DOCSLIB.ORG

PA Environment Digest an Update on Environmental Issues in PA Edited By: David E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PA Environment Digest an Update on Environmental Issues in PA Edited By: David E PA Environment Digest An Update On Environmental Issues In PA Edited By: David E. Hess, Crisci Associates Winner 2009 PAEE Business Partner Of The Year Award Harrisburg, Pa June 2, 2014 PEC Opposes Bill Mandating Different Environmental Safeguards For Conventional Wells The Pennsylvania Environmental Council Tuesday sent a communication to the Pennsylvania State Senate to express its opposition to the recently introduced Senate Bill 1378 (Scrantai­R­ Jefferson, Hutchinson­R­Venango) (P.N. 2053). Paul King, President and CEO of PEC, made the following statement in association with the communication: “Senate Bill 1378 is a step in the wrong direction. At a time when we are still waiting for promulgation of new natural gas regulations from a law that passed more than two years ago, this legislation seeks to further limit protection standards. “As many natural gas operators have done at their own initiative, including in cooperative fashion through the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, we should be looking for ways to improve performance and protection – not carving out new exemptions. “If Pennsylvania truly wants to be a leader in responsible resource development, the General Assembly should promptly reject Senate Bill 1378.” (Photo: conventional oil and gas wells in the Allegheny National Forest.) The text of the communication follows: “On behalf of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, I am writing to express our strong opposition to Senate Bill 1378 (P.N. 2053) – which would establish the “Pennsylvania Conventional Oil and Gas Well Regulations Act.” “Senate Bill 1378 directs the Department of Environmental Protection and Environmental Quality Board to establish separate regulations for conventional and unconventional gas wells in Pennsylvania. This requirement would extend to all environmental protection laws in the Commonwealth. “Both conventional and unconventional wells pose potential risks to human health and the environment, including on or off site spills of wastewater or other contaminants, erosion and sedimentation issues, methane migration from subsurface disturbance, air emissions, and other impacts. Despite Senate Bill 1378’s assertion, conventional well development is not inherently “benign”. “Senate Bill 1378’s flaw is compounded by the fact that the legislation follows an artificial distinction between “conventional” and “unconventional” gas wells. The bill distinguishes “conventional” and “unconventional” operations solely by depth of the target formation – below the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent. “Here’s why this is so important: this distinction does not account for the technology or technique (for example, hydraulic fracturing) used by an operator. In fact, Senate Bill 1378 goes a step further to expressly state that the technology or design of a well is inconsequential to its characterization as “conventional” or “unconventional”(see, for example, page 2, line 23 of the legislation). “Therefore, pursuant to this legislation, any operator, regardless of the size of the company, could conduct high volume fracturing at shallow depths and still be deemed “conventional” – and thus subject to reduced protection standards. It bears noting that fracturing at shallower formations can pose even greater risks to ground and drinking water resources. “This arbitrary distinction, which has it roots in Act 13 of 2012, is wholly inappropriate as a benchmark for setting environmental protection standards. “Senate Bill 1378 creates a new and potentially vast exemption for natural gas operations, undercutting necessary environmental protections for on­site containment, drinking and surface water protection, air emissions, and other siting and control standards. “This legislation goes directly against the import of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision last December with respect to Act 13 and the sufficiency of environmental protection in regulating natural gas development. “The General Assembly should not violate the public trust by taking steps to further weaken the protections afforded to its citizens and environment. “We ask that you oppose this legislation. Thank you for your consideration.” Background: Conventional Well Drilling In PA By PA Environment Digest Conventional oil and gas wells are a significant threat to Pennsylvania’s environment if not properly regulated and increasingly fracking is used to get more production out of conventional oil and gas wells, just like unconventional Marcellus Shale wells. Since 1859 some 325,000 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania, of which an estimated 200,000 wells are abandoned and unplugged creating a pathway for air, soil and ground and surface water pollution throughout the state. It has only been since 1956 the state has required permits for new drilling operations. It was not until 1984 when well operators were required to plug non­producing wells they drilled and standards were set for well construction and operation. The environmental threat from improperly constructed and plugged conventional oil and gas wells was so great that the 1984 law Oil and Gas Act created the Abandoned and Orphaned Well Program. Some funding for abandoned well plugging was provided in the 1984 law, however it was expended in the original Growing Greener Program and supplemented in the 2012 with the Act 13 law regulating unconventional oil and gas wells. The General Assembly was clearly concerned enough by conventional oil and gas drilling in the past to establish environmental standards and find ways to deal with the environmental hazards they create. Legislation identical to Senate Bill 1378 is expected to be introduced in the House shortly. NewsClips: Rendell DCNR Officials Testify At Court Hearing On State Leasing Injunction Sought To Block Additional State Forest Drilling Court Hears Testimony In Lawsuit To Stop State Forest Drilling Plan Court Hears Request To Block State Forest Leasing Environmental Groups Files To Stop More State Gas Leasing Op­Ed: Fracking Has Gone Far Enough In Penn’s Woods Op­Ed: It’s A Good Thing PA Is Not An Anti­Fracking State Editorial: State Forests Already Host Plenty Of Gas Drilling Editorial: Corbett Takes Protection Away From Sensitive Lands Corbett: No Interest In Adding Natural Gas Severance Tax Bumsted: Handicapping A Shale Extraction Tax Cabot Drilling Company Wins Governor’s Community Impact Award Former Rendell Officials Now Say Marcellus Natural Gas Drilling Exploited State Forests StateImpact, the Patriot­News, Post­Gazette and the Citizens Voice Thursday reported former DCNR officals in the Rendell Administration now say the leasing of 137,000 acres of State Forest land for drilling exploited State Forests as a “cash cow.” The remarks were made during the first day of arguments before Commonwealth Court in a lawsuit the PA Environmental Defense Fund filed against the Rendell and Corbett Administrations over the transfer over $383 million in proceeds in DCNR’s Oil and Gas Fund to balance the state General Fund. Capitolwire.com provided a preview of the Court hearing Tuesday. The newspapers reported testimony and documents entered into evidence for the lawsuit said Michael DiBerardinis, Rendell's DCNR Secretary at the time, sent Rendell a memo on March 27, 2009, in which he told the governor: "Wholesale leasing will damage our State Forest landscape. It would scar the economic, scenic, ecological, and recreational values of the forest ­ especially the most wild and remote areas of our state in the Pennsylvania Wilds." Jim Grace, former State Forester with DCNR noted the Rendell leases in 2010 set "a terrible precedent" by ordering the exploitation of the state forest for quick cash regardless of the impacts. "It's dictating from outside how many acres should be developed without considering any of the other uses," said Grace, which flies in the face of the mission of DCNR and might possibly violate the state's role of trustee of the public resources under the terms of Article 1 Section 27 of the state constitution. Former DCNR Secretary John Quigley under Rendell echoed Grace: "We determined (additional leasing) was not in the best interests of the Commonwealth, and yet we were ordered to do two more rounds of leasing." Quigley added a provision inserted in the 2009 Fiscal Code requiring more leasing of State Forest land to generate $180 million in revenue to balance the state budget was "an effective repeal of the 1955 oil and gas lease fund act.” "We were being forced to raise almost another quarter billion dollars without regard to the agency's mission," said Quigley. "The governor and General Assembly were coming very close to slaughtering the cash cow." Quigley and DCNR did offer another 31,968 acres of State Forest for leasing in November of 2009. He said in a press release at the time, "Our approach to making state lands available for natural gas drilling has always been to limit the impact on the surface and on other uses of the land. We've been exceptionally mindful of our obligations as we developed this plan to balance our environmental responsibilities and the budget." He went on to explain, that "For about a year, DCNR has been working to prepare a lease sale. We chose these tracts of land after extensive environmental reviews to protect the health of the forest now and in the future, to allow for gas and timber extraction and public recreation, and to keep ecosystems intact that support a diversity of wildlife and plants. In total, these tracts represent a little more than 1.5 percent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste D Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type D Award Allocatio Funding Types
    Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Alverthorpe Manor BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Cultural Park (6422) 11-3 11 Development $223,000 $136,900 Key - Community Abington Township TAP Trail- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township (1101296) 22-171 22 Trails $90,000 $90,000 Key - Community Ardsley Wildlife Sanctuary- BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Development 22-37 22 Development $40,000 $40,000 Key - Community Briar Bush Nature Center Master Site Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1007785) 20-12 20 Planning $42,000 $37,000 Key - Community Pool Feasibility Studies BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1100063) 21-127 21 Planning $15,000 $15,000 Key - Community Rubicam Avenue Park KEY-PRD-1- Region 1 Abington Township (1) 1 01 Development $25,750 $25,700 Key - Community Demonstration Trail - KEY-PRD-4- Region 1 Abington Township Phase I (1659) 4 04 Development $114,330 $114,000 Key - Community KEY-SC-3- Region 1 Aldan Borough Borough Park (5) 6 03 Development $20,000 $2,000 Key - Community Ambler Pocket Park- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Ambler Borough (1102237) 23-176 23 Development $102,340 $102,000 Key - Community Comp. Rec. & Park Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Ambler Borough (4438) 8-16 08 Planning $10,400 $10,000 Key - Community American Littoral Upper & Middle Soc/Delaware Neshaminy Watershed BRC-RCP- Region 1 Riverkeeper Network Plan (3337) 6-9 06 Planning $62,500 $62,500 Key - Rivers Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Valley View Park - Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Aston Township (1100582) 21-114 21 Development $184,000 $164,000 Key - Community Comp.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWNSHIP of ABINGTON a G E N D a October 2, 2019 7:00
    township of abington John Spiegelman, Chair Tom Bowman, Vice-Chair Lori Schreiber UBLIC FFAIRS OMMITTEE Jimmy DiPlacido P A C Peggy Myers A G E N D A October 2, 2019 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Motion to approve Committee Meeting minutes of September 4, 2019 4. PRESENTATION a. Water Quality Improvement Plan – Lindsay Blanton 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC COMMENT 8. ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WISSAHICKON CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT OF THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE WISSAHICKON CREEK WATERSHED WHEREAS, thirteen municipalities in the Wissahickon Creek watershed representing roughly 99% of the land area in the watershed, the four wastewater treatment plant operators, and the Water Quality Advisory Team (“WQAT”), formed the Wissahickon Clean Water Partnership (the “Partnership”) in 2016 through the adoption by ordinance of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), and WHEREAS, the Partnership was formed to develop a technically and scientifically sound alternative to the May 2015 Draft Total Phosphorous TMDL for the Wissahickon Creek (Draft TMDL) published in draft by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”), and WHEREAS, the IGA established the Management Committee, consisting of one primary voting representative and one alternative representative per party to the IGA, each of whom have been appointed by their respective governing boards for purposes of implementing the IGA, and WHEREAS, the Management Committee, with input and support from the WQAT, has undertaken the development of an alternative to the Draft TMDL in the form of a Water Quality Improvement Plan (“WQIP” or “Plan”) for the Wissahickon Creek watershed based on a comprehensive analysis of water quality data collected throughout the watershed, and an evaluation of effective measures designed to improve water quality within the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Springfield Open Space Plan
    DRAFT 5/31/05 OPEN SPACE PLAN SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SPRINGFIELD OPEN SPACE PLAN SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Glenn A. Schaum, President Robert Gillies, Vice-President Timothy Lawn Kathleen Lunn Robert C. McGrory Marc Perry Baird Standish OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Baird Stanish, Chairman Gerald Birkelbach Charles Carabba Diane Drinker Jason Gasper Dan Johnson Michael Sokel Michael Taylor– Township Liaison Stephanie Macari– County Liaison MANAGER Donald E. Berger, Jr. RECREATION DIRECTOR Charles Carabba Hillcrest Pond, Cover Background Springfield Welcome Sign, Cover Inset SPRINGFIELD OPEN SPACE PLAN DRAFT 5/31/05 SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP OPEN SPACE PLAN APRIL 2005 This report was partially funded by The Montgomery County Green Fields/Green Towns Program Montgomery County Planning Commission SPRINGFIELD OPEN SPACE PLAN SPRINGFIELD OPEN SPACE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 GREEN FIELDS/GREEN TOWNS PROGRAM 1 DEVELOPING AN OPEN SPACE PLAN 2 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN 2 THE OLD PLAN VS. THE NEW PLAN 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS CHAPTER 1 COMMUNITY PROFILE 3 COMMUNITY CONTEXT 3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 5 REGIONAL SETTING 5 EXISTING LAND USE ANALYSIS 5 Residential 5 Commercial/Office 5 Industrial 5 Institutional 5 Parks/Recreation 7 Utilities 7 Agriculture 8 Undeveloped Land 8 Housing Types 8 Conclusion 8 COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 8 Population Trends 8 Population Classification 8 Age 10 Income 11 Special Needs Groups 12 Education Level 12 Household
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    4. THE GREENWAY BUILDING BLOCKS • West Pottsgrove Township • Pottstown Borough • Lower Pottsgrove Township • Limerick Township • Royersford Borough • Upper Providence Township • Lower Providence Township • West Norriton Township • Upper Merion Township Norristown Borough • Bridgeport Borough Plymouth Township • Conshohocken Borough • West Conshohocken Borough • Whitemarsh Township • Lower Merion Township • West Pottsgrove Township • Pottstown Borough Lower Pottsgrove Township • Limerick Township Royersford Borough • Upper Providence Township • Lower Providence Township • West Norriton Township • Upper Merion Township • Norristown Borough Bridgeport Borough • Plymouth Township Conshohocken Borough • West Conshohocken Borough • Whitemarsh Township • Lower Merion Township West Pottsgrove Township • Pottstown Borough • Lower Pottsgrove Township Limerick Township • Royersford Borough • Upper Providence Township Lower Providence Township • West Norriton Township • Upper Merion Township Norristown Borough • Bridgeport Borough Plymouth Township • Conshohocken Borough • West Conshohocken Borough • Whitemarsh Township • Lower Merion Township • West Pottsgrove Township Pottstown Borough Lower Pottsgrove Township • Limerick Township Royersford Borough • Upper Providence Township • Lower Providence • Upper Providence Township • Lower Providence Township • West Norriton Township • Upper Merion Township Norristown Borough • Bridgeport Borough Plymouth Township • Conshohocken Borough • West Conshohocken Borough • Whitemarsh Township • Lower Merion Township
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 PEC 40 Year Anniversary
    CONSERVATION THROUGH COOPERATION PCECoSntatffeanndtOs ffices . 2 PEC Board of Directors . 3 Honorary Hon. Edward G. Rendell Anniversary Governor About The Pennsylvania Committee Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Environmental Council . 5 Hon. Mark Schweiker . Former Governor Building on a Proud Past 7 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Don Welsh – President, Hon. Tom Ridge Pennsylvania Environmental Council Former Governor At Work Across Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the Commonwealth . 9 Hon. Dick Thornburgh Former Governor Tony Bartolomeo – Chairman of the Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Environmental Council Hon. John Hanger PEC at 40 . 10 Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection From Humble Beginnings: A look back at the Pennsylvania Hon. Kathleen A. McGinty Environmental Council’s first forty years Former Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection A Commitment to Advocacy . 17 Hon. David E. Hess Former Secretary PEC Leadership Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Through the Years . 18 Hon. James M. Seif Former Secretary 40 Under 40 . 20 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection The Green Generation Has Come of Age! Hon. Arthur A. Davis . Former Secretary 40 Below! 36 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Meet PEC’s Own Version of the “Under 40” Crowd Hon. Nicholas DeBenedictis Shutterbugs . 49 Former Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources PEC’s Photo Contest Showcases Amateur Hon. Peter S. Duncan Talent…and Spectacular Results! Former Secretary At Dominion, our dedication to a healthy clean up streams and parks, and assist Beyond 40 . 76 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources ecosystem goes well beyond our financial established conservation groups. Environmental investment in science and technology. It also stewardship is something that runs throughout Looking Forward Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTGOMERY COUNTY OPEN SPACE BOARD April 28, 2021 4:00
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY OPEN SPACE BOARD April 28, 2021 4:00 P.M. Montgomery County Planning Commission Norristown, PA Virtual Meeting via Zoom APPROVED MINUTES Board Members Present Staff Present Bruce D. Reed, Chair Bill Hartman, Trails & Open Space Manager, MCPC Kim Sheppard, Vice Chair Donna Fabry, Senior Trails & Open Space Planner, MCPC Michael Stokes Brian Olszak, Senior Trails & Open Space Planner, MCPC Mark Vasoli Ellen Miramontes, Trails & Open Space Planner II, MCPC Gail Farmer Scott France, Executive Director, MCPC Yvonne Montgomery, Solicitor, MCPC Anne Leavitt-Gruberger, County Planning Manager, MCPC Ann Marie Meehan, Exec Admin Assistant, MCPC Board Members Absent None Other Attendees Dulcie Flaharty John Ferro (Conservation Director, Wissahickon Trails) Philip A. Smith Marla Hexter Vicki Noone Bill Sabey John Raisch A. Welcome & Meeting Protocol Bruce D. Reed called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. An amendment to existing Pennsylvania statutes allows for public meetings to be conducted virtually to satisfy the requirements of the Sunshine Act. Bruce Reed, Board Chair, explained the meeting will be hosted via Zoom. Prior to the meeting, the agenda was published on the county website and included a phone number, meeting access code and password, along with instructions to allow the public to participate via phone or Zoom. Bruce called the roll; three board members were in attendance, and two arrived after roll was called. It was determined that a quorum was present. Bill Hartman called the roll for staff. Bruce asked if there were any members of the public present, and if so, to please identify themselves for the record.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTION 2020 a Region
    Southeastern Pennsylvania BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN An Element of the DVRPC Year 2020 Plan DIRECTION 2020 A Region... on the Rise Report 28 T ~ Delaware Valley Regional 'fJI Planning Commission DiRECTION 2020 SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN prepared by: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission The Bourse Building 111 S. Independence Mall East Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 September 1995 fj This report was printed on recycled paper The preparation of this report was funded through federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as well as by DVRPC's member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency which provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning for the orderly growth and development ofthe Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties as well as the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey. The Commission is an advisory agency which divides its planning and service functions between the Office of the Executive Director, the Office of Public Affairs, and four line Divisions: Transportation Planning, Regional Planning, Regional Information Services Center, and Finance and Administration. DVRPC's mission for the 1990s is to emphasize technical assistance and services and to conduct high priority studies for member state and local governments, while determining and meeting the needs of the private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County the Following Table Sorts the 23 Trail Segments That Are the “In Progress” Or “Pipeline” Categories by County
    Moving the Circuit Forward to Reach Montgomery County The following table sorts the 23 trail segments that are the “in progress” or “pipeline” categories by county. The table provides the trail segment’s name, the trail corridor that it is part of, its mileage and its Community Impact Score. The Community Impact Score evaluates the impact these trails will have on residents based on 500 miles by 2025 equity, length, population, community need and connectivity potential. The combined results led to scores ranging from 0 to 11.9. The trail highlighted in green is the priority trail and is identified on the map in the red. Trail Segment Description Status Community Impact Score Miles Chester Valley Trail CVT Extension East - Phase II In Progress 11.00 3.75 Cross County Trail Joshua Road to Wissahickon Trail In Progress 2.74 1.13 Cross County Trail Pennsylvania Ave. to PA 309 In Progress 4.46 0.45 Cross County Trail PA 309 Overpass to Life Time/TruMark Entrance In Progress 6.69 0.20 Cross County Trail Susquehanna Road to Bantry Drive In Progress 6.00 0.87 Liberty Bell Trail Stony Creek Park to Andale Section In Progress 6.98 0.37 Parkside/Cynwyd Trail City Line Ave. to Montgomery Ave. In Progress 8.32 0.47 Pennypack Trail Byberry Road to County Line Road In Progress 8.30 0.83 Power Line Trail Horsham Road to Montgomery Twp Gazebo Park In Progress 4.93 0.13 Germantown Pike Crossing Power Line Trail Montgomery Twp Gazebo Park to 202 Parkway Trail In Progress 6.80 0.28 Schuylkill River Trail Route 422 to Industrial Highway In Progress 8.04 0.70 Schuylkill River Trail Stenton Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2017 Volume 26 • Number 4
    Preserving the natural beauty and wildness of the Wissahickon Valley for 93 years WINTER 2017 VOLUME 26 • NUMBER 4 Special Pullout Feature on p. 9! STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT 2018-2020 ATC Roundup p. 6 Volunteer Night p. 14 What to See in the p. 17 Wissahickon Photo by Charles Uniatowski A MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR hat is Wissahickon Valley Park? This is the question we posed at a public meeting in January of this year, part of a public dialogue 40 W. Evergreen Ave., Suite 108, Philadelphia, PA 19118-3324 W (215) 247-0417 • [email protected] • fow.org that helped us determine what is achievable for FOW’s Strategic Blueprint 2018-2020 (see pullout on pp. 9-12). The mission of Friends of the Wissahickon is to Through this meeting and the entire process of developing preserve the natural beauty and wildness of the the Blueprint, we learned that the Wissahickon is not simply Wissahickon Valley and stimulate public interest therein. a nature preserve, a woodland, a forest, an urban park, or a watershed park. It is all these things and more. OFFICERS Jeff Harbison, President FOW’s Strategic Blueprint 2018-2020 confirms FOW’s Richard Kremnick, Treasurer commitment to preserving all that the Wissahickon is and David Pope, Secretary outlines the work FOW will execute in Wissahickon Valley Park over the next three years. It took more than two years PAST PRESIDENTS Cindy Affleck Charles Dilks for FOW’s Board of Directors and staff to complete the Robert A. Lukens David Pope strategic planning process—an undertaking characterized by John Rollins Edward C.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving the Circuit Forward to Reach 500 Miles by 2025
    Moving the Circuit Forward to Reach 500 miles by 2025 The Circuit Trails Segments — Status as of 2020 Status as of July 2020 Circuit Progress Existing In Progress Pipeline Planned In order to achieve the 2025 goal, approximately 146 miles need to be completed in the next five construction seasons. 148.45 miles have been identified as in a “pipeline” stage, meaning that although a feasibility study has been conducted for these 71 trail projects, design of the project is not completed, or additional obstacles exist, such as lack of public right of way. In total, there are 229.93 miles of trails that are “in progress” or in the “pipeline” stage. If 146 of those 229.93 miles could be constructed by 2025, the 500 mile goal can be achieved. The following tables were prepared by the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Environmental Council, with input from DVRPC staff and county planners. PA NJ Total miles Total segments In Progress 43.53 miles 37.95 miles 81.48 miles 71 segments Pipeline 92.96 miles 55.49 miles 148.45 miles 71 segments Total miles of In Progress and 136.49 miles 93.44 miles 229.93 miles 142 segments Pipeline segments Completed miles 269.37 miles 83.89 miles 353.26 miles 190 segments Completed, In Progress & Pipe- 405.86 miles 177.33 miles 583.19 miles line miles Circuit Trails Segments 1 Full list of the Circuit Trails Segments that are In-Progress The following lists sort the 142 trail segments that are the “in progress” or “pipeline” categories by county.
    [Show full text]
  • Schuylkill River Trail Gap Analysis at the Wissahickon Gateway
    Schuylkill River Trail Gap Analysis at the Wissahickon Gateway Submitted to: City of Philadelphia - Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department January 2013 Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. – Philadelphia and Horsham, PA With support from Toole Design Group – Silver Spring, Maryland Schuylkill River Trail Gap Analysis at the Wissahickon Gateway P a g e | 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Michael Baker Jr., Inc. would like to thank the following representatives for their time and effort in assisting with this study. Study Committee Marcus Allen - Philadelphia Department of Public Property Charles Mottershead – Philadelphia Department of Public Property Rob Armstrong - Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation Rosemary Rau - Philadelphia Canoe Club Jennifer Barr - Philadelphia Planning Commission George Schaefer – Philadelphia Canoe Club Jeannette Brugger - Philadelphia Planning Commission Gina Snyder, East Falls Development Corporation Charles Carmalt – Mayor’s Office for Transportation and Utilities Sarah Stuart –Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia Stephanie Craighead - Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation Kay Sykora - Schuylkill Project Chris Dougherty - Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation Todd Zielinski - Philadelphia Canoe Club Kevin Groves – Friends of the Wissahickon Special Thanks to our Project Sponsors Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space and Chapter 4: Trails and Pathways
    OpenChapter Space 3 Over the last decade, Montgomery County’s open space efforts and land preservation strategies have focused on the creation of an open space system for future generations to enjoy. The county’s “open space system” approach uses different open space components as building blocks for a network of interrelated lands and trails. These components include protected natural areas, greenways, county parks and historic sites, trail corridors, preserved farmland, and cultural and historic landscapes. Scenic views and vistas are a common element of all of the open space components. This system of county open space is part of a network that includes existing and future regional open space initiatives, federal and state open space lands, and lands protected by local municipalities and private organi- zations. Montgomery County has already accumulated many of these building blocks, and a growing open space network has begun to take shape due to the combined efforts of the county, federal, state, and local governments, strong partnerships with conser- vation organizations, and many energetic and determined citizen advocates. The first part of this chapter describes the existing open space resources within Montgomery County and available through- out the immediate region. This open space includes permanently preserved land (publicly accessible parkland, natural areas, and greenways) and perma- nently preserved private open space. Trails, farm- land, and historic/cultural resources are covered in detail in subsequent chapters. Montgomery County has a growing open space network. The second part of this chapter describes the strategies, actions, and collaborations that form the plan for completing the open space system.
    [Show full text]