Meeting Minutes

November 29, 2001

Watershed Area 17 Meeting Notes

A meeting of the Watershed 17 Task Force was held on at 7:00 p.m on November 29, 2001 in the Bridgton Middle School auditorium. Following are the major points of discussion during the meeting.

1. Mr. Robert Brewer, Director of Planning, Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development, opened the meeting. After welcoming the attendees, he urged the Task Force to participate in the planning process, stressing that without their input, the plan will not reflect the interests and concerns of the community. He reminded the Task Force that if, at any time during the planning process, they had comments, issues or concerns, they should write, call or email either Mr. Brewer or a member of the consulting team.

2. Mr. Steven Epstein, with Perks Reutter Associates (PRA), next presented a study update. The following study tasks are currently underway:

a. Organize the Task Force

b. Conduct literature search and data acquisition

c. Continue public outreach efforts

d. Plan and conduct the visioning process and workshop

e. Continue to analyze data

Mr. Epstein indicated that the next Public Advisory Committee meeting would await articulation of the watershed vision, identification of watershed issues, and completion of the baseline watershed characterization before it is scheduled.

3. Mr. Brewer asked meeting participants to introduce themselves and identify the organization they represent, which they then did.

4. Mr. Tom Lauletta of Perks Reutter Associates requested that committee members who are aware of interesting internet links contact Watershed 17 staff so the links can be either posted on the Watershed 17 website or mentioned in the study newsletter.

5. Mr. Epstein then reported on the responses to the Task Force Subcommittee Selection and Comment Cards distributed at the September Task Force meeting. Several respondents commented that agriculture should be represented by its own subcommittee. Respondents also commented that Task Force meetings should adhere to a fixed schedule. Mr. Brewer remarked about this comment that a fixed schedule may be difficult for participants who already have commitments with other committees; however, the final decision on scheduling will rest with the Task Force.

Mr. Epstein reported that originally eight subcommittees were recommended and respondents proposed an additional eight. Mr. Epstein presented a slide of a subcommittee selection chart showing the suggested subcommittees and respondents’ selections of preferences. He said the chart would be posted on the Watershed 17 website for public viewing.

A discussion of subcommittees followed. Meeting attendees generally concurred that 16 subcommittees would be unmanageable and suggested that several of the issues be combined. Ms. Barbara Hirst, NJDEP representative on the Task Force, stressed that subcommittees play an integral part in the planning process. Based on her experience, the bulk of the study’s work is done within the subcommittees. Ms. Megan Wren, with the Delaware Bay Schooner Project, suggested that the subcommittees could be organized by sub-watershed, rather than by issue, noting that watershed planning study evaluations recommend splitting planning areas into smaller geographic areas. Mr. Brewer offered that a decision on subcommittee organization had not been made, and that the Task Force was free to consider either approach. Ms. Hirst said that the Watershed 18 Task Force had incorporated both approaches, forming subcommittees by sub areas and by cross cutting issues. She suggested that, because Watershed 17 contains several large rivers and there are several watershed groups represented on the Task Force, each watershed group might have its own subcommittee.

Mr. Brewer suggested that anyone with a strong interest in taking on the issue of subcommittee organization and operation contact him. He offered the County’s assistance with the organization effort. Mr. Epstein cautioned that if members of the Task Force did not take an active role in organizing the subcommittees, their interests and concerns might not be properly represented.

The subcommittee discussion elicited several questions and comments from the audience. The questions/comments and answers were as follow:

Question: What is the focus of the process? What are the tasks of the Task Force? What will the subcommittees be?

Response by Mr. Brewer: The Task Force is a sounding board, which will bring people into the process and make them aware of the issues. The end product will be an amendment to the areawide Water Quality Management Plan; however, the management issues the Task Force chooses to address are entirely up to the Task Force. When and which subcommittees are established is a decision that will be left to the Task Force,

Question: What does the state consider to be the problem?

Response by Mr. Epstein: NJDEP may have a general sense of the problems in Watershed 17, but the purpose of the study is to examine existing conditions thoroughly in order to be better equipped to analyze conditions and identify the most pressing problems. This information will be supplemented with the surveys that were distributed earlier this month. The surveys requested information from Task Force members about their perception of issues in the watershed. Ms. Hirst concurred with Mr. Epstein and said it is the responsibility of the Watershed 17 Management Plan study process to identify those issues that are unique to Watershed 17 that need to be addressed .

Comment (Mr. Fred Akers): I’m here because I want to help out, not to promote an agenda. If DEP has initiated a characterization that would lend direction to this study, I think we should use it.

Comment (Ms. Julie Akers): I’ve been working with other watershed groups. There is a lot of data out there. We need to harness all existing data to get a good idea of what is going on in the watershed.

Question: We know the problems in the Watershed. There are plans available such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Plan that was funded by the National Park Service. Why can’t we just take it off the shelf and implement that plan? Are we spending four years identifying issues?

Response by Ms Hirst: This is a process. As data is assembled some of the study’s projects will become products. In fact, the state specifically warned that any plans that evolved from the watershed planning process could not sit on the shelf - the plan must be implemented.

6. Mr. Epstein next presented responses to an 18-question survey distributed to all the Task Force members. As of the day of the Task Force meeting, a total of 15 completed surveys were returned by respondents, of 80 distributed. In order to understand the responses, it is important to view the Survey questions in their entirety, and the choices available to select from. The Survey may be viewed on the WMA17 website. Survey responses received to date include the following:

-Environmental protection is a primary interest of respondents

-The most popular recreational activities among respondents are crabbing, boating,

fishing and bird watching

-The water use identified as most important by the respondents is drinking water

-The factors that contribute most to the quality of life in the watershed are: parks and open space, historic buildings and public access to the water.

-The Maurice River is the water body with which most respondents associate.

-The majority of respondents feel that existing development is sufficient.

-The majority of respondents indicated that potable water supplies are adequate but will not be in the future

-Respondents strongly felt that water quality and water supply are issues that should be considered in the planning process.

Regarding the development of the watershed plan, Task Force respondents felt their talents would best be put to use setting guidelines for water use, reviewing the consultant’s work for accuracy and objectivity, advising, reviewing, recommending and holding public workshops. Most were in agreement that the meetings should be more interactive, the consultants should serve as staff to the Task Force and that subcommittees should be responsible for addressing the critical issues of the plan.

7. Mr. Ray Ferrara of TRC Omni Environmental gave a Power Point presentation overview of the data collection and watershed characterization effort. He indicated that the study is still in the “getting to know you phase.” At this stage, sharing information is critical. The study team will not begin to draw conclusions until more information has been collected and evaluated. The study team has obtained information from a variety of federal, state and local sources and is continuing its data collection efforts. Data sources thus far include USGS; EPA; Soil Conservation Districts; NJDEP; NJOSP; Cumberland, Gloucester and Atlantic counties; utilities authorities; and the study team’s own files.

The information is being recorded in a geographic information system (GIS) using the ARCVIEW computer program. Currently all municipalities within Watershed 17 have been plotted with general information about location, size, and population. There is also information about open space, available parcels, soil types, surface water bodies, tidal influence, and more in the database. Mr. Ferrara reported that this information will eventually be available on the website. This will be a very comprehensive database.

A discussion ensued about additional data needs. Municipal plans and health department records were mentioned as supplemental data sources. It was suggested that a subcommittee be formed to facilitate data collection. Mr. Ferrara stressed that data collection is not an infinite process, but data will continue to be collected over the next 12-18 months. A review and analysis of collected data will provide information from which conclusions may be drawn about Watershed 17 conditions. Mr. Ferrara offered that it might be helpful to assign different weights to data that is obtained from various sources. For example, anecdotal data collected under less stringent conditions is valuable but would not be weighted as heavily as data collected in conformance to strict standards set by the EPA. The data analysis will yield important information about the strengths and weakness of the watershed.

8. Mr. Brewer reported that a visioning workshop will be scheduled for the winter of 2002. The purpose of the workshop will be to review current conditions, discuss future trends and construct an ideal vision for the watershed. The study consulting team and the County are in the process of putting together a proposal for the visioning workshop.

9. Ms. Hirst apprised the attendees of a lake cleanup at Bridgeton’s Sunset Lake. She also indicated that a CD of statistical data is available from the state. For more information, please call DEP’s Division of Watershed Management at (609) 633-1441.

10. The date of the next Task Force meeting has not been selected. Information about the next meeting will be made available as it is developed, in the Watershed 17 newsletter, Waterlines or log onto the website at www.perksreutter.com/watershed. Materials will also be mailed to Task Force members.

11. Several issues were raised for discussion by Task Force members:

It was requested that a list of problems be made available by the next meeting. The use of a white board that would allow the group to take a “hands on” approach to discussing problems and issues in the watershed was suggested. Mr. Epstein proposed that such a process could be employed during the visioning process. Audience members commented that to construct a vision for the watershed, the group needs comprehensive facts about the watershed in order to draw conclusions.

There was a request for data reports in advance so that the information could be digested before the next meeting, putting the group in a better position to discuss the issues. Members of the Task Force also noted that they would be in a better position to choose subcommittees if they had better information about the issues. Task Force attendees stressed that to receive feedback, the consultants should give the Task Force information in advance of meetings and in an understandable format.

The discussion continued with various suggestions regarding how the subcommittees could be formed. Mr. Epstein suggested that Task Force members use the comment cards to express their opinion about the direction of the Task Force and the subcommittees, and return them to him.

12. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.