[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4807 and H.CON.RES. 408
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 12, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-125
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-159 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 12, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam.. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Gloman, Nancy, Chief of the Division of Conservation Planning
and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.......... 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 4807.......................... 6
Kilby, William, President, Cecil Land Trust, Collora,
Maryland................................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 4807.......................... 10
Letter submitted for the record from Wayne H. Bell,
Ph.D., Center Director, Washington College, Center for
the Environment and Society............................ 11
Pittenger, David, Executive Director, National Aquarium in
Baltimore, Maryland........................................ 22
Prepared statement on H.Con.Res. 408..................... 24
Rapp, James L., Director, Salisbury Zoological Park.
Salisbury, Maryland, on behalf of the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association....................................... 17
Prepared statement on H.Con.Res. 408..................... 20
Additional materials supplied:
Busby, Virginia R., Department of Anthropology, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, Letter submitted for
the record................................................. 30
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4807, THE SUSQUEHANNA NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE EXPANSION ACT; AND H.CON.RES. 408, HONORING THE AMERICAN ZOO AND
AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR CONTINUED SERVICE TO ANIMAL WELFARE,
CONSERVATION EDUCATION, CONSERVATION RESEARCH, AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order.
We have two pieces of legislation this afternoon. The first
bill is H.R. 4807, the Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge
Expansion Act, and the second bill is House Resolution 408
honoring the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and its
accredited institutions for their continued service to the
United States and the rest of the world.
I ask unanimous consent that my statement be submitted for
the record, and what I would like to do is very briefly
summarize.
The first bill deals with a rather magnificent place on the
Susquehanna River, the headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay known
affectionately to local people in Cecil and Hartford County as
Garrett Island. It has been settled to some degree since the
1600's. It is now a place of refuge for a myriad of wildlife of
which I would be very happy to help, with the Kilby family,
host the Fish and Wildlife Service people to paddle out to
Garrett Island on a trusty Old Town canoe, walk around the
island and see its magnificence.
What we would like to do--and Mr. Kilby will expound upon
this. He is the one person who has been a strong advocate. And
certainly to develop a refuge system, Fish and Wildlife
understands the need for them throughout the country for
ecological and refuge purposes. The local community is in great
favor of this island being preserved.
There are a number of other things happening in the region,
one of which is a conservation corridor from Virginia to
Pennsylvania. That is a forested corridor that we are looking
to preserve habitat for wildlife--the full range of wildlife
that a particular ecosystem can support in this region of the
United States and, in particular, neotropical migrating birds,
waterfowl, anywhere from woodchucks to fox and beaver and deer
and osprey.
Osprey, for example, and bald eagles make their homes on
Garrett Island, so a conservation corridor on the land and an
island corridor throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
including Susquehanna river. This is one of the capstones of
that particular concept.
We look forward to the hearing today to listen to Mr. Kilby
and the people from Fish and Wildlife, and we also want to
thank Jim for coming back here again. You were here a couple of
weeks ago, and we thank the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association for all of the things they have done to serve this
country in understanding and appreciating the rather dynamic
complex organisms that populate the planet and their
relationship in the ecosystems.
One of the things that I think Garrett Island could be
useful for is an ecological study area for local schools that
the Baltimore Zoo could take advantage of as a field site.
Certainly the Salisbury Zoo could come up and play a role in
the northern part of the shore as a field study area to
understand, let us say, the mechanisms of the brain of an ant,
which is some pretty extraordinary things that Ian Wilson has
done for a number of years. But instead of traveling to Brazil
to do that, we can do that on Garrett Island.
Anyway, Jim, we appreciate your attendance here this
afternoon; and at this point I yield to the gentleman from
Guam, Mr. Underwood.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest,, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good afternoon, today, the Subcommittee will conduct a hearing on
two pieces of legislation which I have sponsored. The first bill is
H.R. 4807, the Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act.
As the Co-Chairman of the Susquehanna River Basin Task Force, I was
pleased to introduce this measure to designate Garrett Island as a unit
of the Susquehanna Refuge. I have visited Garrett Island on several
occasions and its rich history, geographic location and wildlife
resource values must be preserved for future generations.
Garrett Island was the site of Maryland's second settlement in the
1600's, it is the only rocky island in the tidal waters of the
Chesapeake Bay system and it is a link between the river and the bay.
According to one of its current island owners, ``people tend to take
places like this for granted until they're about to lose them''.
Until the terms of my legislation, the Secretary of the Interior
would purchase the island from existing funds and it would be managed
as a component of the Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge. The
purposes of the refuge unit would be to support the conservation
corridor demonstration program, to conserve, restore and manage
habitats and aquatic resource values, achieve the objections of the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, conserve the archeological resources of the
island and permit appropriate public access.
The second bill we consider is H.Con.Res. 408, honoring the
American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) and its accredited
institutions for their continued service to animal welfare,
conservation research, and wildlife conservation programs.
AZA facilities have been in the forefront in maintaining animals in
public display. They have developed and implemented the highest of
standards for the care and maintenance of these animals. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
recognize these standards as the ``professionally accepted standards''
on which public display facilities must base their education and
conservation programs.
Millions of Americans visit zoos and aquariums every day. For many
of these visitors this is the only opportunity they will have to see
marine mammals or other exotic species. Seeing these animals firsthand
educates them on the needs of animals in the wild and can give them an
appreciation for captive and wild animal populations they might not
otherwise have. This personal interaction has grown into support for
these facilities, through direct contributions and State and Federal
funding, that allows AZA institutions to coordinate with academics,
State, Federal, and international institutions to conduct premier
research on captive and wild populations. The contributions made by
these facilities through research and field conservation have helped
maintain populations of African and Asian elephants, great apes,
rhinoceros and tigers. In addition, a greater understanding of marine
mammal populations has occurred and has helped in the rehabilitation
and release of stranded marine mammals.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses here today. I am
now pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Democratic Member
for any opening statement he may have on the legislation.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and if we can
figure out the operations of the brain of an ant we can figure
out a lot of things that go on around here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this afternoon's
hearing; and I will be brief in my remarks.
You referred to the island as a magnificent island. I
thought you were going to talk about the magnificent
legislation that will help keep this island around forever.
Our wildlife refuge system is one of the Federal
Government's best-kept secrets and functions as our only
network of lands and water set aside exclusively for the
conservation of fish wildlife and plant resources. The 94
million acres of habitat within the refuge system protects
hundreds of endangered species and safeguards millions of
migratory birds and conserves premier sports fisheries for over
35 million Americans who visit the system annually.
It is no surprise to me that the system has now grown to
over 535 refuges located across the Nation. It is my
understanding that President Bush's administration has decided
that this legacy has expanded perhaps a little too much and the
time has come to curtail any further expansion or additions to
the refuge system. In light of the chronic operations and
maintenance budget backlog affecting the refuge system, I can
partly understand this reasoning. If you are struggling to
maintain what you already have, why add to it?
Nevertheless, such a change represents a significant and
potentially troubling shift in policy. If this Subcommittee is
to be able to fairly assess the merits of Chairman Gilchrest's
legislation to add Garrett Island to the Susquehanna National
Wildlife Refuge, the Administration is encumbered by the
responsibility to first fully articulate and support the
details of its new policy before we dispatch H.R. 4807 to one
of many, many pieces of legislation that have good intentions
but are not going anywhere. That is only fair.
In addition, if it is the policy of the Administration to
postpone any further expansion of the refuge system until the
operations and maintenance backlog is rectified, I hope that
the Administration would consider adjusting its own internal
budget priorities to achieve this worthy goal and to allow the
system to grow where needed in the future.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Gilchrest. Our first witness this afternoon is Ms.
Nancy Gloman, Chief of the Division of Conservation Planning
and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Thank you for coming. Ms. Gloman, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF NANCY GLOMAN, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF
CONSERVATION PLANNING AND POLICY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SYSTEM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Gloman. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written statement
be included for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Ms. Gloman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Nancy
Gloman, Chief of the Division of Conservation Planning and
Policy for the National Wildlife Refuge System. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide views and comments on H.R. 4807 on
behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. H.R. 4807
authorizes the expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge to
include Garrett Island. This undeveloped island, located in
Cecil County, Maryland, has generated protection and
acquisition interest from the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources and the Cecil County Land Trust, a local
environmental group. Before stating our views on the
legislation, I would like to give you a brief summary of the
Service's involvement in the Susquehanna River National
Wildlife Refuge, our activities in the proximity of Garrett
Island and what we currently know about the natural resources
associated with the island.
The Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex
includes Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Martin National
Wildlife Refuge and Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge.
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately
100 miles north of the administrative office of the complex,
which is in Cambridge, Maryland. The refuge was initially
established as a Migratory Bird Waterfowl Closed Area because
of its outstanding submerged aquatic vegetation habitat, which
concentrated large numbers of diving ducks, primarily
canvasbacks.
With the disappearance of the expansive submerged beds in
the 1970's, the Presidential Order creating the Waterfowl
Closed Area was rescinded in 1978. This rulemaking left only
Battery Island as the National Wildlife Refuge; Since that time
Battery Island has eroded to about 1.5 acres in size, with very
little habitat value for the Service's trust resources.
Consequently, Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge has not been
a protection priority since 1978, is rarely visited by Service
personnel, and in fact has been considered by the Service for
transfer to some nongovernmental organization.
Garrett Island is located in the Susquehanna River,
approximately five miles north of what remains of the
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge. Because it is mostly
privately owned, the Service has not conducted a survey of the
island to assess the Fish and Wildlife resource value. However,
we have viewed the island from the water and noted a mature,
predominantly hardwood forest with a rocky shoreline. In fact,
I saw a nice picture of it, just before giving my testimony,
that confirms that it is predominantly hardwood forest.
The Service's Maryland Fisheries Resource Office has
sampled the fishery resources in the Garrett Island vicinity
and report that it supports a typical assemblage of fish that
are expected in the river in that area. The Service's Division
of Ecological Services reports no listed threatened or
endangered species in the area, and the Maryland Department of
Natural Resource's Heritage Program has no records of State
threatened or endangered species.
The Service has limited funds with which to purchase land
and acquire easements and to provide protection and management
to trust resources following the purchase. Therefore, the
Service must be strategic in identifying lands for inclusion in
the National Wildlife Refuge System and must set priorities for
purchase. The Service recognizes that one of the most important
challenges that we have in the land acquisition process is the
development of integrated national and regional Fish and
Wildlife goals.
When planning acquisitions and setting priorities, the
Service considers known sites of threatened or endangered
species and communities; areas important to the ecological
health of the land; areas that provide habitat corridors and
areas that are priority for wildlife species. Other factors we
look at are the size of the proposal, the relationship to
existing wildlife refuges, and potential operations and
maintenance costs, and also the relationship to species and
habitat conservation plans. These acquisition priorities must
be juxtaposed with the Service's ability to provide resources
that are needed to administer these lands.
The Service has an extensive list of possible acquisitions
in the Northeast Region. Within the Chesapeake Bay, our highest
priority is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in
Maryland. We are currently developing a comprehensive
conservation plan for the Blackwater refuge that will consider
whether to recommend enlargement of the boundary for that
refuge. We are working in close cooperation with the State and
local government and our other partners, of course; and
continuing efforts in the area will allow us to link up
important habitats providing valuable wildlife corridors,
including the wildlife corridors that you talked about in your
opening remarks.
This Administration is committed to taking care of what we
have. We have identified $1.1 billion in refuge operational
needs and $663 million in pending maintenance projects for the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In the Chesapeake Marshlands
National Wildlife Refuge Complex alone, there are 35 deferred
maintenance projects in our maintenance management system
costing $1.7 million and 17 projects totaling $2 million in our
priority Tier 1 refuge operational needs system.
We are very appreciative that you and your constituents
would turn to the Fish and Wildlife Service as custodians of
Garrett Island. Unfortunately, given our priorities and funding
constraints, we cannot support H.R. 4807. Nevertheless, the
Service does offer a number of grant programs and other
opportunities for technical assistance; and we would be more
than willing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, your constituents,
and the State of Maryland to identify various options and
avenues for the protection of Garrett Island.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement; and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Gloman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gloman follows:]
Statement of Nancy Gloman, Chief, Division of Conservation Planning and
Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Nancy Gloman,
Chief of the Division of Conservation Planning and Policy for the
National Wildlife Refuge System. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide views and comments on H.R. 4807, on behalf of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service). H.R. 4807, authorizes the expansion of the
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge to include Garrett Island in the
National Wildlife Refuge System. This undeveloped island, located in
Cecil County, Maryland, has generated protection and acquisition
interest from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the
Cecil County Land Trust, a local environmental interest group. Before
stating our views on this legislation, I would like to give you a brief
summary of Service involvement in the Susquehanna National Wildlife
Refuge, our activities in proximity to Garrett Island, and what we
currently know about the natural resources associated with the island.
The Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex includes
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Martin National Wildlife Refuge,
and Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge. Susquehanna National Wildlife
Refuge is located approximately 100 miles north of the administrative
office for the Complex, which is located in Cambridge, MD. The refuge
was initially established as a Migratory Bird Waterfowl Closed Area
because of its outstanding submerged aquatic vegetation habitat, which
concentrated large numbers of diving ducks, primarily canvasbacks.
With the disappearance of the expansive submerged grass beds in the
1970s, the Presidential Order creating the Waterfowl Closed Area was
rescinded in 1978. This rulemaking left only Battery Island as the
refuge. Battery Island has since eroded to approximately 1.5 acres in
size, with little habitat value for Service trust resources.
Consequently, Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge has not been a
protection priority since 1978, is rarely visited by Service personnel,
and in fact, has been considered for excess by the Service, or transfer
to a non-government conservation organization.
Garrett Island is located in the Susquehanna River, approximately 5
miles north of what remains of the Susquehanna National Wildlife
Refuge. Because it is mostly privately owned, the Service has not
conducted an on-site visit to Garrett Island to assess fish and
wildlife resource values. However, Service personnel have viewed the
island from the water and noted a mature, predominately hardwood forest
with a rocky shoreline. The Service's Maryland Fisheries Resource
Office has sampled the river in the Garrett Island vicinity and report
a typical assemblage of fish species for the area. The Service's
Division of Ecological Services has no records of Federally-listed
threatened or endangered species in the area. The Maryland Department
of Natural Resource's Heritage Program has no records of state
threatened or endangered species.
The Service has limited funds with which to purchase lands and
acquire easements and to provide protection and management to trust
resources following purchase. Therefore, the Service must be strategic
in identifying lands for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and must set priorities for purchase. The Service recognizes
that one of the most important challenges in the land acquisition
process is the development of integrated national and regional habitat
goals and objectives. When planning acquisitions and setting
priorities, the Service considers known sites of threatened or
endangered species and communities; areas important to the ecological
health of lands already owned (e.g., areas that protect the quality and
quantity of water for wetlands, provide habitat corridors between
existing conservation lands, or are of sufficient size of contiguous
lands to protect viable populations); and, areas important for priority
wildlife species (e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating birds).
Other factors considered include the size of the proposal, the
relationship to existing refuges, potential operations and maintenance
costs, and the relationship to habitat and species conservation plans.
These acquisition priorities must also be juxtaposed with the Service's
ability to provide resources requisite for adequate administration of
potential new refuge lands.
The Service has an extensive list of possible acquisitions within
the Northeast Region. Within the Chesapeake Bay, our highest priority
is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland. We are
currently developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the
Blackwater refuge that will include consideration of whether to
recommend enlargement of the boundary of the refuge. We are working in
close cooperation with State and local governments and partners in that
process. Continued efforts in the Blackwater area will allow us to link
important habitats providing valuable wildlife corridors.
This Administration is committed to taking care of what we have. We
have identified $1.1 billion in refuge operational needs and $663
million in pending maintenance projects for the National Wildlife
Refuge System. In the Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge
Complex alone, there are 35 deferred maintenance projects in our
Maintenance Management System at a cost of $1.7 million and 17
projects, totaling $2 million in our priority Tier 1 Refuge Operational
Needs System.
We are appreciative that you and your constituents would turn to
the Fish and Wildlife Service as custodians of Garrett Island.
Unfortunately, given our priorities and funding constraints, we cannot
support H.R. 4807. Nevertheless, the Service does offer a number of
grant programs and other opportunities for technical assistance, and we
would be more than willing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, your
constituents, and the State of Maryland to identify the various avenues
for protection of Garrett Island.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to recognize Mr. Bill Kilby
from Cecil County, dairy farmer extraordinnaire, who has
pursued with his family a lifetime of improving agricultural
practices and preserving the landscape in that most precious
part of our State. Mr. Kilby.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KILBY, PRESIDENT, CECIL LAND TRUST
Mr. Kilby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Cecil Land Trust is a 4-year-old, all-volunteer
nonprofit with the mission to preserve farmland, woodland,
natural habitats and historical rural communities and to
provide assistance to those interested in land conservation.
We have working agreements with the Maryland Environmental
Trust and The Conservation Fund. We have five donated
easements, a 16,000-acre rural legacy area, an outreach program
that has produced three studies, including an Ag Land
Preservation and Protection Task Force report and a Farm Link
Program. Our interest in the permanent protection of Garrett
Island comes from our role of providing assistance to those
interested in land conservation.
Over 2 years ago, we were approached by two conservation-
minded individuals who were concerned about Garrett Island
being sold for yet another development scheme. With each sale,
the price is increasing. They asked for our help.
A business arrangement, the Garrett Island Limited
Liability Company, was formalized. It enables the Cecil Land
Trust to purchase the interest of other members as funds are
raised with the goal of permanent protection, public access and
a comprehensive educational program. House bill 4807, to
include Garrett Island in the Susquehanna National Wildlife
Refuge, fits our vision of the island's future.
We applaud Congressman Gilchrest for bringing to the
attention of Congress that Garrett Island is both historically
significant and ecologically unique. Its historical
significance predates the establishment of the State of
Maryland as the Virginia Company's most northernmost fur
trading post in the Chesapeake Bay. Its history and prehistory
represents every resource-based industry, and it is fitting
that we should be here in this room.
It represents agriculture, fur trading, fish packing, ice
storage, logging and mining. Every one of those has taken place
on the island for the past 400 years. It has witnessed the
history of transportation from canoes to barges, and its land
mass supports both a road and a railroad. Its uniqueness as a
rock island in the tidal waters at the head of the Chesapeake
Bay allows a walk of a half mile to take you from a tidal marsh
to the summit of a 114-foot volcanic core.
Since the Susquehanna River from the Conowingo Dam to
Garrett Island is open most of the winter, it serves as a haven
for many kinds of birds. The Audubon Society's New Year's Eve
count has spotted 44 species, including 14 kinds of ducks and a
number of eagles. Spring and fall migration also includes
Canadian geese, common loons, the tundra swans. A cove on the
island's southeast corner has an active heron roost. Havre de
Grace High School students will be placing and monitoring wood
duck boxes on the island for the many wood ducks that nest in
the area.
Both freshwater and anadromous fish are abundant around the
island. Game fish include striped bass, large mouth, small
mouth bass, white and yellow perch and catfish. One of the
local groups that works with us, the Bassing Bunch fishing
club, a group that has adopted the island as one of its
projects, reports that the sand bar on the island south is an
extremely important spawning ground for striped bass. The
island also supports a year-round herd of about 20 deer.
Congressman Gilchrest, for the benefit of those who don't
know it, has made two visits to the island to see for himself
what is there. His last was to assist us in our spring clean-up
effort.
Other educators have visited the island, including Dr,
Wayne Bell, who is the Director of the Center for the
Environment and Society at Washington College. Dr. Bell writes,
``the potential for educational and public outreach programs
dealing with the environment, archeology and cultural history
is outstanding.''
He continues in his letter, ``I am especially excited about
program development for the region's kindergarten through 12
schools.'' he says, ``Garrett Island will be a wonderful
opportunity for undergraduates to pursue environmental
education internships that would assist in the interpretation
and presentation of information to teachers, young people and
the general public. Such opportunities are far too rare on the
Upper Eastern Shore.''
In addition to Washington College, two other regional
groups share an active interest in the permanent protection of
Garrett Island. One is the Northern Chesapeake Chapter of the
Archeological Society of Maryland. They state in a report, The
Archeological Importance of Garrett Island, that, beyond the
archeological records it contains, the island itself is an
artifact, an integral part of the natural and cultural
landscape, bearing both local through national level historical
and cultural significance.
The Society would like to develop a multi-year project on
the island geared toward providing a management plan for
guiding future research and preservation efforts.
The newest interest group on the island is the Lower
Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, one of Maryland's few certified
greenways. The Cecil Land Trust has obtained a conditional
grant of up to $300,000 in matching funds through the LSHG and
the Maryland Heritage Area Authority's Target Investment Zone
Program. The acquisition of Garrett Island for permanent
protection in its natural state is an important part of LSHG's
linkage concept, the preservation-conservation of heritage
resources and natural features within the Susquehanna Valley.
The calls for the island's permanent protection depends on
the determination of its fair market value and accurate acreage
account. There have been two appraisals in the past 3 years
using development scenarios to determine the value. The value
range is $3,000 to $3,400 per acre. The problem in using this
type of valuation system is that there are no local
comparables.
Cecil Land Trust has obtained additional information to
support the value of $3,400 an acre. We obtained a certificate
of elevation to meet FEMA requirements, soils determination for
health department requirements, and after searching through a
dozen islands on the East Coast that were developed but only
had water access, we found an island in the Susquehanna River
in New York State that is entirely comparable to Garrett
Island, including its history and its present use. It sold at
public auction in 1988 for $3,447 an acre.
The Cecil Land Trust has raised $150,000 to acquire partner
shares of Garrett Island. It would take an additional $600,000
to purchase the remaining interest of the Garrett Island
Limited Liability Company. We have the commitment of $300,000
from the Maryland Historical Area Authority, and if we can
reach a mutual agreement on value and acreage--if we had an
additional $300,000 in Federal matching funds, we would be able
to--if they were available, Cecil Land Trust would encourage
the Garret Island Limited Liability Company to accept a price
of $600,000 in State and Federal funds in exchange for the
title to Garrett Island.
The Cecil Land Trust, the Northern Chesapeake Chapter of
the Archeological Society of Maryland and the Lower Susquehanna
Greenway would request input into the management plan for the
island.
The opportunity for the Federal recognition and funding
through House bill 4807 will not only demonstrate the
importance of permanent protection for Garrett Island, it will
also show how local groups can partner with the government to
protect a community legacy.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kilby.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kilby follows:]
Statement of William Kilby, President, Cecil Land Trust
Cecil Land Trust is a four year old, all volunteer non-profit, with
a mission to preserve farmland, woodland, natural habitats and historic
rural communities and to provide assistance to those interested in land
conservation.
We have working agreements with the Maryland Environmental Trust
and The Conservation Fund. We have five donated easements, a 16,000
acre Rural Legacy Area, an outreach program that has produced three
studies, including an Ag Land Preservation and Protection Task Force
report and a Farm Link Program. Out interest in the permanent
protection of Garrett Island comes from our role of providing
assistance to those interested in land conservation.
Over two years ago we were approached by two conservation minded
individuals who were concerned about Garrett Island being sold for yet
another development scheme. With each sale the price was increasing.
They asked for our help. A business arrangement, the Garrett Island
LLC, was formalized. It enables Cecil Land Trust to purchase the
interest of other members as :funds are raised with the goals of
permanent protection, public access, and a comprehensive educational
program. House Bill 4807, to include Garrett Island in the Susquehanna
National Wildlife Refuge, fits our vision for the Island's future.
We applaud Congressman Gilchrest for bringing to the attention of
Congress that Garrett Island is both, historically significant and
ecologically unique. Its historical significance predates the
establishment of the state of Maryland, as the Virginia Company's
northernmost fir trading post in the Chesapeake Bay. Its history and
prehistory represents every resource-based industry--agriculture, fur
trading, fish packing, ice storage, logging and mining, It has
witnessed the history of transportation from canoes to barges. Its land
Mass supports both a road and a railroad. Its uniqueness as a rock
island in the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay allows a walk of a
half mile to tale you from a tidal marsh to the 114 foot summit of a
volcanic core.
Since the Susquehanna River from the Conowingo Dam. to Garrett
Island, is open most of the winter, it serves as a haven for many kinds
of birds. The Audubon Society's New Years Eve count has spotted 44
species, including 14 kinds of ducks and a number of eagles. Spring and
fall migration also includes Canadian Geese, common loons and tundra
swans. A cove on the island's southwest corner, has an active heron
roost. Havre de Grace High School students will be placing and
monitoring wood duck boxes on the island for the many wood ducks that
nest in the area.
Both freshwater and anadromous fish are abundant around the island.
Game fish. include striped bass, large mouth and small mouth bass,
white and yellow perch, and catfish. The Bassing Bunch fishing club, a
group that has adopted the island as one of. its projects, reports that
the sand bar, at the island's south end, is an extremely important
spawning ground for striped bass. The island also supports a year round
herd of about 20 deer.
Congressman Gilchrest has made two visits to the island. His last
was to assist in our spring clean-up effort. Other educators have
visited the island including Dr. Wayne Bell, director of the Center for
the Environment and Society at Washington College. Dr. Bell writes,
``the potential. for educational and public outreach programs dealing
with the environment, archaeology and cultural history is
outstanding,'' He continues in his letter, ``I am especially excited
about program development for the region's K-12 schools. Garrett Island
will be a wonderful opportunity for undergraduates to pursue
environmental education internships that would assist in the
interpretation and presentation of information to teachers, young
people, and the general public. Such opportunities are far too rare on
the Upper Eastern Shore.''
In addition to Washington College, two other regional groups share
an active interest in the permanent protection of Garrett Island. One
is the Northern Chesapeake Chapter of the Archaeological Society of
Maryland. They state in a report, The Archaeological Importance of
Garrett Island, ``beyond the archaeological record it contains, the
island is itself an artifact--an integral part of the natural and
cultural landscape--beating local through national level historical and
cultural significance.'' The Society would like to develop a multi-year
project on the island geared toward providing a management plan for
guiding future research and preservation efforts. The newest interest
group is the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (LSHG), one of
Maryland's few certified greenways. The Cecil Land Trust has obtained a
conditional grant of up to $300,000 in matching funds through LSHG and
the Maryland Heritage Area Authority's Target Investment Zone Program.
The acquisition of Garrett Island, for its permanent protection in its
natural state, is an important part of LSHG's linkage concept, the
preservation-conservation of heritage resources and natural features
within the Susquehanna Valley.
The cost for the Island's permanent protection depends on the
determination of its fair market value and accurate acreage count.
There have been two appraisals in the past three years using
development scenarios to determine value. The value range is $3,000 to
$3,400 per acre. The problem in using this type of valuation system is
that there are no local comparables. Cecil Land Trust has obtained
additional information to support the value of $3,400. We obtained a
certificate of elevation to meet FEMA's requirements, soils
determination to health department requirements, and after searching
through a dozen island on the East Coast that were developed, but had
only water access, we found an island in the Susquehanna River in New
York State that is entirely comparable to Garrett Island, including its
history and its present use. It sold at public auction its 1988, for
$3,447 per acre.
The Cecil Land Trust has raised $150,000. It would take $600,000 to
purchase the remaining interest in the Garrett Island LLC. We have a
commitment of $300,000 from MHAA, if we can reach. a mutual agreement
on value and acreage. If $300,000 in Federal matching funds were
available, the Cecil Land Trust would encourage the Garrett Island LLC
to accept a price of $600,000 in state and Federal funds in exchange
for the title to Garrett Island. The Cecil Land Trust, The Northern
Chesapeake Chapter of the Archaeological Society of Maryland and The
Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway would request to have input into a
management plan for the island.
The opportunity for Federal recognition and funding through H.R.
4807 will not only demonstrate the importance of permanent protection
of Garrett Island, it will also show how local groups can partner with
government to protect a community legacy.
______
[The letter referred to by Mr. Kilby from Wayne H. Bell,
Ph.D., Center Director, Washington College, Center for the
Environment and Society. follows:]
WASHINGTON COLLEGE
Center for the Environment and Society
300 Washington Avenue
Chestertown, Maryland 21620-1197
25 January 2001
M. Jayne Wright, Esquire
Law Offices of M. Jayne Wright, LLC
201 St. John Street
P.O. Box 939
Havre de Grace, MD 21078
Dear Ms. Wright:
I am writing on behalf of the new Center for the Environment and
Society at Washington College in support of the initiatives underway
for program development at Garrett Island.
It was my pleasure to have a guided tour of the Island in July,
2000. The potential for educational and public outreach programs
dealing with the environment, archaeology, and cultural history is
outstanding.
Garrett Island is unique physically, historically, and
environmentally. Its location at the mouth of the Susquehanna River
places it at the threshold of the source of 60% of the freshwater flow
and sediment load into Chesapeake Bay. It is also near the top of the
Delmarva Peninsula at a point where migratory routes of land birds and
waterfowl are compressed. The mature forests on much of the island
reflect changing commercial and agricultural land use and constitute an
unique ``natural'' laboratory for learning the ecology of both native
and introduced plant species. Others more qualified than myself can
speak to the archaeology of Garrett Island, but I found it to be a
treasure trove of artifacts from Native American and Colonial days. Not
only are these artifacts in desperate need of protection; they also are
in desperate need of interpretation and appreciation.
The Center for the Environment and Society is especially interested
in the potential of Garrett Island as an multi-disciplinary educational
resource. I see it as an opportunity for Washington College students to
conduct field studies in the Island's unique ecology and history that
would include both aquatic (water quality monitoring, fish and
waterbird population dynamics) and terrestrial (land use patterns,
breeding bird surveys, ecology of introduced species) projects.
I am especially excited about program development for the region's
K-12 schools. Garrett Island will be a wonderful opportunity for
undergraduates to pursue environmental education internships that would
assist in the interpretation and presentation of information to
teachers, young people, and the general public. Such opportunities are
far too rare on the Upper Eastern Shore.
The professional expertise that the Garrett Island initiative has
mustered to guide program development is impressive. I look forward to
becoming part of that resource in the months and years ahead. Please do
not hesitate to contact me if the Center for the Environment and
Society can be of service,
Sincerely yours,
Wayne H. Bell, Ph.D.
Center Director
______
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think what we will do, we will begin the
questioning of Ms. Gloman and Mr. Kilby; and after that we will
move on to Mr. Rapp and Mr. Pittenger.
Ms. Gloman, I understand the situation that Fish and
Wildlife is backlogged in maintenance, limited budget. You have
set priorities; and you are dealing with maintenance costs,
backlog in maintenance costs, et cetera, plus a new policy in
Fish and Wildlife to limit special, legislatively new refuges.
I am not sure how you limit refuges from us, but we are going
to try to work with you as a team on this.
If we look at this from a priority perspective, it seems to
me that what is going on in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the
States of Maryland and Virginia in particular and all the
efforts to begin to create a situation where agriculture is
profitable, communities are economically viable and there is
habitat for wildlife, which is the chief reason for extinction
today, loss of habitat, and with the efforts being pursued to
create conservation corridors on the land, to create island
corridors in a number of places, that Fish and Wildlife would
look at this region from the Susquehanna River down to the
Blackwater Refuge and beyond and see the broader, longer
timeframe of an area that would require preserving this kind of
habitat.
Because we will continue to lose it. We might as well get
it when we can before it is gone for a corridor for a number of
species. So I would like to work with Fish and Wildlife to tell
you that, yes, Garrett Island should be one of the priorities.
I know available funding is always an issue, and it is an
issue now I guess because of all of the backlog that Fish and
Wildlife has and the kind of attention that receives and then
the potential new costs for new acquisitions. But here is what
I would say today, and I would just like your response.
I think Garrett Island, from what you have seen, and no one
really from Fish and Wildlife--and it is private property, and
you haven't been on the island, but I think an invitation can
be at hand from Mr. Kilby and myself to bring Fish and Wildlife
on the island within a month, I would say, to take a look at
what the resources are. Available funding for this I think is
probably minimal, considering other acquisitions to actually
acquire the island.
I need to be educated on this third point. That is, I don't
see any maintenance costs on Garrett Island. Garrett Island can
be categorized as--I don't know--a designated wilderness area
or an ecological study area or something like that. But I don't
think we really need any structures on Garrett Island. Maybe
Garrett Island can be connected to Blackwater Refuge; and
people in Blackwater can monitor the ecological health of it,
along with the support of the local community.
The Federal funds for this match, what has already been
done, I think it can be fairly minimal.
Last point is there is a lot going on in this particular
region. In the farm bill, there was in section G a Delmarva
Conservation Corridor Pilot Project to not only enhance
agriculture but to enhance and preserve wildlife habitat. So I
think it can be a significant part of that.
So we will continue to pursue this approach, and I would
like to ask you if you would like to continue to work with us
to see how we can continue to preserve the island and is there
any interest from Fish and Wildlife to pursue a study in order
to acquire the island as an initial step?
Ms. Gloman. Well, I think we are really interested in and
we think it is very important to assess what the Fish and
Wildlife resources are on that island. However, the
Administration didn't include that in their budget request, and
it is also not included in our base budget at this time to
complete the study.
Mr. Gilchrest. We need to include that legislatively for a
study. The Administration in their budget request doesn't have
money for a study, so that is something we would need to take a
look at.
Ms. Gloman. That would be your decision, and if you did
that we would certainly carry through with the study.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you wouldn't object to a study.
Ms. Gloman. If you decided to put that in our budget, we
would--
Mr. Gilchrest. If we provided the resources for a study,
Fish and Wildlife wouldn't object to the study.
Ms. Gloman. We would follow through and do it, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kilby, can you give us at this point
some dollar figure that would be required for Fish and
Wildlife? I know there has been a lot of--in your testimony you
talked about a range of possibilities for the assessment. Can
you give us any round figure indication as to the amount that
should be authorized for purchase of Garrett Island by Fish and
Wildlife and would you object to Fish and Wildlife pursuing a
study to determine whether or not it would be a priority?
Mr. Kilby. I would certainly welcome a study. I know that
there is an endangered turtle in the area that shows up on the
map, not exactly on the island itself but on the adjoining
shore. But I do know there is an endangered species. I am not
sure what the turtle's name is. But I would welcome a study. It
would be helpful to know.
I know that no study has been particularly done. I know
when Dr. Bell was out there he brought an associate with him
who was interested in the type of--I think the variety of
species of trees and plants that were both native and
introduced. So there is a possibility that there are some
plant--some kind of plants that are not native to the area that
might be of interest. So I think a general study would be
important.
As far as a figure is concerned, I mentioned $300,000 of
Federal matching funds. I think that is a figure that will work
as long as we can agree upon an appraisal.
As I say, we have had some problems with the appraisals
because they are not comparables. We looked for comparables,
and we found several. I think in the additional information
that I have with my testimony, I brought in one--actually, from
Fish and Wildlife's magazine called Bird Scapes. They have an
article in there from a land trust that mentions an island
called Walden Island in Puget Sound that Fish and Wildlife
didn't pay for it, but the land trust in the area had to pay
$5,400 an acre for it.
So there is definitely--there are some comparables out
there, and that is basically what we are looking for, a figure
that everybody can feel comfortable with. Because one of the
concerns for the island is that it is only water accessible,
which we consider that to be a good thing. But when an
appraiser looks at it, he considers that to be a bad thing. So
we have to come to some terms on whether it is a good thing or
bad thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Let us hope it works to your favor.
I yield down to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for
your testimony.
Mr. Kilby, I assume that you are very familiar with the
island that we are talking about and all the possible
developments and ideas that might be circulating in the area.
Is there any anticipated use of the island by the owners that
we should be mindful of or we should be aware of in terms of
consideration in considering this legislation?
Mr. Kilby. Yes. What has happened is two other people who
put up the money--the two conservation-minded people cannot
possibly keep their money in it forever.
It is kind of a standard practice with land trusts to go
looking for people who are willing to invest in short term in
pieces of property and then trying to buy it from them as soon
as possible. It is a way that we get money because banks won't
normally lend you money on these kinds of speculative things.
So those two people are becoming a bit anxious in trying to get
their money back, and they have to consider some kind of
limited development scenarios. In other words, it is within
critical areas, which limits the amount of development that can
be done on it, but, given the acreage, they could build four
homes on it. We don't want this to happen, but it is something
that the land trust as a minority owner cannot stop.
The majority owners, if we are not able to come up with the
money within a period of time, that they will have to do
something with it, yes.
Mr. Underwood. So other than the development--other than
building a few homes, is there any other anticipated
development or are the local and State kind of procedures
keeping that from happening?
Mr. Kilby. Yes, to a degree. It is zoned open space. There
has been some talk about annexing it into the local city, which
is Havre de Grace, which would enable them to change the
zoning. I mean, in other words, I know what they have
considered doing, and they have been willing to work with us so
far to this point, but they are becoming a little bit anxious
about the money.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Kilby.
Ms. Gloman, in your statement of nonsupport for this
legislation, you know that the Service has an extensive list of
potential acquisitions in the Northeast and you also know that
there has been some refuges that have been established recently
through legislation passed by Congress. Is it the
Administration's intent to oppose all refuges that are being
proposed by Congress or is this on a case-by-case basis? And
what criteria will be used in those assessments?
Ms. Gloman. No, it is not the Administration's position to
oppose all new refuges. The position is that our first priority
should be taking care of what we have in light of our
significant maintenance and operations backlog, while
strategically growing the National Wildlife Refuge System--the
operative term there being strategic. There is no moratorium.
We still believe we need to grow the National Wildlife Refuge
system. It is very important for us to accomplish our mission,
but we want to be more strategic and want to set priorities,
and we want to keep in mind how much it costs to operate those
refuges.
Some of the things that we think about when we are deciding
which refuges to pursue--which I mentioned in my written
testimony, are: how important is that habitat to trust
resources? Is it in a recovery plan? Is it in a joint venture?
We look at how it is connected to other lands. We look at other
refuges in the area. What is the size? How much it will cost?
So there are a lot of criteria.
In fact, we are in the process right now of clearly
articulating those criteria and developing some interim
guidance; and I am sure that we would be pleased to comment
more fully as we get them developed and talk to you a little
bit more about what we are doing to decide how to strategically
grow the National Wildlife Refuge System. But we are definitely
not saying we are not going to do any more.
Mr. Underwood. I appreciate the fact that you have outlined
some of the criteria in your response, and you referred to
strategically growing the refuges. Is there an emerging
statement, you know? I mean, we are all on the same side. I
mean, is there an emerging statement on this strategy?
Ms. Gloman. We are working on an emerging statement. In
fact, I was participating in a meeting last night. So, yes, we
are working on trying to put that all down on paper and get
that out with everyone.
Mr. Underwood. Now as I understand it--and you referenced
the $1.7 billion backlog, which is significant. Then as part of
the creation of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial
Commission Act of 2000, Congress included a requirement for the
Commission to develop and submit to the Congress a unified
long-term plan to address priority operation and maintenance
and construction needs of the refuge system. As I understand
it, the Commission has apparently no intent to comply with this
provision to report on that or to work on that provision. To
your knowledge, is that correct or am I misinformed or under
what authority would the Commission not engage in that?
Ms. Gloman. I really don't have any knowledge of the
Commission's intentions about the plan. We have prepared a
draft plan, but I don't know--
Mr. Underwood. Is there a way you could provide the
Subcommittee information on that?
Ms. Gloman. We can certainly check the status on that and
get back to you.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
I would propose a swap between the Guam Fish and Wildlife
Refuge for Garrett. If you are willing to engage in that, Mr.
Chairman, I would be prepared to do it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood lives on an island in the South Pacific a
little bit--not a whole lot larger than Garrett Island.
Just a couple closing questions. It is my understanding,
Ms. Gloman, that Fish and Wildlife at this point does not have
a specific, cohesive policy for refuge expansion--
Ms. Gloman. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. --and the Administration is now working to
look at what is out there and what its policy should be?
Ms. Gloman. Correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. So about how long will that take?
Ms. Gloman. I think we are looking toward having interim
guidance sometime this fall, but there is still kind of the
long-term issue. Part of what we are doing is looking at
habitat goals and objectives, looking at what is needed, what
is already protected, what needs to be protected and what our
role is in that protection; and that is going to take perhaps
several years to really get those habitat goals down.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you wouldn't expand the refuge until all
that is complete?
Ms. Gloman. Not necessarily. We would go by this interim
guidance that would be done in the fall; and then we would have
a better, stronger idea in another couple of years. But, to my
knowledge, there is no intention to wait until we--2 years down
the line until we get this big strategic plan done to move on
any of these. We are going to use the interim guidance.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will the interim guidance be published in
the Federal Register?
Ms. Gloman. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. I can appreciate the idea that Fish and
Wildlife should have a strategic plan. There should be
priorities. You can't have everybody for legitimate reasons or
maybe less legitimate coming up with legislation to pop up
refuges all over the country. But I would like to specifically
invite you and certainly Glen Carlin from Blackwater to visit
and maybe even Jim Rapp right here to visit Garrett Island and
see how it is another piece in this corridor of protected areas
for the flora and fauna of our region, and we would like to do
all we can to protect this land.
We are likely to continue to pursue this legislation--in
fact, we are going to continue to pursue this legislation, but
what we would like to do is work with your office, provide the
resources for a study, take you out in person to the island,
show the broader plan for the region. I think that, as you
develop your interim strategy, you will see that it is
strategic. It is not only our priority, but I think it would be
your priority as well. It will be minimal, if any, maintenance
costs to this. I think we could turn it over to Mother Nature.
But I really appreciate your testimony and your frankness with
us today.
Ms. Gloman or Mr. Kilby, any last comment?
Mr. Kilby. No. Just thank you for the opportunity to be
here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kilby; and thank you, Ms.
Gloman.
Ms. Gloman. Thank you, and I look forward to that visit to
Garrett Island.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, ma'am. We will put it up.
Mr. Kilby and Ms. Gloman, you may both leave if you want
to. You are certainly welcome to stay.
Bill, if you want to head up to my office, we won't be too
long here. We can chat a little bit further if you have the
time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. James Rapp, Director of the Salisbury
Zoo in Salisbury, Maryland--thanks again for your visit, Jim.
We appreciate it--and Mr. David Pittenger, Executive Director,
National Aquarium in Baltimore. I am sort of excited about the
potential for both of you to sort of select certain ecological
study areas in the region of the Chesapeake Bay where you could
pursue some field trips and field studies.
Mr. Gilchrest. Jim, thanks for coming; and you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. RAPP, DIRECTOR, SALISBURY ZOOLOGICAL PARK
Mr. Rapp. Look forward to that trip to Garrett Island.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today on House Concurrent Resolution 408 which recognizes the
American Zoo and Aquarium Association and its members'
contributions to animal care, conservation education and
research. AZA greatly appreciates your tremendous support for
fish and wildlife conservation and for accredited zoos and
aquariums.
My name is Jim Rapp, and I am Director of the Salisbury Zoo
in Salisbury, Maryland. I have worked at the zoo for 11 years.
The zoo is a 12-acre facility that displays 100 different
wildlife species from the new world, and we host an annual
attendance of about 200,000 visitors, which includes 15,000
schoolchildren.
The zoo has been an accredited member of the AZA since
1972. I currently serve on the AZA's Government Affairs
Committee.
Before I briefly discuss some specifics about AZA and its
members, I would like to commend the members of this
Subcommittee for their far-sighted vision in passing the Great
Ape Conservation Act during the last Congress and reauthorizing
the Asian elephant, African elephant, and Rhino/Tiger
Conservation Acts in this Congress.
I am here on behalf of the 205 accredited institutions of
AZA which draw over 135 million visitors annually.
Collectively, our institutions teach more than 12 million
people each year through education programs that focus on,
among other things, the devastating effects of habitat loss and
illegal trade in endangered species parts and products. AZA
members invest an estimated $50 million annually in research
and support over 1,300 field conservation projects in 80
countries.
There is one important distinction between AZA member
institutions and the over 2,500 animal exhibitors currently
licensed by the Department of Agriculture--accreditation. AZA
is the leader in establishing and maintaining high standards
for zoos and aquariums through its accreditation process. Only
205 zoos and aquariums have met AZA's strict standards to
become members of the association and are, therefore, the
premier zoological parks and aquariums in North America.
Accreditation involves a peer review and inspection process by
which zoos and aquariums are evaluated in order to become AZA
members. Accreditation examines animal collection, veterinary
care, safety and security, finance, staff and education
programs, conservation and research, among other things. It is
a rigorous and difficult process to attain AZA accredited
status but one that affords tremendous professional
credibility.
Mr. Rapp. There are many priorities for AZA-accredited
institutions, but the most important are constantly improving
the level of care for our animals, conserving animals in the
wild, and educating the public about the urgent need for
species conservation.
Along these lines, AZA institutions have established the
Species Survival Plan, or S S P, a long-term plan involving
genetically diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public
education, field conservation, and supportive research to
ensure survival for many endangered species. Currently AZA
members are involved in 97 S S P programs, featuring 140
species throughout the world. A majority of those S S Ps cover
species which are listed under the Endangered Species Act and
CITES, including great apes, elephants, rhinos, and I believe
Guam rails.
In addition, AZA administers the Conservation Endowment
Fund, a competitive funding mechanism which supports
conservation initiatives. In the past 10 years, the C E F has
awarded over $2 million in grants to preserve species and their
habitats, educate the public, and stimulate conservation action
locally and in the home ranges of the species concerned.
And while AZA zoos and aquariums have become the last
stronghold for some species, we fully realize that we cannot
save them by zoo propagation alone. AZA members continue to
work with Congress, Federal and State agencies and others to
conserve our fish and wildlife heritage.
Mr. Chairman, a quarter of the world's mammal species could
face extinction within 30 years, according to a recent U.N.
Report. It is therefore vital that more people become involved
in efforts to conserve our imperiled environment. I would like
to briefly focus on a few initiatives which AZA has been
involved with to help address some of these issues.
The Bushmeat Crisis Task Force was established in 1999, and
has accomplished much in a very short period of time. The
offices of the Task Force are based at AZA. The Task Force
consists of 34 supporting members dedicated to the conservation
of wildlife populations threatened by the commercial hunting of
wildlife, including elephant, chimpanzee, and bush pig for sale
as meat. This is an unprecedented collaboration among different
conservation organizations to try to get a handle on this
incredibly complex issue. The mission of the Task Force is to
facilitate the work of members and their partners in
identifying and implementing effective solutions to the
commercial exploitation of endangered species through the
bushmeat trade primarily in Africa.
Last week AZA announced the formation of the Butterfly
Conservation Initiative, a program designed to bring together
organizations and government agencies to aid the recovery of
imperiled butterflies in North America. AZA, in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Wildlife Federation, founded this initiative in response to the
alarming recent decline in butterfly populations.
Butterflies and other insects are excellent indicators of
the overall health of an ecosystem. What the general public
might not realize is that insects pollinate the vast majority
of all food plants on Earth. The loss of butterflies would be
an aesthetic and biological disaster. Butterflies are
threatened by habitat loss due to urbanization, the widespread
use of pesticides, and the introduction of invasive species.
The Butterfly Initiative will aim to recover imperiled
butterfly populations by raising public awareness about habitat
protection and by undertaking restoration efforts where
appropriate.
I would also mention briefly our relationship with the
National Wildlife Refuge System, which was discussed here
today. Over the years, AZA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have made great strides for wildlife conservation
together, especially through endangered species education,
recovery, and reintroduction. We also have a number of strong
partnerships that have developed among the Service's national
wildlife refuges and AZA zoos and aquariums. For example, the
Salisbury Zoo works with Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge to
promote birdwatching on the Delmarva Peninsula. This not only
promotes the use of our local refuge system, but brings tourism
dollars to our local economy.
As mentioned, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is rapidly
approaching its 100th year anniversary. This is America's only
network of Federal lands dedicated to wildlife conservation.
Established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the system
includes more than 535 refuges, encompassing 93 million acres
of prime wildlife habitat. Despite their importance to animals,
a small percentage of Americans know about these national
treasures.
One of the areas that AZA is pursuing with the Service is
to educate the 135 million visitors to our facilities about the
beauty and diversity of the wildlife refuge systems in this
country and their valuable role in wildlife conservation. We
hope that a broader partnership among AZA member institutions
and refuges will open up a whole new spectrum of cooperative
efforts to share audiences, expertise, resources, and
technology.
Mr. Chairman, AZA member institutions are involved in a
number of important issues, continually striving to improve the
welfare of the animals in our care, serving on the interface
between the general public and conservation messages, and
working in the field and within our own institutions to protect
and conserve our valued fish and wildlife species. AZA member
institutions will continue to work on those endeavors in order
to bring focus to the myriad threats that face wild animals
worldwide and to search for reasoned and workable solutions.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued
support of AZA and its members, and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Rapp.
Mr. Rapp. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rapp follows:]
Statement of James L. Rapp, Director, Salisbury Zoological Park
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on
House Concurrent Resolution 408 which recognizes the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association and its members' contributions to animal care,
conservation education and conservation research. AZA greatly
appreciates your tremendous support for fish and wildlife conservation
and for accredited zoos and aquariums.
My name is Jim Rapp and I am the Director of the Salisbury
Zoological Park in Salisbury, Maryland. I have worked for the Zoo for
eleven years serving in a number of capacities. The Salisbury Zoo is a
twelve-acre facility that displays nearly 100 different wildlife
species over 350 specimens. We host an annual attendance of 200,000
visitors, including 15,000 local school children.
The Zoological Park has been an accredited member of the American
Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) since 1972. I currently serve on the
AZA Government Affairs Committee.
Before I briefly discuss some specifics about AZA and its members,
I would first like to commend the members of this Subcommittee for
their far-sighted vision in passing the Great Ape Conservation Act
during the last Congress and reauthorizing the Asian Elephant, African
Elephant, and Rhino/Tiger Conservation Acts in this Congress. These are
all critical components of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund
program and international wildlife conservation programs in general.
AZA has worked together with other non-governmental organizations to
secure passage of these important conservation measures and to push for
increased appropriation for the funds.
I am here on behalf of the 205 professionally managed and
accredited institutions of AZA which draw over 135 million visitors
annually and have more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members.
Collectively, our institutions teach more than 12 million people each
year in living classrooms and dedicate an estimated $50 million
annually to conservation education programs that focus on, among other
things, the devastating effects of the loss of vital species habitat
and the illegal trade in endangered species parts and products. AZA
members invest an estimated $50 million annually in scientific research
and support over 1300 field conservation and research projects in 80
countries.
There is one important distinction between AZA member institutions
and the over 2500 animal exhibitors currently licensed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture accreditation. AZA is the leader in
establishing and maintaining high standards for zoos and aquariums
through its accreditation process. Only 205 zoos and aquariums have met
AZA's strict accreditation standards to become members of the
Association, and are therefore the premier zoological parks and
aquariums in North America. Accreditation involves a thorough peer
review and inspection process by which zoos and aquariums are evaluated
in order to become AZA members. Accreditation examines all aspects of
an institution's operation, including the animal collection (including
animal acquisition and disposition), veterinary care, physical
facilities, safety, security, finance, staff, governing authority,
support organization, education programs, conservation and research. It
is a rigorous and difficult process to attain and retain AZA accredited
status but one that affords tremendous professional credibility from
peer review.
There are many functions and priorities for AZA accredited
institutions but the most important are: constantly improving the level
of care and husbandry for the animals in our care; conserving animals
in the wild; and educating the public about the urgent need for species
conservation.
Along these lines, AZA institutions have established the Species
Survival Plan (SSP) program a long-term plan involving genetically
diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education, field
conservation and supportive research to ensure survival for many
threatened and endangered species. Currently, AZA members are involved
in 97 SSP programs featuring 140 species throughout the world. A large
majority of those SSPs cover species which are listed under the
Endangered Species Act or CITES, including all the great apes--
chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, African and Asian
elephants, Siberian and Sumatran tigers and black, white, Sumatran and
greater one-horned rhinos.
In addition, AZA administers the Conservation Endowment Fund (CEF)
a competitive funding mechanism which supports conservation, scientific
and educational initiatives of AZA member institutions and their
partners. In the past 10 years, the CEF has awarded over $2 million in
grants to 138 projects in 27 countries to preserve species and their
habitats, educate the public, stimulate conservation action and support
breeding and reintroduction of threatened and endangered species.
And while AZA zoos and aquariums have become the last stronghold
for some species, we fully realize that we cannot save them by zoo
propagation alone. AZA members continue to work with Congress, the
Federal/state agencies, conservation organizations, the private sector
and the countries of origin to conserve our fish and wildlife heritage.
Mr. Chairman, a quarter of the world's mammal species could face
extinction within 30 years according to a recent UN report. According
to other estimates, as much as 20 percent or more of the world's
biodiversity could disappear in the next two decades, primarily due to
habitat fragmentation and alteration and the over-exploitation of
threatened and endangered species. It is therefore vital that more
people, governments, institutions and organizations become involved in
efforts to conserve our imperiled environment. I would like to briefly
focus on a few initiatives which AZA has been involved with to help
address some of these conservation issues.
Bushmeat Crisis Task Force
The Bushmeat Crisis Task Force was established in 1999, and has
accomplished much in a very short period of time. The offices of the
Task Force are based at AZA. The Task Force consists of 34 supporting
members primarily North American conservation and animal protection
organizations, natural history museums, zoological parks and scientific
societies dedicated to the conservation of wildlife populations
threatened by the commercial hunting of wildlife--including elephant,
gorilla, chimpanzee, forest antelope and bush pig--for sale as meat.
This is an unprecedented collaboration among different conservation
organizations to try to get a handle on this incredibly complex issue.
The mission of the Task Force is to facilitate the work of members and
their partners in identifying and implementing effective and
appropriate solutions to the commercial exploitation of endangered and
threatened species through the bushmeat trade in Africa.
The primary activities of Task Force in the past year have been to
increase awareness among key decision makers and the general public
here in the United States; information sharing and analysis;
facilitating collaboration among stakeholders including government,
NGOs, universities, zoological parks and museums, and a variety of
other organizations; identification of priority solutions; and support
for member organizations and partners in planning, developing and
implementing on the ground solutions to the bushmeat crisis.
Butterfly Conservation Initiative
Last week, AZA announced the formation of the Butterfly
Conservation Initiative (BFCI), a program designed to bring together
non-governmental organizations and government agencies to aid the
recovery of imperiled butterflies in North America. AZA, in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Wildlife
Federation, the Xerces Society and 35 AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums
founded the Initiative in response to the alarming recent decline in
butterfly populations.
Butterflies and other insects are excellent indicators of the
overall health of an ecosystem. What the general public might not
realize is that insects pollinate the vast majority of all food plants
on Earth. The loss of butterflies and other pollinators would be an
aesthetic and biological disaster. Butterflies, like many
invertebrates, are threatened by habitat loss due to urbanization, the
widespread use of pesticides and the introduction of invasive species
that out-compete obligate host plants.
Currently, there are 22 Federally-protected butterfly species that
are listed as threatened or endangered, but that number is likely to
grow without significant efforts to halt the decline. The Butterfly
Initiative will aim to recover imperiled butterfly populations by
raising public awareness about habitat protection and by undertaking
restoration efforts where appropriate. The participating organizations
will work together to involve the public in outreach, education and
community conservation activities. The Initiative will focus initially
on the Karner blue butterfly, an ideal start because the founding
partners, including the Toledo Zoo, have already accomplished so much
to aid in its recovery. AZA will work with its members and partners to
develop a ``matrix of needs'' for all 22 imperiled species so that the
Initiative targets its efforts and maximizes the impact of its
butterfly recovery work.
National Wildlife Refuges
Over the years, AZA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
made great strides for wildlife conservation together, especially
through endangered species education, recovery and re-introduction. We
also have a number of strong partnerships that have developed among the
Service's national wildlife refuges and AZA zoos and aquariums. For
example, the Salisbury Zoo has been working with Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge and others to promote birdwatching on the Delmarva
Peninsula. Through this partnership, we have produced a birdwatcher's
guide to the region, and host an annual birding weekend. This not only
promotes the use of our local National Wildlife Refuges, but brings
tourism dollars to the local economy.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is rapidly approaching the 100th
anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System, America's only
network of Federal lands dedicated to wildlife conservation.
Established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the refuge system
includes more than 535 national wildlife refuges across the country,
encompassing 93 million acres of prime wildlife habitat. National
wildlife refuges are best known as sanctuaries for endangered species
of fish and wildlife or stepping stones for millions of migrating
birds. They also provide great scenic getaways for the general public
to enjoy the wonders of the outdoors. However only a small percentage
of Americans know about these national treasures.
One of the areas that AZA is pursuing with the Service is to
educate the 135 million annual visitors to AZA zoos and aquariums about
the beauty and diversity of the over 535 wildlife refuges in this
country, their valuable role in conservation and how AZA zoos and
aquariums can make a significant contribution to the continued success
of the refuge system. AZA hopes that a broader partnership among AZA
member institutions and refuges will open up a whole new spectrum of
cooperative efforts to share audiences, expertise, resources and
technology, and create opportunities to work together on community
outreach and volunteer recruitment activities.
Mr. Chairman, AZA member institutions are involved in a number of
important issues continually striving to improve the welfare of the
animals in our care; serving on the interface between the general
public and conservation messages; and working in the field and within
our own institutions to protect and conserve our valued fish and
wildlife species. AZA member institutions will continue to work on
these endeavors in order to bring focus to the myriad threats that face
fish and wildlife species worldwide and to search for reasoned and
workable solutions.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee and thank you Mr. Chairman for your continued support of
AZA and its members.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pittenger.
STATEMENT OF DAVID PITTENGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
AQUARIUM, BALTIMORE
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my
written statements, if they could be, be included in the
record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Pittenger. Again, I am Dave Pittenger. I am the
director of the National Aquarium in Baltimore, and I again
thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of House
Resolution 408, recognizing the contributions of all the
accredited AZA members. We haven't been around quite as long as
the Salisbury Zoo. We opened in 1981, and were accredited in
1984, and have maintained that accreditation and have been able
to open the world of water really to 30 million people in the
time that we have been open since 1981. And, as Jim mentioned,
I would like to just emphasize the fact that 136 million
Americans visit zoos and aquariums every year, and 5 million
families are members of those zoos and aquariums. So, there is
a great opportunity to open the world of water, the world of
zoos and aquariums to the American public. And we really do
focus on the effects of loss of vital species, loss of habitat,
and also illegal trade in endangered species products.
One of the many conservation research programs that various
zoos and aquariums undertake is the Marine Mammal Stranding
Network. Again, I would like to thank the Members for
authorizing in the last Congress some support for the Marine
Mammal Stranding Network. The National Aquarium in Baltimore is
responsible for any stranded mammals, turtles, or other
creatures that come ashore in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia,
and it is a great opportunity to learn a lot about these really
Ambassadors from the ocean. In some ways they are the canary in
the mineshaft that tells us not always the best story for what
is happening out there in the ocean. So we maintain a Marine
Animal Rescue Program. And, again, thank you for your support
there.
One of the other very important goals of AZA is a focus on
conservation, education, and research. Our members are
authorities on welfare, husbandry, and the behavior of the
animals in their care. We have many broad-based education and
research projects that we unfold to the public. Our primary
goal would be to tap the expertise of AZA members on very
important conservation issues, and I know the government and
others do that.
We are very proud of the high-quality exhibits that we
provide to the millions of people that visit us each year, and
we feel that we can be a real showcase, bringing the work of
other nongovernmental organizations and the governmental
organizations to the public. We have a mission of educational
exhibits and programming at all the AZA members, and it is an
important part of our work in accreditation.
The National Aquarium of Baltimore has focused in on a
number of initiatives, and, like the Salisbury Zoo, the
Chesapeake Bay, which we are happy to be right on the Inner
Harbor, the branch of the Chesapeake Bay, is an important
initiative for us. And then we are working at Fort McHenry, at
Barren Island, at Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, and I
think the opportunity to preserve these lands is an important
one that we need to take, because people, when they go out to
these areas, can become interested, can be mobilized, and
really they really are unaware of what is out there, and I
think it is an important role that we can play in providing
that interface so people will learn more about these areas.
Research is in a very important--fundamental and applied
research is very fundamental to all the AZA members and that we
collaborate very broadly with colleges, universities,
government agencies in advancing knowledge about wildlife both
at our institutions and in the field. Many AZA-accredited
institutions--in fact, recently it is now a requirement that
conservation work be part of what you do; working with sea
turtles, Project Seahorse, where we are trying to reestablish
stocks in the wild, many threatened fishery and marine mammals
species, coral reef monitoring, protection in the Pacific Rim
and the Caribbean of these vital resources, which is just like
the land we are losing every day. AZA members were
instrumental, for instance, in rescuing and rehabbing thousands
of endangered sea turtles that were confiscated from a
Malaysian ship headed for China. We are proud to be part of
that with the research we do in the various areas, including
everything from sharks and coral reefs to salt marsh
restoration, and even breeding these beautiful frogs from South
America.
So, I am very proud that over the past decade AZA zoos and
aquariums have come a very long way not only in our
responsibility to teach the public, but to be active out in the
field in conservation.
So, again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
introducing this resolution and for your support for all that
we are doing. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pittenger.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pittenger follows:]
Statement of David M. Pittenger, Executive Director, National Aquarium
in Baltimore
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on House Concurrent
Resolution 408 that recognizes the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association and its members' contributions to animal care, conservation
education and research and wildlife conservation we truly appreciate
your efforts on behalf of fish and wildlife conservation and your
support of accredited zoos and aquariums.
My name is Dave Pittenger and I am the Executive Director of the
National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland. The National Aquarium in
Baltimore is a global living classroom connecting thousands of visitors
to the importance of preserving the world's most precious life-giving
resource water. Since opening in 1981, we have welcomed over 30 million
visitors from around the world and continue to host over 1.6 million
visitors annually, including 85,000 Maryland school children that
utilize our education program at no cost. We offer a variety of
education opportunities, conservation and animal research as well as
conservation field programs that are on the forefront of the future
research and technology for the health and vitality of the world's
water resources.
For twenty-one years, the Aquarium has encouraged research that
advances its mission in education, exhibitry, and animal welfare.
Animal studies, conducted by Biological Programs Department staff, are
often outgrowths of daily husbandry routines, medical cases, or
laboratory analyses and reflect the staff's dedication to providing
quality care to all animals, large or small. Other projects demonstrate
the Aquarium's commitment to protecting endangered species and their
habitats. The National Aquarium in Baltimore has been an accredited
member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) since 1984.
AZA represents 205 professionally managed and accredited
institutions which draw over 136 million visitors annually and have
more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members. Collectively, our
institutions teach more than 12 million people each year in living
classrooms and dedicate over $50 million annually to conservation
education programs that focus on, among other things, the devastating
effects of the loss of vital species habitat and the illegal trade in
endangered species parts and products. AZA members invest over $50
million annually in scientific research and support over 1300 field
conservation and research projects in 80 countries.
Marine Mammal Strandings
First, I would like to strongly commend the members of this
Subcommittee for their far-sighted vision in passing the John H.
Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act during the last Congress.
This Act has provided critically needed funds to those members of the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network like the National Aquarium and many
other AZA members--which devote large amounts of their own time and
resources to marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation efforts. These
funds help to offset the enormous costs associated with these
conservation activities. I am particularly pleased because this Act
honors John Prescott, the former Executive Director and Director
Emeritus of the New England Aquarium, a prestigious member of the AZA.
For years, scientists and experts have been frustrated in their
attempts to restore to health the thousands of stranded marine mammals
found sick and dying on beaches throughout the world. Today, members of
AZA have the expertise and ability to offer much needed, practical
assistance to these animals. The accumulated knowledge, collective
experience, and resources of these facilities are the primary factors
in these successful rehabilitation efforts. Indeed, AZA members provide
millions of dollars in direct expenditures and in-kind contributions
annually to support stranding programs.
The National Aquarium in Baltimore's Marine Animal Rescue Program
(MARP) is responsible for the rescue and care of marine mammals and sea
turtles in the coastal areas of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. MARP
volunteers respond to calls 24 hours a day to care for sick and injured
stranded animals. Assisting the professional Aquarium medical staff are
specially trained paid and volunteer members of the Aquarium who
collect of valuable data. The National Aquarium in Baltimore has
responded to calls from the public, the Maryland and Delaware
Departments of Natural Resources, the Virginia Marine Science Museum,
and the United States Coast Guard. To date, the National Aquarium in
Baltimore has rescued and rehabilitated approximately 150 animals.
Conservation Education and Research
AZA aquarium members represent the foremost authorities on the
welfare, husbandry, and behavior of the animals in their care. AZA
member institutions also play a critical role in the conservation of
these animals in their natural habitats through the broad-based
education and research activities briefly outlined below. We believe
that our primary goal should be to tap into the experience and
expertise of AZA member institutions on important conservation issues
by directing, to the best of our abilities, the highest quality
educational exhibits and fact-based conservation messages to the
general public.
The effective conservation of wild species requires public
education, the practice of conservation behaviors and the development
of effective public policy. The public display of animals plays an
integral role in this conservation effort, helping to preserve these
magnificent species for present and future generations. Through
exhibitry of ecosystems, education and conservation programs we can
establish a personal connection between visitors and the animals. These
personal connections foster learning about how the behaviors of each
and every one of us affect wild species and the habitats in which they
dwell.
The mission of educational exhibits and programming at AZA member
facilities is to enhance the appreciation and understanding of animals
and their ecosystems for our visitors. AZA members instill an awareness
of ecological and conservation issues and a respect and caring for
these animals and their environments. AZA members believe this respect
engenders a strong, active commitment to species conservation and an
understanding that each and every person can make a difference.
The National Aquarium in Baltimore is at the forefront of
conservation education through our variety of programs focused on
environmental issues and actions that the public, staff, and volunteers
can undertake to effect change. We research and design projects that
restore, protect, and manage critical species and or ecosystem.
Further, we have a captive breeding program of threatened or endangered
species and monitoring of wild populations.
The Aquarium's Chesapeake Bay Initiative has intensified its
efforts to both educate visitors about the Chesapeake Bay and become
involved in conservation actions. Through ACT! (Aquarium Conservation
Team), we provide opportunities for volunteers to restore estuarine
habitats around the Bay, learning first-hand about tidal wetland
ecosystems by restoring habitat by planting beneficial marsh grasses,
monitoring the function of created wetlands, including changes in water
quality, evaluating habitat use of created wetlands by birds, fish, and
other wildlife and coordinating restoration events for local community
groups.
We have been instrumental in developing programs in partnership
with various local and Federal agencies at Ft. McHenry, Barren Island
and Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge. Our projects demonstrate the
successful coexistence of wildlife and industry in an urban
environment.
Knowledge acquired through research with animals in public display
facilities, in tandem with field research, is another fundamental
contribution to species conservation. Communicating this knowledge is
one of the most effective means of ensuring the health of wild animals
in this century. Much of this research simply cannot be accomplished in
natural conditions.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on research at and by
AZA member facilities that is essential in understanding the anatomy
and physiology of animals and in learning to better manage and assist
threatened and endangered species. Additionally, many AZA facilities
collaborate with researchers from colleges, universities, and other
scientific institutions that conduct studies important to species
conservation and health. Over the years, this body of work has
contributed significantly to the present knowledge about the biology,
physiology, reproduction, behavior and conservation of many species.
These studies have led to improvements in diagnosing and treating
diseases; tests for toxic substances and their effects on wild species;
and other health advancements.
In the field, AZA aquariums also have done a great deal of
conservation work through such programs as sea turtle head-start,
Project Seahorse, stock assessments of threatened fish and marine
mammal species, and coral reef monitoring and protection in the Pacific
Rim and Caribbean. In addition, AZA members were instrumental in
rescuing and rehabbing thousands of endangered sea turtles confiscated
from a Malaysian shipment headed to China.
Research at the National Aquarium has come in many forms both in
situ and ex situ. Animal research at the National Aquarium in Baltimore
focuses on studies of new diseases, medical conditions and parasites as
well as innovations in husbandry and breeding. Our successful studies
include such topics as captive octopus lifecycles, elasmobranch
biology, parasites collection science, coral reef culture studies and
the salt marsh restoration studies. Most of our studies are done in
collaboration with investigators from regional academic and government
institutions and with colleagues from other aquariums. Continuous
studies are presented at national and international conferences, and
completed research is published in scientific journals.
Over the past decade, AZA zoos and aquariums have come a long way
and we realize that we still have a long way to go. Today, AZA-
accredited members are being transformed into centers for conservation
in their communities educating the public, involving their communities,
advancing scientific knowledge about the animals in their care and
carrying out conservation programs worldwide. House Congressional
Resolution 408 recognizes this transformation and we sincerely thank
you for your strong support.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. And you do have an extraordinary, wonderful
facility there in Baltimore City that offers people, you know,
just a great place to go and is just a great learning tool. And
you have expanded it to many other portions of the Bay, which
has been appreciated in your restoration efforts.
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Jim, I just--and you do a great job down
there at the Salisbury Zoo.
Mr. Rapp. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And that facility down there provides the
same type of education and eye-opening wonders that the
aquarium does in Baltimore, and it is just a precious place on
that end of the shore.
I just have a couple of--and we want to compliment you on
your lifelong dedication to these issues, because it has a very
positive impact on the policies that we develop up here, and
certainly on the wildlife and their habitat.
We are going to have a hearing, I believe it is July the
11th, on the bushmeat crisis in Africa, and so we will keep you
informed as we move through that process.
And, just--I was wondering, since you are involved in it,
Jim, if you could give us just a snapshot of the difficulty
that that issue has in the expansive continent of Africa that
is generally ripped by war, drought, and disease and political
instability; and, also a comment you might give us on butterfly
conservation difficulties that you might have with that in
places like Mexico or Latin America, and what types of flowers
we can plant in our back yard to help them on their route.
Mr. Rapp. Excellent.
Now, to answer your first question, the Bushmeat Crisis
Task Force, I think, has a lot of conservation issues. The
range of the animals that AZA and all the other partners are
dealing with are in place and a lot of times, unfortunately,
are politically unstable. There is war, there are many, many
human concerns, but they also would be in the areas of highest
diversity. So in these areas of Africa where, when a road goes
into the forest and people start having easier access to
getting into those areas, of course they have to feed
themselves, and the most available source of protein, the most
available source of food typically is the local wildlife.
I think one of the issues of bushmeat is it is actually now
a commercial enterprise. I remind you, years ago in Debo, the
commercial or market duck hunters. You know, it is very hard to
sustain wildlife populations when you are hunting beyond
subsistence but actually doing it for commercial enterprise.
And, again, compound that in a country where the government
perhaps isn't as concerned as we may be in North America.
But yet there are good people on the ground who we can work
with through the other nongovernmental organizations. Of
course, we partner with World Wildlife Federation and other
groups like that who have people there, Conservation
International. But a lot of the zoos and aquariums in AZA have
people there as well. I mentioned in my testimony that there
are several thousand field studies supported in 80 different
countries. So, sometimes the zoo work that is done in those
countries, it might be one of the oldest supported programs
there.
So I think that through the work we can do together, of
course, in educating the American public, which has a lot they
can offer through not only charitable giving, but even
establishing sustainable development--I mean, of course, it may
be difficult in some of these countries now, but you look at
countries like Kenya who have really capitalized on the tourism
market and can create jobs through our affection and passion
for wildlife, there is light at the end of the tunnel, I think.
But it is very complex, and I think that since 1999 the
Bushmeat Task Force has done a lot of work, but it is still
very hard to get, I guess, our heads around that.
On butterfly conservation, I think it is very interesting.
Once again, you mentioned Mexico and Latin America. I know the
Salisbury Zoo, we have a partner, Pro Natura, sort of the
Mexican Nature Conservancy, we have supported over the past few
years, actually given financial contribution, supporting a park
in the Yucatan called Punta Laguna, as known for its butterfly
importance, but there are groups in Mexico and Latin America
who are already on the ground doing this work.
I think that is the key thing is finding the partners who
are doing the work where we can help facilitate or improve the
resources we have, the work they are doing. Also, through the
Salisbury Zoo, many of us within AZA are members of a group
called Zoo Conservation Outreach Group, which--ZCOG for short--
which basically is trying to get resources available to us,
whether it is information, equipment, it could be technical
journals that we have extra copies of, to the field so they can
use those tools better to help improve their own facilities, be
it a zoo or aquarium or a field program.
And it is amazing, when you tap into what the AZA does--and
their Website is excellent, aza.org, and through their annual
report on conservation and science, and just see that--again, I
think it is, what, 1,300 different programs that exist, many of
which are in other countries, but a lot of which are right here
in own back yard, which leads to what you can do in your own
back yard for butterflies.
At the Salisbury Zoo, and indeed in my own yard, we have a
basescape project right near our new restroom facilities, very
important to the zoo visit. But it is a lovely garden that was
funded through the Chesapeake Bay Trust, and it is all native
plants, many of which are suitable for birds, butterflies, and
other animals to use, and they are beautiful. So, it is not
just the wildlife value, but the aesthetic value that those
plants can offer that I think is part of that thing that makes
people feel good about helping wildlife, which it can start
right in your own back yard. There is no question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rapp. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pittenger, not to address a parochial
question again, but I would certainly like to invite you along
on that trip we take to Garrett Island to get your assessment
of it.
Mr. Pittenger. I would be very happy to do it. I know the
area very well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great. And I appreciate the time I spent
with you planting marsh grass in a number of places on the
Eastern Shore. It is very helpful, and it brings a lot of
people together. That makes more and more and more people aware
of the critical nature of this fragile blue planet that we live
on and have to take care of. So I look forward to that visit.
I yield now to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first of all, I just wanted to congratulate the work of
the AZA on tigers, rhinos, and elephants. I had the opportunity
to go to Africa a couple years ago and observe many of the--how
that issue is being worked out and how difficult it is, as you
outlined. And I am pleased that we are having a meeting on
bushmeat, although I thought at first it had political
implications. I wasn't sure.
You know--and also I want to thank the work of the AZA on
the polar bear issue. I think that one--at least one of the
bears is in Baltimore now.
Mr. Pittenger. It is.
Mr. Underwood. Probably rooting for the Orioles.
Mr. Pittenger. He is the only one left.
Mr. Underwood. Well, he is going to have a tough time.
Mr. Pittenger, you mentioned in your testimony about the
National Marine Fishery Service implementation of the Prescott
Grant Program. Could you speak to that and tell us how that is
going, how that is coming along?
Mr. Pittenger. Which grant program are you--I mean, we have
been involved with the National Marine and Fishery Service in a
number of programs, through our shark tagging program and
several others, that--
Mr. Underwood. The emergency assistance program.
Mr. Pittenger. I am sorry, I don't--is that in reference in
my written testimony?
Mr. Underwood. The Prescott Grant Program, a program that
was --
Mr. Pittenger. I am sorry. Yes. Now I know what you are
talking about. Yes.
The Marine Animal Rescue Program. I know it as the Prescott
Program because Dr. Prescott was a mentor of mine, ran the
aquarium, and was really the model for all the new modern
aquariums.
The stranding program, which is usually what it is called,
is a very broad-based volunteer program. For instance, we have
one--literally just one paid staff member, and then, of course,
supported by veterinarians and everything that take care of the
program. But the literally hundreds of animals that we deal
with--and this goes--and this is on both coasts. It is a huge
volunteer effort, because when these animals come ashore, they
are in need of really 24-hour support and care. And it is such
a wonderful program at many levels because the volunteers are
involved.
For instance, in Baltimore, the scientists and doctors at
Johns-Hopkins come over and want to be involved with the animal
care. And we learn--so it is not only a good animal welfare
program as animals are taking care of, it is a wonderful
volunteer program where people can become Ambassadors and go
out and talk about it and the environments that these animals
come from.
But there are some very important fundamental basic
research that goes on. For instance, we have a very rare pigmy
sperm whale that--very little known about this animal in the
wild--come ashore. We rescued it. It would not eat. We found
out that it had ingested a significant amount of plastic bags
thinking that they were jellyfish, and we--scientists from
Hopkins removed them, and we released the animal. But during
that time we found out that this little whale makes the
highest-pitched sound of any animal ever recorded in the world.
And, again, this information is very fundamental basic
research.
And I guess what I am saying is that the--and going back to
the support--is that in many areas these programs are very much
a shoestring operation. We have some facilities because we are
an aquarium, a big aquarium, that others wouldn't have. But New
Jersey--practically all the coastal States work very much on a
shoestring. And so this is the kind of program where even a
minimal amount of support that doesn't have to be huge dollars
could really extend the work that these people do.
So I think, from my standpoint of view, we are certainly
happy to see the support there and utilize that, but I think it
would be very important in magnifying this huge volunteer
effort.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you for that, and thank you for your
work in that regard. I haven't been to the Salisbury Zoo, but I
have been to the Baltimore Aquarium a couple of times, and it
is a very fine facility and very educational, very well,
thoughtfully and carefully laid out.
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you.
Mr. Underwood. And has a very strong educational component
to it, and I think it is--from my estimation--probably the best
aquarium I have been to. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Just a very quick follow-up, Mr. Pittenger. How did you
know--what did you do to find out that that particular whale
had plastic bags in his or her stomach, and then how did you
get them out?
Mr. Pittenger. The animal was acting normally except--in
every way except it would not eat, and it was sort of kind of
actually hunching up a little bit. And we suspected it, so we
had a doctor who normally sticks an endoscope down human
throats go down and look, and those little gizmos, you know,
they have little pinchers on the end, and out it came. And the
whale became known as Inky, because they put ink in the water
to hide from predators.
And actually the Coast Guard was very helpful. They did a
little documentary film. And someday, if you wake up at 2 in
the morning, on some cable channel you will see the story of
Inky, the whale. I happened to see it; I was out of town, and
saw it at 2 in the morning.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will keep the TV on.
So that little camera also pulled the plastic bag out?
Mr. Pittenger. Yeah. It has little pinchers. It has a bunch
of different devices on the end there.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is good. That is wonderful.
Well, Jim, David, thank you very much for traveling to
Washington and giving us your testimony.
Mr. Pittenger. I look forward to the trip.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rapp. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record by Virginia R. Busby,
Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia, follows:]
Statement of Virginia R. Busby, Department of Anthropology, University
of Virginia
The Archaeological Importance of Garrett Island
Garrett Island's archaeological importance derives from the
convergence three factors of historical and cultural significance at
local, state, regional, and national levels. These include: its unique
environmental setting and geological characteristics; its witness of
the majority of regional human history; and its association with
important persons and events in state, regional, and national history,
particularly the early colonial years. In addition to its pre-Columbian
history reaching back over 5000 years, the island figured prominently
in native/colonial interaction and subsequent colonial settlement. The
establishment of a plantation and agricultural pursuits characterize
the island's 18th through 19th century history. Twentieth century uses
include those related to the fishing industry, ice packing, military
activity, transportation, and recreation. The archaeological importance
of the island has been recognized for over forty years, with minor
surveys undertaken to investigate the physical manifestations of its
entire range of history.
The island's unique physical characteristics, combining Piedmont
outcrops and Coastal Plain sands, have been described as ``little
Maryland,'' presenting a unique microenvironment encompassing the
state's geologic variation. Significant contributions to our
understanding of human/environmental interaction can be gained from
studying how humans made use of the different resources offered by this
varied geology.
Additionally, archaeological study of the long trajectory of human
occupation of Garrett Island, dating as early as 6000 B.C., can inform
our understanding of the human/land interface through changing
environmental circumstances over a significantly long period of time.
In addition to the island's unique physical characteristics is its
geographic position at the intersection of the Susquehanna River and
Chesapeake Bay. Archaeological investigations of human use of this
special natural environmental setting would contribute unique
information to our understanding of regional history. In addition, the
island's location within a major thoroughfare of human travel, presents
an opportunity to study cultural interaction associated with such a
position. This includes over five thousand years of pre-Columbian
travel within this waterway, a major artery in the continent-wide trade
and social networks of Native Americans.
The island also played a significant part in the ventures of
colonial explorers, traders, militaries, and settlers plying the
Susquehanna and Chesapeake Bay waters and was important to the
subsequent use of this waterway from the 18``' century to the present
day. In addition to maritime travel, the island bears significance in
the history of transportation in Maryland with important rail and
roadway arteries spanning its surface.
In addition to those that traveled through, stopping at the island,
several different Native American groups called this area home and made
frequent use of Garret Island. For them the island served a variety of
uses including hunting and fishing, camping, a meeting place, and for
trading. Positioned in an area of intersecting group territories, the
island presents a unique opportunity to study human interaction,
differential land and resource use, and different material culture
traditions. In addition, promontories and islands are known places of
high symbolic importance in Native American cosmology, and thus, the
island with its basaltic outcrop may be able to shed light on this
aspect of regional history and culture as well.
One of the most significant aspects of Garrett Island is the
convergence of significant aspects of colonial history. Garrett
(earlier known as Palmer's) Island was among the earliest northern
extensions of the Virginia colony, being patented in the 1620s by
Edward Palmer. In the 1630s, William Claiborne established a trading
post here after receiving the island as a gift from the Susquehannock
Indians. The Maryland colony subsequently took possession of the island
in the 1640s and erected Fort Conquest for protection against Indian
attacks.
Beyond the archaeological record it contains, the island it itself
an artifact-an integral part of the natural and cultural landscape-
bearing local through national level historical and cultural
significance. For these reasons, Garrett Island serves as a point of
departure into Maryland's, the region's, and the nation's history and
future and merits study and preservation within its geological and
cultural setting.
History and Future of Archaeology at Garrett Island
The history of archaeological investigations at Garrett Island
includes limited survey work conducted over the past forty years by
avocational and academic archaeologists. Systematic investigation of
the Native American occupations of the island were initiated in the
1960s and 70s by Paul Cresthull and George Reynolds of the
Archaeological Society of Maryland. They identified several occupations
spanning the Late Archaic period (circa 3500 BC) through the Late
Woodland (circa A.D. 1600). In 1984, Eric Klingelhofer, a graduate
student at Johns Hopkins University, initiated a survey to identify
Claiborne's trading post and Fort Conquest. Although this initial
survey failed to locate the 17th century occupations, it did identify
several 18th and 19th century ruins.
With the acquisition of the island by the Cecil County Land Trust,
the Northern Chesapeake Chapter of Archaeological Society of Maryland
under the direction of PIs Virginia Busby and Robert Wall, and chapter
directors William McIntyre and Dan Coates, have initiated a multi-year
project at the island geared toward providing a management plan for
guiding future research and preservation efforts. To this end, a grant
from the Maryland Historical Trust is being sought to fund further
survey work toward the preservation management plan for the next year.
With the increased interest on the island, the Northern Chesapeake
Chapter has also planned a spring symposium for Maryland Archaeology
Month that will present the status of their work and contextualize the
results within broader regional culture and history.
Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, Inc. (LSGH)
Goals Checklist
Goals
LEncourage a greater understanding of the LSHG's
historical, cultural, natural and recreation attributes through
interpretation and education.
LEnable visitors to have greater access to an
understanding of the LSHG's heritage.
LLink small communities, as well as recreational and rural
areas through scenic byways, water access routes, and pathways.
LFoster linkages among and between heritage attractions
that encourage visitors to explore, linger, and sample the diverse
offerings of the LSHG.
LIncrease the economic activity associated with tourism,
creating opportunities for small business development, job growth, and
a stronger tax base.
LEnhance economic development and tourism while expanding
recreational opportunities in the LSHG consistent with its heritage
resources.
LBalance the impact of tourism activity with the quality
of life enjoyed by residents.
LEncourage the preservation and conservation of heritage
resources and natural features to protect the LSHG's vital ecological
functions and many abundant resources.
LEncourage the adaptive reuse of historic structures and
sites, conservation of natural areas important to the LSHG's character
and environment, and preserve the continuity and authenticity of
cultural arts, heritage attractions, and indigenous regional
attractions.
LEnhance the visitor appeal and enjoyment of the LSHG's
history, culture, natural environment, and scenic beauty by improving
the overall ``product'' and visitor experience.
LStrengthen public / private partnerships that will
interpret, communicate, publicize, protect, and restore the heritage of
the LSHG and accomplish these goals via partnerships among local and
regional leaders, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and state
agencies.
The above criteria will be used to evaluate and select projects for
funding on a competitive basis.
CECIL LAND TRUST
135 east main street, elkton, md 21921
410-392-9667
Can an island in the Susquehanna River be permanently protected
through a community effort, remain open for public use and support a
successful comprehensive historical/ecological education program?
Those who participated in a field trip to Hiawatha Island,
Apalachin, NY on May 7, 2002 were able to see first hand that it is
entirely possible with broad-based community support. The trip included
members of the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, the Paw Paw Museum,
the Archeological Society of the Northern Chesapeake, the Fair Hill
Nature Center, Maryland Environmental Trust, Maryland Dept. of
Transportation, an environmental educator from Harford County and the
Cecil Land Trust.
Hiawatha is comparable to Garrett Island, although it is smaller at
112 acres and is of glacial creation. Its history of occupation and
ownership patterns are inclined to farming and recreation. The Native
American Onondaga tribe used it as a trading site, it changed ownership
a number of times and was farmed until the 1960s. The Owego Steamboat
Company built a resort hotel on the island in 1876. The hotel served as
a summer home for several owners, but was razed in 1932. In 1989, a
nonprofit community group purchased the island at a public auction for
$386,100. The other interested bidders were a gravel pit operator and
hotel resort developer.
The community group raised money in a variety of ways, first by
mortgaging their homes then by collecting donations over a five year
period to make their mortgage payments. They received assistance from
the press, large corporations, foundations and many concerned citizens.
Donations ranged from $1 to $50,000. Other fund raising activities
included car raffles, purchasing a square foot of island and fund
raising breakfasts and dinners held on the island.
After the island was paid for, a conservation easement was placed
on the island with the Finger Lakes Land Trust and the island was then
donated to the Fred L. Waterman Conservation Education Center.
Our host/guides for the day were Fran Dunbar, president of the
Waterman Center board and head of the community group (Owego Historic
Marketplace) that purchased the island in 1988 and Scott MacDonald,
Waterman Center's executive director.
Since our group consisted of conservationists, naturalists,
educators and anthropologists, Scott gave us a general tour of the
Waterman Center (a converted church) and described their educational
programs. They have three educational sites, Brick Pond, a 30 acre
wetland, Apalachin Marsh, one of New York's best bird watching sites,
and Hiawatha Island. Scott discussed the Center's arrangements with,
the business community in supporting public school outdoor education
and their fund raising activities, including their first road rally to
be held this year.
Fran Dunbar joined us at the landing for the shuttle to the island.
A nine passenger pontoon boat, with a Coast Guard approved captain, is
used to ferry people back and forth. Currently the boat docking
facilities are being upgraded. The Susquehanna flows from east to west
between Binghamton and Owego. The island has a high point of 50 feet on
the east side while the west end is lower and within the 100 year flood
plain. The island supports a herd of deer and is used by river beaver
and waterfowl. The boat captain feels that the river quality has
improved over the years and people are now able to catch an occasional
trout.
Trails on the island are marked by color and have interpretive
sites along the way. Historical sites including home, hotel, farm and
dairy barn sites have been cleared mainly by volunteers. A springhouse,
shed and icehouse have been preserved. All interpretive sites have
signage. Scott explained how the sites related to different activities
and described their ``A Walk Thru Time'' event. The island also
includes an outhouse and heliport (it's never been used) for
emergencies.
There is a picnic grove at the farm site surrounded by farm
machinery from different time periods. A fund raising dinner is held at
the site. We had a picnic lunch while Fran described the effort of the
community group to protect the island. Fran and Scott were the perfect
hosts sharing three hours of their time and answering our more
technical questions on the ways in which they make their preservation/
conservation education program work. For more information on the
Center's programs or mission, visit www.watermancenter.org.
The similarities between Hiawatha and Garrett Island cannot be
overlooked or understated. It would behoove the Cecil Land Trust and
its community partners to continue to look to our sister island and its
community for advice and guidance.
-