DECEMBER 2017

A Monthly Update from the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee

The Chairman’s CornerSenator Scott E. Hutchinson

The Environmental Synopsis

Over the years, the Joint Legislative Conservation Committee has routinely examined the impact of invasive species on both

the environment and the economy. While most of the Committee’s work has centered on species affecting forest health, Pennsylvania’s waterways are also susceptible to the impacts of invasive species if left unchecked.

Earlier this month, Committee members and staff attended a briefing on an invasive aquatic plant that is gaining a foothold in many Pennsylvania waterways. According the Fish and Boat Commission, hydrilla poses a serious threat to freshwater ecosystems and is a source of immense frustration for recreational boaters. Since first detected in Adams and Bradford counties in mid-1990s, hydrilla has spread to 43 waterbodies across 24 counties. A concerted effort by state agencies is underway to mitigate existing hydrilla infestations and prevent further spread.

Hydrilla is often referred to as the “perfect weed” because of its aggressive nature and stubborn resistance to treatment. The perennial firmly roots itself to the bottom of lakes, ponds and rivers at depths up to 40 feet. Hydrilla’s leaves grow in whorls of 3-8 leaves, with sharp, saw-like edges that are rough to the touch. At peak growth,

its long, branching stems blanket the water’s surface in a dense matting. The plant is hardy, able to withstand a wide range of water conditions and equipped with small, white “tubers” that store food for over-wintering.

Scientists aren’t exactly sure where hydrilla originated, but evidence points to regions of Asia and Africa. It wasn’t introduced to North America until the 1950s, when it became popular as an aquarium plant. Like most invasive species, careless releases allowed the plant to take root in U.S. waters, and it soon began to multiply. Though it is more common in southern states, hydrilla has gradually moved north and into the Mid-Atlantic and New England. In total, 21 states are combating hydrilla infestations,

and the consequences have been severe in some regions.

Once hydrilla takes hold in a lake or pond, the thick surface matting blocks sunlight and decreases the level of oxygen, killing off native plants and fish. An infestation may start in just a small corner of the lake, but if left untreated, can consume the entire waterbody as the plant can grow up to an inch a day. This can mean big trouble for freshwater ecosystems.

The ecological impacts aren’t the only concern, however. The dense matting clogs boat motors and restricts other forms of recreation like swimming and fishing. Unfortunately, those activities are a major contributor to the weed’s spread. Tiny fragments of the plant are frequently left in boats, bait buckets and trailers, where they are transported to new bodies of water.

Continued on page 8

In ThIs IssueThe Chairman’s Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Notes from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Research Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3• EPA Encouraging Use of Green Infrastructure• Who is Accountable for Chesapeake Bay Sediment?• Boost in Renewables Needed to Meet State Standards• ‘Hyper Accumulators’ Could be Key to Superfund Cleanup

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

Committee Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

December 2017Volume 18, Number 12

2 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

While many of us are busy taking down the Christmas decorations, others will be participating in another great holiday pastime: the annual rush to return those unwanted gifts and holiday purchases. Your problems may end when the gifts are exchanged or refunded. For retailers, however, the challenge of handling mil-lions of returns is just beginning.

The status quo for managing returned and excess inventory in the retail industry is a source of significant waste and ineffi-ciency in the supply chain. Much of what we return, even if they are in unopened boxes in pristine condition, is not simply added into store inventory and back on shelves. Unlike the forward supply chain where inventory is consistent and uniform, the reverse supply chain (also known as reverse logistics) is dynamic and unpredictable. Returned merchan-dise can be messy and cost-prohibitive to process. They arrive unexpectedly in stores in a variety of conditions and pack-aging, ranging from broken to brand new.

For years, large retailers typically have ne-gotiated “chargeback” arrangements with manufacturers that allow them to return a percentage of merchandise unques-tioned. Some high-end manufacturers, selling products ranging from vacuum cleaners to beverage machines, even go so far to protect their brands as to require retailers to destroy all of the products that

consumers return. The rest of the returns are shipped multiple times through a lengthy, environmentally costly chain of liquidators, wholesalers and resellers. Because the cost of restocking and resell-ing damaged or inexpensive items often exceeds the value of the items, they often end up in landfills.

Now, with the growing trend of shopping online comes “free shipping and free returns.” At this time of year, delivery com-panies such as UPS are inundated with online holiday shopping. Then they must cope with the problems associated with post-holiday online returns.

During the first week of January, consum-ers in the U.S. will return nearly $30 billion in products and merchandise. In fact, UPS has nicknamed January 5 as the dreaded “National Returns Day” because of the number of packages in transit back to retailers. Back goes the bright red sweater with dancing bears on it and the rest of the holiday castaways. According to UPS, shoppers sent back 1.3 million packages on January 5, 2017, and 5.8 million by the end of that week.

It appears that even more holiday pur-chases will be returned this time around. That is because consumers did more of their holiday shopping online in 2017. The surge in e-commerce contributes to this feared gift return craze.

It isn’t uncommon for many online retail-ers to see return rates of 30 percent or more for merchandise bought online, ver-sus roughly 8 percent for items purchased from brick-and-mortar stores. According to various retail association calculations, online clothing returns can be closer to 40 percent. There are many reasons online returns are higher; the most obvious is that it remains difficult to judge a product without seeing it in person.

The idea of an ocean of returned items continuing to pass through the retail system, being unboxed, re-boxed, resold,

un-boxed and sold again – possibly even shipped by mail again and returned again – is overwhelming, but until recently, the environmental impacts have been “out of sight, out of mind.” Optoro, a technology firm with a focus on retail and reverse logistics, recently conducted a study to quantify this system’s environmental im-pact, which was verified by the EPA.

The Optoro study, Sustainable Reverse Logistics: Reducing Waste and Emissions in the Retail Supply Chain, suggests that “free shipping and free returns” are not exactly free. On average, returned mer-chandise is shipped up to five times in order to get through a chain of retailers, wholesalers and resellers.

Optoro estimated the environmental bur-den of handling these returns: 2 million tons (or 4 billion pounds) of retail returns are disposed of in landfills, 1.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel for heavy truck ship-ping, and 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. That is the equivalent of cutting down about 12 million acres of forest, or burn-ing 12.8 billion pounds of coal.

The study concludes that the best way to maximize the value of goods in the reverse supply chain is to route each product to its optimal channel based on its condition, value and costs.

Often, the best solution is reselling individual units to a secondary market consumer through an online marketplace. For example, Optoro and Groupon Goods collaborated to manage returned and excess inventory. Prior to implementing reverse logistics software in its own ware-house, Groupon sent all returned and excess inventory to liquidators. The pilot project with Groupon Goods has resulted in a 60 percent decrease in waste, a 27 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and over 15 percent more goods resold to consumers. This could serve as a model for other retailers.

Notes from the Director Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

D E c E m b E r 2 0 1 7 3

Research Briefs

EPA Helping Municipalities with Green InfrastructureTony M. Guerrieri, Executive DirectorTraditionally, stormwater controls come second to filling potholes or maintain-ing public safety departments for most communities. As a consequence, storm-water systems throughout Pennsylvania are inadequate or in dire need of repair. Stormwater can flow into rivers and is a major source of pollution. Polluted storm-water not only degrades water quality, but can also change the natural flow of a river or stream.

In 1987, amendments to the federal Clean Water Act directed the EPA and state agencies to require communities to address stormwater pollution. Tra-ditional concrete and pipe approaches can be expensive for local communities, but innovative green infrastructure can be a high-quality, low-tech solution to reduce pollution from rain events. Green infrastructure uses natural processes and materials (like green roofs) to slow stormwater so it is absorbed and filtered by the soil. The EPA encourages the use of green infrastructure to manage storm-water and reduce the need for tradition-al “gray” infrastructure.

A report by the U.S. Government Account-ability Office (GAO) examines the use of green infrastructure by municipalities to meet the EPA’s stormwater requirements. The report, EPA Pilot Project to Increase Use of Green Infrastructure Could Benefit from Documenting Collaborative Agree-ments, describes the extent to which select municipalities are incorporating green infrastructure; what challenges municipalities reported facing in incor-porating green infrastructure; and the efforts EPA is taking to help municipalities use green infrastructure.

Thirty-one municipalities with stormwater permits or consent decrees for combined sewer overflows (CSOs) were surveyed, in-cluding Ohio Township, Allegheny County. In recent years, heavy rains have caused flash flooding on the roadways and inter-states within the township. The munici-palities were randomly selected from lists of municipalities that are required to have permits and have consent decrees.

Almost all municipalities surveyed report-ed using green infrastructure to comply with their Clean Water Act permits or CSO consent decrees. However, of 27 munici-palities responding, 15 reported that less than 5 percent of the area subject to their permit or consent decree drained into green infrastructure, with the remaining area draining into gray infrastructure, such as concrete sewers, or directly to waterways. Most of the municipalities re-ported funding green infrastructure with fees and general revenues.

Green infrastructure is popular among municipalities for

stormwater management. Two thirds of

municipalities surveyed used such infrastructure

to comply with the federal Clean Water Act.

Of the municipalities GAO surveyed, 26 reported that green infrastructure was more challenging than gray infrastruc-ture in certain aspects of infrastructure development, such as developing project operation and maintenance cost estimates. Nevertheless, 25 of these municipalities reported instances where they used green infrastructure even though it was more challenging. Some municipalities reported that they were

less familiar with green infrastructure, but used it because it performed bet-ter or provided additional benefits, the community wanted to use it, and the municipality saw an opportunity to learn about new forms of infrastructure.

The EPA provides numerous resources to educate and assist municipalities on the use of green infrastructure. In 2016, the agency launched a pilot project with five municipalities to encourage states, com-munities and municipalities to develop long-term stormwater plans to increase their use of green infrastructure. Key to the success of the pilot project is collab-oration among many stakeholders from across each community, such as members of the local utility, transportation, and recreation departments, along with local organizations. The GAO has previously identified key considerations, such as documenting agreements on how to collaborate. However, the EPA has not yet documented collaborative agreements with pilot stakeholders.

The GAO report concludes that the EPA could help communities implement green infrastructure by providing a plat-form to develop increased awareness of opportunities for the use of collabora-tive processes in the green infrastruc-ture arena. Collaborative processes are needed to help municipalities along with other stakeholders plan and work across disciplines and traditional ‘silos’

4 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

to build effective green stormwater infrastructure solutions.

The 84-page GAO report, Stormwater Management: EPA Pilot Project to In-crease Use of Green Infrastructure Could Benefit from Documenting Collaborative Agreements, is available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687478.pdf.

Report Spurs Debate on Chesapeake Sediment AccountabilityColeen P. Engvall, Research AnalystPollution in the Chesapeake Bay is one of the most persistent environmental problems in Pennsylvania and surround-ing states. Our newsletter often writes on the various strategies being employed to protect this iconic estuary. The Bay’s enor-mous watershed, however, is one reason for the complex nature of the problem. At almost 65,000 square miles, the water-shed stretches from New York to Virginia, spanning a massive portion of the Mid-At-lantic. Within this area are vibrant and productive agricultural regions, industrial operations and several large cities.

So how can Chesapeake Bay stakeholders divide the responsibility for improving water quality, restoring ecosystems and protecting Bay industries? If the past several decades are any indication, there is no easy answer.

In an attempt to identify a novel source of funding for cleanups, the Water Power

Law Group, under the directive of the Nature Conservancy and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, commissioned a study by Energy and Environmental Economics, (E3) Inc. The firm analyzed the profits from the Conowingo Dam Hydroelectric Generating Station and compared these to projected costs of remediating sediment pollution caused by the dam’s existence. The study was not without controversy. Exelon challenged the figures used to reach their conclusions. They also contested the study’s assumption that they held the sole responsibility for funding these projects.

The study, An Economic Analysis of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Generating Station, was released in August.

Before delving into the study’s findings and the subsequent debate, it is import-ant to note the dam’s significance to the Chesapeake Bay. The dam is situated just south of the Pennsylvania-Maryland bor-der and was completed in 1928, creating a reservoir known as Conowingo Pond. By virtue of the dam’s construction, upstream sediment and nutrients that are harmful to the Bay are caught in the reservoir.

However, over the decades, the sediment and silt has accumulated to the point that some water bypasses the dam and flows freely downstream. To complicate things further, excessive water flows and storms have been shown to dislodge existing sediment, washing it into the Bay in concentrated amounts that contribute to algal blooms and hypoxic water areas.

Calls to dredge Conowingo Pond have been made to restore its ability to trap sediment and nutrients. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimat-ed the cost of doing so to be in the billions of dollars with a less than optimal return for the health of the Bay. Alternative options include strengthening regulations on upstream

polluters, which proponents argue would be much more cost-effective.

The E3 study does not explicitly specify which method they prefer, only stating that the purpose of the study is to determine how much Exelon can potentially contribute to “mitigate the incremental impacts of the dam’s continued operation on ecological resources of the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay.” Exelon’s profits are tied to electricity generation which is capped by flow regimes, or how much water is predicted to flow through the dam’s hydroelectric generators.

A study was commissioned on how

Exelon, operators of the Conowingo Dam, could financially contribute to pollution remediation.

Exelon argues they should not be held solely

responsible for the actions of upstream polluters.

The study estimated that total revenues from the station would be from $115 to 121 million. According to their figures, this left a potential $27 to 44 million annually to invest in mitigation projects. As noted prior, this figure would fall short of the cost of the dredging but could be used for Bay or upstream pollution projects, though in a public hearing the Chesapeake Bay Foundation noted that state and federal funding would likely remain intact.

Exelon pointed out that their estimated profits differed from those in the study and that the sediment built up in Conow-ingo pond originated from upstream sources, not from the dam itself. Exelon stated that polluters should “take joint responsibility for the issue, not a single company or entity.” They also noted that they are actively improving the dam’s

D E c E m b E r 2 0 1 7 5

environmental impact, for example, the addition of a multi-million dollar fish passage project.

To read An Economic Analysis of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Generating Station, go to: http://www.cbf.org/doc-ument-library/non-cbf-documents/eco-nomic-analysis-of-the-conowingo-hydro-electric-generating-stations-public.pdf

Significant Increase in Renewables Needed to Meet State StandardsTony M. Guerrieri, Executive DirectorRenewable electricity generation will have to increase by 50 percent by 2030 to meet ambitious state requirements for wind, solar and other sources of renew-able energy, according to a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The report, U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards: 2017 Annual Status Report, provides an overview of key trends associ-ated with U.S. state renewables portfolio standards (RPS) policies. Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., currently have such standards, including Pennsyl-vania’s goal of 8.5 percent by 2020. The re-port describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs.

The Berkeley Lab’s report presents his-torical data through year-end 2016 and projections through 2030. Most state RPS policies have been in place for at least 10 years. Pennsylvania was the first industrial state to enact a RPS in 2004.

Key trends from the report include the evolution of state RPS programs. Signifi-cant RPS related policy revisions since the start of 2016 include seven states – Mary-land, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois and Oregon – as well as Washington, D.C., have increased their RPS requirements for new wind and solar projects since the start of 2016. No states weakened their RPS policies during this time. Some of the most ambitious re-

quirements are in California and New York, which require 50 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030, and Hawaii, which requires 100 percent from renewables by 2045.

RPS policies have driven half of all growth in U.S. renew-able generation and capacity since 2000, to its current level of 10 percent of all electricity sales, the national lab’s report shows. In parts of the country, the man-dates have had an even larger effect – they accounted for between 70 percent and 90 percent of new renewable electricity ca-pacity additions in the West, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions in 2016.

According to analysis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the U.S. will require a 50 percent increase in renewable generation by 2030 to meet state portfolio standards.

Nationally, however, the role of RPS policies in driving renewable energy development is beginning to decrease as corporate contracts from companies that have committed to getting 100 percent of their electricity from renewables, and low-er costs of wind and solar, play an increas-ing role. From 2008 to 2014, RPS policies drove between 60 percent and 70 percent of renewable energy capacity growth in the U.S., according to the report. In 2016, the impact dropped to just 44 percent of added renewable energy capacity.

Meeting RPS demand growth will require roughly a 50 percent increase to U.S. renewable electricity generation by 2030, equating to 55 gigawatts of new renew-able energy capacity. To meet future RPS demand, total U.S. renewable energy generation will need to reach 13 percent

of electricity sales by 2030 (compared to 10 percent today), though other drivers will also continue to influence renewable energy growth.

According to the report, states have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few excep-tions reflecting unique state-specific policy designs.

Prices for renewable energy certificates used to meet general RPS obligations fell in most markets in 2016, as surplus RPS supplies emerged in many regions. Price trends for solar renewable energy certifi-cates were more varied, with a particular-ly pronounced drop in Maryland.

The report shows that RPS compliance costs totaled $3 billion in 2015 (the most recent year for which relatively complete data are available), which equates to 1.6 percent of average retail electricity bills in RPS states. Though total U.S. RPS com-pliance costs rose from 2014, future cost growth in most RPS states will be capped by cost containment mechanisms, accord-ing to the report.

Fostering renewables so that they can compete with conventional resources is one goal of state RPS, and it is being accomplished. The 40-page Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report, U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards: 2017 Annual Status Report, is available for download at: https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2017-annual-rps-sum-mary-report.pdf.

6 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

‘Hyper Accumulators’ Could Bolster Pollution Cleanup EffortsColeen P. Engvall, Research AnalystOver the course of the earth’s history, species have been working their ways into the most inhospitable environments to carve out a niche for themselves and their descendants. From the first sea creatures that learned to live in the intense heat of deep sea vents, to the peregrine falcons thriving amongst skyscrapers, it seems that with enough time, life can make any environment home.

So what about highly contaminated areas, such as superfund sites? Metals, volatile organic compounds, radioactive waste, oil and other toxic materials often render these places barren and lifeless. Projects to remediate contaminated sites can take years or even decades, and are often costly.

One method used in these cleanups is known as phytoremediation. Phytoremediation uses living plants to draw pollutants out of the ground and metabolize or store them in their stems and leaves. Plants that are able to store these harmful materials at concentrations hundreds or even thousands of times greater than average plants are called hyper accumulators. While phytoremediation has limitations, such as being limited to the depth of the plant’s

roots, it is considered a cost-effective, environmentally friendly method.

Researchers from the University of Queensland in Australia noted that there is no comprehensive source for these special plants and what tolerances they have. Many of them adapted to survive in very specific conditions, making them rare and often only found in one location on the planet. For example, pandiaka metallorum, a plant that can survive high levels of copper and cobalt, only exists in a specific region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

For groups seeking to utilize plants to clean up pollution, this presents many problems. Once they’ve identified the metal to be removed, there is no simple way to compare the various options to find the best fit for their project. There is more to take into account than just the material to target. After all, just because a plant in the DR Congo can survive in copper-laden soil, doesn’t mean it can survive Pennsylvania’s winters.

In order to facilitate these needs, as well as for scientific investigation and discovery, the researchers created a global database for all plants that exhibit hyper accumulation. Currently, the database includes 721 different plants from across the globe, though this is just the beginning. The researchers expressed hope that more plants would be added as deficiencies in knowledge are uncovered

by the database.

For example, the researchers discovered that there were large geographic gaps in where hyper accumulators exist. Their comprehensive database will help identify the regions and families of species that are underrepresented. Additionally, there is concern about misidentified plants that were contaminated

during testing, but do not actually exhibit hyper accumulation. With the database narrowed down to just over 700 species, verifying these plants will be simpler.

Another point of concern is the survival of the species themselves. They occur in places that are naturally saturated with metals, which also tend to be where humans build mines and processing facilities. While these plants have managed to grow in soil that is intolerable to others, clearing and other pollutants can threaten their habitats. The researchers hope their database will help understand and preserve these useful species.

A global database is being compiled by the University of Queensland to shed light

on hyper accumulators; plants that can draw

metals out of soil and store them within their stems

and leaves.The researchers also note that the database will assist with more than just phytoremediation. Many of the plants included in their database are poorly understood, such as the group of plants that store copper and cobalt within their stems and leaves.

With a database that allows for quick searches and comparisons, scientists can design better experiments and increase our understanding of these unique species and the ways they can help humans and the environment.

To read the full report, go to: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v579/p1-17/.

D E c E m b E r 2 0 1 7 7

Monday, January 22, 12 p .m .Environmental Issues ForumRoom 8E-A, Capitol East Wing, Capitol Complex, HarrisburgRESCHEDULED FROM NOVEMBER 2017 . The February forum will feature a presentation on pumped storage hydropower, a type of hydroelectric energy storage used for load balancing. Adam Rousselle, president of Bucks County-based Merchant Hydro Developers, will discuss his company’s plans to develop 20 pumped storage facilities across the Commonwealth, many utilizing abandoned mines as water reservoirs. Pumped storage is increasingly viewed as a way to increase grid reliability during times of peak consumption.

On the Horizon A look at upcoming events

• 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.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.

Congratulations, Michael!Michael McKelvey, a JLCC intern from spring of 2016, recently achieved one of the greatest accomplishments in the hiking community – a thru hike of the Appala-chian Trail. Less than 20 percent of those who attempt the world’s longest footpath actually finish, earning the coveted title of “2,000 miler.” Michael began his journey in Maine on June 16 and reached the southern terminus, Springer Mountain, Geor-gia, on December 9. On behalf of the Committee, congratulations and enjoy some well-deserved rest!

Committee Chronicles A review of some memorable Committee events

Michael smiles as he begins to summit Spring Mountain, Georgia, culminating his six-moth adventure. Reflecting on his experience, Michael said, “It was a long walk, but the sights I saw, the people I met and the freedom I felt made it worth every step!”

Even in June, weather conditions on Mt. Katah-din, Maine, can be challenging, to say the least. While most thru hikers opt to trek south to north, Michael decided to start his trip on what is widely considered the most difficult section of the 2,200-mile trail.

8 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

There are several options for treating hydrilla once it is established, although completely eradicating the plant is difficult. Most strategies are aimed at prevention, monitoring and reduction. Systemic herbicides, such as fluridone, are a popular option. These applications are best for large-scale infestations and tend to have minimal effects on the native ecosystem.

Hydrilla, an aquatic invasive species, has received increased

attention from Pennsylvania conservation

agencies. Since the mid-1990s, the plant has

spread to 24 counties.Herbicides are being employed with some success at Harveys Lake, Luzerne County. The borough recently received a grant through DEP’s Growing Green-er program to continue funding their aggressive treatment program, which started earlier this summer. Local officials remain optimistic they can fully eliminate the hydrilla, though experts say it could take up to five years.

Other non-chemical treatments are available to combat hydrilla. Some communities have found success with winter draw-downs, which can help destroy the plant’s tubers. Mechanical harvesters are also used on occasion, but the resulting plant fragments can spread vegetation faster if not closely

monitored. Biocontrols are popular as well, often in conjunction with herbi-cides. Herbivores, such as grass carp, fall into this category. The carp, though a nonnative species themselves, have a notorious appetite for aquatic plants, particularly hydrilla.

The PFBC, Sea Grant Pennsylvania and the Invasive Species Council have advo-cated for expanding the use of voluntary boat launch inspection programs. A pilot program was conducted this season at Pymatuming State Park in Crawford Coun-ty, where they are coping with hydrilla and other invasives. Aquatic invasives were found on 10 percent of all boats inspected and participants were offered materials on proper boat and trailer cleaning procedures. The program was largely considered a success and similar programs may be used in other locations.

Hydrilla was listed as federal noxious weed in 1979, and it remains illegal to sell, plant or transport the species. Earlier this year, updates to the Pennsylvania Controlled Plant and Noxious Weed Act included hydrilla as a “Class A” noxious weed, which receive the most attention since they are geographically limited and targeted for eradication. This could eventually help direct more funding toward combating this unwelcome pest.

For more information on hydrilla and other aquatic invasives, check out Sea Grant Pennsylvania’s website at https://seagrant.psu.edu.

Joint Legislative Conservation

Committee

Contact Information

Phone : 717.787.7570

Website : jcc .legis .state .pa .us

Location:Room 408

Finance BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120

Mailing Address:Joint Legislative

Conservation CommitteePA House of Representatives

P.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

The Chairman’s Cornercontinued from page 1