Sustainable Landscape Break-Out Session

1. The participants questioned the accuracy of census data.
2. The participants were generally disenchanted with the commitment of County government to open space and conservation issues.
3. The participants agreed that there was a strong need to educate County officials about the economic value of natural resources.
4. Other issues raised were water quantity and the connection of the Conservation Plan to local zoning.

Water Quality Modeling Break-Out Session

1. A private citizen involved with the Owl Creek Reservoir sees a need to establish base line data, set targets and develop action projects. He also sees a need for technical assistance and is looking forward to the Plan for guidance.
2. A new employee of the Conservation District indicated that the district is hoping to undertake a countywide Natural Diversity Inventory and will be approaching the Schuylkill County Commissioners about the study in the near future.
3. The President of the Schuylkill Headwaters Association (SHA), is heavily involved with a variety of watershed improvement activities. He stated that the SHA is setting up systematic water monitoring stations and had been working with the Schuylkill Riverkeeper. He stated that a Growing Greener application had been filed to design a system. He also indicated that POWR is apparently going to become more actively involved. Tom Johnson, the presenter, stressed the importance of creating a region wide water quality monitoring system that will assure scientifically acceptable results.
4. The President of SHA also expressed concern about major water withdrawal actions that are not properly regulated. Lastly, he emphasized the need to increase wetland acreage rather than just focusing upon slowing its destruction.
5. An aide from Representative Dave Argall's office called attention to the presence of several "wildcat" sewer systems and numerous direct connections in the settlements and small communities along the river and tributaries. DEP will have information about sanctions and progress (or lack thereof) toward achieving compliance with State regulations.

Institutional Analysis Break-Out Session

1. A participant noted that EPA and other agencies may have additional water quality or monitoring data that the public and this planning group may not be aware of. This participant suggested the planning group should call the EPA Region 3 office and specifically ask what data was in their monitoring library. The participant acknowledged that some of this data might be local rather than watershed-wide.
2. A participant noted that Conservation Districts were increasingly focused on watersheds. This participant said that in the National Association of Conservation Districts there is a movement to realign Conservation Districts along watershed boundaries, and to encourage partnerships among agencies and nonprofits. This participant thought that the municipal law would have to be changed before this could happen in Pennsylvania. Another participant noted that state law dictates where Conservation Districts are located. Although the staff of Conservation Districts do cooperate on projects, these participants thought that the directors/supervisors of Conservation Districts needed to be more actively involved and supportive of partnership efforts and watershed-wide management. These participants agreed that Conservation Districts could play and important role in coordinating watershed partnerships. A participant noted that Districts are challenged by being unclear about their missions, as they transition from an agricultural to a watershed conservation focus.
3. A participant noted that city commissioners respond quickly and positively to suggestions made to them by the economic community. This participant thought that it was essential for nonprofit groups throughout the watershed to form a coalition and present a united front to the city commissioners. This person thought that such an organized network would have a higher profile, and more political and financial impact on local planning.
4. One participant requested that the SRWCP document the estimated population for the watershed constituency as well as the projected population.
5. A participant supported the recommendation for professional training programs and mentioned that volunteers are passionate about their mission activities but need some basic organizational training to increase their capacity.
6. A participant noted that some groups are not clear on their mission and activities, so there is a need for a watershed management group to facilitate strategic planning and visioning with some smaller nonprofits and local governments. The participant suggested the EPA Green Communities Program or some Penn State cooperative extension programs could provide funding or resources to support this kind of planning for targeted groups with a clear need for this service.
7. Several participants noted that water and sewer authorities should be included in any watershed-wide planning efforts as these groups report to DEP.
8. Several participants emphasized the priority of economic development in Schuylkill County. The public in this area is primarily concerned about the decline in population, changing demographics (aging population) and need for job creation in this area. They agreed that there was a need for a more smart growth and sustainable development projects in this area, because they felt that Schuylkill County is suffering from unsustainable and environmentally harmful development projects.
9. Another participant noted that Schuylkill County has a long history of environmental degradation, including mining and current widespread development.
10. With respect to the role of Conservation Districts, a participant shared that PA state has just hired about 45 watershed specialists to work in Conservation Districts throughout the state. These specialists may not work completely along political boundaries (i.e. county lines) but in some cases cross these boundaries to cover broader watershed areas.
11. Several participants agreed with the need for a watershed network as a more powerful mechanism to influence government and represent watershed needs. Participants noted that this might take the form of a new nonprofit, or simply a network or coalition. One participant suggested a coalition of watershed groups as a starting point. The coalition could meet 4 times a year for meetings or events and include representatives from nonprofit groups throughout the watershed.
12. One person proposed the Maryland Aquatic Resource Commission as an example of a watershed network that includes diverse stakeholders, basically any groups with an interest in water issues. This person noted that there were efforts in Schuylkill headwaters to convene a summit of nonprofit groups for the headwaters region. This summit was stimulated in part by monies that were originally promised for conservation but were re-diverted to economic development. Another participant said that a $10 million bond issue for farmland preservation resulted in less than $1 million for that purpose while the remainder was largely diverted to economic development of industrial parks. Nonprofit summits could be organized in different counties in the watershed, and several representatives selected during these summits could represent the county groups in the wider watershed coalition.
13. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation was commended for their outreach and broad participation in watershed issues. CBF has a formal compact among the Bay states; it is possible that the watershed coalition could be formed in a similar manner. Some participants thought the watershed coalition would have to initiate the outreach and present resources to attract nonprofit participants. Resources could include education, research and capacity-building. 14. Several participants mentioned that it would be critical for the coalition to include diverse stakeholders, including Hunt and Gun clubs and other groups concerned with watershed resources.
15. A participant noted the economic and ecological importance of the remaining intact forest (around 300,000 acres) in the Schuylkill Headwaters. This participant emphasized that there need to be better economic incentives to landowners to encourage forest protection and sustainable timber harvest.
16. Several participants requested that a full copy of the draft SRWCP be placed at the Schuylkill Conservation District or Conservancy office, and that similar hard copies be available in the different watershed counties for review.