges, for generations of younger 
Americans. Once it is gone, it is gone forever, nature can never truly 
recover from such adverse actions visited upon its fabric, an attack 
upon the scope and breadth of life that, for now, call this place--
home.
  For this reason, I am introducing this legislation to protect the 
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

                          ____________________