published monthly environmental...

A Legislative Service Agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

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

(continued on page 8)

September 2014Vol. 15, No. 9

Published Monthly

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

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

Cash for Clunkers Program: Pass or Fail?

Impact of Climate Change on Invasive Species

The Cost of California’s Litter Problem

Mercury Found in Fish from National Parks

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS

Labor Day weekend in Pennsylvania brings to mind many activities traditionally associated with the end of summer and warm weather: picnics, cook-

outs, maybe even some last-minute fishing or hiking. But if you are like me, Labor Day weekend also serves as a re-minder that fall and colder temperatures are just around the corner.

Most of you probably don’t need much of a reminder about last year’s winter. The weather was so severe at times, we even started to add words to our everyday vocab-

ulary, like “polar vortex,” to adequately describe its chilling effects. Across the country, heavy snow and bitterly cold tem-peratures had a serious impact on people’s health, property and surprisingly, even their employment status.

According to a report from Verisk Analytics, last winter’s severe conditions in Janu-ary and February caused more than $1.5 billion in insurance losses, with over 175,000 claims paid out to insurance policy holders. Common damages included roof collapses, auto accidents, downed power lines, frozen pipes and more. That figure, when adjusted for

other storms that occurred during the winter season, was enough to put the winter of 2013-14 in the top five costliest winters of the last 30 years.

For the sake of comparison, you may remember the Great Blizzard of 1993, often referred to as the “Storm of the Century.” The storm affected a total of 24 states and caused $3.2 billion in inflation-adjusted damages, including 270 fatalities. The winter of 1993-94 tops the list as the costliest winter storm of the modern era.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / SEPTEMBER 2014 / P. 2

NOTES FROM THE DIRECTORTONY M. GUERRIERI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

A childhood ritual of summer is chasing butterflies across the yard – including the iconic orange-and-black monarch butterfly. The monarch only has

a four-inch wingspan yet migrates thousands of miles every September through the United States (including Pennsylvania) to overwintering grounds in Mexico. But can you remember the last time you actually saw a monarch butterfly?

According to experts, they simply have vanished. As mon-arch butterfly populations dwindle to unprecedented levels, a coalition of advocacy groups say the colorful and far-ranging insects need the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) to survive. In a joint petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, the Xerces Society and Dr. Lincoln Brower, one of the world’s top experts on monarchs, believe that the widespread use of pesticides and genetically-modified crops are the biggest threats to the monarch butterflies.

The petition highlights how the butterflies have declined by more than 90 percent in less than 20 years. By some estimates, they may have lost more than 165 million acres of habitat – an area roughly the size of Texas – including nearly a third of their summer breeding grounds.

__________________________________________________The monarch butterfly population has declined from a recorded high of approximately 1 billion butterflies in the mid-1990s, to only 35 million butterflies last winter, the lowest number ever

recorded __________________________________________________

Despite several voluntary conservation efforts, the popula-tion decline shows no signs of slowing down. The butterfly’s dramatic decline is driven by the widespread planting of genet-ically-engineered crops in the Midwest, where most monarchs are born. The vast majority of genetically-engineered crops are resistant to specific herbicides, especially potent killers of various strains of the common milkweed plant, the monarch caterpillar’s only food. The dramatic surge in this herbicide’s use has virtually wiped out the milkweed plant in Midwestern corn and soybean fields.

Monarch butterflies are known for their spectacular multigenerational migration each year from Mexico to Canada and back, totaling over 2,500 miles. Butterflies are born every spring and summer in habitats as far south as Texas. Every few weeks, millions of adults flutter north, lay their eggs on milkweed plants and die. The yellow, black and white caterpil-lars feast on the plants, sprout wings, and continue the north-ern migration to southern Canada. In late summer, monarchs

reverse course and fly down to central Mexico, where they form tight clusters on just a few acres of fir trees. Monarchs are the only butterfly species known to make annual north-south migrations like many bird species do.

According to one estimate, back in the winter of 2003, the monarchs occupied 27.5 acres of trees. This past winter the monarchs occupied just 1.65 acres.

Not all monarchs go to Mexico. There is a smaller popula-tion of the butterflies west of the Rocky Mountains that spend the winter along the California coast. Those butterflies are also in decline, with just 200,000 observed last winter.

The Xerces Society is working with conservation groups and farmers to reproduce and distribute milkweed seeds in an attempt to restore monarch habitats. So far, Project Milkweed has produced 35 million seeds native to different agricultural regions. There are 12 species of milkweed that grow in Penn-sylvania.

The monarch population has declined from a recorded high of approximately 1 billion butterflies in the mid-1990s to only 35 million butterflies last winter, the lowest number ever recorded. Monarch enthusiasts have predicted that the butterfly’s entire winter range in Mexico and large parts of its summer range in the U.S. could become unsuitable due to changing temperatures and increased risk of drought, heat waves and severe storms.

Monarchs need a very large population size to be resilient to threats from severe weather and predation. Nearly half of the overwintering population in Mexico can be eaten by birds and mammal predators in any single winter and a single winter storm in 2002 killed an estimated 500 million monarchs – 14 times the size of the current population.

Monarchs are found in almost every U.S. state, and it is the state insect of Illinois and Texas. It is also the state butter-fly of Minnesota and West Virginia. American astronauts even reared monarchs on the International Space Station in 2009 as part of an educational experiment.

Federal biologists will review the coalition’s petition. If they decide the species could be warranted for listing on the ESA, more studies and reviews would be conducted before a final listing decision is made. Several insects, including 30 other species of butterflies, already are on the list.

The filing seeks to list monarchs as “threatened” under the ESA and designate “critical” areas across the country to guarantee the monarchs a place to breed and feed. The Fish and Wildlife Service must now issue a 90-day finding on whether the petition warrants further review. It probably would take several years to fully complete the process, should the agency determine it is necessary.


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

Committee’s mission. Very often, these briefs include references to reports

and further research on the topics so that readers may pursue issues on their own.

Please Note: The information and opinions expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the

Pennsylvania General Assembly.

RESEARCH BRIEFS

Downsides of Cashfor Clunkers Program- Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

The primary motivation for the 2009 federal Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), or “cash for clunkers” program, was to both stimulate the

economy by driving up auto purchases, and to improve the efficiency of cars on the road. On the surface, the program was a success, spurring motorists to rush to their local dealers to take advantage of the generous credits, which ranged from $3,500 to $4,500 per ve-hicle.

Between July 1 and August 24, 2009, new car sales, which had plunged during the recession, sud-denly rebounded to the delight of dealers and carmak-ers. In fact, demand was so great that the program ran out of money far ahead of schedule, prompting Con-gress to provide additional funds. Even with the ad-ditional funds, the program still ran out of cash earlier than expected.

Nearly 700,000 older cars and trucks were traded-in and destroyed, resulting in $2.85 billion in total rebates. The new vehicles purchased under the program aver-aged 24.9 miles per gallon, compared to the 15.8 miles per gallon averaged by the associated trade-in vehicles.

Despite these seemingly impressive results, how-ever, a report by the Brookings Institute found the billion dollar federal program did not really accomplish much, and much of what it did accomplish was not as beneficial as originally thought. The report, Cash for Clunkers: An Evaluation of the Car Allowance Rebate System, provides an overview of the various aspects of the program, from the number of vehicles traded-in, to the impact on the Gross Domestic Product, cost per job, environmental considerations, and types of con-sumers who took advantage of the program.

To start, 84 percent of the vehicles traded in were category one trucks (sports utility vehicles, small trucks, and minivans weighing less than 6,000 pounds). In contrast, only 59 percent of the vehicles purchased

were passenger cars. This means that many partici-pants were simply trading their trucks and SUVs for newer, similar vehicles rather than moving to more ef-ficient transportation._______________________________________________

While the “Cash for Clunkers” program did temporarily boost auto sales,

the initiative’s overall impact on the environment was minimal

_______________________________________________

The report also suggests that the program did not boost auto sales, so much as briefly accelerate them. The pull-forward component of the CARS program was explored to determine its effect beyond the spike in July and August 2009, to sales in the following months. According to the report, sales dropped significantly in September 2009 (by approximately 38 percent) after the program ended, and did not return to the longer-term trendline until the end of 2009.

The implication? The program did not bring new buyers into the market but it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their pur-chase a few months sooner. Instead of buying cars in November, consumers bought them in August. So deal-ers gained early while losing out later on in the year.

In addition, slightly over 2,000 jobs were created by the $2.85 billion program, resulting in a cost of $1.4 million per job created. The report suggests that the small increase in employment came at a far higher im-plied cost-per-job than other fiscal stimulus programs, such as increasing unemployment aid ($95,000 per job), reducing employers’ and employees’ payroll taxes ($133,000 per job), or allowing the expensing of invest-ment costs ($222,000 per job).

In terms of distributional effects, when compared to households that purchased a new or used vehicle in 2009 without a voucher, the CARS program participants had a higher before-tax income, were older, more likely to be white, more likely to own a home, and more likely to have a college degree.


In addition to providing economic stimulus, one of the intentions of the CARS program was to reduce carbon emissions by replacing older, less fuel-efficient vehicles with newer, more fuel-efficient models. While the new cars had a fuel economy average of about 10 mpg better than the old cars, the program only touched a minuscule portion of the American auto fleet. Only about half a percent of all vehicles in the United States were the new, more energy-efficient CARS vehicles.

The report also suggests the fuel impact of the CARS program was minimal, resulting in a reduction in gasoline consumption of 884 to 2,916 million gallons, equivalent to between two and eight days’ worth of current U.S. gasoline consumption. One encouraging figure was that, by allowing people to upgrade their vehicles, the program did cut carbon-dioxide emissions by between 8.58 million tons to 28.3 million tons, ac-cording to the report.

The Brookings Institute report, Cash for Clunkers: An Evaluation of the Car Allowance Rebate System, is available at: http://www.brookings.edu/search?start=1&q=cash+for+clunkers.

Climate Change Increasing Presence of Outdoor Pests - Michael J. Nerozzi, Communications Specialist

When most people envision the long-term effects of climate change, their first thoughts are usually geared toward severe

weather droughts and floods, rising sea levels, and other large-scale implications. While these concerns are certainly understandable, some of the less visible effects of climate change can be surprisingly damag-ing, especially when it comes our personal enjoyment of the great outdoors.

According to a recent report by the National Wild-life Federation (NWF), Ticked Off: America’s Outdoor Experience and Climate Change, shifting temperatures and weather patterns are rapidly increasing the range and population of many invasive species and outdoor pests. Several of these species can cause unpleasant bites or stings, rashes, or even serious diseases, which may ultimately deter people from venturing outdoors and experiencing nature.

The report highlights ways in which specific spe-cies have been bolstered by the impact of climate change, including many nuisance species found right here in Pennsylvania.

While it currently only inhabits only 20 percent of northeast (including portions of southeastern Pennsyl-

vania), the report notes that the Asian tiger mosquito’s range is rapidly expanding. This airborne pest, thought to have been originally transported to the U.S. in im-ported car tires, resembles an ordinary mosquito, but it is far more capable of carrying serious diseases such as dengue, West Nile, and even heartworm infections in canines. The report predicts that the range of the Asian tiger mosquito could expand to the shores of Lake Erie and north into Maine as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continue to rise.

Poison ivy, a common plant found in Pennsylva-nia’s forests and fields, is also set to flourish due to increased levels of CO2. The rash-inducing plant ac-counts for more than 350,000 cases each year in the U.S., most of which are due to direction contact, but can also be contracted from pets or smoke from burn-ing firewood. Poison ivy thrives on CO2, used during photosynthesis, so the report indicates that not only will there be more plants, but the toxins may get stron-ger as levels of the gas increase._______________________________________________Over 95 percent of diagnosed cases of Lyme

disease occur in just 13 states, including Pennsylvania and the rest of the

Mid-Atlantic states _______________________________________________

The primary carrier of Lyme disease, the deer or blacklegged tick is already found in most of Pennsyl-vania. In fact, over 95 percent of diagnosed cases of Lyme disease occur in only 13 states, Pennsylvania being one of them. The deer tick thrives in temperate climates, and with increasing temperatures and milder winters, the disease-carrying pest can establish more stable colonies. According to the report, neighboring Ohio is already experiencing a boom in the deer tick population.

Although the aforementioned species are com-monly found in Pennsylvania, the report also projects climate change-related expansions of other trouble-some pests such as fire ants, stinging jellyfish, winter ticks and algal blooms.

To combat the onset of climate change and as-sist wildlife in adapting to a warming climate, the NWF report offers three recommendations. First, the organization recommends U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) continue to reduce carbon pollution from the largest sources. This includes supporting the agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan”, which aims to limit carbon emissions from power plants.

Second, the reports suggests investing in clean and wild-life friendly energy sources such as geothermal, wind, and solar technology. These energy sources reduce carbon emissions and can be developed in a manner that is environmentally sensitive.


Finally, the report proposes safeguarding wildlife from the impacts of climate change. This can be ac-complished in a variety of ways including expanding wildlife preserves or refuges, or conserving land near waterways and wetlands so they are better able to ac-commodate increasing flooding and severe weather.

A full version of the report, Ticked Off: America’s Outdoor Experience and Climate Change, can be found on the NWF’s website at http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/2014/Ticked-Off-LOW-RES-FINAL-081814.pdf

California Spends $428 Million Annually on Clean Waterways- Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

Aquatic debris is more than an unsightly incon-venience for beach-bound vacationers, fishing enthusiasts or pleasure boaters. Another

big impact of aquatic debris is the cost to society. In California, according to a report by the environmental advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil (NRDC), cities, towns and taxpayers are spending close to a half-a-billion dollars each year trying to clean up litter and prevent trash and other debris from pollut-ing area beaches, rivers and the ocean.

The report, Waste in our Water: The Annual Cost to California Communities of Reducing Litter that Pollutes our Waterways, gauges the costs of dealing with litter and preventing it from entering waterways. Aquatic debris can be particularly dangerous and often lethal to wildlife. Marine mammals die when they ingest debris or become entangled in ropes, fishing line, fishing nets, and other debris dumped into the ocean.

The report was based on information supplied by 95 communities across the state (more than one-third of the state’s population). Multiple factors contribute to the cost of litter management: waterway and beach cleanups; street sweeping; storm drain cleaning and maintenance; devices to trap trash in storm drains; and public education programs about litter’s impact on waterways all total millions of dollars in costs.

The California communities ranged in size from around 700 residents to nearly 4 million and are situat-ed at various distances from rivers, streams, lakes and waterways. Together, they spent an estimated $428 million on litter management and debris reduction, or around $10.71 per resident, the report concluded.

Topping the list, Los Angeles spends $36.3 million on keeping trash out of waterways, followed by San Diego at $14 million, and Long Beach at around $13 million. Others in the top 10 for costs were San Jose ($8.8 mil-

lion), Oakland ($8.3 million), Sacramento ($2.6 million), Hayward ($2.3 million), Merced ($2.3 million), Redondo Beach ($2.1 million) and South Gate ($1.7 million).

The report also said that actual cost of dealing with trash is likely to be much higher than estimated because the report did not include the cost of routine waste management and recycling at the county and state levels._______________________________________________Los Angeles spends an estimated $36 million per year on keeping trash and other debris out of waterways, followed by San Diego at

$14 million. _______________________________________________

In addition, it did not calculate losses to tourism caused by debris. Economically, California beaches – largely due to the coastal hospitality and tourism sector – are one of the state’s most dependable forces, bringing in billions of dollars annually in revenue. Tour-ism is affected by littered rivers and beaches, beach closures and stormwater overflows. Debris can also cause losses to tourism by killing wildlife and degrad-ing habitats.

According to the report, most aquatic debris comes from land-based sources that range from littering to extreme natural events. Cigarette and cigar filters, disposable diapers, bottles and cans, tires – the litany of litter is varied as the products available in the mar-ketplace. The report names plastic as the main per-petrator, making up close to 80 percent of all ocean pollution. Plastic is widely used due to its light weight, strength, durability, versatility, and low cost. Common uses include plastic bags, bottles, cups, forks, spoons, straws, and six-pack rings. Many toys are also made from plastics.

The NRDC report called for additional measures to reduce trash, especially plastics, and notes that a number of counties and communities have banned single-use plastic bags and containers. It also said communities should work with the state to limit litter discharges in waterways. The report recommends that California implement a comprehensive program to evenly distribute the financial and logistical burden of the ever-growing quantity of plastic trash between local governments, taxpayers and plastic producers.

The report was prepared for the NRDC by Kier As-sociates. The 54-page report, Waste in our Water: The Annual Cost to California Communities of Reducing Lit-ter that Pollutes our Waterways, is available at: http://docs.nrdc.org/oceans/files/oce_13082701a.pdf.


Mercury Found in Game Fish from Remote Lakes- Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

Small amounts of mercury have been dis-covered in commonly-consumed sport fish in some of the most remote national parks

across the western United States and Alaska. Mercury levels in some of the fish exceeded the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health thresholds for potential impacts to fish, birds, and humans.

The information about mercury, and its appearance in protected areas considered to be relatively pristine and removed from environmental contaminants, is in a report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Park Service (NPS). The report focused on popular sport fish, including rainbow and cutthroat trout. Smaller prey fish consumed by birds and wildlife were also sampled.

According to the report, mercury levels in the air have increased three to five-fold during the past 150 years. Once washed into lakes and streams, the mer-cury is converted by microbes into methylmercury – a form of the element that can be absorbed by living things, making it dangerous to human and wildlife health.

The report is the first of its kind to incorporate information from remote places at 21 national parks in ten western states. From 2008 to 2012, research-ers sampled more than 1,400 non-migratory fish from 16 species across 86 individual sites in the parks. For example, samples were taken at Yosemite National Park in California, Mount Rainier National Park in Wash-ington and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Western parks were selected for this study because of the significant role that atmospheric mercury deposi-tion plays in remote places, and the lack of broad-scale assessments on mercury in fish in remote areas of the west.

Different state and federal agencies have come to different conclusions about how much mercury is safe in fish consumed by humans. The report of national park fish primarily considered standards developed by the Great Lakes Advisory Group.

The EPA’s human risk threshold is 300 nanograms of mercury per gram wet weight (ng/g ww). Mercury concentrations were below the EPA’s fish tissue crite-rion for safe human consumption in 96 percent of the sport fish sampled. The report’s findings should be fairly good news for recreational anglers. However, mercury concentrations in 68 percent of fish sampled were above exposure levels recommended by the

Great Lakes Advisory Group (50 ng/g ww) for unlimited consumption by humans.

Of the fish assessed for risk to human consumers (that is, species that are large enough to be consumed by recreational or subsistence anglers), only one individual fish from Yosemite National Park had mer-cury concentrations so high (950 ng/g ww) that health guidelines advised against anyone consuming the fish.

Mercury is among the most widespread contami-nants in the world. Exposure to high levels of mercury in humans may cause damage to the brain, kidneys, and a developing fetus. Pregnant women and young children are particularly sensitive to the effects of mer-cury.

Mercury also impacts wildlife. High mercury con-centrations in birds, mammals and fish can result in reduced foraging efficiency, survival and reproductive success._______________________________________________

Mercury concentrations in 68 percent of the fish sampled in the study exceed the

Great Lakes Advisory Group’s standards for unlimited consumption by humans

_______________________________________________

Mercury is distributed at a global scale from natural resources, such as erosion or volcanic eruptions, and from human sources such as burning fossil fuels in power plants. Mercury, whether naturally-occurring or in pollution, easily enters the food chain.

The study found that concentrations of mercury in the tissues of fish from the national parks on average are lower than for fish elsewhere in the western states. Many lakes in national parks are in high-altitude loca-tions that generally have less risk of being contaminat-ed with mercury than do lower-elevation waterways.

The two agencies do not regulate health guidelines, but the NPS said it is working with officials in the ten states studied on possible fish consumption advisories.

Funding for this study was provided by the NPS Air Resources Division, USGS Contaminants Biology Program within the Environmental Health Mission Area, the Ecosystems Mission Area to the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, and through in-kind contributions from participating parks. You can read the four-year U.S. Geological Survey and Na-tional Park Service report at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1051/.


A LOOK AT UPCOMING EVENTSON THE HORIZON . . .✔ Monday, October 6, 2014, 12 noon – Environmental Issues Forum

Room 8E-A, Capitol East Wing, Capitol Complex, Harrisburg PA

Shannon Reiter, President of Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful, and Michele Nestor of Nestor Resources will discuss illegal dump sites in Pennsylvania. Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful completed a county-by-county

survey of illegal dump sites in 2013, and released a follow-up report offering specific recommendations for reducing these sites at the Solid Waste Association of North America conference earlier this month.

Please call the Committee office at 717-787-7570 if you plan to attend the Environmental Issues Forums. And, check the Committee website at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us for more details and events that may be

added to the schedule.

A REVIEW OF SOME MEMORABLE COMMITTEE

EVENTS COMMITTEE CHRONICLES . . .On September 12th, Committee staff, along with staff from the Pennsylvania

Turnpike Commission, visited the site of the PA “Abandoned Turnpike” in Fulton County. The Abandoned Turnpike is a retired stretch of the original PA Turnpike that was bypassed in 1968. Local officials and members of the “Pike2Bike” coalition were on hand to provide the Committee with an extensive tour of the decommissioned roadway and tunnels, as they seek to transform the lost stretch of highway into a recreational biking trail. According to estimates, the trail is capable of producing up to $8.8 million dollars for the local economy.

Pictured at top right, the group approaches the entrance to the Sideling Hill Tunnel. At over a mile long, it is the longest tunnel on the PA Abandoned Turnpike.

Pictured at left, the tour poses for a group shot after emerging on the other side of the Sideling Hill Tunnel. The Committee staff was joined by representatives from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, local officials from Bedford and Fulton Counties, and members of the Pike2Bike Coalition.

Just off the highway, ruins of the old South Pennsylvania Railroad can be easily identified. The South Pennsylvania Railroad served as a guide for the original Pennsylvania Turnpike. Pictured at lower right, is one of the original culverts, hand-chiseled in the late nineteenth century.


How toContact

The JointConservation Committee

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

Location: Rm. 408, Finance Bldg.

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

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

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

Printed on Recycled Paper

Severe winter weather not only affects our physical health and property, but can even hamper economic growth. Many businesses, unprepared for such extreme conditions, experienced closures or suffered from delays in supply chain opera-tions. Experts even partially attributed underperforming employment figures to the effects of the polar vortex.

_______________________________________________________________________The winter of 2013-14 was one of the top five costliest winters

of the last 30 years, with number one being the winter of 1993-94 _______________________________________________________________________

As we gear up for another winter here in the Keystone State, there are impor-tant steps you and your family can take to prepare for severe winter weather. One easy-to-follow guide on preparing for winter storms and extreme cold can be found on Ready.gov, a public service campaign sponsored by the federal Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

An important step in preparing for winter storms is putting together a home emergency kit containing items such as rock salt, snow shovels, a weather radio, extra heating fuel, and extra winter clothing or blankets. Additionally, Ready.gov en-courages you and your family to create a communication plan, so your loved ones know how to contact one another in the event of a weather emergency.

The website also offers tips for winterizing your home and vehicle. Before the winter season, have a mechanic inspect critical components of your car, such as the heater and defroster, antifreeze levels and thermostat. You may even wish to install a set of snow tires, particularly if you do not own a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

Winterizing your home is also important to conserve energy and protect your property from damage caused by severe weather. You can start by clearing gutters, insulating pipes, trimming tree branches and repair leaky roofs. Also be sure to in-spect your chimney or heating equipment for safety. To make sure you are heating your home efficiently, you can insulate your walls or attic, install storm windows, or place weather stripping under your doors.

If you or a loved one find it difficult to afford weatherization repairs, Pennsylva-nia’s Weatherization Assistance Program could provide some relief. Eligible ap-plicants may qualify for an energy audit to evaluate the energy efficiency of your home and identify cost-effective measures that can be taken. You can find more information on the PA Weatherization Assistance program at www.newpa.com.

With a little planning and preparation, you can help safeguard your health and property from the effects of winter weather. You can view a full list of ways you and your family can prepare for winter storms and extreme cold by visiting http://www.ready.gov/winter-weather.

published monthly environmental...

Documents