The Environmental Synopsis
A Monthly Update from the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee
FEBRUARY 2017
The Chairman’s Corner
Senator Scott E. Hutchinson
While the iconic
bald eagle is often
heralded as one of
our state’s greatest conservation
success stories,
another raptor has
returned from the
brink of extinction here in Pennsylvania. As
the Game Commission removes the osprey
from its threatened species list this month,
a state representative and conservation
groups in the northwest are working with
electric utility companies to provide a safe
haven for this power line-dwelling predator.
Although natural rivals, the osprey and
bald eagle have endured a similarly
troubled past. The widespread use of DDT,
beginning in the 1950s, devastated the osprey population in Pennsylvania, reducing
the raptor to just one nesting pair in the
mid-1980s. The Game Commission restored
the population over several decades by using targeted reintroduction efforts, similar
to those successfully used to restore the
state’s bald eagle population.
Finally, in 1997, the osprey’s status was
upgraded from endangered to threatened,
and earlier this month, the Game Commission removed the bird from the threatened
species list altogether. It was a historic
moment in a decades-long effort to save
the native raptor.
According to recent estimates, there are
now over 100 nesting pairs of ospreys
in Pennsylvania. Once confined to the
Delaware and Chesapeake Bay watersheds,
the osprey now inhabits most regions of
the Commonwealth. The bird is no longer
considered threatened, but it remains
protected under state and federal law as a
migratory bird species.
Ospreys are typically found near lakes
and ponds, where they dine on an almost
exclusive diet of fish. The raptors build
elaborate nests out of sticks, and over 80
percent of the nests are on man-made
structures. Dams, chimneys, billboards and
power lines are just some of the unusual
locations osprey call home. Unfortunately,
power lines can be dangerous, catching
osprey nests on fire and sometimes causing power outages in nearby communities.
Keeping ospreys away from power lines
has been a growing concern as the bird’s
population and range has increased.
One of the best ways to lure ospreys away
from power lines is to provide them with a
suitable alternative. Nesting boxes, placed
on a utility pole near existing power lines,
encourage ospreys to take up a new residence. The practice is used in many parts
of the country, often spearheaded by local
volunteers or Audubon Society chapters.
By keeping nests away from power lines,
ospreys can raise their young, while utility
customers are spared the frustration of
Continued on page 8
In This Issue
February 2017
Volume 18, Number 2
The Chairman’s Corner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Notes from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Research Briefs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
•Park Service Faces Maintenance Backlogs
•The Increasing Costs of Military Base Remediation
•Great Lakes Water Quality Improving Slowly
•Urban Wildlife Evolving Quickly
On the Horizon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
This Month in Conservation History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 E n v i r o n m e n ta l S y n o p s i s
Notes from the Director In cold weather cities, winter snowstorms
can have a disruptive effect on the local
economy, and, consequently, the faster
that sidewalks and streets are cleared the
better. One city in Michigan is using an
unconventional approach to clearing their
streets of ice and snow – heated roads
and sidewalks.
America’s harsh winters cost the nation’s
economy billions of dollars each year in
snow removal, damage to sidewalks and
streets and revenue lost to closed businesses. Mounds of snow, several feet high in
some places, pile up at curbs, bus stops and
street corners. Holland, Michigan, is certainly no stranger to heavy snowfall and the
massive expense of snow removal.
It is hard to imagine, in the wake of a big
snowstorm, sidewalks and narrow city
streets that never cake with snow and ice.
The citizens of Holland walk and drive
unimpeded in winter thanks to an underground snow melting system. Blankets of
freshly laid snow immediately meet heated sidewalks and roads. The result was an
ice and snow-free path to anywhere within
the Main Street business district.
The luxurious technology may conjure
images of metropolitan New York, urban
Chicago, or the capital streets of Washington, D.C., but people looking for ice-free
roads would do better in Holland, whose
website boasts the “largest municipal-
Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director
ly-owned snowmelt system in the United
States.” Best known for growing tulips in the
spring, Holland has now become famous
for melting snow in the winter.
saves money otherwise spent on plowing,
shoveling and salting.
Rather than installing the expensive
electric coil heating systems that keep
the sidewalks in front of New York’s luxury
apartment buildings clear, Holland’s
flagship public works project uses heated
wastewater from a local power plant that
would have otherwise been discharged
into to a nearby lake.
Holland’s snowmelt system was installed
in 1988, during a streetscape revitalization
program that tore up most of the downtown roads and sidewalks. The project
cost slightly over $1 million; a bargain
considering the money saved over the
long term. From the beginning of the
snowmelt program, merchants in the
downtown district have paid an assessment fee to help cover costs.
The city of Holland,
Michigan, has a unique
approach to clearing
ice and snow in their
downtown business
district – heated streets
and sidewalks.
Heated sidewalks and streets offer impressive taxpayer savings in many ways. For example, the City of Pittsburgh spent almost
$8 million for winter road maintenance
in 2015. The price tag covered snowplow
drivers, their equipment and tons of salt.
Even a lack of snow can lead to big costs
because the city needs to prepare in
advance, regardless of how much actually
lands that winter.
Downtown Holland is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and offers
tourists more than 120 specialty shops,
galleries and restaurants. When the snow
begins to fall –an average of 100 inches
each winter – waste heat from power generation is captured to heat water, which is
circulated through 190 miles of thin plastic
tubing installed just below the surface of
sidewalks and roads.
The system pumps over 4,700 gallons of
water per minute at 95 degrees and can
melt one inch of snow per hour at 25
degrees Fahrenheit with winds of 10 mph.
The snowmelt system is a closed system,
meaning it is circulating the same water
repeatedly. By using potable water, the
system is less likely to have sediment,
which reduces wear on system valves.
People no longer have to look for parking spaces between huge mounds of
shoveled snow that often make parking
meters inaccessible. Additionally, the city
The City of Holland has expanded the
system several times, and now 10.5 acres
worth of streets, sidewalks and parking
lots remain snow and ice-free in the winter. The coal-fired power plant that heats
the water is about to be phased out and
replaced by one using natural gas.
Holland, Michigan, is not alone in adopting a smarter snowmelt system. Similar
systems, albeit on a much smaller scale,
were adopted in other cities around the
U.S., including Vail, Colorado; Grand Haven,
Michigan and Oak Park, Illinois.
A number of public and private businesses across the country are also installing
heating below sidewalks leading up to
their entrances. For example, here in Pennsylvania, the Phipps Conservatory and
Botanical Gardens in Pittsburgh has added
a snowmelt system to their front walkway,
which takes advantage of waste heat in
steam condensate that would otherwise
have been lost underground on its way
back to the steam-generating plant.
February 2017 3
Research Briefs
Each month, the committee’s staff researches and prepares a number of “briefs” on several topics relevant to the committee’s mission. Very often these briefs
include references to reports and further research on the topics so that readers may pursue issues on their own. Please note that the information and opinions
expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and
Conservation Committee, nor those of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
GAO Urges Park
Service to Reevaluate
Deferred Maintenance
Tony M. Guerrieri
Executive Director
The National Park Service manages more
than 75,000 assets, including buildings,
roads, and water systems at 413 park units
across all 50 states. According to a report
by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in 2015, the agency estimated
that its total deferred maintenance costs
were close to $12 billion.
The National Park
Service averages over
$11 billion each year in
deferred maintenance.
Topping the list in
Pennsylvania was
Delaware Water Gap
with a $145 million
backlog.
The GAO report, National Park Service:
Process Exists for Prioritizing Asset Maintenance Decisions, but Evaluation Could
Improve Efforts, outlines the amount and
composition of deferred maintenance
reported within the Park Service, the
methodology the agency uses to determine maintenance priorities, and the need
for the Park Service to evaluate its maintenance strategy.
The report indicates that from 2006-2015,
the Park Service allocated, on average,
$1.16 billion annually to maintain its physical assets. In 2015, allocations to maintenance accounted for about one-third ($1.08
billion) of the agency’s total funding ($3.3
billion). The largest portion of maintenance
funds in 2015 were allocated to facility
operations, which includes routine maintenance, such as the upkeep of hiking trails.
The report lists the top 100 Park Service
units in order of their outstanding maintenance backlog. For example, at the top of
the list was $840.3 million at the National Mall, $631.7 million at Yellowstone
and $371.6 million at the Grand Canyon
National Park. In Pennsylvania, the list
includes $145.7 million at the Delaware
Water Gap, $55.3 million at Gettysburg,
$49.1 million at the Independence National Historical Park, $36.9 million at Valley
Forge and $36.8 million at the Steamtown
National Historical Site.
According to the report, the Park Service’s
deferred maintenance averaged $11.3
billion from 2009-2015. Bridges, tunnels,
and paved roadways consistently made up
the largest share of the agency’s deferred
maintenance, accounting for half of all
deferred projects in 2015. Older parks have
the most deferred maintenance in 2015,
$10.5 billion in parks established more
than 40 years ago. In coping with park
maintenance in times of waning federal
appropriations, the report cites a variety
of outside approaches the Park Service
has pursued to make ends meet, including
philanthropy, leasing and volunteerism.
The Park Service uses several tools to
determine an asset’s maintenance priority.
For example, Park unit staff assess the condition of the asset and identify necessary
maintenance projects. Once identified,
park unit staff use the agency’s Capital
Investment Strategy to evaluate and rank
the projects by importance.
Projects score higher if they target critical
assets with deferred maintenance. The
first year in which projects were ranked
using this strategy was 2015, and regional
and park unit officials said it is too soon
to determine if the strategy is meeting
its objectives. The Park Service does not
have a plan or time frame, however, for
evaluating whether the strategy has been
successful. This was a sticking point for
the GAO in their analysis of the agency’s
current maintenance strategy.
The report concludes that it is important
agencies track the outcome of investments
to improve decision making and asset
management. Therefore, evaluating their
current strategy may help the Park Service
determine if it is achieving intended outcomes or if changes need to be made.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s report, National Park Service: Process
Exists for Prioritizing Asset Maintenance
Decisions, but Evaluation Could Improve
Efforts, is available at: http://www.gao.gov/
assets/690/681581.pdf.
4 Emerging Chemical
Hazards Increase Cost
of Military Base
Remediation
Coleen P. Engvall
Research Analyst
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
operates and manages hundreds of domestic military installations, encompassing
11 million acres of property. These bases
provide training facilities, mission support,
administration centers and other functions
that keep our military fully operational. If
these properties are retired, the DOD must
perform extensive environmental remediation before the land can be sold or leased
to a private owner.
To be considered fit for civilian occupation,
unexploded ordnance, munitions, chemicals, fuels and other harmful substances have to be removed. The DOD goes
through base realignment and closure
(BRAC) cycles to remediate old properties
and transfer assets to civilian control.
Unfortunately, the health and environmental impacts of military bases have
been making headlines in recent years.
Lead from firing ranges and chemicals
leaching into groundwater have caused
public concern, though these cases generally occurred at active facilities. These
instances highlight the fact that new
contaminants and their impact on human
E n v i r o n m e n ta l S y n o p s i s
health are still being discovered. They are
known as emerging contaminants, substances that are known to be hazardous,
but have yet to be regulated.
The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) conducted a series of audits into the
expenditures and reporting procedures
of the DOD with respect to environmental
cleanup of closed military bases. The first
was conducted in 2007 and determined
that the BRAC reports filed with Congress
required more information on the costs
incurred by remediation, both current
and future expenses. The most recent
report follows up on the DOD’s progress in
providing those estimates. The GAO found
that the DOD was generally responsive to
their first report. They included expenses
for indirect, overhead and management
costs, as well as all of the pollutants and
munitions that had been targeted by
cleanup, or those scheduled for the future.
One area where the DOD had not included
sufficient record keeping and reporting
was in regard to the perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) that has been discovered on
several closed installations. These two
substances are classified as emerging contaminants and currently unregulated. The
substances have been shown to impact
fetal development and increase the risk of
cancer, among many other adverse effects
in non-human test subjects.
Based on the most current peer-reviewed
research, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has issued a “health advisory” on
both, recommending a maximum concentration of 70 parts per trillion, but cannot legally enforce their removal or remediation.
However, the DOD has acknowledged the
need to address these hazardous substances. When asked why the expenses to do so
were not included in their 2015 reporting,
they stated that they were still investigating
the full scale of such efforts. The agency
is currently in the process of identifying
contaminated sites.
The DOD is taking steps
to account for the cost
of cleaning up emerging
contaminants around
military bases, expenses
the GAO recommends be reported
to Congress.
The report notes that one such installation’s levels of PFOS and PFOA has
prevented the property from being transferred. In 2016, the DOD did not transfer
a navy base to civilian ownership, citing
the levels of the two substances as being
higher than the EPA’s health advisory
level. The judgment to cease the transfer
was made despite the advisory being
non-regulatory.
The GAO praised the DOD’s attention to
these emerging public health threats, but
advised that some note of future remediation expenses be noted in BRAC’s congressional report. They also note that many
cleanup challenges are widespread, and installation officials could benefit from shared
information and a formal mechanism for
sharing successful mitigation strategies.
To read the full report, go to: http://www.
gao.gov/assets/690/682204.pdf.
February 2017 Joint Commission Report: Great Lakes Water Quality Lacking
Tony M. Guerrieri
Executive Director
The joint Canadian-U.S. commission that
oversees border water disputes and the
environmental health of the Great Lakes
says the lakes are doing better, but are still
a work in progress. Both governments will
need to increase efforts to improve water
quality, according to the latest report by
the International Joint Commission.
The report, Great Lakes Water Quality,
praised the governments for their work
thus far to reduce pollution and other
environmental impacts, but said major
problems remain. Lake Superior is generally in excellent environmental health, the
report notes, and the U.S. effort to direct
money into problems at areas of concern
has helped reduce harmful environmental
impacts.
The U.S. and Canada
have made significant
strides to improve water
quality in the Great
Lakes, but problems still
remain, including large
algal blooms and ‘dead
zones.’
The report also said, however, that “water
quality in western and central Lake Erie
is unacceptable.” The report said voluntary efforts to reduce nutrient runoff into
the lake is not enough and “mandatory
controls are essential to ensure success.”
Lake Erie remains particularly problematic,
where out-of-control algae growth has
created dead zones. “Frequent (harmful
algal blooms) in the last 10 years suggest
that the voluntary programs are not sufficient,” the report concludes.
5
Algae growth is fueled in
large part by phosphorus
in animal waste from
livestock operations that
is finding its way into the
water. While limits on
phosphorus in detergents
and better sewage treatment proved effective in
the 1970s, the problem
has become critical in the
western Lake Erie basin
despite non-mandatory
abatement efforts, according to the report.
The draft report – which is now open for
public comment – is the first of what will
be triennial assessments of the progress
the Canadian and U.S. governments are
making toward improving water quality
in the Great Lakes, a source of drinking
water for about 40 million people.
The report also listed eight chemicals of
mutual concern for the nations. Several
others still need to be added, and
deadlines to develop bi-national control
strategies to control them have long
since passed. “Progress to reduce legacy
contaminants such as PCBs and dioxins is
encouraging, but emerging contaminants
such as PBDEs are equally toxic and
long-lasting, and thus require immediate
attention,” the report notes.
While the two countries have made
significant progress in curbing the
introduction of new invasive species, the
report highlights the need to fight the
spread among the lakes of those already in
the system. It noted that joint ballast water
controls on ships – namely exchanging
ballast water at sea before entering the
lakes – have prevented the introduction of
new aquatic invasive species for the past
several years. But the International Joint
Commission says more needs to be done
to prevent the spread of invasives within
the Great Lakes.
Overall, the report concludes, fish from the
Great Lakes are safe to eat – provided consumers follow guidelines in provincial and
state advisories. At the same time, it notes
that contaminants in fish remain problematic for subsistence anglers and women of
child-bearing age.
A key finding is the disconnect between
evaluating Great Lakes water quality and
the potential impact on human health of
pollution through fish and game consumption, drinking water and swimming.
“Gaps in the measurement and reporting
of key indicators for assessing progress toward human-health objectives and a lack
of reporting specific to programs in support of these objectives make it difficult to
assess progress,” the report states.
The International Joint Commission is also
suggesting the two national governments
need to do more jointly to measure and
mitigate the effects of climate change on
the lakes, such as declining ice levels and
dealing with run-off from more intensive
and frequent storms.
While the governments of both countries generally accept the report’s findings, they are under no obligation to act
upon its recommendations.
The public can comment on the draft
through email, online or in person at
meetings in March to be held in several cities on both sides of the border, including
Toledo, Ohio and Buffalo, New York. The International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes
draft report, Great Lakes Water Quality, is
available at: http://ijc.org/files/tinymce/
uploaded/Publications/Draft_TAP.pdf.
6 Urban Development
Driving Evolution in
Wildlife
Coleen P. Engvall
Research Analyst
Most of the species that Charles Darwin
observed in the Galapagos Islands evolved
over thousands of years to suit their habitat. Evolution is generally a very slow process with virtually imperceivable changes
from one generation to the next. However,
this is not always the case. Certain instances of evolution can be observed in
one human lifetime. This is true of species
with significantly short lifespans, such as
yeast, or when a species exists in conditions where mortality rates are very high,
creating environments where only a small
percentage of the population survives to
pass their genes on to their offspring.
Contemporary evolution occurs when
changes in a species happen rapidly, perhaps over a few generations, rather than
hundreds or thousands of years. Phenotypic changes, or changes in observable
features like size or behavior, have been
recorded by scientists for years with the
assumption that they were a response to
human development.
Hoping to better understand this relationship, researchers led by the University of
Washington investigated research conducted on over a thousand of these phenotypic changes from all over the world.
E n v i r o n m e n ta l S y n o p s i s
After synthesizing these studies, they
released their conclusions entitled, Global
Urban Signatures of Phenotypic Change
in Animal and Plant Populations. The
researchers sought out concrete evidence
for why these changes were happening
so rapidly, and what mechanisms were
causing them.
Cities were a focal point in the study, due
to the concentration of human activity
and disruption to the local wildlife. The
first question the researchers asked was
whether urban areas could be driving
evolution beyond the natural pace. The researchers agreed with studies that showed
species living in urban areas exhibited a
higher rate of phenotypic change than
members of the same species living in an
undeveloped setting, or even in non-urban settings with humans present.
Disruptions manifest in five main categories: habitat modification, biotic
interactions, habitat heterogeneity, novel
disturbances and social interactions. The
researchers asked how each of these
five categories impacted contemporary
evolution and to what degree. Habitat
modification, the first of the factors, is the
actual conversion of natural space to urban space. Paving streets and introducing
artificial lighting are both examples of this.
The second category, biotic interactions,
describes the invasion and colonization
relationship between native species and
those introduced during development.
Domesticated cats, which are responsible
for billions of wildlife
kills, are one example.
Additionally, when
native ecosystems are
fragmented by roads
and buildings, invasive
species are able to take
advantage of the weakened state and become
established.
Also related to fragmentation is the concept of
heterogeneity. Habitats
and their corresponding
communities lose diver-
sity as they are kept separate. This mechanism, while theorized by the researchers to
interrupt the natural flow of genes, did not
seem to drive contemporary evolution in a
significant way. Novel disturbances include
the introduction of toxins and contaminants. Urban communities in the west have
seen trout mortality rates rise dramatically
in response to road runoff. Phenotypic
changes arising from this might show the
local species becoming resistant to common contaminants. Social interactions
include any instance of humans interacting
with other species, such as selective harvest
or removal.
Cities alter the
environment in
significant ways and
urban wildlife must
adapt, migrate or evolve
to survive alongside
their new human
neighbors.
Instances of contemporary evolution
show nature’s amazing resilience in the
face of adversity. Unfortunately, the
more common scenario is for a species to
become extinct locally. Rapid urbanization often introduces stressors that are
too sudden and complex for a species to
adapt. Cities can offer many benefits to
both humans and the environment. Their
compact nature reduces the need for
land development, infrastructure expansion, transportation and other costly
activities. In order to maximize these
benefits to both human and non-human
urban inhabitants, a further understanding of these interactions is needed.
To read Global Urban Signatures of
Phenotypic Change in Animal and Plant
Populations, go to: http://www.pnas.org/
content/early/2017/01/01/1606034114.
full#abstract-2.
February 2017 7
On the Horizon A Look at Upcoming Events
Monday, March 20, 12 p.m.
Environmental Issues Forum
Room 8E-A, Capitol East Wing, Capitol Complex, Harrisburg
Joining us for the March forum will be representatives from ARIPPA, the state association of coal refuse energy producers. Using circulating fluidized bed boiler technology, coal refuse facilities are able to generate up to 10 percent of the state’s total electricity generation from abandoned coal piles, which are a primary source of acid mine drainage. To date, over 200 million tons of coal refuse have
been recycled and over 7,000 acres of abandoned coal lands have been remediated by this industry.
• Check Us Out on Social Media •
You can now receive updates on committee events, new research and more by following the Joint Legislative
Conservation Committee on social media.
Find us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jointconservationcommittee, or on
Twitter at www.twitter.com/PA_JLCC.
This Month in Conservation History Exploring the Evolution of Environmental Stewardship
194 Years Ago
Spencer Fullerton Baird, naturalist and museum curator, is born in Reading, Berks County, on
February 3, 1823. Baird studied at Dickinson College and went on to become the first curator of
the Smithsonian Institute in 1850 and later its second secretary in 1878. Baird was dedicated to
growing the museum’s natural history collection, which reached 2 million specimen by the time
of his death. The auditorium in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History is dedicated to his
life and legacy.
46 Years Ago
In February of 1971, the Environmental
Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution was passed unanimously for the second time by the General Assembly. Authored by Representative
Franklin Kury, the newly created Joint Legislative Conservation Committee
played a pivotal role in gaining support for the measure. Voters overwhelmingly
approved the new amendment by a 4-1 margin in May of that same year.
8 E n v i r o n m e n ta l S y n o p s i s
Joint Legislative
Conservation
Committee
Contact Information
Phone : 717.787.7570
Website : jcc.legis.state.pa.us
Location:
Room 408
Finance Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Mailing Address:
Joint Legislative
Conservation Committee
PA House of Represenatives
P.O. Box 202254
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254
The Chairman’s
Corner
continued from page 1
bird-induced power outages. The nesting
boxes also help keep utility workers safe,
who frequently remove nests that pose a
fire or electrical hazard.
A partnership between
First Energy and local
conservation groups will
build 30 osprey nests
over a five state area,
luring the birds away
from high-voltage power
lines.
This win-win situation motivated one state
legislator to establish a unique partnership
in the northwest. Representative Parke
Wentling (R-Greenville), a member of the
Joint Legislative Conservation Committee,
is president of Friends of Goddard State
Park, a group of volunteers that assist
with projects at the Mercer County state
park. The park is home to a healthy osprey
population, with at least eight nesting
pairs located in the immediate area. Penn
Power, an electric distribution company,
operates local utility lines that frequently
become home to nesting ospreys as they
migrate north.
Wentling’s group saw the osprey nesting
boxes used in other states
and thought the project
could work locally. With
the help of Goddard State
Park Manager Bill Wasser
and John Oliver, a former secretary of DCNR,
Wentling constructed
the box and Penn Power
erected a utility pole next
to an existing osprey nest.
Ospreys will not return
to the area until April,
but the park staff is hopeful the birds will
gravitate toward the more accommodating
nesting box.
The effort received a positive response
from the community, as well as from Penn
Power, who had been dealing with complications from osprey nests. Wentling saw
the potential for a broader partnership in
the region. He approached First Energy,
the parent company of Penn Power, as well
as the local chapter of the Audubon Society, about establishing a grant program
to build osprey nests in other First Energy
service territories. Soon, a public-private
coalition was born that will help relocate
nests over a five state area, including Ohio,
New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia.
In October 2016, the First Energy Foundation, the charitable arm of the national
energy company, donated $3,000 to Audubon Pennsylvania Northwest to construct
up to 30 new osprey boxes. Under the
agreement, Audubon and local conservation groups, such as Friends of Goddard
State Park, will administer the grant, and
First Energy will erect 30 creosote-treated
utility poles with osprey nesting boxes.
Construction of the boxes began in January and anticipated to be complete by
March, just in time for the osprey’s annual
northward migration.
The partnership formed by First Energy,
Friends of Goddard and the Audubon Society is a great example of how communities
can combine their resources in support
of local conservation efforts. I hope this
coalition can be a model for other regions
in Pennsylvania that the osprey calls home.