T

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

JANUARY 2017

The Chairman’s CornerSenator Scott E. Hutchinson,Chairman

There is a newinvasive “superweed” making itsway across theMidwest and

crowding out prized agricultural productssuch as corn and soybeans. Native to thesouthern United States, Palmer ama-ranth, also known as Palmer pigweed,has exploded across the nation, includ-ing small, but increasing populationshere in Pennsylvania. Notoriously diffi-cult to kill, Palmer amaranth could posea serious threat to our state’s largest in-dustry if not detected early and con-tained.

Farmers and other agribusinesses havebeen dealing with invasive pests formuch of modern history. One complica-tion is that as the use of herbicides be-comes more prolific, invasive plants startto build a resistance to such chemicals.Such is the case with Palmer amaranth,which has been surprisingly resilient tomost traditional herbicides, includingglyphosate.

Palmer amaranth is an annual species,emerging into the late summer months.The weed has an almost Poinsettia-likeappearance, with long, diamond-shapedleaves. It is a prolific seed producer,generating as many as 500,000 seedsper plant. Ironically, Native Americansand early settlers once cherished this

now-despised plant. Its leaves, stem andseeds were edible and highly nutritious.Today, however, the presence of nitrates

in soil have made the plant toxic to bothlivestock and humans, further necessi-tating its eradication.

Palmer amaranth, aninvasive ‘super weed,’ ismaking its way across theU.S. with the potential toreduce corn and soybeanyields up to 90 percent.

In terms of its growth and spread,Palmer amaranth is aggressive and unre-lenting. It far outpaces traditional crops,such as cotton, growing as much as 2-3inches per day. In a few weeks, the plantreaches over 18 inches, compared to cot-ton, which may only grow 8 inches withinthe same timeframe. At full growth,Palmer amaranth can reach heights up-wards of 5 feet. Its pollen is primarily

IN THIS ISSUEThe Chairman’s Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Research Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 • Infant Car Seats May Contain Toxic Chemicals

• PA’s Energy Efficiency Economy• Auditor General Questions Act 13 Spending• Great Lakes Burdened by Plastics Migration

On The Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

This Month in Conservation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

January 2017Volume 18, Number 1

Continued on page 8

P2 E N V I R O N M E N TA L S Y N O P S I S

Notes from the Director Tony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

People of a certain age may remem-ber the “Green Revolution” of the1960s and 1970s, which developed ad-vanced agricultural techniques, such aschemical fertilizers, leading to a dra-matic reduction in world hunger. Today,however, producing enough food for arapidly growing population without theuse of harmful chemicals has become adifficult balancing act.

A decade ago, agricultural scientistsat the University of Illinois suggesteda bold, new approach to boosting cropyields: tinkering with photosynthesis.Now, after several years of researchfunded by the Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation, scientists are reporting aremarkable result: a potential secondGreen Revolution for world agriculturethat could help feed the world’s mostfood insecure populations.

Photosynthesis is the process inwhich plants convert carbon dioxide,water and light into oxygen and su-crose, a sugar used for energy and forbuilding new plant tissue. Unfortu-nately, photosynthesis is surprisinglyinefficient. Though the rates vary be-tween species, many plants only utilizeabout 1 percent or 2 percent of thetotal sunlight that hits a leaf’s surface.

Genetic modification techniques havebeen used for decades to produce cropsthat are pest-resistant, disease-resis-

tant or less sensitive to herbicides. TheUniversity of Illinois’ RIPE project,however, represents a new frontier inthe genetic medication of crops.

Using new techniques to alter photo-synthesis, researchers increased theproductivity of a test plant – tobacco.A genetically engineered tobacco plantwas developed using three genes fromblue-green algae (cyanobacteria) withthe aim of increasing the levels ofthree proteins that could help boostthe efficiency of photosynthesis afterexposure to light.

New genetic modificationtechniques aimed atmaximizing plantphotosynthesis couldpotentially increaseglobal food production by40 to 50 percent.

Researchers grew seedlings from mul-tiple experiments and selected thethree best strains based on how theyresponded to changes in light condi-tions. The genetically modified tobaccoplants were then grown in several fieldplots alongside standard tobaccoplants.

The field trial result was surprising, tosay the least. One of the modified to-bacco plant lines was 14 percent moreproductive than unmodified plants, andtwo other modified plant lines consis-tently hit 20 percent, in terms of theweight of dry leaves harvested. That isa substantial number, given that plantbreeders struggle to achieve gains of 1or 2 percent with more conventionalmodification techniques. The plantsalso had bigger leaves, were taller andhad heavier roots.

Anti-smoking advocates need not beconcerned – the scientists have no in-terest in increasing the production oftobacco. The plants are used because itis fast growing, which enables scien-tists to quickly gauge the effectivenessof modification techniques.

The plan is to try the same alter-ations in major food crops, startingwith rice, soybeans and cassava. It isthought that production gains of 50percent or more may ultimately beachievable. According to experts, ifthat prediction comes to fruition – itcould take a decade, if not longer, toknow for sure – the result might benothing less than a transformation ofglobal agriculture.

Producing more crops on finite arableland is a necessity as the world’s popu-lation is projected to pass 9 billion by2050, combined with a global demandfor food projected to rise by 70 percentin that same timeframe.

These new techniques could intensifythe controversy over genetic engineer-ing of the food supply. Some advocacygroups oppose the idea of movinggenes from one species to another. Sofar, the benefits of gene-altered cropshave so far been modest at best, whichhas contributed to the ongoing debate.

However, gains of 40 or 50 percent infood production would be an entirelydifferent matter, potentially offeringenormous benefits for the world’s poor-est people, many of them farmers work-ing small plots of land in thedeveloping world. It is difficult toimagine how such a dramatic increasein food production would affect the on-going genetic modification discussion.

For more information on the Univer-sity of Illinois’ RIPE project, visithttp://ripe.illinois.edu.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 3

C

Research Briefs

Infant Car Seats MayContain Toxic FlameRetardantsTony M. Guerrieri, Executive Director

Child safety seats are crucial for pro-tecting young children in case of an ac-cident, but a recent study found popularbrands tested positive for toxic chemi-cals, even a known carcinogen. Whatgives safety seats their softness ispolyurethane foam, a spongy materialcreated from a petroleum base thatmakes it highly flammable. For years,manufacturers have made the seats fireresistant by treating the foam with fireretardant chemicals.

According to a report by the environ-mental group Ecology Center, flame re-tardant chemicals used in car seats arelinked to cancer, hormone disruption andother health-related problems. Flame re-tardants do not bind to the seat, so tinyparticles float through the air wherechildren inhale them. The particles canalso wind up on the child’s skin, andsince toddlers and babies often put theirhands in their mouths, the chemicalscan be ingested.

The report, Traveling with Toxics: FlameRetardants & Other Chemicals in Chil-dren’s Car Seats, concludes that safer al-ternatives are available, and while testinghas shown car seat manufacturers trend-ing away from the most harmful chemi-cals, companies can do much better.

For the past ten years, the EcologyCenter has tested car seats, showing thechemicals found in popular brands. The

report analyzed flame retardants andother chemicals found in 15 infant andtoddler seats purchased in 2016. Theseats represent a broad price range androughly half were brands also tested in2014. Three different analytical tech-niques were used: X-ray fluorescence, in-frared spectroscopy and gaschromatography with mass spectrometry.

Flame retardants were found in all 15car seats and, for the first time, werefound to be in widespread use in thefabrics of car seats. Most car seats stillcontain brominated flame retardants.Many companies are also using phospho-rus-based flame retardants, includingsome not previously known to be used incar seats.

While some manufacturers havestopped using some flame retardantswith known hazards, the effects of manyof the substitutes are unknown.

Flame retardants,commonly used in themanufacture of child carseats, are known tocontain a host of toxicchemicals, although someimprovements have beenmade in recent years.

For the first time, no car seat con-tained chlorinated Tris (also known asTDCPP) or related flame retardants,which are considered especially toxic.Chlorinated Tris was voluntarily removedfrom children’s pajamas in the 1970swhen it was found to cause adverse

health effects.

Also, for the first time since 2006, nolead was detected in the tested carseats. No other hazardous metals, suchas arsenic, were detected with the ex-ception of antimony, which is likely pres-ent as a flame retardant synergist.

The Ecology Center report stresses thatdespite the chemicals, car seats are criti-cal safety devices. Pennsylvania law re-quires that all children under the age of4 be properly restrained and transportedin a federally-approved car seat that isappropriate for the child’s age, heightand weight. In 2016, Pennsylvania be-came the fourth state in the nation torequire children to be in rear-facing carseats until they are 2 years old.

Flame retardants were found wide-spread in the fabrics of car seats, notjust in the internal foam cushions. TheEcology Center has not tested car seatfabrics in previous years. Of the 160 fab-ric samples tested, over 30 percent con-tained at least one flame retardant

Continued…

Each 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 positionsof the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

WContinued…

4 E N V I R O N M E N TA L S Y N O P S I S

chemical. A quarter of fabric samplescontained a brominated flame retardant.

The Ecology Center’s report recom-mends that federal flammability regula-tions should be modified. While car seatscan be designed to pass the flame testwithout chemical additives, this ap-proach is significantly more expensive. Itsuggests that policy makers should con-sider exempting child car seats from thefederal flammability standard becausethere is no data showing a safety benefitto children.

Despite 44 years of this U.S. regula-tion, the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration can provide no evidencesuggesting that the flammability ruleprotects children in vehicle fires. Therule has resulted in car seat manufactur-ers adding chemical flame retardants toproducts that infants and children are inclose contact with every day.

The Ecology Center’s 30-page report,Traveling with Toxics: Flame Retardants& Other Chemicals in Children’s CarSeats, is available at:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mFf0-94D1SVEJjdzFsZzhPVVU/view.

Pennsylvania aNational EnergyEfficiency LeaderColeen P. EngvallResearch Analyst

While wind and solar often take thespotlight in green technology, there isanother player working quietly behind thescenes. Energy efficiency, while oftenoverlooked, is recognized by governmentsand businesses alike as a relatively low-cost, simple way to reduce energy con-sumption. It also creates green energyjobs and is the largest sector of the cleanenergy economy in America.

Energy efficiency allows consumers todo more with the same amount of elec-tricity, or reduce the amount of electric-

ity they need to purchase. It cuts downon overhead costs and decreases the de-mand for electricity across the state,which can in turn reduce air pollutionand carbon emissions. Energy efficiencycan be improved in several differentways. Anything from sealing leaky venti-lation or upgrading insulation, to pur-chasing a smart thermostat can improvea home’s or business’ energy efficiency.

Another benefit to these upgrades: re-searching, manufacturing, retailing,transporting and installing these meas-ures all require skilled labor.

In a nationwide study, EnvironmentalEntrepreneurs, E4TheFuture and the BWResearch Partnership gathered dataabout energy efficiency jobs around thenation. Using data from the Bureau ofLabor Statistics Quarterly Census of Em-ployment and Wages, along with a surveyof businesses across the country, theydetermined the size of the labor forcesemployed in each state, as well as thenumber of businesses involved in thetrade. They published their findings in areport entitled Energy Efficiency Jobs inAmerica.

California topped the list, with over300,000 jobs in the energy efficiencysector. The largest shares of these jobsare dedicated to traditional HVAC tech-nologies, and 70 percent of those busi-nesses have fewer than 10 employees.While Pennsylvania boasts fewer total la-borers, the sector is similarly dominated

by small business. In the Keystone State,60 percent of such businesses have fewerthan 11 total employees.

Over 50,000Pennsylvanians areemployed in jobs related toenergy efficiency, rankingas the tenth highest totalin the country, accordingto a new report.

Pennsylvania ranked tenth in thecountry, with over 50,000 people work-ing in energy efficiency-related jobs. Al-legheny County and Philadelphia Countywere the top counties in the state, inline with the report’s assertion thatcities are leading the way across theworld. Cities are home to both largebuildings, such as skyscrapers, as well aslow-income households. The report notesthat both of these consumers stand togain more from energy efficiency im-provements than others.

The report offers several recommenda-tions at both the federal and state levelto continue the growth in this sector:

• Expand U.S. Department of Energystandards for appliances and equip-ment

• Tighten building code standards for fu-ture state and local government facili-ties

• Accelerate energy efficiency improve-ments in devices and buildings thatuse electricity or natural gas throughutility programs, state policies and in-vestments

• Prioritize energy efficiency and energystandards in states

The report goes on to make state-spe-cific suggestions. For Pennsylvania,which is home to a variety of energy ef-ficiency-related businesses, the report

A

expresses support for two different leg-islative measures.

First, the report recommends supportand possible expansion of Act 129 of2008, which directs the PUC to overseeefficiency improvements in the state’selectric distribution companies. Second,they support the creation of a “propertyassessed clean energy” program, knownas a PACE program. PACE programs, whichcurrently exist in 33 states, provide fi-nancial assistance for various clean en-ergy projects, energy efficiency included.Legislation creating a PACE program inPennsylvania was introduced last session.

To read Energy Efficiency Jobs inAmerica, go to: http://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/EnergyEffi-ciencyJobsInAmerica_FINAL.pdf.

Auditor GeneralQuestions Spending ofImpact Fees Coleen P. EngvallResearch Analyst

Advances in natural gas drilling tech-nology have transformed the energylandscape, with natural gas becoming adominant energy source both domesti-cally and abroad. As natural gas develop-ment took off, local governments withdrilling activity sought monetary relieffor drilling-related impacts. One solutionaimed at mitigating these concerns wasAct 13 of 2012. Act 13 established afund consisting of impact fees paid byunconventional gas producers. Thesefunds are distributed by the Public Util-ity Commission (PUC) to local govern-ments and used to offset the costsassociated with hosting drilling activityin their municipality.

In accordance with the Act, the Audi-tor General’s office has conducted anaudit of the collection, distribution andspending of the funds to ensure that thedollars are being used to target drilling-

specific impacts. The Auditor General re-leased their performance audit of Act 13in December. The report includes twomain findings, as well as several recom-mendations, for both the General Assem-bly and the PUC.

The first finding asserts that the Act’slanguage, which is described as “un-clear,” has resulted in “questionablespending and inaccurate reporting.” Thir-teen applications are highlighted in thereport as examples of appropriate uses ofAct 13 funds. Uses range from waterquality improvements and conservationdistrict funding, to the delivery of socialand judicial services, with the under-standing that such programs are associ-ated with natural gas production.

According to the report, the Act’s am-biguous language was intended to givelocal governments flexibility; however,the lack of clear guidelines has createdproblems.

Pennsylvania’s AuditorGeneral found that impactfees from unconventionalnatural gas drilling wereoften being spent onprojects unrelated todrilling activity.

The audit determined that roughly aquarter of impact fees distributed tolocal governments were used in ques-tionable ways. For example, many coun-ties used the funds to pay employeesalaries or to balance budgets.

The PUC and other state agencies arenot authorized by the law to provideguidance to local governments and nostate entity is tasked with monitoringthe spending. The law’s reporting re-quirements are also somewhat sparse, re-quiring only project commitments ratherthan actual expenditures, with no penal-ties for inaccurate reporting.

The second main finding of the reportsurrounds municipal budgets as they arereported to the PUC. Act 13 tasks thePUC with managing and distributing thefunds from the fees, as well as reportingtheir usage. This system was developedinternally at the Commission. The Actstates that impact fee distributions can-not exceed 50 percent of a municipality’stotal budget for the prior year.

Despite this requirement, there ap-peared to be inconsistency as to what a“total budget” entails, resulting in variedand occasionally inaccurate reporting.While the reporting framework is devel-oped and administered by the PUC, eachmunicipality individually submits its owninformation. The report contends thatthe PUC should obtain the approved fis-cal budget from municipalities that re-ceive Act 13 funds.

The Auditor General’s office recom-mends that training be offered to munic-ipalities and that reporting requirementsbe standardized by the Commission.While the Auditor General offers theserecommendations as ways to increase ef-ficiency and accountability, the reportfound the PUC in compliance with thelaw.

Continued…

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 5

P

6 E N V I R O N M E N TA L S Y N O P S I S

Act 13 has assisted communities withdealing with some of the community im-pacts of unconventional drilling. Fundshave been used to repair bridges androads, improve water systems, and fundlocal emergency services, along with var-ious other projects. The report offersseveral recommendations to the GeneralAssembly and to the PUC to help the Actaccomplish its mission more efficiently.

To read the performance audit of thePennsylvania Public Utility Commissionand Act 13 impact fees, go to:http://www.paauditor.gov/Media/De-fault/Reports/PublicUtilitiesCommis-sion,%20Act%2013,%20120616.pdf.

Researchers TrackingPlastics in the Great LakesColeen P. EngvallResearch Analyst

Prevalent in landfills, waterways and theGreat Pacific Garbage Patch, plastic con-tinues to remind us that it does not de-grade quickly. Once in rivers and lakes, itremains there for years. Unfortunately,plastics can cause a host of environmentalproblems. They can collect toxins and beingested by the local wildlife, eventuallyfinding their way up the food chain to beconsumed by humans. Along the shores ofthe Great Lakes, 80 percent of all litter iscomprised of plastics.

Dealing with plastics from years pastis only part of the issue. New plastic isbeing introduced to the environmentevery day. Researchers from the

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)recently completed a study that trackedplastic pollution in the Great Lakes. Theirstudy, entitled Inventory and Transportof Plastic Debris in the Laurentian GreatLakes, was published in the Marine Pollu-tion Bulletin last December.

While plastic pollution in the GreatLakes has been estimated at a locallevel, researchers were able to applymethodology from ocean-based models,allowing them to estimate where theplastics were going and where they wereconcentrated. They further detailed dif-ferences between surface plastics, suchas buoyant Styrofoam, micro plastics anddenser plastics that sink to the lake bot-tom. These various types of plastics havedifferent environmental impacts and re-quire targeted efforts to prevent themfrom entering waterways.

While plastic pollution inthe ocean is widelystudied, researchers at RITseek to track the 22million pounds of plasticsentering the Great Lakes,some of our nation’s mostvalued natural landmarks.

The researchers expressed hope thattheir study would assist future efforts torid our waterways of harmful plastics.Cleanup and regulation of the Great Lakescan be a complicated affair, since thelakes span two countries and multiplestates. Trash from Toronto does not nec-

essarily stay confined to the shores ofToronto once it’s been released into thewater. Understanding these patterns andmovements can help officials targetheavy polluters and to make plastic re-moval efforts more efficient and accurate.

The researchers broke down which bod-ies receive the most plastic annually:

• Lake Michigan – 5 thousand metrictons

• Lake Erie – 2.5 thousand metric tons

• Lake Ontario – 1.4 thousand metrictons

• Lake Huron – 0.6 thousand metrictons

• Lake Superior – 32 metric tons

The models used in this study not onlyallowed for estimates of volume, but alsofor travel patterns. The study notes thatplastic in these lakes behaves differentlyfrom plastic in the oceans. Ocean-boundplastics tend to clump together in largepatches while the Great Lakes plasticsseem to be pushed back toward shore.

By incorporating data from the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration, the researchers were able tocreate detailed models to find plasticsand predict their future trajectory. Con-sidering the diversity of states, the Cana-dian province of Ontario and the largecities clustered around the Great Lakes,predicting these paths could be very use-ful in the future. To illustrate, they notehow trash from Chicago, on the west sideof Lake Michigan, often finds itself onthe opposing shoreline.

Unfortunately, they note, more plasticis being released into the lakes than iswashing up on shore, creating denserand more toxic concentrations of the de-bris every day.

To read Inventory and Transport ofPlastic Debris in the Laurentian GreatLakes, go to: http://www.sciencedi-rect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1630981X.

A

I

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 7

This Month in Conservation HistoryExploring the evolution of environmental stewardship

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

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

On the Horizon A Look at Upcoming Events

Monday, March 20, 12 p.m. Environmental Issues ForumRoom 8E-A, Capitol East Wing, Capitol Complex, Harrisburg

Joining us for the March forum will be representatives from ARIPPA, the state association of coal refuse energy producers. Usingcirculating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler technology, coal refuse facilities are able to generate up 10 percent of the state’s totalelectricity generation from abandoned coal piles, which are a primary source of acid mine drainage. To date, over 200 milliontons of coal refuse have been recycled and over 7,000 acres of abandoned coal lands have been remediated by this industry.

113 Years AgoAccording to researchers at Penn State, the coldesttemperature ever recorded in Pennsylvania was -42degrees Fahrenheit in Smethport, McKean County, onJanuary 5, 1904. Conversely, the state record hightemperature was 111 degrees Fahrenheit in Phoenixville,Chester County, on July 10, 1936.

152 Years AgoIn January 1865, oil was struck in several fields south of Pleas-antville, Venango County. Within nine months, over 15,000hopeful job seekers migrated to the new town, which was offi-cially chartered as Pithole City. In 1866, a series of fires and afinancial panic in the oil region decreased the population of Pit-hole to under 2,000. The 1870 census records a population ofonly 237. Today, a few foundations and ruins of the town’schurch are all that remain of this legendary boomtown.

Smethport, 1904-42o

Phoenixville, 1936111o

Smethport, 1904-42o

Phoenixville, 1936111o

8 E N V I R O N M E N TA L S Y N O P S I S

The Chairman’s CornerContinued from page 1

spread by the wind; however, other meansof transport, such as through infestedmanure, have contributed to its rapidspread through the U.S.

When confined to its native range inthe southern states, Palmer amaranthwas not considered an urgent threat.That changed in the mid-2000s, whenthe plant started to demonstrate a re-sistance to glyphosate, the world’s mostwidely used herbicide. The resilient weedbegan to extend its range, and by 2011,was confirmed in northern states such asIowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. Thesestates, unfamiliar with the pest, soonbegan to feel the plant’s devastating im-pacts to agriculture.

Iowa, which is continuing to strugglewith Palmer amaranth, has experiencedthe plant’s choking effect on two of itsmost valuable cash crops, corn and soy-beans, a $13 billion industry in thestate. According to estimates, the plantcan decrease soybean yield by 80 per-cent and corn by as much as 90 percent.Luckily, the weed is still responsive toherbicides, giving Iowa a fighting chanceuntil it develops a tolerance as it has insouthern states.

Some states, like Minnesota, are tak-ing unconventional approaches to rid-ding their fields of Palmer amaranth.Farmers in the North Star State are in-cinerating patches of the weed withflamethrowers, an aggressive but effec-tive way to ensure their crops are pro-tected. Crews from the state’sConservation Corps have been using theblowtorches in combination with tradi-tional herbicides in an attempt to delivera knockout blow to the formidable foe.

Here in Pennsylvania, Palmer amaranthis still considered an emerging threat,but small populations have been re-ported throughout the state. The weed

was first identified on seven farms in2013, and is now on at least 30 farms in14 counties, according to the Penn StateExtension. Most sites are south of Inter-state 80 and concentrated in the south-east region. Lancaster County, acommunity steeped in agricultural her-itage, is ground zero with 15 farms thatcontain Palmer amaranth or its closecousin, waterhemp. Efforts are underwayto control its spread in the region.

Experts at the Penn State Extensionoffer guidelines and strategies for copingwith Palmer amaranth if you encounterthe weed on your farm or property. One ofthe most important guidelines is to imme-diately report sightings to your local PennState Extension office, so they can moni-tor the weed’s movement and offer advicefor eradicating the plant from your prop-erty. Early detection is critical to ensuringthe weed does not develop a strong pres-ence here in Pennsylvania, as it has in somany other states.

For more information on Palmer ama-ranth, including strategies for dealingwith the invasive pest, visit Penn StateExtension’s website at http://exten-sion.psu.edu.

JOINTLEGISLATIVE

CONSERVATIONCOMMITTEE

CONTACTINFORMATION

LOCATIONRoom 408

Finance BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120

PHONE717-787-7570

WEBSITEjcc.legis.state.pa.us

MAILING ADDRESSJoint Legislative

Conservation CommitteePA House of Representatives

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

Printed on Recycled Paper