Approximately 25 Attendees

General Comments from the Evening

1. There is a need for increased attention to water quality testing and monitoring in the Conservation Plan and with regard to funding sources.
2. There is a need for increased emphasis on the environmental education of children and adults.
3. There is a need for better advance notice of the public meetings. Governmental contacts should be notified as well.
4. Hay Creek has been selected as an Important Bird Area. It is the only one in PA in 2000.
5. Data from the EPA STORET database is inadequate; as is many other data sources.
6. It should be noted that the pace of development is superseding all land and environmental goals.
7. There is a need for a method to accomplish the ambitious land preservation goals (particularly for non-farm open space).
8. What is the role of TMDLs in assuring water quality?
9. Are the problems at Blue Marsh Lake any closer to getting rectified?
10. There is a need for an additional map of watershed "problem areas."

Sustainable Landscape Break-Out Session

The break out sessions for the sustainable landscape component of the Schuylkill River Watershed Conservation Plan mostly centered on the following issues.

1. That the Agricultural Easement locations for Berks county are available in GIS (ArcView) format - from the Ag Center NRCS
2. That septic systems play a major part in surface water pollution; and
3. That the desilting basins along the Schuylkill River, between Tinicum and Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, are mostly in public ownership and could be restored to wetland bird habitat to provide additional migration-resource sites for birds in the region.

Water Quality Modeling Break-Out Session

The break out sessions for the water quality-modeling component of the Schuylkill River Watershed Conservation Plan mostly centered on 2 issues.

First, the source and scale of the data used, and second other potential sources of pollutants to water in the area. A general discussion of the data sources and availability of data provided background information for discussing the nutrient modeling. Participants recognized the importance of agriculture as a main contributor of nitrogen and phosphorous. However, they also cited large poultry farms as significant sources. Concern was also raised about fecal coliforms present in water supplies. It was also noted that untreated sewage often enters streams from areas not served by public sewage treatment. These areas were identified as mostly in the northern areas of the watershed. Participants also raised the issue of coordination with other state and local agencies such as the Fish and Boat Commission. They wanted to know how the recommendations would be carried out, and by whom, once the plan was finished.
Finally, issues surrounding monitoring of the watershed were discussed. The group discussed where monitoring should be done, by whom, and how the data should be organized and distributed. It was noted how important this is because otherwise it is impossible to tell if any progress has been made. This issue was not entirely resolved, but a number of recommendations were made that have been incorporated into the plan.

Institutional Analysis Break-Out Session

1. One participant was very concerned about habitat conservation in the watershed and emphasized the importance of preserving natural habitat and connecting areas to conserve biodiversity.
2. At request of a participant, the "redevelopment" activity was defined, which may include community/urban revitalization including planning and physical projects. A participant suggested that redevelopment activity may be underrepresented on our maps because this activity is commonly addressed by county government, through their community development block grants and IDA funds, and by the business community. Nonprofits may not be very involved in this activity because it is primarily a government-related activity. The participant also mentioned that the Berks County Conservancy is involved with the city commissioners in community planning and redevelopment projects. The participant suggested that nonprofits elsewhere in the watershed could be more involved in directing local redevelopment by encouraging environmental practices and participating in the planning process.
3. Similarly, the agricultural preserve boards and some nonprofits are cooperating on agricultural easement projects. For more information on agricultural easements we should contact the preserve boards.
4. A participant noted that while there is no comprehensive, watershed-wide monitoring program, there are areas where intensive and in-depth water quality monitoring is underway. In other words, there is very good monitoring data for some locations in the watershed, but not comprehensively across the entire watershed. For example, USGS is monitoring at the Schuylkill headwaters and elsewhere in the watershed, including Philadelphia, Tulpehocken and French Creeks.
5. Another participant noted that water supply companies could be good partners, and/or sources of information on water quality throughout the watershed.
6. A public agency representative thought that a citizen-based monitoring program is a good idea, but that the issue of quality control in training, data collection and processing would be critical to the acceptance of citizen data by public agencies.
7. A participant noted that there is a problem with the design and implementation of onsite erosion control measures, and stated that many practices are not appropriate for actually controlling erosion on construction or development sites. The participant stated the need for better design by people familiar with onsite conditions, for better oversight to ensure erosion control implementation on sites, and general education of construction and development personnel on proper erosion control measures.
8. A participant noted that erosion runoff from agriculture is a serious problem in the Berks County area.
9. A participant noted that the PA fish commission collects data on the location of fish kills or other sites where dead fish are reported. The participant suggested that the commission waterway conservation officials had extensive knowledge of local waters and would be good sources for information on potentially polluted areas. The commission is also involved in land acquisition and the construction of recreation access like boat ramps along parts of the Schuylkill watershed. This participant would like to see extensive dam removal along the Schuylkill to allow migrating fish to come upriver as they did naturally in the past.
10. Another participant thought the watershed directory was a good idea, to facilitate communication among the many organizations working in the watershed. The participant felt that it was important to learn what specific activities and projects different nonprofits and citizen groups are conducting, and agreed that there was a lot of overlap service areas and mission activities by these groups.
11. One participant questioned whether larger national nonprofits like The Nature Conservancy might have information that would be useful to the watershed, including information on biodiversity and ecosystem health, and information on what organizations are working on projects in the watershed.
12. In reference to the recommendation for a Foundation Network and Watershed Network, a participant emphasized that there would have to be a compelling, value-added reason for local groups to participate in a watershed-wide management structure. These groups have limited time and resources, so there would have to be a "carrot" or benefit for them to participate; for example, training or resources on how to write grants. A watershed-wide group also would need strong leadership to build participation and buy-in to the coalition.
13. Another participant noted that state agencies have excellent staff devoted to grant writing who could be a resource to the local nonprofits and citizen groups; for example, if they could provide mentoring, training or consultation to local groups, perhaps through the proposed watershed service center.
14. A participant suggested that the recommended watershed capacity-building resources like the clearinghouse and the service center should be linked to the PA state website to ensure a high public profile and easy accessibility. Another participant noted that these web-based resources would require funding a webmaster position for quality control and regular updating of the websites to engage public interest.
15. One participant thought that professional training for local groups ideally should be available over the computer, for self-paced learning, e.g. an internet distance learning environment.
16. A participant suggested that Penn State University could be a source of funding and other resources including professional training.
17. With reference to the recommendation for measures of success, a participant noted the importance of having indicators to measure success of institutional progress, i.e. through the watershed coalition. For local groups to perceive the benefit of these institutional recommendations, they would need measures of success to benchmark progress achieved as a result of professional training and participation in a watershed coalition.
18. One participant noted that other larger watersheds like the Delaware River and Susquehanna have historically received much more attention and funding than smaller watersheds like the Schuylkill.
19. Another participant noted that 2 of the Philadelphia City water intakes are in the Schuylkill River watershed. Several participants agreed that educating the watershed population on where their drinking water comes from and the connection between their drinking water and the health of the watershed would help to engage public concern and participation in watershed management.
20. A participant and local resident noted that in their lifetime the upper half of the Ontelaunee Lake is silting in due to severe agricultural sediment runoff. This participant also noted that warm season grasses could be an alternative to trees in planting riparian buffers; grasses are cheaper than trees and can be used as a resource by the farmers.
21. One participant suggested that the Heinz family could be a potential funder of agriculture-related projects like streambank fencing and riparian buffers.
22. Another participant would like to see more coordination between nonprofits conducting historic preservation and those constructing greenways in the watershed. The participant noted multiple important historic and cultural sites that were nearby or within proposed greenway areas, but felt that there was a lack of coordination among these groups.