GunpowderWatershed Clearinghouse |
Attendees: Mariceleste Miller, Jim Dieter, Marjorie Slater-Kaplan, Judith Kremen, Jack Dillon, Steve Stewart, Jack Anderson, Anneke Davis, Fran Flanigan, Bill Stack, Elysabeth Bonar-Bouton, Rich Eskin, and Louis Ensor, Hugh Simmons, Bill Blauvelt, Rob Northrop, Rebecca Pitt, Jo Owens, Liz Atwood, Charlie Conklin
I.
The meeting began at 4:10 with a welcome by Charlie followed
by introductions by the attendees. Charlie reviewed the agenda goals and
no additions were made.
II.
Steve Stewart gave an update of the project with the
following highlights. The first full year of monitoring has been completed
which includes base loads and biological sampling. The GIS data layering
component is moving along quickly (some products will be ready soon). They
will be working with the fire department eventually in dealing with hazard
spill potential and histories. The first year of data will have a rough
analysis completed by the end of April. The stream geomorphological assessment
of Piney Run has been completed, as well as the bathymetry of Loch Raven.
III.
Rich Eskin began with a quick overview of the project
for any newcomers, including an explanation of the modeling goals. The
HSPF Gunpowder Basin model incorporates meteorological data, atmospheric
deposition, land use, point sources, and non-point sources. The projected
timeline for using the model will be: initial runs in June, initial calibrations
in July using second year data, initial results in September/October, and
scenario runs in November.
*Rob: would like a copy of the land use data being used in the modeling
*Elysabeth: How can groups get scenarios run?
RESPONSE: At the fall meeting, discuss initial scenario expectations for the model. At the next meeting, have something to distribute and return to the following with comments.
*Bill B.: A satellite gauging station for continuous monitoring on the Gunpowder has been approved but is not in existence. No real time data is available on-line for the Gunpowder.
*Charlie: How does this model fit in with the Chesapeake Bay model? The same parameters are being used, but it is not as high resolution as the Gunpowder. It ignores reservoirs, in fact, which this project will suggest is a limitation.
IV.
The break-out session responses were not discussed specifically
since there were no particular questions. The "next steps" from the 12/10/97
meeting, listed below in numerical order, were reviewed. Additional comments
and actions, prefixed with the letter A, are noted after each of the next
steps:
1. Inclusion of historic and trout resources in the projectís work plan (study team)
A1. DNR has already been involved with the biological assessment of the watershed.
2. Discussion by the full team of gray water usage in the watershed (study team)
A2. The response was that to recycle stormwater for nonpotable sources was cost prohibitive though a good idea.
3. Search out existing watershed presentations by area groups for use in our presentation (Mariceleste)
A3. A slide show has been assembled but it still needs to be more technical and possibly "state-of-the-art".
*Bill S.: Treatment plants and distribution systems should also be included so those outside of the watershed get the whole picture. He will look into getting slides and information.
*Rich: The focus should be on water treatment not wastewater treatment to show the importance of watershed/reservoir protection.
4. Creation of a work plan to complete the goal of public outreach (PIT)
A4. This will be part of the conference project.
5. Have a meeting to explain the modeling component of the project (study team/PIT - next meeting)
A5. Completed.
6. Make written responses to the issues raised by participants in the PIT meetings (study team)
A6. Completed.
7. Determine which forms of outreach will be used and begin their implementation (some suggestions: radio public service announcements, seminar programs on ecology, television coverage of events, local history research and presentation in connection with the watershed, presentation of bathymetric data, meetings with community groups, bus tours of the watershed for community leaders) (PIT)
A7. The newspapers have been good about including information (ex. Liz Atwoodís presence today).
8. Determine if establishing an umbrella group of watershed group representatives is feasible and implement (PIT)
A8. Some decisions will be made at this meeting.
9. Contact editors and publishers to convince them that the Project is an important topic (PIT - Judith will provide Charlie with publishing resources and Fran will provide television contacts)
A9. Fran gave information on TV contacts.
10. Involve students through community service and include a representative on the team (PIT)
A10. A grad student from Towson University is applying for an MDE internship with the Study.
*Charlie: will talk with Ron Barnes about opportunities
*Rich: has a possible intern who is a second year graduate student who may be working with the project.
11. Create an insert to appear with the cityís water bill to communicate to the municipal water users about the Project and its impacts (PIT/ Bill Stack)
A11. This will be a project for 1999.
12. Identify agricultural people and developers who already have an interest in environmental matters and involve them in the team (Charlie)
A12. Lou Ensor, from the Farm Bureau, is in attendance.
13. Try to get the Army Corps of Engineers interested in the Gunpowder Watershed (study team)
A13. The EPA will handle this contact.
14. Work to involve Carroll County collaboratively in the issues of the watershed (PIT)
A14. Issue still remains to be resolved. Need assistance from Carroll Co project team repís.
15. Keep team members updated through the webpage, e-mail, fax, or postal delivery (Mariceleste)
A15. MDE has a new webmaster whose sole responsibility will be to work on the webpage.
*Rich: Give him specific things to put on the site (http://www.mde.state.md.us)
*Marjorie: She would like to link to the website from the League of Women Voters.
16. Hold at least three meetings a year of the Public Involvement Team
A16. The next meeting will be July 8, at 4 PM, at the
Eck House (Don Outen will make arrangements with CVP).
V.
The small watershed grant request was explained with
a copy of the application distributed. The goal of the project would be
to establish a watershed conference to develop a clearinghouse of information
on the watershed and to begin a coalition of watershed organizations which
would meet regularly. Currently developers and homeowners need to be included
somehow in the PIT (Jim will follow up on this).
To develop a conference, a focus group of representatives would be needed to design the format.
*Rich: The webpage could be used to list organizations and link them to determine important points for discussion about the watershed. Contacts and mission statements for each group could also be listed.
*Judith: A glossary of acronyms needs to be added to the website along with the list of contacts and links.
*Fran: The Internet is a tool and not public participation. If the grant is not approved, what is plan B?
RESPONSE: Other sources of funding will be sought, including funds from within the Project itself. The conference will occur either way, so planning should begin in about a month.
*Jack D.: Public outreach is the most difficult component but the best way is to contact the grassroots community associations in the metropolitan area. Perhaps, an appearance on the Mark Steiner show would help.
*Judith: A direct mailing to the community associations about a "Speakerís Bureau" on the watershed topics could begin the process (get list from library, office of planning, or county council). An appearance could then piggyback with public press on the event.
*Jack A.: A conference on a general topic is hard to get people to attend unless it is following on the crux of an issue.
*Rob: There has to be a plan for the participants to work on after the conference.
*Rich: It might be better to reconsider the time frame for the conference so that the scenario runs could be used. That would promote more planning activities and give a concrete forum for response. The presentations need to be very tangible.
*Elysabeth: The original explanation of the conference was as a way to organize the watershed groups and act as a jumping off point for further action and activities.
*Jack D.: There should be an adult and a child component to the conference with a longer planning period. Focusing on children is an investment in longer term results.
*Marjorie: The focus should be on the users of the watershed and the water as community associations outside the watershed do not necessarily know where the water originates.
*Jo: There should be a bus tour instead which begins at the headwaters and travels down the river with narration along the way, ending at the filtration plant. This would be a meaningful, visual experience for the participants.
To wrap-up the discussion, Charlie called for volunteers to contact him to begin planning the conference. Its occurrence is a question of need: the need for an organization to look at the whole watershed, not just small points of focus.
*Rich: Individuals should write up their different options for an outreach event and then they could be compared and discussed.
VI.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00. The next meeting will
be Wednesday, July 8 at 4 PM at the Eck House.
Submitted by: Mariceleste Miller
Next Steps Identified in the Meeting:
|
GunpowderWatershed Clearinghouse |