FEBRUARY 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

While the iconic bald eagle is often heralded as one of our state’s great-est 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 os-prey 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 us-ing 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 Commis-sion 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 caus-ing 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 resi-dence. 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 IssueThe 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

February 2017Volume 18, Number 2

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

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 business-es. Mounds of snow, several feet high in some places, pile up at curbs, bus stops and street corners. Holland, Michigan, is certain-ly 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 under-ground snow melting system. Blankets of freshly laid snow immediately meet heat-ed 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 Washing-ton, D.C., but people looking for ice-free roads would do better in Holland, whose website boasts the “largest municipal-

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.

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.

The city of Holland, Michigan, has a unique

approach to clearing ice and snow in their downtown business

district – heated streets and sidewalks.

Downtown Holland is listed on the Nation-al 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 gen-eration 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 park-ing spaces between huge mounds of shoveled snow that often make parking meters inaccessible. Additionally, the city

saves money otherwise spent on plowing, shoveling and salting.

Holland’s snowmelt system was installed in 1988, during a streetscape revitalization program that tore up most of the down-town 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 assess-ment fee to help cover costs.

Heated sidewalks and streets offer impres-sive taxpayer savings in many ways. For ex-ample, 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.

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 win-ter. 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 adopt-ing 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 business-es across the country are also installing heating below sidewalks leading up to their entrances. For example, here in Penn-sylvania, 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.

Notes from the Director Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

F E b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 3

Research BriefsEach 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. GuerrieriExecutive 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 Of-fice (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 Main-tenance 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 deter-mine maintenance priorities, and the need for the Park Service to evaluate its mainte-nance strategy.

The report indicates that from 2006-2015, the Park Service allocated, on average,

$1.16 billion annually to maintain its phys-ical assets. In 2015, allocations to mainte-nance 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 mainte-nance, such as the upkeep of hiking trails.

The report lists the top 100 Park Service units in order of their outstanding mainte-nance backlog. For example, at the top of the list was $840.3 million at the Nation-al 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 Nation-al 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 con-dition 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 out-comes or if changes need to be made.

The U.S. Government Accountability Of-fice’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 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

Emerging Chemical Hazards Increase Cost of Military Base RemediationColeen P. EngvallResearch Analyst

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)operates and manages hundreds of do-mestic 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 remedi-ation before the land can be sold or leased to a private owner.

To be considered fit for civilian occupation, unexploded ordnance, munitions, chem-icals, fuels and other harmful substanc-es 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 environ-mental 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 gen-erally occurred at active facilities. These instances highlight the fact that new contaminants and their impact on human

health are still being discovered. They are known as emerging contaminants, sub-stances 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 con-taminants 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 concen-tration of 70 parts per trillion, but cannot le-gally enforce their removal or remediation. However, the DOD has acknowledged the need to address these hazardous substanc-es. 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 recom-

mends be reported to Congress.

The report notes that one such instal-lation’s levels of PFOS and PFOA has prevented the property from being trans-ferred. 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 remedi-ation expenses be noted in BRAC’s con-gressional report. They also note that many cleanup challenges are widespread, and in-stallation 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.

F E b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 5

Joint Commission Re-port: Great Lakes Wa-ter Quality LackingTony M. GuerrieriExecutive 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 gener-ally 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 volun-tary 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 suffi-cient,” the report concludes.

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 treat-ment proved effective in the 1970s, the problem has become critical in the western Lake Erie basin despite non-mandatory abatement efforts, ac-cording 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 con-sumers follow guidelines in provincial and

state advisories. At the same time, it notes that contaminants in fish remain problem-atic 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 con-sumption, drinking water and swimming. “Gaps in the measurement and reporting of key indicators for assessing progress to-ward human-health objectives and a lack of reporting specific to programs in sup-port 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 coun-tries generally accept the report’s find-ings, 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 cit-ies on both sides of the border, including Toledo, Ohio and Buffalo, New York. The In-ternational 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 E n v i r o n m E n t a l S y n o p S i S

Urban Development Driving Evolution in WildlifeColeen P. EngvallResearch Analyst

Most of the species that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands evolved over thousands of years to suit their habi-tat. Evolution is generally a very slow pro-cess with virtually imperceivable changes from one generation to the next. However, this is not always the case. Certain in-stances 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 condi-tions 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, per-haps over a few generations, rather than hundreds or thousands of years. Pheno-typic 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 relation-ship, researchers led by the University of Washington investigated research con-ducted on over a thousand of these phe-notypic changes from all over the world.

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 re-searchers 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-ur-ban settings with humans present.

Disruptions manifest in five main cat-egories: 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 ur-ban 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 weak-ened state and become established.

Also related to fragmen-tation is the concept of heterogeneity. Habitats and their corresponding communities lose diver-

sity as they are kept separate. This mecha-nism, 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 contami-nants. 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 com-mon 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 urbaniza-tion 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 ex-pansion, transportation and other costly activities. In order to maximize these benefits to both human and non-human urban inhabitants, a further understand-ing 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.

F E b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 7

194 Years AgoSpencer 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.

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. 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

Monday, March 20, 12 p .m .Environmental Issues ForumRoom 8E-A, Capitol East Wing, Capitol Complex, HarrisburgJoining us for the March forum will be representatives from ARIPPA, the state association of coal refuse energy producers. Using circu-lating fluidized bed boiler technology, coal refuse facilities are able to generate up to 10 percent of the state’s total electricity gener-ation 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.

46 Years AgoIn February of 1971, the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution was passed unanimous-ly 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 t a l S y n o p S i S

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 for-mer 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 com-plications 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 So-ciety, 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 Foun-dation, the charitable arm of the national energy company, donated $3,000 to Audu-bon Pennsylvania Northwest to construct up to 30 new osprey boxes. Under the agreement, Audubon and local conserva-tion 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 Jan-uary 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 Soci-ety 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.

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 Represenatives

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

The Chairman’s Cornercontinued from page 1