DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 8 – Trail Concerns

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 8 – Trail Concerns Northampton Township CHAPTER 8 – TRAIL CONCERNS The development of trails often raises concerns and fears by adjacent landowners about the impact of the proposed trails in their neighborhoods. These concerns typically focus on three primary areas including: 1. Potential for increased crime; 2. Liability concerns; and 3. Property values. SAFETY AND CRIME Recognizing the concerns that some residents of the township have relative to the potential for increased crime in their neighborhoods stemming from the development of trails and bicycle facilities, Northampton Township officials requested that this plan specifically address this issue. To address this issue, this plan addresses safety and crime concerns in three separate ways: Analysis of the relationship between trails and crime in the Philadelphia region; A review of previous studies from across the country addressing the relationship between trails and property values; and Recommended safety measures the township should consider in the design, development and ongoing operation of their trails and bicycle facilities network. Analysis of the relationship between trails and crime in the Philadelphia region To determine the extent of crime in areas adjacent to existing trails within the Philadelphia area, and how crime in that area compares to the surrounding area, two approaches were used. 1. Where detailed crime statistics were available by street, we analyzed crime rates for residential streets abutting existing trails, and compared that to crime reports in other residential areas of the geographic area, most often the township, where the trail is located. This analysis was able to be completed for the following trails and geographic areas. Radnor Trail – Radnor Township, Delaware County Pennsy Trail – Haverford Township, Delaware County For these trails, crimes in non-residential areas such as commercial districts, schools, colleges, apartment complexes, and office parks were removed so as not provide an equal comparison of residential areas abutting trails, versus other residential areas. This also closely replicates the residential areas in Northampton Township where trails are being proposed. 2. For some trails, this level of detailed crime reporting was not available. In those cases, we contacted local law enforcement officials to understand the extent of criminal activity in areas with trails. This was the case for the Pennypack Trail located in Lower Moreland Township and Lorimer Park in Abington Township. It should be noted that any criminal activity that is reported in residential neighborhoods abutting trails cannot automatically be attributed to the presence of the trail, just as the presence of a sidewalk in areas without trails can be linked to crime. Trail Concerns | 213 Master Trail and Bicycle Plan Key Learnings: Pennypack Trail – Lorimer Park/Abington Township, Montgomery County According to Scott Morgan, Region III Manager, Montgomery County Parks, Trails & Historic Sites, crime along the Pennypack Trail is almost non-existent. More specifically, he indicated that the most common complaint he receives is relative to dogs being off leashes within the park. Although he was aware of other incidents along the trail such as a suicide in the woods off the trail, a drug overdose, a snowmobile, and a few cars getting broken into in the trailhead parking lots, he was not aware of any homes being burglarized, any assaults, or any homeless issues. He also indicated that there was more trouble associated with the vacant rail line prior to the establishment of the trail in the form of beer parties, drug use, graffiti and vandalism. Pennypack Trail – Lower Moreland Township, Montgomery County Rich Worthington, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Lower Moreland Township indicated that from February 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, the Lower Moreland Police Department responded to 21, 476 calls. Among these calls, only 59 / 0.27 percent occurred with ¼ mile of the Pennypack Trail. Radnor Trail – Radnor Township, Delaware County (October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2019) Based on an analysis of arrests and crimes over a four year period, the frequency of crime and arrests in areas abutting the Radnor Trail is no greater than the percent of residential units in that area. In other words, residential units abutting the Radnor Trail account for 5.0 percent of housing units in the township while accounting for only 4.4 percent of arrests and 2.6 percent of crime incidents. FIGURE 23 – RADNOR TRAIL VERSUS RADNOR TOWNSHIP INCIDENTS (OCTOBER 1, 2015-SEPTEMBER 2019) The ratio of arrests and crimes to the number of housing units is lower in areas adjacent to the Radnor Trail as compared to the remainder of the township. In other words, the 46 crime incidents that occurred in the area adjacent to the Radnor Trail represents 11.4 percent of the 403 housing units adjacent to the Radnor Trail which is lower than the 13.2 percent represented by the 1,012 crime incidents as a percentage of the 7,666 housing units in the remainder of the township. 214 | Trail Concerns Northampton Township FIGURE 24 – RADNOR TOWNSHIP PERCENTAGES OF HOUSING UNITS EXPERIENCING A CRIME VERSUS AN ARREST Pennsy Trail – Haverford Township, Delaware County (December 1, 2018 – October 31, 2019) Based on an analysis of arrests and crimes over an eleven month period, it would appear that the rates of arrest and crime are slightly higher in areas adjacent to the Pennsy Trail versus the remainder of the township. However, two things should be noted relative to this: The number of arrests and crime incidents in areas that are adjacent to the trail, are very low with limited sample sizes. Less than one crime or arrest per month occurred during the time period for which detailed data was available. Of the 7 criminal incidents that occurred, 6 of these were for fraud, forgery or identity theft. FIGURE 25 – PENNSY TRAIL – HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP, PERCENTAGES OF HOUSING UNITS EXPERIENCING A CRIME VERSUS AN ARREST Trail Concerns | 215 Master Trail and Bicycle Plan Review of Previous Studies addressing the relationship between trails and crime Although trails are not immune from crime, numerous studies indicate that trails themselves do not result in an increase in crime and that often crime rates are lower on trails than in other environments. Although several of these studies may be perceived as outdated, there has been a lack of ongoing research into this topic given the conclusions of these prior studies that crime is no more prevalent on trails than in the surrounding communities. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) – Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004-2008) https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44 From 2004 – 2008, the latest years for which statistics were available, only 2.4 percent of violent crimes, and less than 1.0 percent of property crimes occurred on parks, fields and playgrounds. Please note that trails are not broken out separately. In comparison, 4.8 percent of violent crimes and 5.9 percent of property crimes occur on the street immediately adjacent to the home. Crimes away from home accounted for 67.4 percent of violent crimes and 37.7 percent of property crimes. FIGURE 26 – NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION STATISTICS Preliminary Assessment of Crime Risk along Greenways in Charlotte, North Carolina (1994-2004) http://www.buncombecounty.org/common/parks/MasterPlan/7-Safety.pdf “Two studies of crime statistics in Mecklenburg County show greenways have lower crime rates than the surrounding community. They found that most green-ways provide a safer alternative than roads and attract local residents using the trails frequently. The first study was done in 1997 along the Mallard Creek Greenway comparing the incidence of crime with the surrounding police district and the city as a whole. The incidence of crime along the Mallard Creek Greenway and adjacent properties was nearly half that of the surrounding police district and only 12.7 percent of the countywide crime rate. Later, an extended study explored recent crime rates along all 14 green-ways within Mecklenburg County between 2001 and 2003. The data suggest that greenway-adjacent properties do not incur greater risk of crime than other properties within the same neighborhood statistical area.” 216 | Trail Concerns Northampton Township Pinellas Trail Community Impact Study (2001) Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization http://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org/pdf/Pinellas_exec.pdf “Crime data from the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and the St. Petersburg Police Department for 1993, 1995 and 1999 indicate that crime rates along the trail are no different than elsewhere in the county or city. In 1993 and 1995, crime rates along the trail were lower than county-wide rates, and in 1999 the rates were still lower, but closer to the countywide average.” Omaha Recreational Trails: Their Effect on Property Values and Public Safety (2000) Donald L. Greer, Ph.D., Project Director, University of Nebraska at Omaha Recreation and Leisure Studies Program - School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/omahastudy.pdf “Experiences with trail-related theft (4.0 percent) and property damage (4.7 percent) were reported infrequently by respondent and most of these incidents were of relatively minor nature.” “Property owners do not appear to have a widespread concern for their safety. Trespassing, theft and vandalism by trail users were relatively infrequent events.” Rail-Trails and Safe Communities – The Experience
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NOTICES Obtain a Permit from the Department Prior to Cultivating, DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE Propagating, Growing Or Processing Hemp
    1831 NOTICES obtain a permit from the Department prior to cultivating, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE propagating, growing or processing hemp. General Permit Standards and Requirements for K. Hemp has been designated a controlled plant in Hemp Pennsylvania and its propagation, cultivation, testing, transportation, warehousing and storage, processing, dis- Recitals. tribution and sale is of a statewide concern. This Notice amends and replaces the previous Notice L. This General Permit establishes rules and require- ‘‘General Permit Standards and Requirements for Hemp’’ ments for the distribution and sale of hemp planting published in the December 5, 2020 Pennsylvania Bulletin materials, and for the propagation, cultivation, testing, (50 Pa.B. 6906, Saturday, December 5, 2020). transportation, warehousing, storage, and processing of hemp as authorized by the Act. A. The Act relating to Controlled Plants and Noxious Weeds (‘‘Act’’) (3 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501 et seq.) authorizes the M. This General Permit does not and may not abrogate Department of Agriculture (Department) through the the provisions of the act related to industrial hemp Controlled Plant and Noxious Weed Committee (Commit- research, at 3 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 701—710, including, permit- tee) to establish a controlled plant list and to add plants ted growers must still submit fingerprints to the Pennsyl- to or remove plants from the controlled plant list vania State Police for the purpose of obtaining criminal (3 Pa.C.S.A. § 1511(b)(3)(ii)(iii)). history record checks. The Pennsylvania State Police or its authorized agent shall submit the fingerprints to the B. The Act provides for publication of the noxious weed Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of verify- and the controlled plant list and additions or removals or ing the identity of the applicant and obtaining a current changes thereto to be published as a notice in the record of any criminal arrests and convictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019
    Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019 Prepared by: Cultural Resources Unit, Environmental Policy and Development Section, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Date: April 07, 2020 For the: Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Penn Street Bridge after rehabilitation, Reading, Pennsylvania Table of Contents A. Staffing Changes ................................................................................................... 7 B. Consultant Support ................................................................................................ 7 Appendix A: Exempted Projects List Appendix B: 106 Project Findings List Section 106 PA Annual Report for 2018 i Introduction The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has been delegated certain responsibilities for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) on federally funded highway projects. This delegation authority comes from a signed Programmatic Agreement [signed in 2010 and amended in 2017] between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and PennDOT. Stipulation X.D of the amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) requires PennDOT to prepare an annual report on activities carried out under the PA and provide it to
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Significant Views Along the Circuit
    PROTECTING SIGNIFICA NT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT: A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR VIEWSHEDS ALONG THE CIRCUIT THE TRAILS RADNOR TRAIL March 2019 PREPARED BY: APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB Catherine Poppenwimer Patricia McCloskey, AICP Dave Publicover PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Circuit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Protecting Views Along The Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 4 Radnor Trail .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Area Landscape ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Results for the Radnor Trail .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Radnor
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste D Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type D Award Allocatio Funding Types
    Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Alverthorpe Manor BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Cultural Park (6422) 11-3 11 Development $223,000 $136,900 Key - Community Abington Township TAP Trail- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township (1101296) 22-171 22 Trails $90,000 $90,000 Key - Community Ardsley Wildlife Sanctuary- BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Development 22-37 22 Development $40,000 $40,000 Key - Community Briar Bush Nature Center Master Site Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1007785) 20-12 20 Planning $42,000 $37,000 Key - Community Pool Feasibility Studies BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1100063) 21-127 21 Planning $15,000 $15,000 Key - Community Rubicam Avenue Park KEY-PRD-1- Region 1 Abington Township (1) 1 01 Development $25,750 $25,700 Key - Community Demonstration Trail - KEY-PRD-4- Region 1 Abington Township Phase I (1659) 4 04 Development $114,330 $114,000 Key - Community KEY-SC-3- Region 1 Aldan Borough Borough Park (5) 6 03 Development $20,000 $2,000 Key - Community Ambler Pocket Park- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Ambler Borough (1102237) 23-176 23 Development $102,340 $102,000 Key - Community Comp. Rec. & Park Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Ambler Borough (4438) 8-16 08 Planning $10,400 $10,000 Key - Community American Littoral Upper & Middle Soc/Delaware Neshaminy Watershed BRC-RCP- Region 1 Riverkeeper Network Plan (3337) 6-9 06 Planning $62,500 $62,500 Key - Rivers Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Valley View Park - Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Aston Township (1100582) 21-114 21 Development $184,000 $164,000 Key - Community Comp.
    [Show full text]
  • Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA)
    Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA) Proposal for the Adirondack Rail Trail Photo: Lake Colby Causeway, Lee Keet, 2013 Submitted by the Board of Directors of ARTA Tupper Lake: Hope Frenette, Chris Keniston; Maureen Peroza Saranac Lake: Dick Beamish, Lee Keet, Joe Mercurio; Lake Clear: David Banks; Keene: Tony Goodwin; Lake Placid: Jim McCulley; Beaver River: Scott Thompson New York State Snowmobile Association: Jim Rolf WWW.TheARTA.org Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates P.O. Box 1081 Saranac Lake, N.Y. 12983 Page 2 This presentation has been prepared by Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA), a not-for- profit 501(c)(3) corporation formed in 2011 and dedicated to creating a recreational trail on the largely abandoned and woefully underutilized rail corridor . © 2013, Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates, Inc. Page 3 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Original UMP Criteria Favor the Rail Trail .................................................................................................. 7 Changing the Status of the Corridor ........................................................................................................... 10 Classification as a Travel Corridor ......................................................................................................... 10 Historic Status ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Trail Master Plan 2020 Update
    2020 UPDATE PHILADELPHIA TRAIL PLAN Image Source: Philadelphia Inquirer Cobbs Creek Connector A 1 THE YEAR IN TRAILS 2 PRIORITY STATUS UPDATE 3 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT 4 NEXT STEPS Schuylkill River Swing Bridge Construction | SRDC 2 THE YEAR IN TRAILS 2020 TRAIL PLAN UPDATE PURPOSE The Philadelphia Trail Master Plan is a recommendation Due to limited funding for trail and park projects, the City of Philadelphia2035, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This recognized the need for prioritizing proposed trail projects recommendation is listed in the Renew section under Goal to serve Philadelphians citywide and to best use available 6.1 Watershed Parks and Trails: Complete, expand, and planning, design, and construction funding. connect watershed parks and trails in the City and the region. The Trail Master Plan process began in the spring The Trail Master Plan outlines four overarching goals of 2011 as a joint effort of the Philadelphia City Planning of the Philadelphia trail network: connectivity, safety, Commission (PCPC) and Philadelphia Parks & Recreation encouragement of physical activity, and open space. The (PPR), in collaboration with the Office of Transportation, purpose of the City trail planning process is to ensure that Infrastructure, and Sustainability (OTIS). proposed trail development projects in Philadelphia meet these goals. As the status of the trail network is constantly The 2020 Philadelphia Trail Plan Update builds on the changing, the annual update offers the opportunity to Philadelphia Trail Master Plan adopted by the PCPC in document and reevaluate these priorities from year to year 2013 and its subsequent annual updates in 2014, 2015, 2017, in order to provide Philadelphians with a connected and 2018 and 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Four
    CHAPTER FOUR EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INVENTORY WITH NEEDS ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS This Chapter of the WATS Long Range Transportation Plan provides a description of the existing multi-modal transportation system in Lycoming County encompassing highways and bridges, public transportation, airports, railroads and bike / pedestrian facilities. There are no waterway or inland ports located in the County. An inventory of current transportation assets by transportation mode will be provided, including a current physical condition and operational performance needs assessment. This data driven inventory and assessment is important to properly address transportation asset management needs and to improve operational performance of the overall system in terms of public safety, security, efficiency and cost effective movement of people and goods. HIGHWAY SYSTEM Highway Designations / Classification System According to the PennDOT Bureau of Planning and Research, there are 1,995.18 linear miles of publicly owned roadways throughout Lycoming County. PennDOT owns 716.59 linear miles, (35%) of public roadways in Lycoming County. In addition, there are 1,258.86 miles, (63%) of locally-owned roadways owned by 52 different local municipalities included on the PennDOT Liquid Fuels System. Other agencies own the remainder of roads in the County. Lycoming County government only owns two roads which are County Farm Road at the Lysock View county complex housing the Department of Public Safety (911 center), Pre- Release and county farm and an entrance road to the White Deer Recreation Complex. There are federal designations and classifications established for highway systems in the nation as noted in the following sections. Road Functional Classification System The Federal Highway Administration, PennDOT and Metropolitan & Rural Planning Organizations cooperatively establish and update maps that delineate various road classifications which group roadways into a hierarchy based on the type of highway service provided.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visual Assessment of Land Conservation Priorities for Viewsheds Along the Circuit Trails
    Protecting Significant Views Along The Circuit: A Visual Assessment of Land Conservation Priorities for Viewsheds Along The Circuit Trails Appalachian Mountain Club Presenters: Cathy Poppenwimer Mark Zakutansky Patricia McCloskey, AICP Photos: Montco Planning Commission Circuit Trails Visual Assessment Project Project Purpose ❑ Analyze Circuit Trails in suburban and rural areas to identify potential conservation land in a trail’s viewshed ❑ Viewshed: the area visible from a specific location along a trail ❑ Using GIS, develop a visual assessment and rank priority conservation areas ❑ Results can be used to conserve land with high scenic values to nearby trails ❑ Protect a quality trail experience and conserve important natural resources Photo: Montco Planning Commission The Circuit Circuit Trails Selected for the Study Trail ID Trail ID Trail ID No. PA Trails No. PA Trails No. NJ Trails 1 Baxter Trail 13 Pennypack Trail 25 Gloucester Township Trail 2 Big Woods Trail 14 Perkiomen Trail 26 Johnson Trolley Line Trail 3 Brandywine Trail 15 Power Line Trail 27 Kinkora Trail 4 Chester Creek Trail 16 Radnor Trail 28 Lawrence Hopewell Trail 5 Chester Valley Trail 17 Route 202 Parkway Trail 29 Monroe Township Bike Path 6 Cross County Trail 18 Schuykill River Trail 30 Pemberton Rail Trail 7 Cynwyd Heritage Trail 19 Skippack Trail 8 D&L Trail 20 Solebury Route 202 Trail 9 Darby Creek Trail 21 Struble Trail 10 East Branch Perkiomen Trail 22 Uwchlan Trail 11 Neshaminy Creek Trail 23 Wissahickon Trail 12 Pennsy Trail 24 Delaware & Raritan Canal Trail Study Methodology: A Visual Assessment of Individual Circuit Trails Viewshed Analysis ❑ Viewshed ❑ An area visible from a specific location ❑ Excludes areas beyond the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., buildings, trees).
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study 2017
    TOWN OF DEDHAM HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 2017 PLANNING DEPARTMENT + ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We gratefully recognize the Town of Dedham’s dedicated Planning and Environmental Department’s staff, including Richard McCarthy, Town Planner and Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator, each of whom helped to guide this feasibility study effort. Their commitment to the town and its open space system will yield positive benefits to all as they seek to evaluate projects like this potential rail trail. Special thanks to the many representatives of the Town of Dedham for their commitment to evaluate the feasibility of the Heritage Rail Trail. We also thank the many community members who came out for the public and private forums to express their concerns in person. The recommendations contained in the Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study represent our best professional judgment and expertise tempered by the unique perspectives of each of the participants to the process. Cheri Ruane, RLA Vice President Weston & Sampson June 2017 Special thanks to: Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator Richard McCarthy, Town Planner Residents of Dedham Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Background 2. Community Outreach and Public Process 3. Base Mapping and Existing Conditions 4. Rail Corridor Segments 5. Key Considerations 6. Preliminary Trail Alignment 7. Opinion of Probable Cost 8. Phasing and Implementation 9. Conclusion Page | 2 Introduction and Background Weston & Sampson was selected through a proposal process by the Town of Dedham to complete a Feasibility Study for a proposed Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Greenway & Trail Authority Case Study, August 2014
    Susquehanna Greenway & Trail Authority Case Study August 2014 Susquehanna Greenway Partnership Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Trail Organization Types ............................................................................................................................... 3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Trail Ownership Structures .................................................................. 21 Trail Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Potential Cost‐Sharing Options ................................................................................................................... 25 Potential Sources and Uses ......................................................................................................................... 27 Economic Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Two‐County, Three‐County, and Five‐County Draft Budget Scenarios ...................................................... 38 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Attachment 1 .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2746 [email protected]
    PENNSYLVANIA BIRDS Seasonal Editors Journal of the Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology Daniel Brauning Michael Fialkovich Volume 27 Number 4 August - November 2013 Greg Grove Geoff Malosh Geoff Malosh, Editor-in-chief 450 Amherst Avenue Department Editors Moon Township, PA 15108-2654 Book Reviews (412) 735-3128 [email protected] Gene Wilhelm, Ph.D. 513 Kelly Blvd. http://www.pabirds.org Slippery Rock, PA 16057-1145 (724) 794-2434 [email protected] CBC Report Nick Bolgiano 711 W. Foster Ave. State College, PA 16801 Contents (814) 234-2746 [email protected] 185 Editorial Hawk Watch Reports Laurie Goodrich 186 Red-shouldered Hawks in Pennsylvania's Christmas Bird Count and Winter Raptor Keith Bildstein 410 Summer Valley Rd. .. Survey Greg Grove and Nick Bolgiano Orwigsburg, PA 17961 190 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher at Bartram's Garden, Philadelphia County (570) 943-3411 [email protected] .. David Allen [email protected] 191 Autumn Raptor Migration Summary 2013. Laurie Goodrich PAMC 197 Book Reviews.. Gene Wilhelm Franklin Haas 2469 Hammertown Road The Warbler Guide Narvon, PA 17555 [email protected] Birds of Hawaii, New Zealand, and the Central and West Pacific Birds of North America and Greenland John Fedak 26 Race Street 199 Pennsylvania Bird Lists Report – 2013. Peter Robinson Bradford, PA 16701 [email protected] 210 Summary of the Season.. Geoff Malosh Pennsylvania Birdlists 214 Birds of Note – August to November 2013 Peter Robinson 217 Photographic Highlights P. O. Box 482 Hanover, PA 17331 221 Local Notes [email protected] Data Technician In Focus … Inside Back Cover Wendy Jo Shemansky 41 Walkertown Hill Rd. 209 Suggestions to Contributors Daisytown, PA 15427 [email protected] Publication Manager Franklin Haas 2469 Hammertown Rd.
    [Show full text]