Author: Chris Seymour
The Sierra Club joined the United Steelworkers for a rally on global warming on April 14th, 2007 at the historic Pump House in Homestead. It was all a part of the nationwide Step It Up campaign in which groups and citizens across the country organized for a national day of climate action. Sierra Club activists joined labor union activists for the rally on the banks of the Monongahela River in Homestead despite cold temperatures. It was the first major event for the newly formed Blue-Green Alliance, a strategic alliance of the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers. KDKA-TV covered the event and spotlighted our very own BEC regional representative, Rachel Martin. In addition, John Fetterman, Mayor of Braddock, was in attendance and signed on to the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which drew wild applause from the crowd. Everyone had the opportunity to learn about how we can solve global warming and create good jobs through smart energy solutions. Step It Up was a smashing success for the Blue-Green Alliance and great event for our members leading up to Earth Day!

Author: Marilyn Skolnick, Transportation Chair,
On January 23, 2007, a very cold day, the ballroom of the Radisson Hotel filled up with troubled people. Many presented testimony at the hearing held by the Port Authority regarding its plan to eliminate bus routes. Each speaker came with his or her concern about the routes the Authority proposed to eliminate. None of the reasons were frivolous. Many reasons were related to illness: individuals who were unable to drive but were employed cited epilepsy, mental illness, inability to walk distances, especially with no sidewalks as reasons that they would not be able survive without the buses. Those with a disability pointed out that the Authority had campaigned vigorously when they got lifts on buses to use a bus rather than the more expensive ACCESS system. Now that those individuals were doing so, their bus routes are being eliminated.

The hearing took place on a Tuesday, and all the state elected officials were in Harrisburg. None of their aides were present. Even if they didn’t want to speak, they could have at least said that they were listening. Mr. Onorato, who supported the cutbacks, never showed his face.

The real question is how the Port Authority arrived at a 25% cut back in service. The Legislature has not yet said what, if anything, it would do to solve the crisis. The county must come up with one dollar for every 3 dollars the state comes up with. Mr. Onorato has indicated that he would only come up with a set amount of matching dollars (unknown amount), regardless of what the state comes up with.

Other states augment their funds for transit by permitting a local transit tax, frequently by referendum. The thinking is that if there is not enough money and the residents want more transit, they would be willing to tax themselves to make up the shortfall. What do you think?

Author: Steve Karas

Coal-burning power plants are a major source of mercury pollution. Particles in the air find their way to water sources, poisoning them, and contaminating their fish. High levels of mercury in fish, when eaten by women, can cause adverse health affects in their unborn children. The EPA has estimated that 1 in 6 females of child bearing age have high levels of mercury in their blood. In addition to the health and environmental effects, researchers found that there have been $1.3 billion dollars in economic losses directly attributed to mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants.

The cost to decrease this absurdly poisonous emission is equal to about one 1% of a typical power plant’s value. The technology is readily available and affordable so that its implementation will not be a threat to jobs or profits. Four other states in the northeast, the leading area of mercury emissions, have already adopted this strict regulation with no adverse economic effects.

Several months ago members of the Woodland Hills Community Action Team, Sierra Club, and concerned citizens distributed petitions in Forest Hills that were sent to the Pennsylvania Department of the interior and Secretary Kate McGinty asking them to protect Pennsylvanians from the harmful effects of mercury pollution. The Community Action Team members also met with our local state officials, who were supportive of the measure. Over 400 people in Forest Hills signed these petitions which were presented to Borough Council. We, along with several other concerned groups around the state, asked our councils to pass resolutions to reinforce its citizens’ views.

A motion was introduced to, “approve a resolution respectfully urging the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to propose and promulgate regulations that will require, by July 2008, the attainment of a level of mercury emissions control efficiency of at least ninety percent at all fossil-fuel burning power plants in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The borough council subsequently passed, “A RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF FOREST HILLS, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTING WOMEN AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH THROUGH STATEWIDE REGULATIONS OF POWER PLANT MERCURY EMISSIONS.”

During a public comment period, 99% of the 11,000 comments by Pennsylvania residents were in favor of this reduction. This was an unprecedented number of comments for this commission. Groups such as the Sierra Club and the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen were in favor of this regulation. The resulting pressure of individual citizens and organizations moved our state into action. Recently the state’s Independent Regulatory commission voted to require coal burning plants in Pennsylvania to cut their mercury emissions by 90% by the year 2015. This reduction far exceeds the weak federal regulations. This will decrease mercury emissions, keep our citizen’s safer, and allow those who fish and visit our state to be more confident that our waters are clean and safe. The health benefits to women and children are immeasurable, and the economic impact of this sound environmental policy will benefit us all.

This is an excellent example of what a group of organized individuals acting together can do. Individually, not much would have been accomplished. But through several small actions, petitions, borough resolutions, public comments, and meetings with our elected state officials, changes were made. These changes will benefit our health, improve our fishing tourism, and benefit our economy. The people and council of Forest Hills should be proud of their contribution.

If you are interested in The Woodland Hills Community Action Team’s plans for the future, such as the Cool Borough’s Campaign, affordable and clean energy, and solutions to local transportation issues, please email us at gbh65@verizon.net or call the local Sierra Club office at 412-802-6161.

Author: Marilyn Skolnick, Transportation Chair
Governor Rendell’s December call for proposals resulted in 48 companies interested in possibly leasing or buying the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Indiana, Virginia, and Chicago have done so, and according to the latest reports, New Jersey is considering it. The public’s reaction to the privatization has been very negative, according to all reports. Many investing companies have been very interested because they can make lots of money, given the restrictions they placed in their contracts. The restrictions vary, but they prohibit the building of roads nearby or transit lines because the would be in competition with the toll road. Senator Orie is now working on legislation to make the Turnpike Commission a part of PennDOT. That is an interesting turn of events.

Author: Andrea Boykowycz
With your support, Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh passed resolutions opposing the acquisition of right-of-way properties in the Mon-Fayette’s PA 51 to I-376 corridor. Pennsylvania Turnpike CEO Joseph Brimmeier announced in December that the Turnpike would hold off on buying any properties until new funding for the road has been advanced by the Legislature. This is a great victory!

There’s not much time for rejoicing, however: budget negotiations have begun in Harrisburg, and the Turnpike is competing for new tax dollars against PennDOT and every public transportation agency in the state. Meanwhile, Port Authority of Allegheny County has proposed cuts in service and hikes in fares to cover its budget shortfall next year; and PennDOT projects like the bridge repair for the Boulevard of the Allies in Oakland have stalled due to insufficient funding.
The choice for local representatives is clear: fund public transit and repair our crumbling roads and bridges, or funnel more money into the disastrous boondoggle called the Mon-Fayette Toll Road.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. Visit www.MFX-handsoff.org to take action and sign on to our mailing list for action updates. Or contact Andrea Boykowycz at PennFuture for more information and ways to get involved: tel. 412-258-6682 or email andrea@pennfuture.org.

Author: Peter Wray
In July 2006 the Pittsburgh City Council unanimously passed a resolution urging then Mayor Bob O’Connor to adopt the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

On October 19, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, along with Senator Jim Ferlo and Councilman Bill Peduto, announced the formation of a Green Government Task Force to begin implementing some of the goals of the “Cool City” agreement. The 30-member Task force is charged with setting guidelines for a process to:

* Reduce energy costs and save taxpayer money,

* Improve local air quality,

* Support the local economy, and

* Protect the global and local climate.

The Task Force will be co-chaired by Mayor Ravenstahl, Senator Ferlo, Councilman Peduto, and Rebecca Flora from the Green Building Alliance. It will work closely with two nationally respected organizations; Clean Air-Cool Planet operates mostly in the Northeast and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability has an international reach. For more information, see www.cleanair-coolplanet.org and www.iclei.org.

A Task Force “State of the City” report prepared by CMU students and due in December will deal with ways to reduce energy use and emissions.

To help launch the Green Government Task Force, Sen. Jim Ferlo has obtained a $25,000 state grant.

This initiative is a major step for the City of Pittsburgh. The Sierra Club looks forward to seeing the City Administration take real and positive action.

Author: Peter Wray
On September 25 representatives from PennEnvironment, GASP, and the Sierra Club met with Rep. Tim Murphy to urge him to co-sponsor H.R. 5642, the Safe Climate Act. We are awaiting a response from Mr. Murphy.

The Safe Climate Act of 2006 was introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and is intended to curb global warming by reducing emissions from automobiles, and requiring 20% of electricity to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2020. In addition, the bill would establish standards requiring utilities to obtain 10% of their energy supplies through energy efficiency in 2020.

A lay-man’s description of the Safe Climate Act is available at www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/ and the formal version can be found be entering HR 5642 at http://thomas.loc.gov

According to an analysis by PennEnvironment, “The Safe Climate Act freezes U.S. emissions at 2009 levels in 2010 and then gradually reduces them by roughly 2% per year through 2020. This gives us 15 years to deploy the cleaner technologies that we already have but are not using much, such as hybrid vehicles and wind power. After 2020, the bill cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year, as more advanced technologies, such as zero-energy buildings and biofuels from waste materials, become widely available. Taken together, emissions will reach 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, which mirror the goals established by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

See http://www.pennenvironment.org/PEair.asp?id2=28388

The Safe Climate Act of 2006 is an improvement over the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139) that was introduced in the Senate in 2003 by McCain and Lieberman, and in the House in 2004 by Gilcrest and Olver (H.R. 759). The important difference is that this earlier bill freezes U.S. global warming pollution at 2000 levels by 2010. While commendable, these reductions aren’t the reductions that scientists say are necessary to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

ACTION. E-mail letters to local Members of Congress.

We urge readers to E-mail a letter to their Congressperson, and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 5642, the Safe Climate Act of 2006. Find your representative at www.house.gov.

Author: Peter Wray

The fate of the 635-acre wild area atop the hillside above the Monongahela, across from Hazelwood and Oakland is still undecided.

The state DEP has not issued the permit for the developer to mine the hill-top, nor has the US Corps of Engineers made any decision on protection of the streams and wetlands.

Readers who believe that this urban gem should be saved from the bulldozer should write to Joel Q. Pontorero, Greensburg District Mining Manager. A sample letter to be personalized is:

Dear Mr. Pontorero,

Please do not grant the Pittsburgh Palisades Project’s surface mining and stream obstruction permit. The proposed activity is in direct violation of Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. The site, Hays Woods, is a 635 acre forest that provides irreplaceable assets and ecological value to the region and should be protected.

Sincerely,

(Name and Address)

Send your letter to jpontorero@state.pa.us.

For more information about Hays Woods, including maps and photos, please visit the updated website at www.savehayswoods.org

The Save Hays Woods campaign is supported in part by a Sierra Club Huplits Wildlife Grant.

Author: Darrell Rapp

What, you may ask, is a watershed association? Well first, some people may need to be reminded of what a watershed is. A watershed is the area of land that drains to a specific stream, river, lake or other body of water. We in this region live in the Mississippi River watershed. We also live in the Ohio River watershed, a sub-region of the larger Mississippi River watershed. This can be further divided down to the watersheds of small streams and creeks.

A watershed association is an organization that has decided to come together to improve the conditions within the watershed. Sometimes these are large, government and corporate supported organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation that covers parts of several states for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay. However, the types of watershed associations that are typical in our region are small, stream-based and have very, very limited budgets. Their survival is almost entirely dependent upon the devotion of volunteers to organize events, write grant proposals and plan other activities.

Some of the major challenges and goals that a watershed association may have within the watershed include:

* Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD)

* stormwater management issues (flooding, erosion and sedimentation, etc.)
* illegal dumps and other littering
* nutrient pollution from excessive application of fertilizers and manure
* sewer overflows from antiquated or inadequately maintained public or septic systems
* habitat improvement
* greenway and trail development

Each watershed will have specific issues that are important depending on the conditions within that watershed. For example, stormwater and flooding may be a major issue in urbanized and developing areas where creation of impervious areas (e.g., roads, parking lots, buildings) has reduced the area for water to infiltrate into the ground, where it can recharge groundwater supplies. In contrast, a sparsely populated, rural area with primarily farms and forests may not have this issue at all.

The types of activities that watershed associations may get involved with include:

* grant proposal writing to address major challenges such as those listed above
* student and community education
* stream cleanups
* land use planning

One characteristic of watersheds that makes implementation of some improvement projects challenging is that watershed boundaries do not recognize the sometimes arbitrary human boundaries of states, counties, or municipalities. Therefore, an issue must many times be resolved by the cooperation of multiple communities. Or the benefits of a project may primarily be felt downstream, possibly in another municipality, from the project location. What people need to realize is that to a great extent, we all live downstream from someone. Furthermore, we are responsible for taking care of the land where we live, and we must understand that our actions can affect others far downstream.

Now how can you make a difference? Contact your local watershed association and get involved. The following is a partial listing of watershed associations in the southwestern Pennsylvania region. If you are uncertain if you are in a specific watershed, please do not hesitate to contact an organization to ask. Also note that not all areas have an organized watershed association.

Chartiers Nature Conservancy

Greene County

Lower Chartiers Watershed Council

Montour Run Watershed Association

Mt. Lebanon Nature Conservancy

Nine Mile Run Watershed Association

South Fayette Conservation Group

Streets Run Watershed Association

Upper St. Clair Citizens for Land Stewardship

Author: Peter Wray
For the first time, the Pennsylvania League of Conservation Voters (PaLCV) has selected a group of “Environmental Champions” among the state legislators. For the 2005-06 Session the League based their score on eight key votes in the House and six in the Senate.

In the House the “Champions” from the Allegheny Group’s region are lead by Dave Levdansky of Elizabeth. In the following table are the House “Champions” with PaLCV scores for the 2005-06 Session of 88 pct or higher. These Champions are ranked according to their career PaLCV scores.

Representative05-06Career
Levdansky, David10095
Frankel, Dan10089
Harhai, Ted10087
Casorio, James10084
Veon, Michael10081
Walko, Don 8891
Ramaley, Sean 8888
Pistella, Frank 8885
Costa, Paul 8882
Dermody, Frank 8880
Wheatley, Jake 8879
Preston, Joseph 8877
Markosek, Joseph 8876
DeWeese, Bill 8875
Pallone, John 8873

Regrettably, all of the above are Democrats; the average 2005-06 score for ALL Democrats in the House was 79 pct and for Republicans it was 48 pct.

Only three of the fifty members of the Senate gained more than an 80 pct score in 2005-06 session, and two of them were “Champions” from the Allegheny Group’s region:

Senator05-06Career
Costa, Jay8374
Ferlo, Jim8362

For a copy of the PaLCV’s full report with an explanation of the votes, etc., please go to www.palcv.org.

Author: Donald L. Gibbon
An exhibit showing the striking beauty of locally grown foods, fruit, vegetable and animal, has been showing at the Squirrel Hill branch of the Carnegie Library. The exhibit is part of an on-going campaign on the “True Cost of Food,” this part emphasizing “Buy Local.” The exhibit consists of twelve 16″ x 20″ color prints from local orgqanic farms. It could be expanded if there were more space. If anyone knows of other places this exhibit could be shown (high-traffic preferred, up-scale to the extent possible… This is a quality show!), and if you can help us get it placed in that location, please contact Donald L. Gibbon, show organizer and photographer, at 412-362-8451 or dongibbon@earthlink.net. We’re thinking of places such as restaurants, office lobbies or foyers, other libraries, etc.

Author: Jim Kleissler
Just over 83 years ago, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the proclamation forming Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest. The goal, according to President Coolidge’s proclamation was to protect the headwaters of the Allegheny River.

Over the years, industrial proponents for the timber and oil industries have attempted to re-write history and proclaim that this treasured national forest was created for their use. They have argued for large amounts of clearcutting and unlimited oil and gas drilling. Fortunately, citizens are working together to restore watershed protection as the management priority for Pennsylvania’s only national forest.

The decision on how the vision for the Allegheny National Forest will be carried forward will be coming forth in 2007. The forest’s management plan is currently under revision and if the Forest Service continues as planned – the timber and oil interests stand to thieve the Allegheny National Forest from the public trust.

Under the proposed plan, 94% of the Allegheny National Forest will remain subjected to the wills of private parties who control the oil interests, less than 5% of the forest will remain protected from logging, clearcutting will be the primary logging method, and 100 new miles of ATV trails will be constructed.

In order to undermine forest conservation efforts, the US Forest Service adopted a process for the Allegheny National Forest roadless inventory that caused thousands of acres of roadless forest to remain unrecognized and therefore unprotected. Without hesitation the agency has moved to push forward two timber sales that would log and/or build roads within these roadless wild forest areas thereby compromising their habitat values before a new administration can come into office and restore our roadless policies.

The oil industry is doing their best to help this effort. Oil development is currently occurring or being pursued in at least 4 inventoried roadless areas across the forest including the Allegheny Front National Recreation Area, Tracy Ridge National Recreation Area, the proposed Sugar Run Wilderness Area, and the proposed Morrison Run Wilderness Area.

The Allegheny Defense Project is leading the current struggle to protect the Allegheny roadless forest while working to adopt a vision for the Allegheny National Forest that conserves all of its watersheds, promotes ecologically sound recreation, and restores public lands values within the forest’s mission.

Want to learn more? Folks in the Pittsburgh Region can join the Allegheny Defense Project and other public lands advocates at our December 11th Meetup at 6:30pm at the Map Room in Regent Square to get more involved. Call Jim Kleissler at 412-559-1364 or visit the ADP website at www.alleghenydefense.org.

Author: Rachel Martin
The Sierra Club’s Voter Education Campaign in southwest PA was a resounding success. Through this campaign, which started in June, staff and volunteers worked to reach out to thousands of targeted infrequent environmental voters in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties.

This campaign consisted of three different phases. The first was member-to-member outreach, where Sierra Club members educated other members about the Senate candidates and let our members know that we had endorsed Bob Casey, Jr. for U.S. Senate. The next voter education phase was the longest of the campaign. Volunteers knocked on doors and made phone calls to targeted environmental voters throughout the two counties, educating them about Governor Rendell’s clean energy record and asking them to take action on the PA Clean Vehicles Program. During the final Get Out the Vote phase, volunteers informed voters of the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Bob Casey for Senate, Jason Altmire for U.S. House, and Ed Rendell for Governor, and reminded them to vote on November 7.

Over the past five months, hundreds of Sierra Club activists spent many hours knocking on doors, making phone calls, updating the voter file, collating materials, and so many other activities. These amazing volunteers took time away from their families, from all the millions of other things they could be doing to go out and actively campaign for change.

During this campaign, over 170 Sierra Club volunteers knocked on 6,000 doors, made 13,700 phone calls, and talked with 3,800 voters.

We won, and we won on so many levels.

Not only did we elect pro-environment candidates, we demonstrated that Pennsylvanians care deeply about issues like clean energy. We made the case that having good jobs doesn’t mean we have to put up with dirty air and undrinkable water. Across the country, a record number of candidates ran and won on issues like protecting our environment and clean energy. Right here in Pennsylvania, candidates like Ed Rendell, Bob Casey, and Jason Altmire made clean energy a major part of their platforms.

Our jobs are not over yet. What happens in between elections is what really counts. In this election, we elevated environmental and energy issues to a new level, and now we must work to ensure that these issues remain a priority, both with our legislators, and with our neighbors and our communities. We look forward to working with you to do just this.

Look for more information coming soon about Sierra Club campaigns to bring a new energy future to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and nationwide.

Please feel free to call or stop by the Sierra Club Pittsburgh Field Office, (412) 802-6161, 3109 Forbes Ave. in Oakland anytime.

Author: Peter Wray
Although it has no money for construction, the PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) plans to begin buying up properties in the Mon-Fayette Toll Road’s path between PA 51 and I-376 as soon as possible. Not only would this move cripple communities, but towns and schools would suffer the loss of property tax revenue–all for the sake of an unfunded project with no clear future.

The current budget shortfall for the Toll Road is $3.4 billion, and the Turnpike Commission currently has no viable source for those funds, as documented by the Urban Land Institute in a report earlier this year, and confirmed by PTC Director Joe Brimmeier.

We are calling on our local representatives to protect our communities by insisting the Turnpike hold off on right-of-way acquisition until they have secured all the funds needed to complete the project.

YOU CAN HELP by visiting www.MFX-handsoff.org and taking action. Or call Andrea Boykowycz at PennFuture for more information and ways to get involved: 412-258-6682.

Author: Claudia A. Kirkpatrick
he good news is that on October 17, 2006, the Environmental Quality Board approved the plan we had been pushing for. It will cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania by 90 percent by 2015. The state-specific plan would supersede the weaker rule put in place by the federal EPA. The DEP also rejected an industry-approved plan that called for any further reductions to be achieved through market-based emissions allowance trading. The DEP rejected that proposal, saying it was in conflict with its lawsuit against the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule because it allowed a form of emission allowance trading (see http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/).

The bad news is that the plan could still be derailed. Approval by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission is still needed. On October 18, the state Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee voted to extend by 14 days the review period for the new mercury emissions regulations. According to David DeKok of The Patriot-News, the “DEP does not believe this will prevent it from submitting the mercury regulations to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency by a Nov. 17 deadline. If the state misses the deadline, weaker EPA mercury regulations would go into effect at coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania” (Thursday, October 19, 2006). Jeff Schmidt, Senior Chapter Director for the Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania Chapter, was one of several people from various concerned environmental groups who met with key legislators to press for the DEP regulations (and the meetings with key Western Pennsylvania legislators were positive). But clearly, after the November 7 elections there may well be a number of actions that could derail the strong Pennsylvania mercury emissions regulations. The results, therefore, are not yet clear.