community input for conservation values in the pennsylvania highlands
TRANSCRIPT
Community Input for Conservation Values in
the Pennsylvania Highlands
The Pennsylvania Approach to Community Input
• The Highlands Act requires community input to supplement secondary data
• We use three major methods:– Key Informant Interviews– Facilitated Group Discussions– Multiple Mapping Exercises
Core Conservation Values
Water
Biodiversity
Cultural, Recreation and Open Spaces
Farmland
Forestland
Main Findings from Key Informant Interviews
• What makes places special?
– About half consider Recreational value and Water resources important
– About a third consider Forestland, Farmland, and Cultural/historical value equally important
– Less than one in ten specifically mentioned Biodiversity
Who Is Protecting These Special Places?
• Land Trusts and Conservancies named twice as often
• Municipalities
• Farmland preservation groups
• Watershed groups
What Natural Resources Are Most Important?
• Water Resources
• Forest
• Farmland
• Open space, recreation & cultural resources
• Biodiversity
Concerns and Issues
• Rapid land development
• Loss of open space
• Increased traffic
• Reductions in quality of life
Facilitated Group Discussions
Middletown Facilitated Groups
Important Places Conservation Values
Threats/Concerns Reaction to KI Findings
Many Different PlacesConewago Creek
WaterBiodiversity
Development - #1Loss of HabitatWater Quality
Rank Biodiversity Higher
Ephrata Facilitated Groups
Important Places Conservation Values
Threats/Concerns Reaction to KI Findings
Welsh MountainTexter MountainCocalico Creek
WaterBiodiversity
Development - #1Loss of HabitatWater Quality
Rank Biodiversity Higher
Pottstown Facilitated Groups
Important Places Conservation Values
Threats/Concerns Reaction to KI Findings
Rivers are ImportantFrench Creek
Schuylkill River
WaterBiodiversity
Cultural/Recreation
Development - #1Loss of Open Space
Loss of Farms and Forests
Rank Biodiversity Higher
Quakertown Facilitated Groups
Important Places Conservation Values
Threats/Concerns Reaction to KI Findings
Delaware RiverQuakertown Swamp
BiodiversityCultural/Recreation
Water QualityDevelopmentLoss of Farms
Loss of Natural Areas
No Consensus
Summary of Facilitated Groups
Important Places Conservation Values
Threats/Concerns Reaction to KI Findings
Conewago CreekWelsh & Texter Mountains
Cocalico CreekFrench Creek
Schuylkill RiverDelaware River
Quakertown Swamp
WaterBiodiversity
Cultural/Recreation
DevelopmentLoss of Water Quality
Loss of Habitat, Natural Areas
Rank Biodiversity Higher
Name Middletown Ephrata Pottstown Quakertown TotalOley Valley 0 2 13 2 17Unami Creek 0 0 5 10 15Quakertown Swamp 0 1 1 11 13Big Woods 0 2 7 4 13French Creek 0 0 10 2 12Cocalico Creek 0 8 0 0 8Lehigh Canal Towpath 0 1 1 5 7Green Lane Reservoir 0 0 1 6 7South Mountain 1 0 1 4 6St. Peter's Wetland 0 0 6 0 6Nockamixon State Park 0 1 0 5 6Schuykill River 0 0 6 0 6Welsh Moutains 1 2 2 1 6Susquehanna River 3 2 0 0 5Cooks Creek 0 0 0 5 5Neversink 0 0 5 0 5Middle Creek 0 3 2 0 5
Places Mentioned Most by Meeting Location
Places Mentioned Most by Conservation Value
Name Biodiversity Farmland ForestlandRecreation/
CulturalWater Total
Oley Valley 5 10 1 1 0 17
Unami Creek 4 0 6 2 3 15
Quakertown Swamp 11 0 0 0 2 13
Big Woods 7 0 5 0 1 13
French Creek 1 1 3 3 4 12
Cocalico Creek 1 0 1 3 3 8
Lehigh Canal Towpath 0 0 0 4 3 7
Green Lane Reservoir 0 1 0 1 5 7
South Mountain 2 0 4 0 0 6
St. Peter's Wetland 4 0 1 0 1 6
Nockamixon State Park 1 1 0 3 1 6
Schuykill River 0 0 0 0 6 6
Welsh Moutains 1 0 1 1 3 6
Susquehanna River 3 0 0 1 1 5
Cooks Creek* 1 0 0 1 2 4
Neversink 1 0 3 0 1 5
Middle Creek 2 0 2 1 0 5 *Cooks Creek was mentioned 5 times but only 4 conservation values were entered (i.e. one missing value)
Threats by Values
Threat Biodiversity Farmland ForestlandRecreation/
CulturalWater Total
Development 70 41 43 34 37 225Change 11 8 10 10 4 43Pollution 5 1 1 3 13 23Logging 6 0 0 0 1 7Invasive Plants 4 0 2 0 1 7Mining 2 0 3 0 1 6
Wall Maps
Computer Maps
Pencil and Paper Maps
Sq Miles Percent0-1 130 6%2-7 1145 53%8-14 682 32%15-21 166 8%22-28 33 2%29-35 4 0%
2160 100%
Composite Maps
Sq. Miles PercentLow 777 36%
2 1057 49%3 236 11%4 76 4%
High 14 1%2160 100%
Sociodemographics by Meeting SiteMiddletown Ephrata Pottstown Quakertown Total
15 41 67 57 180
46 48 56 51 52
23 31 31 25 29
Highschool 0 10 11 13 34
Two Year Degree 0 3 8 1 12
Four Year Degree 7 17 19 28 71
Advanced Degree 8 8 29 14 59
Yes 15 24 32 34 105
No 0 13 33 21 67
Conservative 1 6 6 6 19
Moderate Conservative 1 9 14 12 36
Moderate 3 5 11 10 29
Moderate Liberal 1 10 13 14 38
Liberal 4 5 12 9 30
Other 3 1 5 2 11
Yes 14 23 52 42 131
No 1 16 14 14 45
Total Attendees
Political Affiliation
Land Use Organization
Average Age
Years in the Highlands
Education
Employment
Conservation Value by SociodemographicsBiodiversity Farmland Forestland
Recreation/Cultural
Water AVERAGE
50 50 48 46 52 49
25 30 25 33 29 28
TOTAL
Highschool 19 7 7 6 15 54
Two Year Degree 7 7 3 1 2 20
Four Year Degree 40 24 34 33 27 158
Advanced Degree 48 21 26 22 35 152
Yes 72 32 43 46 44 237
No 38 25 26 13 32 134
Conservative 3 3 12 2 10 30
Moderate Conservative 14 10 10 13 13 60
Moderate 7 12 12 11 15 57
Moderate Liberal 34 22 16 14 15 101
Liberal 39 10 16 10 12 87
Other 10 1 2 2 3 18
Yes 101 39 58 58 68 324
No 9 20 11 14 11 65
Political Affiliation
Land Use Organization
Average Age
Years in the Highlands
Education
Employment
T…T…Th…Th..That’s all Folks!