SUMMARY

Approximately 35 people attended this meeting at the Upper Providence Township building. Ann Smith, Director of Watershed Programs at the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, gave the welcome and introduction. She was followed by three presentations summarizing the main components of the Conservation Plan. Clare Billet from the Natural Lands Trust presented the goals, challenges, and existing resources for a Sustainable Landscape in the Schuylkill River watershed. Chris Cianfrani, from the Academy of Natural Science, identified the major issues to address in the Water Quality Assessment. Lastly, Elizabeth Kitchel, from the Conservation Fund, reviewed the findings of the Institutional Analysis.

Two breakout sessions followed the formal presentations. The audience divided into three groups, each focused on one of the three topics and moderated by the topic presenter. Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback during the breakout sessions. After twenty minutes they were able to switch groups for a second round.

PUBLIC INPUT & DISCUSSION
Institutional Analysis

The group discussed the need for institutions to provide watershed education for the adult population as well as youth. Suggestions of ways to educate adults on an ongoing basis included an environmental column in newspapers, presentations to business groups or historical societies, and watershed or creek road signs.

The group also expressed the need for more watershed education for municipal officials. GIS data and training need to be made available to municipalities. Several people stated that municipalities need encouragement to view issues on a more regional basis than they currently do. Perhaps one reason they resist regional planning is that they do not want to lose power. One way to link municipalities with environmental groups would be through trainings about issues concerning both groups. Environmental non-profits could hold trainings on environmental issues for municipal officials, and municipalities could hold trainings on issues such as zoning, sewage, and planning for environmental groups.

Another suggestion was to have a database or directory of watershed organizations. A coordinating agency could help to match like-minded organizations together so that they can collaborate on projects. Perhaps a government agency should be formed to be responsible for the entire watershed. The benefit of a watershed council would be that smaller organizations could take advantage of larger organizations' staff, while larger organizations would be better equipped to identify projects. Regular meetings between non-profits would enable them to work together more frequently. The question was raised as to whether competition between environmental groups has ever come up as an issue. It could become an issue when attempting to match organizations together.

A municipal official stated that a watershed clearinghouse, including data on biological taxa, would be helpful for their use. It was recommended that the data be reflected in county comprehensive plans.

Another need expressed was to bring Environmental Advisory Councils together to work on a watershed framework.

The idea came up to create a sports network to preserve open space for trails, picnic areas, and soccer fields alike.

It was recommended that institutions extend their service areas according to watershed boundaries rather than political boundaries. Stormwater management is just one issue that encourages people to think on a watershed basis. The Federation of Northern Chester County Communities is one model example of a group that transcends political boundaries. Other examples of regional organizations include the Indian Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Upper Perkiomen Regional Planning Commission. Pottstown/North Coventry are in the process of discussing regional planning.

In terms of outreach, someone noted that recommendations to organizations and public agencies should be based on what their needs are, since every community has its own specific needs and priorities.

The recommendation was made to garner more Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) funding to encourage regional planning. DCNR should be more consistent with how their money is distributed to these types of reports and conservation plans.

Water Quality Analysis

Participants discussed the reliability and completeness of water quality data. Until recently there was no monitoring on the Manatawny, though now the Schuylkill Riverkeepers are starting to monitor it. There has been monitoring on Unami Creek. Philadelphia Suburban Water is monitoring overflowing manholes after heavy rains. More inflow-infiltration monitoring is needed, but unfortunately it is low on the priority list of municipalities. As many sewer trunk lines are being overburdened by growth, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) states that reports of sanitary sewer overflows should be directed to them. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a Source Water Protection Plan 2002 is being developed by Philadelphia Suburban Water, the Philadelphia Water Department, and American Water. It will provide an analysis of the watershed.

The group talked about the issue of dams and dam removal, mentioning some specific sites such as the 7 sites on Unami Creek. The Schuylkill River Conservation Plan will address dams in general, using DEP data, but not give specific recommendations. DEP's policy is to not repair dams. It was noted that the Wildlands Conservancy is doing a dam removal on the Little Lehigh and another dam is being removed on the Manatawny. There is a potential conflict between municipalities who want to repair dams and the Fish & Boat Commission who wants to remove dams. In general, the public views dams as historical.

The question was raised as to how much water volume is contributed by Sewage Treatment Plants, and how much of the baseflow is effluent. Unfortunately, there is no coordinated effort of monitoring the watershed. Thus, quality control is highly variable.

It was suggested that the recommendation for monitoring the watershed include opportunities for training the public in monitoring techniques.

Participants discussed some specific issues of development, including construction site runoff and enforcement of standards. Citizen education about what to look for and who to contact would help enforce construction standards.

Sustainable Landscape Analysis

Concern was expressed as to how the Schuylkill Plan will be implemented by municipalities on a local level. What provisions will be made to encourage local officials to follow through with the plan? Will they receive technical support? Though the content of the plan looks good, several people relayed fear that the plan will not be taken seriously by local officials and planners.

Clare Billet responded that one of the project's goals is to give municipalities a digital form of the plan, to be used as tool to guide local planning. In terms of local support, efforts are being made to get sign-offs (letters of support) from municipalities. The goal is to obtain sign-offs from 50% of the municipalities, whose names will be listed on the website. Unfortunately, there is no way to require the municipalities to follow through with the plan.

The participants discussed additional ways to foster municipal involvement. County planning agencies could help supervise implementation of the plan. Environmental Advisory Councils could provide local encouragement. Although the supervision of local implementation was not in the scope of the original grant, it might be feasible to provide municipalities with pieces of data that are specific to their region.

Questions were raised about which regions of the watershed are most critical to protect. Clare explained that Berks County is critical because it still has many natural resources to protect, and it also expects a major population boom In terms of specific streams to protect, historically the conservation community has focused on first order streams. While they are easier to protect, it is important not to overlook the main stem.

Participants discussed the need for a Schuylkill Watershed clearinghouse of information. It is difficult to obtain records of data about the watershed because there has not been a central place to report information. Good follow-up of research projects is essential so that the information doesn't get lost.

Several people wondered whether some additional greenspace areas could be mapped into the Schuylkill plan, such as municipal parks and community open space. Clare said that those areas were not included because such site-specific data is difficult to obtain. Also, many of those parks do not function as whole ecosystems anyway. Another request was to compare existing land use versus land use in county zoning. Even though county zoning is constantly changing and the data is hard to obtain, at least one example comparison could be done for a high quality locality that is threatened by development. Such a comparison could be a startling illustration of how land gets consumed by development.

A local homeowner wondered why townships and the general public are not resisting development. It was noted that it takes a lot of time and energy to educate the public. It is also hard to enforce good environmental practices because there are no institutionally required Best Management Practices (environmentally sensitive methods of building roads, houses, etc.).