A Legislative Service Agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

The Chairman’s CornerSen. Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman

(continued on page 8)

November 2014Vol. 15, No. 11

Published Monthly

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

In This Issue…The Chairman’s Corner ......................... p. 1Notes From the Director ....................... p. 2Research Briefs ................................. p. 3-6

Americans Using Less Water

Local Government Revenue from Oil and Gas

Breaking Through the Green Ceiling

The $100 Billion Hurricane?

On the Horizon ..................................... p. 7

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS

At first glance, the McClintock Trail near my home-town of Oil City may seem like your typical rec-reational bike path. Picturesque woodlands and

serene views of Oil Creek provide the perfect backdrop for those looking to enjoy some cycling or even just an afternoon stroll. But what may surprise you is that this trail, along with many others in Pennsylvania, played in important role in our state’s railroad history, and they are making Pennsylvania a national leader in the rails-to-trails initiative.

Pennsylvania found itself at the forefront of the nation’s railroad industry beginning in the mid-1800s. As a large producer of oil, coal and other commodities, rail lines crisscrossed our state’s land-scape, moving millions of tons of freight to other regions of the United States. Large-scale railroad expansion continued across the nation well into the 20th century, until automobile transportation started to become the favored method of hauling freight over long distances.

As our economy evolved and our transportation preferences shifted, more and more railways were abandoned and left without a clear purpose. Recognizing the growing number of abandoned

railway lines, Congress authored the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act in 1976, which in part, established a grant program to preserve railroad corridors and create recreational trails from abandoned railroad beds.

In 1986, a national non-profit organization called the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Con-servancy) was formed to accelerate the development of rail trail projects. At the time, there were fewer than 200 known rail trails in the nation. In the years since their forma-tion, the Conservancy has worked diligently with state and local governments, commu-nity groups and volunteers to convert these abandoned pieces of

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 2

NOTES FROM THE DIRECTORTONY M. GUERRIERI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dentists have been using dental amalgam for more than 150 years - the silver-colored filling commonly used for cavities. Dental

amalgam is made up of mercury (about 50 percent by weight) mixed with a powdered alloy of mostly silver, copper and tin. It is considerably less expensive than alternatives and holds up reasonably well. But when silver fillings are replaced or removed, waste contain-ing mercury is produced, which can be detrimental to the environment.

Many dental practices place amalgam waste in special containers that are picked up and processed as hazardous waste. There are instances, though, when a dentist might flush a portion of that waste down the drain while installing or removing fillings.

Despite the care that most dentists exercise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims too much mercury from amalgam waste is making its way down the drain and eventually into the nation’s waters. In September 2014, the EPA announced an impending nationwide regulation to help cut discharges of dental amalgam into the environment.

The proposed rule to the federal Clean Water Act standards would require all affected dentists to control mercury discharges to publicly-owned treat-ment works. Specifically, it would require them to cut their dental amalgam discharges to a level achiev-able through the use of the best available technology (amalgam separators) and the use of industry best management practices. According to an EPA estimate, the proposed rule would cut mercury and toxic metal discharges to public wastewater systems by nearly nine tons per year nationwide.

There are a lot of cavities being filled these days and the new regulations could spark sales of ma-chines that filter out the mercury fragments and other metal wastes. Once filtered, the mercury ends up in a secure hazardous waste container that is eventually picked up for disposal.

About half the mercury that enters public water treatment systems comes from dental offices that do not use amalgam separators. When mercury from amalgam is discharged into water bodies, it can be transformed into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury that builds up in fish, shellfish and fish-eating animals. People can be harmed by methylmercury when they eat the contaminated fish and shellfish. Methylmercury is a neurotoxin that impairs brain and

affects nervous system development and function.Many states and local wastewater districts have

started mercury pollution control programs that require amalgam separators in dentist offices. Amal-gam separators remove up to 95 percent of mercury and other metal waste. Still, the EPA estimates that up to 120,000 dental offices in the U.S. use or dispose of amalgam fillings that contain mercury. Almost all of these offices discharge to sanitary sewers that flow to wastewater treatment plants.

While most offices use practices to try and reduce amalgam discharges to the sewers, they are not near-ly as effective as amalgam separators. Because an estimated 40 percent to 50 percent of dentists across the country already use amalgam separators due to state and local regulations, the new rule may result in installation of separators in up to 60,000 dental offices nationwide.

The rule would allow dentists to demonstrate compliance by installing, operating, and maintaining amalgam separators. However, if the existing separa-tors in a dental practice do not remove the percentage of amalgam necessary to meet the proposed require-ments, the practice can still be ruled as compliant for the life of the existing separator. Finally, it would limit dental dischargers’ reporting requirements to annual certification and recordkeeping instead of wastewater monitoring.

The EPA estimates put the total annual cost of the proposed rule between $44 million and $49 million and a new streamlining proposal would cut state and local oversight costs by a similar amount annually. The EPA also said dentists would feel just a small fi-nancial pinch as a result of the rule as officials esti-mate that low-cost amalgam separators cost dental offices about $700 each year.

The American Dental Association, the nation’s leading industry association, also recommends sepa-rators and the use of best management practices for amalgam waste. Pennsylvania does not yet require amalgam separators for dental offices.

The EPA will accept public comments on the pro-posal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. The agency expects to finalize the rule in September 2015. For more information, visit the EPA website: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/dental/.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 3

Each month, the committee’s staff researches and prepares a number of “briefs” on several topics relevant to the Joint Conservation

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: 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.

RESEARCH BRIEFS

Water Consumption Falls across the U.S.- Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

Americans are using significantly less water than at any point since 1970, according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

The USGS report, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010 (USGS Circular 1405), indicates that the 45-year low shows a positive trend stemming from improvements in water-use technologies and manage-ment. The USGS looks at all the different ways people were using water, from watering their lawns to cooling nuclear power plants.

The five-year snapshots that started in 1950 track water taken out of the supply for some purpose; it does not attempt to subtract the amount of water returned to the source. That net figure (consumptive use) was part of the USGS’s calculation but because of limitation on available data, it stopped estimating return flows after 1995.

In 2010, total freshwater and saline-water with-drawals were estimated to be 355 billion gallons per day. This is a 13 percent reduction in use compared with a total of 410 billion gallons a day in 2005. Fresh-water withdrawals made up 86 percent of the total. Surface freshwater was used at a rate of about 230 billion gallons, fresh groundwater at a rate of about 76 billion gallons – 15 percent less and four percent less, respectively, than in 2005.

Total water withdrawals were estimated for eight categories of use: public supply, domestic use, irriga-tion, livestock, aquaculture, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. According to the report, the largest users by far were thermoelectric power, irriga-tion, and public supply. Together, they accounted for 90 percent of all withdrawals in 2010, which is the latest data available.

The biggest water user in the U.S. is thermoelectric power – most coal, natural gas and solar- thermal power plants need water to produce steam to power turbines and for cooling purposes. Total withdrawals for thermo-

electric power for 2010 were 262 billion gallons a day. Estimated 2010 thermoelectric withdrawals were 20 percent less than estimated for 2005. Reasons for this large difference, according to the report, include plant closures, water-saving advances in cooling technology, or simply power plants becoming more efficient.

The other big category for water savings in the U.S. is irrigation. For 2010, total irrigation withdrawals were 115 billion gallons per day. Total irrigation withdraw-als were nine percent less than in 2005. Increased efficiency and switching from flood irrigation to micro-irrigation, or drip systems, have been adopted in many regions as water has become increasingly scarce._______________________________________________According to the USGS, Pennsylvanians used an average of eight billion gallons of water

each day in 2010, compared to over nine billion gallons a day in 2005.

_______________________________________________The rest of the decline in water usage in the U.S.,

the report said, was in the public supply. Approximate-ly 42 billion gallons of water were withdrawn for public supply in 2010. This amount is five percent less than estimated amount of water withdrawn for public sup-ply in 2005. It is the first time that a drop in the public supply of water has ever been recorded. The reduction is important because it happened even as the popula-tion increased by about four percent and the number of people who had access to public water improved.

Twelve states accounted for more than 50 percent of total water withdrawals. The largest was California, fol-lowed by Texas, Idaho, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ar-kansas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, Alabama and Ohio.

California accounted for 11 percent of the total water withdrawals. Still, the state was able to sharply cut water use. Californians, in 2010, used an estimated 38 billion gallons of water a day, compared with 46 bil-lion a day in 2005. The reduced use of surface water accounted for the savings, according to the report; groundwater withdrawals were actually up because of the drought, which forced farmers to increase their reli-ance on irrigation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 4

Pennsylvanians, in 2010, used an estimated eight billion gallons of water a day, compared with over nine billion a day in 2005. Just over five billion gallons a day are used for electric power generation in Pennsylva-nia. The state also consumed 27 million gallons a day for irrigation, 52.3 million for livestock, 108 million for aquaculture and 866 million for industry.

Per capita water use for domestic deliveries ranged from 51 gallons per day in Wisconsin to 168 gallons per day in Idaho. In New York, the per capita daily usage was 79 gallons, New Jersey was 77 gallons. People in Ohio used 64 gallons daily, the report said, compared with 130 gallons daily in Nevada and 162 gallons per day in Wyoming. The national average was 89 gallons per day for public supplied domestic water use. On average, each Pennsylvanian uses 59 gallons of water each day, according to the report, up from 56 gallons in 2005.

The USGS is the world’s largest provider of water data and the leading water research agency in the fed-eral government. The 60-page report includes dozens of photos, tables, maps, and graphs documenting wa-ter use. The U.S. Geological Survey report, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010 (USGS Circu-lar 1405), can be read or downloaded at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf.

Duke Study Examines Local Revenue from Oil and Gas- Michael J. Nerozzi, Communications Specialist

Researchers with Duke University’s Energy Ini-tiative released a new report on how domes-tic oil and gas production generates revenue

for local governments. The report is the second install-ment in the Energy Initiative’s Shale Public Finance series, which studies the financial implications for local governments in oil and gas producing states, mainly in shale regions such as Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Forma-tion.

The report, entitled “Oil and Gas Revenue Alloca-tion to Local Governments in Eight States”, examines how local revenue is generated from oil and gas pro-duction using four variables – state taxes or fees; local property taxes; leasing of state-owned property; and the leasing of federal property. The study then looks at whether the revenue generated by oil and gas produc-tion is enough to manage the costs incurred by local governments. The eight states used in the study were Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. Not coincidentally, these states are all currently experiencing a boom in domestic oil and natural gas production.

Local governments generate revenue from oil

and gas production from a variety of sources, most of which vary by state. One of the most prevalent methods of revenue generation is through the use of state-imposed taxes or fees on the volume of natural gas that is extracted, such as Pennsylvania’s natural gas “impact fee.” Counties and municipalities may also generate revenue through local property taxes on oil and gas property. Many local governments also receive significant returns from the leasing of state and federal property for oil and gas production.

There are other potential sources of local oil and gas revenue, however, the overall impact is unclear. Due to the unavailability of data, the study did not include sources of local revenue generated by oil and natural gas activity such as through local sales tax, corporate income tax, or local government-held oil and gas leases.

To conduct the study, researchers interviewed over 100 local officials across the eight states and examined state and local financial data from 2012 to determine what percentage of local revenue was generated by the industry. The study then examined if the generated revenue was sufficient enough to cover the increased costs associated with industry development._______________________________________________

Pennsylvania’s natural gas impact fee generated $202 million in fiscal year 2012,

with 60 percent of the revenue going to local government

_______________________________________________The study found that, on average, local govern-

ments within the eight states examined are producing enough revenue from oil and gas production to cover the costs of industry development. The state with the highest share of local revenue coming from the state’s total oil and gas production value was Wyoming, where nearly 10 percent of local revenue was generated by the industry. Louisiana generated the lowest share of local revenue at only one percent, with the eight-state average hovering around five percent.

Local school districts were the largest recipients of oil and gas revenue at three percent of the state’s total production value, mainly the result of local property taxes and benefits derived from state and federal oil and gas leases. School districts in Wyoming, Texas, Colorado and Montana topped the list by receiving between four and seven percent of the total oil and gas production value. Comparatively, schools in Pennsyl-vania and Louisiana received very little as these states rely on funding sources independent of oil and gas production.

County governments also benefited from revenue generated by the oil and gas industry, although not quite to the same degree. In Colorado, Montana and Wyo-ming, counties received between one and two percent

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 5

of the total production value, while the counties in the remaining states received less than one percent. The re-ported noted that most of the variation in revenue going to schools and counties can be attributed to differences in tax structure and school funding formulas.

Pennsylvania stood out in the study as producing the highest revenue share for townships and local mu-nicipalities. Overall, Pennsylvania’s natural gas impact fee generated $202 million in 2012, with 60 percent of that revenue going to local governments. Counties re-ceived 18 percent ($37 million), municipalities received 31 percent ($62 million) and 13 percent ($27 million) went to state grant programs for local governments.

The study notes that while local governments in Pennsylvania receive a small share of the total produc-tion value when compared to other states in the survey, “local governments in Pennsylvania are receiving ad-equate revenue to manage increased service demands associated with Marcellus development.” In particular, impact fee allocations have assisted municipalities with maintain township roadways, which can be dam-aged by an increased presence of heavy truck traffic. County governments also fared well in the Keystone State, considering they are typically not responsible for roadways or other infrastructure yet receive a portion of the state’s impact fee.

A copy of the full report, entitled “Oil and Gas Rev-enue Allocation to Local Governments in Eight States”, along with other reports included in the Shale Public Finance series can be found at http://energy.duke.edu/shalepublicfinance.

The Green Ceiling Inside Environmental Organizations- Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

A report by the diversity advocacy group Green 2.0 takes a look at gender, racial, and class diversity in three types of environmental

groups – 191 conservation and preservation organiza-tions, 74 government environmental agencies, and 28 environmental grant-making foundations – and finds they are not mirroring the increasing diversity of the United States.

The Green 2.0 report, The State of Diversity in En-vironmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs – Foun-dations – Government Agencies, is a comprehensive overview of diversity in the environmental movement.

One area of progress has been in hiring women, but even where the percentage of women in leader-ship positions and on the staff of environmental orga-nizations has increased, white women have made the preponderance of the gains, and men remain more likely to occupy the most powerful positions in environ-

mental organizations. According to the report, men still make up 70

percent of presidents and board chairs at conservation and preservation groups, while also dominating the executive director positions in government agencies. Ninety percent of the presidents of the largest con-servation and preservation organizations (those with annual budgets over $1 million) were male. Men also occupy the majority of the top leadership positions in environmental grant-making organizations, with 76 percent of the presidencies filled by men. _______________________________________________

Males comprise 70 percent of thepresident and board chair positions at

conservation and preservation organizations _______________________________________________

The state of racial diversity in environmental organi-zations looks even worse, with the proportion of ethnic minorities on the board or general staff not exceeding 16 percent in any of the three types of institutions stud-ied. Once hired in environmental organizations, ethnic minorities are heavily concentrated in the lower ranks. As a result, ethnic minorities occupy less than 12 per-cent of the leadership positions in the environmental organizations studied. None of the largest conserva-tion and preservation organizations have a president who is an ethnic minority, the report states.

Ethnic minorities and people of multi-racial back-grounds make up approximately 38 percent of the U.S. population. Ironically, in the government agencies, the greatest proportion of ethnic minority staff in any position (66 percent) was seen in the position of diversity manager.

Looking further, the report found that the members and volunteers of environmental organizations were predominantly white. Cumulatively, the organizations studied had a membership of about three million peo-ple, of which 59 percent are male, although volunteers are evenly split between males and females. But again, very few members or volunteers were from ethnic minorities. Even partnerships were found wanting, with few cross-race and cross-class collaborations present.

Environmental organizations state that the big-gest barriers to hiring minorities in their organizations are few job openings and lack of minority applicants. Despite the claim of few job openings, most of the or-ganizations reported that they had hired staff in the last three years. Of the 493 staff hired by conservation and preservation organizations in the last three years, only 63 (or 12.8 percent) were ethnic minorities. Of the 683 staff hired in governmental agencies in the last three years, only 80 (or 11.7 percent) were ethnic minorities. Of the 35 staff hired in environmental grant-making foundations during the last three years, only six (or 17.1 percent) were ethnic minorities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 6

The lack of racial diversity in the professional ranks of environmental organizations dates to the birth of the modern environmental movement in the 1960s, the report says, despite the fact that minorities are dispro-portionately affected by environmental problems.

The report’s recommendations include creating di-versity assessment plans with transparency for tracking progress, and increasing resources for diversity initia-tives. One finding of the report is that not one green foundation has a diversity manager.

The report was funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Arcus Foundation, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice. The 192-page report, The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs – Foundations – Government Agencies, is avail-able at the Green 2.0 website: http://diversegreen.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/07/FullRe-port_Green2.0_FINAL.pdf.

Hurricane Sandy Was Not “The Big One” - Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy wreaked ma-jor havoc on the United States, causing 117 deaths and leaving $62 billion worth of damage

in its wake when it passed through New York and New Jersey. Sandy is generally regarded as a 1-in-500-year event because of its exceptional size and perpendicular track to the coast. Now try to imagine a hurricane far more devastating than Sandy. On September 3, 1821, a monster hurricane devastated the coastline from North Carolina to New York, bringing winds of up to 156 miles per hour.

A report by the global reinsurance company Swiss Re examines how the 1821 hurricane would impact the region today. According to the report, The Big One: The East Coast’s USD 100 Billion Hurricane Event, if the 1821 hurricane were to happen today it would cause 50 percent more damage than Sandy and potentially cause billions of dollars in property losses stemming from storm surge and wind damage.

The report concludes that although record-shattering from a surge perspective, Sandy was a relatively light wind event, with only a few reports of wind gusts above hurricane strength, and debate lingers over whether it was actually a hurricane when it hit landfall. Sandy is a powerful illustration of the importance of water levels. It made landfall during one of the highest tides of the year along the New Jersey and New York coasts.

The combination of an intense wind and storm-surge event in the northeastern United States is not a hypothetical - historical archives and anecdotes report

that the 1821 Norfolk Ling Island Hurricane brought both powerful winds and tremendous storm surges up and down the East Coast.

Today’s weather forecasts are much more sophis-ticated, meaning another storm of this magnitude would likely not catch people off guard. But there would be a much greater risk to population and infra-structure if such a storm were to occur now. When the 1821 storm passed through hubs like Washington, D.C. and New York City, those cities had much smaller populations – only 136,000 people combined. Today, Washington alone has more than four times as many residents, and New York is home to more than eight million people.

Using meteorological models, geographic and infra-structure data, and Swiss Re’s underwriting tools, the report considers the impact a similar storm would have today. Modeling indicates that the 1821 storm was a Category 4 hurricane at landfall in North Carolina and a Category 3 storm when it struck Cape May. It predicts a storm surge of up to 12 feet at the southern tip of Manhattan, and a surge of up to 25 feet in Atlantic City, New Jersey – in part because the water is about a foot-and-a-half higher now than it was in 1821, due to rising sea levels._______________________________________________

A storm the size of the infamous 1821 hurricane could cause 50 percent

more damage than Hurricane Sandy, with losses totaling over $100 billion

_______________________________________________All told, the report says a storm like the one in 1821

would bring 50 percent more economic damage than Sandy, causing losses of up to $107 billion. Such a storm would also do more damage than Hurricanes Katrina, Rita or Andrew.

For Swiss Re – part of the reinsurance industry, meaning it provides insurance for the companies that provide insurance for everyone else – the point of revisit-ing this historical storm is to illustrate that while Sandy was bad, the potential exists for much worse. And it recommends individuals as well as local and state gov-ernments should be planning accordingly, whether by in-suring assets or finding ways to improve crisis response plans and guarantee resilience of infrastructure.

The 21-page Swiss Re report, The Big One: The East Coast’s USD 100 Billion Hurricane Event, is available at: http://www.swissre.com/r/the_big_one_us_hurricane.pdf?19=930&44=171408231&43=1366661&32=10792&7=1366661&40=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.swissre.com%2Fdocuments%2Fthe_big_one_us_hurri-cane.pdf&18=0.20039133173635304

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 7

A LOOK AT UPCOMING EVENTSON THE HORIZON . . .

A REVIEW OF SOME MEMORABLE COMMITTEE

EVENTS COMMITTEE CHRONICLES . . .

No events are scheduled at this time.Visit the committee website at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us for events that may be added to our schedule

as we begin the new legislative session.

Check Us Out on Social Media! You can now receive updates on Committee events, new research and more by following the Joint Conservation Committee

on social media. You can find us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jointconservationcommittee, or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/PA_JLCC. Take a moment and follow us today for the latest on issues related to Pennsylvania’s diverse natural

resources!

Why Not Switch to “E-Synopsis”? You can receive the Environmental Synopsis electronically if you don’t want to wait for the mail to be delivered or to help the committee save paper and reduce mailing costs. If you would like to change the method in which you receive the Synopsis from hard

copy to an emailed version, please contact Mike Nerozzi at 717-787-7570, or by email at mnerozzi@jcc.legis.state.pa.us.

On October 6th, the Joint Conservation Committee hosted an Environmental Issues Forum on the issue of il-legal trash dumping in Pennsylvania. Our guest presenter for the October forum was Shannon Reiter, President of Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful, a statewide non-profit working to keep Pennsylvania’s communities clean and beauti-ful. Shannon discussed the severity of PA’s illegal dumping problem, and presented recommendations for manag-ing our state’s waste.

Shannon Reiter (pictured at left), President of Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful, offered several recommendations for reducing illegal dumpsites in the Commonwealth. The recommendations were featured at the 2014 fall conference of the Solid Waste Association of North America. Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful’s work has been featured at several of our Environmental Issues Forums in the past.

State Senator Scott Hutchinson (pictured at right), Chairman of the Joint Conservation Committee, discusses some of the ways in which municipalities within the 21st District have worked to combat illegal dumping. Rural areas of the Commonwealth can be particularly susceptible to illegal dumping activity.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / NOVEMBER 2014 / P. 8

How toContact

The JointConservation Committee

Phone: 717-787-7570 Fax: 717-772-3836

Location: Rm. 408, Finance Bldg.

Internet Website: http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us

Mail: Joint Conservation CommitteePA House of RepresentativesP.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

Printed on Recycled Paper

history into valuable community assets.Today, rail trails account for more than 20,000 miles of trails across the country.

Many of these trails are recreational hot spots within the community that attract cyclists, runners, even equestrians and cross-country skiers. And the popularity of the rail trail movement shows no signs of slowing, as the Conservancy estimates another 9,000 miles of proposed projects currently under development.

You really don’t have to look further than your own backyard to discover Penn-sylvania’s unique contribution to the boom in rail trail development. According to the Conservancy, the Keystone State leads the nation in rail trail construction. The state’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) estimates that Pennsylvania is currently home to 169 trails, spanning more than 1,700 miles. No matter what region of the state you reside in, chances are there is a rail trail just a short ride from your front door._________________________________________________________________________

According to a DCNR report, the Erie-to-Pittsburgh Trailcontributed more than $7.5 million to the region’s economy

in 2013, up nearly three million dollars from 2006 _________________________________________________________________________

What is especially fascinating is that most of Pennsylvania’s rail trails have deep ties to local history. When I participated in the ribbon-cutting for the southern sec-tion of the McClintock Trail last year, volunteers described how instrumental the railway corridor is to the oil industry in Venango County. In fact, the rail trail is named for McClintock Well No. 1, the oldest continuously-producing oil well in the world, located roughly midway through the trail. I was amazed at just how intertwined the trail is with the history and culture of our region.

In addition to their recreational and historic value, rail trails offer numerous ben-efits to the local economy. Tourists from around the region, state and nation flock to Pennsylvania’s rail trails, where they purchase local goods and services such as lodg-ing and food. According to a 2013 report by DCNR, the developing 270-mile Erie-to-Pittsburgh Trail, of which the McClintock Trail is a part, contributed nearly $7.5 million to the region’s economy. That’s up almost three million dollars from 2006, when a previous study was conducted.

If you are looking for more information on rail trails, the Conservancy’s website is a great place to start. You can find information on existing rail trails, proposed rail trail projects, and even a “trail-building toolbox” for those looking to build a rail trail in their community. The organization’s Trail Link website even offers advanced mapping and directions to local trails, as well suggestions for overnight accommodations.

So if you are an avid cyclist, hiker or even just a history buff, take an opportunity to visit a rail trail in your community before the winter weather is upon us. If you are like me, I’m sure you’ll find the experience to be truly rewarding.

To learn more about the rail trails in your community visit the Conservancy’s web-site at www.railstotrails.org.