[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 554, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION ACT; H.R. 986,
EIGHTMILE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT; H.R. 1100, CARL SANDBURG HOME
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION ACT OF 2007; AND H.R. 1285,
SNOQUALMIE PASS LAND CONVEYANCE ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-821 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Rick Renzi, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Carolina
Jim Costa, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
George Miller, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Rob Bishop, Utah
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Dean Heller, Nevada
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Rick Renzi, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Carolina
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Louie Gohmert, Texas
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Jay Inslee, Washington Bill Sali, Idaho
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, April 17, 2007.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Shuler, Hon. Heath, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Caviezel, Chris L., Chairman, Board of Commissioners, King
and Kittitas Counties (WA) Fire District 51................ 58
Prepared statement on H.R. 1285.......................... 59
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut................................... 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 986........................... 10
Frohling, Nathan M., Director, Lower Connecticut River
Program, Eightmile Project, The Nature Conservancy......... 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 986........................... 49
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington.................................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 1285.......................... 12
Larson, Peter L., President, Black Hills Institute of
Geological Research, Inc................................... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 554........................... 32
Masica, Sue, Chief of Staff, National Park Service........... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 554........................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 986,.......................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 1100.......................... 20
McGovern, Hon. James P., a U.S. Representative in Congress
from the State of Massachusetts............................ 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 554........................... 8
McGrady, Charles, Member, Board of Commissioners, Henderson
County, North Carolina..................................... 55
Prepared statement on H.R. 1100.......................... 56
Norbury, Fred, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
Systems, U.S. Forest Service............................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 554 and H.R. 1285............. 22
Vlamis, Ted J., Chairman, Government Affairs Committee,
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology......................... 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 554........................... 41
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 554: TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
(PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION ACT); H.R. 986, TO AMEND THE
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE
EIGHTMILE RIVER IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AS COMPONENTS OF THE
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
(EIGHTMILE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT); H.R. 1100, TO REVISE THE
BOUNDARY OF THE CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION ACT OF 2007); AND H.R. 1285, TO PROVIDE
FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON, TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
FIRE AND RESCUE STATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (SNOQUALMIE PASS LAND
CONVEYANCE ACT).
----------
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Heller, Inslee,
Sali, Herseth Sandlin, and Shuler.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Let me call the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands to order. To open this hearing.
I want to thank our witnesses and the panelists for their
patience, and I am pleased to welcome my colleagues and our
distinguished panels to today's Subcommittee hearing. In
particular we want to thank those witnesses who have traveled
to Washington to join us.
Today we are meeting to consider four measures, H.R. 554,
H.R. 986, H.R. 1100, and H.R. 1285.
Our first bill, H.R. 554, was sponsored by our colleague,
Representative Jim McGovern. The bill would implement the
recommendations of a report--commissioned by Congress and
completed by the Secretary of the Interior--regarding the need
for standardized management provisions governing fossils found
on public lands. Uniform rules for archeological and cultural
resources located on public lands have already been
established, and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today regarding the need for a similar step with regard to
fossils.
Our next bill, H.R. 986, would designate 25.3 miles of the
Eightmile River and its tributaries in Connecticut as a
national scenic river. The bill was introduced by
Representative Joe Courtney, and would protect portions of the
river that have been found to have outstandingly remarkable
values including an intact watershed with natural flow, very
high water quality, unusual regional geological features and
large numbers of rare plants and animals. The river would be
managed under a partnership agreement as envisioned in Section
10[e] of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The next bill, H.R. 1100, is sponsored by our new
Subcommittee colleague, Representative Shuler. The bill would
authorize the expansion of the Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site in Representative Shuler's district, consistent
with a recommendation contained in the general management plan
for the site. We look forward to learning more about the
historic site, and the two-time Pulitzer prize winning author
and poet who once lived there.
The final bill we will consider today is H.R. 1285,
sponsored by Representative Doc Hastings. The bill would
authorize a conveyance of three acres of National Forest System
lands in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and
facilitate the construction of a new fire and rescue station. I
welcome our witnesses from the local fire and rescue squads to
describe the need for a new fire and rescue station in this
community. I also look forward to hearing from the Forest
Service about the best way to move forward in making land
available for this purpose, be it administratively or
legislatively.
Once again we look forward to our witnesses' insights and
thank them for their efforts. I would now recognize Mr. Bishop
for any opening statements he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
I am pleased to welcome my colleagues and our distinguished
panelists to today's subcommittee hearing. In particular, we want to
thank those witnesses who have traveled to Washington to join us. Today
we are meeting to consider four measures: H.R. 554, H.R. 986, H.R.
1100, and H.R. 1285.
Our first bill, H.R. 554, is sponsored by our colleague from
Massachusetts, Representative Jim McGovern. The bill would implement
the recommendations of a report--commissioned by the Congress and
completed by the Secretary of the Interior--regarding the need for
standardized management provisions governing fossils found on public
lands. Uniform rules for archeological and cultural resources located
on public lands have already been established and we look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today regarding the need for a similar step
with regard to fossils.
Our next bill, H.R. 986, would designate 25.3 miles of the
Eightmile River and its tributaries in Connecticut as a national scenic
river. The bill was introduced by Representative Joe Courtney and would
protect portions of a river that have been found to have
``outstandingly remarkable'' values including an intact watershed with
a natural flow, very high water quality, unusual regional geological
features, and large numbers of rare plants and animals. The river would
be managed under a partnership agreement as envisioned in section 10(e)
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The next bill, H.R. 1100, is sponsored by our new subcommittee
colleague, Representative Heath Shuler. The bill would authorize the
expansion of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, in
Representative Shuler's district, consistent with a recommendation
contained in the general management plan for the site. We look forward
to learning more about this historic site and the two-time Pulitzer
Prize winning author and poet who once lived there.
The final bill we will consider today is H.R. 1285, sponsored by
Representative Doc Hastings. The bill would authorize a conveyance of
three acres of National Forest System lands in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
(``snow-qual-mee'') National Forest to facilitate the construction of a
new fire and rescue station. I welcome our witness from the local fire
and rescue squad to describe the need for a new fire and rescue station
in his community. I also look forward to hearing from the Forest
Service about the best way to move forward in making land available for
this purpose, be it administratively or legislatively.
Once again, we look forward to our witness's insights and thank
them for their efforts. I would now recognize Mr. Bishop for any
opening statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity. I apologize for being late. You would think if
Mussolini could make the trains in Italy run on time House
Administration could do the same thing with the elevators in
Longworth but that is probably too much to hope for.
I would like to welcome today's witnesses including my two
colleagues from my short tenure on the Rules Committee,
Representative Hastings of Washington and Representative
McGovern from Massachusetts, and also a new member to Congress,
Mr. Courtney from Connecticut, as well as our colleague who has
a bill here today but he is a member of the committee.
Mr. Hastings' bill, H.R. 1285, appears to be a sensible
conveyance of forest lands to volunteer fire departments so it
can continue to serve their community. H.R. 986 by Mr. Courtney
designates segments and tributaries of the Eightmile River as
additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System. I note
that the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 allows the Federal
Government to acquire private property along designated rivers
and prevents certain developments on private property. I am
going to be eager to hear from Mr. Courtney and other witnesses
how private property will be affected by H.R. 986.
H.R. 1100 introduced by Mr. Shuler would authorize the
expansion of the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site by 115
acres. This unit already has 260 acres. I am interested to
learn the compelling reasons for this large addition as well as
the costs that would be attributed to the taxpayers. I note
that Mr. Shuler's predecessor who chaired the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee did not advocate this addition.
Finally, I am very concerned with the unintended
consequences that may be incurred with H.R. 554, introduced by
Mr. McGovern. I am intrigued how someone from a state with very
little Federal land ownership and few fossils has chosen to
take the lead on a bill that creates civil and criminal
penalties as well as assets forfeiture for folks who are
collecting fossils on Federal lands. Also the Senate companion
bill as introduced by the junior Senator from Hawaii, whose
state is entirely volcanic and very few fossils included.
My state has 67 percent owned by the Federal Government,
has an abundance of fossils. Thousands of my constituents
collect rocks, gems and fossils from Federal lands, and I have
heard from them about this particular bill. I believe their
position will be presented today by Peter Larson, who is the
founder and the President of the Black Hills Institute of
Geological Research in South Dakota, and I look forward to
hearing Mr. Larson's testimony and thank Representative Herseth
Sandlin for inviting him here today.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and as I noted earlier
our colleague on the Subcommittee, Representative Shuler, is
the author of H.R. 1100. I would recognize him now for any
remarks he may have on this legislation that he is promoting.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site. I am also honored to have Henderson
County Commissioner Chuck McGrady with me who will testify
about the importance of the Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site.
Carl Sandburg was one of America's most celebrated and
accomplished literary minds. Although he possessed only an
eighth grade education, Carl Sandburg worked to become a two-
time Pulitzer Prize winner with his biography of Abraham
Lincoln and later for his ``Complete Poems.'' Carl Sandburg was
a native of Galesburg, Illinois but spent 22 years of his
professional career in Flat Rock, North Carolina, in Henderson
County. Carl Sandburg's home in Flat Rock includes Connemara
Farms, lush pastures, five miles of wooded hiking trails,
gardens, apple orchards and several small lakes and ponds.
It is currently preserved as a National Historic Site by
the National Park Service. The Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site attracts over 26,000 visitors a year who come to
enjoy one of western North Carolina's most scenic and beautiful
natural areas. I have introduced H.R. 1100 to allow for the
protection of this pristine and historical, valuable space from
the pressures of overdevelopment on the land that is contiguous
to the Carl Sandburg Historic Site.
I will offer an amendment to add maps to this site at
Thursday's markup. This bill authorizes the Secretary of
Interior to acquire from willing sellers by donation or
purchase with donated or appropriated funds up to 115 acres of
land neighboring the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site for
the inclusion in this site.
The bill also directs the Secretary to revise the boundary
of the historic site to reflect any acquisition of new land and
further directs the Secretary to administer acquisitions of
land as part of the historic site. The land being considered
under this authorization runs to the south and west of the
National Historic Site and encompasses the side of the Big
Glassy Mountain, the focal point of the Carl Sandburg home
viewshed.
The goal of this authorization is to give the park and its
patrons the ability to preserve the surrounding landscape, a
vital element to the park itself. All parcels of land in
question are privately owned, and each of the landowners have
given consent for their property to be included in the
authorization boundary. The surrounding community is
enthusiastic about the proposed authorization as is the State.
North Carolina Department of Resources have already
acquired 22 acres of this land with the help of the
Conservation Trust of North Carolina and shows the willingness
to be included into the authorization boundary as well. It is
critically important that we work to preserve our National
Historic Site for future generations. I sincerely appreciate
the opportunity to discuss the importance of the Carl Sandburg
Home National Historic Site and welcome any questions or
comments. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuler follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Heath Shuler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Carl
Sandburg Home National Historical Site.
I am also honored to have Henderson County Commissioner Chuck
McGrady with me, who will testify to this committee about the
importance of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.
Carl Sandburg was one of America's most celebrated and accomplished
literary minds.
Although he possessed only an 8th grade education, Carl Sandburg
worked to become a 2-time Pulitzer Prize-winner--first for his
biography of Abraham Lincoln, and later for his ``Complete Poems''.
Carl Sandburg was a native of Galesburg, Illinois, but spent 22
years of his professional career in Flat Rock, North Carolina, near the
seat of Henderson County.
Sandburg's home in Flat Rock--which includes Connemara Farms, lush
pastures, 5 miles of wooded hiking trails, gardens, apple orchards, and
several small lakes and ponds--is currently preserved as a National
Historic Site by the National Park Service.
The Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site attracts over 26,000
visitors a year, who come to enjoy one of Western North Carolina's most
scenic and beautiful natural areas.
I have introduced H.R. 1100 to allow for the protection of this
pristine and historically-valuable space from the pressures of
overdevelopment on land that is contiguous to the Carl Sandburg
Historic Site. I will offer an amendment to add maps of this site at
Thursdays mark-up.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire from
willing sellers by donation or purchase, with donated or appropriated
funds, up to 115 acres of land neighboring the Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site, for inclusion in the site.
The bill also directs the Secretary to revise the boundary of the
Historic Site to reflect any acquisition of new land, and further
directs the Secretary to administer acquired land as part of the
Historic Site.
The land being considered under this authorization runs to the
south and west of the National Historic Site and encompasses the side
of Big Glassy Mountain, the focal point in the Carl Sandburg Home
viewshed. The goal of this authorization is to give the park and its
patrons the ability to preserve the surrounding landscape--a vital
element of the park itself.
All parcels of the land in question are privately owned and each of
the landowners has given consent for their property to be included in
the authorization boundary. The surrounding community is enthusiastic
about the proposed authorization, as is the State. The North Carolina
Department of Resources has already acquired 22 acres of this land with
the help of the Conservation Trust for North Carolina and has shown
willingness to be included in the authorization boundary as well.
It is critically important that we work to preserve our National
Historic Sites for future generations.
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to discuss the importance
of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, and welcome any
questions or comments.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Congressman, and let me without
objection indicate that the statements of all the witnesses
today will be made part of the record in their entirety. With
that, I would like to turn to our first panel and begin with
our colleague, Congressman McGovern.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Bishop and other members of the Subcommittee. I am
grateful for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today on H.R. 554, and I should say at the outset to my former
colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop, that one of the
reasons why I became interested in this legislation was after
meeting with some members from the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. You are going to hear from Mr. Ted Vlamis who is
going to testify a little while later.
I should also point out that the American Association of
Museums is also very interested in this legislation, and they
support this bill, and I will assure Mr. Bishop that we do have
a lot of museums in Massachusetts, and that you are more than
welcome to come up, and we can visit them all together. But
there are lots of museums.
Mr. Chairman, like most of us here I have always had a
fascination with dinosaurs and natural history and our planet's
development. As both a conservationist and a former member of
this committee, I am committed to promoting fossil research and
preserving our national heritage for future generations.
In that spirit, my colleagues and I on both sides of the
aisle introduced legislation again in this Congress to protect
the irreplaceable and historically significant resources that
are found on public land. Neither the rarity of these fossils
nor the growing problem of theft and vandalism of these
resources should be underestimated.
Far less than one percent of all organisms that have ever
lived become fossils. These rare fossils provide clues that
help us solve the mysteries of life on earth. They are one of
the few ways we can study evolutionary patterns and
environmental change. These fossils are educational and
scientific research tools for our generation and those to come.
Simply stated, fossils teach us about the history of life on
earth and it is necessary that we have the most complete record
possible.
Protecting that fossil record is precisely why this
legislation is so urgently needed. As we sit here today, the
illegal collection of specimens from Federal lands is the most
significant threat to vertebrate fossil resources. The
commercial value of America's fossils has spawned an exploding
international black market. The sale of fossils has become a
highly profitable industry that has led to the theft of fossils
from both public and private land.
A 1999 study conducted by the National Park Service opened
my eyes to the magnitude of this problem. Between 1995 and
1998, it documented 721 incidents of fossil theft and
vandalism. A subsequent study commissioned by the Forest
Service produced even more shocking results. These are the
public's resources on public land. They belong to all of us,
and we must not stand idly by allowing them to disappear into
the hands of unscrupulous dealers and black marketeers.
Unfortunately as illegal fossil collection has flourished,
we have failed to develop a clear, consistent and unified
policy that gives Federal land managers the authority to
properly protect these resources. H.R. 554 is the product of
bipartisan collaborations within both the House and Senate.
Throughout this process we have worked hand-in-hand with our
Federal agencies, respected members of the professional and
amateur paleontologist community and distinguished research
scientists. Together we have crafted a bill that provides stiff
penalties for crimes involving the theft and vandalism of
fossils of national significance in order to deter the illegal
collection of these resources on public lands.
It is important to note that the bill seeks only to
penalize those who knowingly violate the law and seek to
illegally profit from these public resources. It does not place
any new restrictions on amateur collectors who, by and large,
respect the value of these fossils. It is limited to public
lands. It will in no way affect private landowners.
Furthermore, this bill mandates that all such fossils taken
from Federal land be curated at museums or suitable
depositories.
Last, it standardizes the permitting practices for
excavation on public lands to ensure that fossils are not
needlessly damaged which is another problem. I am convinced
that H.R. 554 represents the best chance we have to guard our
shared history and to protect the legacy for future
generations. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James P. McGovern, a U.S. Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts, on H.R. 554, The
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today on H.R. 554, the Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act. Like most people, I have always been fascinated with
dinosaurs, natural history, and our planet's history. As both a
conservationist and a former Member of the House Resources Committee, I
am committed to promoting fossil research and preserving our national
heritage for future generations.
In that spirit, my colleagues and I--on both sides of the aisle
``introduced legislation again in this Congress to protect the
irreplaceable and historically significant resources that are found on
public land. Neither the rarity of these fossils nor the growing
problem of theft and vandalism of these resources should be
underestimated.
Far less than 1% of all organisms that have ever lived become
fossils. These rare fossils provide clues that help us solve the
mysteries of life on earth. They are one of the few ways we can study
evolutionary patterns and environmental change. These fossils are
educational and scientific research tools for our generation and those
to come. Simply stated, fossils teach us about the history of life on
earth, and it is necessary that we have the most complete record
possible.
Protecting that fossil record is precisely why this legislation is
so urgently needed. As we sit here today, the illegal collection of
specimens from federal lands is the most significant threat to
vertebrate fossil resources. The commercial value of America's fossils
has spawned an exploding international black-market. The sale of
fossils has become a highly profitable industry that has led to the
theft of fossils from both public and private land.
A 1999 study conducted by the National Park Service opened my eyes
to the magnitude of this problem--between 1995 and 1998, it documented
721 incidents of fossil theft and vandalism. A subsequent study
commissioned by the Forest Service produced even more shocking results.
These are the public's resources on public lands--they belong to all of
us, and we must not stand idly by, allowing them to disappear into the
hands of unscrupulous dealers and black marketers.
Unfortunately, as illegal fossil collection has flourished, we have
failed to develop a clear, consistent, and unified policy that gives
federal land managers the authority to properly protect these
resources.
H.R. 554 is the product of bipartisan collaborations within both
the House and Senate. Throughout this process, we have worked hand-in-
hand with our federal agencies, respected members of the professional
and amateur paleontologist community, and distinguished research
scientists.
Together, we have crafted a bill, which provides stiff penalties
for crimes involving the theft and vandalism of Fossils of National
Significance (FONS) in order to deter the illegal collection of these
resources on public lands. And, it is important to note that the bill
seeks only to penalize those who knowingly violate the law and seek to
illegally profit from these public resources. It does not place any new
restrictions on amateur collectors who by and large respect the value
of these fossils. It is limited to public lands, and will in no way
affect private land-owners. Furthermore, this bill mandates that all
such fossils taken from federal land be curated at museums or suitable
depositories. Lastly, it standardizes the permitting practices for
excavation on public lands to ensure that fossils are not needlessly
damaged.
I am convinced that H.R. 554 represents the best chance we have to
guard our shared history and to protect that legacy for future
generations.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, and with that let me
turn to our colleague, Congressman Courtney.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Congressman Bishop and other members of the Subcommittee for
the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 986, the
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act. With me today is Nathan
Frohling, who is the Director of the Connecticut River Program,
Eightmile River Program of The Nature Conservancy, who also
will be offering testimony regarding this project, and I just
want to spend a few minutes outlining how important this
legislation is to the region and entire State of Connecticut.
The entire Connecticut delegation has joined me in a
bipartisan effort cosponsoring H.R. 986 that would designate
the Eightmile River as part of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Program, and there is a companion bill in the Senate
that has been cosponsored by Senators Dodd and Lieberman which
has movement in that chamber as well.
More than five years ago, President Bush signed legislation
to authorize a study to determine the merits of the Eightmile
River's request for inclusion in this program. While that was
the beginning of the Federal legislative movement, local
citizens from the three towns of East Haddam, Lyme, and Salem,
Connecticut, have been working diligently for years to plan how
best to protect and preserve the river and its watershed.
The Eightmile River is so named because of the distance
between the mouth of the river in East Haddam all the way to
Long Island Sound. There is a 62-square mile watershed of
mostly forested area with many rare plants and animal species
which surround the river. It represents an intact aquatic
ecosystem that is rare in the Northeast, and the National Park
Service has determined in its study that the Eightmile River
met all the criteria necessary for the Wild and Scenic
designation.
In addition, I think this is important--all three of the
affected towns passed resolutions in town meetings, every board
and commission that deals with land use has reviewed this
proposal, have supported it. The Connecticut General Assembly
unanimously passed a resolution in support of this measure, and
I want to emphasize these are three very small towns in eastern
Connecticut.
This is small town meeting local government at its finest.
This is a highly educated area in terms of the communities,
people who abut the river. It has been very visible and public.
People have had plenty of opportunity over the last 10 years to
weigh into this proposal and the support has been unanimous.
There has not been a single bit of opposition expressed to this
measure which as I think Congressman McGovern can attest I mean
in New England now land use issues are some of the most hotly
contested areas of local government, and yet this is a proposal
which has brought extraordinary consensus in the local
communities in support of it.
And it was decided early on by the local citizens to
recognize the entire watershed and put together a management
plan whereby local, state and Federal organizations could
voluntarily work to address the needs of the region.
I just want to conclude by addressing Congressman Bishop's
concern about the Federal Government's potential impact on
local private landowners' rights. Section g(2) of the
legislation which deals with acquisition of lands explicitly
states that the Federal Government is prohibited from
exercising any condemnation rights in reference to this
management plan.
Connecticut is the home of the Kelo Eminent Domain case
which I am sure many of you will recall from a couple of years
ago, and frankly people are extremely sensitive to this issue
that we do not want intrusive, heavy-handed powers being
granted to the Federal Government to come in and affect
people's local property rights.
The only scenarios in which people or which the Federal
Government could acquire property would be in cases of donation
or voluntary consent by a property owner. So I think again the
bill is extremely balanced in terms of its process as far as
local property owners and their private property rights.
Again, it is a measure which has been 10 years in gestation
from the very grassroots local level all the way up through the
Federal Government's study bill, which again was signed into
law by President Bush five years ago, and I look forward to any
questions that the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joe Courtney, a U.S. Representative in
Congress from the State of Connecticut, on H.R. 986, The Eightmile Wild
and Scenic River Act
Chairman Grijalva, Congressman Bishop and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for scheduling this hearing and allowing me to
testify on behalf of Connecticut's Eightmile River and the decade long
effort to obtain Wild and Scenic designation by the citizens and
communities that abut this precious natural resource.
Later you will hear from Nathan Frohling, the Director of the
Connecticut River Program, Eightmile River Program at the Nature
Conservancy. I would just like to spend a few minutes outlining how
important this legislation is to the region and the entire state of
Connecticut.
The entire Connecticut delegation joined me in a bipartisan effort,
cosponsoring H.R. 986 that would designate the Eightmile River as part
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. There is a companion
bill in the Senate cosponsored by Senators Dodd and Lieberman.
More than 5 years ago, President Bush signed legislation to
authorize a study to determine the merits of the Eightmile River's
request for inclusion in the Program. While that was the beginning of
the federal legislative movement, local citizens from across the three
towns of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem had been working diligently for
years to plan for how best to protect and preserve the River and its
watershed.
The Eightmile River is so-named for the distance between the mouth
of the River in East Haddam to Long Island Sound. The 62-square mile
watershed is mostly forested area with many rare plant and animal
species. It represents an intact aquatic ecosystem that is rare in the
Northeast. The National Park Service determined in its study that the
Eightmile River met all criteria necessary for Wild and Scenic
designation. In addition, all three affected towns passed resolutions
in support of this designation, including the support of the relevant
land use commissions and boards.
It was decided early on by local citizens to recognize the entire
watershed and put together a management plan whereby local, state and
federal organizations could voluntarily work to address the needs of
the region. Designation would bring funding and staff support to the
region in order to preserve the rural character of the region, protect
and enhance the diverse plant and animal species, provide small grants
to assist local resource activities, ensure adequate outreach and
educational opportunities, and maintain water quality.
Although located in a more rural area of the State, the watershed
is no less susceptible to unchecked growth and development. At the same
time, my legislation preserves the rights of landowners. Language
within the bill specifically prohibits the federal government from
acquiring land through condemnation, a practice that the National Park
Service does not follow anyway, but we took that extra step to be
clear.
During the study period, a Management Plan was initiated at the
local level based on scientific recommendations and is being
implemented at the local level today. Citizens from the three towns
voted in support of the Management Plan to preserve this unique area.
As you may know, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program will
be celebrating its 40th anniversary next year. More than 150 Rivers
have been designated Wild and Scenic across the country, including the
Farmington River in Connecticut. The Wild and Scenic Rivers is one of
the best examples of a public private partnership based on locally
``driven priorities and goals.
The citizens of East Haddam, Salem and Lyme and organizations like
the Nature Conservancy have committed many years to this endeavor which
culminated in votes of support last year. The National Park Service is
supportive and I urge the Subcommittee to look favorably on H.R. 986,
the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir, and let me now turn to our
colleague as well, Congressman Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Bishop and other members of the Subcommittee
for holding this hearing today. I am here this morning to speak
in support of H.R. 1285, legislation that I introduced along
with my colleague from Washington, Dave Reichert, which would
convey a small portion of the Forest Service land to the King
and Kittitas Counties Fire District No. 51 which is also known
as the Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue.
Under my proposal, this land would be conveyed at no cost
but it would have to be used by the Fire District specifically
for the construction of a new fire station or the land will
revert back to the Forest Service. Snoqualmie Pass Fire and
Rescue serves a portion of two counties on both sides of the
Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90. This area is a very
rural area. There are a small number of full-time residents but
Interstate 90 is a major transportation corridor between
eastern and western Washington. It is also a destination for
winter sports in that area.
This area is often the scene of major winter snowstorms,
multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches. The Fire District
is often the first responders to these types of incidents in
this area. For decades the Fire District has been leasing its
current site from the Forest Service. They operate out of an
aging building that was never designed to be a fire station.
Through their hard work and dedication, they have served their
community ably despite the building's many shortcomings.
However, with traffic on the rise and the need for
emergency services in the area growing, the Fire District
really needs to move into a real-life fire station. They have
identified a nearby site that would better serve the needs of
the residents and visitors alike. This location would provide
access to the interstate in either direction, reducing response
time in emergencies.
The parcel is on Forest Service property immediately
adjacent to a freeway interchange between a frontage road and
the interstate itself. Much of this parcel right now is
currently a gravel lot. I am aware that the Forest Service does
not normally support conveyances of land free of charge.
However, I believe an exception should be made in this
particular circumstance because of the important public service
provided by the Fire District, the heavy traffic and emergency
calls created by nonresidents in the area, the distance of
Snoqualmie Pass from other communities with emergency services,
and because of the high amount of Federal land ownership in
this area which severely limits the local tax base.
In addition, I would note again that under my proposal this
land will revert back to the Forest Service if for whatever
reason a new fire station is not built on the property. Passage
of this legislation would not guarantee that a new station
would be built. The Fire District would have to work hard to
gather the financing that they would be able to from state and
local sources as well as any applicable Federal grants or
loans. However, the conveyance of this site at no cost would
help this Fire District hold down the overall cost of the
project.
I am pleased that Chris Caviezel, the Chairman of the Fire
District Commission, is here today from Washington to more
fully explain the needs that they have, and I look forward to
working with this committee, the Fire District, and our
delegation and the Forest Service on this legislation.
I just may say, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I visited this site about three weeks ago, and
two days before I visited this site they had a 60-car accident
up there which I will not say is a common occurrence but the
first responders were this Fire and Rescue, and that happens
typically when we have a lot of snow like we have had this
year. So they serve a great service from a rural area on the
most traveled corridor between eastern and western Washington,
and I think they need the up-to-date facility. So I thank you
for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, a U.S. Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington, on H.R. 1285
Chairman Grijalva:
I want to thank you and Ranking Member Bishop and other members of
the Subcommittee for holding this hearing today.
I am here this morning to speak in support of H.R. 1285,
legislation that I introduced along with Representative Dave Reichert,
which would convey a small parcel of Forest Service land to the King
and Kittitas Counties Fire District #51--also known as Snoqualmie Pass
Fire and Rescue. Under my proposal, this land would be conveyed at no
cost, but would have to be used by the Fire District specifically for
the construction of a new fire station or it would revert back to the
Forest Service.
Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue serves a portion of two counties on
both sides of the Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90. This is a very
rural area, with a small number of full-time residents, but it is also
the major transportation corridor for goods and services between
Eastern and Western Washington, as well as a destination for winter
recreation. This area is also often the scene of major winter
snowstorms, multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches. The Fire
District is often the first responder to incidents in the area.
For decades the Fire District has been leasing its current site
from the Forest Service. They operate out of an aging building that was
never designed to be a fire station. Through their hard work and
dedication, they have served their community ably despite this
building's many shortcomings. However, with traffic on the rise and the
need for emergency services in the area growing, the Fire District
needs to move to a fire station. They have identified a nearby site
that would better serve the needs of residents and visitors alike. This
location would provide access to the interstate in either direction,
reducing response times in emergencies. The parcel is on Forest Service
property, immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, between a
frontage road and the interstate itself. Much of the parcel is
currently a gravel lot.
I am aware that the Forest Service does not normally support
conveyances of land free of charge. However, I believe an exception
should be made in this particular circumstance because of the important
public service provided by the Fire District, the heavy traffic and
emergency calls created by non-residents in the area, the distance of
Snoqualmie Pass from other communities with emergency services, and
because of the high amount of federal land ownership in the area, which
severely limits the local tax base. In addition, I would note again
that under my proposal, this land would revert back to the Forest
Service if for whatever reason a new fire station is not built on the
property.
Passage of this legislation would not guarantee that a new station
would be built--the Fire District would have to work hard to gather the
financing that would be required from state and local sources, as well
as any applicable federal grants or loans. However, the conveyance of
this site at no cost would help this Fire District hold down the
overall cost of this project.
I am pleased that Chris Caviezel, the Chairman of the Fire District
Commission, was able to come to Washington, DC today to explain more
fully the needs they have.
I look forward to working with this Committee, the Fire District,
and the Washington House and Senate delegation to find a solution that
meets the emergency services needs of the area. I thank you again for
holding today's hearing.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. I have no questions for our
colleagues, and let me turn to Mr. Bishop for any questions he
might have.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just do two quick ones. First of all,
Mr. McGovern, in your bill it says that the fossils that would
be recovered would have to be situated in I think it says an
appropriate entity. Appropriate institution. Approved
repository. That is the phrase. Approved repository. What is an
approved repository?
Mr. McGovern. My understanding is that we are talking about
a museum or you know what has been I think designated and
recognized by the Department of the Interior as an approved
depository. I mean a place that would store these fossils in a
way that they would be protected and that people would have
access to them.
Mr. Bishop. Is that phrased and defined by rule or is it
defined by statute anywhere?
Mr. McGovern. I can get back to you on that.
Mr. Bishop. OK. One of the professional organizations--I am
sorry. This is three questions. It will be the last one. One of
the professional organizations suggested that fossils that will
be collected should be established in an institution within the
state in which they were found or collected. Would you be
amenable to such kind of language?
Mr. McGovern. Well I would be happy to work with you on
that, and my issue here is that they be protected and not be
violated, destroyed or you know sold so that people would not
have access to them.
Mr. Bishop. I think you can understand my position. There
are a lot of fossils in my state. Massachusetts does not have
many, maybe with the exception of the State Legislature.
Mr. McGovern. We have a few.
Mr. Bishop. But other than that there are not a whole heck
of a lot. I appreciate those answers. Mr. Courtney, you talked
a bit out the area of condemnation. I just want to ask a
question about that specifically. Your bill refers to Section
6[e] of the Wild and Scenic River Act that prohibits Federal
acquisition but actually Section 6[e] does allow condemnation
under certain circumstances which states basically primarily if
the zoning ordinances of the local community are tough enough
then the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture may
not acquire lands but if they are not equal to that kind of
protection that is required in this Act then there is
condemnation power. Now is that your understanding of this bill
as well?
Mr. Courtney. I am not familiar with that specific
provision that you just cited but I would note that the bill
does go on to indicate that the system is limited to
acquisition by donation or acquisition. So certainly the intent
of the language is to nix condemnation as an option.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, and I would suggest that if
you actually move forward with the markup on this bill you may
want to look at that because the provisions of Section 6[c] is
the one that actually does give condemnation power to the
Federal Government.
Mr. Courtney. That is a----
Mr. Bishop. Regardless of what may be further stipulated in
the bill itself.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. That is all I have.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and let me thank the
members for their testimony. We know that you have other
business and other responsibilities but if you would--you have
a question?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Doc, I
really appreciate your comment about this fire station being of
value to travelers over the past. It is a real unique challenge
up there, particularly when it is snowing to respond. So I
think you all, all of us who travel back and forth have an
interest in that.
I just wonder about any alternatives. I noticed in a memo
there was some apparent alternative discussed at one time about
a smaller acreage being used. Could you tell us what you know
about that?
Mr. Hastings. Yes. That is certainly a negotiable part of
it but you have been over that pass many times, and there is a
frontage road, and the area between the interstate and the
frontage road is about three or four acres. The point is that
probably all should be conveyed to the Fire District because if
half of it was conveyed, then the Forest Service would own half
of land that would essentially be isolated. But I mean that is
a negotiable part but just the way that is, as I said, it is
kind of landlocked between the frontage road and the
interstate.
Mr. Inslee. Is this by the state highway maintenance shed?
In that area?
Mr. Hastings. No. It is up on top of the hill. As you go
over the summit going from west to east, it would be off the
second ramp.
Mr. Inslee. I was up there this weekend. We had our office
retreat there. So it is a great spot. Is there any potential
appropriation to fund the Forest Service losses here at all?
Mr. Hastings. Well the reason we are asking for a free
conveyance is because--and Chris Caviezel will talk later on--
but I think there is only about 150 or 200 year-round
residents, and because there is so much Federal land around
there, there simply is not a tax base by which to tax it. So
if----
Mr. Inslee. I was referring to a Federal appropriation. In
other words, some pool?
Mr. Hastings. My understanding again--and Chris can speak
to this--they are going to have to have funds in order to build
this. That could come from grants. Perhaps there could be some
money to pay the Forest Service, but you know we are only
talking at max three or four acres, and in the last 10 years I
do not know how many thousands of acres has been acquired by
the Forest Service both in King County and in Kittitas County.
So the issue should not be--from my point of view at
least--hung up on the conveyance part but the reason is that
there simply is not a tax base, and they simply do not have the
means to go out and do all of you know what you normally do if
you build a fire station.
Mr. Inslee. Right. Well we will talk some more about it.
Thanks a lot.
Mr. Hastings. You bet.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Inslee, and I apologize for
rushing into closing that part of the panel. Any other
questions?
Mr. Bishop. I have one. I did not mean to be rude to
Representative Hastings. I should ask you a question. Does your
wife still like the beard?
Mr. Hastings. Yes, she does, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Bishop. OK. That is fine.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. As I was saying, I know members are busy and
have other responsibilities, but if they would like to join us
at the dais for the rest of the panels, they are welcome to do
so if there is no objection. Gentlemen, thank you. At this
point let me call the next panel forward.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me begin with
Ms. Sue Masica, Chief of Staff, National Park Service.
STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, CHIEF OF STAFF,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. Masica. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on three of the four bills before you today. My
comments are most extensive on the paleontological bill so I
will start with that one, and then I will also summarize our
position on the other two bills, and then respond to any
questions you might have.
H.R. 554, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
and the tools it would provide to the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological
Survey, would allow these agencies to properly manage, protect,
interpret, and care for paleontological resources on Federal
lands as well as with the Forest Service but those are all
Interior agencies.
Fossils are nonrenewable resources that provide information
about the history of life on earth. The bill would balance the
public's interest in protecting these types of fossils by
creating a permit system that provides for the public's
interest in collecting fossils by allowing for the casual
collection of certain fossils from Federal lands without a
permit.
I have brought with me today some examples of the types of
resources that would be covered under H.R. 554. The first two
are resources that would be protected under H.R. 554. We will
pass these around. This is the skull and lower jaw from an
oreodont, a sheep sized, cut chewing, plant eating mammal from
37 million years ago, and this particular fossil was collected
in 1932 from what is now Badlands National Park. Then there are
two skeletons of herring-like fish from 50 million years ago
that were collected in 1956 from the Green River shale in what
is now Fossil Butte National Monument.
And then this last example is a--and if you all want to
take them out of the bag you can. I just do not trust myself to
not drop them. The last example is a common invertebrate fossil
that could continue to be casually collected without a permit
on BLM lands, and this is a small ammonite which is related to
the modern chambered nautilus, and this was found in what is
now Yellowstone National Park.
Currently the Federal agencies primarily use their general
authority to protect resources to manage paleontological
resources on Federal land. To address the theft of such
resources the agencies rely on general statutes that protect
against theft of government property. These general statutes,
however, do not adequately take into account the unique nature
of paleontological resources, their scientific value, and the
high commercial demand.
H.R. 554 would not change which paleontological resources
are protected and which may be casually collected. It would
provide specific protection for these resources allowing
agencies to better and more uniformly manage and protect them.
H.R. 554 would create a uniform permit system that
emphasizes collaborative inventory and monitoring efforts among
Federal agencies, scientists, amateur paleontologists and other
interested parties and the public. It would ensure that these
fossils are retained as public property and curated in suitable
repositories for current and future generations of scientists
and the public to study and enjoy.
High commercial values of fossils have likely contributed
to the number of fossil thefts and vandalism on Federal lands.
Fossils illegally removed from Federal lands are sold here and
abroad for amounts that in some cases have totaled hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Even if the fossils are eventually
recovered--which is rare--the contextual information critical
for interpreting the fossil is permanently lost and the
scientific value significantly diminished.
H.R. 554 would provide additional tools needed to protect
paleontological resources to potentially deter the large scale
commercial destruction and exploitation of fossils on Federally
administered lands, and to preserve these fossils for the
public's knowledge and enjoyment. In conclusion, the specific
protection of paleontological resources is long overdue. What
we can learn about the history of life on earth through the
examination of paleontological resources on Federal lands is
invaluable.
The next bill is H.R. 1100, a bill that would expand the
boundary of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in North
Carolina. The Department of the Interior supports enactment of
this bill but would like to work with the committee to amend
the bill so make it more consistent with the Park's 2003
general management plan. The lands proposed to be included in
the new boundary involve approximately 115 acres that would
protect the viewshed from Big Glassy Mountain. Estimated land
or easement acquisition is estimated to cost between $300,000
and $2.25 million.
Additionally, land would be authorized for acquisition to
establish a site for a visitor's center and a parking lot to
solve traffic and safety problems near the park's northern
boundary. Funding to accomplish any of these investments would
be subject to the budget prioritization process of the National
Park Service.
The third bill is the H.R. 986 to designate segments of the
Eightmile River and its tributaries as components of the Wild
and Scenic River system. The Department does support enactment
of the legislation. Pursuant to legislation in 2001, the Park
Service studied the natural and cultural resources of the river
and developed a management plan to conserve those resources.
While the study is still under final Departmental review, it
has preliminarily concluded that the proposed segments in the
legislation are eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation
because of the free flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable
scenic, geologic and fish and wildlife values.
The study has received public comment and review, and the
Park Service does not anticipate making any changes in the
study's recommendations based on the input received. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Masica follows:]
Statement of Sue Masica, Chief of Staff, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 554, The Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 554, the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act. The Department supports H.R. 554 and the
tools it would provide to the Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the U.S. Geological Survey to properly manage,
protect, interpret, and care for paleontological resources on federal
lands. The bill would balance the public's interest in protecting
fossils by creating a permit system with the public's interest in
collecting fossils by allowing for the casual collection of certain
fossils from federal lands without a permit. We appreciate past efforts
by the Committees and the sponsors of the bills to adopt amendments
offered by the Department and look forward to continuing to work with
you as this bill moves forward.
Fossils are non-renewable resources that provide information about
the history of life on earth. Federal lands, the majority of which are
in the drier western part of the United States, contain a rich array of
plant, invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. Paleontological digs and
preserved sites on federal lands, paleontological exhibits in museums,
and informal displays at local nature centers attract visitors from
across the United States and abroad. Popular books, television shows,
and movies that feature creatures of our past, such as dinosaurs,
generate the attention of audiences of all ages. The information
supporting many of these efforts is derived from the preservation and
study of paleontological resources.
Some examples of the types of resources that would be protected
under H.R. 554 include:
The skull and lower jaw from an Oreodont, a sheep-sized,
cud-chewing, plant-eating mammal from 37 million years ago (scientific
name Miniochoerus gracilis). This was collected in 1932 from what is
now Badlands National Park. (EXHIBIT 1)
Two skeletons of herring-like fossil fish from 50 million
years ago (scientific name Diplomystus spp.). These were collected in
1956 from the Green River Shale in what is now Fossil Butte National
Monument. (EXHIBIT 2)
A small ammonite (related to the modern chambered
nautilus) from about 80 million years ago (scientific name Scaphites
sp.). This was collected some time prior to 1876 in what is now
Yellowstone National Park. (EXHIBIT 3)
Theropod tracks found in Denali National Park and
Preserve. Theropods were carnivorous dinosaurs that walked on their
hind legs and probably weighed about 200 pounds. Field researchers
located dozens of additional dinosaur footprints in the area, including
those of hadrosaurs (duck billed dinosaurs), bird tracks, and numerous
plant fossils. All these organisms lived during the Late Cretaceous
period (65 to 145 million years ago). (PHOTO 1)
Five complete t-rex fossils, valued in the millions,
found at the Charles M. Russell (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge in
Montana. Although no official count exists, 465 fossil exposures and
finds also have been reported at the refuge, including more than 10
Treceratops' fossils that have been verified by refuge staff. (PHOTO 2)
High commercial values of fossils have likely contributed to the
number of fossil thefts and vandalism on federal lands. For example,
721 incidents of fossil theft and vandalism were reported in just 36
national parks between 1995 and 1998. At just one refuge, it is
estimated that hundreds of pounds of small items such as shark teeth,
turtle scutes and Triceratops horns are carried out each year. Fossils
illegally removed from federal lands are sold here and abroad for
amounts that, in some cases, have totaled hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Even if the fossils are eventually recovered, which is rare,
the contextual information critical for interpreting the fossils is
permanently lost and the scientific value is significantly diminished.
Currently, the federal agencies primarily use their general
authority to protect resources to manage paleontological resources on
federal land. To address the theft of such resources, federal agencies
rely on general statutes that protect against theft of government
property. These general statutes, however, do not adequately take into
account the unique nature of paleontological resources, their
scientific value, and the high commercial demand. Many federal fossil
theft cases are treated as misdemeanors and the associated penalties do
not reflect the actual value of the fossil. One way that Congress can
address such challenges is to provide specific statutory protection for
the items at issue. In 1979, Congress enacted the Archeological
Resources Protection Act (ARPA) to provide specific protection for
archeological resources. H.R. 554 recognizes the need to provide
similar protections for fossils. Below are several examples of the
relatively few cases in which looters of paleontological resources from
federal lands were caught and convicted. While these cases ultimately
identified the offenders and recovered the fossils, they also represent
the limitations of existing federal protections.
In 2005, an individual with foreign citizenship plead
guilty to three counts of theft of government property for stealing
mammoth ivory and bones from the BLM administered National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska. The defendant was sentenced to one year and one day
imprisonment, three years supervised release, $25,706 in restitution,
$2,604 criminal fine, and $900 special assessment. Much of the ivory
was believed to have been exported out of the country. Mammoth tusks in
the commercial market can command anywhere from $1,000 to $20,000 per
tusk depending on their condition. For example, four tusks similar in
quality and condition to those in this case, were valued by an
appraiser at $68,000. (PHOTO 3)
In 2001, a group of individuals confessed to excavating
large pieces of fossils under cover of night on federal lands located
on the Utah and Colorado border. Evidence could not be recovered in the
case and the individuals could not be prosecuted under theft of
government property statutes with only the confession. The scientific
value of the site was largely destroyed. The defendants had previously
been convicted under ARPA and indicated that they switched to digging
fossils because of the lack of specific statutory protection. (PHOTO 4)
In 2002, a Pennsylvania resident also plead guilty to
theft of an Allosaurus fossil that was obtained from federally
administered land. The defendant sold the specimen to a Japanese buyer
for $400,000. The defendant was sentenced to one to fifteen years in
prison and paid a fine of $50,000. The case was prosecuted under more
favorable Utah state law. (PHOTO 5)
H.R. 554 would provide paleontological resources with specific
protection. The bill would ensure that valuable sites remain protected
by providing the Secretary with the authority to withhold information
on the nature and specific location of paleontological resources. The
bill would prohibit the excavation, removal, or damage to
paleontological resources on federal lands as well as the sale,
purchase, exchange, transport, export, or receipt of paleontological
resources. Criminal penalties for these acts would be set by
classification, following fine and imprisonment penalties imposed under
federal law. Civil penalties would provide for consideration of
scientific value as well as the cost of response, restoration and
repair of the resource and the site location. These and other
provisions in the bill would provide agencies with additional tools
needed to protect paleontological resources and to potentially deter
the large scale commercial destruction and exploitation of fossils on
federally administered lands.
H.R. 554 would codify recommendations in an interagency report
submitted to Congress in May 2000, titled ``Fossils on Federal and
Indian Lands'' (the Interagency Fossil Report). The report found that a
majority of people who commented viewed fossils on federal lands as
part of America's heritage, recommended that vertebrate fossils
continue to be protected as rare and within the ownership of the
federal government, and supported the involvement of amateurs in the
science and enjoyment of fossils. The report recommends the
establishment of a framework for fossil management, analogous to ARPA.
Under the agencies;' existing regulations and policies, vertebrate
fossils located on Federal lands may only be collected with a permit
for scientific and educational purposes. H.R. 554 would codify this
collection policy and standardize the permitting requirements among the
various agencies. It would ensure that these fossils are retained as
public property and curated in suitable repositories for current and
future generations of scientists and the public to study and enjoy.
H.R. 554 includes a provision that would authorize the Secretary to
allow the casual collection, without a permit, of certain
paleontological resources for non-commercial personal use. For example,
under this bill, visitors to BLM lands who enjoy paleontology as a
hobby could continue to collect and keep for their personal use a wide
variety of common plant and invertebrate fossils. The casual collection
of such fossils can be an important component of the public's enjoyment
of some federal lands and is generally consistent with scientific and
educational goals.
We have identified a few specific amendments we would like to offer
at this time. First, we would like to provide clarification language on
the confidentiality provisions in the bill. Second, we would like to
offer some additional comments concerning Sections 7, 8, and 9,
including clarification of the mental state standard, specification of
a statute of limitations of the bill, the inclusion of civil judicial
penalties and injunctive relief, as well as a multiple offense
provision. We would like to work with the Committee, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of Justice on these specific amendments
as well as some additional technical and clarification amendments.
The specific protection of paleontological resources is long
overdue. What we can learn about the history of life on earth through
the examination of paleontological resources on federal lands is
invaluable. As the prices of fossils rise, we will be under increasing
pressure to both protect scientifically significant fossil resources
and ensure their appropriate availability to the general public. H.R.
554 would provide a number of critical tools that are needed to
adequately protect paleontological resources and effectively provide
for their coordinated and comprehensive management.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
______
Statement of Sue Masica, Chief of Staff, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 986, Eightmile Wild and Scenic
River Act
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior
on H.R. 986, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by
designating segments of the Eightmile River and its tributaries as
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Department
supports enactment of this legislation.
H.R. 986 would designate 25.3 miles of the Eightmile River and its
tributaries as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, administered
by the Secretary of the Interior. The River would be managed in
accordance with the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan with the
Secretary coordinating with the Eightmile River Coordinating Committee.
The bill authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements
with the State of Connecticut, the towns of Lyme, East Haddam, and
Salem, Connecticut, and appropriate local planning and environmental
organizations.
The Eightmile River is located in the lower Connecticut River
watershed in south central Connecticut. Its name comes from the fact
that the river is located eight miles from the mouth of the Connecticut
River. Fifteen miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch through
the communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, Connecticut are
included on the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory of
potential wild and scenic river segments. Both segments are included on
the inventory for outstanding scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife
values. In addition to those values, the draft report also documents
outstandingly remarkable water quality, hydrologic, and cultural
resource values. Over eighty percent of the Connecticut River watershed
is still forested, including large tracts of unfragmented hardwood
forests that are home to a diverse assemblage of plants and animals
including bobcats, Great Horned Owls, red foxes, and the Cerulean
Warbler.
P.L. 107-65, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001,
authorized a study of the Eightmile River for potential inclusion in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As a part of the study, the National
Park Service worked with the communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and
Salem, Connecticut; the State of Connecticut; The Nature Conservancy;
and local conservation interests to study the natural and cultural
resources of the Eightmile River and develop a management plan to
conserve those special values. The resulting Eightmile River Watershed
Management Plan (December, 2005) was brought before special town
meetings in each of the communities and was overwhelmingly supported by
the public, as was the plan's recommendation to seek Wild and Scenic
River designation. While the study is still under final Departmental
review, it has preliminarily concluded that the proposed segments of
the Eightmile River and its tributaries are eligible for inclusion into
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System because of their free-
flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and
wildlife values.
H.R. 986 would implement the environmentally preferred alternative
contained in the draft study report, which was released for public
review and comment in July 2006. This draft report highlights a
watershed ecosystem that is unique within the State of Connecticut in
terms of its intact hydrology, water quality and ecosystem health. The
commitment of local, state and non-governmental partners is also
exemplary. Having already been through a local town meeting process,
only one comment was received on the draft report--a letter of support
from the State Park Director for the State of Connecticut.
Consequently, while the study and the accompanying Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) document has not been finalized, the
National Park Service does not anticipate making any changes in the
study recommendations based on public comments.
If H.R. 986 is enacted, the Eightmile River will be administered as
a partnership wild and scenic river, similar to other recent
designations in the northeast, including the Farmington River in
Connecticut and the Musconetcong River in New Jersey. This approach
emphasizes local and state management solutions, and has proven
effective as a means of protecting outstandingly remarkable natural,
cultural and recreational resource values without the need for direct
federal management or land acquisition.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
______
Statement of Sue Masica, Chief of Staff, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1100, Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1100, a bill that would expand the
boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (site) in the
State of North Carolina.
The Department supports the enactment of this bill, but would like
to work with the committee to amend the bill to make it more consistent
with the site's 2003 General Management Plan and other recent boundary
expansion bills.
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site currently includes 264
acres of Connemura Farm, an estate purchased by Sandburg in 1945 near
the pre-Civil War resort town of Flat Rock, North Carolina. Following
Sandburg's death in 1967, his wife deeded the estate to the Federal
Government. The National Historic Site was authorized one year later,
in 1968.
Sandburg, though perhaps best known for his poetry celebrating the
lives of common American people, was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning
biographer of Abraham Lincoln, children's author, and a collector of
folk music. Fellow author H.L. Mencken declared that Sandburg was
``indubitably an American in every pulse-beat.''
H.R. 1100 would authorize the acquisition, from willing sellers, of
interests in 115 acres of land contiguous to the Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site. The bill would also authorize the use of up to
5 of these 115 acres for a visitor center and parking facilities.
Land or easement acquisition is estimated to cost between $300,000
and $2.25 million. Management of these new lands is estimated to cost
less than $10,000 annually. These acquired lands could be used for a
visitor center, estimated to cost about $3 million, but that project,
as well as the additional costs mentioned in this paragraph, would be
subject to the budget prioritization process of the NPS. Annual
operation of the visitor center is expected to cost $345,000 annually.
The costs of operating a shuttle are not known at this time. No funding
has yet been identified for any of these costs.
Acquisition of 110 of the 115 acres proposed in H.R. 1100 would
allow the site to protect the view that Carl Sandburg and his neighbors
enjoyed from Big Glassy Mountain. Big Glassy overlook is the highest
point at Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site and a popular stop
for visitors. Sandburg and his family often visited this granite
outcrop to enjoy its stunning views of surrounding mountains and
valleys. The majority of the overlook is within the authorized park
boundary. However, the overlook precipice as well as the view below it,
lies on private property outside the authorized boundary. Purchasing
conservation easements or fee simple property rights from willing
sellers in the viewshed would allow the site to protect the pastoral
view from Sandburg's estate.
The acquisition of 5 acres for a visitor center and parking lot
would help to solve traffic and safety problems along Little River
Road, the thoroughfare that forms the site's northern boundary and
provides excellent views of the site's pastures, barns, and Side Lake.
When the site's existing parking area is full, vehicles enter and exit
from Little River Road, searching for an open space. Some visitors park
on the shoulder of Little River Road and walk to the site. The presence
of park vehicles, pedestrians, and speeding traffic on Little River
Road is a hazard to all. The local community has expressed concern
about this issue, but there is no additional parking available in the
community.
To solve these problems, the site's 2003 General Management Plan
proposes acquiring up to 5 acres to build a visitor center and parking
facility, and offering shuttle service from the facility to the main
house. In order to protect the historic character of the site, the
National Park Service would like this facility to be located outside
the 110 acres that are proposed to protect the views from Big Glassy
Mountain. An appropriate location would be near, but not necessarily
contiguous with the park's boundary, perhaps fronting Little River Road
or Highway 225. H.R. 1100 would need to be amended to allow the
National Park Service to acquire 5 acres near, but not contiguous to,
the site's boundary. No funding or operation decisions have been made
about implementing a shuttle system.
The National Park Service contacted each landowner that holds an
interest in the 110 acres proposed for acquisition during the planning
process for the site's 2003 General Management Plan. All of these
owners agreed to have their parcels included in the map and proposal to
expand the park. The Village of Flat Rock, North Carolina supports the
proposal for a visitor center, parking facility, and shuttle service.
H.R. 1100 applies boundary expansion criteria from the 1978
National Parks and Recreation Act. In the 29 years since that Act was
signed into law, Congressional committees and the National Park Service
have developed and refined these criteria. We would like to work with
the subcommittee to amend H.R. 1100 to make it more consistent with
recent boundary adjustment bills.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee
might have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Norbury.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK NORBURY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Norbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to present the views of the Department of Agriculture on two
bills, H.R. 554 and also on H.R. 1285. With your permission, I
will submit my testimony for the record and summarize my
testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Mr. Norbury. The Department supports H.R. 554 for many of
the same reasons that Ms. Masica outlined. Most importantly for
us it replaces what we regard as a crazy quilt of laws. It
provides clear and unambiguous authority for us to manage
paleontological resources. At the moment, we rely on laws like
the Organic Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act,
the Native American Graves Protection Restoration Act, and the
Hells Canyon National Recreation Act and similar kinds of
statutes. This would provide unified authority.
Congress has passed legislation with respect to
paleontological resources before. In 1990 Congress transferred
16,000 acres from the Department of Defense to the Forest
Service, the Picket Wire Canyon area which is administered as
part of the Comanche National Grassland in southeastern
Colorado. We believe this has been a great success. It has
engaged the enthusiasm of many volunteers, and we have provided
the committee with photos of some of the fruits of that earlier
legislation.
What it shows is some fossils that were identified in the
Picket Wire Canyon in 2004 that are now on their way to the
Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and those are volunteers
that you see in those photos who are participating with us. We
would like the opportunity to work with the committee to
clarify a couple of points in the bill related to the
definition of casual collection, the sources of reward money,
and the ability to protect the confidentiality of locations.
With respect to the other bill, H.R. 1285, the Department
of Agriculture does not object to the conveyance. The
Department does object to conveyance without compensation. We
do believe there are other ways that we can work with the Fire
District to achieve the conveyance. We would point to the
authorities that we have under the Town Site Act, under the
Weeks Act and the General Land Conveyance Act.
If the bill moves forward, we would like the opportunity to
work with the committee to clarify a couple of points. One is
on the actual legal description of the parcel. The staff tells
me that that legal description is incorrect, and we also would
like to explore whether the acreage total is really needed by
the Department. And with that, I will take any questions that
the members of the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norbury follows:]
Statement of Fred Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
Systems, U.S. Forest Service on H.R. 554: Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act and H.R. 1285: Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me today to talk with you about two bills that pertain to the
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture: H.R. 554: the
``Paleontological Resources Preservation Act'' and H.R. 1285: the
``Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act''.
H.R. 554: Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports enactment of H.R.
554, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. This bill would
provide the Forest Service with the tools needed to properly manage,
protect, interpret, and care for fossils, the unique traces of past
life. We would like to work with the committee in fashioning some minor
changes to strengthen the bill.
Paleontological resources are a part of our natural heritage. Large
or small, fossils fascinate people all over the world. They provide
important scientific information about ancient life on Earth. They are
also valued by collectors, some who enjoy casual collecting where
legally permitted, while others desire rare specimens that can be high
in commercial value.
These resources are also fragile and rare. Their loss has been
documented in surveys such as one on the Oglala National Grassland in
Nebraska, which found that one-third of all fossil sites inventoried
between 1991 and 1996 had been vandalized. In 1996, a case involving
fossil theft on National Forest System lands in California, which was
prosecuted under civil authority by the Department of Justice and
ultimately settled out of court, pointed out the need for more specific
statutes and regulations related to theft of federal fossils.
The Forest Service currently manages paleontological resources
under a patchwork of laws and policy that do not specifically address
their unique characteristics not adequately provide for their
management, protection, and availability for scientific research and
discovery. In May of 2000, the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with other federal agencies, including the Forest Service,
completed a report at the request of Congress titled ``Fossils on
Federal and Indian Lands.'' The report found that a coordinated
approach to the appropriate protection and management of fossil
resources would greatly enhance federal stewardship of these resources.
The report contained seven principles and associated recommendations
that were subsequently addressed by several bills introduced into the
107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. The USDA has provided support, and
has worked with committees to strengthen some provisions. In the 110th
Congress, H.R. 554 and its companion legislation, S. 320, would provide
the legal framework to manage and protect these important resources on
National Forest System and other Federal lands. The bills, if enacted,
would also encourage scientific discovery, public education, and allow,
to the extent authorized, for the collection of common invertebrate and
plant fossils for non-commercial personal use.
Section 3 of H.R. 554 would direct the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological
resources on certain Federal lands, as defined in the bill, using
scientific principles and expertise. The bill recognizes the non-
renewable nature of fossils and would define a paleontological resource
as any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved
in or on the Earth's crust, that are of paleontological interest and
that provide information about the history of life on earth. The
definition of paleontological resources does not include materials
associated with archeological resources under the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)), or any cultural
item under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001).
Section 5 of the bill would establish permitting requirements, with
uniform criteria for collecting fossils on certain Federal lands,
including National Forest System lands. Section 5(a)(2) would also
allow the Secretaries to authorize on certain Federal lands the casual
collection of a reasonable amount of insignificant common invertebrate
and plant fossils for non-commercial personal use without a permit.
Sections 7 and 8 of the bill would provide uniform criminal and
civil penalties to be used for theft and damage of paleontological
resources from Federal lands, as defined in the bill. This would be an
important provision for the Forest Service and other agencies because
it would provide the same specific statutory authority under which to
issue a citation for theft or damage of paleontological resources.
Section 9(a) of the bill also would authorize the Secretaries to
provide payment from proceeds arising from civil and criminal penalties
established under the bill to those who furnish information that leads
to the finding of a civil violation or to a criminal conviction for
which the penalties are assessed. This reward provision could help
further the protection of the resource.
Section 10 of the bill would require information concerning the
nature and specific location of a paleontological resource that
requires a permit for its collection to be exempt from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act and any other law unless certain
criteria were met. The confidentiality provision would be an important
tool to manage information regarding resources that could be vulnerable
to theft.
We have identified a few areas in the bill that could be
strengthened with minor changes. In addition to the ones suggested by
the Department of the Interior, these include clarifying the definition
of ``casual collecting'' in section 2, providing for the use of
appropriated funds for rewards in section 9, and clarifying the
confidentiality provision in section 10. We would like to work with the
Committee and the Departments of the Interior and Justice to provide
additional comments about the bill's law enforcement provisions. If the
bill is enacted, the Forest Service would work with Department of the
Interior agencies to develop implementing regulations, including the
opportunity for public comment.
Important as the enforcement provisions are, the USDA is mindful of
the tremendous interest the public has in learning about fossils and
participating in their stewardship. H.R. 554 calls for developing plans
to inventory, monitor, and study fossil resources, involving non-
Federal partners, the scientific community, and the general public.
This kind of work is exemplified by investigations being carried
out in the Picket Wire Canyonlands managed by the U.S. Forest Service
on the Comanche National Grassland in southeastern Colorado. In 1990,
Congress passed Public Law 101-510, transferring 16,700 acres of rugged
canyon lands from the Department of Defense to the Department of
Agriculture, with legislative language calling for inventory,
protection, and conservation of fossil resources within the canyon. In
partnership with the scientific community and volunteers, one-third of
the canyon has been explored, and an abundance of significant fossil
resources has been located.
The ``Last Chance'' Dinosaur Quarry, discovered in the canyon by a
volunteer enthusiast in 2004, is one of the most important dinosaur
quarries in Colorado. It contains parts of skeletons from at least
three dinosaurs, which will be curated at the Denver Museum of Nature
and Science. Volunteers enrolled in the Forest Service ``Passport in
Time'' program assist Forest Service paleontologists in the excavation
and preservation of these amazing remains. Information from the
excavations will inform both the public and the scientific community.
The establishment of a comprehensive legal framework that encourages
the integration of public and private resources, skills, and enthusiasm
would facilitate undertaking more of these projects.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, paleontological
resources are remarkable evidence of the Earth's history. The
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would provide the Forest
Service and other Federal agencies with the framework needed for their
stewardship and protection while providing opportunities for scientific
research, education, and recreation. By passing this bill, Congress
would make the important statement that the American people will
benefit from uniform Federal law and policies governing the discovery,
research, interpretation, and stewardship of fragile and rare
paleontological resources.
H.R. 1285: Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act
This bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey,
without consideration, approximately three acres of land on the
Wenatchee National Forest to the King and Kittitas Counties Fire
District #51 for use as a site for a new Snoqualmie Pass fire and
rescue station. The bill includes a clause for reversion of the
property to the United States if it is determined, after a hearing,
that the land is not being used for the purpose stated in the bill.
The Department does not support the bill in its present form. We do
not object to conveying the lands included in H.R. 1285, but we oppose
this bill because it does not require market value compensation. The
taxpayers of the United States should receive market value for the
sale, exchange, or use of their National Forest System lands.
We also believe that this legislation is unnecessary because the
Forest Service can meet the bill's objectives through current statutes
that allow the Forest Service to convey this parcel to the Fire
District for land or cash value. For example, under the Townsite Act,
the Secretary of Agriculture may convey, for market value, up to 640
acres of land to established communities located adjacent to National
Forests. Under the General Exchange Act and Weeks Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture can exchange National Forest System lands with non-Federal
entities, including State and Local governments. These laws require the
Secretary of Agriculture to obtain market value for exchanges or sales
of National Forest lands.
The fire district currently has a fire station located on Forest
Service lands under special use permit, several miles away from the
property covered by this legislation. We understand the fire district's
need for an updated facility, and the desired property is situated at
an interchange on Interstate 90, which would improve response times to
the many emergency situations that occur in that area. However, there
is a question as to whether three acres is excessive to their actual
physical needs for the facility. In addition, the legal description
used in the bill is incorrect and a land survey will be needed to
properly locate and describe the property. Under the Townsite Act and
exchange authorities, the fire station would be required or expected to
pay administrative costs of making the conveyance, such as the survey.
Although we do not support the bill as written, we are eager to
continue discussions with the bill's sponsors, the fire district, and
the committee, in the hopes of assisting the District in achieving its
desire to improve its abilities to provide necessary fire and rescue
services.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have on my testimony
today.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and I have a question for Ms.
Masica. My colleague, Mr. Bishop, raised the concern regarding
condemnation authority in the bill 986 I am referring to, and
as I understand it, the Wild and Scenic River Act says that if
legal zoning is tough enough, local zoning is tough enough
there is no condemnation authority. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Masica. I do not have the copy of the legislation right
in front of me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. My question is in reference to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. That if local zoning laws are tough enough
then there is no condemnation authority.
Ms. Masica. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding, and
that the Federal Government would not be stepping in to what
are the local zoning decisions that are already in place.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Then let me follow-up with another
question. Then lines I think 16 through 18 on page 7 of H.R.
986 says that local zoning regulations are deemed to be tough
enough. Is that a correct interpretation?
Ms. Masica. Mr. Chairman, I would have to get back with
you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. The other part of the question when you
get back to the committee on would be if it is deemed to be
tough enough, then there is no condemnation authority within
the legislation, correct?
Ms. Masica. That is my understanding.
Mr. Grijalva. I look forward to those responses. Let me
just follow-up on 554. How are archeological and cultural
resources found on public lands managed? That is part of the
question. And should fossil resources be managed in a similar
way?
Ms. Masica. I believe that is absolutely the intent of the
legislation. Our desire to have that happen. I think the
experience of the agencies of the Department of the Interior
has been that the archeological protection authorities have
made it possible for us to do a good job of both protecting and
most importantly educating the public about the significance of
those resources, and we would like to see similar protection
provided for paleo resources.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I guess a very general question,
if I may, resources that we are talking about in this
legislation, resources found on public land belong to all
Americans, and so part of what I think the legislation tries to
address is that it is unfair to allow individuals to take these
resources out and sell them for a profit. Do you agree with
that point of view or do you have a comment on that point of
view?
Ms. Masica. I believe that I concur that that is the
intent, and our desire to as much as possible to have the
resources remain available for all Americans to benefit from
and to be educated by.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Norbury, you mentioned working
with the committee on the same legislation on the casual
collection part of that legislation. Could you just expand on
that comment that you made?
Mr. Norbury. One of our concerns, Mr. Chairman, is the
phrase of non powered hand tools and what that means. People
can disturb a lot of surface with tools that do not involve
motors, and we really want to make it clear that the casual
collection is intended to be that collection that can be
achieved with minimal surface disturbance, and we would want to
have some clear definition of what kinds of tools can be
employed in that casual collection.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I do not have any more questions at this
point. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I have a couple of them. Let me start with 554
with you if I could. Ms. Masica, in the 1987 Appropriations Act
the Park Service was mandated to come up with rules and
regulations based on the NAS report on paleontological
collecting. Why was that never implemented? Why did your agency
not do it?
Ms. Masica. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that. I
will have to get back to you for the record. I do not know.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Then let us talk about 1100 for just
a second. You said the cost of acquisition of the land would be
anywhere from $300,000 to $2.5 million.
Ms. Masica. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. Can you come up with a little bit closer of a
ballpark figure then?
Ms. Masica. I think part of that, Mr. Chairman, depends on
the type of acquisition, whether we do fee simple or easement,
and that affects then the price as well as then how much
because it is multiple parcels. It is not just one parcel.
Mr. Bishop. If they need parking so that the situation you
are talking about down there is similar to what I experience at
Mt. Vernon most of the time where people are walking along the
street and parking on the streets, where would the most likely
place of that parking be?
Ms. Masica. My understanding is the issues are on the
northern boundary of the Park. I do not think a specific parcel
was identified in the general management plan for where that
would be.
Mr. Bishop. That is probably true. You said also in your
testimony that the general management plan is not consistent
with the bill as written. What specifically is not consistent
with the bill with the general management plan?
Ms. Masica. Mr. Bishop, my understanding is that the
general management plan had a more specific site in mind where
a visitor's center would be located, and that that is a
different circumstance than where we are at right now. That the
GMP had a specific site in mind, and I have got it backwards.
Let me get back to you with that, Mr. Chairman. I do not have
the details of the GMP right in front of me.
Mr. Bishop. I have no other questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me turn to Mr. Inslee, if you
might have any questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Mr. Norbury, is there any general
idea what a compensation would be for the Snoqualmie property?
Has that been discussed or considered?
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Inslee, I do not have any information on
what that particular parcel might be worth in terms of market
value. The averages for the acquisitions by the Forest Service
are not useful here. It is located right next to an interstate,
right next to an interchange, and as we all know real estate
values are very sensitive to location.
Mr. Inslee. So have you discussed with the folks there at
all any potential Federal pools of money that might be
available to compensate the Forest Service?
Mr. Norbury. I believe that local staff have searched for
pools of Federal money that might be available but have not
been able to identify any so far.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the courtesy extended me to be up here. I appreciate that very
much. Mr. Norbury, if this land were conveyed to the Fire
District as outlined, this action would still be subject to the
usual environmental and regulatory procedures, is that correct?
Mr. Norbury. My understanding that is correct, and would
include NEPA into ESA and the State Historic Preservation Act
and all similar laws.
Mr. Hastings. Yes. So the only thing that we are really
asking differently is to have a conveyance without cost.
Everything else would be in place.
Mr. Norbury. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Hastings. OK. You mentioned that one of the concerns
you had is there should be some compensation, and my colleague
from Washington you know trying to explore other areas. Just I
think it is important and I alluded to this just briefly in my
comments when I was where you were, and that is in the last 10
years in King County and Kittitas County alone the Forest
Service has acquired about 20,000 acres.
We are only talking about a small, I mean it is not like
the Forest Service is being deprived of this, and I think this
is an extraordinary circumstance given the rural nature and the
fact that it is surrounded by Federal lands. So I just wanted
to make that point. I am not asking for a response. It is just
that the Forest Service has acquired in the last 10 years quite
a bit of land. I just wonder in that vein though in the next
fiscal year or so is the Forest Service contemplating acquiring
any more land in King or Kittitas Counties?
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Hastings, I do not have that information
as to what the proposed acquisitions for the next year are in
King and Kittitas Counties.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Well once again that is all I have, Mr.
Chairman, and once again thank you for the courtesies that you
extended me to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to our colleague,
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you
both for your testimony today. I know both of you in your oral
and written testimony document some surveys or estimates on the
loss or reports of fossil theft and vandalism, and you point
out a couple of examples, whether it is the Ogallala National
Grassland in Nebraska, a particular refuge, Ms. Masica, that
you note. Could either of you provide is there a reasonable
estimate on how many paleontological specimens are removed from
Federal lands each year? I mean is it roughly a third as you
estimate in some cases or is there any way that you can provide
more specific detail from the surveys that have been done to
give a reasonable estimate?
Ms. Masica. I am told by our experts here from the BLM that
their estimate is about a third.
Ms. Herseth. Is that consistent with the estimates for
the----
Mr. Norbury. Unfortunately we do not have any comparable
estimates for the national forest system as a whole. We have
sites like the one mentioned in the testimony where we have
found that a third of the sites have been disturbed by
unauthorized collection but we do not have a system-wide
survey.
Ms. Herseth. And then, Ms. Masica, if the surveys that the
National Park Service has done or what your estimate is if one-
third of those specimens are removed, do you have any estimates
on how many pass into private ownership and how many remain in
the public domain?
Ms. Masica. I am told that we do not have that breakdown. I
can follow up and check and see if we can get it for the
record.
Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that. And then one final question
for both of you. I noticed that both of your agencies were
involved in the 2000 report that demonstrated significant
collaboration among different agencies, the one entitled
Fossils on Federal and Indian Land. It also included lengthy
public comment that I know is part of the report but could
either of you comment on the scope and the tone of the comments
the Administration received when it undertook this effort? Was
it fairly balanced as it relates to some of the testimony we
are getting today as it relates to H.R. 554 or do either of you
recall were either of you part of reviewing the public comment
as made part of that report in 2000?
Mr. Norbury. My knowledge of the comments is limited to the
information that appears in the report, and the comments are
listed at least summarized at the back of that report. When I
read the report and looked at those comments, my impression was
the majority of the comments were supportive of the intent of
the report. There is significant concern and concerns that can
be addressed in the regulations that would implement this
legislation.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you.
Ms. Masica. And I would concur with that. I think it was a
balanced input from the various sides who will be also heard
later this morning.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Sali?
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess for either of
you I am sort of concerned about the priority of expending
Federal resources you know for patrolling what will be a
significant amount of land versus you know for example issues
with meth production.
Ninety percent of the meth problem in the State of Idaho is
imported across the southern border of the United States, as a
part of illegal drug activity that crosses Federal land and
whatnot. You are here to express some opinion I guess about
that priority for Federal policy. Is dealing with
paleontological finds is that more important than dealing with
the meth problem in the State of Idaho?
Ms. Masica. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman I am sorry, I
think what the legislation provides is some authorities to the
agency. I do not believe that we anticipate a significant
increase in our presence and a significant redeployment of
resources or increase in resources made available to the
agencies to carry out the purposes of the Act. I think that it
becomes a juggling of priorities within our budgets as we deal
with formulating those requests every year.
Mr. Sali. You would agree though that somehow that priority
is going to have to be made, and you are asking us to consider
this legislation that is before us and you know how it will
impact Federal agencies. Are you here advising us that this
should take a priority over for example dealing with the meth
problem and the other issues at the Federal agency is dealing
with?
Ms. Masica. I do not think that that is my position to
dictate to you all what that priority would be. I think that we
have in any given budget year we are dealing with many
competing priorities, and we do the best we can. I think that
our support for this if we anticipate it there would be a
significant huge cost burden on the agencies we would be
talking about that but that is not our intent that there would
be a significant expected cost increase for the agencies to
carry out this legislation.
Mr. Sali. Well let me come at this in a little different
direction. We have got some pretty serious criminal penalties
and provisions in this legislation. If the idea is you know who
owns the fossil and whether you can have them or not in private
possession if you found them on Federal ground, why could we
not just have a civil system so that you know we would declare
that these belong to the Federal Government at some level, and
if you happen to have one of those then we will come get that
back from you as opposed to having criminal prosecution and all
the agents that it takes to go out and find when the law has
been violated from a criminal standpoint, all of the
constitutional issues that you come up with there, and finally
in court having to deal with that burden of proving things
beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the issue is just to get the fossils in possession of
the Federal Government, why could we not just do that with a
civil process?
Ms. Masica. I will need to respond for the record for that.
I am not well versed in the nuances of that debate inside the
agencies. There are I think an attempt to protect the resources
and keep damages from happening, and that is what we are trying
to accomplish with this.
Mr. Norbury. If I could comment, the value of the fossils
is not only in the fossils themselves but in the context in
which they are found, and once they are removed from that
context and removed from the Federal land, much of the
scientific value of the fossil has been lost. So the bill
correctly identifies both the paleontological value of the
fossils in addition to the commercial value of the fossils and
also speaks to the impact on the site from fossil collection.
So it is larger from the Forest Service point of view. It
is larger than just getting the fossils back. It is protecting
the scientific information that is yielded by the fossils and
their context.
Mr. Sali. And you would be advocating to this committee
that that ought to be a higher priority, that scientific value,
than for example the meth problem that we have in the State of
Idaho?
Mr. Norbury. The Forest Service does not read this bill as
affecting the priorities for our law enforcement personnel at
all in terms of how they would spend their time. What this bill
does is make our law enforcement activities more effective
because it creates a better basis for charging people with the
violations that our law enforcement people already observe.
Mr. Sali. So you are suggesting there will not be any
fiscal impact for passing this law?
Mr. Norbury. Our read the bill as it is written does not
require the expenditure of funds, does not change the
priorities for our law enforcement people. What it does is
creates a clearer message to the public about what is legal and
what is not legal. It provides a clearer legal basis for making
citations. It provides a clearer legal basis for bringing
prosecutions for people who violate the law.
Mr. Sali. So there will be a fiscal impact if we pass this
legislation? It will increase the need for the agencies.
Mr. Norbury. I am unable to identify a fiscal impact since
we are already charged legally with protecting all the
resources that are present on the National Forest. We already
have law enforcement people who are out there doing
investigations and doing patrolling, trying to protect those
resources, who are already bringing cases and attempting to
bring cases for violation of the laws.
So it is difficult for me to see how there would be a
fiscal impact. It is possible for me to see how we would get
more benefit from the money that we are already spending on law
enforcement activities on the National Forest because we would
have more investigations that would actually yield successful
prosecutions.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. There are no follow-up questions?
Let me thank the panel. I appreciate it very much. The
committee members can and might submit questions in writing to
you. We appreciate a speedy turnaround. So thank you very much.
Appreciate it. And let me call the next panel forward please.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let me welcome the panel. Appreciate very
much your testimony today. Let me begin with Mr. Peter Larson
regarding H.R. 554, Black Hills Institute of Geological
Research. Mr. Larson.
STATEMENT OF PETER L. LARSON, BLACK HILLS INSTITUTE OF
GEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Mr. Larson. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. I am Peter Larson, research and
field paleontologist and President of Black Hills Institute of
Geological Research. I have been a fossil enthusiast since I
was four, and started my company while still an undergraduate.
I have published 56 scientific papers and two books, and have
four papers and a third book in press. My business, a large
private fossil company, has provided internships to graduate
students from here and abroad, identified new species, and
participated in educational television programming.
We have provided fossil exhibits to nearly every major
natural history museum here and abroad, including the U.S.
National Museum of Natural History. My credentials include
participation in the largest paleontological legal case in
American history. You may have heard of a T. rex named Sue. I
mention this case now to acknowledge that being the target of a
Federal case stimulates extensive research. My lawyer and I are
now experts in many of the issues discussed here today.
However, my expertise in these issues began well before
Sue. Twenty years ago I sat on the committee of the National
Academy of Sciences that provided recommendations to land
management agencies regarding the collection and stewardship of
fossils on public lands. The same questions raised by that
examining body are discussed here today. It is time to resolve
them.
This committee has the same goals as did the NAS committee,
to balance the protection of a natural resource with its
productive use, and to enlist the support and positive
participation of people with enthusiasm and knowledge who can
act as stewards. Regarding both of these goals, H.R. 554
demonstrates a difference of opinion from that expressed by the
NAS committee.
In 1987, the report issued by the NAS began and I quote,
``In general the science of paleontology is best served by
unimpeded access to fossils and fossil bearing rocks in the
field.'' My experience supports their conclusions and points
out one crucial difference between H.R. 554 and the NAS
recommendations. One prioritizes law enforcement while the
other prioritizes fossils and the people who collect them.
We all ask how do we rescue fossils in danger of
destructions from the elements and protect them from vandals?
How do we protect fossils adequately without stifling
scientific curiosity? The Bureau of Land Management alone
oversees half a billion acres of public land, and that does not
include land overseen by the Forest Service and other agencies.
There are literally millions of fossils being exposed and lost
to weathering each year. The overwhelming majority of these
fossils are not rare and have little scientific value.
They can, however, serve other purposes. For example, I
personally have witnessed the transformation of many bored
children who saw a fossil and then opened a door to learning.
When the focus is on preserving fossils, which means collecting
them rather than restricting their collections, the fossils
themselves become educational tools, part of the scientific
mystery and sources of inspiration.
The vast majority of people who collect fossils are a
resource. They are not a threat. I acknowledge that not every
enthusiast holds a degree in the field of paleontology and
damage can occur to fossil specimens during the learning
process but remember each Ph.D. must go through that same
process. Therefore, our focus should be on educating the people
in the field so their interaction with the fossil resource is
positive. Our focus should be on discerning the differences
between the extremely rare special fossils that should be in
museums and the common thoroughly studied fossils that can live
in a child's pocket or on a mantel and still promote the
science of paleontology.
Interestingly, most of the major fossil discoveries have
been made by amateurs. Natural history museums and academia
have always depended upon such finds. Of the 40 plus T. rex
specimens found to date, only two were found by academic
paleontologists. All six archaeopteryx, the crucial link
between birds and dinosaurs, were found by amateurs and sold to
museums. If Germany had had a law like H.R. 554, not one of the
archaeopteryx would have been found.
Museums require paleontological materials both on display
and in research drawers so that they can educate and enlighten
visitors. Many entire exhibit halls are comprised of fossils
that have been bought from companies like mine, which collect
and prepare fossils brought to our attention by ranchers and
amateurs.
With a successful paradigm shift, one that acknowledges
that amateur, commercial and academic paleontologists are
interdependent we can gather together to not only assist
science but also develop a collection program to protect
fossils from natural destructive forces and from genuine
criminals. An army of amateur and commercial collectors can
help do both.
H.R. 554 assumes that only a certain class of
paleontologists should be allowed to collect fossils. This
posture does more than restrict land access. It asks of
government employees in that special class an impossible task,
and one not in the best interest of science. They simply can
neither collect all the important fossils nor protect them in
the field. A fossil left in the field will be destroyed period
either by the forces of weathering, wildlife, developers or an
unwitting hiker. We cannot say all the fossils. However, there
is an army of people who will help in this situation if you
just ask.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, ``I know no safe depository of
the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,
and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their
control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them but to inform their discretion.'' I thank you for
inviting me to testify, and I appreciate the opportunity to
share the NAS committee's views, a view that I believe is
rational and balanced, and if incorporated into this
legislation could help save the science of paleontology.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Statement of Peter L. Larson, Black Hills Institute of Geological
Research, Inc., Hill City, SD (President); Black Hills Museum of
Natural History (Member: Board of Directors); Association of Applied
Paleontological Sciences (Member: Board of Directors); on H.R. 554: The
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
I am a degreed geologist, experienced vertebrate paleontologist and
current member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, the
Paleontological Society, and the Mid-American Paleontological Society.
My expertise has been requested for numerous educational, academic and
museum programs, public lectures, and governmental committees. My
opinions about the subjects addressed by H.R. 554 are certainly strong,
but they also reflect decades of study and collaboration with a host of
experts in the field who represent the scientific, amateur, government
and commercial communities.
You might be surprised and pleased to note that in general, the
prevailing views of all of these groups coalesce in shared needs,
practices, and opinions. This trend was first documented in essential
and foundational conclusions reached by the Committee on Guidelines for
Paleontological Collecting, which was convened by the Board on Earth
Sciences of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) from 1984 to 1987. I was appointed as a member of that committee,
along with ten other paleontologists and geologists, plus two
attorneys. We all worked closely with liaison members from various
Federal land management agencies including the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey,
among others.
The committee reviewed several categories of interest relating to
the subjects of H.R. 554, which will be discussed in this document.
However, first allow me to summarize the overall findings and
recommendations, as these might serve to illustrate the breadth of the
committee's understanding of the issues.
NAS COMMITTEE ON GUIDELINES FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL COLLECTING
The committee's charge was to answer the question: ``How should
government protect and preserve fossils of extinct plants and animals
while at the same time allowing other legitimate uses of the land and
encouraging the scientific study of fossils?'' (NAS Report, 1987, p. 1)
When the committee issued its report, it adopted the following
statement as the basis for its 10 specific recommendations to federal
agencies in answer to that charge:
``In general, the science of paleontology is best served by
unimpeded access to fossils and fossil-bearing rocks in the
field. Paleontology's need for unimpeded access is in sharp
contrast to the prevailing situation in archeology. In this
report, ``access'' is defined to include all collecting and
removal of fossiliferous material for study and preservation.
Generally, no scientific purpose is served by special systems
of notification before collecting and reporting after
collecting because these functions are performed well by
existing mechanisms of scientific communication. From a
scientific viewpoint, the role of the land manager should be to
facilitate exploration for and collection of, paleontological
materials.'' (NAS Report, 1987, p. 2)
The NAS Committee's 10 recommendations are as follows (italics as
they appear in original document):
Recommendation #1: A uniform national policy on paleontological
collecting should be adopted by all federal agencies. Existing
statutory authority is adequate for implementation of such a policy.
Recommendation #2: Each state should adopt a uniform
paleontological policy for state-owned lands.
Recommendation #3: All public lands should be open to fossil
collecting for scientific purposes. Except in cases involving quarrying
or commercial collecting, collecting fossils on public lands should not
be subject to permit requirements or other regulations:
The Committee recommends the following procedures and definitions:
Reconnaissance Collecting: Requires no advance notice to any public
lands manager; no permit is required. Such collecting is a day or less
at any one locality and involves surface collecting by hand tools.
Extended Stay Collecting: Requires written advance notice to the
land manager so that applicable rules can be known and followed; no
permit is required. Consists of surface collecting for more than one
day by using hand tools.
Quarrying for Fossils: For this report, a paleontological quarry is
defined as an excavation of greater then two (2) cubic yards initiated
for the extraction of fossils. Collecting fossils by quarrying should
be controlled by a permit procedure. Permit forms should be simple.
Recommendation #4: Fossils of scientific significance should be
deposited in institutions where there are established research and
educational programs in paleontology. These repositories will ensure
that specimens are accessioned, maintained, and remain available for
study and education. There is no justification for requiring that
fossils be deposited in an institution in the same state in which they
were found; such requirements discourage paleontological research.
Recommendation #5: Commercial collecting of fossils from pubic
lands should be regulated to minimize the risk of losing fossils and
data of importance to paleontology. Permit applications must be subject
to review by paleontologists qualified to assess the projects'
potential impact on related research programs. Applications must
receive the endorsement of a paleontologist who is willing to supply
guidance to the commercial operation. Specimens deemed to be of special
scientific interest must be deposited in a public institution, such as
a museum, college, or university.
Past experience has clearly shown that commercial collecting has
both benefited and hurt paleontological research. Many unique and
scientifically important fossils have been discovered and made
available to science by commercial collectors. Conversely, there are
documented instances of important fossils disappearing into private
hands with no opportunity for scientific study. The Committee believes
that a permitting procedure for commercial collecting would ensure
access to specimens by scientific community and commercial interests.
Recommendation #6: Private landowners should follow the guideline
that commercial collecting of fossils be undertaken with thorough
scientific oversight to ensure that the scientific usefulness of
specimens is not impaired.
Recommendation #7: Blanket paleontological inventories, mitigation,
or salvage activities should not be undertaken, funded, or required by
government agencies as a routine part of environmental assessment,
impact analysis, permitting, land management, or similar programs.
By facilitating the work of scientists, Land managers and other
agencies can take advantage of the most effective means of
accomplishing inventory objectives, i.e., increasing knowledge of
fossil distributions on public lands. Thus, surface paleontological
collecting should be encouraged on all public lands, including Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, Research Natural Areas, Wilderness
Study Areas, and Designated Wilderness Areas. There is no need to
conduct general paleontological inventories on all public lands....
Recommendation #8: Land mangers or developers who require
scientific guidance on perceived paleontological problems should
initially seek advice from the U.S. Geological Survey, or appropriate
state geological surveys, which in turn may wish to contact appropriate
paleontological organizations.
Recommendation #9: The Department of the Interior, in cooperation
with the professional paleontological community, should identify and
evaluate potential paleontological localities of national significance
(on both public and private lands) for designation as National Natural
Landmarks (NNL's), pursuant to the existing National Natural Landmark
Program administered by the National Park Service (36 CFR 62).
Recommendation #10: The paleontological societies of the nation
should develop permanent and broadly based educational programs to
inform landowners and commercial and amateur collectors of the research
needs of professional paleontologists. (NAS Report, 1987, p. 24-26)
Although the committee finished its work nearly 20 years ago, the
recognized problems and solutions are perhaps even more relevant today
than they were at the time we published our findings. Fossils are still
being exposed and destroyed by the actions of nature and humans at a
rate so great that it will never be possible to save them all, no
matter how many collectors are allowed access. Unfortunately, because
of competing interests, both in the land management agencies and in
some private organizations, the National Academy's recommendations were
never implemented. This lack of action occurred despite a mandate by
Congress found in the 1987 Appropriations Act requiring that federal
agencies use the report in developing regulations concerning
paleontology (Congressional Record--House, Oct. 15, 1985, p.H.10679,
sec. 121).
After conclusion of the NAS committee's work, I was appointed to
and served for several years on a committee for Negotiated Rule-Making
with the BLM, NFS, NPS, USGS, and other agencies. The resulting rules
and proposals again were never implemented.
Today the NAS Report on paleontological collecting remains the only
scientific study that has addressed the question of what is best for
the science of paleontology and for fossils found on public lands. This
committee's work often stands in great contrast to recommendations by
special interest groups such as SAFE (``Save America's Fossils for
Everyone'') and some of the leadership for the Society for Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP). SAFE and the SVP leadership rely heavily upon
recommendations distilled from a poll of 300 adults conducted in 1995.
That poll has since been scientifically analyzed:
``Many people are trumpeting this poll as proving that public
opinions overwhelmingly in favor of legal restrictions on
fossils, whether the fossils were found on public or private
land, and whether the finder is a professional, commercial
employee, or an individual. The poll was likely biased and,
worse, made no attempt to distinguish whether the respondents
understood the issues at hand, thus making the wisdom of
following their opinions suspect, Regardless, the poll does not
prove public opinion is in favor of legal restrictions as 1)
many results were contradictory, 2) results were clearly in
favor of personal property rights despite claims to the
contrary, and 3) questions were not worded in such a way as to
allow only a single or clear conclusion.'' (Poling, 1996, p. 7)
Although I applaud Congressman McGovern's interest in the somewhat
esoteric subject of paleontology, and I share his desire to coordinate
the efforts of the various land management agencies, I cannot support
this bill in its present form because it diametrically opposes valid
research and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on which I served.
Specific topics illustrating this opposition are discussed below.
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
The most basic problem in this debate is a difference of opinion on
the nature of the problem. Are there not enough fossils, or are there
not enough fossil collectors? Do fossils need to be protected from
humans, or does the very nature of human scientific curiosity need to
be protected and nourished? Is it acceptable to ``sacrifice'' a small
number of fossils to inadvertent damage for the greater benefit that is
derived from having more people looking for them? Is it possible that
by loosening restrictions, we might be able to increase exponentially
our scientific knowledge of life on this planet?
The posture of H.R. 554 is evident in Section 5, which imposes
rigorous permit requirements for fossil collecting for scientific
research and does not permit commercial collecting of any kind or
vertebrate collecting by amateurs, contrary to NAS recommendations #3
and #5.
Let's recall how the NAS Committee spoke to this very issue when it
stated:
``...the science of paleontology is best served by unimpeded
access to fossils and fossil-bearing rocks in the
field...Generally, no scientific purpose is served by special
systems of notification...From a scientific viewpoint, the role
of the land manager should be to facilitate exploration for,
and collection of, paleontological materials.'' (NAS Report,
1987, p. 2)
H.R. 554 seems to focus on danger that can occur to fossils--either
in the form of damage or theft--where the NAS Committee focused on the
good contributed by a higher volume of interested parties participating
in a common goal. Further, the NAS Report stated, ``the Committee was
dismayed to learn of the number of instances of disruption of
collecting by what seem to be overzealous regulatory activities of
federal agencies.'' Clearly, the NAS Committee was more concerned with
the potential for wrongful prosecution of people than with the human
threat posed to fossils.
How can we reconcile these seemingly polar positions, and arrive at
an equitable, reasonable, beneficial, and long-standing solution that
maximizes resources? For me to contribute to this answer, I must first
present information broadening the scope presented in H.R. 554.
ABUNDANCE OF FOSSILS
A primary element of the equation is whether or not fossils are
rare--and if some are, how much protection do they need?
H.R. 554 assumes that fossils, especially all vertebrate fossils,
are rare, and thus are in need of protection. Only those who do not
actively collect fossils could possibly believe this; field experience
quickly reveals that, in fact, fossils are not rare. They occur
wherever we find sedimentary rock, which is found on over 80 percent of
the land surface of this planet. Certainly, plant cover and human
structures obscure these rocks in many areas, but natural weathering
and human activity constantly uncover new fossils; they also ultimately
destroy them, sometimes within a few hours. The NAS Report states:
``An irony of the natural renewal process is that once
specimens of fossils are exposed at the surface of the earth,
they do not remain collectable for very long in most
environments. If a collector does not remove them, nature will
destroy the exposed fossils through weathering and erosion. In
especially hard and resistant rocks, on the other hand, a
fossil exposure may remain essentially intact for many years.''
(NAS Report, 1987, p. 16)
It is true that certain fossil species are represented by only a
few, or in some cases, only one individual.
``The rarity of a particular kind of fossil depends very much
on what one means by ``particular kind.'' For example, dinosaur
bone fragments are a common component of many stream deposits
of Mesozoic Age; they are found on all continents and occur in
rocks spanning more than 100 million years of geologic time. In
many collecting areas, finding dinosaur bone fragments, or even
complete bones, is not unusual or especially noteworthy.
However, certain species are known only from one or two
localities.'' (NAS Report, 1987, p. 15)
Therefore, the blanket statement that fossils, or even vertebrate
fossils, are rare is untrue. For this same reason, there is no
scientific, public, or practical reason why all fossils found on public
lands should remain, in perpetuity, as public property, as is mandated
by H.R. 554, [Sec. 5(c)(1)].
There are literally trillions of fossils eroding out from public
lands each year. The NAS Committee recognized the value and variety of
uses for these fossils, from science to the most mundane. ``To many
people, the purely esthetic quality of fossils is important, and they
use fossils for decorative purposes as objects of art.'' (NAS Report,
1987, p. 11) The Report mentions as acceptable interior decorating and
even using fossils as facing stones. With this in mind, we cannot
assume that all fossils are rare or important, and must be housed only
in museums.
Conversely, SAFE and the SVP leadership often cite a ``worst-case
scenario'' that causes those unfamiliar with the science to focus on
``protection'' rather than ``multiple use.'' The scenario involves a
clumsy amateur stumbling upon a rare treasure and stashing it on his
mantelpiece, hidden away from the public and scientists. Although most
fossils found today on the average mantelpiece are common and have
little scientific value, I contend that even in this unlikely case, a
fossil has been saved that probably otherwise wouldn't have been.
Further, that one important fossil, should it have made its way to a
mantelpiece, represents thousands of others that have been brought to
museums and saved for science.
For those of us on the NAS Committee, we saw the value incorporated
in that mantelpiece fossil. Left uncollected and unobserved, that
fossil has no value at all.
THE VALUE OF AMATEUR ENTHUSIASTS AND COMMERCIAL COMPANIES
Amateur collectors are the foot-soldiers of paleontology. They are
the equivalent of amateur astronomers, who broaden the scope of
scientific observation a thousandfold. This bill does nothing to
encourage their contribution or increase their access to fossils, but
acts, instead, to negate their contributions to the science. I recall a
time in 1982 when tens of thousands of letters were received by the BLM
in opposition to a proposed rule-making that failed to address amateur
access in the way promoted by the NAS Report. Those tens of thousands
represent perhaps hundreds of thousands who have a strong interest in
paleontology.
Further, museums all over the world have depended--for their entire
histories--upon the commercial collection of fossils for display
purposes. In fact, some museums, such as the Houston Museum of Natural
Sciences and the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, contain entire
exhibit halls that are almost exclusively composed of specimens that
were purchased from or donated by businesses like my own.
Every one of the six Archeopteryx, that rare missing link between
birds and meat-eating dinosaurs, was found by an amateur and
commercially placed in a public museum. And of the 40 T. rex specimens
found to date, only two were discovered by academic paleontologists--
who, under this bill, would be the only people able to secure permits.
All of these specimens, and countless others collected and preserved by
amateur and commercial collectors, changed the face of science. Without
their access to public lands, a impressive percentage of the potential
scientific information contained in public areas will be lost forever.
To assume that it is beneficial to draw a line separating academics
from the rest of the field, as recommended in H.R. 554, reflects a lack
of paleontological field experience that is understandable only if one
has never collected fossils.
THEFT
No responsible person condones the theft of fossils or vandalism of
fossil sites. Not only are these acts reprehensible and already covered
under existing laws, but also they are erroneously attributed to
amateur and commercial collectors, Instead, fossil crimes are committed
by people who neither understand nor appreciate the science--the most
exciting aspect of paleontology to true enthusiasts, regardless of
whether they hold jobs in paleontology, and regardless of who writes
their paychecks. Thieves are opportunists who do not fall into the
categories of ``amateur,'' ``professional,'' or ``commercial''
paleontologists. Thieves do not share our love of or respect for
fossils and paleontology.
Thieves also do not understand the small size, intimacy, and
particular dynamics of the marketplace. This is a marketplace that
depends, for the most part, upon museums as customers. Stolen fossils
are nearly impossible to pass undetected through the usual rigors and
channels of this marketplace. Amateurs and commercial paleontologists
alike are, generally, familiar with current collections, market needs,
and any reported thefts. Indeed, I have personally been responsible for
reporting to an institution when I saw what I suspected was stolen
property at a trade show.
Much of the debate informing H.R. 554 has targeted amateurs as
``inexperienced'' people who can damage our scientific heritage.
Although it is true that some amateurs lack experience and might not be
the best fossil collectors, the same can be said about academics, as
well. How is a graduate student expected to learn, without going out
into the field--and learning by doing?
The debate also has wrongly pitted academia against commercialism,
when in fact the two are complementary and interdependent. It is
incorrect to assume that ``commercial collector'' is synonymous with
``thief.'' Academics and amateurs who work with credentialed,
experienced, respected commercial paleontologists recognize their valid
contributions. ``The trading, buying, or selling of common fossils
often fulfills an educational need. In fact, many museums have funds
set aside to purchase unique, unusual, or rare fossils.'' (NAS Report,
1987, p. 13)
Many of the supposed violations commonly quoted--usually about
commercial collectors--actually misrepresent innocent mistakes or
exaggerate the problem. A famous example is that of ``Big Al,'' an
Allosaurus skeleton from near Shell, Wyoming. In this case, a misplaced
fence, established on the wrong line for more than 80 years, led to an
assumption that a fossil found on the ``private side'' actually was on
the private side. Only after extensive surveying was it determined that
the fossil actually lay, literally, inches beyond the line, on BLM-
administered land. This collector was never prosecuted for obvious
reasons, but often this case is cited as one of intentional wrongdoing.
A second case, in which a university professor collected most of a
T. rex skeleton without bothering to check on land ownership at the
courthouse, also could have been prosecuted for intentional trespass.
However, again, this was understood to be an honest mistake.
Finally, a group of boy scouts skipping stones on a lake--and
inadvertently damaging a dinosaur track way--were nearly prosecuted,
along with their counselor.
The single case that most exemplifies the assumptions about
commercialism is the one in which I played an intimate part. Sue the T.
rex was seized from a non-profit museum because the Acting U.S.
Attorney falsely claimed that we collected it from federal land, and
that our commercial participation in the collection of the fossil by
definition put the fossil at risk to be ``sold to the highest bidder.''
The land claim was later abandoned; the fact that the fossil had
already been donated in perpetuity to the private museum seemed
irrelevant. At the end of a three-year investigation and eight-week
trial, I served a prison sentence for ``failure to fill out forms.''
Our purchase of the fossil from the original owner was recognized and
then negated, the fossil was returned to the landowner, and the federal
government facilitated its auction sale. Like our donation, the irony
of this outcome seemed irrelevant. The fossil is again on public
display at a private museum in Chicago, where I enjoy scientific
visitation rights. (For more information on this case, see Fiffer,
2000, and Larson & Donnan, 2002.)
All of these examples illustrate the potential problem with the
legislation as written, in which fossils are more important than people
and their intent. Individuals such as these must be distinguished from
thieves and vandals.
Responsible, knowledgeable collectors fall in all camps, and all
camps support reasonable permitting processes. One way to help protect
and preserve paleontological resources is through education and
promoting access to all qualified individuals for the collection of
fossils. This includes amateur and commercial collectors who could
double as the eyes and ears of land managers.
PUNISHING PERPETRATORS
Adequate laws are currently in force to protect against theft and
vandalism of public property. However, H.R. 554 increases the number of
offenses, and the penalties for violations, despite the NAS Committee's
findings:
``In its further investigations, the Committee was dismayed to
learn of the number of instances of disruption of collecting by
what seem to be overzealous regulatory activities of federal
agencies. Cases range from a Harvard biology professor who was
apprehended in Montana for collecting fossils after
inadvertently crossing an unmarked boundary of BLM land to an
elderly hobbyist who was arrested in South Dakota for
collecting seven rather undistinguished fossils in a National
Forest.'' (NAS Report, 1987, p. 2)
H.R. 554 creates a ``fossil police force.'' There are two primary,
troubling aspects to this development. First, this force would be
assigned the impossible task of patrolling the nearly one-half billion
acres of public land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (this
does not include land controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, Park
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies). As soon as this
position is adopted, the public's relationship with the land and land
managers becomes adversarial. The focus becomes on protecting something
from ``almost everyone,'' instead of facilitating reasonable processes.
In times of record deficits and a drain on human resources, is this
really how we want to direct our efforts?
Second, if we adopt the wording of H.R. 554, this police force
could potentially arrest scouts, students on organized field trips,
graduate students, professors, and researchers whose sole goal is to
learn about past life on earth--while missing those who intend to
steal. As in most illegal enterprises, those with a negative agenda are
skilled at evasion; a reasonable permitting process would facilitate
access for those who are not a danger, and erect an initial roadblock
for those who are. Instead of subjecting students and educators to jail
[Sec. 7(a)] or confiscation of private and school vehicles [Sec. 9(b)],
how about instituting a reasonable program that includes easy, permit-
less access for educational organizations and easy-to-obtain excavation
permits when it is in the best interest of science, as is recommended
by the NAS Report (Recommendations 3 and 5).
Other ``crimes'' listed in H.R. 554 are also troubling. The bill
states that mislabeling fossils is to become a crime [Sec. 7(b)]: ``A
person may not make or submit any false record, account, or label for,
or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated
or removed from federal lands.'' If this becomes a standard, then all
museum curators are destined for a prison cell instead of a laboratory.
There is no museum that is free from labeling or identification errors,
and even field identifications might change several times before a
piece arrives in the lab--and then additional times thereafter. Science
is a process of discovery, postulation, comparison, and educated
guessing. Scientific names have been found to be redundant or
inaccurate--but only after additional information and preparation has
occurred. If scientists feel constrained to be ``correct,'' science
will stop in its tracks.
Further, Sec. 5(c)(3) states that: ``specific locality data will
not be released by permittee or repository without written permission
by the Secretary.'' This is in complete opposition to the scientific
principle of shared data and information. Research dictates that
locality data is essential in the scientific process; a fossil without
a locality has no scientific value. We all understand that the purpose
of this rule is to protect a site from unauthorized access; however,
the researcher should be trusted and allowed autonomy in determining
recipients of the data.
``SCIENTIFIC VALUE''
``Scientific value'' has been listed as a determinant for the
penalty phase in prosecutions or judgments. Specifically, H.R. 554 [Sec
8(a)(2)(A) sets the amount of a penalty for violations as ``the
scientific or fair market value, whichever is greater.'' However, this
definition would never stand in a court of law, as there is no
empirical way to assign a dollar figure to ``scientific value.'' One
scientist's treasure is another scientist's trash--because of varying
areas of interest. Also, a fossil might answer the question of ancestry
for an entire Order of organisms but, because of its abundance or size,
might not bring three cents on the open market. Indeed, the value is
often in the discovery, not the object
Because of my extensive work with valuing fossils for museum and
other sales or donations, I have often been called upon to appraise
individual fossils and entire collections. Although scientific value is
certainly mentioned in the appraisal, and might have an effect upon
fair market value, standard practice shows that it cannot be quantified
into a discreet dollar figure. We scientists call this nebulous,
unquantifiable amount, ``the cool factor.--It is completely subjective
and untestable. The only equitable value to include when assessing
penalties is fair market value, which is both easily determined and
takes rarity and scientific importance into account.
``Scientific value cannot be determined by a simple formula or by
application of a predetermined set of criteria...The scientific value
of a fossil depends ultimately on what it adds to our knowledge of the
history of life or of the physical history of the Earth, rather than on
any easily codified assessment of value.'' (NAS Report, 1987, p. 18)
CONCLUSION
It is gratifying to see that this subject, crucial to so few of us,
is still being discussed by our government. I am hopeful that we are
approaching an equitable end to this long discussion.
As in this case, so often legislation is introduced by well-
intentioned legislators who are inundated by information on so many
topics that they cannot possibly have integrated the large volume of
background or crucial data necessary for adequate coverage of a single
topic. Particularly in a specialized field like this, where decades of
debate have been clouded by paleontological politics, it is easy to see
that only the most vocal or powerful side may be able to bring their
desires to the forefront.
This is our opportunity to propose solutions that will work for the
whole field, and for the public, today and for the future.
Our mission is not to restrict access to all except those
representing academia. Our mission is not to draw a line between
academia and commercialism. Our mission is not to restrict amateurs
because they lack education--thus denying them access to one of the
best classrooms on earth. Instead, our mission is to create policy that
distinguishes between those who act according to the best interest of
science and the law, and those who do not. Our mission is to gather
together all foot-soldiers of paleontology, so that they can work
toward common goals of preserving scientific information, and train
collectors sufficiently so that fossils are not unduly damaged. We must
ensure that experts are called in appropriately in order to identify
important sites, evaluate scientifically important specimens, and make
recommendations as to what is best for the resource.
It should be everyone's job to help protect these resources from
people with bad intentions. Academic, amateur, and commercial
paleontologists all share these goals and these responsibilities.
Excluding everyone who does not work at a government facility is
shortsighted and unnecessarily exclusionary. The private sector, on a
daily basis, supports and assists the public sector in its goals.
The question remains: what do we do about ``the bad guy''? Can
restricting legal access to large stretches of public lands prevent a
fossil from being destroyed--either by unsavory collectors or by the
weather? No. The only sure way to protect a fossil is to collect it.
Adopting legislation such as H.R. 554 not only will not protect
fossils from degradation or theft, but also makes them more
vulnerable--because there is less chance that they will be found. The
bill is written from a stance that is untenable. What is required to
solve the dilemma we all recognize is a paradigm shift from ``saving
fossils'' to ``utilizing available resources.'' The best resources to
protect and save fossils and their crucial scientific data are fossil
collectors. They are eager to help--and the work of the independents is
free to the taxpayer.
``I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to
inform their discretion.'' (Thomas Jefferson, 1820)
I urge you to review and adopt the recommendations of the thorough
NAS Report. Any lasting and helpful legislation must rely upon the
extensive work already done by a coalition of the scientific community.
The wheel in this case has already been invented. Let's put it on the
cart.
I believe, therefore, that despite the well-meaning intentions of
The Honorable Representative, James McGovern from Massachusetts and his
co-sponsors, whom I respect very much, H.R. 554 is fatally flawed. My
recommendation is that H.R. 554 in its present form not be recommend by
this committee for passage by the House of Representatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Congressional Record, Oct. 15, 1985, Omnibus Spending Bill--through
1987, p. H. 10679 NAS (National Academy of Sciences) Report, 1987,
Paleontological Collecting, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
243 pp.
Fiffer, S., 2000, Tyrannosaurus Sue. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York,
NY. 248 pp.
Jefferson, T., 1820, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, September
28.
Larson, P., & K. Donnan, 2002, Rex Appeal: The Amazing Story of
Sue, the Dinosaur That Changed Science, the Law, and My Life. Invisible
Cities Press, Montpelier, VT. 404 pp.
Poling, J., 1996, Analysis of the SAFE poll on fossil collecting, 7
pp.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT:
PALEONTOLOGICAL COLLECTING
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 1987
APPENDIX B:
LETTER TO COMMITTEE
MICHAEL TRIEBOLD, PRESIDENT
ASSOCIATION OF APPLIED PALEONTOLOGICAL SCIENCES
APRIL 10, 2007
[NOTE: Appendices have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir. And let me turn to
our next witness, Mr. Vlamis, and a butchering of your last
name.
STATEMENT OF TED J. VLAMIS, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE, SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
Mr. Vlamis. Vlamis.
Mr. Grijalva. Got it.
Mr. Vlamis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R.
554, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. I am an
amateur paleontologist and have seen firsthand how the
increased public interest in paleontology has motivated many
Americans to make an advocation of this fascinating field of
study.
One of the most gratifying things for me has been the
opportunity to collaborate with professional scientists, to
learn from them, and to make my own small contribution to the
advancement of scientific knowledge. The PRPA has been endorsed
by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and by the American
Association of Museums.
Because of my personal interest in paleontology and the
nexus between paleontology and public policy, I have studied
the problems of illegal collection and theft of fossils from
Federal lands for the past several years. We urgently need
stronger penalties for theft and destruction of fossils from
public lands. Sadly, some of the most egregious cases of theft
and vandalism have occurred on Federal lands belonging to all
Americans.
The rapidly increasing commercial value of fossils has
created a situation where the limited penalties that exist are
not sufficient to deter illegal collecting. I would like to
share with you a couple case histories that illustrate what is
happening to this valuable public resource. A specimen of
allosaurus was illegally collected from BLM land in Utah. The
collector was not prosecuted because of the lapse of the
statute of limitations. The commercial fossil dealer who
purchased the specimen for $90,000 sold it to an overseas
collector for $400,000. He pled guilty to receipt of stolen
property and was sentence to one year probation. His company
was fined $50,000. A profit of $260,000 is not a deterrent.
Were my photos able to be displayed? I had submitted
photos. I do not know if they were able to be displayed on the
screen or not. Well I did submit them in a PowerPoint format.
The first photo that I had to show you was a photo of the
remains of what was once a largely intact allosaur vertebra
found in the Fruita paleontological area. The entire portion of
the vertebra that was protruding from the surrounding matrix
has been sheared off.
The second photo shows what was probably once a major
portion of an allosaurus skeleton. We will never know the
scientific information this specimen would have yielded. And my
last photo was a photo of an imprint showing where a diplodocus
femur was stolen from Federal land.
Fossils themselves cannot tell the full story of life on
earth, and they must be supplemented with contextual data. A
fossil collected without this information has lost much of its
value and we know little more than that this animal lived and
died. Researchers must be able to compare new specimens with
those previously on earth. Oftentimes a new analysis many years
later shows our earlier understanding was incomplete or
mistaken. For this reason, it is important to ensure future
access by preserving these in public institutions.
Although much of the need for this legislation has been
driven by the increase in the commercial value of fossils, it
is important to note that many fossils of enormous scientific
value do not have huge commercial value. H.R. 554 puts no new
restrictions on amateur paleontologists like me. Any collecting
we can legally do today will still be permitted under the
casual collecting provision in Section 5[a][2].
Nothing in this bill restricts rock collecting, and this is
made explicit in Section 12.2. Indeed, the PRPA formally
recognizes it as a legitimate recreational activity. I have
talked with people who have expressed concern about the false
labeling provision of Section 7[b] of the PRPA, and fear that
people could be prosecuted for inadvertently misidentifying
fossils. The false labeling offense applies only if one
knowingly violates the law.
Some have argued for reversing the existing policy of not
allowing commercial collecting of fossil on Federal lands with
the exception of petrified wood, citing a 1987 report from the
National Academies of Science. The recommendations of this
report were considered in the DOI report, Fossils on Federal
and Indian Lands, and it has been implemented to the extent
possible under existing law.
In a poll taken of America's major museums, more than 49
percent of the 1.8 million specimens of dinosaurs and other
fossil vertebrates in their collections were from public lands.
Of the overall total, amateurs had donated more than 100,000
specimens to museums, and significantly less than one percent
of the specimens came from commercial collectors.
As detailed in Section 12.2 of the PRPA, this bill will not
interfere with mining on Federal lands. I would like to
conclude with telling you about one example of the kind of
cooperation which exists between Federal agencies, amateur
paleontologists, and professional paleontologists. Amateur
paleontologist Kathy Wankel found a tyrannosaurus rex on
Federal land and reported it to dinosaur paleontologist Jack
Harner of the Museum of the Rockies. The field study triggered
by this find is yielding valuable information about this most
famous of the dinosaurs and the environment in which it lived.
Just last week a study which used new techniques to recover
proteins from this specimen provided the first molecular data
showing the connection between T. rex and birds. The passage of
H.R. 554 will foster more and more opportunities like this and
inspire the long-term preservation of these priceless national
resources. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify,
and I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee
has.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vlamis follows:]
Statement of Ted J. Vlamis, Chairman, Government Affairs Committee,
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of
H.R. 554, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. I am an
amateur paleontologist, and have seen firsthand how the increased
public interest in paleontology has motivated many Americans to make an
avocation of this fascinating field of study.
One of the most gratifying things for me has been the opportunity
to collaborate with professional scientists--to learn from them, and to
make my own small contribution to the advancement of scientific
knowledge. I have had the pleasure in participating in fieldwork with
the Dinamation International Society, the Universidad Autonoma de
Mexico, the Shuler Museum of Paleontology at Southern Methodist
University, and the Ft. Worth Museum of Nature and History. I have been
an active member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, including
serving as a member of its Government Affairs Committee since 1996 and
as Affiliated Societies Liaison since 1997. I have been the Chairman of
this Committee for the past several years and have been nominated for
the position of Treasurer of the Society. By having amateurs like me
serve in significant positions, the SVP has ensured that it reflects
the interests of both professional and amateur paleontologists.
The PRPA has been endorsed by the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology, an organization of more than 2000 professional and
amateur paleontologists, and by the American Association of Museums,
which counts among its membership 11,500 individual museum
professionals and volunteers, 3100 institutions, and 1700 corporate
members.
Because of my personal interest in paleontology, and the nexus
between paleontology and public policy I have studied the problems of
illegal collection and theft of fossils from federal lands for the past
several years. We urgently need stronger penalties for theft and
destruction of fossils from public lands. Sadly, some of the most
egregious cases of theft and vandalism have occurred on federal lands
belonging to all Americans.
The rapidly increasing commercial value of fossils has created a
situation where the limited penalties that exist are not sufficient to
deter illegal collecting. In the Report ``Fossils on Federal and Indian
Lands'' it was noted that ``the fines currently imposed on fossil
thieves are usually low compared to the lost resources. For example,
one man who had stolen fossils from a national park over a period of
years was fined a total of $50.'' (Babbitt, 2000 p. 29)
In many cases the theft of fossils is so widespread and occurs so
rapidly that we do not even know what is being lost. In a study
commissioned by the Forest Service, it was found that almost one-third
of the paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala National Grassland
showed evidence of unauthorized collecting. In 1999, the National Park
Service identified 721 documented incidents of paleontological resource
theft or vandalism, many involving multiple specimens, in the national
parks between 1995 and 1998. (Babbitt, 2000 p. 28)
The increased commercial market for fossils worldwide has sometimes
led to distortion of the fossil record. In some cases fossils have been
altered in order to inflate their commercial value. And we have lost
significant specimens from further scientific investigation and
exhibit, making it harder for people to see and examine for themselves
the authentic objects in our museums. It is critical that
scientifically significant fossils from federal lands, i.e. that
portion of the fossil record that belongs to the American people,
remain in the public domain so that everyone--children and adults,
amateur and professional paleontologists may benefit from this
irreplaceable resource.
I'd like to share with you a couple case histories that illustrate
what is happening to this valuable public resource. I'm going to begin
with the story of three Allosaurus specimens. Allosaurus was a large
carnivorous dinosaur of the Jurassic period.
In 1991, the BLM discovered an illegal commercial collection taking
place on federal land. The BLM contacted the Museum of the Rockies at
Montana State University--Bozeman and asked them to collect the
specimen and hold it in the public trust. As a result of this, the most
complete Allosaurus ever found, which this commercial collector
intended to sell to a private collector overseas, now has been saved
for all the people of the United States. As a result of careful
analysis of injuries sustained by this dinosaur and preserved in the
bones, this particular specimen has yielded a treasure trove of
information about how Allosaurus lived. The commercial collector, who
had attempted to steal this fossil and the information it tells us, was
never prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the American people were much less fortunate in the
case of another Allosaurus find. This Allosaurus was illegally
collected from BLM land near Fremont Junction, Utah. The collector was
not prosecuted because the lapse of the statute of limitations. Last
year the commercial fossil dealer, who purchased the Allosaurus for
$90,000 and sold it to a Japanese collector for $400,000, plead guilty
to receipt of stolen property and was sentenced to 1 year probation.
His company was fined $50,000. A profit of $260,000 is not a deterrent.
We simply must have stronger penalties and have specific laws
protecting fossils on federal lands in order to deter this type of
illegal activity.
The Fruita Paleontological Area near Grand Junction, Colorado
became the first management area specially protected by the Bureau of
Land Management solely because of fossils in 1976. Specimens from this
area include Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Ceratosaurus,
Dryosaurus, and Stegosaurus. It has also yielded numerous
microvertebrate and invertebrate remains and has facilitated
reconstruction of the ecological community in which these animals
lived. During a trip to the Fruita Paleontological Area I was able to
learn much about the important research being done there.
Unfortunately, I also witnessed the damage that is occurring there
because of theft and vandalism.
Figure 1 shows the remains of what was once a largely intact
allosaur vertebrae. The entire portion of the vertebrae that was
protruding from the surrounding matrix has been sheared off.
Figure 2 shows what was probably once a major portion of an
allosaur skeleton. We will never know what scientific information this
specimen would have yielded.
In Figure 3 we see the imprint showing where a Diplodocus femur was
stolen from Dinosaur Hill, a quarry just a short distance from the FPA.
I would like to share a little bit of information with you about
how paleontological research is done and why this legislation is
essential to ensuring maximal public benefit from this research.
Many kinds of fossils, including those of most vertebrates
(backboned animals), are rare for several reasons. Many organisms are
not readily preserved as fossils because they do not have hard parts.
Only rather unusual sedimentary rock environments preserve soft parts
long enough to become fossilized. Also, organisms can only be preserved
where sediments accumulate at a fairly high rate. Most organic remains
are not buried fast enough to contribute to the fossil record.
Vertebrate fossils are much less common than invertebrate and plant
fossils. Although we are fortunate to have some exceptions, spectacular
deposits of diverse and complete organisms are rare over the history of
the earth. The majority of fossil vertebrate species are extremely rare
or are represented by a single unique specimen. For these reasons the
chances of any vertebrate becoming a fossil are very small. Thus,
individual vertebrate fossils are extremely valuable as bearers of
information about the past. Furthermore, fossils of extinct groups are
not renewable. More fossils will be discovered and collected, but
always from a finite supply. More than 99% of all life forms that have
ever lived on Earth are already extinct and are only potentially known
by fossils.
Fossils themselves cannot tell the full story of life on Earth and
they must be supplemented with contextual data. The rocks in which the
fossils are found provide information about ancient environments and
climates, the age of the fossils, position in a historical sequence,
and their paleogeographic location. Fossil assemblages can also provide
information about ecological interactions and communities.
A fossil collected without this information has lost much of its
value, and we know little more than that this animal lived and died. In
contrast, when contextual data are collected and studied, we begin to
understand how the animal lived and its place in the balance of nature.
As paleontologists and geologists learn more ways to interpret ancient
environments and ecological communities from fossil assemblages in
their original context, this information becomes more and more valuable
and important. These contextual data allow us to bring these animals to
life for tens of millions of visitors to our museums, to the many young
children who have hands-on experience with original specimens, and to
the American public.
Our understanding of evolutionary processes and the tree of life
comes primarily from comparing the skeletons from different animals to
each other. In order to do this researchers must be able to compare new
specimens with those previously unearthed. Oftentimes a new analysis
many years later shows our earlier understanding was incomplete or
mistaken. For example, when Dr. John Ostrom was doing research on
Deinonychus, a dinosaur similar to the Velociraptor popularized in
Jurassic Park, he found that a specimen thought to be a carnivorous
dinosaur was actually the rare early bird Archaeopteryx. Ostrom's
research was critical in establishing the link between dinosaurs and
birds that became a proudly recited fact for every young dinosaur
aficionado. Only when specimens are properly collected and permanently
preserved in public institutions can researchers access these specimens
in order to make these comparisons. And when these comparisons and
interpretations are made education and the general public greatly
benefit by having access to this new interpretive knowledge through
media reports, books, and the Internet.
Although much of the need for this legislation had been driven by
the increase in the commercial value of fossils, it's important to note
that many fossils of enormous scientific value do not have as huge
commercial value. The scientific value of fossils can be determined by
the Secretary of the Interior based on existing case law and uniform
regulations for determining the archeological value of archeological
resources under the Archeological Resources Protection Act.
In a poll taken of America's major museums, more than 49% of the
1.8 million specimens of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates in
their collections were from public lands. Of the overall total,
amateurs had donated more than 100,000 specimens to museums and
significantly less than 1 % of the specimens came from commercial
collectors (Stucky and Ware, 1991).
H.R. 554 puts no new restrictions on amateur paleontologists like
me. Any collecting that amateur paleontologists and rock collectors can
legally do today will still be permitted under the PRPA. For example,
an amateur collector can legally collect common plants and
invertebrates on BLM and FS land without a permit. This would still be
allowed under the casual collecting provision in Section 5 (a) (2).
Collection of vertebrate fossils requires a permit under existing rules
and regulations. Collecting on NPS lands is by permit only. In sum,
nothing changes.
One thing that should be of interest is that although the Forest
Service has been allowing rock collecting in National Forests, they
really have no legal authority for doing so as current agency ``organic
acts,'' do not specifically address this recreational use of public
lands. Without specific authority this practice may be in jeopardy and
future administrations could take away this privilege. The problems
inherent in not having this authorization spelled out clearly were seen
in the issuance of the Forest Service's 1994 proposed rules which would
have prohibited amateur rock, mineral and fossil collecting on all
National Forest system lands. It is estimated that 30,000 to 70,000
comments were received from amateurs opposed to eliminating amateur
collecting. The PRPA gives the needed Congressional authorization for
amateur collecting on public lands. Nothing in this bill restricts rock
collecting. Section 12 (2) specifically states that ``Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to...apply to, or require a permit for, amateur
collecting of a rock, mineral, or invertebrate or plant fossil that is
not protected under this Act.''
The paleontological community is strongly in favor of laws
protecting fossils on public lands, and of prohibiting their collection
for commercial use. Several years ago, the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) added a Statement of Ethics to its bylaws to help
the society and its members handle ethical issues such as those raised
by increasing commercialization. I summarized the SVP Ethics Statement
and a subsequent Joint Position Statement by the Paleontological
Society as follows: ``The SVP Ethics Statement contains several
principles that are particularly noteworthy for their public policy
implications. It begins by recognizing that vertebrate fossils are
usually unique or rare, and that they are part of our natural heritage.
The Ethics Statement assigns to vertebrate paleontologists the
responsibility of ensuring that pertinent detailed contextual data are
recorded when vertebrate fossils are collected and notes that
collection and preparation should be done by properly trained
personnel. The importance of proper curation and the assurance of
access for future researchers are recognized by the Ethics Statements'
provision that scientifically significant vertebrate specimens should
be curated and accessioned in institutions charged in perpetuity with
conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education. The
Ethics Statement further recognizes the responsibility of
paleontologists to expeditiously disseminate information to other
paleontologists and to the general public. Perhaps the most important
part of the SVP Ethics Statement from a public policy perspective is
the conclusion that ``The barter, sale, or purchase of scientifically
significant vertebrate fossils is not condoned unless it brings them
into, or keeps them within, a public trust'' (SVP, 1994).
In order to ensure that the SVP's public policy recommendations and
initiatives regarding fossils on federal lands were also reflective of
the wider paleontological community, the SVP initiated a dialogue with
the Paleontological Society. Together these two scientific societies
include several thousand individuals, representing more than 90% of
professional paleontologists and a very large proportion of amateur
paleontologists. This dialogue culminated in 1999 when the two
societies issued the joint position statement Paleontological Resources
on U.S. Public Lands. The PS-SVP joint statement advocates public
policy which, like the SVP Ethics Statement, recognizes that fossils
are part of our scientific and natural heritage. It goes on to find
that fossils on public lands belong to all the people of the United
States and that, as such, they need special protection, and should not
be collected for commercial purposes. The joint statement concludes
that the two societies strongly support actions which ``protect fossils
on public lands as finite natural resources; encourage responsible
stewardship of fossils for educational, recreational, and scientific
purposes; promote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment of,
paleontological resources on public lands by the public and amateur
paleontologists for personal use, and by the professional
paleontological community, including professional paleontologists from
outside the U.S.; and bring fossils from public lands into public
institutions where they are available for purposes of education and
scientific research'' (PS and SVP, 1999).'' (Summary from Vlamis, 2001)
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has endorsed The Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act.
Similarly the American people support the type of stewardship of
fossils on federal lands which is embodied in H.R. 554. MKTG, INC., a
market research firm that has conducted over 10,000 studies since its
founding in 1979, conducted a survey of American public opinion
regarding fossils. This survey of 300 American adults analyzed public
responses both to a hypothetical situation involving the discovery of a
fossil, and to a series of more general questions pertaining to
fossils. A random calling program was utilized which gave every
telephone in the U.S. the same probability of being called. The survey
results have an accuracy rate of +/- 7%. The findings of this survey
are detailed in Vlamis (2001).
Several key points that demonstrate public support for the
principles embodied in H.R. 554. When the hypothetical find is assumed
to have been made on public land 86.6 percent agree with the statement
that ``The fossil is part of our heritage, it belongs to everyone in
the United States'', 80.0 percent with the statement that ``There
should be a law against my selling the fossil'', 81.0 percent with the
statement that ``There should be a law against my taking the fossil out
of the United States'', and 81.0 percent disagree with the statement
that ``The fossil is mine, finders keepers''. The consistency of
responses when asked in a variety of different ways is striking.
In the second part of the survey, 85.3 percent agreed with the
statement that that ``Fossils of animals with backbones are part of our
national heritage and should be protected in much the same way that
archeological remains (human artifacts) are now protected''; and, 88.0
percent agreed that ``If laws are created to restrict the collection of
fossils on public lands, the only people who should be allowed to
collect them are people with appropriate skills for doing so and with a
permit for that purpose. All the fossils that they find should go into
museums and universities prepared to protect them'' (Vlamis, 2001). The
American people want our natural heritage preserved as a national
treasure.
I've talked with people who have expressed concern about the false
labeling provision in Section 7 (b) of the PRPA and fear that people
could be prosecuted for inadvertently misidentifying fossils. The false
labeling offense applies only when a false statement is made in
association with a criminal offense under Section 7 of the PRPA and the
criminal offense only occurs if one knowingly violates this law. It is
in the bill so that unscrupulous collectors can't circumvent the law by
intentionally misidentifying scientifically significant fossils as
common plant or invertebrate fossils, or by labeling fossils collected
from federal lands as coming from nearby private land. This is not new
authority as the agencies have the authority now to make a charge of
``false labeling,'' and if applicable, would be made in association
with a charge under theft of federal property at 18 USC 641. The basis
for this section of the bill is 18 USC 1001.
Some have argued for reversing the existing policy of not allowing
commercial collecting of fossils on federal lands with the exception of
petrified wood, citing a 1987 report from the National Academies of
Science. The recommendations of this report were considered in the DOI
Report, Fossils on Federal Lands (Babbitt, 2000), and have been
implemented to the extent possible under existing law. This policy
dates back to the 1915 Earl Douglass decision. The decision in this
case that the dinosaur bones found by Mr. Douglass were not locatable
minerals within the meaning of mining laws laid the groundwork for the
establishment of Dinosaur National Park, a national treasure visited by
thousands of Americans every year. There are sound reasons for
continuing this long-standing policy.
Proper stewardship of any public resource should seek to ensure
that the resource is properly protected from harm, that any use of the
resource maximizes the value of the use to the public, and that the
benefits of use of the resource accrue to the entire public. In cases
where the resource in question is renewable, a market-based sale of
rights to use of the resource simultaneously benefits the general
public and the acquirer of these rights. Examples of these types of
resources include grazing rights, which can be managed such that the
grazing use does not destroy other important uses of the land, and
timber rights, which can include a mandate to ensure that reforestation
is part of the harvesting program.
For other resources, utilization of the value embodied in the
resource requires that it be consumed. Extractable minerals and energy
sources have no intrinsic value when they are lying in the ground; they
do, however, contain significant value when they are extracted,
refined, and used in manufacturing or converted into energy. Again, a
market-based sale of these rights can ensure that these benefits are
distributed to the public at large.
Some have proposed that vertebrate fossils on federal public lands
be treated in an analogous manner to the above--that rights to harvest
them be sold on some type of market-based basis. Such an approach is
both impractical and unwise. The parallel with timber and other
renewable resources is inappropriate because fossils are nonrenewable.
Similarly, treating fossils like oil, gas, etc. is impractical and ill-
advised because the greatest value of fossils lies not in their
consumption, but in the information they convey.
The PRPA will not interfere with mining on federal lands. Section
12.1 of the PRPA states that ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to ``(1) invalidate, modify, or impose any additional restrictions or
permitting requirements on any activities permitted at any time under
the general mining laws, the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, laws
providing for minerals materials disposal, or laws providing for the
management or regulation of the activities authorized by the
aforementioned laws including but not limited to the Federal Land
Policy Management Act (43 U.S.C.1701 ``1784),the Mining in the Parks
Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.
1201-1358),and the Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C.478,482,551);''
I would like to conclude by telling you about one example of the
kind of cooperation, which exists between federal agencies, amateur
paleontologists and professional paleontologists. Amateur
paleontologist Kathy Wankel discovered a Tyrannosaurus rex on federal
land. She reported this find to dinosaur paleontologist Jack Horner of
the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, Bozeman. The MOR
was able to collect this fossil and the contextual data and to learn
much more about this animal known to all schoolchildren. Dr. Horner is
currently in the ninth year of a field study in the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Montana. To date eight
Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been discovered. The field study is
yielding valuable information about this most famous of the dinosaurs
and the environment in which it lived. Just last week a paper on this
specimen was published in the journal Science. This paper used new
techniques to recover soft tissue from this specimen and to extract
proteins from this tissue. A comparison of these proteins with those
found in chickens offers the first molecular evidence for the close
evolutionary relationship between T. rex and modern birds. Many more
benefits that are expected to flow from this ongoing research,
The work of the Museum of the Rockies has made it possible for the
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, to collect
one of these specimens. Thus, our National Museum will be able to
display an actual specimen of this celebrated American dinosaur for the
first time. The passage of H.R. 554 will foster more and more
opportunities like this and inspire the long-term preservation of these
priceless national resources.
The amateur and professional paleontological communities and the
general public need the information from fossils found on federal lands
and they want these fossils to be protected from theft and vandalism.
References:
Babbitt, B. 2000. Report of the Secretary of the Interior: Fossils
on Federal and Indian Lands
PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY.
1999. Joint Position Statement by The Paleontological Society and The
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology on Paleontological Resources on U.S.
Public Lands
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1994. Bylaws, Article 9
Stucky, R.K., and S. Ware. 1991. Questionnaire concerning fossil
collecting on Federal Lands. DMNH, Denver.
Vlamis, T.J., 2001, in Proceedings of the 6th Fossil Resource
Conference Santucci, V.L. and McClelland, L. (eds) Geologic Resources
Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-01/01 September 2001
Appendix 1
society of vertebrate paleontology by-law on ethics
Article 9. Statement of Ethics.
Several goals for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology follow
from its mission statement (Constitution Article 1): to discover,
conserve, and protect vertebrate fossils and to foster the scientific,
educational, and personal appreciation and understanding of them by
amateur, student and professional paleontologists, as well as the
general public. Fossil vertebrates are usually unique or rare,
nonrenewable scientific and educational resources that, along with
their accompanying contextual data, constitute part of our natural
heritage. They provide data by which the history of vertebrate life on
earth may be reconstructed and are one of the primary means of studying
evolutionary patterns and processes a s well as environmental change.
It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to strive to
ensure that vertebrate fossils are collected in a professional manner,
which includes the detailed recording of pertinent contextual data
(e.g. geographic, stratigraphic, sedimentologic, taphonomic).
It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to assist
government agencies in the development of management policies and
regulations pertinent to the collection of vertebrate fossils, and to
comply with those policies and regulations during and after collection.
Necessary permits on all lands administered by federal, state, and
local governments, whether domestic or foreign, must be obtained from
the appropriate agency(ies) before fossil vertebrates are collected.
Collecting fossils on private lands must only be done with the
landowner's consent.
Fossil vertebrate specimens should be prepared by, or under the
supervision of, trained personnel.
Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with
ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of
repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates
for scientific study and education (e.g. accredited museums,
universities, colleges, and other educational institutions).
Information about vertebrate fossils and their accompanying data
should be disseminated expeditiously to both scientific community and
interested general public.
The barter, sale, or purchase of scientifically significant
vertebrate fossils is not condoned unless it brings them into, or keeps
them within, a public trust. Any other trade or commerce in
scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is inconsistent with the
foregoing, in that it deprives both the public and professionals of
important specimens, which are part of our natural heritage.
Appendix 2
joint position statement by the paleontological society and the society
of vertebrate paleontology on paleontological resources on u.s. public
lands
The Paleontological Society and The Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology are committed to increasing scientific knowledge,
educational benefits, and appreciation of the natural world based on
fossils--for everyone--child or adult, the general public, or amateur
or professional paleontologists. Fossils are an invaluable part of our
scientific and natural heritage. They yield detailed information about
the history of life and of our planet, and provide lessons for the
modern world and our future.
Many important fossil localities occur on U.S. public lands and
belong to all people of the United States, including future
generations. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The
Paleontological Society therefore support the development of policies
and practices that can be used by different federal agencies to
regulate the collection of fossils on U.S. public lands in an
appropriate, clear and consistent manner.
Many fossils are common (for example, many non-vertebrate fossils)
and should be allowed to be collected--in a responsible way--by any
amateur or professional paleontologist, thus allowing them to
experience and benefit from the excitement of discovery, recovery,
identification and study. In particular, because of the benefits that
derive from increased public appreciation of fossils, it is important
that the participation of amateurs in paleontology is not discouraged
by Federal policies and practices.
Other fossils are rare (for example, many vertebrate fossils and
some non-vertebrate fossils), and require special protection,
especially from destruction by vandalism or commercial exploitation. In
particular, because of the dangers of overexploitation and the
potential loss of irreplaceable scientific information, commercial
collecting of fossil vertebrates on public lands should be prohibited,
as in current regulations and policies. The commercial collecting of
other paleontological resources on U.S. public lands should be strictly
regulated by permit through the appropriate land management agencies.
Regulations and polices regarding the collection of paleontological
resources from U.S. public lands should be strictly enforced.
In this context, the Council of The Paleontological Society and the
Executive Committee of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology strongly
support actions that:
protect fossils on public lands as finite natural
resources,
encourage responsible stewardship of fossils for
educational, recreational, and scientific purposes,
promote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment
of, paleontological resources on public lands by the public and amateur
paleontologists for personal use, and by the professional
paleontological community, including professional paleontologists from
outside the U.S.; and
bring fossils from public lands into public institutions
where they are available for purposes of education and scientific
research.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me turn now to Mr. Frohling
for your comments and testimony.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN M. FROHLING, DIRECTOR, LOWER CONNECTICUT
RIVER PROGRAM, EIGHTMILE PROJECT, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Frohling. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present the
Nature Conservancy's testimony in support of H.R. 986. The
Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit organization
dedicated to protecting nature and preserving life on the
planet. The Eightmile River watershed is a high priority for
us. I have had the privilege to work with the communities of
the Eightmile for the last nine years, and to serve as an
active member of the locally led wild and scenic study
committee.
It is rare to find entire freshwater ecosystems intact
throughout the range especially on the east coast but the
Eightmile is one example. The Eightmile is free flowing. Its
water quality is good as the best rivers in Connecticut. There
are no surface water diversions, no dams that regulate flow, no
point or source of discharges from industries or treatment
plants. Over 80 percent of the watershed is forested. Less than
7 percent is developed, and over 30 percent is in permanent
protection.
The Eightmile is a haven for biodiversity and ranks in the
top 5 percent of New England's watersheds for high
concentrations of rare species. The scenic beauty and
recreational abundance of opportunity in the Eightmile also
makes this a highly regarded resource by residents and
visitors.
The greatest threat is incremental, unplanned growth, and a
clear message from Eightmile communities is and has been we
cherish what we have. We do not want to lose it. The Eightmile
characterizes where we live and gives special meaning to our
lives. How can we protect it? Wild and Scenic designation was
the answer chosen because it provides the best vehicle for
protection while also strengthening local control over
decisions affecting the area's future. It provides the
incentive and wherewithal to accomplish a process of community
self-determination. Designation also offers special important
protections and resources not otherwise available.
The watershed base designation was sought and recognizing
this would be the best way to protect both the river and its
landscape. Although only one outstandingly remarkable value is
needed for eligibility, there were six identified for the
Eightmile. During the study, a major outreach effort was
implemented to facilitate citizen input and awareness. This
included numerous community meetings, events, newsletters,
brochures, press articles and mailings to all residents and
riverfront landowners.
With this community input, a watershed management plan was
prepared and endorsed as a companion document, as the companion
document to designation, and as the communities' blueprint for
protecting the Eightmile's outstanding values. The plan is a
set of recommendations and relies on existing authorities. It
is locally implemented at the discretion of the local
communities.
The plan's strength stems from the investments citizens and
towns have made in creating it and in endorsing it, and towns
have in fact already begun voluntarily to implement it.
Regarding landowner interest, the study paid close attention to
protecting them. The bill assures no Federal land condemnation.
Management plan recommendations were evaluated for potential
impact on landowners and designed to assure no unreasonable
burden or hardship.
The plan assumes flexibilities so that actual measures will
be responsive to reality on the ground. A clear majority of
landowners recognize that at the most the plan may entail
relatively small concessions in exchange for a very large
benefit, sustaining the outstanding quality of where they live.
Ultimately votes by town boards and citizens served as the
direct expression of support and confidence and support is
widespread.
Town meetings were held with large citizen turnout and
produced overwhelming votes in favor of designation and the
plan. All selectmen, all the land use boards, the locally led
study committee endorsed designation and the plan. Many civic
and nonprofit groups have expressed their support as have
individuals and riverfront landowners. Major newspapers have
consistently run strong editorial endorsements. The Connecticut
Legislature and Governor Rell endorsed designation with Public
Act 518.
Congressman Courtney and the entire Connecticut delegation
as you know are sponsoring H.R. 986, and this is a bipartisan
effort. With 10 years of work toward saving the Eightmile, the
communities have done their part and are now eager for
designation which they know is key to completing the protection
of this nationally significant resource. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today for H.R. 986, and I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frohling follows:]
Statement of Nathan M. Frohling, Lower Connecticut River Program
Director, The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's testimony in strong
support of H.R. 986, legislation to designate certain segments of the
Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has approximately 1,000,000 individual
members and programs in all 50 states and in over 30 foreign countries.
To date, we have protected more than 15 million acres in the 50 states
and over 117 million acres globally.
As Lower Connecticut River Program Director, I lead The Nature
Conservancy's efforts to conserve the Eightmile River Watershed. The
Eightmile's 62-square mile watershed is part of the larger and
internationally significant ecosystem of the Lower Connecticut River
region. Both the Eightmile and Lower Connecticut are top priorities for
The Nature Conservancy. In the late 1990's, The Nature Conservancy and
University of Connecticut let a joint effort called the ``Eightmile
River Project'' to study and map the watershed and explore community-
based strategies for protecting it. A primary outcome of this project
was community interest in pursuing Congressional Wild and Scenic River
designation for the Eightmile. I testified before Congress on behalf of
this effort in 2001 and have participated actively over the last 5 1/2
years as a member of the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study
Committee, serving as Chairman of the Management Subcommittee, as a
member of the Executive Committee and as Vice Chair of the full
Committee.
The Eightmile River is a National Treasure
The Eightmile River is a national treasure because it is one of the
last and best examples of an intact, near-coastal river system on the
East Coast of the United States, particularly along the Northeast
coast. It is uncommon to find an aquatic ecosystem which is highly
intact throughout its range, particularly at the scale of the Eightmile
River Watershed, and particularly in the highly populated and developed
coastal region from Washington D.C. to Boston. From rare species and
natural communities to a high quality wetland and watercourse system to
extensive, intact forest habitat, the Eightmile is such an example; it
is a rare gem of nature.
The Eightmile is also exemplary in providing a high quality of life
for its residents and visitors. It is a rural landscape with great
scenic beauty and offers an abundance of recreational opportunities. It
offers excellent fishing and boating including power and sail in the
river's one-mile long Hamburg Cove section. Hiking, sightseeing,
hunting, and nature observation are among the popular activities in the
Eightmile at State and Town Forests, Devil's Hopyard State Park, and
many publicly available nature preserves owned by The Nature
Conservancy and local land trusts.
The Eightmile name is based on the distance between its mouth at
the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound. The river system is
dominated by the 10 mile East Branch, the 10 mile West Branch, and the
5 mile main stem. There are major tributaries such as Beaver, Harris,
and Falls Brook. The towns of East Haddam, Salem and Lyme make up the
Eightmile Watershed.
Threats to the Eightmile River Watershed:
The greatest threat to the special attributes of the Eightmile
River and its watershed is incremental, unplanned growth. Between 1985
and 2002, the Eightmile towns of East Haddam and Lyme each experienced
an 11% increase in developed acreage and in Salem, a 23% increase.
Unmanaged development typically results in landscape and habitat
fragmentation, the loss of water quality, the loss of important species
and natural communities, the intrusion of undesirable nuisance species,
the loss of the cultural landscape--in short, loss of the Watershed's
outstanding resource values. Change and growth is inevitable; the
challenge for the Eightmile is whether this growth will be managed to
protect and sustain its outstanding resources. There are other
potential threats such as the excessive diversion of water or poorly
managed resource extraction.
Community Desire: ``Protect What we Have:''
During the Eightmile River Project conducted in the mid to late
1990's and the Eightmile River Study conducted since 2001, and in the
course of numerous meetings and presentations, there has been a clear
message from the communities of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme: ``we
cherish what we have, we don't want to lose it, we don't want it to
change for the worse as so many other places have in Connecticut, the
Eightmile River and its landscape is what characterizes and gives
meaning to where we live.'' There has been recognition that without a
pro-active effort to protect what is special, the special qualities of
the area would be lost or seriously degraded, whether unintentionally,
incrementally or directly. The question early on was ``how can we
realize a collective vision to save this region, especially when we are
set up to work as independent and often competitive towns?''
Wild & Scenic River Designation the Chosen Strategy:
Congressional Wild and Scenic River designation was
enthusiastically chosen as the best strategy for protecting the
Eightmile River, its Watershed and realizing the community goals
mentioned above. Highlights of why the Wild and Scenic River
designation strategy was chosen include:
The Wild and Scenic River process provides the structure,
expertise, funding and facilitation needed for the communities to come
together and collectively identify the issues and goals they have for
the resource, and to set forth the means for meeting those goals. By
adding the ``higher purpose'' and honor of national recognition and
focusing citizens around a common and clear goal, the Wild and Scenic
process could (and did) serve as a catalyst for local, community-based
action and self-determination.
A Wild and Scenic River designation, if achieved, would
offer important protections not otherwise available locally or through
the State of Connecticut. Federally funded or permitted water resource
related projects that would have a direct and adverse impact on the
river would not be allowed under designation. There are several threats
to the Eightmile where this may be important including, for example,
adverse water diversions.
The Study would (and did) provide a greater level of
scientific information than could otherwise be achieved, which will be
useful for future decision-making.
A Wild and Scenic River study represents the potential to
bring in needed funds to support the community-based protection process
that has been identified.
The Wild and Scenic River designation process would be
built on local control. The ability to maintain local control over land
use decisions is key.
Designation would facilitate long term coordination and
consensus building among the towns and further heighten public
awareness and citizen commitment to long term protection.
Watershed Approach:
It was decided early on to pursue a watershed-based Wild and Scenic
designation rather than focusing on discrete segments of the river.
This approach was motivated by the exemplary quality of the watershed
itself. It also allowed consideration of the important and intricate
connection between the upland areas of the watershed and Eightmile
streams and wetlands. Additionally, this approach would be the most
realistic vehicle for communities to sustain the quality of the
landscape of the Eightmile region as a whole. The Eightmile experience
might also serve as a model to other communities interested in working
together on a regional basis to address issues such as sprawl.
Outstandingly Remarkable Values:
Six ``Outstandingly Remarkable Values'' were established for the
Eightmile River system during the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River
Study. Numerous scientific and technical studies were conducted in
support of establishing these values. They form the basis for the
Eightmile River's Eligibility for Wild and Scenic River designation and
include:
Watershed Hydrology: The Eightmile River Watershed hydrologic
regime operates without major impediments or influences--and as such is
a naturally functioning system. More specifically, there are no surface
water diversions, no dams which regulate flow, there are no direct
point source discharges from industry or wastewater treatment plants
and the level of impervious land cover is low at only 3% watershed-
wide. There are high levels of forest cover coupled with low levels of
development.
Water Quality: Water quality and aquatic habitat in the Eightmile
River Watershed is not only locally exemplary, but as good as the best
rivers studied in the state. In addition, the two primary threats to
water quality, point source and non-point source pollution, are almost
nonexistent. All waterbodies in the watershed evaluated by the state
fully meet their water quality use goals, and none are considered
impaired; 92% of the watershed's streams and 99% of the ground water
meet the state's highest water quality classification criteria.
Chemical and biological indicators reveal that water quality and
aquatic habitat are exemplary. Riparian corridors are highly intact and
continuous and 80% of the watershed is forested and less than 7%
developed.
Unique Species and Natural Communities: The combined rarity,
abundance and diversity of species and natural communities in the
Eightmile River Watershed is unique and exemplary within Connecticut
and throughout New England. The Eightmile River Watershed ranks in the
top 5% of New England's watersheds for having one of the highest
concentrations of rare species. A total of 155 ``at-risk'' plant and
animal species occur in the watershed, including 32 vascular plants, 6
amphibians, 81 birds, 8 fish, 12 invertebrates, 7 reptiles and 9
mammals. There are 5 globally rare species and 54 occurrences of state-
listed rare plants, eleven of which are also rare for New England.
There are over 100 occurrences of ``significant'' natural communities
in the watershed and 18 natural communities were found to have
exemplary biodiversity. Extensive, native beds of submerged aquatic
vegetation, the healthy presence of native fresh water mussels and
other small aquatic organisms such as mayflies, damselflies,
dragonflies, beetles, snails, etc. are further indicators of overall
ecosystem integrity.
Geology: In the Eightmile, a combination of an exceptional bedrock
assemblage, an atypical local topography and exemplary evidence of
glacial action creates a distinct local representation of the geology
of Connecticut.
The Watershed Ecosystem: This is the ``holy grail'' of the
outstandingly remarkable values in that the entire Eightmile River
Watershed ecosystem remains highly intact and as mentioned above, this
is a rare characteristic. The high quality of the system is also a
reflection of the quality and summation of its interacting sub-
ecological features. Some of the features noted include: 1) 72% of the
watershed consists of large, connected roadless blocks of habitat
(>1000 acres), 2) nutrient and energy cycles critical for plants,
animals and water quality are intact, 3) over 80% of the watershed is
forested, 4) the high density of rare species, 5) minimal impacts from
invasive species, 6) outstanding interior nesting bird habitat
associated with the large, intact forest, 7) the natural hydrological
system and flow regime that supports riparian communities dependent on
periodic flooding and natural scour processes, 8) high water quality,
etc.
The Cultural Landscape: This outstanding resource value is a
reflection of the bucolic, rural landscape and special places created
by human interaction with the environment. In the Eightmile this
includes a landscape dominated by scenic views and vistas, historic
features such as old colonial homes and churches, stone walls,
cemeteries and the lack of modern development and transportation
patterns. Lands adjacent to the Eightmile River also have a high
potential for intact archaeological resources.
What has been Achieved:
Outreach and Community Process:
During the Wild and Scenic Study, a major outreach effort was
implemented to assess social needs, facilitate citizen input, clarify
community goals regarding the Eightmile River Watershed and to inform
the public about the Wild and Scenic process. Examples include:
Community Meetings: Numerous meetings held in each of the
three towns covering the full range of topics from the background and
history of the project to discussion of the Outstanding Resource Values
to the watershed management framework. Particular attention was paid to
feedback on the types of management tools citizens would support.
Land Use Commissioners Summit: Attended by over 40 local
land use decision-makers, this was a 4-hour facilitated work session
which provided critical input into the formation of the management
plan.
Community Open House: This event was widely publicized
and drew nearly 150 people; soliciting feedback from the public was a
primary objective.
Newsletters: six ``update'' newsletters were sent to
riverfront landowners and the Eightmile subscriber list.
Mailings to all Town Residents: invitations to the
community forums and community open house, a special newsletter leading
up to town votes and vote notices were sent to all residents of all the
towns.
Letter to 200 Riverfront landowners: This letter included
a brochure on the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Study and solicited
their feedback and input into the Study process.
Fairs and Events: Local fairs and events were staffed by
Wild and Scenic representatives; a kick-off event for the Study was
held at Devil's Hopyard State Park and attended by dignitaries such as
Senator Dodd and Congressman Rob Simmons.
Brochures and pamphlets: These were distributed to
libraries, stores and other locations.
Press Releases and signage: These were used to inform the
public of Study progress, opportunities for input and votes regarding
designation and the management plan.
Recognition that Existing Protection is Strong:
Careful analysis conducted as part of the Wild and Scenic Study
revealed that existing protection is strong. Quoting from page 22 of
the Study Committee Report, ``Currently there are strong protections in
place for the Eightmile River Watershed. These protections include:
local, state and federal statutes and regulations that directly protect
the waterways and adjacent lands, large amounts of conserved land and
open space, many non-profit and governmental supporting organizations,
landscape features that do not promote development, and a strong desire
by local citizens to preserve the resource values of the watershed.
Together with a locally administered watershed management plan, these
existing protections are found to meet the suitability criteria for
designated segments recommended for Wild and Scenic River
designation.'' The towns, local land trusts, The Nature Conservancy and
State have permanently protected over 31% of the watershed (over 12,500
acres) and 25% of all river frontage within 100 feet of the 160 miles
of river and stream within the watershed. Approximately 3000 acres were
protected during the period of the Study (2001 to 2006).
Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan:
A comprehensive watershed management plan was prepared and endorsed
during the Study. It is the blueprint for enabling the 3 towns to
collectively realize their vision for protecting the outstanding
qualities of the Eightmile River Watershed. The content of the
management plan reflects the many hours of research, analysis, planning
and most of all--discussions with and input from citizens and town
boards and commissions--it is the culmination of the Study at the local
level. The Plan also helps fulfill the suitability criteria for
designation by providing a management framework that brings key river
interests together to work toward the ongoing protection of the river
and watershed. An advisory Coordinating Committee has been set up to
assist in implementing the management plan including facilitation of
communication and consensus building. Key management issues addressed
by the plan include riparian corridor protection, open space
conservation of key habitats, limiting adverse impervious land cover,
municipal stormwater management and best management practices for
stormwater system and stream crossing design.
The plan is a set of near and long term recommendations--it does
not create any new authorities and its implementation is done locally
and at the discretion of the local communities. The power behind the
plan stems from the investment made by each town in creating it and
ultimately by its formal endorsement by town boards and citizens. All
three towns have begun to voluntarily implement the Plan prior to
achieving designation because of their desire to continue moving toward
their community goals. Designation remains key however, because
designation is an important component of the overall framework for
achieving long term protection and it represents a reward for the
town's ``doing their part.''
Protection of Landowner Interests:
Assuring that landowner interests would be respected was a major
tenant of the Wild and Scenic Study process including development of
the management plan and designation legislation. At the top of the list
is that designation would be conditional on assuring that the
``provisions of section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that
prohibit Federal acquisition of lands by condemnation shall apply to
the Eightmile River,'' which is the wording of the proposed
legislation. Secondly, as mentioned above, the management plan is
developed locally and its implementation is locally led and at the
discretion of the local communities. Thirdly, the recommendations in
the management plan were evaluated in terms of their potential impact
on landowners and adjusted as necessary to assure that if implemented
they would not pose an unreasonable burden or hardship. Also, the
management plan was designed to be flexible and anticipate that the
specifics of potential measures might be adjusted to take into account
the ``reality on the ground'' at the time of implementation.
Communication with riverfront landowners was a consistent and important
part of the conduct of the Study. Ultimately, votes by the town land
use boards and citizens served as the most direct expression of support
for the designation and proposed protection measures. In general, as
indicated through citizen votes, community input, discussions and
neighbor to neighbor contact, the clear majority of landowners
recognized that the potential implications of implementing the
management plan would entail at worst the prospect of making relatively
small concessions in exchange for the larger benefit of sustaining
overall neighborhood and community quality.
Strong Support for Designation and Management Plan:
Consistent with the history of the project and its origins, there
is overwhelming, widespread support for Eightmile Wild and Scenic River
designation. In the winter of 2006, the towns of East Haddam, Lyme and
Salem held town meeting votes so that citizens could vote on whether to
endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan and Wild and
Scenic designation. These votes were attended in large numbers. In
Salem the First Selectman claimed that it was the largest turnout for a
town meeting. All of the towns had votes which were strongly in favor
of endorsement--in total the votes were nearly unanimous. All town
First Selectmen, land use commissions and boards of selectmen as well
as the Wild and Scenic Study Committee voted to endorse the Management
Plan and designation. Prior to and during the course of the Study many
civic and non-profit groups have expressed their support for the Study
and/or designation through letters, resolutions and other forms of
endorsement. Individuals, landowners and river fronting landowners have
also expressed support. Please see attachment.
The State of Connecticut Legislature endorsed designation and the
Management Plan by passing Public Act No. 05-18 ``An Act Concerning
Designation of the Eightmile River Watershed Within the National Wild
and Scenic River System'' which was signed into law by Governor Jodi
Rell at a riverside ceremony.
The Eightmile designation has been and remains a bipartisan
endeavor. Republican Rob Simmons introduced the Study Bill in 2001 and
introduced a designation bill just before the end of the 109th
Congress. Democratic Congressman Joe Courtney has introduced H.R. 986
and has the full support of the Connecticut Delegation, both
republicans and democrats. Senators Dodd and Lieberman have been strong
supporters since the beginning in 2001.
Finally the newspapers have followed the Eightmile Project and the
Wild and Scenic Study. There have been numerous articles about the
project and strong editorial endorsements for designation. Examples are
summarized in the attached exhibits.
The Time for Designation is Now!
With 10 years of work into the effort to save the Eightmile River
Watershed including the past 5 years during the Wild and Scenic Study,
the communities have done their part and are anxious to complete this
final critical step of obtaining Wild and Scenic River designation.
They see the federal role as an inherent part of the collective multi-
party approach to protecting the resource. In order to continue making
the commitment of time and resources, local communities need to know
their federal partner will in fact come through too and allow the full
partnership to be established. Noting that 2008 is the 40th anniversary
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, those involved in the Eightmile
effort would greatly appreciate the honor of being one of the rivers
who receive designation within the Act's first 40 years!
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 986. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of this
important legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions from
Members of the Committee.
Attachment:
sample list of eightmile wild and scenic river supporters
(through letters, resolutions, or other forms of endorsement):
Town Leaders:
Lyme Selectmen
East Haddam Selectmen
Salem Selectmen
Town Commissions:
Lyme Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission
Lyme Planning and Zoning Commission
Lyme Open Space Committee
East Haddam Planning and Zoning Commission
East Haddam Economic Development Commission
East Haddam Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission
East Haddam Conservation Commission
East Haddam Open Space Commission
East Haddam Historical District Commission
Salem Planning and Zoning Commission
Salem Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commission
Community-based Committees:
Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee; (2002--2006)
Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Coordinating Committee; (2006--
present)
East Haddam Community Planning Group; Deb Matthiason, Project
Assistant
Community Civic Organizations:
Auxiliary of Lyme Fire Company
Bashan Lake Association, East Haddam
East Haddam Civic Association
Federated Garden Club
First Congregational Church of Lyme
Friends of Devil's Hopyard
Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut
Lyme Cemetery Commission
Lyme Garden Club
Lyme Library and Lyme Public Library, Inc.
Lyme Lions Club
Lyme Public Hall Assoc., Inc.
New Haven Hiking Club
Salem Democratic Town Committee
Salem Historical Society
River Fronting Property Owners:
Andrew Zemko, Salem
Anthony Irving, Lyme
Betsy Woodward, Lyme
Bill Cuddy, East Haddam
Charlotte Barringer, Lyme
David and Anne Bingham, Salem
Dr. Richard Goodwin, Salem
Fritz Gahagan, Lyme
Jack Bodman, Salem
John and Barbara Kashanski, East Haddam
Karen Dahle, Lyme
Marilyn Wilkins, Lyme
Maureen and Chris VanderStad, East Haddam
Mike and Faye Richardson, Lyme
Roger Dill, Lyme
Sue Hessel, Lyme
Vivien Blackford, East Haddam
Town Residents:
Anita Ballek
Ann M. Kilpatrick, East Haddam
Betty Cleghone, Lyme Garden Club member
Janice and Richard Anderson, Lyme
Leslie Shaffer, Lyme
Mary Catherwood, Lyme
Mary Platt, Lyme
Sebyl Martin, East Haddam
Conservation Organizations:
American Rivers
Audubon Connecticut
Connecticut Botanical Society
Connecticut River Watershed Council
East Haddam Land Trust
Fisheries Advisory Council
Lyme Land Conservation Trust
Potapaug Audubon Society
Salem Land Trust
Southern New England Chapter, American Fisheries Society
The Connecticut River Salmon Association
The Connecticut River Watershed Council
The Nature Conservancy
Wind Over Wings
[NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr.
Frohling has been retained in the Commitee's official files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And testimony on H.R. 1100,
Commissioner McGrady.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK McGRADY,
HENDERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. McGrady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate being here today. I
am here to support H.R. 1100, a bill that would authorize the
boundary expansion of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic
Site. I have submitted a written statement, and I do not intend
to simply read from that but just hit the high points if that
is OK.
I am primarily here to attest to the broad support that
H.R. 1100 with respect to the revision of the boundary of the
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site has. I am a county
commissioner in Henderson County, North Carolina, the area the
site is in. A Republican I might add. And I am a former council
member in the village of Flat Rock, which is where the site
specifically is.
The county commission, the village of Flat Rock, and for
that matter a broad range of groups within the community
support this bill. The chamber of commerce, for example, a
number of the environmental and community organizations are all
supportive of the bill.
The bill tries to do two things I guess. First, protect the
viewshed of Carl Sandburg Site and its boundary, and second
potentially provide parking and a visitor's center. The land
rises up. The bottom portion is sort of a farm, and the upper
portion is probably the highest point in Flat Rock, and it
looks out well to the west, and the need here is to protect the
viewshed.
In the past several years, we had an opportunity a
neighboring landowner was quite willing to potentially sell his
property to the Park Service but because the boundary was what
the boundary was, the Park Service did not have the ability
even to talk with that adjoining landowner about the boundary
extension. This is a good proposal.
I want to respond to the Ranking Member's question. I guess
my only little quibble relates to just a drafting issue. In the
bill it refers to acquiring contiguous land I believe to the
present boundary. Eight of the tracts that are at issue here
with respect to the viewscape are all contiguous.
But on the northern boundary of the site, there is a state
road. In fact, right across the road is the state playhouse and
next to that is the village headquarters, and the expectation
would be that if additional parking and visitor's center were
added, it would not be actually contiguous but probably
immediately across the road.
I would tell you that the Park Service originally came
forward with a proposal that suggested a much bigger area for
parking and a visitor's center, and went through a series of
processes with people like me, public officials in Henderson
County, and we worked on this, and we came up with a smaller
footprint with respect to potential parking and a visitor's
center, and I commend them for that process.
And because of the process the Park Service used, we now
have I believe a near consensus within the Henderson County and
Flat Rock community on this bill, and so I recommend it to you.
I think the last thing I would say is what we are talking about
here is willing landowners. These are my constituents. I know
several of them. They are my neighbors. I live very close to
this site.
All of these landowners have agreed to the inclusion of
their property in the boundary lines, and I think that is a
really important point to make. And finally again I support
this bill. I urge your support for it, and I would note in
passing that Senator Dole has introduced companion legislation
in the Senate which would do precisely the same thing. So there
is broad bipartisan support I believe for the bill as
introduced.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGrady follows:]
Statement of Mr. Charles McGrady, Member of Board of Commissioners,
Henderson County, North Carolina, on H.R. 1100, a Bill to revise the
boundary of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of
North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee today to support to H.R. 1100, a bill that would authorize
the boundary expansion of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, a
unit of the National Park System. Later in my testimony I will
recommend one change to the bill.
My name is Chuck McGrady, and I currently serve as a county
commissioner in Henderson County, North Carolina, where Carl Sandburg
Home National Historic Site is located. Prior to becoming a county
commissioner, I served on the Flat Rock Village Council; the Sandburg
site is located within the Village of Flat Rock. I previously owned and
operated a summer camp for boys in the area and serve on a variety of
community and state-appointed boards. I share this informational
background as a way to convey my engagement with the community and my
understanding of the great community support for this bill which would
authorize the Sandburg site to expand by up to 115 acres.
The determination of the need for up to 115 additional acres was a
direct result of the recent public planning process which created the
General Management Plan for Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.
The General Management Planning process began in 1999 and concluded in
2003. The four-year process involved a broad spectrum of the community
including attention to the wishes of the local government, the Village
of Flat Rock, in regard to the boundary expansion. Park Superintendent
Connie Backlund and the General Management Planning team were sensitive
to the wishes of the community, and as a result the General Management
Plan and this associated boundary expansion are widely supported. In
particular, the Flat Rock Village Council, Henderson County Board of
Commissioners, Henderson County Travel and Tourism, Henderson County
Chamber of Commerce, the North Carolina National Park, Parkway and
Forests Development Council have gone on record as supporting the
proposed park expansion. In addition, our local newspaper, the
Hendersonville Times-News, has written an extensive number of
editorials supporting the additional acreage for the park.
The 115 additional acres will serve two important functions related
to the site. First of all, one hundred and ten (110) acres are to
protect the top and sides of Big Glassy Mountain, a popular hiking
destination as well as protect the scenic backdrop to the park's
pastureland, a primary historic feature of the site. Comments from park
visitors and others place a very high value on the park's pastoral
landscape and preserving the associated views across the pastureland.
Much of the backdrop to the pastureland is the up slopes of Big Glassy
Mountain and lie outside the park boundaries. If these lands were to be
subdivided and developed all agree the historic values of the site and
the visitor experience associated with the site would be greatly
compromised.
The top of Big Glassy Mountain is the highest point in the park and
the top consists of a large granite outcrop with the park boundary
going directly across this rock face. Visitors to this popular
mountaintop can frequently be outside the park. The immediate
foreground of their views is located outside the park boundary.
Development of this foreground property would have adverse affects on
what is now a wonderful and expansive viewpoint enjoyed by many.
In addition to this 110 acres to protect the top of Big Glassy and
associated scenic views, the remaining three to five (3-5) acres of the
boundary authorization would be to provide additional visitor parking
at the site as well as to provide land for a visitor center.
The current visitor parking is inadequate to accommodate the
numbers of visitors to the site during much of the spring, summer and
fall seasons. Frequently during the busy times of the year, visitors
unable to find a parking space will park along Little River Road, the
state road which provides access to the parking lot. This can result in
safety hazards for park visitors and for vehicle traffic using this
road. Other visitors, unable to find a parking place, will leave never
having had an opportunity to visit the site. In addition, the park
currently has no visitor center; however, the potential for exhibits
and other educational opportunities are impressive. The National Park
Service acquired the site directly from Mrs. Sandburg in 1968, a year
after Carl Sandburg's death, and she donated all the family possessions
to the National Park Service. This forms a museum collection of over
300,000 items which reflect Sandburg's far-ranging interests including
President Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. The visitor center and
interpretive exhibits would provide critically needed visitor
orientation, interpretation of the Sandburg story and opportunities for
the site's growing education program.
I wish to offer one recommended change to H.R. 1100, and that would
be to delete the word ``contiguous'' as the way to describe lands that
could be considered for purchase or donation. The General Management
Planning process, in concert with the community, devised the
description of lands that may be considered from willing sellers to be
lands located west of the Greenville Highway (Highway 225) and south of
Little River Road. This is the recommended best description to use, and
gives the park the flexibility to see what may come up on the market
from a willing seller to address the needs for a visitor center and
additional parking.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the opportunity to present my
testimony, and I welcome any questions you or members of the
subcommittee may have.
______
Recommended Change to Authorization Bill to Expand
Carl Sandburg Home NHS
The one recommended change to the bill authorizing the boundary
expansion of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site would be to
delete the phrase ``contiguous to the Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site'' and replace it with the phrase ``located west of the
Greenville Highway (Highway 225) and south of Little River Road in the
Village of Flat Rock'' in the section describing acquisition of
additional land.
The language makes the bill consistent with the site's General
Management Plan crafted through a four-year public planning process and
provides flexibility in acquiring land for the authorized visitor
center and visitor parking area.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Commissioner. Let me call on
Commissioner Caviezel.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS CAVIEZEL, COMMISSIONER,
KING AND KITTITAS COUNTIES FIRE DISTRICT 51
Mr. Caviezel. Caviezel.
Mr. Grijalva. Got it.
Mr. Caviezel. My name is Chris Caviezel, and I am Chairman
of the Board of Commissioners for King and Kittitas Counties
Fire District No. 51, a volunteer fire department serving a
residential community of Snoqualmie Pass. This unincorporated
area has 350 full-time residents. In addition, we have a
wintertime ski area which sees an estimated 20,000 people a day
during the peak of the season. The Washington State Department
of Transportation estimates up to 60,000 vehicles will travel
through our fire district on a busy day.
Snoqualmie Pass has an enormous amount of snowfall with an
average of 32 feet of snow each year for the last 10 years.
This results in avalanches and rockslides on both sides of the
pass, and additionally adds to the appeal of the area by many
visitors. These unique demographics challenge local resources
to the limits.
Our fire department averages over 300 calls a year and has
seen a 10 percent annual increase in call volumes. Snoqualmie
Pass is completely surrounded by Forest Service land. To the
north and south of us are the Cascade Mountains, and along the
Interstate 90 corridor Forest Service land extends to the east
and west of us, well beyond our seven and a half mile response
area in each direction.
While our primary mission is to fight fires and provide
emergency medical services in our local residential setting and
nearby interstate highway, the impacts of the surrounding
Forest Service land definitely affect our mission. The Forest
Service has the primary responsibility for putting out fires on
their land. However, the nearest Forest Service resources are
30 minutes away in good weather in the town of North Bend.
Although Snoqualmie Pass all volunteer fire station is not
obligated to respond to any fires on Forest Service land, we
gladly do so. We are usually the ones in the position to get to
the fire first, giving us a better chance at containing the
fire before it can get out of hand and present a much larger
problem.
It is also important to note that our all volunteer fire
department must respond quickly to prevent fire from spreading
onto Forest Service land. The nearest career department is 30
minutes away, weather cooperating, and during a recent fire we
have had support come to us from over an hour away.
Despite our very limited resources, there is tremendous
need for a new fire station. The current fire station was
originally built in the 1930s as a maintenance shed for the
Department of Transportation. The existing building has
numerous electrical, structural and operational deficiencies.
One problem of note is that the roof sheds snow in front of the
apparatus base, especially when the fire station sirens sound
when we get a call. This can leave up to a four-foot ridge of
snow and ice in front of our rigs, preventing a response until
the path is cleared.
Last year our fire department was contacted by the Forest
Service to ask if we would be interested in purchasing the land
where our fire station is currently located. We have long
recognized the pressing need to build a new fire station. So
for many years our department has been looking at alternative
locations. Unfortunately, each and every time it always came
down to the lack of money for us to proceed.
Through a series of discussions with the Forest Service, we
also learned that there is a different parcel of land that they
would be willing to consider. This other parcel would allow us
to build a new station with less impact to current operations,
and this new location due to its location and accessibility
would definitely serve us better. Also it should be noted that
the land that we desire is a rarely used parking lot.
Monies received through fire department levied property
taxes this year will equate to around $163,000. This money is
barely enough to sustain current operations, and since
Snoqualmie Pass is surrounded by Forest Service land and
because we cannot levy a tax against the U.S. Forest Service,
we are severely prohibited from expanding our tax base and must
rely upon outside assistance for continued operation, and
unlike almost all the other fire departments in the State of
Washington, most of our customers, about 84 percent, are non
taxpaying residents. Rather they are people that are driving
through the area, visiting the ski area or visiting U.S. Forest
Service land.
We recognize that the process to convey land without cost
is not done very often. However, we believe our unique
circumstances more than justify this to be done. My
constituents recognize the importance of a top quality fire
department, and they are supportive of the fire department. A
conveyance of this land would ease the burden of building a new
fire station.
Funding sources for building the fire station are being
sought through State Representative Bill Hinkle and others.
Additionally, Fire Chief Matt Cowen and myself will be
attending a workshop at the end of this month for the purpose
of fire station design and alternative funding sources to fund
the cost of building a new fire station. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caviezel follows:]
Statement of Chris L. Caviezel, Chairman, Board of Commissioners,
King and Kittitas Counties Fire District #51
My name is Chris Caviezel, I am the Chairman of the Board of
Commissioners for King and Kittitas Counties Fire District #51, a
volunteer fire department serving the recreational community of
Snoqualmie Pass.
This un-incorporated area has 350 full-time residents. In addition,
we have a winter-time ski area which sees an estimated 20,000 people a
day during the peak of the season. The Washington State Department of
Transportation estimates that up to 60,000 vehicles will travel through
our fire district on a busy day.
Snoqualmie Pass has an enormous amount of snowfall with an average
of 32 feet of snow each year for the last ten years. This results in
avalanches and rock slides on both sides of the pass and additionally
adds to the appeal of the area by many visitors.
These unique demographics challenge local resources to the limits.
Our Fire Department averages over 300 calls a year and is seeing a 10
percent annual increase in call volumes.
Snoqualmie Pass is completely surrounded by Forest Service land. To
the North and South of us are the Cascade Mountains and along the
Interstate-90 corridor, Forest Service Land extends to the east and
west of us, well beyond our 7-1/2 mile response area in each direction.
While our primary mission is to fight fires and provide emergency
medical services in our local residential setting and nearby inter-
state highway--the impacts of the surrounding Forest Service Land
definitely affect our mission. The Forest Service has the primary
responsibility for putting fires out on their land, however, the
nearest Forest Service resources are 30 minutes away--in good weather--
in the town of North Bend. And though Snoqualmie Pass's all volunteer
fire station is not obligated to respond to any fires on Forest Service
Land, we gladly do so. We are usually the ones in the position to get
to the fire first, giving us a better chance at containing the fire
before it can get out of hand and present a much larger problem.
It is also important to note that our all-volunteer fire department
must respond quickly to prevent fire from spreading on to Forest
Service Land. The nearest career department is 30 minutes away, weather
co-operating, and during a recent fire we have had support come to us
from over an hour away.
Despite our very limited resources, there is a tremendous need for
a new fire station. The current station was originally built in the
1930's as a maintenance shed for the Department of Transportation, the
existing building has numerous electrical, structural and operational
deficiencies. One problem of note is that the roof sheds snow in front
of the apparatus bays, especially when the fire station siren sounds
when we get a call. This can leave up to a four foot ridge of snow and
ice in front of our rigs preventing a response until the path is
cleared.
Last year our Fire Department was contacted by the Forest Service
to ask if we would be interested in purchasing the land where our Fire
Station is currently located. We have long recognized the pressing need
to build a new fire station, so for many years our department has been
looking at alternative locations. Unfortunately, each and every time it
always came down to the lack of money for us to proceed.
Through a series of discussions with the Forest Service, we also
learned that there is a different parcel of land that they would be
willing to consider. This other parcel would allow us to build a new
station with less impact to current operations and the new location,
due to its location and accessibility, would definitely serve us
better. Also, it should be noted, that the land that we desire is a
rarely used parking lot.
Monies received through fire department levied property taxes this
year will equate to around $163,000. This money is barely enough to
sustain current operations. And since Snoqualmie Pass is surrounded by
Forest Service land (and because we cannot levy a tax against the U.S.
Forest Service) we are severely prohibited from expanding our tax base
and must rely upon outside assistance for continued operation. And
unlike almost all of the other fire departments in the State of
Washington, most of our customers, about 84%, are non-taxing paying
residents. Rather they are people that are driving through the area,
visiting the Ski Area, or visiting U.S. Forest Service Land.
We recognize that the process to convey land, without cost, is not
done very often. However, we believe our unique circumstances more than
justify this to be done.
My constituents recognize the importance of a top quality fire
department and they are supportive of the Fire Department. A conveyance
of this land would ease the burden of building a new fire station.
Funding sources for building the fire station are being sought through
State Representative Bill Hinkle and others. Additionally, Fire Chief
Matt Cowan and myself will be attending a workshop at the end of this
month for the purpose of Fire Station Design and Alternative Funding
Sources to fund the cost of building a new fire station.
______
Mr. Grijalva. I thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. Let me begin with a question for Mr. Vlamis. It
appears that the highest prices for fossils is overseas. That
being an incentive to ship fossils found in this country out,
is this one of the reasons in your testimony that you mentioned
that the price for fossils has risen sharply just in the last
several years? Is that one?
Mr. Vlamis. Mr. Chairman, it is a global phenomenon the
rise in the value of fossils, and so we do see high prices
being paid by overseas buyers but also by buyers in the United
States.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask another question. It has to do
with----
Mr. Vlamis. But the intent is to ensure that these fossils
remain in the public trust to be curated in repositories so
that future access is guaranteed to researchers and to the
general public because oftentimes you have to reexamine that
fossil because you found that gee, I was not looking at this
the right way. And so the intent is to make sure that there is
access guaranteed both to the public and to future researchers.
Mr. Grijalva. And maybe just expand a bit on the context
point that you made in your testimony that was made from a
scientific standpoint to examine fossils in the context in
which they were found.
Mr. Vlamis. Sure. The contextual data oftentimes tell a lot
about the fossil. So you can find what type deposit was there.
What was it that killed this particular animal. Was it a flood
event? Was there a drought? These kinds of things can be
discovered by looking at the contextual data. So that is why
those data are very important. Without those data, you do not
know nearly as much about the fossil.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me just the last question because it
seems to be the crux of the discussion or the issue with this
piece of legislation. Is there a role for private for profit
collectors, and what should that role be? Two questions. And
the last one, should private for profit collectors be limited
to private land?
Mr. Vlamis. Well I think that the commercial collection of
fossils on public lands is not really an appropriate use of
public lands. We certainly would not advocate restricting what
private landowners choose to do. You know sometimes I have had
people raise the analogy well you know we allow timber to be
harvested on Federal lands, why should not the same thing be
done or they will say we allow mineral extraction, oil and gas
extraction on Federal lands, why should this not be the case
for fossils?
And I think really those analogies kind of break down. With
timber we are talking about a renewable resource. Fossils are
by definition a nonrenewable resource. And I think that the
analogy with mineral extraction, oil and gas exploration really
does not work either because the value of a mineral is you
achieve that value by turning it into something.
You achieve the value of oil and gas by turning it into
energy, and consuming it, and therefore the marketplace allows
you to dollarize that and distribute those benefits to all the
people of the United States. The value of a fossil is in the
scientific information it has. So if the public is going to
maximize the value of this resource for everybody, then the way
to do that is by making sure that the contextual data are
collected and that that fossil remains available for future
study, and that way the public maximizes the value of this
resource.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. On that same vein, let me ask a
question of Mr. Larson. Following that discussion about private
collectors for profit, but just in general could you describe
the process for finding and removing fossil resources from
private lands? And for instance, can people walk onto private
lands and keep whatever they find?
Mr. Larson. In this country the private landowner is the
steward of those fossils. They own the fossils found on their
land, and so if they get permission or if they sell a lease or
you know they have the right to give permission for the removal
of those fossils. I mean bad people could of course steal from
private landowners as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Would the logic follow then that the Federal
Government as steward of those public lands would indeed be the
owner who gives permission regarding that process for
extraction of fossils on public land?
Mr. Larson. Absolutely. The Federal Government has the
statutory authority and owns those. The people of the United
States own those fossils but that also means that they could
like private landowners give permission to transfer those
ownership rights to people in certain appropriate conditions.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me start with Mr. Caviezel if I
could. Could you please tell me structural challenges you have
with the current building that you are using?
Mr. Caviezel. Yes. As I mentioned, the building was
originally built as a maintenance shed for the Department of
Transportation. When the fire department moved in, basically
the bay doors had to be reconfigured to allow the fire trucks
to come into the building. We do not have the adequate
clearance to be able to safely do that all the time. We kind of
in some respects moving the engine in and out is a challenge
much greater than it really needs to be.
Mr. Bishop. Can you tell me the types of incidents for
which you are often the first on the scene?
Mr. Caviezel. Sure. As Congressman Doc Hastings mentioned a
little bit earlier, about a month ago we had about a 60-car
pileup that was on Interstate 90. We were the first fire and
rescue district to get on the scene. We have had some
structural fires, and basically there is a lot of different
types of incidents along Interstate 90 due to the weather and
so forth along the interstate that we have to respond to in
terms of multi-car pileups and things of that nature.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I also
appreciate your very explicit testimony on the financial
challenges the district has to try and meet these emergency
service needs in your particular area, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Caviezel. And thank you. Just in closing, I wanted to
point out too this is a picture of the land that we are looking
at trying to convey.
Mr. Bishop. It would look very much enhanced with a fire
station there.
Mr. Caviezel. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. This is one of the problems that we have when
we are dealing with four bills at the same time, and I will do
this as quickly as I possibly can. Mr. Larson, as I
understand--if I am taking questions away from the gentlelady
from South Dakota just wave your hand and I will shut up. I
understand approximately 85 percent of your business is dealing
with museums, selling to museums.
Mr. Larson. Yes, that is correct. That is our----
Mr. Bishop. If this bill were to go into effect, perhaps
limiting the amount of fossils that would be collected, what
impact would that have on your personal business?
Mr. Larson. Actually when you limit the number of fossils,
you raise the price of those fossils. You limit their
distribution. If this bill were to get into effect, it would be
a good thing for my business because we have tons of fossils in
warehouse now, and we have good access to private lands. That
sort of eliminates a lot of other people who could potentially
compete with us. But as a scientist, I find it a bad thing and
especially for the contributions that amateurs make.
Mr. Bishop. You should probably quit fighting elitism. It
would help you out in the long run there.
Mr. Larson. It probably would.
Mr. Bishop. In your written testimony you say
paleontology's needs for an unimpeded access is in sharp
contrast with the prevailing situation in archeology. Can you
explain very quickly--because I have only got like a minute--
what you mean by that?
Mr. Larson. In archeology the resources are very limited.
They are limited to the last in this country approximately
10,000 years of occupation whereas fossils have been around and
have been being made for the past three billion years, and in
terms of vertebrates for the past half a billion years. So we
have lots and lots of fossils here. Wherever there is
sedimentary rocks, there is fossils. Literally trillions and
trillions of fossils in this country.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that in the 104th Congress there
was a bill, H.R. 2943, that was a bipartisan bill from then
Congressman Johnson and Congressman Skeen. I was wondering if
your organization has been able to see that, and if you have a
preference to that particular bill.
Mr. Larson. As a matter of fact, I have copies of it here
if anyone on the committee is interested, and there always you
know some problems with some bills but this is I think a very,
very good attempt at trying to do what the NAS committee had
recommended.
Mr. Bishop. I do have some questions for the other three
witnesses as well. I may have to wait until a second round to
get some of those in there. Mr. Vlamis, first of all before I
say anything else I appreciate your comments on timber and
mineral extraction, and I hope the committee heard those very
well. I think they should be you know written down in gold and
put up on the walls so we will remember when we talk about the
purpose and value of timber and mineral extraction. I think you
were right on, on that one. Let me just ask one simple
question. How do you fence a fossil?
Mr. Vlamis. How do you sell a fossil?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. If I illegally take a fossil, to whom do I
sell it?
Mr. Vlamis. We see those fossils often up at auctions.
There are auctions that are held by various auction houses.
Christie's, Butterfields.
Mr. Bishop. Who buys them though?
Mr. Vlamis. The highest bidder. No, I mean I am not trying
to----
Mr. Bishop. Which are what kinds of people?
Mr. Vlamis. Sometimes it is museums that buy them. Some----
Mr. Bishop. I mean I have got like two seconds. I am sorry,
and I will come back and give you another chance to give me a
better definition. The allosaurus from Utah, the Japanese
purchaser, for what purpose did he purchase that?
Mr. Vlamis. I do not know.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I am sorry. I will come back.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Shuler, questions?
Mr. Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to extend
a special thank you to Mr. McGrady for his testimony today, and
I think it is a perfect example of how the community continues
to work together in a bipartisan relationship to better
community and have the involvement in the Carl Sandburg
Historic Home Site. So it has been really good working with you
and a lot of the other colleagues throughout our district. We
have been very excited about having this opportunity, extending
those boundaries.
Can you talk a little bit more about just two quick things?
Also the economic impact that the Carl Sandburg Home has to the
area, and also you know what types of visitors does the home
actually bring forth? School kids and other types.
Mr. McGrady. The site clearly has economic impact although
it is hard to cut it out from all the other things. In my
county recreation is very important. Agriculture is too but we
have a lot of people that visit this area because it is cool,
and a lot of other places in the south are not, and we have got
a range of recreational opportunities, cultural opportunities,
and this is clearly one of them. As I have indicated, right
across the street from the state playhouse. It has got visitors
approaching 30,000 I believe right now.
I think what surprised us actually is the recreational
component of the site. It was originally preserved because Carl
Sandburg lived there, and that was expected to be the draw but
it backs up to Flat Rock, several of the major housing areas,
and a lot of our residents use the site for recreation because
of the trails in the area. So it has evolved into something a
little bit different perhaps than those who were responsible
for acquiring it back in the late 1960s might have considered.
Mr. Shuler. Well I can certainly say my first visit to the
home was in the eighth grade. So I appreciate your work and
your dedication. Thanks for your testimony today.
Mr. McGrady. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Shuler. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Ms. Herseth Sandlin, any
questions?
Ms. Herseth. Yes. Thank you again, Chairman Grijalva, for
the hearing, and the testimony which I commend to my fellow
Subcommittee members of Mr. Larson. Dr. Larson's experience I
think speaks volumes about the need for clarity within Federal
regulations, and I think a closer look at the NAS
recommendations and the focus on the fossils and those who are
uncovering them and preserving them and using to add to the
basis of scientific knowledge in addition to some of the
questions raised throughout this hearing as it relates to the
focus of this bill on law enforcement. Hopefully we will be
able to find some compromise here especially with the
legislation that Dr. Larson has referred to us, now Senator
Johnson's bill that was introduced in large measure based on
some of what folks in South Dakota were experiencing.
I do have a question that I want to start out with, Mr.
Vlamis, before we come back to the bill 554 and how it may
differ from what was introduced by now Senator Johnson. I am
interested in learning more about the casual collecting
provisions of the legislation, and I certainly appreciate the
fact that the bill preserves a place for casual collectors and
enthusiasts to pursue their hobby on Federal lands.
The collecting is limited to common invertebrate and plant
paleontological resources. Could you comment at all about how
hard it is to draw the line in practice, in other words,
defining the term common, and why the line was drawn at
invertebrates?
Mr. Vlamis. Well, vertebrate fossils tend to be more rare
than invertebrate and plant fossils so that is why the line was
drawn there. In terms of addressing what is defined as a common
plant or invertebrate versus a scientifically significant plant
or invertebrate, we feel that that could be addressed through
the regulations that are put in place after this bill is
passed, if it is passed.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. And I want to thank the Ranking
Member for his questions on this bill, and so let me come back
to you, Mr. Larson. On the issue of casual collecting or the
sale of fossils found on public land, how does H.R. 554 differ
from the bill that was introduced back in 1996 I believe? Was
it introduced in 1996?
Mr. Larson. In 1996. There are provisions for amateur
collecting of vertebrate fossils and commercial collecting as
well.
Ms. Herseth. And could you elaborate for the record and for
the committee on just a little bit? I know that you have made
copies available to us, and we will be doing some of that
comparison with our committee staff too, but you had mentioned
at the outset in your testimony that the focus of the
recommendations that you have been involved in formulating with
the National Association as well as what is incorporated into
the 1996 bill. But the focus you say is more on the fossils
themselves and the folks involved in preserving and collecting
those fossils versus the folks on law enforcement. For example,
how did the 1996 bill deal with law enforcement provisions?
Mr. Larson. It certainly did not increase penalties in the
way that this bill does. I do not remember the exact provisions
of the law enforcement but it recognizes the ability of the
Federal Government through theft regulations and authority
already that there is plenty of authority for prosecuting
people if they are really bad people. If they are doing bad
things.
But it actually protects some of the people who are
innocently going at it from the basis of a scientific curiosity
and helps to promote that type of activity which actually
increases the number of people out watching fossil sites and
helps in preserving those fossil sites without the additional
expense of more law enforcement and more court cases.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. And in response to Congressman
Bishop's question--actually it was Chairman Grijalva's--it
relates to the work with private landowners. Could you just
summarize your experience back in 1996 and where you think we
need to further clarify to avoid the District Court having to
get involved to do it as it relates to land on Native American
reservations?
Mr. Larson. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is sort of a
different type of situation although now the Bureau of Indian
Affairs seems to be treating individual allotments and
individual Indian land as normal individual, they have the
right to determine their land. However, in certain instances,
it has to go through the Bureau's legal teams to make sure that
they are not being cheated, and make sure they get a fair deal.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much, and thank you again,
Chairman Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I know that the Chairman has to be on the Floor
in just a few minutes so let me do this really fast, and I will
apologize for that. I wanted to give some of you a little bit
more time to talk to some of these bills. I appreciate that.
Let me just lay down a marker for where I think the minority
will be looking at some of these pieces of legislation.
Specifically to Congressman Shuler's bill, two quick
questions if you can give this to me, Mr. McGrady. How much was
the original homesite of the Sandburg?
Mr. McGrady. Under 150, 160 acres.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Now you are up to 250. So you have expanded
that significantly. Do you have an assessed valuation of this
property?
Mr. McGrady. I can give it to you. We just had
reassessments but it is in the 2 to $3 million range.
Mr. Bishop. For the 115?
Mr. McGrady. If all the property was acquired in fee
simple, but that is not necessarily.
Mr. Bishop. Two to $3 million. I appreciate that because
you are a heck of a lot better than the Park Service was in
trying to estimate what the value of that property was.
Mr. McGrady. We just had revaluation last month.
Mr. Bishop. Give the data to the Park Service. Let me do
this very quickly so we can go on with that. I think from the
minority side we look at the need for parking as something that
is essential there and understandable as well as the visitor's
center. We would be supportive of that whether it is contiguous
or not. The additional property that you are after is not part
of the viewshed. You cannot see it from the house itself. You
have to go up to the ridge to go back at it.
To be honest if the village of Flat Rock would like to have
open space, I suggest you do what many western states do and
bond and buy it, and keep that as open space but to add it to
the National Park inventory is something I think we would find
not necessary and overly expensive to that particular price.
But if you want to make the argument for additional parking and
for a visitor's center, I think you make a credible
recommendation, especially when the original Sandburg property
is about half of what you already have there in the Park
Service at the same time.
I apologize for that but I know everyone has a 12 o'clock
appointment. So do I, and I would have tried to do it more
deftly than I did. I apologize for that.
Mr. McGrady. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond to that later I
will just in a personal letter to the Ranking Member can
respond to some of the concerns he has.
Mr. Bishop. I would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Shuler. [Presiding.] Are there any other questions? At
this time I would like to thank the panel, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]