I was not able to hop on to join the zoom mtg in time to be able to comment, but please see the email I sent you all re the administration's support of the language in this bill on monday evening as amended previously when it passed 22-0. That language is reflected in SB 1115 which passed the Senate Ag Committee 13-0 yesterday. Thank you, Mike Troxel Old VA Hemp Co Mike@oldvirginiahempco.com

Delegate Marshall's bill is one that is sorely needed for hemp farmers. As a hemp farmer, my company grew 3000 plants for CBD this past year. We laid down over 1 mile (16,000 feet) of irrigation line. There were changing parameters on regulatory agencies between VDACS and USDA as to who was and was not going to be the agency we needed to be registered with and when - even up until a week before we were harvesting. As you ccan imagine, it's almost impossible to operate in that environment. We MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST have Delegate Marshall's bill in order to protect our hemp farmers and the entire hemp industry here in Virginia. We really need the USDA license reciprocity with VDACS to mean that VA farmers will be protected if they have a USDA license. You can't really have an industry without those protections. Additionally, maintaining a separate option for VA hemp farmers solely through VDACS is also important. That would mean farmers could choose the option that was best for them - with the set of benefits and limitations that go with the option that they choose, and that choice and flexibility will be a huge boost to the industry here in Virginia - and by extension, the local economies as well. This bill dovetails beautifully with Senator Peake's bill SB 1115, and if we want Virginia's hemp industry to reach it's potential, we need this bill - with the proposed amendments by Del. Edmunds - to pass. If this bill does not pass, the tens of millions of dollars of investment already put into the hemp industry will unnecessarily be put at risk - let alone future potential investments. Thank you for supporting this bill and our nearly 2000 hemp farmers in the Commonwealth.

As a citizen who lives in the state and on the Rappahannock river and has seen the impact of poor stewardship, I ask that the General Assembly support these bills.

I strongly oppose SB 1164 because it will enable dangerous, polluting fossil fuel facilities to proliferate across Virginia. This bill does not and will not remove plastic pollution from waterways and communities, it actually increases plastic production and creates more waste. It enables harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations with fewer restrictions and reporting requirements of a Landfill for similar. Thank you to Delegate Plum for striking HB 2173 from the docket and we hope it is the will of the committee to oppose this bill as well. Thank you. Danielle Marquez

My name is Mark Swingle and I am Chief of Research & Conservation at Virginia’s Aquarium, the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center in Virginia Beach. I am reaching out today about one of the most important issues impacting Virginia and our planet, plastic pollution. I, our thousands of members and supporters, and our many partners in the Virginia Conservation Network are urging you to to oppose House Bill 2173. As an aquarium leader and scientist for nearly 40 years, I have seen the significant threat that plastic pollution poses for marine ecosystems and the communities dependent on healthy shorelines. Research conducted by the Virginia Aquarium has documented the impacts of plastic pollution on our coastal habitats and wildlife. That is why I am reaching out to you today to take action to stem the flood of plastic pollution. We are opposing HB-2173, which would exempt ill-conceived and dangerous plans to promote chemical conversion plants, misleadingly labelled as "advanced recycling", from critically important permit regulations intended to protect waterways. These plants are ineffective in addressing plastic waste production and pollution, and produce harmful wastes and greenhouse gas emissions. The most effective way to prevent plastic pollution from littering our beaches and harming sea turtles, birds, dolphins, and other marine life is to reduce plastic production and use, and we have many other key opportunities to do just that. Please help address this plastic crisis in appropriate ways and protect Virginia’s coast, waterways, and communities from plastic pollution by voting NO on HB-2173. Sincerely, Mark Swingle W. Mark Swingle Chief of Research & Conservation P: (757) 385-0326 C: (757) 615-6337 MSwingle@VirginiaAquarium.com Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center 717 General Booth Blvd. Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to share the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association's support for HB2173. Recyclable material is essential to manufacturing new products under environmental sustainability goals and regulations. Advanced Recycling technology reduces plastic waste and fulfills “plastics packaging circular economy industry standards” identified in VA Code § 2.2-2699.8 - Plastic Waste Prevention Advisory Council. This will help move Virginia towards having the ability to recycle all types of food service containers including polystyrene.

I agree with the respected voices of leading environmental organizations and scientists who are opposed to this legislation. Their concerns are based on scientific and policy expertise - and its way past time for government to listen to science. One voice - Sierra Club Virginia says: “Polluters have created the phrase "chemical recycling" to mislead the public about the practice of burning plastic and other waste material in order to create oil used for energy. As you can imagine, the facilities that employ chemical recycling do demonstrable damage to our climate and the air of the surrounding communities. The General Assembly is currently considering two bills that could expand the chemical recycling industry in our commonwealth by relaxing environmental protections related to burning plastic. “ Please Vote NO

I urge you to oppose this bill. 1) The solution coming from the plastics industry is of great concern.  What the industry is labeling ‘advanced recycling’ is largely incineration. Despite five decades of attempted effort, there are currently no operational plants of significant scale available to recycle plastic to new plastic (EU report). 2) If enacted, HB2173 would allow industry to treat plastic as non-solid waste and thus avoid significant environmental oversight and enjoy lower costs. Vulnerable Environmental Justice communities typically end up host to this industry. Please promote legislation to that bans on straws, bags, and polystyrene, in line with federal efforts such as the ‘Break Free from Plastic Act of 2020.

Plastics is polluting our environment. Now that fossil fuels are being phased out as a source of energy, the fossil fuel industry is looking towards a new use, namely plastics. Plastics pollution, especially in our oceans, is a huge problem. The solution, however, is not the mis-named “Advanced Recycling” program is not the answer. It proposes incinerating plastics and creates new problems: • Burning one ton of plastics emits 3 tons of carbon dioxide, exacerbating climate change. https://materialeconomics.com/publications/the-circular-economy-a-powerful-force-for-climate-mitigation-1 • Toxins are emitted, including: cancer-causing, endocrine- and immune- disrupting dioxins & furans; heavy metals like mercury, cadmium & lead; particulate matter. https://www.no-burn.org/fact-sheet-incineration-and-health/ • Facilities are disproportionately sited in low-income & marginalized communities. https://www.no-burn.org/failingincineratorsreport/ My Ask: For these reasons, I urge you to oppose SB 1164. Please let me know if you have any questions. My affiliated organizations and I count on your support.

Please oppose this bill. It is deceptive to call incinerating plastic. Harmful toxins will be emitted, frequently impacting marginalized communities. Plastic pollution is a problem that must be addressed, but not by this air polluting method. My faith calls me to recognize the interdependent web of life and to protect our air resources for all communities.

Please vote NO on HB2173. Far from offering "advanced" "solutions' if this bill's wording were accurate it would be called "backward" or even "chicanery" This proposal is the opposite of clean energy - it would actually bring more pollution. This is not what we want to see in our neighborhoods.

As a person of faith and conscience I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

As you know, passing this bill will cause more toxic air pollution. Plastic pollution is a major problem around the world and needs to be addressed at its source. This bill is not a solution. It’s a new major problem.

Please consider the effect this will have on all humans.

Hi Ken, I want you to know that I think your bill HB 2173 is NOT the answer!! Please withdraw it! There is no clean way to "burn plastics". It releases toxic materials into the air harming all of us in the process. And it AVOIDS dealing with the source of the problem . It attempts to solve one problem but causes another. Styrofoam should be banned altogether. Period. Food establishments USED TO wrap our food in papers and other materials. Companies use to use other materials to keep their products safe in transport and in many cases are returning to compostable formed cardboard type products, compostable "packaging peanuts", etc. Styrofoam is a "forever product". Your bill HB 2173 is trying to do away with the bill making styrofoam illegal. Many companies are finding good ways to take plastics out of the waste stream. They are "spinning" shredded plastics into thread and making clothing, tablecloths and other products. Look at the success of Trex and similar products that use post consumer waste plastics to make their products! There is a huge movement underway to reduce and ultimately eliminate single use plastics. Burning Plastics IS NOT the answer!! It is a practice that will be welcomed by the plastic (oil) industry only. Please don't provide an easy and dirty way out for the plastic industry!!! Thank you, Joan Kasprowicz, Reston VA

I am adamantly to opposed to HB 2173. Our state should run as fast as possible away from this terrible idea which doesn't solve a problem, it creates one. Plastic should not be burned as a means of disposal, which will release toxins into the air which will impact health outcomes in neighboring communities. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution."

I am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

"I am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution."

I am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

“Recycling” chemicals would have a devastating impact on our environment and public health. Please vote no on HB 2173! Thank you, Your constituent, Caryl Burtner 3228 Patterson RVA 23221

am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

As your constituent,. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

As climate change wreaks havoc on our world, it is increasingly obvious that our own actions and lifestyles have highly impacted and worsened the natural phenomenon of climate shifting. As a citizen of Springfield, it is utterly imperative that we seek alternate sources of energy, continue recycling, and provide healthy climate actions for future generations of all economic, racial, and other marginalized communities. The churches of Virginia have joined to raise our prayers and our voices to see that we treat our planet with the respect it deserves, and ensure a healthy life for all those to come. Please vote YES on HB 2074 and other initiatives that work to preserve our community so that many may enjoy it for decades of our future. Dixie Ross 7704C Lexton Place Springfield, VA 22152

I am a Virginian deeply concerned about the mess we're making of this planet, and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution. This is not "Advanced recycling" - it is advanced environmental and health degradation. Advanced recycling would be finding ways to send plastic containers back to their manufacturers to either re-use if safe, or to bring pressure on them to develop truly sustainable and non-polluting recyclable plastics OR move to other actually recyclable materials.

I am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

I am your constituent and a person of faith and conscience. I urge you to oppose HB 2173. This bill would enable harmful, polluting facilities to expand across Virginia with the most severe impacts placed on vulnerable populations. Chemical conversion is not economically or environmentally sustainable and is undermining efforts to decrease Styrofoam use. The solution to the plastic crisis is reducing waste at its source, not dangerous approaches that add to toxic air pollution.

I write to encourage a vote against this Bill, which is scheduled for consideration in the House tomorrow. A vast array of substances is encompassed by the terms “post-use polymers and recovered feedstocks”, which are the core of the proposed definition. All of these “plastics” are removed from regulation as “solid waste” by this Bill, with no environmentally driven regulation put in its place. The move is too sweeping and, its environmental impact has not been the subject of the serious review it deserves. Since the array of substances is so vast, there obviously needs to be a mechanism to examine the effects plastic by plastic.

Support HB 2159- banning the intentional release of balloons. While it may not seem like balloons are a big issue when it comes to the plastic pollution crisis, evidence says otherwise. A study by the Virginia Aquarium found balloons to be one of the most harmful and frequently occurring form of debris on beaches across the Virginia coastline. According to a study done by the Ocean Conservancy balloons are found to pose some of the greatest risks to wildlife including adverse effects from entanglement and ingestion. Wildlife affected in the study included seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. There are many other ways to celebrate or remember that do not normalize and encourage plastic pollution and threaten our wildlife. Balloon releases are organized litter events and they should be treated as such. And it is important to remember that we already have existing laws on littering. Concerns that enforcement of this law would target children or teenagers is inconsistent with how litter laws are enforced right now and should be addressed when looking at our broader litter laws which have a higher penalty. Oppose HB 2173- “Advanced” Recycling definition. While we appreciate Del Plum's commitment to addressing our plastic pollution crisis, I am afraid this is not the solution. Despite claims to create like-new plastic products, the industry has almost exclusively employed technologies to convert or “downcycle” plastics into fossil fuels. Processes include pyrolysis, hydropyrolysis, and gasification. Of the dozens of facilities that have been proposed in the U.S., only 3 are currently operational and none have been proven to successfully recover plastic to make new plastics on a commercial scale. Recent investigative reports from Greenpeace and GAIA have further exposed these truths. Chemical “recycling” does not recycle. This bill would open Virginia up to industry that is not beneficial to the environment while other states are actively trying to eliminate new facilities. There are things Virginia needs to do to reduce waste and increase recycling of what is left. Bottle bills/deposit programs are a great example of just one solution. Chemical recycling is not.

Clean Fairfax strongly opposed HB2173 to define advanced recycling as a manufacturing process. The Oregon Agilyx facility is often highlighted as a successful advanced recycling facility. In 2018, only around one-tenth of the expanded polystyrene Agilyx processed was actually turned into styrene and a similar amount was burned in cement kilns which are usually used to burn hazardous waste. This tells us the fuel produced by Agilyx was too contaminated or too low quality to use as fuel. In 2019, Agilyx processed only 641 tons of polystyrene - a miniscule portion of the 560,000 tons of container and packaging waste generated in the US every year. This facility received $25 million in private investments and a half million dollars in tax credits- to create of a known carcinogen. These are not the polices we want to bring to Virginia. Advanced recycling, pyrolysis and gasification, in particular, release toxic substances such as bisphenol-A, cadmium, benzene, brominated compounds, phthalates, lead, tin, antimony, and volatile organic compounds. Advanced recycling can’t handle mixed plastic polymers or black plastic and is also unable to recycle expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers. Advanced recycling is being sold by polluting corporations as a means to ensure their harmful products remain a fixture in our communities and waterways. The answer to the plastic pollution crises is reducing waste at its source. The answer is not succumbing to powerful corporations and building harmful facilities around our most vulnerable communities. Human health and economic development are not mutually exclusive, we should not be putting communities in the impossible situation to choose their personal and environmental health over having a job. Clean Fairfax supports HB 2159 to ban the intentional release of balloons Zach Huntington- Clean Streams Program Manager- Clean Fairfax

The Arlington Chamber of Commerce supports HB 2173, a bill to promote advanced plastics recycling. Advanced plastics recycling complements traditional recycling to reduce plastic waste and promotes environmental innovation in the Commonwealth. We thus encourage the committee to report this bill.

It is the policy of the Virginia Recycling Association (VRA) to recognize that the plastic, metal, paper, glass, textiles, electronics and rubber materials generated through curbside and drop-off recycling are commodities that can be bought and sold in an active, and sometimes volatile, international marketplace, and are subject to the same laws of supply and demand that govern the value of any and all other tradable commodities. We support the definition of recycling and advanced recycling as manufacturing and not a waste facility. Manufacturers rely on this feedstock to produce their products. The recycling industry contributes over $1.7 billion to Virginia’s economy. The VRA supports the manufacturing industry by understanding the value of recyclables as a valuable feedstock and commodity. Recycling facilities throughout the state strive to produce quality materials for those manufacturers using their products.

Be careful with this one . . . advanced recycling or chemical recycling as it is sometimes called is a term used by the petrochemical industry that promotes the idea of plastic-to-plastic and plastic-to-fuel technologies as a form of recycling. I think it is a good idea not to include advanced recycling as a part of solid waste management, but we want to be careful about legitimizing this industry which is being promoted as a solution for hard-to-recycle plastics. According to a recent report by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives who looked at 37 plastic advanced recycling' facilities proposed since the early 2000’s. Of these 37, only three are currently operational and none are successfully recovering plastic to produce new plastic.

I am writing to you on behalf of the 700 members of the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce to express our support for HB2173. The private sector is ready to offer an innovative solution to specific kinds of waste and we ask that you support this bill. Thank you, Clayton Medford cmedford@novachamber.org

Good Day, I would like you to know that on every trip that I make to various State Forest and the George Washington National Forest. I find several ballons while hiking, hunting or fishing. On my visits to Virginia Beach they are a constant wash up item that I find and dispose of. Please put an end to this needless celebratory practice. The harm to wildlife is terrible. 40 years ago, I watched a whitetail doe pull a balloon from a Mountain Laurel and partially eat it. Imagine how many times that scene has been repeated over the decades since. Thank you.

As a citizen who lives in the state and on the Rappahannock river and has seen the impact of poor stewardship, I ask that the General Assembly support these bills.

The VMA represents the largest number of environmental permit holders and the interests of industrial businesses in the Commonwealth. However, the VMA was never engaged in the development of this legislation or afforded the privilege of a meeting with the bill's patron after repeated requests. Regardless, the VMA submitted friendly amendments to Delegate Hayes by email. Our intent was two-fold: 1) make this regulation more practicable; and 2) eliminate minor air sources. Our rationale is as follows: • Exempting all minor air sources, except greenfield stationary sources, will still enable the focus of EJ to continue without capturing hundreds of other small permittees that will not have the staff or resources to conduct this level of effort for truly minor environmental impacts. We also acknowledge this will make the regulation more manageable for DEQ. • Applying a uniform public notice requirement will better ensure compliance. Three and five miles is unmanageable and arbitrary. For example, in dense urban areas, this could be tens of thousands of people. Written notice to land owners adjacent to permittees is practical. Beyond these technical amendments, the expansive regulatory control established by this bill will have a substantial impact on energy resources and industrial development at the State, Regional, and Local levels. The new broadly defined standards create substantial uncertainty that will repel most investors that have equal or better choices in competing states. There are other concerns about this bill that have not been considered such as the Judicial Review of EJ cost-benefit analysis and modeling; better standards for pollution exposure vs. toxicity determinations; impacts of carbon leakage from suppressing industrial development; redefining "fenceline" communities to include proper consideration of local land use regulations beyond the control of permitted businesses; lack of industry involvement in citizen boards promulgating regulations and permit determinations; a better understanding of industry cluster policies of state and local economic development programs; and a better understanding of the specific definition of EJ, EJ community, and EJ impact assessments (positive and negative). In closing, the VMA and its member companies support the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. As such, it is advisable that this bill should be further evaluated for unintended consequences and directly engage the regulated community and economic development community to produce a consensus bill for the 2022 General Assembly's consideration.

The James River Association appreciates the opportunity to register our support for HB2221, a bill to advance public outreach so that communities have early notice and the ability to weigh in on the projects and permits that will affect their health and well-being. We thank the patron for carrying this important legislation, and we hope it is the will of the committee to report the bill.

We support HB 2221 Environmental permits; community and environmental justice outreach. Two dozen Hampton Roads social justice organizations gathered in August and prioritized legislative issues. This bill responds to one of our six top priorities. Public engagement is critical to successful government. When people don't have the resources to meaningfully comment on permits that will affect the quality of their lives, the downstream costs can be massive. This is an issue not only of justice but also of practicality. Please vote for HB2221.

We appreciate the patrons amending these bills to incorporate positive changes to provide better participation and transparency for all stakeholders. However, we still have concerns pertaining to the modifications to and minor sources of certain permits. We also have concerns about the definition of "fenceline community" and the practicality of noticing all property owners individually within the radius defined.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports this legislation as an important first step in reforming our public outreach and involvement process. This legislation is line with the e

As climate change wreaks havoc on our world, it is increasingly obvious that our own actions and lifestyles have highly impacted and worsened the natural phenomenon of climate shifting. As a citizen of Springfield, it is utterly imperative that we seek alternate sources of energy, continue recycling, and provide healthy climate actions for future generations of all economic, racial, and other marginalized communities. The churches of Virginia have joined to raise our prayers and our voices to see that we treat our planet with the respect it deserves, and ensure a healthy life for all those to come. Please vote YES on HB 2074 and other initiatives that work to preserve our community so that many may enjoy it for decades of our future. Dixie Ross 7704C Lexton Place Springfield, VA 22152

This bill will bring the Virginia definition of muzzleloader in line with the Federal definition. It will increase safety by helping to prevent overcharges and making it easier for hunters to unload their muzzleloader if they did not use it while hunting. VCDL supports this bill. I respectfully request that you vote in favor of passing to the floor of the House. Patricia Webb

Speaking as president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and its 35,000 members, VCDL supports this bill.

Farmers' markets provide fresh local food, where you can known the farmers, meat providers, and other products that are locally made. This supports local small business. How can this not be essential? If grocery stores and meat producing plants are open, so should these be. How many outbreaks did you see at the farmers' markets? How many are outside, where do you see outbreaks there? These are safe.

I will keep this brief. I am a native Virginian and live in Strasburg, Va and am a past president of the Northern Shenandoah Chapter of the Archaeology Society of Va. I have 55 years of experience with metal detection and have seen first hand the damage that relic hunters can do on civil war battlefields and sites to the integrity of a site. Most relic hunters have good intentions and are interested in history and the preservation of it but some are just plain looters and will do anything to find 'treasure' and then sell their finds on the open market. These are the people who will knowingly sneak onto protected sites. They are not deterred by just trespass signs and will even go at night. There are millions of acres owned as private property where a person(s) can obtain permission to hunt, fish and look for artifacts but there are still some who would rather sneak onto properties knowing that it worth the risk of a $75. trespassing fine, if caught and prosecuted, which seldom happens. The value of Civil War and other early American artifacts can be in the $1,000's of dollars. Today even a common Civil War bullet will bring $5.00 or more on EBAY. To truly protect our protected lands there needs to be consequences for someone who is willing to disregard the law . Mike Kehoe, Strasburg, Va

Re: American Battlefield Trust supports HB 2311 Chairman Plum, Vice Chair Gooditis, and Members of the Committee: I write to request your support of HB 2311, introduced by Del. Chris Runion. This bill will protect the invaluable archaeological resources on battlefield land preserved and owned by historic preservation organizations like the Trust from being pilfered, damaged and destroyed by unauthorized relic hunters. The Trust and other battlefield preservation organizations have worked closely with state officials to protect the Commonwealth’s historic battlegrounds. While the Virginia Antiquities Act already protects state-controlled land and archaeological sites from the pilfering of historical resources, there are no such protections for private property owned by private, nonprofit preservation organizations. This leaves thousands of acres across the Commonwealth exposed to potentially destructive looting. Without this bill, archaeological resources that provide important clues to Virginia’s tumultuous past could be lost to history or be irreparably harmed. Preserved battlefields protect open space, serve as “outdoor classrooms,” and are economic engines for local economies, providing jobs and tourism dollars, and generating revenues for state and municipal governments. These battlefields are also living memorials to the soldiers who once struggled there. The artifacts that remain beneath these hallowed grounds are equally worthy of preservation and, with advances in ground penetrating radar and related technology, can bring to life forgotten stories and solve century-old mysteries. Thank you for your leadership and continued support of battlefield preservation in the Commonwealth. We look forward to working with you to ensure that these hallowed grounds, and the critical archaeological resources within them, are preserved and protected for generations to come. Sincerely, David Duncan, President

In 1996, Congress designated eight counties in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia as a National Battlefield Site – the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District – which preserves and interprets the region’s significant Civil War battlefields and related historic sites. The effort is led by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, which works with partners to preserve the hallowed ground of the Valley’s battlefields, to share its stories with the nation, and to encourage tourism and travel to the Valley’s Civil War sites. HB 2311 will help the SVBF in its mission to preserve these sites and share the stories of the past with future generations. Please support HB 2311.

I am writing to support HB 2311.The same principle banning metal hunting and related activities on NPS battlefields should apply to all similar lands preserved by any other entities.The unauthorized removal of material from such sites does irretrievable damage to archaeological investigations and the historical interpretation of battlefields.The survival of such materials in situ is essential for the accurate historical and archaeological analysis of a site.I could have done much more complete historical support over the last 35 years had such a law been in effect.I urge every favorable consideration be given to the proposed amendment.

As a historical archaeologist teaching at JMU between 1975 and 2014 I had the privilege of directing major archaeological projects for the NPS at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Wilderness and Cedar Creek Battlefields and on diverse other sites in the Shenandoah Valley and Virginia. I have co-edited 6 books on military sites archaeology as well as the most recent review of historical archaeology in the Commonwealth. While most of my personal work has been on Civil War Sites , I have served as a professional editor on books dealing with the on French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution. Despite what many people believe, and despite numbers of books written, many of the events pivotal to the outcome of major battles are poorly understood. This is principally because the officers responsible for writing after action reports, as well as the men who fought these actions, never left the battlefield alive (See Antietam; Gettysburg, etc). As a result, many studies directed by the NPS and the American Battlefield Protection Program at sites such as the Custer Battlefield in Montana, Antietam and more recently Cedar Creek, in Virginia, have shown that the types of artifacts left in the ground and the patterns of their distribution in space can provide critical insights into actions not documented, or documented in error, in the historic record. Battlefields are not just artifacts but are items of debris scattered across land. Any military man will tell you that in an action, terrain is everything. Yet often, the nuances of terrain that shaped military success or failure are lost in the historic record. Not every military site or battlefield can, or should be protected. However, where such opportunities exist to protect the historic record as revealed in the land across which battles were fought and which retain the material record of those actions; they should be given the full support of law. I should also note that it is the case that many battlefields still retain the cemetery remains of many who fought there. While Federal law allowed for the recovery and reburial of Union dead after the war, this law did not pertain to Confederate dead. As a result the recovery of such remains varied with the battlefield and with ability of private groups to recover them. I also believe it is important to recognize that the efforts to protect and preserve battlefields by government and private enterprise, and particularly in the latter case, reflect the value given to those lands by the Citizens of the Commonwealth and others. It would be unfortunate to let that commitment not be given the support requested in this bill.