GLA CIER’S EDGE FEASIBI LITY STUDY
INTEGRATED SUMMARY REPORT — Phase I & Phase II
June 2020 Final Draft
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW.....................................................................................1
Purpose and Anticipated Outcome ......................................................................................................... 1
Structure of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 2
The Landscape Approach to Resource and Conservation Planning .................................................... 5
Pennsylvania’s Conservation Landscapes ............................................................................................. 8
Other Landscape Management Models Analyzed .............................................................................. 18
Summary of Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2: STUDY AREA BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 22
Population and Area ............................................................................................................................. 22
Economic Information .......................................................................................................................... 24
Land Use and Coverage ....................................................................................................................... 27
Developed Land................................................................................................................................ 27
Open and Agricultural Land ............................................................................................................. 29
Woodland .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 33
Surface Waters ................................................................................................................................. 35
Public Protected Lands ........................................................................................................................ 37
State Game Lands ............................................................................................................................ 37
State Parks ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Federal Lands ................................................................................................................................... 39
Municipal Parks ................................................................................................................................ 40
County Parks ..................................................................................................................................... 40
State Forests..................................................................................................................................... 41
Water Access Facilities .................................................................................................................... 41
Private Protected Lands ....................................................................................................................... 46
Natural Heritage Inventories ................................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY AREA AS AN INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE ........................... 49
Is the Study Area an Integrated Landscape? ...................................................................................... 49
Does the Study Area Meet the Criteria for a DCNR Conservation Landscape?................................ 51
Presence of DCNR-Owned Lands ........................................................................................................ 53
Sense of Place ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Readiness ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Strengths – Recreational, Cultural, and Natural Resources as Nodes for Revitalization............ 57
Weaknesses – Demographic, Economic, and Health Needs ........................................................ 58
Opportunities – Tourism and Recreational Economy .................................................................... 59
Threats – Environmental Challenges .............................................................................................. 62
Engagement .......................................................................................................................................... 66
Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................................................... 66
Public Meetings ................................................................................................................................ 75
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Strategic Investments .......................................................................................................................... 77
Trail Development ............................................................................................................................ 78
Agricultural Security ......................................................................................................................... 79
Nongovernmental Investments ....................................................................................................... 81
Charitable Foundations .................................................................................................................... 82
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER 4: POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES ............................. 86
Designation of the Study Area as a DCNR Conservation Landscape ................................................ 86
Other Relevant Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes................................................................... 87
Relevant Landscape Partnership Models from Other States ............................................................ 89
Recommended Partnership Management Models ............................................................................ 94
Potential Model A: Steering Committee-Led Model ...................................................................... 94
Potential Model B: Project Support Team Model .......................................................................... 96
Potential Model C: Minimal DCNR Funding Model ........................................................................ 97
Commonalities Between the Alternative Management Models .................................................... 97
Annual Forum ................................................................................................................................... 98
Management Recommendation of This Study ............................................................................... 99
Proposed Objectives of the Conservation Landscape...................................................................... 100
Funding for the Conservation Landscape ......................................................................................... 101
Determining the Conservation Landscape’s Boundaries ................................................................ 102
Naming of the Conservation Landscape ........................................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 5: INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 106
Potential Management Model A: Steering Committee-Led............................................................. 106
Short-Term Projects and Activities (0 to 3 Years from Designation) ........................................... 107
Medium-Term Projects and Activities (3 to 6 Years from Designation) ...................................... 108
Long-Term Projects and Activities (6 to 10 Years from Designation and Beyond)..................... 109
Potential Management Model B: Project Support Team................................................................. 110
Short-Term Projects and Activities (1 to 3 Years from Designation) ........................................... 110
Medium-Term Projects and Activities (3 to 6 Years from Designation) ...................................... 111
Long-Term Projects and Activities (6 to 10 Years from Designation and Beyond)..................... 112
SOURCES CITED ............................................................................................................................... 114
PHOTO CREDITS ............................................................................................................................... 117
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................... 118
Appendix A: Game Commission Amenities Inventory ...................................................................... 119
Appendix B: State Park Amenities Inventory.................................................................................... 121
Appendix C: Fish and Boat Commission Amenities Inventory......................................................... 130
Appendix D: Other Landscape Management Models Studied ........................................................ 133
Appendix E: Grants Catalogue .......................................................................................................... 136
Appendix F: Steering Committee Meeting Attendance Summary .................................................. 141
Appendix G: Public Meeting Attendance Summary ......................................................................... 144
Appendix H: Interviewed and Surveyed Organizations .................................................................... 146
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Feasibility Study was funded in part by a grant from the Community Conservation
Partnership Program, Environmental Steward Fund, under the administration of the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), Bureau of
Recreation and Conservation.
We would like to thank both DCNR and the Feasibility Study Steering Committee for their
valuable expertise, feedback, and assistance throughout the duration of this project.
Members of the Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study Steering Committee
Emily Beck – VisitErie
Bill Callahan – Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
Augie Carlino – Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area
Kris Carter – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Jack Cohen – Butler County Tourism and Convention Bureau
Brenda Costa – French Creek Valley Conservancy
Roger Coup – Pennsylvania Game Commission
Steve Craig – Lawrence County Board of Commissioners
Chad Foster – Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Kathy Frankel – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Kim Harris – Oil Region Alliance
Marla Meyer Papernick – Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Jeremy Rekich – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Kelly Rossiter – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Julie Slomski – Office of the Governor
Frances Stein – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Cecile Stelter – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Lew Villotti – Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Erin Wiley Moyers – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Davitt Woodwell – Pennsylvania Environmental Council
i
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2016, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) began studying the possibility of
establishing a formal connection between the large swath of public and private lands and
other assets in a north-south corridor in Western Pennsylvania, between the cities of Erie and
Pittsburgh and comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Lawrence,
Mercer, and Venango counties.
With funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and National Resources
(DCNR), PEC engaged our firm, Environmental Planning & Design, LLC, to conduct the
following Study to determine the feasibility of creating such linkages through a special
designation of the nine-county Study Area, tentatively named “Glacier’s Edge.” The goal of this
designation would be to boost economic development through the protection and promotion
of outdoor recreational assets in a region of Pennsylvania that has experienced significant
environmental and socioeconomic challenges but where there are just as many untapped
opportunities. This study explores the level of interest and potential commitment from
stakeholders, state agencies, and private funders for such an endeavor. It seeks to determine
the best methods for building partnerships to maximize the economic, recreational, and
environmental benefits that the Study Area’s resources provide to its citizens and to the
greater Commonwealth.
Similar partnerships exist in other regions of Pennsylvania through DCNR’s Conservation
Landscape program. The eight regions of the Commonwealth designated in the program,
known as Conservation Landscapes, serve as organizing networks and funding mechanisms
for watershed groups, conservation entities, municipalities and counties, and other nonprofit
and governmental organizations to take on projects to improve water quality and wildlife
habitat, promote tourism and economic development, and foster values of stewardship and
conservation among residents, visitors, and local governments alike.
If integrated into DCNR’s Conservation Landscape program, as recommended by this Study,
the Study Area would join these eight other Conservation Landscapes, which include the
Kittatinny Ridge, Laurel Highlands, Lehigh Valley Greenways, Pennsylvania Wilds, Pocono
Forests and Waters, Schuylkill Highlands, South Mountain, and Susquehanna Riverlands
Conservation Landscapes, as well as the newly designated Kittatinny Ridge Conservation
Landscape. (The possibility also exists for the Study Area to be organized as a region of special
emphasis outside of the Conservation Landscape program, upon which management,
organization, marketing, and funding pathways may differ from that of the eight Conservation
Landscapes.)
This Study ultimately looks to address the extent of these possibilities by answering the
following key questions:

Is the Study Area an integrated landscape? In other words, does the nine-county
region feature unique regional characteristics, a concentration of natural assets,
and common cultural and environmental factors that tie the area together as a
ii
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
landscape (and one that would purportedly benefit from regional conservation and
sustainable economic development efforts)?

Does the Study Area meet DCNR’s criteria for a Conservation Landscape? Such
criteria include strong natural assets, local readiness and buy-in, and state-level
support that can foster partnerships and strategic investment around
sustainability, conservation, community revitalization, and recreation in special
regions of the Commonwealth.

If determined that the Study Area is an integrated landscape for which a formal
partnership makes programmatic sense, under what collaborative model should
the landscape be managed, what should its scale and structure be, what potential
projects could be implemented in association with the landscape, and what
financial resources and options may be available to fund these projects?
Based on the findings set forth in the following chapters, we conclude that the Study Area
does indeed constitute an integrated landscape. Specifically, the counties in the Study Area
are tied together in a few crucial ways:

Water (and its solid form, ice) is the common denominator behind the Study Area’s
natural and cultural features, past and present — from its historical navigation
routes and industrial heritage to its exceptional biodiversity and modern
recreational opportunities.

The glaciated geological history of much of the Study Area’s land is unique to
Pennsylvania, with only the Commonwealth’s northeastern corner also having been
covered by glaciers during the Ice Age (and in a different and much more recent
glacial period than that of the Study Area).

Located west of the Appalachian Mountains and the Eastern Continental Divide,
the region was Pennsylvania’s frontier — and by extension, one of the nation’s first
frontier regions. The Study Area served as the front line of the French and Indian
War and was home to the beginning point of the U.S. Public Land Survey System,
which opened up the Midwestern United States for orderly settlement.

The Study Area has long functioned as an important north-south transportation
corridor, served by the historical Venango Path, Erie Extension Canal, and
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad and the modern-day Interstate 79 and U.S. Route
19. The cities at the two ends of the Study Area, Pittsburgh and Erie, remain two of
Pennsylvania’s three Major Ports as designated by the state government.

Owing to its geological history, the Study Area was the developmental birthplace of
oil and steel, two of the most significant contributing materials to world industry.
On the second question of whether the Study Area meets DCNR’s criteria for a Conservation
Landscape, we find that the region does indeed meet the criteria, with the following five
Conservation Landscape “ingredients” present:
iii
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

A critical mass and presence of DCNR-owned lands, including some of the most
visited state parks in the Commonwealth and parts of four of the Commonwealth’s
12 designated State Heritage Areas;

A sense of place based on the key elements tying the Study Area together
(discussed in the four bullet points above), as well as the only Great Lakes shoreline
in the Commonwealth and an abundance and variety of recreational assets;

Readiness for a regional cooperation model centered around conservation and
sustainable economic development and driven by demographic, economic, and
public health needs; environmental threats; and opportunities in the tourism and
recreational sectors;

Engagement, demonstrated through enthusiastic support by stakeholders for
increased regional cooperation around common values and concerns; and

Strategic investments from a variety of state and federal agencies in addition to
DCNR — such as the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) — as well as from the region’s robust presence of nongovernmental
conservation, recreation, and charitable organizations.
Based on the presence of these criteria and the enthusiasm and support from the region’s
stakeholders, we recommend that the Study Area be designated as Pennsylvania’s ninth
Conservation Landscape. After review with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee, two
management structures for a potential DCNR Conservation Landscape in the Study Area are
recommended as alternatives:

A more formal “Steering Committee” centered model that would likely work best
with a higher degree of funding and more DCNR leadership and direction; or

A less formal “Project Support Team” model with a nimble structure that may grow
and evolve over time based on needs and level of readiness.
Additionally, over 30 projects and activities are identified in this Study for short-term, midterm, and long-term implementation with a potential Conservation Landscape. A few of these
activities include:

Designating a full-time Project Manager or Ombudsman and defining that person’s
role in capacity building, outreach, and coordinating project opportunities;

Conducting several familiarization tours to engage regional stakeholders, elected
officials, and the Commonwealth government in appreciating the region’s wide
variety of recreational, natural, and cultural assets;
iv
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Holding a three-day Annual Forum at the end of each year to give the region’s
conservation, recreation, heritage, and tourism stakeholders a place to share ideas
and to compare objectives and strategies;

Coordinating funding opportunities by compiling an active database of funding
sources for various project types, preparing a list of projects that need funding, and
prioritizing those projects using agreed-upon criteria;

Developing a strategic plan for the Conservation Landscape, to be comprehensively
updated every five years;

Developing a connectivity plan for the landscape that seeks to find ways to better
connect the recreational and cultural amenities on the map, whether through
driving routes, signage opportunities, future biking trails, or other means;

Working with neighboring Conservation Landscapes to share resources and to copromote recreational amenities and tourist attractions near where the landscapes
intersect; and

Working with tourism and outdoor recreational partners to complete a tourism and
sustainable economic development plan for the region.
As suggested by the five crucial qualities that tie the region together — water, glaciation,
frontier, transportation, and industry — the Study Area is very much viewed as a “working
landscape.” Farming, timbering, quarrying, and industry coexist with areas of woodlands and
water as well as with many small towns and a few cities. Because of the prevalence of farming
in Western Pennsylvania and because the region has so many local organizations dedicated
to environmental advocacy, sportsmen’s interests, and recreation, there is a relatively strong
land conservation ethic present, and the farmers and local groups have often served as the
best stewards of the land.
In terms of the region’s shared natural and geological features, the soils, waterways, and
round hills of the Allegheny Plateau come to mind, as well as some of the Commonwealth’s
most interesting geology. These superlative natural resources represent the final products of
the four different glaciations that advanced southeastward across the northwestern corner of
the state. Additionally, the Study Area includes some of the natural features most worthy of
celebration and protection in the Commonwealth. They include but are not limited to:

Over one-fifth of the state’s wetland acres;

The state’s only Great Lakes shoreline, along Lake Erie;

The largest natural lake in Pennsylvania, Conneaut Lake;

The largest presence of fish and mollusk species in Pennsylvania's 86,000 miles
of waterways, with French Creek;
v
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

The only remnant of the Midwestern black oak savanna ecosystem in Pennsylvania;

Three National Natural Landmarks (Presque Isle, Titus and Wattsburg Bogs, and
McConnell’s Mill); and

12 of the 13 “Best Fishing Waters” sport fish species in the Commonwealth (as
designated by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission).
Some of Pennsylvania’s most celebrated recreational assets are also located in the Study
Area, including:

DCNR’s four most-visited state parks (according to 2017 data), with 11 total state
parks in the region;

Over 100,000 acres of State Game Lands;

15 National Recreation Trails; and

A portion of the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River, which offers some of the best
canoeing opportunities in the state.
Freeport, Armstrong County, from Allegheny County’s Harrison Hills Park.
vi
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The following Feasibility Study consists of a comprehensive analysis of the viability of
designating a conservation and recreation network of public parks and open spaces and
private recreational, natural-resource, and heritage-related assets in the portion of Western
Pennsylvania located between Presque Isle State Park (Erie County) and Point State Park
(Allegheny County). This area encompasses much of Northwestern Pennsylvania and largely
mirrors the corridor of the historical Venango Path 1. For the purposes of this Study, we refer
to the corridor in question as the “Study Area.”
The nine-county Study Area is made up of Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Lawrence,
Mercer, and Venango counties as well as the portion of Allegheny County north of the Ohio
and Monongahela rivers upstream to the boundary of North Versailles Township and the City
of McKeesport, and then east along the North Versailles/White Oak Borough boundary to the
Westmoreland County line. These counties are located in the Lake Erie and Ohio River
watersheds, the two major watersheds in Pennsylvania located west of the Eastern
Continental Divide. A map showing the extent of the Study Area, its counties, and its individual
municipalities is provided on page 4 (Map 1.1).
PURPOSE AND ANTICIPATED OUTCOME
The purpose of this Study is to determine the feasibility of an integrated landscape approach
in the nine-county Study Area for coordinating strategic investment and actions in the public
and private sectors that focus on sustainability, conservation, community revitalization, and
outdoor recreation.
The scope of the Study includes the following:

A review of the existing protected/conserved land located in the Study Area, with
particular attention to those lands owned by public agencies such as the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC), county and municipal governments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);

An overview of large landscape conservation and recreation management models
and the applicability of such models to the Study Area;

An overview of DCNR’s criteria for Conservation Landscapes and their applicability
to the Study Area;
1 The Venango Path was a Native American trail from the forks of the Ohio River (modern-day Pittsburgh) to Presque Isle
(modern-day Erie). It served as the main road connecting the four French forts of Fort Duquesne, Fort Machault, Fort LeBoeuf,
and Fort Presque Isle, which were captured by the British in the French and Indian War.
1
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Initial findings on the feasibility of a landscape approach to the Study Area as well
as whether the Study Area constitutes a Conservation Landscape; and

Potential management structures, funding mechanisms, and projects that could be
appropriate for implementation in the Study Area.
Expanding upon the discussions that have taken place to date regarding the feasibility of a
large landscape planning approach to the Study Area, this Study provides quantitative and
qualitative detail on important metrics and benchmarks related to the Study Area, such as
socioeconomic data, state park visitation, public lands, trails, agricultural lands, natural
resources (e.g., forests, open space, wetlands, and threatened species), traveler spending,
tourism industry economic impacts, and other relevant subjects of interest.
The Study also discusses the multitude of factors that tie the region together as a viable
strategic unit for a large landscape planning approach, including factors specific to the criteria
associated with DCNR’s successful Conservation Landscape program. We ultimately look to
conclude with this Study whether the Study Area can be considered an integrated landscape
and whether it meets DCNR’s criteria specifically as a Conservation Landscape.
With the second of these two questions, the Study addresses whether the Study Area includes
a critical mass of protected lands, whether a sense of place and identity exist based on a
shared landscape, whether common values and concerns can be identified and leveraged,
and whether opportunities and threats in the Study Area have engendered a sense of a
readiness for a regional planning approach to conservation and sustainable economic
development.
STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
This Feasibility Study is organized in the following general manner:

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview introduces the Study and provides an
overview of its purpose and anticipated outcome, a map of the Study Area, a
discussion about the landscape approach to regional conservation and resource
planning, an overview of DCNR’s Conservation Landscape model based on this
approach, a summary of other relevant models analyzed, and a summary of key
questions to be answered.

Chapter 2: Study Area Background provides demographic and economic
information about the Study Area, detail about the Study Area’s publicly protected
lands (including state parks, state game lands, state forests, federal lands, water
access facilities, and county and municipal parks), and an overview of the land use
and coverage in the region.

Chapter 3: Analysis of the Study Area as an Integrated Landscape answers the
two key questions of this Feasibility Study (whether the Study Area is an integrated
landscape and whether it meets the criteria for a Conservation Landscape),
2
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
compares the features and organization of the existing Conservation Landscapes
with that of the Study Area, and includes a detailed analysis of the Study Area and
its characteristics based on DCNR’s “ingredients” for Conservation Landscapes,
specifically:

Presence of DCNR-Owned Lands – detailed information related to the state
parks, state forests, and state heritage areas in the region;

Sense of Place – discussion about the unique natural, cultural, and historical
features that define and give impact to the Study Area;

Readiness – an analysis of the region’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats, including discussion on demographic, economic, and healthrelated challenges in the region (and the need to address these); the
opportunities to boost the region’s tourism and recreational economy; the
abundance of recreational, cultural, and natural resources as nodes for
economic revitalization efforts; and the very real environmental threats present
in the region;

Engagement – a summary of the interviews and surveys we conducted with
over 30 stakeholders from a variety of entities (agencies at all levels of
government, land conservancies, nonprofit recreational groups, private
businesses, etc.) to gauge the initial level of support for a regional cooperation
model; takeaways from the two public meetings we held in January 2020 in
Butler and Crawford counties; and a list of conservation and recreation
organizations already involved in the region; and

Strategic Investments – discussion related to the presence of numerous
agencies and partners in the region, as well as areas of additional strategic
implementation that may be addressed through investment by these agencies
and partners.

Chapter 4: Potential Management and Organizational Strategies evaluates a few
different management models and funding scenarios for the Study Area, and
discusses potential regional, statewide, and national funding resources, making
recommendations on the scale and structure of a collaboration among identified
partners/stakeholders to build resource capacity in the region.

Chapter 5: Initial Project Recommendations identifies potential projects for shortterm (0-3 years), medium-term (3-6 years), and long-term (6-10 years and beyond)
implementation that reflect the level of interest, commitment, and support from
stakeholders who would be actively involved in the proposed projects as funders,
project leads, or partners in fundraising and project implementation.

The appendices include inventories of the assets of the state recreational facilities
in the Study Area, an informational table on landscape management models
analyzed, and a grants catalogue current as of the publication of this Study.
3
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Map 1.1: The nine counties and 423 municipalities of the Study Area.
4
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
THE LANDSCAPE APPROACH TO RESOURCE AND CONSERVATION PLANNING
Before examining the specific physical, natural, environmental, and socioeconomic
characteristics of the Study Area, it is helpful to take a step back to discuss the framework
underlying why one would desire to collectively examine the nine counties of the Study Area
from an environmental management standpoint.
The roots of this framework started with a shift in the environmental movement that began in
the late twentieth century, continuing to the present day, toward the concept of environmental
justice. This shift has seen the mindset to environmental management increasingly diverge
from a top-down preservation-oriented approach — as championed by early naturalist John
Muir 2 — to a multi-objective, bottom-up landscape approach which seeks to reconcile the
interests of humans and nature (Taylor, 2000).
From federal agencies to local governments and nonprofit groups, policymakers and
environmental advocates alike have largely come to agree that the landscape approach is the
most practical strategy for conserving land and water (McKinney, Scarlett, & Kemmis, 2010).
Whether called a landscape approach (Sayer et al., 2013), a living landscape (Barrett &
Mahoney, 2012), an integrated landscape, large landscape conservation (McKinney et al.,
2010), or one of numerous other terms, this approach — underpinned by the philosophical
framework of Muir’s rival and contemporary Gifford Pinchot 3 — has generally come to describe
a management model that seeks not only to protect the natural environment but also to
“address the priorities of people who live and work within, and ultimately shape” landscapes
(Lawrence, 2010, as cited in Sayer et al., 2013).
Sayer et al. (2013) note that a universal definition for “landscape approach” has not been
agreed upon but that the term covers a diversity of approaches. However, the approach may
be broadly defined as one that seeks “to provide tools and concepts for allocating and
managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where
agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and
biodiversity goals” (Sayer et al., 2013).
As with Sayer et al., Barrett & Mahoney (2012) emphasize that a precise definition for the
landscape approach does not exist but provides that living landscapes based on this
approach “are large landscapes that are inhabited, claimed, complex, changing, and in short,
alive. They almost all cross jurisdictional boundaries, have multiple partners, and multiple
objectives.” Such landscapes reflect “a broader set of interests, ideas, and partners, including
land conservancies, heritage areas, watershed organizations, long distance trail advocates,
regional tourism initiatives, and the many other groups that are coming together around
regional and place-based initiatives” (Barrett & Mahoney, 2012).
John Muir (1838-1914) was an influential early naturalist, advocate for the protection of wilderness in the western United
States, and founder of the Sierra Club. He is associated with the preservation movement, which sought to protect lands for
their intrinsic natural and spiritual value rather than for their natural resources and usefulness to human society.
2
3 Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946) was the Governor of Pennsylvania from 1923 to 1927 and again from 1931 to 1935, and was
the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, under President Theodore Roosevelt. He is associated with the conservation
movement, advocating for the sustainable human use of natural resources rather than the mere protection of them.
5
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Barrett & Mahoney (2012) characterize the multiple objectives of the landscape approach as
inclusive of such efforts as the conservation of important habitat and scenic values, the
preservation of historic landmarks and main streets, and the revitalization of local and
regional economies. The common commitment among these objectives involves engagement
of other partners, including the people living within the landscape. These efforts “seek to
sustain and build on the assets of a region,” whether such assets are natural resources,
historic places, locally produced goods, recreational opportunities, or cultural traditions
(Barrett & Mahoney, 2012).
McKinney et al. (2010) describe large landscape conservation as a “new paradigm for
conservation” that, again, can be difficult to define, but which encompasses three criteria: (1)
multijurisdictional — the issues being addressed cut across political and jurisdictional
boundaries; (2) multipurpose — addressing a mix of related issues, including but not limited
to environment, economy, and community; and (3) multi-stakeholder — including public,
private, and non-governmental actors.
The challenges addressed by the landscape approach include protecting ecosystem integrity
and connectivity; restoring and protecting water resources; providing access for recreational
opportunities; sustaining the working farms, ranches, and forests critical to local economies
and cultures and that provide important wildlife habitat; protecting and interpreting cultural
resources as part of our national heritage; enhancing economic viability and resilience in rural
and urban communities; and adapting to climate change (McKinney et al., 2010).
A number of different large landscape models have emerged through the popular
implementation of the landscape approach as a modern conservation and resource planning
framework. Barrett & Mahoney (2012) identify 11 specific models:
1. Agricultural landscapes: “By definition, these are lived in landscapes that reflect
the complex and ever shifting relationship of man and the environment.”
2. Conservation landscapes: “These landscapes range from large forested or rangeland environments to mountainous and scenic areas, but the primary value for
which they are associated is conservation of the natural environment and
associated ecosystem benefits.”
3. Cultural landscapes: “The term cultural landscape encompasses a broad range of
resources from designed landscapes, to large naturalistic parks, to living
landscapes and to those landscapes that represent intangible values.”
4. Ecosystems: “Some of the largest-scale landscape projects encompass whole
ecosystems or watersheds. It was the environmental and land conservation world
that pioneered ecosystem thinking and today recognized the critical
interconnections between species and habitat.”
5. Heritage areas: “One of the most well-known landscape scale models, heritage
areas are geographic regions that are distinctive combination of natural and
cultural heritage.”
6
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
6. Industrial landscapes: “The heritage area idea opened the door to the conservation
of other large-scale cultural resources such as waterways, canal systems, and
associated industrial sites that were previously seen as just too big to be national
parks.”
7. International models: “A wide variety of initiatives and programs exist outside of
North America. These include the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England
and the Regional Nature Parks in France.”
8. Partnership parks: “Nationally significant large landscapes can be preserved and
made accessible to the public through a variety of partnership park models. These
collaborative approaches to resource management often encompass natural and
cultural resources close to large population centers including places where people
live and work.”
9. Regional planning models: “A metropolitan area, a watershed, or an area defined
by its ecological or cultural factors. Regional planning is a tool for both conserving
of resources and managing growth.”
10. River systems: “Includes rivers, streams, and waterways recognized by state and
federal programs. The best known is the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.
Under this program’s authority, the National Park Service manages 32 of the more
than 150 designated wild and scenic rivers in the nation.”
11. Trail systems: “The National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau
of Land Management all play a role in managing dozens of nationally designated
trails that crisscross the nation.”
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2016) observes that the “landscape approach is
particularly important where multiple jurisdictions are involved; where the threats to species,
ecosystems, and cultural resources occur at large regional scales; and where biological and
geomorphic processes span across ecosystems.” The need for conservation and resource
planning extends across the full spectrum of ecosystem services, defined as “the benefits
people obtain from ecosystems” by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005).
These services include provisioning services (e.g., food, water, timber, and fiber), regulating
services (e.g., climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality), cultural services (e.g.,
recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits), and supporting services (e.g., soil formation,
photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling) (MEA, 2005). Conservation and resource planning
should include the protection of cultural resources, such as historic and archaeological
properties, as well as traditional practices and livelihoods, such as ranching, farming, or
subsistence harvest, which often span public and private lands alike and thus require an
integrated approach to management (NAS, 2016).
NAS (2016) maintains that even as cultures and livelihoods value aspects of the landscape
differently than nature, they “are just as sensitive to landscape processes and their
jurisdictional controls.” Thus, cultural conservation can benefit from a landscape approach.
Consider, for example, the dependence by farms on groundwater recharge and likewise the
7
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
influence that farms have on nutrient delivery to waterways (NAS, 2016), or the dependence
of Pennsylvania’s generational hunting traditions on the conservation of wildlife habitat vis-àvis the dependence of forest health on effective deer management (Miller, 2014).
Given the scarcity of financial and human resources dedicated to conservation and the
“complex web of management responsibility for natural and cultural resources … scaling up
conservation efforts and engaging a range of stakeholders across jurisdictions becomes
necessary to muster a response proportional to [ecosystem] threats” (NAS, 2016).
Additionally, cross-boundary programming (such as through the multi-agency, collaborative
Central Appalachian Fire Learning Network or the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape
Conservation Cooperative) increases the capacity for finding solutions, bringing the benefits
of conservation management to a local scale where the building of local support may have
been otherwise been more challenging (NAS, 2016).
The landscape approach to conservation and resource planning, as discussed here, provides
a model for cooperation that works across a diverse socioecological system of multiple
jurisdictions, watersheds, habitats, cultural resources, and development intensities.
The eight Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes.
PENNSYLVANIA’S CONSERVATION LANDSCAPES
A key basis for analysis in this Study is DCNR’s Conservation Landscape program. The
Conservation Landscape program began in 2004 as the outcome of an approach that sought
to bring together staff across the DCNR’s six bureaus to work with local communities in an
integrated manner on issues related to Pennsylvania’s varied regions and landscapes (Patrizi,
8
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Lempa, Wilson, & Albright, 2009). The Conservation Landscapes are proactive and focused
approaches to large, natural landscapes with significant conservation value that combine
coordination of DCNR’s internal bureaus with engagement of a broad range of external
partners (Patrizi et al., 2009).
By definition, Conservation Landscapes span municipal and county boundaries. In doing so,
they look to bring regions together to collaborate in new ways to make efficient use of time,
money, and other resources, and to use approaches that draw upon a broad range of expertise
(DCNR, 2010). This approach seeks to galvanize local governments, individuals, and
businesses around common goals related to regional stewardship of conservational,
recreational, and historical value (Patrizi et al., 2009).
There are currently eight officially designated Conservation Landscapes in the
Commonwealth. These include the Laurel Highlands, Lehigh Valley Greenways, Pennsylvania
Wilds, Pocono Forests and Waters, Schuylkill Highlands, South Mountain, and Susquehanna
Riverlands Conservation Landscapes, as well as the newly designated Kittatinny Ridge
Conservation Landscape.
The oldest two Conservation Landscapes, the Pennsylvania Wilds and the Lehigh Valley
Greenways, were established under very different contexts in terms of existing capacity,
conservation needs, and landscape setting (rural vs. urban). This provided DCNR with an
opportunity to develop the principles guiding the Conservation Landscape program’s
particular landscape approach in a way that accommodates the different contexts found in
different regions of the Commonwealth. These principles, driven by the values of conservation,
sustainability, and community revitalization, have been formulated into the following set of
“ingredients” that form the backbone of the Conservation Landscape model:

Presence of DCNR-Owned Lands: “Large blocks of state parks and forests provide
the foundation for the landscape and a staffing presence.”

Sense of Place: “Regions with a sense of place and identity in many cases are
based on shared landscape not political boundaries.”

Readiness: “Often driven by opportunity or threats such as changes in the
economic base, depopulation, or sprawl.”

Engagement: “Civic engagement process that brings people of the region together
to identify common values and concerns.”

Strategic Investments: “State agencies with regional and statewide partners
provide high-level leadership, financial support, and technical assistance to build
better communities, to conserve identified values and to invest in ‘sustainable’
economic development.”
These ingredients were recently updated in DCNR’s 2019 report Pennsylvania Conservation
Landscapes: Models of Successful Collaboration, which listed the following conditions as key
commonalities of the Conservation Landscapes:
9
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Contain a core of public lands such as local or state parks, state forests, and/or
long-distance trail systems;

Engage community members and partners in resource conservation and
sustainable development to help set and achieve shared goals and priorities;

Encompass natural resources and ecosystems, built assets, and communities; and

Create new opportunities for DCNR to integrate and deploy staff expertise and
resources strategically in a place and on a landscape scale.
The Conservation Landscape program has been successful at leveraging the regional
partnership model in areas of the Commonwealth where natural assets are unique and
plentiful but where interests related to these assets were largely siloed. Patrizi et al. (2009)
found that a number of benefits have been realized by the Conservation Landscape program:

Increases in tourism have created economic benefits;

Land acquisition has protected natural resources and parks;

Visitors are realizing enhanced experiences through updated and expanded
recreational opportunities;

Communities are connected to the outdoors;

Local governments have become engaged with conservation issues;

Citizens have become more involved in their communities; and

State government agencies have carried out more efficient spending and
coordination, which has led to greater leveraging of state funds into additional
resources for communities.
A model of conservation and resource planning frequently cited as a paragon of the landscape
approach, it is perhaps no more appropriate that the Conservation Landscape program was
developed in the home territory of Pinchot, who, in his fundamental disagreement with Muir’s
ethic of preservation, advocated instead for conservation through sustainable natural
resource management (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2013; Westover, 2016; NPS,
2018c). John Quigley, former secretary of DCNR, discusses the Conservation Landscape
model within this framework: “The Conservation Landscape Initiative approach challenges
DCNR to position the conservation of our natural resources as the linchpin to sustainable
communities and economies. … It calls on us — the heirs of [Maurice] Goddard 4 and Pinchot
— to bring new energy and vision to conservation in the 21st century, a time of unparalleled
4 Maurice K. Goddard (1912-1995) served as the first Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, which later became DCNR and DEP (the Department of Environmental Protection). In his 24 years of service,
Goddard more than doubled the number of state parks in the Commonwealth, from 44 parks in 1955 to 99 parks by the
time he retired in 1979. His goal had been to build a state park within 25 miles of every resident of Pennsylvania.
10
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
threats to our natural resources and to sustainable economic growth across this state” (Patrizi
et al., 2009).
The eight existing Conservation Landscapes vary considerably in physical size, population,
population density, regional setting, number of local governments, and acreage of public
protected lands. Table 1.1 below compares the vital statistics of the existing Conservation
Landscapes with those of the Study Area.
Table 1.1: Comparison of Land Area, Population, Density, and Municipal Entities in the Existing
Conservation Landscapes and Study Area 5
Conservation
Landscape
Laurel
Highlands
Lehigh Valley
Greenways
Pennsylvania
Wilds
Pocono Forests
and Waters
Schuylkill
Highlands
South
Mountain
Susquehanna
Riverlands
Study Area
Total Land Area
(square miles)
Population
(2010)
Population Density
(people per sq mi)
Number of
Counties
Number of
Municipalities
3,344
442,911
132
5
184
726
600,097
827
2
57
10,626
517,253
49
13
356
3,694
880,637
238
6
201
1,452
912,720
629
6
137
952
221,817
233
4
45
769
380,008
494
2
51
5,786
1,730,014
299
9
423
The following subsections summarize each of the existing Conservation Landscape’s
objectives, regional setting, key features and characteristics, conservation purposes and
intent, and organizational structure and partners:
Kittatinny Ridge
Objective: To conserve the natural, scenic, cultural, and aesthetic resources of the Kittatinny
Ridge and Corridor, from the Delaware River to the Mason-Dixon Line.
Regional Setting: The Kittatinny Ridge Conservation Landscape, officially recognized by DCNR
in October 2019 as the Commonwealth’s newest Conservation Landscape, comprises a 185mile corridor running northeast to southwest from the Delaware Water Gap at the
Pennsylvania/New Jersey border in Monroe and Northampton counties to the Mason-Dixon
Line (Maryland/Pennsylvania border) in Franklin and Fulton counties. The Conservation
Landscape makes up Pennsylvania’s portion of the front line of the Appalachian Mountains,
consisting of a continuous ridge extending from New York State to Georgia and Alabama.
5
Information for the Kittatinny Ridge Conservation Landscape was not available at the time of this writing.
11
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Key Features and Characteristics: The Kittatinny Ridge is a major migratory superhighway that
calls to thousands of bird species to follow its narrow spine along the eastern part of the North
American continent. Some of the best-known natural features in Pennsylvania — Hawk
Mountain, Waggoners Gap, Delaware Water Gap, and Bake Oven Knob — lie along the ridge.
The Conservation Landscape’s unbroken forests and shrub habitat transect Pennsylvania
from the Delaware Water Gap to the Maryland border, overlapping in its northeastern half with
the Lehigh Valley Greenways, Pocono Forests and Waters, and Schuylkill Highlands
Conservation Landscapes. The ridge has seven important mammal areas and is globally
important as a flyway for 16 different species of raptors and more than 150 species of
songbirds. It also includes 160 miles of the Appalachian Trail.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: In a study conducted by the Nature Conservancy, the
Kittatinny Ridge was determined to be the most climate resilient landscape in Pennsylvania.
This unique designation is assigned to landscapes that provide an unbroken area for plants
and animals to move to higher elevations as the climate gets increasingly warmer and habitats
change. However, stresses from a changing climate, inundation from exotic and invasive
species, an overpopulation of white tail deer, and development have put this natural
landscape in critical danger. The six overarching goals of the Conservation Landscape are to
protect more than 700 of the highest priority parcels along the ridge; conserve native habitat
and wildlife to support species diversity; share conservation research including regarding
habitats, management activities, history, and communities; provide clean and plentiful water;
protect ridge and trail landscapes through municipal action such as planning and zoning tools;
and facilitate community engagement to raise awareness about the connection between
natural resources and economic revitalization.
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Conservation Landscape is led by DCNR Geologist
Supervisor Kristen Hand and Audubon Pennsylvania Landscape Conservation Program
Manager Jeanne Ortiz. The foundation of the Conservation Landscape is the Kittatinny
Coalition, an alliance of organizations, agencies, and academic institutions working with
municipal officials and private landowners. Founded in 2002, the coalition ties together the
combined strength of Audubon Pennsylvania, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and the
Nature Conservancy.
Laurel Highlands
Objective: To conserve and promote the recreational and cultural aspects of an area in
southwestern Pennsylvania defined by three Allegheny Plateau ridges and portions of several
watersheds.
Regional Setting: The Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape includes areas ranging from
the suburbs and exurbs of Pittsburgh to large protected wilderness lands to pastoral farmland.
This region of significant natural beauty and abundant recreation includes numerous small
towns that developed as result of the coal mining industry, which remained an important part
of the economy until the 1980s, after which the economic and demographic fortunes of the
region declined.
12
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Key Features and Characteristics: The main landform characteristic of the Laurel Highlands
Conservation Landscape is the Allegheny Mountains and the associated ridges that rise over
2,000 feet from the Allegheny Plateau to form the Appalachian Mountains. Waterfalls, such
as Ohiopyle Falls, and the busiest whitewater river east of the Mississippi, the Youghiogheny,
are key natural features and attractions in this region. The Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail and
the Great Allegheny Passage are major trails crossing the region, and the National Road
Heritage Corridor anchors the southern portion of the Conservation Landscape. Numerous
historic sites including important battle sites, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater house, the
Johnstown Flood Museum, and the Flight 93 National Memorial dot the landscape. Several
four-seasons resorts such as Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, Seven Springs Mountain Resort,
and Hidden Valley Resort draw tourists from a wide area.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Laurel Highlands Conservation
Landscape includes the fostering of sustainable tourism and economic development
opportunities that capitalize on the region’s natural assets and its history as an outdoor
playground for nearby Pittsburgh. The work of this Conservation Landscape includes the
conservation, restoration, and improvement of a diverse variety of ecological, cultural, historic,
and recreational resources.
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape is a
partnership between a number of different stakeholders, including conservation groups,
charitable foundations, tourism promotion agencies, historic preservation organizations, and
trail groups. These include DCNR, the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED), the National Road Heritage Area, the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor,
the Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), the Allegheny Trail Alliance,
members of the Pittsburgh foundation community, and many other agencies and groups.
Lehigh Valley Greenways
Objective: To use greenways and trails to connect natural and cultural resources in Lehigh
and Northampton counties.
Regional Setting: The Lehigh Valley Greenways Conservation Landscape, made up of fastgrowing Lehigh and Northampton counties, includes a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural
settings. According to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, the two counties are expected
to grow by nearly 22% from 2010 to 2030, which threaten the natural resources in the region.
Key Features and Characteristics: The Lehigh Valley Greenways Conservation Landscape has
a comparatively small inventory of public and DCNR-owned land when compared to most of
the other Conservation Landscapes. However, the Jacobsburg Environmental Education
Center has provided one of DCNR’s most innovative state park models and is viewed as a
future blueprint for DCNR properties. The northern boundary of the Conservation Landscape
is comprised of the Kittatinny Ridge and overlaps with the Kittatinny Ridge Conservation
Landscape. A major rail-trail, the D&L Trail, bisects the region, running from Wilkes-Barre to
the Delaware River just seven miles upriver from Northeast Philadelphia.
13
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Lehigh Valley Greenways Conservation
Landscape is the protection of natural resources in the face of a rapidly growing population.
Goals include conservation and restoration of critical landscapes and stream corridors, the
connection of the region’s population to greenway and trail opportunities, the revitalization of
the region’s communities to enhance quality of life, and the promotion of the natural
environment and environmental stewardship among residents.
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Lehigh Valley Greenways Conservation Landscape
is led by the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and DCNR, with numerous
additional partners such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission,
the Martins Jacoby Watershed Association, and several national and regional conservancies.
The partnership is built on land conservation and restoration, outdoor recreation and trail
connections, community revitalization, and local education and outreach.
Pennsylvania Wilds
Objective: To herald the significant outdoor experiences and rural community character found
in a 12-county region in northcentral and northwestern Pennsylvania.
Regional Setting: The Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape includes some of
Pennsylvania’s most sparsely populated land, comprising 25% of the state’s land area (an
area larger than nine U.S. states) but only containing 4% of its population. Small towns
historically centered on the lumber and oil industries are interspersed by vast protected
wilderness across a 13-county region in the northcentral part of the state.
Key Features and Characteristics: Numerous natural, scenic, recreational, and cultural
features characterize the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape. These include
Pennsylvania’s only national forest, the largest elk herd in the northeastern United States,
internationally-recognized dark skies, the Pine Creek Gorge (known informally as the
Pennsylvania Grand Canyon), a substantial portion of the Pennsylvania Route 6 Heritage
Corridor, and by far the largest acreage of public protected land per person in any of the state’s
Conservation Landscapes.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation
Landscape is to help revitalize rural communities in the region through sustainable tourism
development. The Conservation Landscape intends to leverage existing service providers,
including agencies at all levels of government and the tourism and outdoor recreation sectors,
rather than creating new bureaucratic layers. The idea of bringing together disparate counties
and municipalities into partnership with one another has radically transformed the mindset of
the residents and local governments in the region from one of hyperlocal interest to one
characterized by regional outlook and common interest on mutual issues. Additional
significant work in the Conservation Landscape has involved the improvement of
infrastructure and amenities within the parks and forests, which were often outdated due to
their remoteness, and the promotion of better land use planning and community design.
14
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Pennsylvania Wilds Planning Team involves more
than 40 organizations representing federal, state, and county governments; tourism and
cultural interests; educational institutions; economic development agencies; and the private
sector. The partnership was formed initially by DCNR and DCED but evolved into a more robust
partnership of stakeholders comprising the Pennsylvania Wilds Center and Planning Team.
Pocono Forests and Waters
Objective: To focus on land protection and history in two distinct areas in Pike, Monroe,
Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wayne, and Carbon counties.
Regional Setting: The Pocono Forest and Waters Conservation Landscape is located in the
northeast corner of the state, within an easy drive of the 30 million people living in the New
York City and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. About 20% of the land is publicly protected,
but legacy industrial cities such as Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazelton are also key
components of the regional setting. Development pressure is a major concern in the region,
given its proximity to New York City.
Key Features and Characteristics: This six-county Conservation Landscape is home to the
largest concentration of wetlands in the state, with 20% of the state’s wetland inventory, and
is a hub of publicly protected lands, including DCNR-owned state parks and state forests. The
region is also unique as one of the two corners of Pennsylvania that underwent glaciation
during the Ice Age. With its convenient location to the East Coast’s major population centers,
the Pocono Forest and Waters have a long legacy as an outdoor playground of hunting camps,
ski areas, resort hotels, summer cabins, and fishing lakes. The Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area and the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River are both located in
this Conservation Landscape.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The vision of the Pocono Forests and Waters Conservation
Landscape is to conserve the natural environment and enhance quality of life by sustaining
the region’s vital natural resources. The Conservation Landscape was organized to respond
to the development pressure and haphazard development pattern of the region, and resource
protection and sustainable planning are thus the most prominent goals of the landscape.
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Pocono Forests and Waters Conservation
Landscape is led by DCNR, which facilitates partnerships and efforts among the other
constituencies in the region, such as the National Park Service, state agencies, local
governments, land trusts and other nonprofits, regional tourism boards, and local businesses.
Schuylkill Highlands
Objective: To protect trails and lands in some of the state’s most populated communities in
Berks, Bucks, Chester, Lebanon, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Montgomery counties.
Regional Setting: The Schuylkill Highlands Conservation Landscape includes a span of six
counties from suburban Philadelphia to Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. These counties are a
15
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
diverse mix of urban, rural, and suburban landscapes, with a high concentration of both
cultural, historic, and industrial sites and environmentally sensitive forests and streams.
Key Features and Characteristics: Located at the intersection of the Pennsylvania Highlands
and the Schuylkill River Watershed, the Schuylkill Highlands Conservation Landscape is home
to the largest unbroken forest between Washington, D.C. and New York City and contains the
headwaters of numerous streams, including 660 miles of Exceptional Value and High Quality
streams that provide a source of drinking water for a large portion of the Philadelphia
metropolitan area. A number of trails crisscross the region, including the Schuylkill River Bike
and Water Trail.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The objectives of the Schuylkill Highlands Partnership are
to protect the region’s natural, cultural, and recreational resources; connect residents and
visitors to the many outdoor opportunities in the region; and sustain the conservation
landscape through best practices. Key initiatives include creating a network of interconnecting
trails in the region; promoting interpretive tours, walks, adventures, and events related to the
area’s cultural heritage and recreational opportunities; promoting sustainable economic
development related to recreational, cultural, historic, and nature-based tourism; protecting,
restoring, and stewarding the most critical habitats, water resources, and geological features
in the landscape; promoting local agriculture by connecting residents to locally-grown foods
and by supporting best-stewardship practices related to the preservation of farmland; and
providing small grants to advance nature-based and natural-resource-based project
implementation. A major goal includes increasing collaboration and engagement —
opportunities for multi-partner approaches to issues that support both quality of life and
conservation values.
Organizational Structure and Partners: Project partners include federal, state, regional, and
local government entities; land trusts, watershed associations, and conservation nonprofits;
tourism and economic development councils; universities and colleges; and local businesses
and residents. The Schuylkill Highlands Partnership is led by the Natural Lands Trust.
South Mountain
Objective: To highlight the natural, aesthetic, historic, cultural, community, agricultural, and
recreational resources in southcentral Pennsylvania.
Regional Setting: The South Mountain Conservation Landscape covers much of southcentral
Pennsylvania, including the counties of Adams, Franklin, Cumberland, and York. The region is
a mix of historic towns such as Gettysburg and Chambersburg, portions of the fast-growing
West Shore suburbs of the Harrisburg Capital Region, and the protected mountain wilderness
of Michaux State Forest. Some of the most productive farmland in the state and in the country
is located in this Conservation Landscape.
Key Features and Characteristics: The eponymous South Mountain is the primary natural
feature of this Conservation Landscape and represents the northern end of the Blue Ridge
Mountains, which stretch from Georgia to Pennsylvania and which area natural flyway for
migratory bird species. The region includes a section of the Appalachian Trail and the
16
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Gettysburg National Military Park. The water resources in the region are fed by the mountain’s
springs and underground aquifers and give way to a number of high-quality cold-water
fisheries and trout streams and the greatest concentration of seasonal vernal pools in any
forested region on the state. While much of the immediate mountain is protected as the
Michaux State Forest, there are significant unprotected forest and wetland areas of high
natural value in the Conservation Landscape. These are in danger of being lost due to the
rapid population growth and development occurring in the region.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the South Mountain Partnership is to
encourage and promote the further appreciation and protection of the intrinsic geographic,
geologic, biologic, and heritage resources and value of the South Mountain landscape and the
important connection that these have to the quality of life and place in the region, to its
sustainability, and to a strong economy.
Organizational Structure and Partners: The Appalachian Trail Conservancy is the lead partner
of the South Mountain Partnership, which includes a diversity of cultural, recreational, and
environmental stakeholders, including a number of land trusts and conservancies, the Civil
War Preservation Trust, several colleges and universities, county governments and
conservation districts, the National Park Service, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the
Pennsylvania chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Audubon Society, regional
visitors bureaus, and many state agencies.
Susquehanna Riverlands
Objective: To conserve the greenway corridor of river lands along the Susquehanna River as
it traverses the boundary of Lancaster and York counties.
Regional Setting: The Susquehanna Riverlands Conservation Landscape includes the lands
on either side of the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and York counties from just southeast
of the state capital of Harrisburg to the Maryland state line. Small river towns in this region
include Columbia, Wrightsville, and Marietta, and are surrounded by natural and recreational
attractions such as overlooks, trails, nature preserves, cliffs, islands, and fishing, boating, and
rafting areas.
Key Features and Characteristics: The key features of the Susquehanna Riverlands
Conservation Landscape are three National Recreation Trails, three lakes created by
hydroelectric dams along the river, numerous preserves along the river including the Ferncliff
Nature Preserve, the coterminous Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, important birding
areas, and historic riverfront towns. Multipurpose trails line the river, including the Lancaster
County North West River Trail and the Low Grade Rail Trail. Multiple vistas provide scenic
views from numerous vantage points along the Susquehanna River, overlooking its many
islands and sand flats. The river is emerging as a major recreational attraction, and the towns
along the river are capitalizing on their industrial past while embracing their adjoining natural
resources.
Conservation Purpose and Intent: The three main goals on the Susquehanna Riverlands
Conservation Landscape are stewardship, connection, and economic development. This
17
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
includes the conservation and protection of the natural, cultural, historic, and scenic
resources that define the lower Susquehanna River; strengthening the relationships between
people and the natural and cultural heritage of the river corridor; supporting local economic
activity through sustainable natural and heritage tourism; encouraging place-based economic
activity centered around the region’s rural life. Protecting this stretch of the Susquehanna
River is of vital significance to improving the water quality of Chesapeake Bay, of which the
river provides more than half of freshwater.
Organizational Structure and Partners: Lancaster and York counties, the Lancaster County
Conservancy, the Conservation Fund, and the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area are the
major partners for this Conservation Landscape. Significant efforts have also been made to
engage the power companies owning the dams and hydroelectric structures along the river.
OTHER LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT MODELS ANALYZED
In addition to DCNR’s Conservation Landscape model, we also analyzed several other largelandscape conservation and recreation models from around the United States as part of this
Study. These management models ranged from approaches led by a federal government
agency to a loose confederation of organizations, and their focus areas ranged from targeted
environmental conservation to cultural heritage preservation to statewide recreational
initiatives. The land area covered by the specific models varied greatly in size, from less than
a square mile to hundreds of thousands of square miles. A summary of these models is
provided as follows, with additional information provided in Appendix D of this Study.
Recreation Management Areas
Recreation management areas include National Recreation Areas and Scenic River
management plans comprised of various public lands under different forms of ownership from
predominantly federal to primarily local or private. Examples that we analyzed include the
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area (Massachusetts), the Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area (Utah), and the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (Pennsylvania
and New York).
Cultural Landscape Areas
Cultural landscape areas include master-planned management of urban, natural, and
culturally significant landscapes with historical, aesthetic, and cultural value, led by a
collaborative partnership between city, county, metropolitan regional, state, and tribal
governments, along with private developers and site owners. The National Park Service
specifically defines a cultural landscape as “a geographic area, including both cultural and
natural resources and the wildlife and domestic animals therein, associated with a historic
event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS, 2018b). There
are more than 800 cultural landscapes in the National Park system, varying in size from many
thousands of acres to less than an acre (NPS, 2018a). An example of a cultural landscape
that we studied was the Willamette Falls Legacy Project (Oregon).
18
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Heritage Areas
Heritage areas include designated regions or corridors led by a nonprofit that promotes public
and private partnerships between state parks, museums, National Register sites, and historic
farms. According to the National Park Service, heritage areas are “places where natural,
cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape”
(NPS, 2019). There are four designated heritage areas in the Study Area and many more
across the country. Some heritage areas that we studied include the Essex National Heritage
Area (Massachusetts), the Calumet Heritage Partnership (Illinois and Indiana), and the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area (Pennsylvania).
Land Use Management Districts
Land use management districts include large national reserves led by a commission
comprised of federal, state, and county-appointed officials, with diverse funding sources, a
comprehensive land management plan, and a well-staffed led organization. An example that
we studied was the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve.
Landscape Management Networks
Landscape management networks include diffuse networks of dozens if not hundreds of
entities working over a massive, rugged, and sparsely populated region. An example of such
a network that we analyzed was the Crown Managers Partnership (Montana, Alberta, and
British Columbia).
Landowner Coalitions for Watershed Management
Landowner coalition for watershed management include watershed-based conservation
programs directed by a volunteer board of private landowners, federal/state land managers,
and local government officials emphasizing consensus and benefits to rural communities.
Examples include the Chesapeake Large Landscape Conservation Partnership (DE, MD, NY,
PA, VA, and Washington, DC) and the Blackfoot Challenge (Montana).
Statewide Outdoor Recreation Initiatives
Statewide outdoor recreation initiatives bring together businesses, agencies, land managers,
and conservation/recreation groups, with an emphasis on strategic investment for rural
economic development. Examples include the Oregon Outdoor Recreation Initiative and the
Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
As discussed earlier in this chapter, this Study ultimately looks to answer two key questions:
1) Is the Study Area an integrated landscape? and 2) Does the Study Area meet DCNR’s
19
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
criteria for a Conservation Landscape (and by extension, should the Study Area be designated
as a Conservation Landscape)?
On the first question, we conclude that the Study Area constitutes an integrated landscape
due to the commonality of the glaciated geological history across most of the region; the
central presence of water and ice in its natural and cultural development; the historical
importance of the region to the country’s westward settlement; the prominent role as a
transportation corridor that the region has played throughout its history; and the emergence
of oil and steel production in the region and its influence on the world’s industrial history.
On the second question, we find that the region meets DCNR’s criteria for a Conservation
Landscape, with a critical mass of DCNR-owned lands; a sense of place based on the
characteristics discussed above that make the Study Area an integrated landscape; readiness
for increased regional driven by socioeconomic challenges, environmental threats, and the
emergence of sustainable economic opportunities; engagement demonstrated through
stakeholder enthusiasm for increased regional cooperation around common values and
concerns; and strategic investments by a wide variety of governmental entities and their
nonprofit and foundational partners. We also conclude that the Study Area would benefit from
and be a natural fit for the DCNR Conservation Landscape program and, as such, recommend
its inclusion in the program.
Kennerdell Overlook, Clear Creek State Forest, Venango County.
20
21
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
CHAPTER 2: STUDY AREA BACKGROUND
This chapter presents background data on the following types of information related to the
Study Area:

Population and Area, which includes the population, density, age distribution,
number of municipalities in, and land area of the nine counties in the Study Area;

Economic Information, including information on the region’s economic sectors,
output, and natural-resource-dependent economic activities;

Land Coverage, with a look at the region’s agricultural lands and open space,
developed lands, wooded areas, wetlands, and surface waters;

Public Protected Lands, including state parks, county parks, municipal parks,
state forests, state game lands, water access facilities, and federal lands; and

Private Protected Lands, which includes properties and easements by land trusts
and other conservation and recreation organizations.
POPULATION AND AREA
The total land area of the Study Area is 5,786 square miles, or 3,703,277 acres. The Study
Area consists of eight counties in their entirety and a portion of one additional county:

Armstrong (entire county);

Beaver (entire county);

Butler (entire county);

Crawford (entire county);

Erie (entire county);

Lawrence (entire county);

Mercer (entire county);

Venango (entire county); and

Allegheny (north of the Ohio and Monongahela rivers upstream to the boundary of
North Versailles Township and the City of McKeesport, and then east along the
North Versailles/White Oak Borough boundary to the Westmoreland County line).
As of the 2010 Census, there was a total population within the Study Area of 1,730,014, a
decrease of over 200,000 people since 1970. Estimates have shown the region’s population
continuing to drop, falling to 1,694,428 in 2018. Other than relatively fast-growing Butler
County, the general trend in the Study Area has been one of population decline.
22
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
A breakdown of the population and population density of the Study Area counties is presented
in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.2 shows the population trends for the region and in Pennsylvania
as a whole over the last half century. 6
Table 2.1: Population, Municipalities, Land Area, and Population Density in the Study Area
Population
(2018 estimate)
Number of
Municipalities
Land Area
(square miles)
Population Density
(people per square mile)
671,278
73
393
1,706
65,263
45
653
100
Beaver
164,742
54
435
379
Butler
187,888
56
789
238
85,063
51
1,012
84
272,061
38
799
340
86,184
27
358
241
110,683
48
673
165
51,266
31
674
76
1,694,428
423
5,786
293
County
Allegheny
(Study Area only)
Armstrong
Crawford
Erie
Lawrence
Mercer
Venango
Study Area
Table 2.2: Historical Population Figures for the Study Area
County
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2018
886,307
797,700
739,124
705,856
674,611
671,278
75,590
77,768
73,478
72,392
68,941
65,263
Beaver
208,418
204,441
186,093
181,412
170,539
164,742
Butler
127,941
147,912
152,013
174,083
183,862
187,888
81,342
88,869
86,169
90,367
88,765
85,063
Erie
263,654
279,780
275,572
280,845
280,566
272,061
Lawrence
107,374
107,150
96,246
94,639
91,108
86,184
Mercer
127,175
128,299
121,003
120,307
116,638
110,683
62,353
64,444
59,381
57,555
54,984
51,266
1,940,154
1,896,363
1,789,079
1,777,456
1,730,014
1,694,428
11,800,766
11,864,720
11,881,643
12,281,054
12,702,379
12,807,060
Allegheny
(Study Area only)
Armstrong
Crawford
Venango
Study Area
Pennsylvania
6 Population counts from 1970 through 2010 are from the decennial Census. 2018 figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Annual Population Estimates Program. City of Pittsburgh neighborhood data used in the Allegheny County figure for 2018
was estimated based on the proportion of the city’s population living in the Study Area neighborhoods and the city’s overall
rate of population decline.
23
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Table 2.3 shows the age distribution among residents in the Study Area counties. As reflected
in the data, the population of seniors (over 65 years) exceeds that of children (under 18 years)
in Armstrong, Beaver, Lawrence, Mercer, and Venango counties. Overall, the Study Area
counties have a median age of about one year older than that of Pennsylvania as a whole.
The percentage of residents who are children is about 1% less in the Study Area counties than
statewide, while the percentage of residents who are seniors is about 1% greater.
Table 2.3: Age Distribution of the Study Area Counties 7
County
Children
(Under 18 Years)
18 to 65 Years
Seniors
(Over 65 Years)
Median
Age
Allegheny
233,319
19.0%
778,201
63.3%
218,085
17.7%
40.9
Armstrong
13,018
19.5%
40,088
60.1%
13,631
20.4%
46.0
Beaver
33,064
19.7%
101,463
60.3%
33,634
20.0%
44.9
Butler
38,553
20.7%
115,340
62.0%
32,091
17.3%
43.1
Crawford
18,464
21.3%
51,928
59.8%
16,455
18.9%
42.8
Erie
60,540
21.8%
172,079
61.9%
45,175
16.3%
39.0
Lawrence
17,835
20.2%
52,162
59.1%
18,234
20.7%
44.9
Mercer
22,842
20.1%
67,819
59.7%
22,962
20.2%
44.4
Venango
10,669
20.2%
31,420
59.4%
10,791
20.4%
46.0
448,304
19.8%
1,410,500
62.1%
411,058
18.1%
41.8
2,688,917
21.0%
7,920,566
61.9%
2,181,022
17.1%
40.7
Study Area Counties
Pennsylvania
ECONOMIC INFORMATION
Over the last 50 years, and especially over the last 20 years, the Study Area has generally
lagged behind much of the rest of the Commonwealth in terms of relative economic strength.
According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Study Area has experienced
a decline in the number of private businesses at the same time that Pennsylvania as a whole
has experienced positive growth. While trends have been uneven across the Study Area, the
nine counties in aggregate lost 1,178 private establishments from 2001 through 2018. The
decline in the private sector in the Study Area counties has steadily continued since the 2008
recession. Growth in Allegheny and Butler counties, however, has largely offset declines
experienced elsewhere in the Study Area.
Table 2.4 shows the growth patterns for the number of private establishments in the Study
Area counties since 1990, since the 2001 recession (the end of a long-term national growth
period), and over the past ten years (4th quarter of 2008 through 4th quarter of 2018).
7 Figures are from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. The Allegheny County figures shown reflect
the entire county rather than only the portion of the county in the Study Area.
24
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Table 2.4: Comparative Growth in the Number of Private Firms in the Study Area 8
County
Allegheny
Since 1990
Since 2001 Recession
Last 10 Years
+5,635
+19.3%
-332
-0.9%
549
+1.6%
Armstrong
+106
+8.6%
-25
-1.8%
-41
-3.0%
Beaver
+604
+21.1%
66
+1.9%
-35
-1.0%
+1,926
+65.0%
667
+15.8%
254
+5.5%
+310
+18.1%
-247
-10.9%
-119
-5.6%
+1,144
+21.0%
-437
-6.2%
-530
-7.4%
+95
+5.3%
-322
-14.6%
-177
-8.6%
+511
+22.6%
-398
-12.5%
-166
-5.6%
+42
+3.8%
-150
-11.5%
-88
-7.1%
Study Area Counties
+10,373
+21.4%
-1,178
-2.0%
-353
-0.6%
Pennsylvania
+72,020
+29.7%
+8,156
+2.7%
+4,547
+1.5%
Butler
Crawford
Erie
Lawrence
Mercer
Venango
Of the nine counties in the Study Area, the decline in the number of businesses has been
experienced most acutely in Lawrence County, which saw a decrease of over 14% since the
2001 recession and by almost 9% in the last ten years. All of the northern Study Area counties
— Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango — have experienced declines of 5% or greater in the
number of private firms both since the 2001 recession and over the last ten years. Only
Allegheny and Butler counties saw an increase in businesses over the past decade among the
nine Study Area counties.
Compared to the rest of Pennsylvania and the United States as a whole, manufacturing
continues to make up an outsized proportion of employment in the Study Area. This is
especially the case in the four northern counties — Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango — in
which manufacturing comprised 18% of total employment in 2018. In the southern counties
of the Study Area outside of Allegheny County — Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, and Lawrence —
manufacturing made up about 13% of total employment in 2018. In Pennsylvania as a whole,
this figure was less than 10%, and in the United States as a whole, less than 9%. In Allegheny
County, manufacturing surprisingly only made up about 5% of total employment.
The health care and social assistance industry sector comprises the largest proportion of
employment in Allegheny County, the southern Study Area counties, and the northern Study
Areas counties alike. As with manufacturing, the second largest employment sector, health
care and social assistance as a proportion of employment in the Study Area exceeds the
national proportion of 15%. However, the Study Area’s deviance from the national proportion
is less for the health care and social assistance sector than for manufacturing. The proportion
in the Study Area counties is also consistent with the statewide proportion of 18%.
Data on the number of private establishments by Pennsylvania county is from the Research Division of the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis. Figures for Allegheny County reflect the entire county rather than only the portion in the Study Area.
8
25
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Table 2.5 compares the distribution of employment by North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) industry sector in Allegheny County, the southern Study Area counties, and
the northern Study Area counties, with the distribution of employment in Pennsylvania and
the United States.
Table 2.5: Number of Employees and Proportion of Employment by Industry Sector, 2018 Annual Averages 9
NAICS Code and
Industry Sector
11
Agriculture, Fishing,
Forestry, & Hunting
21
Allegheny
County
Southern
Study Area
Northern
Study Area
(Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler, Lawrence)
(Crawford, Erie,
Mercer, Venango)
Pennsylvania
USA
212
0.0%
417
0.2%
951
0.4%
24,721
0.4%
0.9%
Mining, Quarrying
and Oil & Gas
2,037
0.3%
1,695
0.9%
710
0.3%
27,953
0.5%
0.5%
22
Utilities
4,394
0.6%
2,413
1.3%
1,062
0.5%
34,980
0.6%
0.6%
23
Construction
29,814
4.2%
11,957
6.5%
7,103
3.3%
264,074
4.5%
5.1%
Manufacturing
36,790
5.2%
23,841
12.9%
38,953
18.0%
570,471
9.7%
8.7%
Wholesale Trade
19,511
2.8%
6,486
3.5%
5,094
2.4%
217,396
3.7%
4.0%
44-45
Retail Trade
70,267
10.0%
22,201
12.1%
26,746
12.4%
624,326
10.6%
10.9%
48-49
Transportation and
Warehousing
26,341
3.8%
9,178
5.0%
7,320
3.4%
304,978
5.2%
4.2%
51
Information
13,005
1.9%
1,864
1.0%
1,963
0.9%
89,398
1.5%
2.0%
52
Finance and
Insurance
47,609
6.8%
4,267
2.3%
7,653
3.5%
263,286
4.5%
4.1%
53
Real Estate and
Rental and Leasing
9,320
1.3%
1,548
0.8%
1,659
0.8%
65,006
1.1%
1.6%
54
Professional and
Technical Services
60,609
8.6%
6,972
3.8%
4,916
2.3%
360,717
6.1%
6.4%
55
Management of
Companies
28,059
4.0%
4,961
2.7%
1,582
0.7%
136,817
2.3%
1.6%
56
Administrative and
Waste Services
34,989
5.0%
7,450
4.0%
8,411
3.9%
318,673
5.4%
6.4%
61
Educational
Services
60,023
8.6%
13,930
7.6%
17,084
7.9%
484,589
8.3%
8.7%
62
Health Care and
Social Assistance
139,010
19.8%
33,485
18.2%
45,225
20.9%
1,068,610
18.2%
14.9%
71
Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation
14,304
2.0%
1,943
1.1%
3,910
1.8%
100,475
1.7%
1.9%
72
Accommodation
and Food Services
60,634
8.6%
15,898
8.6%
19,634
9.1%
474,698
8.1%
9.6%
81
Other Services (not
Pub. Administration)
23,798
3.4%
6,571
3.6%
8,097
3.7%
201,392
3.4%
3.1%
92
Public
Administration
20,995
3.0%
7,065
3.8%
8,256
3.8%
235,216
4.0%
5.1%
31-33
42
Total, All Industries
701,720
184,139
216,326
5,867,775
Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Figures for Allegheny
County reflect the entire county rather than only the portion in the Study Area. The all-industry total for the United States used
to calculate the national proportion of employment per sector does not include 128,078 Unclassified jobs (NAICS Code 99).
9
26
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Table 2.6 provides income, wage, and unemployment information for the counties in the
Study Area. Other than in Allegheny and Butler counties, median household and family
incomes, per capita income, and average wages are all lower than the statewide average in
the Study Area counties. Unemployment rates in these counties, meanwhile, are higher than
the statewide average.
Table 2.6: Income and Unemployment Data by Study Area County 10
Median
Household
Income
Median
Family
Income
Per Capita
Income
Average
Wage
Unemployment
Rate
Allegheny
$56,333
$78,431
$58,146
$52,914
3.9%
Armstrong
$47,527
$60,247
$41,756
$39,919
4.8%
Beaver
$53,981
$69,494
$45,851
$44,531
4.3%
Butler
$66,037
$83,624
$55,534
$47,248
3.6%
Crawford
$47,179
$57,194
$38,191
$40,755
4.3%
Erie
$48,192
$62,251
$41,887
$41,480
4.1%
Lawrence
$47,188
$60,478
$41,264
$40,267
4.8%
Mercer
$47,340
$62,171
$40,050
$41,834
4.6%
Venango
$46,487
$58,222
$39,540
$39,964
4.5%
Pennsylvania
$56,951
$72,692
$53,300
$50,030
3.9%
County
LAND USE AND COVERAGE
The nine counties of the Study Area represent a unique mosaic of land uses and intensities
that speak to Western Pennsylvania’s past and present state as a working landscape. For the
purposes of this Study, we have analyzed the land uses in the Study Area under the following
general categories: developed land, open land, woodland, and wetlands.
Developed Land
As to be expected, the amount of developed land in the Study Area varies significantly by the
level of urbanization present in each county. By estimating the amount of impervious surface
area in each county, the amount of land considered to be “developed” may be estimated.
Carlson (2012) defines impervious surface area (ISA) as “that surface which does not permit
the vertical transfer of water or water vapor.” Such surfaces are almost entirely visible through
satellite imagery as consisting of artificial building materials.
10 Data from the September 2019 county profiles from the Center for Workforce Information & Analysis, Pennsylvania
Department of Labor & Industry. Per capita incomes are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reflect 2017 figures.
Median incomes are from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Wage data reflects 2018 annual
averages for occupational wages from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
Unemployment statistics reflect August 2019 preliminary data.
27
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Based on Landsat satellite image data from the year 2000, Carlson (2012) found that all nine
counties in the Study Area were characterized by at least 1% impervious surface area (ISA) as
a proportion of total land. While exact percentages for every county in the Study Area were not
provided, ranges were available and are shown in Table 2.7.
For the purpose of his analysis, Carlson (2012) assumed that “it is unrealistic to expect that
an impervious surface would be removed,” implying that the impervious surface percentages
for each county have likely increased in the ensuing two decades since the 2000 satellite
imagery was captured.
Table 2.7: Impervious Surface Area (ISA) and Comparative Increase in ISA (1985-2000)
% Impervious Surface
Area (2000)
% Increase in ISA
(1985-2000)
% Population Change
(1985-2000)
21.1%
increased (+) between 6%–8%
decreased (–) 7.15%
Armstrong
between 1%–2.5%
increased (+) less than 2%
decreased (–) 5.55%
Beaver
between 5%–10%
increased (+) between 2%–4%
decreased (–) 5.70%
Butler
between 2.5%–5%
increased (+) less than 2%
increased (+) 17.99%
Crawford
between 1%–2.5%
increased (+) less than 2%
increased (+)1.83%
7.5%
increased (+) between 6%–8%
increased (+)1.16%
between 2.5%–5%
increased (+) less than 2%
decreased (–) 6.00%
Mercer
3.3%
increased (+) between 2%–4%
decreased (–) 2.52%
Venango
1.7%
increased (+) less than 2%
decreased (–) 8.42%
Pennsylvania
3.2%
increased (+) less than 2%
increased (+) 4.23%
County
Allegheny
Erie
Lawrence
Among the counties in the Study Area, Allegheny County was unique in experiencing a marked
increase in impervious surface area (over 6%) despite a simultaneous marked decrease in
population (over 7%). Beaver County also followed this trend to a lesser degree, with an
expansion of impervious surface area of between 2% and 4% despite a population decrease
of almost 6%.
Although Erie County gained residents between 1985 and 2000 to go along with its 6% to 8%
increase in impervious area, the county has lost about 8,000 residents since 2010. Thus, it
has followed the lead of Allegheny and Beaver counties in gaining net impervious surface area
while losing population. (This assumes, again, that no impervious surfaces have been
removed once developed and constructed.)
Carlson (2012) explains this seemingly counterintuitive trend as largely consisting of the inmigration of residents in older urban areas to more exurban environments in the same county,
where new shopping centers and industrial complexes soon follow. While an increase in
impervious surface area is to be expected in counties where population growth is co-occurring,
it is a major concern in counties where population and economic output are actually
28
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
contracting, speaking to the need for more sustainable and efficient land use planning and
environmental protection, particularly on the municipal and county levels.
Open and Agricultural Land
All counties in the Study Area other than Venango and Allegheny counties consisted of at least
25% open land in the year 2000. Carlson (2012) defines open land as “scrub/bare plus short
vegetation categories,” which include almost all agricultural land uses as well as meadows
and wetlands. A large amount of open land in a county is indirectly correlated with that county
having a large amount of farmland.
Allegheny County, by virtue of its urbanization, is not extensively agricultural and has a
relatively small amount of open land when compared to the rest of the Study Area. Venango
County, on the other end of the spectrum, is heavily forested, as an extension of the
Pennsylvania Wilds ecoregion, and thus has a low percentage of open land.
Table 2.8 details the range of open land cover in each Study Area county based on Landsat
satellite imagery analysis from the year 2000 (Carlson, 2012). Actual percentages for the
decrease in open land from 1985 to 2000 are noted below where available.
Table 2.8: Open Land Cover and Comparative Decrease in Open Land
County
% Open Land (2000)
Decrease of Over 5% in Open Land from 1985-2000?
less than 25%
yes (-6.1%)
Armstrong
between 40%–50%
no
Beaver
between 25%–40%
no
Butler
between 40%–50%
no
Crawford
between 40%–50%
no
Erie
between 40%–50%
yes (-6.9%)
Lawrence
between 50%–60%
no
Mercer
between 50%–60%
no (-3.8%)
less than 25%
no (-1.3%)
n/a
no (-2.3%)
Allegheny
Venango
Pennsylvania
As noted above, open land also includes agricultural land. Owing in part to the presence of
the same glacial till soils found in much of the Midwestern United States, agriculture is one of
the Study Area’s most important economic sectors. The Study Area’s agricultural land
coverage, at 28.6% of the region’s total land area, is slightly more than the 26.1%
proportionate share of agricultural land coverage for the entire Commonwealth. Every county
in the Study Area, other than Allegheny, Venango, and Beaver, exceeded this statewide
percentage. Over one-third of the land areas of Mercer, Crawford, and Lawrence counties are
classified as farmland.
29
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Information for the Study Area counties from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2012
Agricultural Census on farmland acreage and market value of agricultural products is provided
in Table 2.9. Other than in Crawford County, the market value of agricultural products sold in
the Study Area’s counties is less than the statewide average, despite the amount of land
dedicated to agriculture. Additionally, the market value for agricultural products in the Study
Area comprises just 6.3% of the Commonwealth’s total agricultural market value despite the
Study Area having 13.7% of the Commonwealth’s total farm acreage and 13.5% of its farms.
This suggests that there is significant room for growth in the agricultural sector but may also
speak to the shortened growing season in the region as compared to other agricultural regions
of the Commonwealth.
Table 2.9: Comparative Farmland Acreage and Market Value of Agricultural Products
Farms
Market Value of
Agricultural
Products Sold
(2012 Ag. Census)
Market Value of
Agricultural
Products per Farm
(2012 Ag. Census)
7.5%
428
$10,397,000
$24,291
129,090
30.9%
783
$35,861,000
$45,799
Beaver
55,795
20.0%
646
$20,913,000
$32,374
Butler
136,237
27.0%
1,061
$52,905,000
$49,863
Crawford
227,731
35.2%
1,351
$116,075,000
$85,918
Erie
168,634
33.0%
1,422
$91,675,000
$64,469
80,468
35.1%
659
$38,519,000
$58,450
163,148
37.9%
1,185
$82,650,000
$69,747
61,531
14.3%
464
$15,775,000
$33,998
Study Area
1,057,471
28.6%
7,999
$464,770,000
$58,104
Pennsylvania
7,704,444
26.1%
59,309
$7,400,781,000
$124,783
885
$110,459,000
$124,812
Farmland
Acres
(2012)
% of Total
County Land
Allegheny
34,837
Armstrong
County
Lawrence
Mercer
Venango
Average per Pennsylvania County
Woodland
Similar to its loss of open land, the Study Area experienced a significant decrease in woodland
acreage from 1985 through 2000, according to Carlson (2012). In fact, some of the most
significant losses in the entire Commonwealth were found in the Study Area counties of
Allegheny, Erie, Lawrence, Mercer, and Venango. Allegheny, Erie, and Mercer counties were
three of the seven counties in the Commonwealth that saw a decrease in woodland cover by
more than 2% while experiencing an increase in impervious surface area of over 2%.
Additionally, Erie was just one of three counties in the state (along with Lackawanna County
30
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
and heavily urban Delaware County) that saw a decrease in woodland cover by more than 2%,
a decrease of over 5% in open land, and an increase in impervious surface area of over 2%.
Table 2.10 provides detail on the scope of woodland losses in the Study Area counties, based
on Landsat satellite imagery from the year 2000 (Carlson, 2012). Actual percentages for the
decrease in woodland from 1985 to 2000 are provided below where available.
Table 2.10: Woodland Cover and Comparative Decrease in Woodland
County
% Woodland (2000)
Decrease of Over 2.3% in Woodland from 1985-2000?
30%
yes (-13.7%)
Armstrong
between 50%–65%
no
Beaver
between 35%–50%
no
Butler
between 35%–50%
no
Crawford
between 35%–50%
no
41%
yes (-2.7%)
between 35%–50%
yes
Mercer
40%
yes (-2.4%)
Venango
71%
yes (-3.0%)
Pennsylvania
58%
no (-0.8%)
Allegheny
Erie
Lawrence
Statewide, woodland acreage has remained essentially constant since the 1960s and has
actually increased from its historical low at the end of the nineteenth century (Carlson, 2012;
Albright et al., 2014). Alright et al. (2014) found that Pennsylvania’s forest land remained at
58% of total land area, 14 years after the data from 2000. Forest land in Pennsylvania peaked
in 1965 at 17 million acres and is currently estimated at 16.9 million acres. However, that
upward trend was noticeably absent in two regions of the state — one of which was the Study
Area. (The other region with significant woodland loss, the Pocono Forests and Waters region
in the northeast, has since been designated by DCNR as a Conservation Landscape.)
Data from Albright et al. (2014) also shows that while the northeast region of the state has
mitigated woodland losses to the point where gains in forest acreage are now exceeding
losses, the northwest and southwest regions continue to experience losses and instability.
Aside from north central Pennsylvania (largely corresponding to the Pennsylvania Wilds
region), which has been heavily impacted by insect pests and Marcellus shale development,
the northwest region (defined as Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Venango counties) was the only
region in the Commonwealth that lost more forest land from 2009 to 2014 than it gained
(Albright et al., 2014). While the southwest region (which includes the Study Area counties of
Allegheny, Beaver, Armstrong, and Lawrence, among other counties) saw a gross increase in
forest land, the region also experienced the greatest fluctuation in forest area, with the highest
gross gains and losses of any region (Albright et al., 2014).
31
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Forests and woodlands provide a variety of resources for the Study Area, including timber,
watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and recreational lands, and it is crucial that these
resources benefit from an increased amount of protection (USFS, 2018). According to the U.S.
Forest Service (2019), five key issues affect forests in Pennsylvania, all of which have varying
degrees of impact in the Study Area:

Marcellus impact (fragmentation, environmental or ecological degradation);

Exotic insects and disease management, especially hemlock woolly adelgid,
emerald ash borer, gypsy moth, and beech bark disease;

Land use changes; rotation of lands into and out of the forest land base;

Forestland ownership issues, particularly those associated with parcelization and
changing management; and

Economic challenges and changes in perceived forest values (how forest and land
is valued and taxed).
Statewide, private landowners control 70% of all forest land, but less than 14% of the acreage
under the ownership of family forest owners is under a management plan (Albright et al.,
2014). This is particularly true in the case of the Study Area, where forest land is under private
ownership to a far greater degree than in other regions of the Commonwealth.
In recent years, DCNR’s Bureau of Forestry has taken increasingly proactive steps to counter
the region’s forest losses and the impacts affecting the region’s forests, particularly with its
2016 State Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP). Since the completion of the Penn’s
Woods strategic plan and the adoption of the 2003 and 2007 SFRMPs, and as significantly
reinforced through the 2016 SFRMP, the Bureau has taken to using a landscape approach to
forest ecosystem management. Similar to that of the Conservation Landscape model, this
approach is designed “to ensure ecological health, the sustainability of the full suite of forest
values, and the integration and the coordination of management activities across the state
forest system” (DCNR, 2016).
With the 2016 SFRMP, the Bureau introduced the concept of the landscape management unit
(LMU), with the goal of “consistent, structured, and integrated resource management and
planning across large landscape units on state forest and adjoining lands” (DCNR, 2016).
LMUs plan on the landscape scale, incorporating multiple forest uses and values and
including as stakeholders and partners both public and private landowners. Two LMUs have
been designated in the Study Area, the 22,092-acre Ingraham LMU (Cornplanter Forest
District #14) in Crawford County and the 11,498-acre Kennerdell LMU (Clear Creek Forest
District #8) in southern Venango County.
SFRMPs for both forest districts in the Study Area were recently completed and are available
online on DCNR’s website. The Clear Creek SFRMP was adopted in March 2019, and the
Cornplanter SFRMP was adopted in August 2019.
32
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Erie National Wildlife Refuge, Crawford County.
Wetlands
According to Tiner (1990), wetlands cover about two percent of Pennsylvania’s land area. Over
80 percent of the animals on Pennsylvania’s list of endangered and threatened species
depend on wetlands during their life cycle (Brooks, 1990, as cited in Heist & Reif, 1996).
As a result of its past glaciation, the Study Area includes some of Pennsylvania’s most
extensive wetland areas. In fact, over one-fifth of the state’s 433,000 acres of wetlands are
located in the Study Area counties (Tiner, 1989; Tiner, 2010). The percentage of land covered
by wetlands in Crawford, Erie, and Mercer counties specifically ranks in the top six among
Pennsylvania counties, and the total wetland acreages in those three counties rank in the top
seven among the Commonwealth’s counties. Five of the Study Area’s counties include
significant palustrine (inland without flowing water), riverine (associated with flowing water),
and lacustrine (associated with a large body of fresh water) wetland habitats, the three
categories of wetlands found in Pennsylvania.
List 2.1 below shows where the Study Area counties (in bold) ranked among their peers in
1990 by percentage of area covered in wetlands (Tiner, 1990). List 2.2 shows where the
Study Area counties (in bold) ranked among their peers in 1990 by total land area covered in
wetlands; List 2.3 shows where the Study Area counties ranked statewide by land area
covered in deepwater riverine wetlands; and finally, List 2.4 shows where the Study Area
33
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
counties ranked by land area covered in deepwater lacustrine wetlands (Tiner, 1990). If a
county is fully or partially located in a Conservation Landscape, this is noted in parentheses.
List 2.1: Pennsylvania’s Top 25 Counties by Percentage of Land Area Covered in Wetlands
1. Pike (Pocono Forests and Waters)
2. Monroe (Pocono Forests and Waters, Kittatinny
Ridge)
3. Crawford (Study Area) – 5.2%
4. Erie (Study Area) – 4.8%
5. Wayne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
6. Mercer (Study Area) – 3.7%
7. Lackawanna (Pocono Forests and Waters)
8. Luzerne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
9. Bucks (Schuylkill Highlands)
10. Wyoming
11. Susquehanna
12. McKean (Pennsylvania Wilds)
13. Sullivan
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Warren (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Adams (South Mountain)
Bradford
Lawrence (Study Area) – 2.0%
Chester (Schuylkill Highlands)
Delaware
Northampton (Lehigh Valley Greenways,
Kittatinny Ridge)
Carbon (Pocono Forests and Waters, Kittatinny
Ridge)
Butler (Study Area) – 1.2%
Montgomery (Schuylkill Highlands)
Tioga (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Franklin (South Mountain, Kittatinny Ridge)
List 2.2: Pennsylvania’s Top 25 Counties by Total Wetland Acreage
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
1. Crawford (Study Area) – 33,792 acres
2. Erie (Study Area) – 24,960 acres
3. Monroe (Pocono Forests and Waters, Kittatinny
Ridge)
4. Pike (Pocono Forests and Waters)
5. Wayne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
6. Luzerne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
7. Mercer (Study Area) – 15,656 acres
8. Bradford
9. McKean (Pennsylvania Wilds)
10. Warren (Pennsylvania Wilds)
11. Susquehanna
12. Bucks (Schuylkill Highlands)
Lackawanna (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Tioga (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Chester (Schuylkill Highlands)
Adams (South Mountain)
Sullivan
Wyoming
Somerset (Laurel Highlands)
Butler (Study Area) – 6,065 acres
Berks (Schuylkill Highlands, Kittatinny Ridge)
Clearfield (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Franklin (South Mountain, Kittatinny Ridge)
Lancaster (Susquehanna Riverlands)
Lycoming (Pennsylvania Wilds)
List 2.3: Pennsylvania’s Top 25 Counties by Riverine (Inland, Flowing) Wetland Acreage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Bradford
Dauphin (Kittatinny Ridge)
Northumberland
Allegheny (Study Area) – 9,564 acres
Lancaster (Susquehanna Riverlands)
Lycoming (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Armstrong (Study Area) – 5,425 acres
Luzerne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Beaver (Study Area) – 4,915 acres
Clinton (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Philadelphia
Bucks (Schuylkill Highlands)
Clarion (Pennsylvania Wilds)
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
34
Fayette (Laurel Highlands)
Wyoming
Delaware
Clearfield (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Westmoreland (Laurel Highlands)
Warren (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Columbia
Venango (Study Area) – 2,462 acres
Forest (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Pike (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Perry (Kittatinny Ridge)
Greene
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
List 2.4: Pennsylvania’s Top 25 Counties by Lacustrine (Related to Large Water Bodies, Flowing) Wetland
Acreage
14.
15.
16.
17.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Erie (Study Area) – 103,677 acres
Lancaster (Susquehanna Riverlands)
Crawford (Study Area) – 13,811 acres
Wayne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Pike (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Huntingdon
Warren (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Mercer (Study Area) – 5,339 acres
Luzerne (Pocono Forests and Waters)
Somerset (Laurel Highlands)
Monroe (Pocono Forests and Waters, Kittatinny
Ridge)
12. Butler (Study Area) – 3,453 acres
13. Bucks (portion in Schuylkill Highlands)
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Lackawanna (Pocono Forests and Waters)
York (Susquehanna Riverlands)
Susquehanna
Carbon (Pocono Forests and Waters, Kittatinny
Ridge)
Berks (Schuylkill Highlands)
Cambria (portion in Laurel Highlands)
Westmoreland (Laurel Highlands)
Centre (portion in Pennsylvania Wilds)
Indiana
Schuylkill (Kittatinny Ridge)
Tioga (Pennsylvania Wilds)
McKean (Pennsylvania Wilds)
Surface Waters
Surface waters in the Study Area include manmade lakes, natural glacial lakes (including Lake
Erie), rivers, and streams. With Lake Erie included, almost 850 square miles of surface waters
are present among the nine counties of the Study Area. Without Lake Erie, there are close to
100 square miles of surface waters. The surface water area is listed for each Study Area
county in Table 2.11 below, along with some example waterways.
Table 2.11: Surface Waters by Study Area County
County
Surface Waters (square miles)
Allegheny
14 sq mi
Armstrong
11 sq mi
Beaver
9 sq mi
Butler
6 sq mi
Crawford
Erie
Lawrence
Mercer
Venango
Study Area
25 sq mi
759 sq mi
(9 sq mi, if not counting Lake Erie)
5 sq mi
10 sq mi
9 sq mi
Examples
Ohio River, Allegheny River, Monongahela River,
North Park Lake, West Deer Lake, Pine Creek
Allegheny River, Crooked Creek Lake, Keystone
Lake, Mahoning Creek Lake
Ohio River, Beaver River, Ambridge Reservoir, Bradys
Run Lake, Connoquenessing Creek
Lake Arthur, Glade Dam Lake, Oneida Valley
Reservoir, Connoquenessing Creek
Conneaut Lake, Pymatuning Lake, Woodcock Creek
Lake, Lake Canadohta, French Creek
Lake Erie, Elk Creek, Walnut Creek, French Creek,
LeBoeuf Lake, Edinboro Lake, Union City Reservoir
Beaver River, Mahoning River, Shenango River,
Slippery Rock Creek, Neshannock Creek
Lake Wilhelm, Shenango River Reservoir, Lake
Latonka, Neshannock Creek, Yellow Creek
Allegheny River, French Creek, Oil Creek, Justus
Lake, Kahle Lake
848 sq mi
(98 sq mi, if not counting Lake Erie)
35
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Map 2.1: The nine counties of the Study Area, with public protected lands shown.
36
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
PUBLIC PROTECTED LANDS
The nine-county Study Area consists of a total of 249,824 acres of lands owned by a variety
of public agencies, as depicted in Map 2.1. This includes state parks (managed by DCNR),
state forest lands within Clear Creek State Forest and the Cornplanter State Forest (also
managed by DCNR), state game lands (managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission),
state water access facilities (managed by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission),
county parks (managed by county governments), municipal parks (managed by municipal
governments), and federal lands (managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers), as detailed in List 2.5.
List 2.5: Glacier’s Edge Study Area — Public Protected Areas at a Glance
11 state parks (DCNR), totaling 55,895 acres
portions of 2 state forests (DCNR), totaling 3,372 acres
55 state game lands (Pennsylvania Game Commission), totaling 111,724 acres
39 water access facilities (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission), totaling 2,335 acres
14 county parks, totaling 11,970 acres
793 municipal parks, totaling 29,989 acres
2 National Wildlife Refuges (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), totaling 8,832 acres
 5 Recreation Areas (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), totaling 25,120 acres







State Game Lands
Of the Study Area’s public protected lands, state game lands comprise the largest proportion,
at 111,724 total acres, as detailed in Table 2.12.
These lands are not only open for hunting but also include fishing ponds at 35 of the 55 game
lands. Amenities (ponds and lakes, fishing opportunities, and parking spaces) available at
each of the game lands can be found in Appendix A of this report.
Table 2.12: State Game Lands in the Study Area
State Game
Lands
County
State Game
Lands
County
Acres
SGL 039
Venango
10,688
SGL 105
Armstrong, Clarion
8,993
SGL 045
Venango, Clarion
5,227
SGL 109
Erie
1,973
SGL 047
Venango
2,214
SGL 122
Crawford
2,659
SGL 069
Crawford
4,496
SGL 130
Mercer, Venango
3,182
SGL 085
Crawford
115
SGL 137
Armstrong
1,135
SGL 095
Butler
9,963
SGL 144
Crawford, Erie
648
SGL 096
Venango
4,973
SGL 146
Crawford
526
SGL 101
Crawford, Erie
5,057
SGL 148
Lawrence, Beaver
575
SGL 102
Erie
385
SGL 150
Lawrence
586
Acres
37
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
State Game
Lands
County
Acres
State Game
Lands
County
Acres
SGL 151
Mercer, Lawrence
1,438
SGL 213
Crawford
5,603
SGL 152
Crawford
500
SGL 214
Crawford
9,661
SGL 154
Erie
1,455
SGL 216
Lawrence
488
SGL 155
Erie
391
SGL 218
Erie
SGL 161
Erie
235
SGL 247
Armstrong
452
SGL 162
Erie
1,072
SGL 253
Venango
665
SGL 163
Erie
333
SGL 259
Armstrong
352
SGL 164
Butler
456
SGL 263
Erie, Warren
668
SGL 167
Erie
627
SGL 269
Crawford
685
SGL 173
Beaver
1,063
SGL 270
Mercer
SGL 178
Lawrence
165
SGL 277
Crawford
SGL 189
Beaver
415
SGL 284
Mercer, Lawrence
1,385
SGL 190
Erie
394
SGL 285
Beaver
2,810
SGL 191
Erie
1,223
SGL 287
Armstrong
2,016
SGL 192
Erie
333
SGL 291
Erie, Warren
1,260
SGL 199
Crawford
1,132
SGL 294
Mercer
417
SGL 200
Crawford
154
SGL 304
Butler
458
SGL 202
Crawford
507
SGL 314
Erie
SGL 203
Allegheny
1,246
Study Area Total
1,351
2,203
972
3,565
111,724
State Parks
State parks comprise the second-most acreage of public protected lands in the Study Area
outside the state game lands, with 55,895 total acres across 11 state parks, as detailed in
Table 2.13. Amenities, recreational activities, hunting/fishing opportunities, staff capacity,
and ADA-compliant facilities available at each of the state parks can be found in Appendix B
of this report.
Amenities inventoried include the following: restrooms, parking spaces, camp sites, cabins
and lodging, drinking fountains, fire pits, fitness areas, gift shops, grills, kitchens, picnic
tables, swimming pools, visitor centers, outdoor gear and recreational equipment rental,
tours, concessions and restaurants, event spaces, and educational facilities.
Recreational activities include warm weather activities (ATV trails, backpacking, baseball,
basketball, bicycling, camping, climbing, disc golf, field sports, geocaching, golf, horseshoes
and bocce, horseback riding, kayaking and canoeing, motorboating, mountain biking, natural
play spaces, orienteering, playgrounds, roller skating, ropes course, sailing, scuba diving,
swimming, tennis, volleyball, white water rafting and wildlife watching), winter activities
(curling, ice boating, ice skating, skiing, sledding, snowmobiling, and snowshoeing), and water38
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
related activities (water access points, piers/docks, boat repair facilities, beaches, marina
slips, and boat launches).
Other data provided in Appendix B for each state park in the Study Area includes miles of
paved and unpaved roads, miles of paved and unpaved foot trails, miles of equestrian trails,
miles of ADA-compliant trails, numbers of bridges and tunnels, presence of flood control
facilities, utility information (sewer, water, electricity, cell phone service), number of fleet
vehicles, and number of full-time and part-time staff members.
Table 2.13: State Parks in the Study Area
State Park
County
Acres
Visitors (2017)
Allegheny Islands State Park
Allegheny
38
n/a
Erie Bluffs State Park
Erie
624
n/a
Jennings Environmental Education Center
Butler
298
84,523
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
Mercer
2,812
291,998
McConnells Mill State Park
Lawrence
2,836
399,466
Moraine State Park
Butler
16,461
1,291,331
Oil Creek State Park
Venango
7,162
166,993
Point State Park
Allegheny
37
2,091,976
Presque Isle State Park
Erie
1,996
3,997,908
Pymatuning State Park
Crawford
16,178
2,593,758
Raccoon Creek State Park
Beaver
7,453
547,096
55,895
11,465,049
Study Area Total
Federal Lands
Federal lands comprise the third-most acreage of public protected lands in the Study Area,
with 33,952 total acres. These protected areas include the Erie National Wildlife Refuge, two
islands of the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and several Army Corps of Engineers
dams and lakes, as inventoried in Table 2.14 and Table 2.15 below.
Table 2.14: Federal Protected Lands in the Study Area — National Wildlife Refuges
National Wildlife Refuge
County
Acres
Erie National Wildlife Refuge
Crawford
8,777
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Beaver, additional
counties in West Virginia
Study Area Total
55
8,832
39
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Table 2.15: Federal Protected Lands in the Study Area — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Recreation Area
County
Acres
Crooked Creek Lake
Armstrong
2,664
Mahoning Creek Lake
Armstrong
2,967
Union City Lake
Erie
2,684
Woodcock Creek Lake
Crawford
1,734
Shenango River Lake
Mercer
Study Area Total
15,071
25,120
Municipal Parks
Municipal parks comprise the fourth-largest category of public protected lands in the Study
Area, with 29,989 acres distributed among the Study Area’s 423 municipalities.
County Parks
The fifth-largest category, county parks, makes up with 12,535 acres across the Study Area’s
nine counties, as detailed in Table 2.16.
Table 2.16: County Parks in the Study Area
County Park
County
Harrison Hills Park
Allegheny
500
Deer Lakes Park
Allegheny
1,180
Hartwood Acres Park
Allegheny
629
North Park
Allegheny
3,075
Round Hill Park
Allegheny
1,101
Brady’s Run Park
Beaver
1,456
Old Economy Park
Beaver
340
Brush Creek Park
Beaver
640
Buttermilk Farms
Beaver
9
Bridgewater Crossing
Beaver
2
Alameda Park
Butler
422
Woodcock Lake Park
Crawford
311
Crawford County Fairgrounds
Crawford
67
West Park Nature Center
Lawrence
108
Two Mile Run Park
Venango
Study Area Total
Acres
2,695
12,535
40
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
State Forests
In addition to DCNR-managed state parks, the Study Area includes portions of two state
forests, totaling 3,372 acres in area (Table 2.17). Forest management in the Study Area is
overseen by two of the DCNR Bureau of Forestry’s 20 forest districts — the Cornplanter Forest
District #14 (which includes Crawford, Erie, and part of Venango County, as well as Warren
County and most of Forest County outside of the Study Area) and the Clear Creek Forest
District #8 (which includes Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, Mercer, and most of Venango
County, as well as Jefferson County and part of Forest County outside of the Study Area).
Table 2.17: State Forests 11 in the Study Area
State Forest
County
Acres
Clear Creek State Forest, Kennerdell LMU 12
Venango
3,243
Cornplanter State Forest, Ingraham LMU 13
Crawford
129
Study Area Total
3,372
Water Access Facilities
Lastly, there are 39 water access facilities in the Study Area managed by the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), totaling 2,335 acres (Table 2.18). These water access
facilities provide a diverse range of activities, including canoeing and kayaking, boating,
fishing, and ice fishing.
Amenities (non-motorized and motorized boating opportunities, ADA fishing access, boat and
trailer parking, restrooms, and warm water, cold water, and ice fishing) available at each of
the facilities in the Study Area can be found in List 2.6 and in greater detail in Appendix C of
this report.
Table 2.18: Water Access Facilities in the Study Area
Water Access Facility
County
Acres
Fairview Gravel Pits
Erie
Saegerstown Access
Crawford
1
Glenshaw Access
Allegheny
6
Deer Creek Access
Allegheny
8
32
The majority of Clear Creek State Forest is located in Jefferson County, with another small portion located in Forest County,
both part of the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape. Similarly, most of Cornplanter State Forest is located in Forest
County and Warren County, both also part of the Pennsylvania Wilds.
11
In addition to the 3,243 acres of public land within Clear Creek State Forest, the Kennerdell Landscape Management Unit
(LMU) also includes a significant amount of private land and state game land, for a total tract area of 11,498 acres.
12
In addition to the 129 acres of public land within Cornplanter State Forest, the Ingraham Landscape Management Unit
(LMU) also includes a significant amount of private land and state game land, for a total tract area of 22,056 acres.
13
41
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Water Access Facility
County
Cambridge Springs Access
Crawford
10
Canadohta Lake Access
Crawford
4
Cussewago Creek Access
Crawford
6
Shaw’s Landing
Crawford
5
Sugar Lake Access
Crawford
1
Conneaut Lake Access
Crawford
2
Walnut Creek Access (Lake Erie)
Erie
29
President Access
n/a
3
Bessemer Lake
Lawrence
88
Kilbuck Access
Allegheny
11
Cowanshannock Creek Access
Armstrong
4
Rosston Access
Armstrong
2
Elk Creek Access
Erie
Neshannock Creek-Alduk
Lawrence
2
Fisherman’s Cove
Allegheny
8
Brady’s Bend Access
Beaver
6
New Brighton Access
Beaver
2
Neshannock Creek
Lawrence
77
Little Sandy Creek
Venango
35
Kennerdell Access
Venango
2
Holliday Road Access
Erie
2
Wurtemburg Access/Slippery Rock Creek
Lawrence
1
Glade Run Lake
Butler
Elk 21.122 lt,rt (Huya)
Erie
2
Monaca Access Easement
Beaver
2
South Branch French Creek-Cox/McCray
Erie
21
French Creek-South Branch/Fenno and Gates Access Easement
Erie
6
South Branch French Creek-Seifert Easement
Erie
6
Avonia Road Easement, Lake Erie
Erie
1
Keystone Lake Access Easement
Armstrong
0
42
Acres
57
144
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Water Access Facility
County
Kahle Lake (formerly Mill Creek Dam Site)
Venango, Clarion
433
Tamarack Lake
Crawford
822
North East Access on Lake Erie
Erie
Hereford Manor Lakes
Beaver
Rick Road Access (Elk Creek)
Erie
Study Area Total
Acres
19
471
4
2,335
List 2.6: Glacier’s Edge Study Area — Fish & Boat Commission Facilities at a Glance













Boating allowed: 26 facilities
Motor boats allowed: 23 facilities
Handicap-accessible (ADA) fishing/access: 5 facilities
Visitor parking available: 35 facilities
Boat slips available: 2 facilities
Trailing parking available: 24 facilities
Facilities with bathrooms: 15 facilities
Warm water fishing opportunities: 39 facilities
Cold water fishing opportunities: 15 facilities
Ice fishing opportunities: 12 facilities
Facilities with boat launches for non-motorized/small boats only: 28 facilities
Facilities with boat launches for motorized/large boats: 19 facilities
Facilities with overnight storage for large boats: 2 facilities
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has established a program called
“Pennsylvania’s Best Fishing Waters” to identify the most superior fishing opportunities for
thirteen (13) different sport fish species. These waters are considered the top five percent
(5%) in the state for the thirteen (13) sport fish types. A significant majority of these waters
throughout the state are located in existing Conservation Landscapes (primarily the
Pennsylvania Wilds, Pocono Forests and Waters, Schuylkill Highlands, and Laurel Highlands),
with those in the Study Area being a notable exception.
PFBC-designated “Best Fishing Waters” and their associated species in the Study Area are
identified in lists 2.7 through 2.18 below. With the exception of wild trout, every sport fish
type in the Commonwealth was present in “Best Fishing Waters” waterways in the Study Area.
List 2.7: Best Fishing Waters — Bluegill and Pumpkinseed
(10 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 4 in Study Area)




Conneaut Lake (Crawford County)
Edinboro Lake (Erie County)
Lake Arthur (Butler County)
Presque Isle Bay (Erie County)
43
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
List 2.8: Best Fishing Waters — Bullhead Catfish
(12 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 1 in Study Area)
 Lake Wilhelm (Mercer County)
List 2.9: Best Fishing Waters — Channel Catfish
(17 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 7 in Study Area)






Allegheny River, Sections 19 through 22 (Allegheny County)
Crooked Creek Lake (Armstrong County)
Lake Arthur (Butler County)
Lake Erie (Erie County)
Mahoning Creek Lake (Armstrong County)
Shenango River Lake (Mercer County)
List 2.10: Best Fishing Waters — Common Carp
(23 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 7 in Study Area)







Allegheny River, Sections 18 through 22 (Allegheny and Armstrong counties)
Conneaut Lake (Crawford County)
Keystone Lake (Armstrong County)
Lake Arthur (Butler County)
Lake Wilhelm (Mercer County)
Monongahela River, Sections 5 and 6 (Allegheny County)
Shenango River Lake (Mercer County)
List 2.11: Best Fishing Waters — Crappie
(16 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 4 in Study Area)




Kahle Lake (Venango County)
Lake Wilhelm (Mercer County)
Pymatuning Reservoir (Crawford County)
Raccoon Creek Lake, Main Lake (Beaver County)
List 2.12: Best Fishing Waters — Flathead Catfish
(4 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 2 in Study Area)
 Allegheny River, Sections 18 through 22 (Allegheny and Armstrong counties)
 Ohio River, Sections 1 through 4 (Allegheny and Beaver counties)
List 2.13: Best Fishing Waters — Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass
(25 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 5 in Study Area)





Allegheny River, Sections 10 through 14 (Armstrong, Butler, and Venango counties)
French Creek, Sections 3 through 6 (Crawford, Erie, Lawrence, Mercer, and Venango counties)
Lake Erie (Erie County)
Lake Wilhelm (Mercer County)
Presque Isle Bay (Erie County)
44
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
List 2.14: Best Fishing Waters — Muskellunge
(19 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 6 in Study Area)






Allegheny River, Sections 10 through 21 (Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler, and Venango counties)
Edinboro Lake (Erie County)
Keystone Lake (Armstrong County)
Lake Canadohta (Crawford County)
Pymatuning Reservoir (Crawford County)
Woodcock Creek Lake (Crawford County)
List 2.15: Best Fishing Waters — Striped Bass and Hybrids
(9 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 2 in Study Area)
 Lake Arthur (Butler County)
 Shenango River Lake (Mercer County)
List 2.16: Best Fishing Waters — Stocked Trout
(52 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 5 in Study Area)





Bradys Run Lake (Beaver County)
Buffalo Creek, Section 3 (Armstrong and Butler counties)
Lake Pleasant (Erie County)
Neshannock Creek, Sections 1 through 4 (Lawrence and Mercer counties)
Oil Creek, Sections 2 through 8 (Crawford and Venango counties)
List 2.17: Best Fishing Waters — Walleye
(17 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 4 in Study Area)




Allegheny River, Sections 10 through 22 (Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler, and Venango counties)
French Creek, Sections 3 through 6 (Crawford, Erie, Lawrence, Mercer, and Venango counties)
Lake Erie (Erie County)
Pymatuning Reservoir (Crawford County)
List 2.18: Best Fishing Waters — Yellow Perch
(13 total waterways identified in the Commonwealth; 3 in Study Area)
 Kahle Lake (Venango County)
 Lake Erie (Erie County)
 Sugar Lake (Crawford County)
List 2.19 below inventories the number of sport fish species present in “Best Fishing Waters”
waterways in the Study Area as compared to the existing DCNR Conservation Landscapes 14.
As shown in the list, the Study Area contains 12 of 13 sport fish types identified by the
Commission. The Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape is also home to 12 of these
species, while every other existing Conservation Landscape has fewer than 12.
14
Information for the Kittatinny Ridge Conservation Landscape was not available at the time of this writing.
45
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
List 2.19: Number of Important Sport Fish Types Present in “Best Fishing Waters” by Area








Study Area: 12
Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape: 12
Pocono Forests and Waters Conservation Landscape: 11
Schuylkill Highlands Conservation Landscape: 9
Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape: 8
Lehigh Valley Greenways Conservation Landscape: 5
Susquehanna Riverlands Conservation Landscape: 4
South Mountain Conservation Landscape: 2
PRIVATE PROTECTED LANDS
Lands owned by private conservancies and other nonprofit groups consist of additional
protected open space. These groups include such organizations as the Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy, the Allegheny Land Trust, the French Creek Valley Conservancy, and the
Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania, among numerous others.
Altogether, over 23,000 acres of land are protected by ownership or easement under the
direct management of these groups, as inventoried in Table 2.19. These organizations form
a loose confederation, with some projects completed in partnership (e.g., Beechwood Farms
Nature Preserve in Allegheny County and Waterfall Hollow in Venango County). The Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy is the largest of the conservancy groups and owns and maintains
properties and easements throughout the Study Area and in counties far beyond. As noted in
the section above on State Forests, DCNR’s Bureau of Forestry also helps to manage over
30,000 acres of private forest land in the Kennerdell and Ingraham landscape management
units (LMUs).
Table 2.19: Private Protected Lands in the Study Area
Properties and
Easements (acres)
Land Trust or Conservancy
Study Area Counties
Allegheny Land Trust
Allegheny
880
Allegheny Valley Land Trust 15
Armstrong
787
Allegheny Valley Trails Association14
Crawford, Venango
465
Armstrong County Conservancy Charitable Trust
Armstrong
501
Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania
Allegheny, Butler
459
The Foundation for Sustainable Forests14
Crawford, Erie, Mercer, Venango
924
Fox Chapel Land Conservation Trust
Allegheny
French Creek Valley Conservancy
Crawford, Erie, Venango
Hollow Oak Land Trust
Allegheny, Beaver
15 May include some lands
77
1,741
125
in counties outside of the Study Area, primarily in the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape.
46
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Properties and
Easements (acres)
Land Trust or Conservancy
Study Area Counties
Independence Conservancy
Allegheny, Beaver
Lake Erie Region Conservancy
Erie
252
Presque Isle Audubon
Crawford, Erie
142
Roaring Run Watershed Association
Armstrong
653
Sandy Creek Conservancy
Mercer
35
Shenango Conservancy
Mercer
2
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler, Crawford, Erie, Lawrence,
Mercer, Venango
Wild Waterways Conservancy
Beaver, Butler, Lawrence
Study Area Total
99
15,556
504
23,202
NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORIES
The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has completed Natural Heritage Inventories for all
nine counties in the Study Area that detail each county’s biological diversity and keep track of
the natural resources found in the counties. With the designation of “Biological Diversity
Areas” (BDAs) and “Landscape Conservation Areas” (LCAs), the Natural Heritage Inventories
are designed to be used by county planning offices, in conjunction with other information
(including agricultural areas, soil types, slopes, and locations of floodplains), for the review of
various development projects and for comprehensive planning purposes.
While the detailed scientific information in the inventories goes beyond the scope of this
Study, the information contained within will be useful for conservation stakeholders in the
region as they determine where to focus their priorities. Below, for reference, is a list of the
most recent versions or updates of each of the County Natural Heritage Inventories:

Allegheny County Natural Heritage Inventory – February 1994;

Armstrong County Natural Heritage Inventory – April 2010

Beaver County Natural Heritage Inventory – updated 2014;

Butler County Natural Heritage Inventory – updated October 2011;

Crawford County Natural Heritage Inventory – April 2008;

Erie County Natural Heritage Inventory – updated December 2012;

Lawrence County Natural Heritage Inventory – 2002;

Mercer County Natural Heritage Inventory – June 2003; and

Venango County Natural Heritage Inventory – 2010;
47
48
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY AREA AS AN INTEGRATED
LANDSCAPE
As summarized in Chapter 1, this Study ultimately looks to answer two key questions: 1) Is the
Study Area an integrated landscape? and 2) Does the Study Area meet DCNR’s criteria for a
Conservation Landscape? This chapter first answers these two questions and then compares
the vital statistics of the Study Area with those of the existing Conservation Landscapes.
Finally, the chapter draws some conclusions in preparation for discussions later in this report
about potential management structures, funding resources, and implementation projects.
IS THE STUDY AREA AN INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE?
On the question of whether the Study Area could be regarded as an integrated large landscape
defined by a set of natural and cultural factors, we arrived at the conclusion that the Study
Area does indeed embody the characteristics of an integrated landscape. The reasons for this
include the following:

The Study Area has a distinct natural identity that includes the shaping of much of
the Study Area’s landscape by glacial forces, which is unique to Pennsylvania.

The water resources in the Study Area are unique to the state: The Study Area
consists of the entirety of Pennsylvania’s Lake Erie Basin and over one-third of the
state’s Ohio River Basin, including the extraordinarily biodiverse French Creek subbasin, home to numerous mussel and fish species of special concern. Glacial lakes
such as Lake Pleasant (Erie County), Conneaut Lake (Crawford County), Canadohta
Lake (Crawford County), Lake LeBoeuf (Erie County), Edinboro Lake (Erie County),
Sugar Lake (Crawford County), and Sandy Lake (Mercer County), are some of the
only natural lakes in Pennsylvania and the only in the Commonwealth outside of
the Poconos. The presence of these uniquely natural lakes is particularly significant
given the abundance of water resources in the Commonwealth as a whole.

The Study Area includes the only portion of the Central Lowlands Physiographic
Province within Pennsylvania, a province that extends northwestward all the way to
Minnesota and southwestward to Central Texas and which makes up the largest of
the physiographic provinces in the contiguous United States. The low ridges of sand
and gravel ubiquitous in the glaciated portions of this province have provided much
of the sand and gravel resources commercially mined in the region.

The Study Area, which includes the Northwestern Glaciated Plateau of the
Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, is home to numerous Outstanding
Geological Features as designated by DCNR. These features are largely glacial in
nature and include Conneaut Lake, Conneaut Lake Kame, Conneaut Marsh, DeadIce Terminal Moraine, drumlins, Grant City Falls, Pikes Rocks, Lottsville Rock City,
Nuttles Rocks, Brooks Rocks, Baker Rocks, Quakertown Falls, Rock Creek Falls,
Springfield Falls, Tamarack Swamp, Titus Bog, and West Liberty Esker.
49
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
50
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

The industrial processes first developed on a significant scale in the region — from
the commercial extraction of oil and some of the earliest natural gas plays to the
mass production of steel — have left behind some of the most important cultural
and historical resources in our country’s history in this region.

From north to south, the Study Area has long served as an important transportation
corridor. The Venango Path, a Native American trail from the Forks of the Ohio
River to Presque Isle on Lake Erie, was used by George Washington and the British
troops during the French and Indian War and by Commodore Oliver Perry during
the War of 1812. The Erie Extension Canal similarly connected Lake Erie with the
Ohio River, but by water. The cities at both ends of these two transportation routes,
Pittsburgh and Erie, remain two of Pennsylvania’s three major ports, as designated
by the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). At its peak
in the mid-twentieth century, the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad carried one
percent of the nation's rail freight despite only running 220 miles. Today, Interstate
79 and U.S. Route 19 serve north-south traffic in the corridor, connecting the
Southern United States with Canada.

The region was Pennsylvania’s “last frontier” — the front line of the French and
Indian War, the last region of the state to be settled by the British, and the gateway
to America’s own frontier at the time, the Northwest Territory (modern-day
Midwestern United States). The four French forts of Fort Duquesne, Fort Machault,
Fort LeBoeuf, and Fort Presque Isle form a line from the forks of the Ohio River
(modern-day Point State Park) to Presque Isle (adjacent to modern-day Presque
Isle State Park) that characterizes the early history of this region. Additionally, the
Study Area was home to the beginning point of the U.S. Public Land Survey System,
which opened up the Northwest Territory for orderly settlement and was one of the
foundations of urban planning as a discipline. Today, a marker at the PennsylvaniaOhio border in Beaver County marks the approximate site where the survey was
conducted.
With an abundance of natural, cultural, and historic resources not found elsewhere in the
state, the Study Area can be regarded as a large integrated landscape defined by the presence
of these resources.
DOES THE STUDY AREA MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A DCNR CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE?
The second question that this Study set to answer was whether the Study Area met the criteria
for a Conservation Landscape. As discussed in Chapter 1, DCNR has established a set of five
criteria — or “ingredients” — that are present in a Conservation Landscape, based on the
agency’s experiences with the earliest Conservation Landscapes. 16 These include: 1) the
DCNR released a report in late 2019 titled Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes: Models of Successful Collaboration
that somewhat simplified these criteria. In the report, the “key commonalities” of the Conservation Landscapes were
identified as the following: “contain a core of public lands such as local or state parks, state forests, and/or long-distance
trail systems; engage community members and partners in resource conservation and sustainable development to help set
and achieve shared goals and priorities; encompass natural resources and ecosystems, built assets and communities; and
16
51
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
presence of DCNR-owned lands to provide a foundation for the landscape; 2) a sense of place
and identity; 3) readiness for more coordinated conservation and resource planning driven by
opportunities and threats; 4) opportunities for engagement to bring disparate stakeholders in
the region together to identify common values and concerns; and 5) opportunities for strategic
investment to build better communities, conserve special places, and invest in sustainable
economic development.
On this question, we arrived at the conclusion that the Study Area does indeed meet the five
criteria established by DCNR as ingredients that make up a Conservation Landscape. The
reasons for this are summarized as follows:

The Study Area is home to an abundance of DCNR-owned state parkland, with
almost 56,000 acres among the nine (9) counties. Since the acreage of state
forestland is relatively minimal as compared to the state parks present, this would
put the Study Area in the middle of the pack among Conservation Landscapes in
its presence of DCNR-owned lands. What makes the Study Area particularly
significant in its DCNR assets, however, is the high visitation of the state parks. The
two most-visited state parks in the Commonwealth, Presque Isle and Pymatuning,
are both located in the Study Area. Additionally, the state park visitation in the Study
Area is high overall, with almost three times the number of state park visits in 2017
as the existing Conservation Landscape with the next highest number of state park
visits, the Pocono Forests and Waters Conservation Landscape.

As discussed in the previous section, the Study Area’s distinct sense of place is
shaped by its water resources and glacial geomorphology as well as its industrial
past and historic significance in the development of the country. The landforms and
natural lakes in the region are a result of long-term glaciation unique to the state,
which created eskers, kames, moraines, and the largest concentration of wetlands
outside the Poconos. The numerous fragile habitats and outstanding biodiversity
of these wetlands, lakes, and streams are significant yet largely unprotected. The
importance of this region to the nation’s development also cannot be overstated.
As the home of the world’s first commercial oil well and some of the first steel mills
in the country, the industries in this region powered the growth of the United States
into an economic superpower. Earlier in history, the region was also the front line
of the country’s westward development and its cementing as a predominantly
British territory. The interchange between the unique natural and cultural history of
the Study Area and the human settlement and industry made possible because of
it is a story that is still playing out today in this living and working landscape.

The readiness of the Study Area for regional cooperation and management
centered on its unique sense of place is based on a combination of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, which include the following:

Strengths include a critical mass of protected areas, cultural attractions,
natural and geological features, environmentally significant areas, and
create new opportunities for DCNR to integrate and deploy staff expertise and resources strategically in a place and on a
landscape scale” (Barrett & Peterson, 2019).
52
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
recreational assets that provide nodes of opportunity for a regional cooperation
model.

Weaknesses include the continued population and economic decline of the
region at a rate exceeding most of the Commonwealth, as well as the generally
poor health outcomes and factors in the region’s counties as compared to the
rest of the state. They also include the lack of streamlined land use planning
and the inconsistent presence and application of environmental protection
throughout the region.

Opportunities include the furthering of the underdeveloped tourism and
outdoor recreational economic sectors as well as other sustainable economic
development such as artisan industries and agritourism. Additional, learning
opportunities exist for the region’s many engaged stakeholders related to
sustainable land use planning and economic development.

Threats include challenges to the region’s natural resources, from its glacial
lakes, to its forests and wetlands, to its unique ecoregions, and to the diversity
of aquatic species that live in the region’s waterways.

The opportunities to coordinate engagement between all of the region’s
stakeholders is robust. We have, in our conversations with numerous stakeholders,
discovered an appetite for a large-landscape conservation, recreation, and
planning model that promotes regional engagement and cooperation.

Strategic investments by state agencies have already made a large impact on the
region. A significant amount of work around cultural and natural resource
protection and tourism and recreation development is also occurring among many
local conservancies and county conservation districts, the Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy, regional trail groups, local chapters of national environmental
organizations, and the largest concentration of charitable foundations outside of
New York City. However, the work of these entities has largely been done
independently rather than in regional coordination. A large-landscape type of
planning approach and additional strategic investments would provide much
needed linkages, visibility, and resources to the western part of this ecologically
diverse state.
The next five sections of this chapter go into detail in analyzing the Study Area based on the
DCNR criteria for a Conservation Landscape summarized above.
PRESENCE OF DCNR-OWNED LANDS
The Study Area features 59,289 acres of DCNR-owned lands, which include the state parks
and state forests inventoried in detail in Chapter 2. Compared to the existing Conservation
Landscapes in the Commonwealth, the Study Area’s 55,895 state park acres would rank a
close third to the Pocono Forest and Waters Conservation Landscape (58,589 acres of state
53
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
parkland) and the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape (57,322 acres of state
parkland). The Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape comes in just below the Study Area,
with 49,323 state park acres.
Table 3.1 below shows how the Study Area compares among the existing Conservation
Landscapes in its state park acreage. Other specific types of public lands, including State
Forests, State Game Lands, county parks, municipal parks, and federal lands (National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) are also provided for comparison.
Table 3.1: Comparison of Public Protected Land in the Existing Conservation Landscapes and Study Area19
Conservation
Landscape
Laurel
Highlands
Lehigh Valley
Greenways
Pennsylvania
Wilds
Pocono
Forests and
Waters
Schuylkill
Highlands
South
Mountain
Susquehanna
Riverlands
Study Area
State
Parks
State
Park
Acres
State Park
Visitors
(2017)
State
Forest
Acres
State
Game
Land
Acres
County
Park
Acres
Municipal
Park
Acres
Federal
Land
Acres
9
49,324
3,513,570
76,098
87,316
2,841
8,046
4,045
1
1,164
233,004
0
9,414
5,652
14,510
0
28
57,338
2,897,809
1,358,815
431,421
2,691
10,278
740,716
14
58,589
3,927,253
131,316
181,228
10,267
9,855
68,602
4
12,986
914,537
756
26,470
6,862
14,417
850
3
4,278
631,396
86,723
3,851
0
4,654
6,368
2
658
960,977
0
1,677
3,499
12,234
0
11
55,895
11,465,049
3,372
111,724
11,970
29,989
8,777
The existing state parks in the Study Area, which include those among the most visited in the
entire Commonwealth, provide the foundation for the landscape. Of the state parks in the
Study Area, Pymatuning State Park is the largest and second most-visited in the entire
Commonwealth and features the largest number of family campsites, while Presque Isle State
Park is the most-visited. In fact, the 3,997,908 visitors to Presque Isle State Park alone in
2017 surpasses the total combined number of visitors to state parks in the Pocono Forest
and Waters Conservation Landscape (3,927,253 visitors in 2017 across 14 state parks) and
the Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape (3,513,570 visitors in 2017 across 10 state
parks), the two most popular existing Conservation Landscapes in terms of state park
visitorship. Similarly, Pymatuning State Park, with 2,593,758 visitors in 2017, almost
matches the entire state park visitorship for the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape
(2,897,809 visitors in 2017 across 28 state parks). As shown in Table 3.1 above, the Study
Area’s total state park visitor counts were almost three times as high as those for the Pocono
Forests and Waters Conservation Landscape.
54
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
The Study Area also has a strong DCNR presence in the form of State Heritage Areas, of which
the region has portions of four, two of which have been concurrently designated as National
Heritage Areas. These include the following:

Oil Region National Heritage Area – home of the world’s first successful commercial
oil well, initiating a chain of events that changed the world and a legacy of
petroleum that continues to shape industry, society, and politics;

Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area – birthplace of global industry in the form of
Big Steel and its related industries and the story of the region’s historically
significant contributions to the country and the world;

Pennsylvania Route 6 Heritage Corridor – early cross-country travel route linking
small towns along the northern tier of state and named by National Geographic as
“one of America’s most scenic drives”; and

Allegheny Ridge Heritage Area – a significant barrier to early transportation
transcended by the development of the Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg Main Line Canal
Greenway and which tells the story of Western Pennsylvania’s industrialization.
SENSE OF PLACE
While the Study Area does not have just one or two predominant or distinguishing features,
places or natural systems that define the region, it is united by the impacts of water and its
solid form, ice, on its natural and cultural history. These are impacts that continue to give
identity to the region today.
Glaciation and geomorphological forces have shaped the region’s geologic, soil, and water
resources. And it is these resources that characterize the region’s cultural landscape — its
towns, countryside, industries and recreational offerings. The prolonged history of Illinoisan
and Wisconsinian glaciation makes the Study Area unique compared to the rest of
Pennsylvania, most of which was not glaciated during the Ice Age. The landforms present in
Northwestern Pennsylvania are a result of the long-term glaciation of the region, which created
eskers, kames, moraines, and the many wetlands dotting the landscape. These wetlands
include numerous fragile habitats and some of the greatest biodiversity anywhere in this part
of the country.
The Study Area is also united by its history as both the front line of the French and Indian War,
of which the outcome led to the American Revolution and the westward expansion of the
country, and the developmental birthplace of two of the most significant contributing
materials to the world’s industrial history, oil and steel.
The Study Area is also home to Pennsylvania’s only Great Lakes shoreline, most of its Ohio
River watershed, and numerous other significant natural features, environmental resources,
and recreational assets that lend identity to the region. These include such features,
resources, and assets summarized in List 3.1 below.
55
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
List 3.1: Significant Natural Features, Environmental Resources, and Recreational Assets in the Study
Area
The four most visited state parks in Pennsylvania, per 2017 DCNR data:
 Presque Isle State Park: 3,997,908 annual visitors
 Pymatuning State Park: 2,593,758 annual visitors
 Point State Park: 2,091,976 annual visitors
 Moraine State Park: 1,291,331 annual visitors
Three of Pennsylvania’s 27 National Natural Landmarks:
 Presque Isle (Erie County)
 Titus and Wattsburg Bogs (Erie County)
 McConnell’s Mill State Park (Lawrence County)
The largest natural lake in Pennsylvania:
 Conneaut Lake (Crawford County)
The largest manmade lake in Pennsylvania:
 Pymatuning Lake (Crawford County)
The largest presence of fish and mollusk species in Pennsylvania’s 86,000 miles of waterways:
 French Creek 17
The only remnant of the black oak savanna ecosystem in Pennsylvania:
 Erie County 18
Significant portions of the two National Scenic Trails located in Pennsylvania:
 North Country Trail (Beaver, Lawrence, Butler, and Venango counties)
 Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail (Allegheny County)
Partial or entire sections of 15 of the 65 National Recreation Trails in Pennsylvania:
 Allegheny River Trail (Venango County)
 Ernst Recreational Trail (Crawford County)
 Kiski-Conemaugh Water Trail (Armstrong County)
 Ohio River Water Trail (Allegheny County, Beaver County)
 Oil Creek State Park Multi-Use Trail (Venango County)
 Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg Main Line Canal Greenway (Allegheny and Armstrong counties)
 Presque Isle State Park Multi-Purpose Trail (Erie County)
 Roaring Run Trail (Armstrong County)
 Samuel Justus Trail (Venango County)
 Sandy Creek Trail (Venango County)
 Seth Meyers Nature Trail (Mercer County)
 Stavich Bike Trail (Lawrence County)
 Three Rivers Heritage Trail (Allegheny County)
Of note is that Pennsylvania’s waterways are second in total mileage in the United States, only exceeded by Alaska. French
Creek is thus exceptionally diverse as a waterway, in a state with a lot of water.
17
While the black oak savanna ecosystem is a staple ecosystem of the Midwestern United States, it is exceptionally rare in
Pennsylvania.
18
56
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
 Three Rivers Water Trail (Allegheny County)
 US Route 6 - Grand Army of the Republic Highway (Crawford and Erie counties)
A significant portion of one of the four National Wild and Scenic Rivers located in Pennsylvania:
 Allegheny Wild and Scenic River (Venango County)
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission-designated “Best Fishing Waters” containing 12 of the 13
most important sport fish species
READINESS
The Study Area’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats have all coalesced into a
sense of readiness to adopt a landscape approach to regional conservation planning and
sustainable economic development. Strengths include the existence of recreational, cultural,
and natural resources as nodes for revitalization efforts; weaknesses include poor
demographic, economic, and health-related metrics; opportunities include those presented
by the tourism and recreational economy; and threats include a variety of environmental
challenges, including threatened species, sedimentation, climate change, invasive species,
and forest fragmentation.
Strengths – Recreational, Cultural, and Natural Resources as Nodes for Revitalization
As summarized in Chapter 2 and earlier in this chapter, the Study Area is home to a wider
variety of recreational, cultural, and natural resources, including the four most popular state
parks in Pennsylvania, the presence of all but one of the 13 sport fish species found in the
Commonwealth, the largest natural and manmade lakes in the Commonwealth, the
Commonwealth’s most species-rich waterway, and a bevy of recreational trails for hiking,
biking, and water navigation.
The strength of all of these assets is partially in their location. Rather than being clustered in
one part of the Study Area, they form nodes across the region, from the tip of Presque Isle in
Erie County to Point State Park in Allegheny County, and from the Ohio border at Pymatuning
Lake to Oil Creek State Park, where the region gradually transition into the Pennsylvania Wilds
ecoregion. In the heart of the Study Area lies some of Western Pennsylvania’s most treasured
recreational assets, including McConnells Mill State Park and the North Country Trail. The
region’s cultural and industrial history is also defined by important anchors, including the
Carrie Blast Furnaces National Historic Landmark in Rankin and the Drake Well Museum and
Park in Titusville.
Many of these features and attractions are not well publicized within the region, to other
regions of Pennsylvania, or to the surrounding states. However, they exist as important
anchors, or nodes, of opportunity — places of real interest to start with in any economic
revitalization efforts and places that accurately reflect the diversity of region’s natural,
historic, environmental, and recreational assets centered around a common denominator of
water and ice.
57
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
The Study Area also has as one of its biggest assets its location. Where existing Conservation
Landscapes such as the Pocono Forests and Waters and Laurel Highlands are close in
proximity to the Philadelphia and New York City metropolitan areas and the Pittsburgh and
Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas, respectively, the Study Area and its various nodes are
convenient to residents of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Cleveland, among other cities in the
Midwest and Great Lakes regions.
Weaknesses – Demographic, Economic, and Health Needs
As detailed in the demographic and economic data in Chapter 2, the Study Area is a region in
need of economic revitalization. Compared to the rest of the Commonwealth, the Study Area
has trended negatively in population growth, much of which has been due to the loss of
manufacturing jobs in the region. The Study Area lost 10.83% of its population between the
1970 and 2010 censuses, in contrast to population growth of 7.70% statewide during the
same time period. 2017 and 2018 population estimates have continued to show declines in
the Study Area counties.
While the need to expand economic opportunities across Pennsylvania is universal, it is
especially needed in Western Pennsylvania, which despite an abundance of natural
resources, has suffered from greater economic decline and population loss than most of the
rest of the Commonwealth. This is particularly pronounced for certain counties in the Study
Region such as Venango County, which ranks third among Pennsylvania counties in its rate of
population loss since 2010 and second among counties with a population of greater than
50,000 people, and Erie County, which ranks third among counties in absolute population
loss and first in negative net migration.
The health of residents in the Study Area counties is also concerning, when considering the
wealth of natural and recreational resources at their disposal. A 2016 report prepared by the
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (UWPHI) for the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation found that the counties making up the Study Area were worse off than the state
average in both health outcomes (defined in the report as 50% length of life and 50% quality
of life) and health factors (defined in the report as 30% health behaviors, 20% clinical care,
50% social and economic factors, and 10% physical environment) (Catlin et al., 2016).
As compared to DCNR’s existing Conservation Landscapes, the Study Area would be tied with
the Laurel Highlands for second worst in health outcomes, with an average county ranking of
41 of 67. Only the Pocono Forests and Waters has a worse average county ranking, at 44 of
67. The Conservation Landscapes in south central and southeastern Pennsylvania — South
Mountain, Susquehanna Riverlands, Schuylkill Highlands, Lehigh Valley Greenways, and
Kittatinny Ridge — were all well above average in their health outcomes, with average county
rankings falling within the top 25% of the state’s counties, while the Pennsylvania Wilds was
near the state median.
The only counties in the Study Area above the statewide mean in health outcomes were
Allegheny (at -0.03 standard deviations from the state average and ranked #31 among the
58
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
state’s 67 counties) and Butler (at -1.21 standard deviations from the state average and
ranked #5 among the state’s 67 counties) 19.
In terms of health factors, 60% of which includes socioeconomic and environmental factors,
the Study Area also performed worse than the state average. With an average county ranking
of 40 of 67, the Study Area ranks just below the Pennsylvania Wilds (average county ranking
of 39 of 67) and just above the Pocono Forests and Waters (average county ranking of 41 of
67) and the Laurel Highlands (average county ranking of 45 of 67) Conservation Landscapes.
As with health outcomes, the Conservation Landscapes in the south central and southeastern
portions of the state performed well above average. A need clearly exists in the Study Area for
better promotion of healthy activities, such as outdoor recreation, and for better connection
of residents to these activities where they exist.
Opportunities – Tourism and Recreational Economy
There are significant opportunities to integrate community revitalization, tourism, and
recreational development through a regional effort in the Study Area, and this was
emphasized in practically all of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee meetings and public
meetings conducted as part of this project. The readiness for boosting Western Pennsylvania’s
tourism and recreational economy is demonstrated not only by the countless conservation
and recreational initiatives and groups already present in the region but also by the
significance of the region’s travel and tourism sector as a proportion of the total economy.
Indeed, the 2009 Northwest Pennsylvania Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS), prepared by Environmental Planning & Design, LLC (EPD) and GSP Consulting (GSP),
and which covers four of the Study Area’s counties (Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Venango),
called for several strategic goals that speak to the opportunities to better integrate the
region’s natural and cultural assets into the economy:

Promote the region’s heritage, natural resources, cultural values, education assets
and quality of life;

Develop cooperative relationships, outreach and recruitment which promote the
expansion of regional and local work force opportunities; and

Promote land use planning and policies which balance economic development
opportunities with the conservation of sensitive natural resources.
The Northwest Pennsylvania CEDS report also discussed the opportunities presented by the
region’s natural amenities, stating that “the presence, accessibility and diversity of natural
resources provide the region with existing amenities upon which tourism and recreation
opportunities can be expanded” (EPD & GSP, 2009). The report identified the strengthening
of the tourism sector as a key regional economic development opportunity, to be guided by
the following objectives:
Negative standard deviations indicate better health outcomes, while positive standard deviations indicate worse health
outcomes.
19
59
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Expand the strategic regional plan for the future of tourism development;

Develop tourism projects and infrastructure required for these projects throughout
the region;

Identify and secure funding for tourism development projects;

Create a regional marketing strategy for tourism;

Establish a regional wayfinding and signage program for tourism; and

Preserve and enhance the region’s character and quality of life through regional
greenway planning efforts.
The importance of localized coordination of tourism efforts is increasingly crucial in a time of
fiscal restraint. In a 2016 presentation to the Pennsylvania House Tourism and Recreational
Development Committee and the Pennsylvania Senate Community, Economic and
Recreational Development Committee, national consultant Tourism Economics noted
remarkable declines in the competitiveness of Pennsylvania in the tourism sector as
compared to the eight states closest in physical proximity: New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
The most drastic decline among the factors for competitiveness was in the state’s tourism
budget. In 2009, even as the Commonwealth was in the midst of the Great Recession,
Pennsylvania’s tourism budget comprised 27.4% of the share of its nine-state competitive
region. By 2014, that share had dropped to only 6.2% of the regional total. Drops also
occurred with the state’s marketable overnight trip share and its marketable day trip share
and in the number of international visitors (Tourism Economics, 2016).
According to our calculations, approximately 6.56% of jobs in Pennsylvania (about 1 in 15)
are supported by the travel and tourism economy, which Tourism Economics defines as “the
value of traveler activity plus government spending and capital investment in support of travel
and tourism and certain personal consumption expenditures.” In other words, the travel and
tourism economy includes not only the direct impact of the travel industry from the sales made
to travelers and tourists but also the downstream indirect and induced impacts.
Pennsylvania’s share in tourism-related jobs is lower than the national average of 10.90% of
jobs supported by the travel economy (about 1 in 9 total jobs). Given that Pennsylvania’s
ranking in the shares of marketable overnight and marketable day trips is higher than the
national average, at #7 and #4 among the 50 states, respectively, there is much room for
growth in meeting the demands for tourism in the state. For the Study Area, which ranks higher
than the statewide average in both travel-related and recreation-related spending as a
component of overall GDP and higher than the statewide average in both the travel industry
and travel economy as a share of total jobs, there is an especially clear opportunity for growth
in marketing the region’s natural and cultural assets.
60
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
The Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association found in a 2015 report that for every
$1 invested in tourism marketing, $3.43 is generated in tax revenue. For a region such as the
Study Area that has acutely felt the pinch of economic decline and population loss over many
years to a degree greater than most of the rest of the Commonwealth, this increased tax
revenue from recreation and tourism can make a significant difference in community
revitalization.
According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania’s 2017 ten-year economic outlook, jobs in the
accommodation and food services sector are expected to increase in the rural counties of the
state as the leisure and hospitality industry grows. The total projected increase in jobs ranks
fifth in the state’s industry sectors, behind healthcare and social assistance, professional and
technical services, and construction (Behr, Christofides, & Neelakantan, 2017). By
percentage change, jobs in the accommodation and food services industry are expected to
grow at just above the average rate for all industries. Specifically in the Commonwealth’s
Northwest Workforce Investment Area (WIA) — which includes Erie, Crawford, and Venango
counties in the Study Area, and Warren, Forest, and Clarion counties in the Pennsylvania Wilds
— the accommodation and food services industry is projected to rank third in employment
growth, after the healthcare and social assistance and the administrative and waste services
sectors. Similarly, in the Tri-County WIA — which includes Butler and Armstrong counties in the
Study Area as well as Indiana County — the accommodation and food services sector is
projected to rank third in employment growth, after the healthcare and social assistance and
the administrative and waste services sectors.
Tourism bureaus exist in all nine of the counties and represent one-fifth of the 50 destination
marketing organizations officially designated by the Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development (DCED). The tourism promotion agencies for the Study Area
counties include VisitPittsburgh (Allegheny County), the Armstrong County Tourist Bureau,
Beaver County Tourism, the Butler County Tourism and Convention Bureau, the Crawford
County Convention and Visitors Bureau, VisitErie (Erie County), the Lawrence County Tourist
Promotion Agency, VisitMercerCountyPA, and the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and
Tourism (Venango County). From a regional standpoint, the PA Route 6 Alliance also serves
the Study Area in Erie and Crawford counties.
Interestingly, the Study Area — if designated as a Conservation Landscape — would be one of
the few Conservation Landscapes in the Commonwealth in which each county had its own
tourism bureau (unshared by other counties) and would certainly by far be the largest of the
Conservation Landscapes meeting this criteria. In contrast to the Study Area, tourism
marketing in all three of the core counties of the Laurel Highlands is handled by the Laurel
Highlands Visitors Bureau, and the two counties in the Lehigh Valley Greenways are served by
Discover Lehigh Valley. In a similar fashion, the Pennsylvania Wilds counties have their
tourism marketing managed by the Pennsylvania Great Outdoors Visitors Bureau (serving five
counties), Visit Potter Tioga, and a few individual county bureaus, and the Pocono Forests and
Waters is served by the Pocono Mountains Visitors Bureau (which manages tourism marketing
for four counties), the Luzerne County Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Lackawanna
County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
61
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
With the largest of the existing Conservation Landscapes all engaged in multi-county tourism
efforts, this indicates that there is ample opportunity for the Study Area’s counties to pool
resources and work together for regionwide tourism marketing benefits. In discussions from
the Feasibility Study Steering Committee and public meetings, it was expressed that some
collaborative efforts between counties did used to exist in the Study Area but that those efforts
have disappeared because of a lack of funding. This has left the individual counties in the
Study Area to work independently and to compete with one another for a shrinking share of
the state tourism budget.
While the county tourism bureaus have done the best they can on an individual basis, gaps
have emerged, and there is not an organized tourism and outdoor recreational effort at a
regional level in terms of marketing, development of special opportunities and events, and
cross-promotion of activities and attractions. A regional landscape approach to cooperation
in conservation and sustainable economic development can only help grow the travel industry
and the number of tourists visiting the region, offsetting the effects of unfavorable
demographics and long-term declines in legacy industries, as has been endeavored in the
Laurel Highlands, Pennsylvania Wilds, and Pocono Forests and Waters Conservation
Landscapes. As the Study Area is already slightly above the statewide averages in important
travel-related metrics, it will not be starting from the bottom. The readiness to better develop
and organize the tourism and recreational economies is already there; an additional push and
increased coordination between the many entities already working in the region would be
enough to realize additional benefits and help the Study Area counties fulfill their potential.
Threats – Environmental Challenges
With an abundance of unique natural assets in the Study Area, a strong need exists to ensure
their protection. As a working landscape with significant agricultural activity, sand and gravel
mining, timber production, and areas of suburban development, the Study Area will need to
find the right balance between economic development and conservation, a central theme in
just about every large landscape.
Four of the Study Area’s counties are listed among the top 25 counties in Pennsylvania by
number of species in the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) Inventory of
Conservation Concern. Erie County leads among all 67 counties in the Commonwealth by
number of listed species, with Crawford, Allegheny, and Butler counties also ranking in the top
25. The species of concern in these counties include some rare, threatened, and endangered
plant and animal species, as well as specifies with unique or specific habitat needs or
declining populations.
In the case of its water resources, the Study Area encompasses four of the 20 total Fish
Habitat Partnerships across the United States as designated by the National Fish Habitat
Board, owing to the diversity of waterways and wetlands found in the region. This matches the
number of Fish Habitat Partnerships located in the Laurel Highlands and Pennsylvania Wilds
Conservation Landscapes. The four Fish Habitat Partnerships covering the Study Area include
the Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership, the Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership,
the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, and the Reservoir Fisheries Habitat Partnership.
62
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
The Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Area (ORBFHP), in particular, is noted as a global center for
mussel diversity (Stark, 2013). Native mussels, which are indicator species of good stream
habitat (Stark, 2013), are as a group globally endangered. The upper reaches of the Ohio
River basin, which include the Pennsylvania portion of that basin of which the Allegheny River
and French Creek are components, remain in an extended recovery phase and currently
possess lower mussel diversity from severe environmental degradation prior to 1970,
according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 2006 Ohio River mainstem systems study (as
cited in Stark, 2013).
ORBFHP conservation planners have found that the top threats to native mussels are
sedimentation from various land uses, barriers to host movement (such as dams), altered
hydrology, channelization, dredging, and non-native invasive mussels (Stark, 2013). ORBFHP
modeling has also indicated that dam density, surface water consumption, forested land
cover, density of road crossing, and local impervious surface cover are very important
anthropogenic factors affecting the presence of native mussels (Stark, 2013).
The threats ranked as “high” on the ORBFHP list based on their impacts to signature fish and
native mussels include the following:

Class I and II dams (>40 feet tall);

Class III dams (25-40 feet high);

Class IV (lowhead) and smaller dams;

Sediment from mining;

Sediment from urban development;

Sediment from silviculture;

Sediment from agriculture;

Sediment from livestock;

Changing climate (higher water temperatures);

Invasive fish species;

Atmospheric deposition (e.g., acid rain);

Flood control structures;

Acid mine drainage;

Channelization;
63
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Culverts and bridges; and

Channel dredging (commercial gravel mining).
Surprisingly, some threats that often receive greater publicity for their impacts on aquatic
species were categorized as “medium” on the ORBFHP list. These include:

Impervious surface run-off (including combined sewer overflows and storm sewer
overflows);

Invasive aquatic plants;

Invasive riparian plants;

Rusty crayfish (invasive species found in Erie and Crawford counties in the Study
Area);

Land use changes (not urbanization);

Land use changes (urbanization);

Coal prep plants;

Endocrine disruptors/pharmaceuticals;

Surface mining; and

Oil and gas exploration (e.g., Marcellus Shale extraction).
The nature of the threats identified above suggests the need for more coordinated planning
and awareness among the local communities of the Study Area related to land development
and land uses in sensitive environments. The use and development of land in an
uncoordinated, unplanned manner may have deleterious effects downstream at any
particular location in the ecosystem of the Ohio River, given that the ecosystem and its
tributaries transcend across numerous municipal and county boundaries. Land uses and
developments that may alter hydrology, increase sedimentation, significantly remove forest
cover, or result in large areas of impervious surfaces, or which may involve dredging, should
thus be appropriately regulated or otherwise scrutinized.
The threats identified in the ORBFHP list vary by location. In the Upper Ohio (Beaver County
and Allegheny County), the top ranked threats were “development” and “dams and dikes.” In
the Allegheny sub-basin (much of the rest of the Study Area outside of the Great Lakes
watershed), the top ranked threats were “agricultural threats” and “development” (Stark,
2013).
The general lack of protection of the region’s forest resources is also of concern, as discussed
in Chapter 2. Northwest Pennsylvania (consisting of Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Venango
64
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
counties) was the only region of the six designated ecopolitical regions of the state — other
than heavily-forested north central Pennsylvania (i.e., the Pennsylvania Wilds) — to experience
a greater degree of forest loss than forest gain (Albright et al., 2014). Of 3,023 sample forest
plots across the Commonwealth measured by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and
Analysis (FIA) Program, some of the greatest concentration of forest loss appeared in the
border region of Venango, Butler, Armstrong, Clarion, and Forest counties, where the Study
Area meets the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscape.
The forest losses in north central Pennsylvania were heavily induced by a proliferation of
Marcellus shale gas development as well as the sheer number of fungal and insect pests
present in that region. In contrast, northwest Pennsylvania suffers considerably less than
much of the rest of the state from fungal and insect pests such as oak and maple decline,
beech bark disease complex, cherry scallop shell moth, gypsy moth, emerald ash borer,
hemlock woolly adelgid, southern pine beetle, white pine needlecasts, pitch canker, oak wilt,
and spotted lanternfly, and yet other parts of the state are still seeing forest gains outpacing
their losses (Alright et al., 2014).
Measures of forest fragmentation completed by the U.S. Forest Service using the spatial
integrity index (SII) developed for the 2000 Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA2000)
indicate that the northwest region is the second most fragmented region of the
Commonwealth in its forest land using both 30-m and 250-m scales of analysis, with only the
highly urbanized southeast region exceeding the northwest region in forest fragmentation
(albeit by a large margin). This is especially worrisome due to the relatively flat topography of
the region as compared with much of the rest of the Commonwealth, which puts forested
areas in the region at risk of fragmentation due to ease of development.
Even while the Study Area has experienced concerning trends related to its forest lands,
Pennsylvania as a whole has fairly effectively conserved its forest resources, which is
important for a state ranked second in the country in the economic impact of forestry to the
state economy. The total acreage of forested land in Pennsylvania has seen very little change
since the 1960s — the peak acreage in the last six decades has only slightly wavered, from a
high of 17.0 million acres of forested land in 1965 to a low of 16.6 million acres in 2004. The
current estimate of 16.9 million acres of forested land is the highest in almost three decades.
Heavily agricultural and urbanized sections of the Commonwealth such as the southeast and
south-central regions all saw significant gain in forest land acreage when measured against
losses, despite these areas experiencing the most rapid economic and population growth in
Pennsylvania. The greater access to financial resources, higher level of professional planning,
and perhaps the role of the Conservation Landscapes in those regions, may play a role in their
positive conservation outcomes (Albright et al., 2014). In fact, the greatest net gain in forest
land area was in southeastern Pennsylvania, which experienced a 5% increase in forest area.
Since 2004, the statewide acreage of timberland (defined as “land meeting minimum
productivity standards that is not reserved from harvesting by statute”) and the acreage of
protected forest land have both increased (Albright et al., 2014). However, these trends are
uneven across the state, with the Study Area, in particular, faring more poorly than the
65
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Commonwealth as a whole despite the general absence of significant pest and fungal threats
other than beech leaf disease.
ENGAGEMENT
The presence of such a large variety of conservation and recreation organizations in the region
is promising in terms of engagement opportunities. From our experience, outstanding work is
taking place among these organizations, but the scope of the organizations is often very
localized and interests are siloed.
A landscape approach to conservation and resource planning and engagement would create
much-needed coordination among the various groups to more efficiently promote outdoor
recreation and tourism in the western part of the state. Addressing these as issues common
on a regional, landscape-wide scale will empower local authorities to engage in better
planning in their communities and to share knowledge region-wide that benefits everyone.
Stakeholder Interviews
To gauge the interest in furthering engagement on these issues, we conducted 25 in-person
and telephone interviews from November 2018 through July 2019 with a diverse variety of
stakeholders representing various organizations in the Study Area. Additional stakeholders
gave their responses through an online survey. The organizations associated with the
stakeholders included the following 20:
20

2 federal agencies;

3 state agencies;

2 regional planning commissions;

3 county planning agencies;

3 county tourism departments;

2 county conservation districts;

6 land conservancies and land trusts;

3 trail coalitions;

6 additional nonprofit organizations associated with conservation, recreation, and
the arts;
Some interviewed stakeholders were associated with more than one organization.
66
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study

1 institution of higher education;

1 charitable foundation; and

5 private businesses.
June 2020 Final Draft
The level of engagement in our discussions with the stakeholders extremely promising, and
all but one of the stakeholders interviewed were in favor of establishing a Conservation
Landscape or other regional conservation, outdoor recreation, and tourism coalition in the
Study Area.
From our interviews, a number of takeaways emerged regarding the level of human, technical,
and financial resource capacities for both conservation and general planning activities; the
mechanisms that exist in the Study Area’s counties and local municipalities for the
conservation of land and water; and the readiness for a large-landscape approach to planning
and cooperation.
We see from the stakeholders’ comments an opportunity to foster the engagement needed to
build a more sustainable economy and informed planning environment to more effectively
weather the demographic and economic declines experienced throughout the Study Area and
to promote pride and sense of place in the communities. The county governments, in
particular, indicated a readiness and willingness to provide higher-level leadership, support,
and technical assistance to their local communities in planning and conservation efforts and
economic redevelopment alike.
The seven main takeaways that emerged from our stakeholder conversations were as follows:

There is agreement that “natural resources,” “biodiversity,” “water,” and
“glaciation” are common denominators in the region: Glaciation, in particular,
has played a central role in both the region’s natural and cultural heritage,
responsible for the region’s biodiversity and unique landscape and making possible
its pioneering role in the oil economy and its continued role in today’s extraction
industry. Additionally, glaciation created the divide in the watersheds that form a
crucial feature of the region’s landscape.

In general, the local municipalities do not proactively plan outside of zoning and
other mandatory planning regiments such as floodplain ordinances:
Municipalities are often so focused on short-term problems that they cannot see
their way forward and only engage in planning when issues arise. A lack of longterm planning has implications when it comes to overdevelopment, the ability to
work on regional and multi-municipal projects such as trails, and the protection of
natural and environmentally sensitive resources.

There is a strong desire among the municipalities for local control and
management rather than a top-down approach—whether that approach is
coming from the county government or from higher levels of government: In a
few cases, municipalities are self-sufficient to the point of not needing the
67
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
expertise, guidance, and capacity of the county government. In many cases,
however, hyperlocal planning without consultation of the county government has
led to issues with inconsistent enforcement, lack of information sharing, and
compromises that lead to inadequate protection of landscapes and
environmentally sensitive resources.

There is a general lack of capacity for planning—and this extends to human,
technical, and financial capacities alike: The municipalities have long been
understaffed, leading to its public officials having to wear many different hats,
including those for which they are not qualified or do not have the necessary
expertise. The counties, which are also understaffed, have experienced difficulty
with outreach to the individual municipalities about county planning services and
resources (human, technical, and financial alike). There is a widespread lack of
understanding and knowledge at the municipal level about issues related to not
only natural resource protection but to planning in general.
Specifically related to trail development, stakeholders engaged in trail planning and
maintenance efforts made the following general comments:

Local culture is an asset and a liability in trail building. This region embraces
independence and a sense of exclusive rights to local land, both public and private.
There is pride in the area and a strong sense of heritage. People have a history of
working hard on farms and in the mines. They are willing to work together when
they have a common bond with each other. However, a self-sufficient attitude also
makes it challenging to convince property owners to allow trails on their land.

Trail heads are hard to find, unmarked making it very difficult to cultivate the
outdoor recreation market. Even locals have a hard time locating trail heads.
Interviewees across the spectrum of stakeholders implied that this is not a result
of lack of funding but a result of a culture that is not interested in marking these
points for the general public or visitors.

DCNR is a strong partner but the application for funding process is onerous and
large projects are prioritized. It is understood that the application process
underwent changes to improve the quality and integrity of the program. However,
the current requirements handicap applicants. For example, it is necessary to have
trail construction dollars in-hand before the engineering plan is completed which
puts applicant in bind as one needs a plan before one can calculate costs. Large
projects are given priority, but that is not the nature of projects being developed in
this region, with its smaller parcels and smaller organizations, and it can be
challenging to match DCNR grants with other state grants.

Fragmentation makes it difficult to look at big picture. Fiefdoms, dispersed
population, and smaller organizations contribute to piecemeal approach to
conservation and trail development.

Public lands are a critical part of the trail systems. The North Country Trail runs
68
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
completely through public lands. There is a desire to see the Pennsylvania Game
Lands opened up for trail use as well.

Residents embrace the four seasons and enjoy winter sports; this creates an allseason outdoor recreation culture that should be touted and celebrated.
In the advocacy and funding stakeholder group, the individuals we interviewed made the
following general comments:

There is interest in a large landscape approach. Coordination and networking are
important, but the coalition in the Study Area would have to be appropriately funded
to effectively impact coordination and planning.

There are lots of natural resources in the region, but people who use them want to
keep them a secret. Ecotourism is under-appreciated, and unexplored
opportunities abound.

Small advocacy organizations need help with securing monies to have staff. Levels
of sophistication vary from nascent organizations trying to secure insurance and
phone lines to more established entities ready to lead a partnership project. All,
however, struggle to staff their work.

Jennings Environmental Education Center is a valuable regional asset that provides
research support and meeting space.

The Pennsylvania Game Lands are a good partner that has allowed passive acid
mine drainage treatment systems on their land. Quick access to maintenance
funding is needed.
The business stakeholders we interviewed had the following general observations:

With one exception, the goals of these business owners extend beyond generating
a profit to create an experience. All but one interviewee expressed a powerful
motivation to provide a quality experience so that folks would be inspired to engage
more in the outdoors.

The sharing of expertise about proper equipment, creation of tailored trips and
tours, and an environment that welcomes the outdoor enthusiast were stated
objectives in producing a positive experience for the customer and serving their
outdoor lifestyles.

Ingenuity and tenacity are defining characteristics of these businesses. The
businesses:

Overcome local government entities and residents who are resistant to change
and create obstacles;
69
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Embrace niche markets for products not available in big box stores and that
draw audiences from a 200-mile radius;

Recognize the value of Pittsburgh and Erie both as attractive attributes to
visitors and as sources of clientele;

Provide innovative tours that overcome weak links in trails and creates tailored
outings to cultivate the market;

Are open to partnerships, create events, support sister activities, and share
knowledge about business development and potential product improvements;

Work to overcome lack of understanding by other businesses of the outdoor
recreation market;

Are not afraid to spend money for charity;

Partner with others to get things done, including infrastructure improvements
(bicycle/pedestrian improvements), and river clean-ups; and

Would welcome leadership in joint marketing, advocacy for their businesses,
education of local residents, and development of trails.
The charitable foundation stakeholder made the following general comments about the
region and its possibilities:

The sector is looking for opportunities to support economic development and
capitalize on regional assets. The vast amount of natural resources in the region
have not been tied together.

There is a challenge to find local projects to fund as there is a lack of sophistication
in the applications.

Support would be contingent on a coalition that would have a clear path forward,
with a game plan.

Colleges and universities are the untapped resource for this region. Intellectual
capital is untapped. Projects should be in communities with these resources.
Colleges and universities are focused on themselves; however, they need a broader
strategy that sees other schools as partners and not competition.

The character of the region similar to that of Appalachia. The area is conservative,
rural, and economically challenged.
Stakeholders engaged in the management of heritage areas, historic attractions, and
historic preservation had the following general observations:
70
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

The defining characteristics of region include both historic and natural assets.
Historic and heritage entities surveyed see their success as directly linked to
natural resources, and it is perceived that the beauty, history, and outdoor
recreation in the region complement their individual missions. Rivers and
waterways, public lands, and trails play an integral role in attracting the public and
define what is valuable to locals.

One stakeholder wrote that “this region is probably the richest corridor for existing
above-ground historical resources in the Commonwealth.” A potential theme
linking the region is industrial heritage and the economic story of the region,
particularly as it connects to the unique geology of the region, which is the
foundation for much of the economic success and the unique natural assets.

People are a great resource while parochial attitudes sometimes hinder economic
development in the new economy. A consistent thread in interviews in both this
category and others is the parochial attitudes of a portion of the population. It is
manifested in the way locals view public lands as entirely their own. There is a belief
that if one lives near or adjacent to public and/or conserved lands, that it is his or
her property to enjoy exclusive to the visiting public. (This is reflected in other
interviews noting that this attitude contributes to the lack of marked trail heads
and public access.) There is not the accompanying sense of responsibility around
maintenance or financial support. In that same vein, communities with a
predominantly elderly population are invested in the status quo and resist business
development, visitors, and community enhancements.

Pockets of the region are becoming home to baby boomers and millennials, both
of which are seeking places with outdoor recreation, affordability, a sense of
community or cultural value. Locally, culture and environment are becoming more
recognized as linked to economic development. Examples of communities that are
receptive to this concept include Erie, Sharon, Union City, Corry, Gerard, and
Northeast. This audience understands that historic preservation is a boon to
economic development rather than a drain on resources.

Investment in smaller-scale development over larger-scale development will
support the organic growth of communities and the economy linked to natural
resources.

The sense of identity will be linked to the cultural values of the people who have
lived here for generations. There is a sense of “common independence” in the
region fed by the unique topography and geography, where topography allows
communities to isolate themselves differently from Midwestern towns, where the
land is largely flat. The bond is less geographic and more about industrial heritage.
Cultural attitudes are more likely to create a sense of identity than the physical
landscape when thinking Erie to Pittsburgh.

The western side of the state lacks investment by state agencies including DCNR.
There is a pervasive attitude that the western side of Pennsylvania is not getting
71
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
adequate investment from the state and that there is a bias in funding towards
central and eastern Pennsylvania.

State resources could have a very big impact in generating economic development
in a forward thinking, or new economy direction. The general population perceives
economic development as the return of manufacturing jobs; state investment can
help to demonstrate success and inspire local investment.

Parks, forests, game lands, lakes, and other state-owned resources are invaluable
to the region. In addition to natural resources, the parks own a significant number
of historic resources. Development of cultural tools in parks will ultimately affect
visitation to parks because the heritage and culture of the surround towns will draw
people for tourism.

The opioid crisis is having a huge negative impact on communities in terms of
public health, costs to society, the workforce, and crime.
The stakeholders from the land conservation sector made the following general comments:

The major assets of the region include waterways, woodlands, diversity of
ecological features running north and south, glaciated wetlands, trail efforts, Erie
National Wildlife Refuge, Presque Isle State Park, Pymatuning Lake, Lake Arthur,
county parks, and diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities. These assets
include ecologically interesting land home to exceptional species with a high need
for conservation.

There is a need to educate citizens on land management and to make the
connection between drinking water and watersheds.

Possible future outdoor recreation opportunities include some potentially iconic
land and water trails with the ability to bike from Erie to Washington, D.C. and the
ability to kayak from Erie to Pittsburgh.

Funding program requirements limit the number of successful applications. The
nature of land available for conservation in this region means that smaller parcels
are more easily conserved. However, funding is biased toward larger parcels and
those that add to park properties. Although organizations work with local advisors,
they often have to apply twice to receive funding; organizations would like to get
feedback before submitting the first time. Some folks have given up applying
because process is onerous. The requirement of DCNR for obtaining a 50% match
is extremely difficult. Other entities such as the Fish and Boat Commission are more
flexible. In addition, they help locate other funding through their networks in sister
agencies.

“Hard hearted” was used to describe the DCNR process. This is significant,
because this is the perception funding applicants have, even if it is factually
incorrect or there is a good rationale for rejecting a proposal.
72
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

It would be ideal if all state agencies use a version of the same application.

There is interest in exploring joint fundraising.

Collaboration and networking would be beneficial. Sharing information, connecting
plans, and coordinating efforts was repeatedly mentioned by this group as a
valuable concept. The size of the region and isolation of some groups limit
collaboration, so coordination around many issues is welcome, especially in light
of climate change, as there is a need to plan for large changes.

Communication with state agencies important. For example, PennDOT is using
week management principles from 40 years ago.

Sharing resources, both tangible (tools) and intellectual (staff, scientific
knowledge), is perceived as a solution to limited funding and capacity. There is a
spirit of partnership that has not been fully tested.

There is an appreciation for the huge workload staff in state agencies are
shouldering, especially DEP.
Stakeholders from park-related entities interviewed made the following general observations:

Value of park services not part of the calculus at any level. Public lands are the
biggest asset in the region, provided free-of-charge. However, the value of the asset
and accompanying services are not captured and therefore are not factored into
any aspect of park planning, assessments, etc.

The first step in improved public outreach and marketing is to determine capacity
for increased visitation. Parks could market resources and programs creatively.
However, it must first be determined if and where they can handle more visitors
and then to assess the ability of restaurants and lodging to respond to increased
business.

Parks have limited ability to plan for some social trends that impact them. For
instance, the Pokémon craze caused one popular park to be overrun with people,
impacting traffic and the natural resource. Drones will pose a new challenge.

The mission of state parks is resource management. However, managing facilities
and visitor services consume almost all of their resources.

Park staff is the greatest resource of all. Staff members are dedicated and serviceoriented at every level. Because of this dedication, they are able to accomplish
more that the resources allocated would justify.

Input from local community is welcome and needed. The parks are eager to serve
local residents and to understand what they want from the parks and what they
73
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
would change. It would be useful to have surveys at the local level, or to tease out
data from the Penn’s Parks for All survey.

There are numerous opportunities to increase administrative efficiencies.
Internally, parks have a need for better systems (inventory control of toilet paper,
for example, or the extrapolation of visitor statistics from registration data).
Stakeholders from government agencies and regional planning organizations made the
following general comments:

Partnerships can be part of the solution to shrinking staff sizes. Communication
and coordination between agencies are hampered by shrinking staff and agency
culture. Landscape level projects could help to build lines of communication
through work on joint projects. A coalition will also build networks between
agencies, as people often don’t know folks in other agencies with whom they could
be partnering. PennDOT, for instance, is working to connect with communities so
that both parties are aware of the others’ projects and can capitalize on that
information by coordinating related work.

The distances between communities can make it a challenge for one person to
cover a large territory.

The scope and breadth of DCNR is not understood by the public. The general public
does not understand the structure of DCNR and the many branches and programs
it manages. There is a need to raise awareness so that people understand how
these resources are funded and maintained and the positive role DCNR plays in
communities.

Some stakeholders believe that landscape boundaries should absorb remaining
counties. If the landscape program is created, its boundary should extend to Green
and Washington counties and Indiana County should be split and absorbed into
Laurel Highlands and the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation Landscapes. In this
way, all of western Pennsylvania is included in a program or coalition.

Opportunities for growth exist. The shale gas industry is an example of a new
business that is here to stay, so there should be a strategy to take advantage of
opportunities that it will spur.
Stakeholders representing counties had the following general observations:

There is agreement that natural resources, biodiversity, water, and glaciation are
common denominators throughout region.
•
Marketing and promotion of outdoor recreation needs to be given a higher priority.
•
Lack of funding in Northwest Pennsylvania relative to the value of natural resources
there is discouraging.
74
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Additionally, there’s strong interest in working together and sharing experiences in
an organized and collaborative forum.

Most of the counties feel that many of their respective communities lack the
resources (human, technical and financial) to perform proactive planning related
to resource protection and conservation. Nor do the individual communities
generally have the appropriate resources to commit to tourism and recreation
development/promotion.

It appears that there is an opportunity to support the communities and counties of
the region with educational and advocacy outreach, training and
promotional/educational materials.
Finally, other stakeholders interviewed made the following general comments:

There are many outdoor assets in the region. However, many of these assets, such
as trailheads, are unknown or hard to find, and there is no resource to find them.

The region is a microcosm of the country — California and New York are the
bookends, and then there is the great in-between. Pittsburgh and Erie are the
bookends creating the narrative of the Study Area, but they don’t reflect the rural
interior. The bookends poo-poo the middle, but the people in the middle are the
property owners.

State agencies need to modernize their thinking and do better outreach to their
audiences using age-appropriate tools (social media and apps for the younger
population and printed materials for older folks) to distribute information, such as
a weekly compilation of all the things to do in the parks. Replicate the sports model
that kids know to engage them in fishing (hold tournaments). Extend the time that
kids have junior hunting privileges (can shoot any buck) from age 16 to age 21.

The aging population in the region is a missed market. “60 is the new 40,” and the
most common age is 57. Partner with the Department of Aging.
The capacity-building that makes up a central tenet of the large-landscape planning approach
is crucial to the protection of natural and environmentally sensitive resources and the
promotion of sustainable and recreation-based economies. Based on our stakeholder
conversations, a strong appetite exists for a conservation and recreational planning model in
the Study Area promoting regional engagement.
Public Meetings
In addition to the stakeholder interviews and surveys that we conducted for this project, we
also convened two public meetings in early 2020. The first of the two meetings was held on
Friday, January 24 in Meadville, at the Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County’s
William J. Douglass Jr. Conference Center. The second of the two meetings took place at the
Cranberry Township Municipal Center in Butler County, on Friday, January 31. Approximately
75
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
20 participants attended each of the meetings, including local DCNR officials, county
representatives, nonprofit professionals, and business owners.
Those in attendance were enthusiastic and engaged and had plenty of ideas and suggestions.
Many of the comments reinforced what was shared with us in the stakeholder interviews and
affirmed the feedback and recommendations of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee.
Below are some of the comments that were shared:

Like the focus on water and the frontier;

Other building blocks and themes include agriculture, transportation corridors,
Washington’s journey, trails, and Native American culture;

The conservation model should focus on both recreation opportunities and tourismfocused development;

Agritourism should be better promoted and developed (e.g., maple syrup industry,
farm to table farms, wineries, breweries, “Western Pennsylvania Preferred”);

Challenges include fragmented, privately owned land; large number of
municipalities; distrust of government and outsiders; and sense of competition
between municipalities;

Lack of multi-municipal cooperation, interaction, and sharing of infrastructure;

The northern counties of the Study Area are markedly different from the southern
counties, which could be a challenge;

Lack of guidance, knowledge, and land management education — a policy toolkit
would be helpful;

Some recreational resources like water trails lack sufficient visitor infrastructure;

Funding resources from Pittsburgh area are critical; lack of funding but interest in
working together;

Incentives (likely financial, such as grants) may be necessary for buy-in from the
local government and private sector — need to see benefits/returns backed by data
and facts;

Branded marketing for the region is needed;

Connect with colleges and students to boost engagement and involvement;

Individual non-profits have too much on their plate to do things alone — a
Conservation Landscape would help ease that;
76
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

A Conservation Landscape would inspire individual non-profits to stay engaged and
active beyond their mission;

While state parks in the region are heavily visited, a significant number of visitors
are from out of the region or even from out of the state;

Public lands are treated like private lands — people often don’t want others to know
about or use their favorite outdoor spots or to be biking near their properties (which
leads to lack of signage, markers, promotion);

There are a substantial number of financial assistance programs available — the
biggest problem is that local governments and private organizations don’t know
what’s out there;

Washington’s Trail, I-79, Perry Highway (US-19), and the Erie Extension Canal —
these transportation corridors are the key tie between the counties;

Struggle to get young people to stay in the region to open businesses and revive
local economies;

The region is midway between New York City, Chicago, and Toronto — with a high
population to draw from nearby; and

“Medical tourism” is an overlooked but significant component of the region’s
tourism — there are a lot of healthcare assets in the region.
STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS
Despite the lack of a central organizing entity in the Study Area, there is a strong presence of
public and private entities focused on conservation, heritage, recreation, and revitalizationbased investments in the region.
Many of the projects and assets associated with public entities include those discussed in
Chapter 2. In addition to DCNR, the Study Area features significant investments by other state
and federal agencies, including the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), county governments, municipal governments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). To recap, this includes:

55 State Game Lands (PGC);

39 water access facilities (PFBC);

14 county parks;

793 municipal parks;
77
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

2 National Wildlife Refuges (FWS); and

5 Recreation Areas (USACE).
The especially large presence of State Game Lands and water access facilities in the Study
Area is a testament to the sporting traditions characteristic of Pennsylvania — where hunting
and fishing activities support 20,470 jobs, according to a 2018 report from the Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Southwick Associates — and especially of Western
Pennsylvania.
Trail Development
The Study Area also includes within its boundaries a significant number of trails and
greenways, some of which were funded in part by the Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development (DCED) and its two key programs for alternative transportation —
the Greenways, Trails and Recreation Program and the Multimodal Transportation Fund.
As part of the Industrial Heartland Trails Network, there are over 1,000 miles of existing trails
— in the form of off-road trails, on-road bike routes, and single-track trails — in the Study Area.
Additionally, there are almost 400 additional trail miles planned or proposed. A large
proportion of the trail mileage is related to the Erie to Pittsburgh Trail, which will eventually
total around 270 miles and serve as a sister trail to the Great Allegheny Passage as part of
Western Pennsylvania’s regional trail network. Table 3.2 below inventories the existing and
planned/proposed trails in the Study area.
Table 3.2: Trail Mileage in the Study Area Counties
Off-Road Trails (miles)
On-Road Routes (miles)
Single Track (miles)
Existing
Planned/
Proposed
Existing
Planned/
Proposed
Existing
Planned/
Proposed
Allegheny
32.88
94.34
3.45
9.83
49.01
8.89
Armstrong
35.03
56.26
1.62
0.00
64.01
4.39
Beaver
5.13
45.96
33.80
2.84
47.00
14.85
Butler
48.21
6.67
4.89
0.00
89.81
1.42
Crawford
22.10
65.75
66.90
0.00
1.91
0.00
Erie
53.12
11.73
109.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
Lawrence
20.95
15.00
42.69
0.00
36.28
0.00
Mercer
60.75
31.00
43.53
0.00
15.16
0.00
Venango
67.33
30.49
28.28
0.00
48.18
0.00
345.50
357.20
334.68
12.67
351.36
29.55
County
Study Area
78
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
From an economic development perspective, the communities along the various portions of
the Erie to Pittsburgh Trail — many of which have already begun to market themselves as trail
towns — stand to benefit from an increase in collaboration and regionalization of marketing
efforts. Several recent surveys have been completed that show positive impacts of the trail
on the regional economy.
According to a trail user survey completed by the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the portion of
the Erie to Pittsburgh Trail between Titusville (Crawford County) and Parker (Armstrong County)
generated almost $7.5 million of economic impact for the local economy in 2013. (This is
almost a 75% growth from the previous survey of the same portion of the trail conducted in
2006.) Additionally, the 2015 Business Survey Report from the Progress Fund’s Trail Town
Program indicates that 19.15% of the annual revenue of businesses along the stretch of the
Erie to Pittsburgh Trail from Titusville (Crawford County) to Foxburg (Clarion County) was
attributed to the presence of the trail.
Even while these numbers are encouraging, there remains significant room for growth, as
demonstrated by the enormous positive impact of the Great Allegheny Passage (GAP), which
largely runs through the Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape and which has been fully
complete since 2013. The GAP, which attracts bicyclists from all over the country and even
from overseas, generates upwards of $50 million of economic impact for its nearby
communities.
Agricultural Security
Another significant state-level investment in the Study Area includes the provision of
Agricultural Security Areas (ASAs), a program for farmland protection coordinated by local
governing bodies (usually the county conservation district) and overseen by the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture (PDA). Agricultural Security Areas (ASAs) protect farms against
certain cases of eminent domain, threats of lawsuits, and local ordinances that affect farming
activities (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2017). They may be supplemented by
other measures such as “right to farm” laws.
The Study Area compares favorably with most of the rest of the Commonwealth in terms of
acres protected as ASAs, with over 12% of the land in the Study Area included within an ASA,
as detailed in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Agricultural Security Areas in the Study Area
Acres (as of
April 2016)
% of Total
County Land
% of Total
Farmland in County
Allegheny
11,118
2.4%
31.9%
Armstrong
47,730
11.4%
37.0%
Beaver
46,590
16.7%
83.5%
Butler
60,382
12.0%
44.3%
Agricultural Security Area (ASA)
79
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Acres (as of
April 2016)
% of Total
County Land
% of Total
Farmland in County
Crawford
73,581
11.4%
32.3%
Erie
71,749
14.0%
42.5%
Lawrence
37,010
16.1%
46.0%
113,733
26.4%
69.7%
9,239
2.1%
15.0%
471,132
12.7%
44.6%
Agricultural Security Area (ASA)
Mercer
Venango
Study Area
While the nine counties in the Study Area vary in their protection of agricultural land, Mercer
County stands out as being among the top counties in the Commonwealth in percent of land
protected by ASAs. The county is neck and neck with some of the fastest-growing central and
eastern Pennsylvania counties famous for their agricultural production, including Adams
County (28.7% of land protected by ASAs), Berks County (29.9%), Chester County (25.6%),
Franklin County (21.1%), Lancaster County (26.0%), and Lebanon County (27.0%).
However, the data from Table 20 also demonstrates the piecemeal nature of farmland
protection among the counties in the Study Area and the need to boost regional capacity to
take on such challenges. Consider Mercer and Beaver counties, where 69.7% and 83.5% of
the counties’ total farmland is protected as part of an ASA, respectively, while less than onethird of farmland in Venango (15.0%), Allegheny (31.9%), and Crawford (32.3%) counties is
ASA-protected.
Additionally, the Study Area lags in the establishment of agricultural conservation easements.
Conservation easements are the second step to farmland preservation for individual farms
after a farm obtains an ASA designation. These easements allow farm owners “to retain a
farm’s title, pass the property to heirs, or sell the property, while still maintaining agricultural
use of the land” (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2017).
The Study Area also ranks low compared to much of the rest of the state in the number of
acres protected by the Department of Agriculture’s Clean and Green land protection program,
which may be a result of the largely stagnant land values in the region. The Clean and Green
Program protects farmland, forestland, and open space by assessing the land by its use value
rather than the prevailing market value. For forestland, the Department of Agriculture works
with DCNR’s Bureau of Forestry on assessment values based on the average value of timber
in the county weighted by the county’s forest composition according to the presence of six
timber types:

Softwood forests (majority comprised of pine, spruce, and larch);

Select oak forests (majority comprised of higher-quality oaks such as northern red
oak and white oak);
80
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Oak forests (majority comprised of non-select oaks, such as scarlet oak, black oak,
and chestnut oak);

Northern hardwood forests (predominance of sugar maple, red maple, American
beech, and black cherry at less than 40% relative cover, with associated species of
red oak, yellow birch, sweet birch, and white ash);

Black cherry forests (with a 40% or greater stand composition of black cherry); and

Miscellaneous hardwood forests (including pure birch stands, aspen stands, or
combinations of such species as yellow poplar, American beech, red maple, oak
species, black locust, and mesophytic species such as basswood, sugar maple,
black walnut, and eastern hemlock).
Nongovernmental Investments
In addition to the work being coordinated by public agencies in the region, the Study Area also
has a robust presence of nongovernmental conservation and recreation organizations
operating in all corners of the region. List 3.2 provides just a sampling of the organizations
that could be brought to the table as part of a large landscape-based planning model.
List 3.2: Conservation and Recreation Organizations Working in the Study Area
























Allegheny Land Trust
Allegheny Valley Conservancy
Allegheny Valley Land Trust
Allegheny Valley Trails Association
Armstrong County Conservancy Charitable Trust
Armstrong Rails to Trails Association
Audubon Society – Bartramian
Audubon Society – Presque Isle
Audubon Society – Seneca Rocks
Audubon Society – Western Pennsylvania
Beaver County Sportsmen’s Conservation League
Botanical Society of Western Pennsylvania
Butler Outdoor Club
Clear Lake Authority
Committee to Restore Hereford Manor Lake
Ducks Unlimited
Erie County Environmental Coalition
Erie Outing Club
Erie to Pittsburgh Trail Alliance
The Foundation for Sustainable Forests
Fox Chapel Area Land Trust
Friends of Oil Creek State Park
French Creek Recreational Trails
French Creek Valley Conservancy
81
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study


































June 2020 Final Draft
Glade Run Lake Conservancy
Hollow Oak Land Trust
Independence Conservancy
Industrial Heartland Trail Coalition
Keystone Trails Association
Lake Erie Region Conservancy
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The Nature Conservancy – Pennsylvania Chapter
North Area Environmental Council
North Country Trail Association – Butler Chapter
North Country Trail Association – Wampum Chapter
Ohio River Trail Council
Penn Soil Resource Conservation and Development Council
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Purple Martin Conservation Association
Raccoon Creek Partnership
Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy
Rails to Trails Conservancy
Redbank Valley Trails Association
Roaring Run Watershed Association
Sandy Creek Conservancy
Shenango Conservancy
Sierra Club – Allegheny Group
Sierra Club – Lake Erie Group
Slippery Rock Watershed Coalition
Stream Restoration Incorporated
Three Rivers Birding Club
Trout Unlimited – Arrowhead Chapter
Trout Unlimited – Neshannock Chapter
Trout Unlimited – Northwest Pennsylvania Chapter
Trout Unlimited – Oil Creek Chapter
Trout Unlimited – Penn’s Woods West Chapter (largest chapter in the state)
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Wild Waterways Conservancy
Charitable Foundations
Finally, Western Pennsylvania is home to a large concentration of charitable foundations —
the largest in the country outside of New York City. These charitable foundations have left
their imprints on numerous economic revitalization, conservation, and recreational initiatives
in Western Pennsylvania, most notably in the Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscape and
the immediate Pittsburgh region. Strategic investments by charitable foundations in the Study
Area should be able to speak to these interests as they have in the Laurel Highlands and in
Pittsburgh. Such areas of investment and implementation may include:
82
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Revitalizing legacy industrial communities through recreational amenities and
sustainable resource development that enhance resident quality of life, promote
tourism and craft economies, and foster a sense of pride;

Restoring riparian buffers along streams, rivers, and wetlands;

Creating a more consistent approach to preserving natural areas, watersheds,
farmland, and woodlands;

Promoting the understanding of the natural environment as a way to promote
recreational tourism, economic resilience, and upholding of agricultural traditions;

Continued development of trails and greenways to connect local residents and
tourists alike to outdoor recreation experiences that promote healthy living,
community economic benefits, and a sense of place;

Better engagement in land use and economic development planning across the
region;

The building of a constituency interested in regional promotion and development
of the recreational and tourism sector, as experienced in the Pennsylvania Wilds;

The promotion of artisan businesses and industries in the Study Area, as is already
a key feature of the four DCNR heritage areas present in the region;

Targeted improvements to boost the travel industry share on the regional economy;

Connecting the public and private resources in this region; and

Encouraging healthy lifestyles in a portion of the state with poorer-than-average
health outcomes and health factors.
CONCLUSIONS
On the questions of whether the Study Area can be regarded as an integrated large landscape
and whether the Study Area meets DCNR’s criteria for a Conservation Landscape, we came to
affirmative conclusions on both questions. As home to one of Pennsylvania’s two historically
glaciated landscapes, the historic Venango Path, several of Pennsylvania’s most popular state
parks, and a large number of conservation and recreation organizations, the Study Area fits
the concept of both an integrated large landscape befitting of conservation and resource
planning and a potential Conservation Landscape with the ingredients and opportunities
needed to be successful.
The Study Area includes some of the most significant natural landscapes in the
Commonwealth, which in the region are primarily centered around water — aquatic species,
wetlands, highly biodiverse rivers and streams, glacially shaped landforms, and
83
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Pennsylvania’s only Great Lakes shoreline. The region also includes the highest state park
visitation in the Commonwealth but is underserved in its areas of greatest need, including the
addressing of economic, demographic, and health challenges and the availability and capacity
of resources for the promotion and development of tourism, outdoor recreation, and
sustainable economies. In addition to these social and economic needs, acute environmental
threats exist in the region, from forest loss and fragmentation to the pollution of wetlands and
waterways.
From our discussions with over two dozen stakeholders representing a variety of organizations
in the region, there is a sense that the Study Area could benefit greatly from more coordinated
regional engagement and a strategic investment. If there is one major challenge on which to
focus in the Study Area, it is the region’s lack of capacity due to limited resources. The
formation of a Conservation Landscape could help in building this capacity.
As a diverse region comprised of a mosaic of land uses, the Study Area would be driven by
similar goals as those of some of the existing Conservation Landscapes. It could also borrow
from the best practices of several Conservation Landscapes. Programs similar to the Clarion
River Municipal Partnership or the Pennsylvania Wilds Planning Team, for instance, can serve
as models to help municipal and county governments meet the challenges of better planning
to conserve fragile ecosystems, farmland, woodlands, steep hillsides, and riparian areas —
challenges which are currently dealt with inconsistently across the nine counties.
As with the Pocono Forests and Waters, Pennsylvania Wilds, and Laurel Highlands
Conservation Landscapes, there are significant common needs in the Study Area around
economic, demographic, health-related, and environmental challenges as well as ample
opportunities for better land use planning, enhancement of tourism and outdoor recreation
economies, regional partnerships and cooperation, and implementation of projects related to
conservation, recreation, and community revitalization.
The increased attention to the Study Area’s many smaller communities can provide leverage
toward receiving grants for recreational amenities and economic revitalization from state
agencies and charitable organizations alike. Better developing the region’s sense of place
may bring similar results to that of the adjacent Pennsylvania Wilds and Laurel Highlands
Conservation Landscapes, which, like the Study Area, consist of numerous local governments
that had previously focused mostly on local rather than regional interests.
84
85
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
CHAPTER 4: POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGIES
The following chapter provides recommendations for organizing and managing the Study Area
as an integrated landscape.
As indicated at the end of the previous chapter, we believe that the Study Area has all of the
ingredients that make up a Pennsylvania Conservation Landscape and should be included in
DCNR’s existing program as a tenth Conservation Landscape. With such a designation in
mind, this chapter of the Study proposes two potential management models around which
Conservation Landscape may be organized. One management model is based on a scenario
in which a significant amount of funding and support are available, while the other model is
leaner both financially and in its initial scope of work, with more of an “on-the-ground” focus.
The recommendations for these two models, including recommendations related to
leadership composition, an initial budget, subcommittees, and an annual event, are provided
throughout this chapter.
DESIGNATION OF THE STUDY AREA AS A DCNR CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE
Based on the technical findings of this Study, input from stakeholders in the region, and
insight from the Feasibility Study Steering Committee, we recommend designation of the
Study Area as a Conservation Landscape under the DCNR Conservation Landscape program.
The purpose of designating the Study Area as a Conservation Landscape may be distilled into
seven key goals, which can serve as a philosophical foundation to a new Conservation
Landscape in the region. While these goals may change slightly depending on the priorities of
DCNR and others, repeated feedback from stakeholders, members of the public, and the
Feasibility Study Steering Committee has led to the development of the following guiding
principles (not in order of significance):

To promote the natural, cultural, and recreational amenities of the region of
Western Pennsylvania located between Pittsburgh and Erie;

To increase stewardship of the region’s natural, cultural, historic, recreational, and
environmental resources;

To foster better appreciation — both within and outside the region — of this part of
Pennsylvania as a special place, home to a large and diverse inventory of natural,
cultural, historic, recreational, and environmental resources;

To strengthen the quality, accessibility, and extent of the region’s natural, cultural,
historic, and recreational resources;
86
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

To grow outdoor recreation-related and tourism-related business opportunities in
Western Pennsylvania;

To align funding for the region’s recreational, tourism, and economic development
resources with the number of users of these resources; and

To implement projects in a nimble and timely manner and with a bottom-up and
localized approach.
In considering the feedback received throughout the process of completing this Feasibility
Study, there has been a consistent emphasis on the underappreciation of this region of
Pennsylvania not only by the rest of the Commonwealth but also by people within the region.
Recall, for example, from Chapter 3, that the Study Area is home to the four most popular
state parks in Pennsylvania by visitorship — likely a little-known fact both within and outside
the region.
By cultivating a greater appreciation for the region’s history, culture, recreational
opportunities, and natural beauty, the counties of the Study Area will be able to promote a
strong sense of stewardship and pride. This in turn will have positive effects on the region’s
environment and economy alike while in keeping with the region’s independent spirit.
OTHER RELEVANT PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVATION LANDSCAPES
In addition to the insight gained from regional stakeholders and the Feasibility Study Steering
Committee, we also looked at the nine existing Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes for
ideas, focus areas, best practices, and management models that would be relevant to the
Study Area. (An overview of each of the existing designated Pennsylvania Conservation
Landscapes is provided in Chapter 1 of this Study as well as on DCNR’s website.)
From reviewing the objectives, purposes and intents, and partnership models of the nine
Conservation Landscapes, we determined that even while the key components of some of
these existing Landscapes were different from what is present in the Study Area region, there
was still significant relevance to the Study Area with some of the work taking place in these
Landscapes. This was particularly the case for five Conservation Landscapes where we found
a significant amount of commonality and/or relevance to the Study Area: Kittatinny Ridge,
Laurel Highlands, Lehigh Valley Greenways, Pennsylvania Wilds, Schuylkill Highlands, and
South Mountain.
The following summary identifies some of the similar or shared purposes, activities, focus
areas, and partnership models between these other Conservation Landscapes and the
Conservation Landscape we are proposing for the Study Area:
Kittatinny Ridge

Relevant Purpose/Intent: To protect landscapes through municipal action such as
planning and zoning tools and to facilitate community engagement to raise
87
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
awareness about the connection between natural resources and economic
revitalization.

Relevant Partnership Model: Alliance of organizations, agencies, and academic
institutions working with municipal officials and private landowners.
Laurel Highlands

Relevant Purpose/Intent: Fostering of sustainable tourism and economic
development opportunities that capitalize on the region’s natural assets and its
history as an outdoor playground for nearby Pittsburgh, as well as the conservation,
restoration, and improvement of a diverse variety of ecological, cultural, historic,
and recreational resources.

Relevant Partnership Model: Partnership between a number of different
stakeholders, including conservation groups, charitable foundations, tourism
promotion agencies, historic preservation organizations, and trail groups.
Lehigh Valley Greenways

Relevant Objective: To use greenways and trails to connect natural and cultural
resources.

Relevant Purpose/Intent: Connection of the region’s population to greenway and
trail opportunities, revitalization of the region’s communities to enhance quality of
life, and promotion of the natural environment and environmental stewardship
among residents.

Relevant Partnership Model: Partnership built on land conservation and
restoration, outdoor recreation and trail connections, community revitalization, and
local education and outreach.
Pennsylvania Wilds

Relevant Purpose/Intent: To help revitalize rural communities in the region through
sustainable tourism development by leveraging existing service providers,
including agencies at all levels of government and the tourism and outdoor
recreation sectors, rather than creating new bureaucratic layers; also includes
improvement of infrastructure and amenities within the parks and forests and the
promotion of better land use planning and community design.

Relevant Partnership Model: Planning team including more than 40 organizations
representing federal, state, and county governments; tourism and cultural
interests; educational institutions; economic development agencies; and the
private sector.
88
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Schuylkill Highlands

Relevant Purpose/Intent: To connect residents and visitors to the many outdoor
opportunities in the region, to sustain the landscape through best practices
(including creating a network of interconnecting trails), to promote sustainable
economic development related to tourism, to promote local agricultural and
supporting best-stewardship practices related to the preservation of farmland, and
to provide small grants to advance project implementation.
South Mountain

Relevant Purpose/Intent: To highlight the natural, aesthetic, historic, cultural,
community, agricultural, and recreational resources in this region of Pennsylvania,
and to encourage and promote the further appreciation and protection of the
intrinsic geographic, geologic, biologic, and heritage resources and value of the
landscape and the important connection that these have to the quality of life and
place in the region, to its sustainability, and to a strong economy.
The eight Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes.
RELEVANT LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP MODELS FROM OTHER STATES
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this Study, we also looked beyond DCNR’s Conservation
Landscape program for approaches and best practices related to multi-stakeholder large
landscape conservation and recreational partnerships. Out of the seven management models
89
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
we analyzed outside of Pennsylvania, a few of them stood out. We took a closer look at four
examples from these models that have been implemented across North America: the Crown
Managers Partnership, the Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative, the Oregon
Outdoor Recreation Initiative, and the Calumet Heritage Area. The approaches that we
gleaned as being particularly relevant or suitable to the Study Area are summarized below:
Crown Managers Partnership
Relevant Partnership Model:

A diffuse network of dozens of entities working over a massive region (in this case,
a rugged, sparsely populated, binational region)

Cooperative agency partnership — Crown Managers Partnership doesn’t manage,
the agencies do (state/provincial, federal, tribal/First Nations, universities, etc.)

Led by a Steering Committee with a secretariat

Guided by a strategic plan updated every few years

Annual forum convened each spring in a different location in the region
Relevant Purpose/Intent:

Demonstrate collective stewardship capacity

Coordinated approach to address region-wide challenges

Learn from each other; reduce duplication

Enhance institutional, science, and management capacity
Relevant Partnership Timeline:

First five years: Focus on common issues

Next six years: Collaboration on one large project (ecological health project)

Next two years: Delegation of management tasks by partner

Next two years: Focus on large landscape conservation, climate change, invasive
species
Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative:
Relevant Partnership Model:

“Collective Impact Model” between the outdoor industry, trail groups, conservation
groups, and state government to create a common agenda and strategic plan

Success through collaboration with all individuals and groups with knowledge of
and access to information and resources to identify and develop strategies to take
advantage of opportunities for strengthening and growth
90
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Relevant Partnership Timeline:

First step: Establish a core group of primary stakeholders from the private sector
of the outdoor recreation economy — both for-profits and non-profits and including
outdoor industry representatives and businesses, trail and trail user groups, and
conservation organizations — and also state government through the Department
of Forests, Parks, and Recreation and the Agency of Commerce and Community
Development.

Next step: The steering committee designs the process of reaching actionable
outcomes to achieve the purposes of the collaborative; engages others in the
private commercial outdoor industry, state, federal, municipal, and regional
governmental organizations and the nonprofit sector; and facilitates
communication and collaboration among all participants to take full advantage of
all that each brings to the effort of the whole.

Next step: The group will identify discrete points of focus or action areas that will
pull experts from across the various sectors, with the steering committee at the
hub of the wheel.
Relevant Strategy:

Market the outdoor recreation values and attributes of Vermont by:
­ Finding opportunities to tell the story of successful outdoor recreation initiatives
(trail towns, public-private partnerships, etc.) and businesses (gear retailers
and manufacturers, product innovations, supply chain development, etc.) to
regional and national audiences
­ Sharing knowledge of and experiences in Vermont’s outdoors — across modes
in a modern and fresh way
­ Collaborating to develop policy relating to outdoor recreation and the
businesses of outdoor recreation
­ Examining and promoting laws, policies, and initiatives that support marketing
and smart business development

Continuously steward outdoor recreation resources and the organizations that
support them by:
­ Maintaining and improving our world-class trail system with an emphasis on
connecting trail networks across the state
­ Supporting non-profits, volunteers, and land managers to maintain outdoor
recreation opportunities
­ Supporting conservation and land stewardship efforts
­ Providing accurate information about outdoor recreation opportunities

Guide the development of community-oriented outdoor recreation assets and
increase economic impacts by:
­ Removing barriers for outdoor recreation development in Vermont
91
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
­ Engaging communities at various levels of readiness and provide resources for
growing their outdoor recreation infrastructure and stewardship
­ Recommending incentives, tax structures, and other industry-related programs
and policies to support our outdoor recreation businesses
­ Aligning with the statewide economic development marketing plan for
businesses and residents
­ Providing business liaisons for potential employers and manufacturers to
identify and address industry-specific development needs
Oregon Outdoor Recreation Initiative
Relevant Partnership Model:

A statewide initiative that brings together businesses, agencies, land managers,
conservation groups, and recreational user groups around the goal of expanding
access to outdoor recreation and increasing the economic impact and
sustainability of Oregon’s outdoor recreation industry

Guided by a leadership team comprised of three federal agencies, four state
agencies, one university, one conservation partnership, seven additional nonprofit
organizations (primarily outdoor recreation-related), local action teams, seven
outdoor recreation businesses, two elected officials, and four state and county
tourism organizations
Relevant Purpose/Intent:

Build capacity and synergy to expand outdoor recreation opportunities in Oregon

Create sustainable economic vitality for the state’s communities

Ensure access to world-class outdoor recreation experiences for everyone
Relevant Impact Areas:

Education; world-class experiences and infrastructure; diversity of participants;
economic impact; stewardship of natural resources, transportation and distribution
of impacts, marketing and communications, leadership and advocacy, and
community livability and well-being of residents
Relevant Partnership Timeline:

Phase One (first year): 15-year vision; nine impact areas; five-year outcomes; twoyear strategies; action team roadmap; five public outreach meetings; public
outreach survey; Phase One summary report

Phase Two (next three years): Action Teams (network design and development;
diversity of participants; marketing and communications; signature trails;
economic impact study; transportation; Office of Outdoor Recreation)
92
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Calumet Heritage Area:
Relevant Partnership Model:

Created and managed by three partner organizations — the Calumet Heritage
Partnership (bi-state all-volunteer, non-profit organization focused on creating a
heritage area), the Calumet Collaborative (bi-state organization focused on
sustainable development), and the Field Museum (Chicago natural history
museum) — who have enlisted the help of numerous local historical societies,
environmental organizations, arts organizations, planning agencies, companies,
and citizens to make the Calumet Heritage Area a reality
Relevant Purpose/Intent:

Bring people together across state lines to conserve natural and cultural heritage,
improve recreational opportunities, promote regional arts, support sustainable
economic development, and create heritage-oriented educational programming
Relevant Promotional Projects:

Promote the region’s two National Parks, local parks, trails, tourism gateways, and
historical sites to locals and tourists with enhanced signage, maps, and
educational materials
Relevant Landscape Narratives:

A place of nationally significant natural, industrial, labor, and cultural heritage
assets, that are preserved and interpreted to advance economic opportunity and
that enrich the lives of residents and visitors from across the nation

The landscape’s story “paints the picture of worlds converged to forge a new path
— where the natural world was changed to make way for industry, where
immigration transformed community identity, and where activist roots formed
world-renowned ecology, social justice, and labor movements. Today, it is a place
of innovation that inspires the passionate doers, thinkers, creators, and explorers
that will shape the next wave. The region’s future story — as a destination for
ecotourism, clean industries, and arts and culture — will be just as transformative
as its past.”
It is worth noting here that the Feasibility Study Steering Committee first thought of the Study
Area primarily as a cultural landscape centered around natural and culturally significant
features with historical, aesthetic, and cultural value. However, we soon found that such a
designation was too narrow to describe the full breadth of assets found in the region, many
of which are recreational in nature or environmentally significant to the state. This led to a
growing inclination that this region indeed constituted a Conservation Landscape in the same
vein as the eight other existing Conservation Landscapes in the DCNR program. Like a few of
the existing Conservation Landscapes and the Calumet Heritage Area that we analyzed above,
the Study Area very much remains a working landscape — a blend of cities, towns, and villages
interspersed among working farmlands and woodlands, with a number of natural and
recreational areas in between.
93
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
RECOMMENDED PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT MODELS
In keeping with the work scope for this Study, we have developed three alternative scenarios
under which the proposed Conservation Landscape may be managed. By providing these
three operational or management models as options, this Study seeks to allow DCNR to
consider the balance of competing goals and strategies. The three alternatives we have
proposed are as follows:

A more formal “Steering Committee” centered model that would likely work best
with a higher degree of funding and more DCNR leadership and direction; or

A less formal “Project Support Team” model with a nimble structure that may grow
and evolve over time based on needs and level of readiness.

A “Minimal DCNR Funding” model in which DCNR, working within a collaborative of
other agencies, would not be driving or funding the Conservation Landscape work.
In the first two cases, the alternative models reflect, to a certain degree, the management
structures found in the existing Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes, while also attempting
to respond to the uniqueness of the Study Area that distinguishes the region from the rest of
Pennsylvania. The third case represents a unique situation in which DCNR would identify
another agency to be the champion for the Conservation Landscape, both in terms of funding
and management.
Ultimately, DCNR will need to consider from the agency’s own perspective which of these three
approaches is most appropriate. Our belief is that either of the first two models would be most
helpful, with proven efficacy in the existing Conservation Landscapes as well as in other
regions of the United States.
Potential Model A: Steering Committee-Led Model
The Steering Committee management model reflects a typical management model found in
other large landscape partnerships, including those of some of the existing Conservation
Landscapes, such as the Laurel Highlands and the Pocono Forests and Waters.
Serving as a liaison between DCNR and the local partners and stakeholders, the Steering
Committee — not to be confused with the Steering Committee for this Feasibility Study — would
maintain and publish the agenda for this Conservation Landscape and would provide overall
leadership and direction. It is recommended that the Steering Committee have between nine
and 15 people, with DCNR and other relevant federal and state agencies represented as well
as members representing the major interests of the region, such as tourism bureaus, the
private recreational industry, land conservancies, cultural and heritage organizations,
sportsman’s associations, county conservation districts, and educational institutions. A
Project Manager specializing in capacity building, outreach, and coordination of project
opportunities would be involved in the day-to-day management, assisted by a Project
Assistant.
94
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
In order to promote a sense of ownership of the Conservation Landscape and to ensure a
strong familiarity with the region’s aspirations, culture, and political dynamics, the roster of
the Steering Committee should be comprised primarily of members who reside within the
Study Area. There would likely be a high degree of overlap between the members of this
Feasibility Study’s Steering Committee and those who would be serving on the Conservation
Landscape’s Steering Committee.
It is recommended that the Steering Committee meet formally twice per year but no less than
once per year, with additional meetings called upon if deemed necessary. The Project
Manager may also call informal meetings throughout the year with members of the Steering
Committee to brainstorm ideas or seek guidance.
Under the Steering Committee model, “Advisory Groups” could be established as ad hoc
subcommittees. These Advisory Groups would be purpose-specific for different projects or
topics of interest and would be intended to serve as a direct conduit to the region’s local
jurisdictions and interests. Ultimately, their role would be to advise the Steering Committee
on the “pulse” of the region as it relates to individual concerns, opportunities, and support
needs. The advisory groups would be able to meet whenever needed, so long as they provide
update or reports to the Steering Committee on their individual mandates and projects in
advance of the Steering Committee’s formal meetings.
It is anticipated that the Advisory Groups could come and go, based on the status of individual
projects. The exception to this would be two permanent advisory groups that this Study
recommends as permanent standing subcommittees under the Steering Committee:

A County Planning Advisory Group, with a special focus on county and municipal
coordination, consisting of the nine county planning directors or other applicable
county representatives; and

A Tourism Advisory Group, consisting of the member counties’ tourism directors
and other tourism leaders in the region.
The County Planning Advisory Group would serve to create a direct tie to elected bodies,
residents, and the business community in order to gather ideas and to disseminate
information between the Steering Committee and these local stakeholders.
The Tourism Advisory Group, on the other hand, would allow the tourism leaders of the region
to take advantage of potential synergies between the counties in the Conservation Landscape.
It has been noted in both our stakeholder interviews and in meetings with the Feasibility Study
Steering Committee that there was formerly a greater level of collaboration in the tourism
sector between the region’s counties but that a lack of funding from the Commonwealth
government made this collaboration more difficult to sustain. The tourism advisory group
would create an opportunity to reconvene these county tourism leaders.
Aside from these two standing subcommittees, we foresee that any other Advisory Groups in
the Steering Committee-led model would most likely be less permanent in nature, being more
project focused.
95
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Potential Model B: Project Support Team Model
At present, many needs and opportunities — as well as a great amount of enthusiasm — exist
in the Study Area for increased collaboration with tourism promotion, outdoor recreational
development, and environmental and cultural conservation. However, comparatively few
resources are available.
A Project Support Team management model would be able to tap into the enthusiasm of the
region’s stakeholders without creating too much of a formal structure that could bog down
early progress. A similar example of this type of management model already present in the
region but with a different focus is that of the Industrial Heartland Trails Coalition, a
collaboration between stakeholders in 51 counties of western Pennsylvania, northern West
Virginia, eastern Ohio, and southwestern New York State to complete and connect a regional
system of multiuse trails.
In contrast to the Steering Committee model, the Project Support Team is not anticipated to
be nearly as involved in the decision-making or direction for the Conservation Landscape, at
least initially. The model would rely instead on a much more bottom-up approach, with ideas
coming entirely from local partners and stakeholders. In support of these ideas, the Project
Support Team would provide implementation knowledge, technical expertise, and experience
with obtaining funding.
Rather than a Project Manager and a Project Assistant, an “Ombudsman” is recommended
for the Project Support Team management model. Without as many resources at his or her
disposal from the other members of the committee in the Steering Committee model, the
Ombudsman would have greater responsibility of providing individualized and in-person
support to local partners and stakeholders.
It is recommended that the Project Support Team consist of no more than five individuals, at
least one of whom is a local DCNR employee and a few of whom are representatives from
nonprofit partners in the region. In this model, local representation would guide the team, and
the result would be a light, nimble, and cost-efficient management model. As an agency, DCNR
would serve primarily in an advisory role, other than the employee or employees serving on
the Project Support Team. Similar to the Steering Committee model, advisory groups may
emerge organically in this model as needed and come and go based on specific project needs.
As a testament to the informal nature of this management structure, the Project Support Team
may meet as needed at first to “step into” its role. A more routine meeting schedule would
then be determined later. It is recommended, though, that the Project Support Team meet at
least twice per year from the first year on.
In the future, it is anticipated that the Project Support Team could evolve into a larger group
similar to that of the Steering Committee model as needs change, institutional support builds,
and resources grow. While this evolution would be organic rather than dependent on a specific
timeline, we do recommend that the Project Support Team model be evaluated after Year 3
and again after Year 6 to gauge the level of readiness in the region and among its members
to evolve and grow.
96
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Potential Model C: Minimal DCNR Funding Model
The third management model would see DCNR working with the Conservation Landscape as
part of an informal collaborative with other state agencies. However, under this model, DCNR
would not be driving the management of the Landscape nor would it be directly funding it.
Instead, DCNR would need to find another agency — whether a state agency or a nonprofit
organization (for example, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council) — to serve as the
management and funding lead. Based on the level of interest we observed over the course of
this project from nonprofit and county agencies versus that of state agencies (other than
DCNR), it is likely that the lead in this model would be a nonprofit rather than a state agency.
It is anticipated that under this management and funding scenario, most of the same projects,
activities, and efforts as those recommended under the Project Support Team model (see
Chapter 5) would be pursued. However, supporting groups would not have as much of a
management or leadership role, instead serving in more of a strictly advisory capacity. In the
Project Support Team model, there would be one or two DCNR staff members dedicated to
the Conservation Landscape, but that would be not be the case in this scenario.
Under this management and funding model, the nonprofit organization leading the effort
would need to seek more funding than would be required by the Project Support Team model
and likely even the Steering Committee-led model. This is because there would be a heavier
reliance on paying outside groups, such as consultants, to perform the necessary work
associated with the Conservation Landscape. Some of this funding may be sourced from
DCNR grants, though this funding would be indirect (just like any other grant application),
rather than direct, as with programs directly under the control of DCNR.
While this management model is presented as an alternative, this Feasibility Study does not
ultimately recommend it. In addition to the lower engagement by DCNR under this model, the
inconsistency of funding, the time and effort needed to privately fundraise, and the amount
of money needed to pay consultants would hold clear disadvantages. Additionally, the
counties and municipalities involved in this project have strongly expressed that they would
like for there to be a “champion” to galvanize and shepherd a regional effort on behalf of
Western Pennsylvania. If this role cannot be fulfilled at its full potential or if funding is
unpredictable and inconsistent, stakeholders may feel disenfranchised and start pulling away
after a few years, leaving the Conservation Landscape effort faltering.
Commonalities Between the Alternative Management Models
While the management models we have proposed in this chapter may differ in their initial size,
scope, financial resources, and general makeup, we believe that there would be some
baseline similarities between them, which are based on the guiding principles provided at the
beginning of this chapter. These commonalities are summarized as follows:

The structure of this Conservation Landscape may be thought of as a regional
partnership or coalition between a variety of government, nonprofit, philanthropic,
and private entities operating in a variety of physical settings.
97
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

While housed under the DCNR umbrella, the role, participation, and involvement of
other agencies, organizations, and stakeholders in this Conservation Landscape
would be fairly significant — and likely more so than in any of the existing
Conservation Landscapes.

Recognizing that no single agency, organization, county, or community has the
mandate or resources to address truly regional issues, this Conservation
Landscape will work across physical boundaries and organizational siloes to
address common challenges throughout the Study Area.
In addition to the above, the fact that the management models involve multiple partners,
agencies, and organizations in a coalition means that a significant amount of coordination will
be required. With any of the management alternatives proposed, a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) can outline decision-making processes and coordinate needs between
the various members of the coalition, including setting the responsibilities of the lead partner
and the frequency of meetings.
Annual Forum
Regardless of which of the alternative management models discussed above is selected, we
believe that it is important for all stakeholders and partners involved in the Conservation
Landscape to be able to meet face to face and build a sense of connection to their common
region and to others working within the region.
From our discussions with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee and at the public meetings
in January 2020, we gleaned that the region’s conservation, recreation, heritage, and tourism
stakeholders wanted to have a place where they could share ideas and compare objectives
and strategies without necessarily creating another governmental organization to manage this
process. This “big tent” would allow stakeholders to participate in the Conservation
Landscape in the way they best see fit while being able to participate in some decision-making
and priority setting.
Based on these ideas and on the success of the Crown Managers Partnership’s annual forum
format, we recommend that an annual forum be convened in the Study Area to gather all
stakeholders and partners in one place. The objectives of this annual meeting would be to
articulate the Conservation Landscape’s yearly agenda, to set priorities, to discuss
benchmarks, to share ideas and promote synergies, and to facilitate communication between
stakeholders who may be separated by up to 200 miles in distance. The annual forum will
also allow those who represent different physical settings in the Conservation Landscape to
make their voices heard by the entire group.
We have initially proposed a potential schedule upon which the annual forum may take place:

Day 1: Stakeholders interested in certain project areas convene and then present
their work and priorities to the larger group.
98
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Day 2: “Caucuses” representing rural areas, towns and small cities, and urban and
metropolitan areas convene and then present their interests and priorities to the
larger group.

Day 3: Attendees will then set the annual agenda as a group, led by either the
Steering Committee, Project Support Team, or other designees, and create/update
the five-year strategic plan for the Conservation Landscape.
Management Recommendation of This Study
Given the nature of Western Pennsylvania — from a cultural and political standpoint and based
on the existing experience of nonprofits and governments operating in the region — as well as
the region’s level of readiness, we believe that the more flexible Project Support Team
“adaptive management” model would likely be the most practical approach for the Study Area,
at least initially.
A certain amount of distrust of government or feelings of disenfranchisement — especially
beyond the local level — is characteristic of some parts of the region, and an explicitly “bottomup” approach, in our view, would lend itself better to meeting the needs of Western
Pennsylvania. There is recognition that awareness, capacity, and support need time to grow
in this region. Building cooperation and mutual trust between stakeholders to achieve regional
tourism, recreational development, and environmental objectives is, after all, a central goal
of designating the Study Area as a Conservation Landscape.
In addition, a significant characteristic of the Project Support Team management model is
that it would cost less to start. By keeping decision-making for the new Conservation
Landscape on a local level, building grassroots support before undertaking any large projects,
and starting from an informal managerial structure, the Project Support Team would require
fewer DCNR financial resources and less DCNR staff time out of the gate. State government
resources, including those of DCNR, are already stretched thin, and the Project Support Team
model is cognizant of that.
The Project Support Team model also allows for more organic development. If deemed ready
after three or six years, there would be ample opportunity to evolve the structure of the Project
Support Team to fit more closely with that of the Steering Committee model. This would
especially be the case if the Project Support Team, with its nimble and lower-cost structure,
were able to garner some early “wins” to attract more funding and investment to the
Conservation Landscape.
A boost in investment from early success would inevitably lead to more projects, increase
demands for technical expertise, and require more time, dedication, and staffing. As the
Conservation Landscape matures, its needs may be better met in the future by a more formal
management model. Again, however, this is not a predetermined outcome and depends
largely on the legwork done in the first few years. The beauty of the Project Support Team
model is that it allows this legwork to be completed at a slower, steadier pace rather than
setting overly high expectations right out of the gate.
99
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
PROPOSED OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE
In addition to the goals discussed in the beginning of this chapter, we have proposed a set of
objectives to guide the focus of the Conservation Landscape regardless of which management
structure is chosen for the region. These objectives are based on recurring themes from the
two January 2020 public meetings as well as discussions throughout the duration of this Study
with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee and comments from the stakeholder interviews
conducted in 2019.
The proposed objectives (not in a particular order) are as follows:

Establish a vehicle to direct and target collaborative efforts on conservation,
recreation, cultural heritage, tourism, technical assistance, and funding.

Work as a unified regional partnership (rather than as nine counties with 423
separate municipalities) to promote tourism and recreation-based economic
development and to leverage the existing resources that the region has.

Share information and best practices, identify collaborative and complementary
actions, and enhance decision-making in order to help align the objectives and
actions of different agencies, organizations, counties, and communities toward
shared goals.

Leverage resource management efforts as a collective regional entity that can
better address and enhance individual local efforts.

Increase participation among the region’s residents in outdoor recreation activities
and to draw residents from other parts of the Commonwealth and from other states
to partake in outdoor recreation activities in the region.

Pursue marketing and branding for the region of Western Pennsylvania between
Pittsburgh and Erie — the two opposite ends of the Venango Trail and Erie Extension
Canal and home of two of Pennsylvania’s three major ports (and the only such ports
in Western Pennsylvania).

Collaborate on tourism and economic development opportunities as a region.

Aggregate and bundle funding; track and share grant opportunities and other
funding avenues with local communities, nonprofits, recreational groups, and
business owners; and provide expertise on pursuing funding.

Work with local communities and recreational partners to implement small projects
related to recreation and recreational assets.

Build on existing efforts already undertaken and underway in the region.
100
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft

Enhance the connectivity of the region’s natural, cultural, and recreational assets,
including its many trails, to build awareness of these resources within the region
and to people from outside the region.

Protect the capacity of the landscape to meet the needs of a working landscape of
farms and forests and to sustain the natural and cultural resources that make this
region of Western Pennsylvania special.

Better involve Pittsburgh’s large foundation community north of the city when it
comes to funding projects related to outdoor recreation, tourism, conservation, and
cultural promotion.
In reviewing the feedback from stakeholders and members of the Feasibility Study Steering
Committee, we surprisingly discovered that tourism and marketing emerged as the most
poignant interest for collaborative effort. This would make the Conservation Landscape
somewhat similar to the Pennsylvania Wilds, in which sustainable economic development
centered on rural tourism has emerged as perhaps the most unifying focus in that partnership,
and less like some of the Conservation Landscapes in the eastern half of the state, where
land conservation tends to be the underlying emphasis with that region’s higher degree of
population pressure.
FUNDING FOR THE CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE
In the work scope for this Feasibility Study, we were directed to envision two alternative
management models for a potential large landscape in the Study Area. One of these models
was to be based on a scenario in which funding was scarce and the other was to be based on
a normal (or more plentiful) funding scenario. As discussed earlier in this chapter, we have
also envisioned a third alternative that is even leaner in terms of DCNR support.
To arrive at a ballpark estimate for the first two models, we looked to the Pocono Forests and
Waters and Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscapes for a line-item annual budget. Since
both of these programs are already mature, we anticipated that a budget for a proposed
Conservation Landscape in the Study Area would want to start lower, particularly on a per
capita or per square mile basis.
As detailed above, two operational models, the Steering Committee-led model and the Project
Support Team model, are recommended as viable alternatives for management of the
proposed Conservation Landscape in the region, while the third alternative, the Minimal DCNR
Funding model, is not recommended. The Steering Committee-led model is anticipated to cost
somewhat more than the Project Support Team model, though that would be paired with a
more formal leadership structure compensated by stipends. The Project Support Team, on the
other hand, would leverage the time of individuals working on existing related projects as well
as possibly some volunteers.
A comparison of the estimated potential short-term (first-year) funding needs for both
recommended operational models is provided in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 below. In these
101
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
tables, we have also provided a per-square-mile budget comparison with the Pocono Forests
and Waters and Laurel Highlands Conservation Landscapes.
Table 4.1: Potential Model A: Steering Committee-Led — First-Year Operating Budget
Budget Item
Estimated First-Year Budget Amount
Project Manager (full-time)
$60,000
Project Assistant (full-time)
$50,000
Travel Costs
$5,000
Familiarization Tour #1
(bus tour, hotel, meals, etc.)
$10,000
Marketing and Branding
$25,000
Estimated Total
$150,000
Budget per Square Mile of Conservation Landscape
Study Area: $25.92/sq mi
Pocono Forests and Waters: $48.73/sq mi
Laurel Highlands: $53.83/sq mi
Table 4.2: Potential Model B: Project Support Team — First-Year Operating Budget
Budget Item
Estimated First-Year Budget Amount
Ombudsman (full-time)
$60,000
Travel Costs
$10,000
Familiarization Tour #1
(bus tour, hotel, meals, etc.)
$10,000
Fundraising Efforts
$10,000
Estimated Total
$90,000
Budget per Square Mile of Conservation Landscape
Study Area: $15.55/sq mi
Pocono Forests and Waters: $48.73/sq mi
Laurel Highlands: $53.83/sq mi
We anticipate that with both of these operational models, funding would come from some
combination of state funding and local and regional matches, including matches from
charitable foundations and philanthropic organizations. Additionally, the Project Support
Team model may involve additional fundraising efforts as needed. For a catalogue of relevant
grant opportunities active at the time of this writing that may be applicable to the Conservation
Landscape or individual projects within the Study Area, please see Appendix E of this Study.
DETERMINING THE CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE’S BOUNDARIES
There are inherent challenges present with managing a region as large and extensive as the
proposed Conservation Landscape. One unwavering notion since this project began has been
that the natural and cultural integration of the nine-county region is not quite as
102
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
straightforward as that of some of the existing Conservation Landscapes, particularly those
with sparser populations and more extensive protected lands, such as the Pennsylvania Wilds,
Laurel Highlands, and Pocono Forests and Waters. Additionally, the common threads tying the
nine-county region together are not quite as apparent as those present in these three
aforementioned Conservation Landscapes, where the extensiveness of the protected lands
more easily highlights their major natural assets.
The challenges of integrating a region as large as the Study Area into a Conservation
Landscape was a frequent topic of discussion among the Feasibility Study Steering Committee
and was also touched upon by attendees at the two public meetings. Some of the comments
raised discussed the cultural differences between the northern counties and southern
counties of the Study Area. These comments were mainly voiced by individuals residing in the
northern counties, who expressed sharing less of a cultural affinity with the Pittsburgh region
than those in the southern counties.
In the course of thinking through these issues with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee,
the group felt in the end that the proposed Conservation Landscape, despite its north-south
differences, should continue to be treated as a single region and that there was no compelling
reason to break it into smaller pieces. This was particularly the case due to the region’s shared
natural, geological, and economic history; its current shared economic and environmental
concerns; and the opportunities provided for a wider region that has long been overlooked.
Even as retaining all nine counties in one Conservation Landscape is being recommended,
the boundaries of the proposed Conservation Landscape could potentially be adjusted or finetuned from the Study Area boundaries. For instance, we encountered interest in the proposed
Conservation Landscape from individuals in Clarion County at the Meadville public meeting
and recognize the recreational importance of the section of the Allegheny River forming the
boundary between Venango and Clarion counties. With Clarion County being on the very
western edge of the Pennsylvania Wilds and sharing a natural, cultural, and industrial history
with Venango and northern Armstrong counties, perhaps that county or a portion of it could
be involved in the proposed Conservation Landscape. (Some counties in the eastern part of
the state are located in multiple or overlapping Conservation Landscapes, so this would not
be a novel scenario.) On the other hand, the eastern portion of Armstrong County east of the
Allegheny River is somewhat removed from the rest of Study Area and has closer cultural and
geographical ties with Indiana and northern Westmoreland counties.
NAMING OF THE CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE
Over the course of the development of this Study and especially with the public meetings that
took place in January 2020, we received a number of suggestions as to what to name the
proposed Conservation Landscape. Many of these names were based on the key themes
discussed throughout this Study, including those centered around water, around the region’s
cultural heritage and history, and around transportation.
It was clear from all of the discussions that the name “Glacier’s Edge” was not popular. No
single alternative stood out, but there was a conscious effort to move away from potentially
103
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
negative connotations, such as those involving ice and cold or Rust Belt imagery, and toward
more positive undertones, such as those that hint at the region’s friendliness, hospitality, and
recreational amenities. Based on these discussions, potential naming criteria for the
Conservation Landscape included the following ideas:

Evoking a sense of place, history and heritage, fun and enjoyment, comfort and
relaxation, or hospitality;

Shying away from the Rust Belt image and moving toward reimagining the region’s
natural and cultural assets;

Water as the thread that binds the region together; and

Native American cultural roots and the Venango Trail.
Some specific names for the proposed Conservation Landscape were suggested by those
attending the two public meetings:

“Pennsylvania’s Playground”

“Land of Plenty”

“Washington’s Journey”

“Perry’s Trail”

“Admiral Perry Parklands”

“Western Pennsylvania Water and Trails”

“Port to Port”

“Pennsylvania’s Gateway to the West”

“America’s First Frontier”
While the list of names is not exhaustive, it is important to note again that “Glacier’s Edge”
was not a popular name among attendees of the public meetings or among the Feasibility
Study Steering Committee. As mentioned above, associating the region with a cold climate
was not deemed to be beneficial, with marketing and tourism being such important
components of the proposed Conservation Landscape’s focus.
104
105
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
CHAPTER 5: INITIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section presents a series of projects and activities that we recommend be
implemented with the proposed Conservation Landscape in the Study Area. The projects and
activities are organized based on the two recommended alternative management models
discussed in Chapter 4 of this Study and are tailored to focus on achieving early successes.
In our view, early successes are necessary for the Conservation Landscape to become a
sustainable vehicle for improving the stewardship, quality, and appreciation of Western
Pennsylvania’s natural, cultural, and recreational resources. Short, medium, and long-term
projects and activities are suggested, with a greater degree of focus on the short-term
activities, in light of this emphasis on early successes.
The short-term projects and activities outlined are those that would begin immediately after
receiving designation as a Conservation Landscape, with anticipated completion within three
years. These are deemed the most important projects to undertake, as they will lay the
groundwork that allows for the medium-term and long-term projects and activities. One of the
key components in the short-term list is what we call a “familiarization tour,” which will be
designed to introduce or reintroduce the region and all of its natural, cultural, and recreational
amenities to state agencies, decisionmakers, charitable foundations, and nonprofit
organizations. Other marketing and branding initiatives will also take place in the short term,
as the tourism sector has been especially engaged with this project, and we believe that
coordinating the tourism and marketing interests early on is crucial to maintain this
enthusiasm.
In the medium-term and long-term, the projects and activities will start to become more
strategic in nature. For instance, we recommend that a strategic plan be developed, to be
updated every five years. Additionally, work is anticipated to take place with the county tourism
agencies and other tourism groups as well as outdoor recreation businesses to develop
package tours. Coordinating the development of infrastructure such as wayfinding signage
and potential trail extensions will also start to become a focus in the longer term. While the
longer-term recommendations are more flexible, marketing will remain a constant component
of the Conservation Landscape’s priorities.
POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT MODEL A: STEERING COMMITTEE-LED
The Steering Committee-led management model, as discussed in Chapter 4 of this Study,
resembles the organizational models of some of the existing Pennsylvania Conservation
Landscapes, such as the Laurel Highlands and the Pocono Forests and Waters. It involves
starting under a more formal structure of governance, with a Project Manager and Assistant
Project Manager and greater DCNR involvement in the leadership.
The following sections recommend short-, medium-, and long-term projects that take
advantage of this organizational structure. Projects and activities that Potential Management
Model A have in common with Potential Management Model B in the same timeframe are
bolded and italicized.
106
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Short-Term Projects and Activities (0 to 3 Years from Designation)
The following projects and activities emerged from discussions with the Feasibility Study
Steering Committee as well as from the public meetings and stakeholder surveys. They are
deemed critical to initiate as soon as feasible to harness the enthusiasm that currently exists,
demonstrate early successes of stakeholders working together in the region, and further build
inertia and political support. Some items in this short-term list may be thought of as “lowhanging fruit” that is designed to build and sustain the initial momentum to move the
Conservation Landscape forward.
1. Establish a Steering Committee of between nine and 15 people to lead and give
direction to the Conservation Landscape.
2. Hire a full-time Project Manager to lead the day-to-day management of the
Conservation Landscape and its projects and activities, to provide technical
assistance to stakeholders, and to be the public face of the Conservation
Landscape in the communities.
3. Hire a full-time Project Assistant to work with the Project Manager to fulfill the
everyday needs of the Conservation Landscape and to provide project support to
the Project Manager.
4. Conduct one or more familiarization tours to engage stakeholders within the
region in appreciating the region’s wide variety of recreational, natural, and
cultural assets.
5. Make preparations to hold the first Annual Forum at the end of the year,
including scheduling speakers/presenters and booking event spaces.
6. Perform outreach to member counties to obtain their priorities and those of their
local communities.
7. Define a list of issues to address based on the results of the Feasibility Study
and the outreach to counties and communities, and then begin to prioritize
these issues and to set an initial agenda.
8. Begin to coordinate funding opportunities by compiling an active database of
funding sources for various project types, preparing a list of projects needing
funding, and prioritizing these projects using agreed-upon criteria.
9. Reach out to and build a relationship with the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation
Landscape to learn from their experiences, successes, and growing pains.
10. Start early marketing and branding initiatives in conjunction with tourism
stakeholders.
107
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
11. Create a region-wide recreational and cultural map, in online, mobile, and paper
versions, to highlight the locations of the landscape’s numerous recreational and
cultural amenities.
12. Develop a connectivity plan for the landscape that seeks to find ways to better
connect the recreational and cultural amenities on the map, whether through
driving routes, signage opportunities, future biking trails, or other means.
Medium-Term Projects and Activities (3 to 6 Years from Designation)
Projects and activities with a more prolonged timeframe of three to six years from initial
Conservation Landscape designation are listed below for the Steering Committee-led
management scenario. These projects are more flexible and may change based on the
outcomes of the short-term projects and activities. Incomplete activities from the short-term
list should continue to be pursued at this stage of the Conservation Landscape’s
development.
1. Conduct one or more additional familiarization tours for state agencies that may
be involved in aspects of the Conservation Landscape to appreciate the
recreational, natural, and cultural assets present in the region.
2. Expand partnerships with nonprofits and county governments in the region to
coordinate stakeholder project technical assistance and outreach; strategic longterm marketing efforts; and education/programming on marketing and tourism,
funding, conservation, and land policy/planning.
3. Develop a strategic plan for the Conservation Landscape, to be comprehensively
updated every five years and to undergo minor updates at each Annual Forum.
4. Update and enhance marketing, branding, and promotional initiatives based on
early results.
5. Design a logo and a website (for both visitors and project stakeholders) to establish
a visual and online presence for the Conservation Landscape, to share information
and resources, and to gather local community input as a coalition-building tool.
6. Build an events calendar on the website to highlight activities related to volunteer
conservation, outdoor recreation, cultural heritage, and entrepreneurship.
7. Work with nonprofit conservation partners on coordinating funding for specific
land conservation, environmental restoration, water quality, and habitat
projects.
8. Coordinate with tourism and outdoor recreational partners to complete a tourism
and sustainable economic development plan for the region.
108
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
9. Begin to work with county tourism agencies, businesses, and cultural and
recreational attractions to develop package tours to better promote the region and
its amenities.
10. Develop a pilot community grant program in partnership with DCNR, DCED, and
potentially other state agencies to make small grants available to communities in
the landscape to better leverage their outdoor recreation and tourism assets and
grow their economies.
11. Begin to implement the recommendations of the connectivity plan, particularly as
it relates to planning and design for less-costly regional improvements such as the
deployment of wayfinding signs to direct visitors to destinations.
12. Begin to implement some lower-cost improvement projects that would allow
communities and their visitors to have better connectivity to local recreational
assets.
Long-Term Projects and Activities (6 to 10 Years from Designation and Beyond)
After the Conservation Landscape has been firmly established, projects and activities with a
longer-term outlook as well as those related to infrastructure improvements may be pursued.
As with the medium-term projects, the projects and activities listed below for the Steering
Committee-led management model may change or grow based on earlier outcomes.
1. Enhance the website and the number of tools and resources available to
stakeholders based on early results.
2. Work with partners to develop additional trails and build on existing trails, with
the goal of connecting trail networks within the region, to the rest of the
Commonwealth, and beyond.
3. Coordinate with state agencies to fulfill other recreation-related infrastructure
needs and investments (for state parks, water access facilities, game lands, etc.).
4. Partner with neighboring Conservation Landscapes to share resources and to
co-promote recreational amenities and tourist attractions near where the
landscapes intersect.
5. Team up with nonprofit conservation organizations and higher education
partners to complete a conservation plan for the region.
6. Work with local farmers, artisans, and higher education partners to complete an
agricultural management and value-added agricultural economic development
plan for the region.
109
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
7. Develop a pilot business grant program to make small grants available to
business owners in the outdoor recreation and tourism industries to make
improvements that allow for increased production or marketability.
8. Develop a pilot capacity building grant program to make small grants available
to nonprofit organizations engaged in conservation and tourism efforts.
9. Complete a return-on-investment (ROI) study for the Conservation Landscape to
evaluate success at the ten-year mark.
10. Find opportunities to tell the story of successful outdoor recreation initiatives (trail
towns, public-private partnerships, etc.) and businesses (agritourism and
artisans, product innovation, supply chain development, workforce development,
etc.) to local, regional, and national audiences.
POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT MODEL B: PROJECT SUPPORT TEAM
The recommendations in the following sections are designed to be implemented under the
lean management model of the Project Support Team, as described in Chapter 4 of this Study.
This “adaptive management” model is designed to start with less management and more
flexibility in a “feeling-out” period. The Project Support Team will initially fold into existing
programmatic structures already in place in the region rather than building new organizational
infrastructure. As such, the recommended projects and activities below will track to a
somewhat different timeframe to that of the Steering Committee-led management scenario.
Projects and activities that Potential Management Model B have in common with Potential
Management Model A in the same timeframe are bolded and italicized.
Short-Term Projects and Activities (1 to 3 Years from Designation)
As with the short-term list for the Steering Committee-led model, the following short-term
projects and activities for the Project Support Team model are deemed crucial to build the
momentum and support for the Conservation Landscape and to harness the enthusiasm that
currently exists. Much of the initial period of the Project Support Team management scenario
should be dedicated to gaining and understanding of the people in the region and the
landscape in which they live, work, and play. This will involve more community visits to
introduce the idea of a Conservation Landscape to a wider audience and to gather one-onone feedback, which will build support and gain exposure for the Conservation Landscape.
1. Establish a Project Support Team of no more than five individuals to provide
support and outreach to the region’s conservation, recreation, heritage, tourism,
and local government stakeholders.
2. Designate a full-time Ombudsman and define that individual’s role in capacity
building, outreach, and coordinating project opportunities among stakeholders.
110
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
3. Conduct one or more familiarization tours to engage stakeholders in the region
in appreciating the region’s wide variety of recreational, natural, and cultural
assets.
4. Make preparations to hold the first Annual Forum at the end of the year,
including scheduling speakers/presenters and booking of event spaces.
5. Define a list of issues to address based on the results of the Feasibility Study
and the outreach to counties and communities, and then begin to prioritize
these issues.
6. Reach out to and build a relationship with the Pennsylvania Wilds Conservation
Landscape to learn from their experiences, successes, and growing pains.
7. Perform in-person visits over a two-year period to familiarize the region and its
stakeholders with the idea of a Conservation Landscape; this should include
outreach to member counties and local communities to obtain their priorities.
8. Compile an active database of funding sources for various project types and reach
out to stakeholders to determine their funding needs, providing recommendations
based on the available sources of funding in the database.
9. Hold workshops over the first three years centered around funding resources and
grant-writing, for the benefit of the region’s stakeholders and project partners.
10. Evaluate the work completed in the initial years at the end of the third year and
work with partners and DCNR to determine whether the management model is
ready to evolve into a more formal structure.
Medium-Term Projects and Activities (3 to 6 Years from Designation)
Projects and activities with a more prolonged timeframe of three to six years from initial
Conservation Landscape designation are listed below for the Project Support Team
management model. These projects may change based on the outcomes of the short-term
projects and activities as well as whether the determination is made that the Project Support
Team should grow in its role.
1. Form a “one-stop shop” or clearinghouse under the direction of the Ombudsman
and a nonprofit partner to help stakeholders with project technical assistance;
strategic long-term marketing; and education on marketing and tourism, funding,
conservation, and land policy/planning.
2. Conduct one or more additional familiarization tours for state agencies that may
be involved in aspects of the Conservation Landscape to appreciate the
recreational, natural, and cultural assets present in the region.
111
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
3. Start early marketing and branding initiatives in conjunction with tourism
stakeholders.
4. Create a region-wide recreational and cultural map, in online, mobile, and paper
versions, to highlight the locations of the landscape’s numerous recreational and
cultural amenities.
5. Develop a connectivity plan for the landscape that seeks to find ways to better
connect the recreational and cultural amenities on the map, whether through
driving routes, signage opportunities, future biking trails, or other means.
6. Design a logo and a website (for both visitors and project stakeholders) to establish
a visual and online presence for the Conservation Landscape, to share information
and resources, and to gather local community input as a coalition-building tool.
7. Build an events calendar on the website to highlight activities related to volunteer
conservation, outdoor recreation, cultural heritage, and entrepreneurship.
8. Work with nonprofit conservation partners on coordinating funding for specific
land conservation, environmental restoration, water quality, and habitat
projects.
9. At the end of the sixth year, evaluate the work completed thus far and work with
partners and DCNR on a strategic plan for the Conservation Landscape and its
management.
Long-Term Projects and Activities (6 to 10 Years from Designation and Beyond)
The longer that the Conservation Landscape has been established, the more convergence
that we see in the projects and activities between the two management scenarios. As with the
Steering Committee-led scenario, recommended long-term projects and activities may change
or evolve over time depending on the outcomes of prior work completed.
1. Work with partners to coordinate implementation of the connectivity plan,
particularly as it relates to planning and design for less-costly regional
improvements such as the deployment of wayfinding signs to direct visitors to
destinations.
2. Coordinate with communities in the region to implement lower-cost improvement
projects that would provide these communities and their visitors better connectivity
to local recreational assets.
3. Work with trail groups on project and funding coordination to build on existing
trails, with the goal of connecting trail networks within the region, to the rest of
the Commonwealth, and beyond.
112
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
4. Partner with neighboring Conservation Landscapes to share resources and to copromote recreational amenities and tourist attractions near where the
landscapes intersect.
5. Coordinate with tourism and outdoor recreational partners to complete a tourism
and sustainable economic development plan for the region.
6. Team up with nonprofit conservation organizations and higher education
partners to complete a conservation plan for the region.
7. Work with local farmers, artisans, and higher education partners to complete an
agricultural management and value-added agricultural economic development
plan for the region.
8. Develop a pilot community grant program in partnership with DCNR, DCED, and
potentially other state agencies to make small grants available to communities in
the landscape to better leverage their outdoor recreation and tourism assets and
grow their economies.
9. Develop a pilot capacity building grant program to make small grants available to
nonprofit organizations engaged in conservation and tourism efforts.
10. Develop a pilot business grant program to make small grants available to
business owners in the outdoor recreation and tourism industries to make
improvements that allow for increased production or marketability.
11. Work with county tourism agencies, businesses, and cultural and recreational
attractions to develop package tours to better promote the region and its amenities.
12. Continually engage local communities at various levels of readiness and provide
resources for growing their outdoor recreation and tourism infrastructure.
113
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
SOURCES CITED
Albright, T. A., McWilliams, W. H., Widmann, R. H., Butler, B. J., Crocker, S. J., Kurtz, C. M., …
Smith, J. E. (2017, May). Pennsylvania forests 2014. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Forest Service. doi: 10.2737/NRS-RB-111
Barrett, B., & Mahoney, E. (2012). What is a living landscape? Retrieved from
http://livinglandscapeobserver.net/living-landscapes/
Barrett, B., & Peterson, J. (2019). Pennsylvania Conservation Landscapes: Models of
successful collaboration. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources.
Behr, T., Christofides, C., & Neelakantan, P. (2017, July). Economic outlook for rural
Pennsylvania over the next 10 years. Harrisburg, PA: The Center for Rural
Pennsylvania.
Brooks, R. P. (1990). Wetlands and deepwater habitats in Pennsylvania. In S. K. Majumdar,
E. W. Miller, & R. R. Parizek (Eds.), Water resources in Pennsylvania—Availability,
quality and management (pp. 71-79). Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of
Science.
Carson, T. N. (2012, April 15). Land use and impervious surface area change by county in
Pennsylvania (1985-2000) as interpreted quantitatively by means of satellite
imagery. The Open Geography Journal, 2012(5), 68-77.
Catlin, B., Jovaag, A., Givens, M., & Van Dijk, J. W. (2016). 2016 county health rankings:
Pennsylvania. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2013, Summer). Conservation, preservation, and the
national parks. Bill of Rights in Action, 28(4), 1-10.
Dunn, C. (2012, First Quarter). Conservation landscape initiatives: A unique approach to
protecting and promoting Pennsylvania’s special places. Pennsylvania Recreation &
Parks, 7-29.
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC (EPD), & GSP Consulting. (2009, Spring). Northwest
Pennsylvania comprehensive economic development strategy. Oil City, PA: Northwest
Commission.
Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership (GLBFHP). (2009, August 20). A basin-wide fish
habitat strategic plan for the Great Lakes (Draft strategic plan for NFHAP submittal).
Washington, DC: National Fish Habitat Action Plan.
Heist, A. C., & Reif, A. G. (1996). Pennsylvania wetland resources. In J. D. Fretwell, J. S.
Williams, & P. J. Redman (Eds.), National water summary—Wetland resources (pp.
114
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
327-332). Washington, DC: United States Geological Survey.
Lawrence, A. (2010). Taking stock of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McKinney, M., Scarlett, L., & Kemmis, D. (2010). Large landscape conservation: A strategic
framework for policy and action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being:
Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miller, M. L. (2014, July 22). Notes from the deer wars: Science & values in the eastern
forest. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://blog.nature.org/science/2014/07/22/deer-wars-pennsylvania-forestmanagement-hunting/
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). (2016). A review of the
landscape conservation cooperatives. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. doi: 10.17226/21829
National Park Service (NPS). (2018, February 26). Cultural landscapes 101. Retrieved from
https://www.nps.gov/articles/cultural-landscapes-101.htm
National Park Service (NPS). (2018, April 5). Understand cultural landscapes. Retrieved
from https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturallandscapes/understand-cl.htm
National Park Service (NPS). (2018, May 9). Gifford Pinchot: The father of forestry. Retrieved
from https://www.nps.gov/articles/gifford-pinchot.htm
National Park Service (NPS). (2019, June 17). What is a National Heritage Area?. Retrieved
from https://www.nps.gov/articles/what-is-a-national-heritage-area.htm
Patrizi, P., Lempa, M., Wilson, E., & Albright, L. (2009, December 9). Lessons learned from
the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Conservation
Landscape Initiatives. Philadelphia, PA: OMG Center for Collaborative Learning.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. (2018, May). Bureau of Farmland Preservation:
2016-2017 annual report. Retrieved from
https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/farmland/Documents/Farmland
%20Preservation%20Annual%20Report%202017%20complete.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). (2010, June).
Pennsylvania Conservation Landscape Initiatives report. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). (2016). 2016
State Forest Resource Management Plan. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources.
115
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., … Buck, L. (2013,
May 21). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture,
conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS, 110(21), 8349-8356.
Southwick Associates. (2018, November). The power of outdoor recreation spending in
Pennsylvania: How hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities help support a healthy
state economy. (Prepared for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership).
Fernandina Beach, FL: Southwick Associates.
Stark, J. (2013, December 27). The Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership strategic plan.
Dublin, OH: The Nature Conservancy.
Taylor, D. (2000, January). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing
and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(4), 508-580.
Tiner, R. W., Jr. (1989). Current status and recent trends in Pennsylvania’s wetlands. In S. K.
Majumdar, R. P. Brooks, F. J. Brenner, & R. W. Tiner, Jr. (Eds.), Wetlands ecology and
conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania (pp. 368-378). Easton, PA: Pennsylvania
Academy of Science.
Tiner, R. W. (1990, December). Pennsylvania’s wetlands: Current status and recent trends.
Newton Corner, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, R. W. (2010, April). Wetlands of the Northeast: Results of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tourism Economics. (2015, December). Competitive analysis of Pennsylvania’s tourism
budget. Retrieved from http://files.visitphilly.com/te-pa-budget-analysis_2015dec_final.pdf
Tourism Economics. (2016). The economic impact of travel in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from
https://visitpa.com/sites/default/master/files/PA-Visitor-Economic-Impact2016_County-Data.pdf
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2006, May). Ohio River mainstem system
study: Integrated main report. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
United States Forest Service (USFS). (2018, May). 2017 Pennsylvania forest health
highlights. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Forest Service.
United States Forest Service (USFS). (2019, June 12). Pennsylvania forest resource fact
sheet 2019. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Forest Service.
Westover, R. H. (2016, March 22). Conservation versus preservation? [Web log post].
Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/conservation-versus-preservation
116
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
PHOTO CREDITS
Cover photo: McConnells Mill and Bridge in the Fall, Lawrence County – Wikimedia user
DodgeDart
Inside cover (top): French Creek Bridge in Erie County – Wikimedia user Doug Kerr
Inside cover (bottom): Downtown Pittsburgh from Duquesne Incline in the Morning,
Allegheny County – Wikimedia user Dllu
Page vi: Harrison Hills Park, Allegheny County – Flickr user David Fulmer
Page 20: Kennerdell Overlook, Clear Creek State Forest, Venango County – Venango County
Economic Development Authority
Page 21 (top): Latodami Nature Center in North Park, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania –
Wikimedia user Cbaile19
Page 21 (bottom): Lake Erie Bluffs, David M. Roderick Wildlife Reserve, Erie County – Flickr
user Nicholas A. Tonelli
Page 33: Wetland, Erie National Wildlife Refuge (Sugar Lake Division), Crawford County –
Flickr user Nicholas A. Tonelli
Page 48 (top): Venango County Courthouse in Franklin – Wikimedia user Finetooth
Page 48 (bottom): Waterfall in Raccoon Creek State Park, Beaver County – Flickr user Jason
Pratt
Page 85 (top): Lake Arthur, Butler County – Andrew JG Schwartz
Page 85 (bottom): Pymatuning Lake Lily Pads, Crawford County – Flickr user Christopher
Rice
Page 105 (top): Falling Run Nature Trail, Maurice K. Goddard State Park, Mercer County –
Flickr user Nicholas A. Tonelli
Page 105 (bottom): Historic Reconstruction of Oil Derrick at Oil Creek State Park in Venango
County, Pennsylvania – Flickr user Jason Pratt
117
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Game Commission Amenities Inventory
Appendix B – State Park Amenities Inventory
Appendix C – Fish and Boat Commission Amenities Inventory
Appendix D – Other Landscape Management Models Studied
Appendix E – Grants Catalogue
118
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX A: GAME COMMISSION AMENITIES INVENTORY
State
Game
Land
Parking Available
(# of spaces)
Horse
Total ADA
Trailer
Visitor
Parking
Available
(Y/N)
Trails
(including
Informal)
(miles)
Ponds/
Lakes
(Y/N)
Fishing
(Y/N)
Restrooms
(# of stalls/urinals)
Flush
Vault
Portable
SGL 039
21
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 045
12
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 047
5
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 069
11
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 085
1
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 095
35
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 096
19
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 101
11
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 102
4
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 105
7
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 109
9
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 122
8
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 130
13
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 137
0
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 144
6
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 146
3
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 148
2
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 150
1
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 151
12
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 152
3
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 154
7
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 155
2
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 161
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 162
5
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 163
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 164
0
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 167
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 173
10
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 178
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 189
3
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 190
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 191
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 192
2
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 199
6
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 200
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
119
Other
Improvements
(please
specify)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
State
Game
Land
Parking Available
(# of spaces)
Horse
Total ADA
Trailer
June 2020 Final Draft
Visitor
Parking
Available
(Y/N)
Trails
(including
Informal)
(miles)
Ponds/
Lakes
(Y/N)
Fishing
(Y/N)
Restrooms
(# of stalls/urinals)
Flush
Vault
Portable
SGL 202
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 203
4
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 213
10
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 214
5
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 216
5
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 218
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 247
4
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 253
3
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 259
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 263
0
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 269
3
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 270
15
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 277
3
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 284
10
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 285
8
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 287
5
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 291
2
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 294
2
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
SGL 304
3
NA
NA
Y
N
N
NA
NA
NA
SGL 314
12
NA
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
Western
Game
Farm
South
Western
Game
Farm
120
Other
Improvements
(please
specify)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Allegheny Islands State Park
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
TOPIC
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
APPENDIX B: STATE PARK AMENITIES INVENTORY
acres
34
621.8
333.9
2904.6
2544.3
16725
7200
36
3117.6
17373.2
7620.6
acres
0
0
0
56.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
acres
0
0
0
1
42.8
131.1
0
2
0
0
N/A
N/A
84523
291998
399466
1291331
166993
2091976
3997908
2593758
547096
4237
8373
12629
43997
5242
66028
145742
39372
11897
6747
13686
21064
61406
4669
94196
163461
50910
21302
6656
12800
19745
50978
9077
81716
167210
78593
25561
7251
29345
34096
102450
8253
198758
350176
191739
56520
8695
35366
30642
142102
16337
190224
380452
345106
54336
7832
44765
50206
182837
16850
381574
570462
423073
61886
10764
49335
45917
202949
27610
218385
758821
572772
91770
7234
40626
69974
179924
18079
276161
595772
373874
74925
6224
26070
51293
125716
18879
206818
390244
262437
57694
7691
17077
35565
107569
27021
183521
246076
151619
40806
7792
8390
20499
51045
9117
120910
135905
63469
29729
3400
6165
7836
40358
5859
73685
93587
40794
20670
AREA
Total Area
Area leased
from adjoining
landowners
Area leased
out
VISITORSHIP
Day Visits (2017 Data)
Annually
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
persons/
year
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
Overnight Stays (2017 Data)
Annually
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
persons/
year
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
0
0
0
0
0
11752
2854
0
0
103077
49342
0
0
0
0
0
443
142
0
0
159
585
0
0
0
0
0
547
94
0
0
321
502
0
0
0
0
0
420
160
0
0
337
839
0
0
0
0
0
758
557
0
0
2930
2130
0
0
0
0
0
1194
363
0
0
14103
7042
0
0
0
0
0
1267
192
0
0
19185
8719
0
0
0
0
0
2191
240
0
0
26492
9428
0
0
0
0
0
1489
294
0
0
18031
8039
121
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
December
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
November
Jennings Environmental Center
October
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
persons/
month
Erie Bluffs State Park
September
June 2020 Final Draft
Allegheny Islands State Park
TOPIC
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
0
0
0
0
0
998
285
0
0
11836
7663
0
0
0
0
0
1084
285
0
0
8206
2699
0
0
0
0
0
731
187
0
0
1103
1055
0
0
0
0
0
630
55
0
0
374
641
VISITOR FACILITIES
Restrooms
Portable
# of stalls
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
8
1
7
Holding Tank
# of stalls
0
2
3
4
11
0
7
0
0
26
2
Flush
# of stalls
0
0
3
18
0
127
1
9
257
200
46
Shower Stalls
# of stalls
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
39
65
22
Paved
# of spots
0
75
48
7
2
700
60
90
735
200
100
Unpaved
# of spots
0
0
30
4
100
500
350
0
6207
1000
500
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
271
63
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
77
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
ADA (all types)
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
9
Pet Friendly
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
172
69
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
# of sites
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
9
6
Parking
Camp Sites
w/ Trailer/RV
Hook-Ups
Trailers/RVs
allowed (no
hookups)
Tent Only (w/
car access)
Tent Only (no
car access)
ADA + Pet
Friendly
Group
Camping
Hospitality (refer to DCNR definitions: http://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Recreation/WhatToDo/StayOvernight/Pages/default.aspx)
Modern
Cabins
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
25
10
Lodge
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Cottages
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deluxe
Cottages
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yurts
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Attached
Rooms
Floating
Cottages
122
TOPIC
Allegheny Islands State Park
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Other
hospitality
facilities
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ADA
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
1
Pet Friendly
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
# of units
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Drinking
Fountains
#
0
0
1
0
2
12
0
6
84
24
12
Fire Pits
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fitness Areas
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Gift Shop
#
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
Grills
#
0
1
1
17
6
30
25
0
204
60
25
Kitchens
(rentable)
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
Picnic Tables
#
0
6
18
60
30
200
110
0
783
1000
150
Swimming
Pool
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Visitor Center
#
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
Restaurants
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Snack
Bar/Stand
#
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
4
1
1
General Store
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Boat Tour
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Hiking Tour
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Historic Tour
Y/N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
ADA + Pet
Friendly
Organized
Group Cabin
Camps
Organized
Group
Camping
Amenities
Concessions
Food
Tours/Activities
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Oil Well
Train
Kayaking
N
Kayaking
tours
ATVs
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Bicycles
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Other (specify)
Rentals (Onsite)
123
TOPIC
Allegheny Islands State Park
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Canoes
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Fishing Gear
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Houseboats
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Hunting Gear
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Kayaks
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Motorboats
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Sailboats
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Snowmobiles
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Winter Sports
Gear
Y/N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y paddleboard,
AquaCycle,
rowboat
N
Y paddleboard,
canoe,
hydrobikes,
rowboat
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
SUP's
Indoor
Capacity
0
0
100
0
0
6
Amph
30
0
1208
75
100
Amphitheater
Capacity
0
0
0
500
0
20K
30
2
0
100
30
Pavilion
Capacity
0
0
60
100
50
644
195
0
1060
760
0
Y/N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
#
0
0
31
11
1
5
73
0
0
0
16
#
0
0
11
0
1 (mill
exhibitory)
0
1
0
2
2
4
#
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
7
1
1
#
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
3
Y
Y
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
0
0
15
52
0
0
0
20+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
# of courts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
miles of
trails
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
14
Other (specify)
Event Space
Educational
Interpretive
Signs
Exhibit Outdoors
Exhibit Indoors
Classrooms
Historic
Structures
Art
Installations/
Sculptures
RECREATION
Warm Weather
ATV Trails
Backpacking
Baseball
Diamonds
Basketball
Courts
Bicycling Mountain
miles of
trails
miles of
trails
# of
diamonds
124
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Bicycling Touring
miles of
paved
0
0
0
12
0
7.25
9.8
0.75
13.5
2.5
unpaved
0
Camping
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
# of belays
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of sites
0
0
N
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of
courses
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
# of fields
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
Y/N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
# of holes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of pits
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
miles of
trails
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
14
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Climbing Artificial Walls
Climbing Natural
Disc Golf
Flat/Grass
Sports fields
Geocaching/
Letterboxing
Golf
Horseshoes/
Quaits/Bocce
Horseback
Riding
Kayaking/Can
oeing
Raccoon Creek State Park
TOPIC
Allegheny Islands State Park
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Mountain
Biking
Nature Play
Spaces
miles of
trails
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
Y
# of play
spaces
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
Orienteering
Y/N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Play
Structures/
Playground
# of play
spaces
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
3
7
3
0
0
0
12
0
7
9.8
0.75
13.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Motor Boating
Roller Blading
Ropes
Courses
miles of
trails
# of
courses
Sailing
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Scuba Diving
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Swimming
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Tennis Courts
# of courts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volleyball
# of courts
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
6
2
2
Class
Range
(I-VI)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
please
specify
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
kayaking
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White Water
Rafting
Wildlife
Watching
Other warm
weather
recreation
Winter Recreation
Curling
# of sheets
125
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
Ice Skating Rink
Ice Skating Natural
Skiing (Cross
Country)
Skiing
(Downhill)
Erie Bluffs State Park
Ice Boating
Allegheny Islands State Park
TOPIC
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
# of rinks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
0
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
miles of
trails
0
5
4
6
0
5.5
11.5
0
11
3
2.1
# of runs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of runs
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
26
0
0
0
5
4
0
5
5
15
0
28
9.8
0
11
7
44
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
miles of
trails
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
16
# of stalls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Firearms
Acres
34
500
25
1155
2300
13600
6800
0
1572
10300
7000
Bow
Acres
34
500
50
1155
2300
13,900
6800
0
1000
200
7000
Warm Water
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Cold Water
Y/N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Ice Fishing
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Fishing Piers
# of piers
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
Fishing
Shoreline
linear ft of
shoreline
5,000
12506
0
500
Creek 3000
10,000
Creek
63360
2640
86483
369,600
Y
Fishing Ponds
# of ponds
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
Sledding Runs
Snowmobiling
Snowshoeing
Other winter
recreation
miles of
trails
miles of
trails
please
specify
Equestrian
Equestrian
Trails
Stables
Hunting
Fishing
Water-Related Rec Facilities
Water Access
Points
#
0
1
0
5
4
10
8
1
26
16
4
Piers/Docks
#
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
22
3
2
Swimming
Areas
#
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
14
4
1
Gas Dock
#
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
3
0
#
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
linear ft of
shoreline
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11000
0
0
linear ft of
shoreline
0
0
0
0
0
625
0
0
25960
4
1
Boat Repair
Facilities
Beaches Guarded
Beaches Unguarded
126
Allegheny Islands State Park
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
# of slips
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
221
0
0
# of slips
0
0
0
167
0
775
0
0
278
516
48
Gallons
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
# of ramps
0
1
0
5
2
1
0
0
4
13
2
# of ramps
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
0
3
12
0
0
0.75
0.5
8
1
17
5.8
1
53
17
13.4
0
0
0.25
3
0.15
11
6.41
0
2.5
6
10.2
0
0
0.16
12.2
0
7.2
9.8
1.5
13.5
0
0
0
5
4.72
4
9
70
52
0
11
7
44
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1.5
13.5
0
0
# of bridges
0
0
13
8
2
2
3
1
2
5
8 road
length of
each (ft)
0
20
60
20
30/220/180
173
156/190
Varies
5 to 60
# of tunnels
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
length of
each (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
# of pumps
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
# of
hookups
0
0
1
(proposed)
0
0
0
0
Dams
#
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
2
Pump Stations
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
linear ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
linear ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
linear ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
#
0
0
0
1
0
2
7
1
0
3
2
TOPIC
Marina Slip
with Utilities
Marina Slip
without
Utilities
Pump
Out/Holding
Tank
Boat Launch Small Boats
Boat Launch –
Large/
Motorized
Boats
INFRASTRUCTURE
Transportation
Roads - Paved
Roads Unpaved
Trails - Paved
Trails Unpaved
Trails - ADA
Bridges
Tunnels
Gas Stations
Electric
Vehicle
Charging
miles of
road
miles of
road
miles of
trails
miles of
trails
miles of
trails
0
70
0
1
1
2 Proposed
(proposed) (proposed)
Flood Control
Aqueducts
Flood Control
Channels
Levees/
Embankments
Other Infrastructure
Dump Station/
Drop-Off
Recycling
Station/
Drop-Off
127
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
Municipal
Sewer
Connection
Septic System
- Holding
Tanks
Septic System
- Sand Mound
Septic System
- Irrigation
Field
Municipal
Potable Water
Connection
Potable
System Holding
Tank/Well
Potable
System Onsite
Purification
Electricity Grid
Connection
Electricity Generators
Allegheny Islands State Park
TOPIC
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Gallons
0
2,000
3000
11,000
1800
0
Y
0
0
2,000
1500
Gallons/hou
r
0
0
Y
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
N
Gallons/hou
r
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Gallons
0
0
Y
350,000
10,000
20
7000
0
0
Y
0
Gallons/hou
r
0
0
Y
3000
0
19,000
0
0
0
Y
Y/N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
kWh
0
0
0
0
0
3ph, 180kw
0
0
0
0
Y
OTHER
Vehicle Fleet (excluding rentals)
Cars
#
0
0
2
1
0
6
0
0
0
1
5
Trucks
#
0
0
1
5
0
14
6
4
63
22
9
ATVs
#
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
4
18
2
2
Snowmobiles
#
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
Snowplows
#
0
0
0
3
0
4
2
0
5
3
3
Trailers
#
0
0
1
1
0
5
2
0
9
9
2
#
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
5
4
2
#
0
0
0
6
1
20
3
0
2
14
4
#
0
0
2
7
2
15
6
4
18
18
9
Boats Motorized
Boats - NonMotorized
Maintenance
(mowers,
tractors, etc)
Personnel (Count each staff member only once. If multiple roles, pick the one that takes up the greatest percentage of their time.)
Total Staff Full Time
Total Staff Part Time
Volunteers
#
0
0
4
3
0
15
4
8
27
18
14
#
0
0
5
4
0
21
6
7
94
25
15
#
0
10
10
50
12
50
50
11
200
150
100
128
Erie Bluffs State Park
Jennings Environmental Center
Maurice K. Goddard State Park
McConnells Mill State Park
Moraine State Park
Oil Creek State Park
Point State Park
Presque Isle State Park
Pymatuning State Park
Raccoon Creek State Park
Admin/
Management
Facilities/
Maintenance
Field
(naturalists,
tour guides,
etc.)
Field w/ Police
Power
(rangers,
wardens)
Resident
Caretakers
Hospitality
Staff
Other Staff
(please
specify)
Allegheny Islands State Park
TOPIC
June 2020 Final Draft
Units (if data is unavailable, Y/N is
better than nothing)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
#
0
0
2
2
0
6
2
2
11
3
6
#
0
0
2
4
0
18
5
8
35
10
14
#
0
0
5
0
0
3
1
1
6
1
6
#
0
0
0
1
0
6
1
4
13
6
3
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
0
0
0
0
Ranger 1
non LE 1
0
0
0
0
#
0
0
1
1
0
1
not in use
0
2
1
1
Communications
Radio Tower
Internet
Access
Cell Phone
Service
Y/N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
% of park
area
100
Y
90
90
40
80
50
100
75
70
75
Backpacking
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Boat Access
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Boating
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Camping
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y (OGT)
N
N
N
Y
Y
Canoeing/
Kayaking
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Disc Golf
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Hiking
Y/N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Hunting
Y/N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Picnicking
Y/N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Sports Fields
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Swimming
Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
ADA FACILITIES
Lodging
(indoors)
Pet Friendly
Camping
Pet Friendly
Lodging
129
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Trailer Parking
Flush (# of stalls)
Holding Tank (# of stalls)
Portable (# of stalls)
Warm Water
Cold Water
Ice Fishing
Motorized/Large
Non-Motorized/Small
Racks (Small Boats)
Overnight Storage of Large Boats
Food/Bait/Gear Store
Boat Rental (Non-Motorized)
Boat Rental (Motorized)
Fairview
Gravel Pits
32
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Saegerstown
Access
1
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Glenshaw
Access
6
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
8
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
10
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
4
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
6
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
5
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
1
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
2
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
29
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2
N
1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
President
Access
3
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Bessemer
Lake
88
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
11
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
4
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
2
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
57
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
2
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
2
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
8
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
6
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Name
Boat Slips
Concessions
Car
Storage
ADA Fishing/Access
Boat
Launch
Motorboats Allowed
Fishing
Opportunities
Boating Allowed
Restrooms
Total Area (acres)
Visitor Parking
Deer Creek
Access
Cambridge
Springs
Access
Canadohta
Lake Access
Cussewago
Creek
Access
Shaw's
Landing
Sugar Lake
Access
Conneaut
Lake Access
Walnut
Creek
Access
(Lake Erie)
Kilbuck
Access
Cowanshannock
Creek
Access
Rosston
Access
Elk Creek
Access
Neshannock
Creek-Alduk
Fisherman's
Cove
Bradys Bend
Access
130
Other improvements (please specify)
APPENDIX C: FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION AMENITIES INVENTORY
Electric
motors
only
Fishing
access
only
Allegheny
River
10 HP
restriction
10 HP
restriction
Fishing
access
only
Electric
motors
only
Unpowered
boats only
June 2020 Final Draft
Trailer Parking
Flush (# of stalls)
Holding Tank (# of stalls)
Portable (# of stalls)
Warm Water
Cold Water
Ice Fishing
Motorized/Large
Non-Motorized/Small
Racks (Small Boats)
Overnight Storage of Large Boats
Food/Bait/Gear Store
Boat Rental (Non-Motorized)
Boat Rental (Motorized)
2
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
77
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Little Sandy
Creek
35
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Kennerdell
Access
2
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Holliday
Road Access
2
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Wurtemburg
Access/
Slippery
Rock Creek
1
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Glade Run
Lake
144
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
4
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Elk 21.122
lt,rt (Huya)
2
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
21
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
access
onlyy
6
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
access
only
6
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
access
only
1
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
access
only
0
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
20 HP
Restriction
433
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Electric
motors
only
Name
Boat Slips
Concessions
Car
Storage
ADA Fishing/Access
Boat
Launch
Motorboats Allowed
Fishing
Opportunities
Boating Allowed
Restrooms
Total Area (acres)
Visitor Parking
Other improvements (please specify)
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
New
Brighton
Access
Neshannock
Creek
Monaca
Access
Easement
South
Branch
French
Creek-Cox/
McCray
French
Creek-South
Branch/
Fenno and
Gates
Access
Easement
South
Branch
French
CreekSeifert
Easement
Avonia Road
Easement,
Lake Erie
Keystone
Lake Access
Easement
Kahle Lake
(formerly
Mill Creek
Dam Site)
131
Unpowered
boats only
Fishing
access
only
Fishing
access
only
Fishing
access
only
Unpowered
boats only
Electric
motors
only
Fishing
access
only
ADA Fishing/Access
Car
Boat Slips
Trailer Parking
Flush (# of stalls)
Holding Tank (# of stalls)
Portable (# of stalls)
Warm Water
Cold Water
Ice Fishing
Motorized/Large
Non-Motorized/Small
Racks (Small Boats)
Overnight Storage of Large Boats
Food/Bait/Gear Store
Boat Rental (Non-Motorized)
Boat Rental (Motorized)
Visitor Parking
Restrooms
132
Fishing
Opportunities
Boat
Launch
Storage
Concessions
822
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
19
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
471
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Drawn
down for
repairs
4
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
2
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fishing
access
only
Other improvements (please specify)
Motorboats Allowed
North East
Access on
Lake Erie
Hereford
Manor
Lakes
Rick Road
Access (Elk
Creek)
Boating Allowed
Tamarack
Lake
Total Area (acres)
Name
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Drawn
down for
repairs
Scenic River Management Plan (regional council
with majority local land use control but National
Park Service makes ultimate decision almost
always based on local recommendation)
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational
River
86 sq mi
Pennsylvania, New York
1986
Topography, hydrology/river corridor (natural)
~43,500
Area almost entirely private land
Opposed 2 previous NPS management plans
due to: residents concerns about over-regulation,
use of eminent domain, loss of local control,
continued right to hunt/fish/trap
• Council made up 8 NY river towns + 7 PA river
townships, NPS, NY, PA, Delaware River Basin
Commission, Upper Delaware Citizens Advisory
Committee
• 13 of the 15 towns are participants
National Recreation Area comprised of public
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
1,020 sq mi
Oregon, Idaho
1975
Canyon (natural)
Very few within boundary; ~23,000 in counties
3 national forests, 2 Wild * Scenic Rivers, 336 sq
mi of designated wilderness, 7 patented mining
claims, 5 sq miles of private land
Prevent over-mining and building of dams
National Recreation Area managed by the Forest
Service
1B
Recreation management area
1C
Recreation management area
133
Boston Harbor Islands Partnership: NPS, USCG,
MA Port Auth, MPO, MA Water Resources, City
of Boston, Boston Planning & Redevelopment
Agency, 3 NGOs, and a 28-member citizen
advisory council
To preserve recreational, cultural, historic
resources and to make the islands into an
amenity for use by people in the greater Boston
area
Mostly various state agencies, City of Boston,
two non-profits
None
Islands within Boston Harbor (natural boundary)
1996
Massachusetts
1,600 acres across 50 sq mi
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation
Area
National Recreation Area comprised of various
public lands under different ownership
Recreation management area
1A
Most Organized/Structured/Formed 
Participants
Purpose/Goals
Land Ownership
Approx. Population
Boundary Criteria/ Definition
Year Established
State(s)
Size of Landscape
Real World Application
General Description
Type of Landscape Conservation/
Management Model
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX D: OTHER LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT MODELS STUDIED
None
134
Oregon City, Clackamas County, Metro Portland,
State of Oregon, Falls Legacy LLC
Essex National heritage Commission, a nonprofit 501-c3 corp that promotes PPPs; 25
member board of trustees, elected from
commissioners; 150 Essex Heritage
Commissioners, elected at semi-annual
meetings, recruited from regional business, civic,
non-profit, education, institutional leaders; 85+
Ex-Officio Members. Commissioners are elected
at semi-annual meetings of the commission, and
they are recruited around the region from leaders
in business, civic, non-profit, educational and
cultural institutions. The Board of Trustees is
elected from the commissioners.
Staff of 10 full/part time employees
~743,000
from 222,000 to 913,000
Historic industrial property (property boundary)
State, federal, county, regional, and local
government entities; land trusts, watershed
associations, and conservation nonprofits;
tourism and economic development councils;
universities and colleges; foundations and
charitable trusts; recreation groups; local
businesses and residents
Essex County (jurisdictional)
primarily by county, or less often, by municipality,
but in some cases by arbitrary boundaries such
as highways, buffer areas, etc.
2013
Oregon
Bring Willamette Falls back to the public,
restoring it from an abandoned industrial site
(paper mill); historic and cultural interpretation,
public access, healthy habitat, and economic
redevelopment
1996
2003
• NPS Salem Maritime National Historic site
study in 1990 suggested connecting the site to
other regional historic resources would greatly
increase the e cultural value.
• Preserve and enhance the historic, cultural and
natural resources of Essex County
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
0.03 sq mi (22 acres)
• Land and water resource conservation,
protection, and restoration
• Promotion of outdoor and nature-based rec.
• Community and small-town economic
revitalization
• Tourism and business development
• Collaboration and engagement
• Promotion of cultural heritage
• Promotion of local agriculture
• Sound land use planning
500 sq mi
from 726 sq mi to 10,626 sq mi
Willamette Falls Legacy Project
Master plan for the management of an urban,
natural, and culturally-significant landscape with
historical, aesthetic, and cultural value, led by a
collaborative partnership between city, county,
metropolitan regional, state, and tribal
governments, along with the private
developer/owner of the site
Private developer/landowner
Essex National Heritage Area
Pennsylvania Conservation Landscape
Initiatives
3
Cultural landscape area
Mix of state, county, federal (National Park
9 state parks, 2 NPS units, 1 national wildlife
Service, National Forest Service, USACE), local refuge, 86 museums, 9,968 NRHP sites, 400
government, and nonprofit conservancy lands, as historic farms
well as utility corridors, and private land
Heritage area led by a nonprofit that promotes
public and private partnerships between state
parks, museums, National Register sites, and
historic farms
Place-based strategy for natural resources
stewardship and advocacy in key landscapes
across Pennsylvania where there are strong
natural assets and local readiness and support
for land conservation, locally driven planning,
and community economic revitalization efforts
4
Heritage promotion program
5
Conservation landscape initiative
2
• 15-member board consists of seven members
who are appointed by the New Jersey Governor,
one member appointed by each of the seven
Pinelands counties, and one member appointed
by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The
gubernatorial appointees are subject to the
review and consent of the NJ Senate.
• Staff of 42
Land preservation, land use planning
100,000 acres of federal land including Army
Bases and 2 Wildlife Refuges, 4 state forests,
portions of 7 counties, 56 municipalities, lots of
cranberry bogs
500,00 acres (43%) is publicly owned
~500,000 within the preserve
Biosphere - core habitat protected by buffers of
increasing land use intensity (natural)
1978
New Jersey
1,719 sq mi (22% of the state)
New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve
Large National Reserve led by a commission
comprised of federal, state, and countyappointed officials; diverse funding sources,
comprehensive land management plan, wellstaffed
Land use management district
Participants
Purpose/Goals
Land Ownership
Approx. Population
Boundary Criteria/ Definition
Year Established
State(s)
Size of Landscape
Real World Application
General Description
Type of Landscape Conservation/
Management Model
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
135
Statewide
Oregon
2016
State (jurisdictional)
~4,150,000
52.9% of the state is federally owned (BLM,
USFS, NPS, NFWS, etc)
60.4% of the state is publicly owned
9,616 sq mi across the state
Vermont
2016
State (jurisdictional)
~625,000
15.8% of the state is publicly owned
15-member steering committee is made up of
Vermont businesses and non-profits including
outdoor manufacturers, retailers, brand
representatives, trail and user groups and
conservation organizations, as well as state
government
Created by governor's executive order: purpose
is to engage with businesses, government, the
nonprofit sector and the public to identify specific
outcomes that promote business opportunities,
increase participation opportunities, and
strengthen the quality and stewardship of our
recreational resources.
Oregon Outdoor Recreation Initiative
Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic
Collaborative
7
~250,000
Ecological complex (natural)
2001
Montana, British Columbia, Alberta
28,125 sq mi
Crown Managers Partnership
Diffuse network of 100+ entities working over a
massive, rugged, and sparsely-populated region
Landscape management network
businesses, agencies, land managers,
conservation groups, and recreational user
groups
Steering Committee includes NPS, EPA, State
EPAs, several universities, USFW, Forest
Service, several tribal governments, and Canada
counterparts
83% public (national, state, municipal, tribal),
very little development. International (partially in
Canada). Includes Peace Park, which is made up
of Glacier National Park on the US side and
Waterton Lakes National Park on the Canada
side
Bring together businesses, agencies, land
• Address climate change impacts to region and
managers, conservation groups and recreational negative impacts of development
user groups around the goal of expanding
• Measure collective conservation impact of
access to outdoor recreation and increasing the
entities working across the region
economic impact and sustainability of Oregon’ s • 3 Cs: conservation, community, cultural values
outdoor recreation economy
• Respond to economic/demographic changes:
change political dialogue surrounding
conservation to public health, economic
prosperity focus
Statewide outdoor recreation initiative including
businesses, agencies, land managers, and
conservation/rec groups. Emphasizing strategic
investment for rural economic development
Statewide outdoor recreation initiative including
businesses, agencies, land managers, and
conservation/rec groups. Emphasizing strategic
investment for rural economic development
8A
Statewide marketing/funding program
Statewide marketing/funding program
8B
 Least Organized/Structured/Formed
6
Type of Landscape Conservation/
Management Model
Landowner based non-profit
Board: ranchers, landowners, fed/state agencies,
NGOs
7 paid full-time staff members
Anybody can participate in meetings, all
decisions are made by consensus
• Formed initially to address deteriorating river
water quality
• Coordinate efforts that will enhance, conserve,
and protect the natural resources and rural
lifestyles of the Blackfoot River Valley for present
and future generations.
• Supports environmentally responsible resource
stewardship through cooperation of private and
corporate landowners, federal and state land
managers, and local government officials.
66% USFS, USFWS, BLM, State
25% private
9% nature conservancy
~8,100 within watershed
Watershed (natural)
1993
Montana
2,400 sq mi
Blackfoot Challenge
Participants
Purpose/Goals
Land Ownership
Approx. Population
Boundary Criteria/ Definition
Year Established
State(s)
Size of Landscape
Real World Application
Watershed-based conservation program directed General Description
by a volunteer board of private landowners,
federal/state land managers, and local
government officials emphasizing consensus and
benefits to rural communities
Landowner coalition for watershed
management
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX E: GRANTS CATALOGUE
Funder Name
Grant Name
4imprint
One by One Program Grant
AARP Foundation
AARP Community Challenge
Grant
America Walks
American Canoe
Association (ACA)
American Water
Works Company,
Inc.
Community Change Micro
Grants
L.L.Bean - Club Fostered
Stewardship Grant
AW Environmental Grant
Program
Grant Website
https://onebyone.4imprint.com/applicat
ion
https://www.aarp.org/livablecommunities/communitychallenge/info-2020/2020challenge.html
https://americawalks.org/communitychange-grants/
https://www.americancanoe.org/page/
LLBean_CFS_Grant
https://amwater.com/corp/customersand-communities/environmental-grantprogram
https://www.americantrucks.com/positi
ve-payload.html
https://www.ameriprise.com/financialplanning/about/communityrelations/grant-making/
Instrumentl Grant
One by One Program Grant
AARP Community Challenge
Grant
Community Change Micro
Grants
L.L.Bean - Club Fostered
Stewardship Grant
AW Environmental Grant
Program
AmericanTrucks
AmericanTrucks’ Positive
Payload Grant Program
Ameriprise
Financial
Ameriprise Community Grants
Arthur L. & Elaine V.
Johnson
Foundation
Arthur L. and Elaine V. Johnson
Foundation Grants
http://www.aljfoundation.org/
Arthur L. and Elaine V. Johnson
Foundation Grants
Audrey Hillman
Fisher Foundation
Audrey Hillman Fisher
Foundation Grant
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/audrey-hillman-fisherfoundation/
Audrey Hillman Fisher
Foundation Grant
Big G Charitable
Foundation
BoatU.S.
Foundation
Big G Charitable Foundation
Grant
BoatU.S. Foundation Grassroots
Grants
Bogs Footwear
BOGSº Impact Fund
Bogs Footwear
BOGS Outdoor Education Grant
Program
https://www.cybergrants.com/pls/cyber
grants/quiz.display_question?x_gm_id=
4494&x_quiz_id=7664&x_order_by=1
https://www.bogsfootwear.com/shop/c
ommunity.html
Bonnell Cove
Foundation
Bonnell Cove Foundation Grant
http://www.bonnellcove.org/apply
Caldera Foundation
Caldera Foundation Grant
Captain Planet
Foundation
Captain Planet
Foundation
Caroline J.S.
Sanders Trust 2
CPF ecoSolution Grants
CPF ecoTech Grants
Clif Bar Family
Foundation
Caroline J. S. Sanders Trust 2
Grant
Environment Program Addressing the Freshwater
Challenge
Clif Bar Family Foundation Small
Grants
Climate Ride
Climate Ride Grant
Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation
Colcom Foundation
Colcom Foundation
Commission for
Environmental
Cooperation
Crawford Heritage
Community
Foundation
Colcom Foundation Grant:
National Giving
Colcom Foundation Grant:
Regional Giving
North American Partnership for
Environmental Community
Action (NAPECA) Grants
Program
Crawford Heritage Discretionary
Grants
https://biggfoundation.org/page-3/
http://www.boatus.org/grants/
http://www.calderafoundation.org/ourstory/
https://captainplanetfoundation.org/gra
nts/ecosolution/
https://captainplanetfoundation.org/gra
nts/ecotech/
https://www.wellsfargo.com/privatefoundations/sanders-trust-2/
AmericanTrucks’ Positive
Payload Grant Program
Ameriprise Community Grants
Big G Charitable Foundation
Grant
BoatU.S. Foundation Grassroots
Grants
BOGSº Impact Fund
BOGS Outdoor Education Grant
Program
Bonnell Cove Foundation Grant
Caldera Foundation Grant
CPF ecoSolution Grants
CPF ecoTech Grants
http://clifbarfamilyfoundation.org/Grant
s-Programs/Small-Grants
Caroline J. S. Sanders Trust 2
Grant
Environment Program Addressing the Freshwater
Challenge
Clif Bar Family Foundation Small
Grants
https://www.climateride.org/grants/
Climate Ride Grant
https://www.mott.org/work/environmen
t/
http://colcomfdn.org/mission/
http://colcomfdn.org/interests/
http://www.cec.org/our-work/napeca
http://www.crawfordheritage.org/grants
/
136
Colcom Foundation Grant:
National Giving
Colcom Foundation Grant:
Regional Giving
North American Partnership for
Environmental Community
Action (NAPECA) Grants
Program
Crawford Heritage Discretionary
Grants
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Funder Name
Grant Name
Daniel K. Thorne
Foundation
Daniel K. Thorne Foundation
Grants
Delta Analytics: Data Grant
(economics services)
Delta Analytics
Dominion Energy
Charitable
Foundation
Dominion Energy
Charitable
Foundation
Dudley T.
Dougherty
Foundation
Environmental Education and
Stewardship Grants
Dominion Energy Foundation
Grants
Dudley T. Dougherty Foundation
Grant
Edith C. Justus
Fund
Edith C. Justus Fund Grant
Eileen Jean Luce
Charitable Trust
Eileen Jean Luce Charitable
Trust Grant
Elizabeth S. Black
Trust
Elizabeth S. Black Trust Grant
Elsie H. Hillman
Foundation
ePromos
Elsie H. Hillman Foundation
Grant
ePromos for Good Promotional
Product Donation
Erie Community
Foundation
Strategic Collaboration Pilot
Project Grant
Erie Community
Foundation
ECF Community Fund Drives
Erie Community
Foundation
ECF Shaping Tomorrow Grants
Erie Insurance
Exelon
ExtremeTerrain
Erie Insurance Giving Network
Grant
Exelon Corporation
Contributions Program
ExtremeTerrain’s Clean Trail
Grant Program
FedEx
FedEx Charitable Giving
Foundation for
Pennsylvania
Watersheds
Foundation for
Pennsylvania
Watersheds
Franklin P. and
Arthur W. Perdue
Foundation
Fred J. Brotherton
Charitable
Foundation
Foundation for Pennsylvania
Watersheds Grant Program:
Project Grants
Foundation for Pennsylvania
Watersheds Grant Program:
Convening Grants
Frederick and Ellen
Fair Memorial Trust
Frederick and Ellen Fair
Memorial Trust Grant
Great Lakes
Protection Fund
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Grant
June 2020 Final Draft
Grant Website
Instrumentl Grant
https://www.thorne.org/
Daniel K. Thorne Foundation
Grants
http://www.deltanalytics.org/nonprofits.
html
https://www.dominionenergy.com/com
munity/dominion-energy-charitablefoundation/environmental-stewardshipgrants
https://www.dominionenergy.com/com
munity/dominion-energy-charitablefoundation/apply-for-a-grant
https://www.dudleytdoughertyfoundatio
n.org/apply.html
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/elsie-h-hillman-foundation/
https://www.epromos.com/epromosgood/application-form/
https://www.eriecommunityfoundation.o
rg/grants/apply-for-a-grant/strategiccollaboration-pilot-project
https://www.eriecommunityfoundation.o
rg/grants/apply-for-a-grant/capitalcampaigns
https://www.eriecommunityfoundation.o
rg/grants/apply-for-a-grant/shapingtomorrow
https://www.erieinsurance.com/givingn
etwork
http://www.exeloncorp.com/community
/grants
https://www.extremeterrain.com/cleantrail-initiative-program.html
https://fedexcares.com/nonprofitfunding
http://pennsylvaniawatersheds.org/appl
y-for-a-grant/
http://pennsylvaniawatersheds.org/appl
y-for-a-grant/
Delta Analytics: Data Grant
Environmental Education and
Stewardship Grants
Dominion Energy Foundation
Grants
Dudley T. Dougherty Foundation
Grant
Edith C. Justus Fund Grant
Eileen Jean Luce Charitable
Trust Grant
Elizabeth S. Black Trust Grant
Elsie H. Hillman Foundation
Grant
ePromos for Good Promotional
Product Donation
Strategic Collaboration Pilot
Project Grant
ECF Community Fund Drives
ECF Shaping Tomorrow Grants
Erie Insurance Giving Network
Grant
Exelon Corporation
Contributions Program
ExtremeTerrain’s Clean Trail
Grant Program
FedEx Charitable Giving
Foundation for Pennsylvania
Watersheds Grant Program:
Project Grants
Foundation for Pennsylvania
Watersheds Grant Program:
Convening Grants
Corporate Giving Program:
Requests over $1000
https://corporate.perduefarms.com/co
mpany/foundation/
Corporate Giving Program:
Requests over $1000
Fred J. Brotherton Charitable
Foundation Grant
http://fredjbrothertoncharitablefoundati
on.org/
Fred J. Brotherton Charitable
Foundation Grant
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
http://glpf.org/get-funding/projectswanted/
137
Frederick and Ellen Fair
Memorial Trust Grant
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Grant
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Funder Name
Henry John
Simonds
Foundation
Henry L. Hillman
Foundation
Grant Name
Henry John Simonds Foundation
Grant
Henry L. Hillman Foundation
Grant
Hillman Foundation
Hillman Foundation Grant
Horne Family
Charitable
Foundation
Environmental Protection;
Wildlife Preservation - National;
Animal Welfare
Hydro Flask
Parks for All
International Paper,
Inc.
IP Foundation Grants
International
Society of
Ethnobiology
International Society for
Ethnobotany Small Grants
J. M. Kaplan Fund
The J.M.K. Innovation Prize
J.B. Hunt Transport
Services
J.B. Hunt Transport Services:
Company Giving
Justin Brooks
Fisher Foundation
Justin Brooks Fisher Foundation
Grant
KEEN
La Roche, Inc.
Laurel Foundation
Mary Hillman
Jennings
Foundation
Max and Victoria
Dreyfus Foundation
June 2020 Final Draft
Grant Website
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/henry-john-simondsfoundation/
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/henry-l-hillman-foundation/
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/hillman-foundation/
https://hornefamilyfoundation.org/grant
-applicants/
https://www.hydroflask.com/parks-forall
http://www.internationalpaper.com/co
mpany/regions/north-america/ipfoundation-usa/apply-for-a-grant
http://www.ethnobiology.net/smallgrants/
KEEN Effect Grant- KEEN Effect
Youth Program
Roche Corporate Donations and
Philanthropy (CDP)
https://www.jmkfund.org/innovationprize-2019/
https://www.jbhunt.com/responsibility/
company_giving/
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/justin-brooks-fisherfoundation/
https://www.keenfootwear.com/grants.
html
https://www.roche.com/sustainability/p
hilanthropy/criteria_requests.htm
Laurel Foundation Grant
http://laurelfdn.org/apply/
Instrumentl Grant
Henry John Simonds Foundation
Grant
Henry L. Hillman Foundation
Grant
Hillman Foundation Grant
Environmental Protection;
Wildlife Preservation - National;
Animal Welfare
Parks for All
IP Foundation Grants
International Society for
Ethnobotany Small Grants
The J.M.K. Innovation Prize
J.B. Hunt Transport Services:
Company Giving
Justin Brooks Fisher Foundation
Grant
KEEN Effect Grant- KEEN Effect
Youth Program
Roche Corporate Donations and
Philanthropy (CDP)
Laurel Foundation Grant
Max and Victoria Dreyfus
Foundation Grant
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/mary-hillman-jenningsfoundation/
https://www.mvdreyfusfoundation.org/a
pplication-guidelines
MIT Solve
2020 Global Challeges
https://solve.mit.edu/challenges
2020 Global Challeges
Mitsubishi
Corporation
Foundation for the
Americas
MCFA Grant
https://www.mitsubishicorp.com/us/en
/mcfa/
MCFA Grant
Mutual of America
Mutual of America's Community
Partnership Award
https://www.mutualofamerica.com/cpa
/cpacompetition
Mutual of America's Community
Partnership Award
Sustain Our Great Lakes Grant
Program
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/sustain
-our-great-lakes-program
Sustain Our Great Lakes Grant
Program
Resilient Communities Grant
Program
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/resilien
t-communities-program
Resilient Communities Grant
Program
NFF Matching Awards Program
(MAP)
https://www.nationalforests.org/grantprograms/map
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/fun
ding-opportunities/grants/what-wefund/species-recovery/
NFF Matching Awards Program
(MAP)
https://www.dar.org/nationalsociety/dar-historic-preservation-grants
DAR Historic Preservation
Grants
National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF)
National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF)
National Forest
Foundation (NFF)
Mary Hillman Jennings
Foundation Grant
National
Geographic Society
RFP: Species Recovery
National Society of
the Daughters of
the American
Revolution
DAR Historic Preservation
Grants
Network for Good
Network for Good Grants
New Belgium
Brewing Co
Bicycle Advocacy Grants
Program
https://learn.networkforgood.com/grant
.html
https://www.newbelgium.com/sustaina
bility/community/grants/
138
Mary Hillman Jennings
Foundation Grant
Max and Victoria Dreyfus
Foundation Grant
RFP: Species Recovery
Network for Good Grants
Bicycle Advocacy Grants
Program
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Funder Name
New York
Community Trust
Overlook Estate
Foundation
Pennsylvania
Department of
Conservation &
Natural Resources
(DCNR)
Pennsylvania
Department of
Conservation &
Natural Resources
(DCNR)
Pennsylvania
Department of
Conservation &
Natural Resources
(DCNR)
Pennsylvania
Department of
Conservation &
Natural Resources
(DCNR)
Pennsylvania
Department of
Conservation &
Natural Resources
(DCNR)
Pennsylvania
Department of
Environmental
Protection (DEP)
Grant Name
Grant Website
Instrumentl Grant
Thriving Communities: National
and International Environmental
Grantmaking
Overlook Estate Foundation
Grant Program
https://www.nycommunitytrust.org/infor
mation-for/for-nonprofits/what-the-trustfunds/
Thriving Communities: National
and International Environmental
Grantmaking
Overlook Estate Foundation
Grant Program
https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/communities/t
raildevelopment/pages/default.aspx
DCNR Motorized Trails Grants
DCNR Community Recreation
and Conservation Planning
Grants
https://brcgrants.dcnr.pa.gov/Help/Opp
ortunities_Planning.htm
DCNR Community Recreation
and Conservation Planning
Grants
DCNR State and Regional
Partnerships' Grants
https://brcgrants.dcnr.pa.gov/Help/Opp
ortunities_Partnership.htm
DCNR State and Regional
Partnerships' Grants
DCNR Non-Motorized Trails
Grants
https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Communities/
Grants/TrailGrants/Pages/default.aspx
DCNR Non-Motorized Trails
Grants
DCNR Park Rehabilitation and
Development Grants
https://brcgrants.dcnr.pa.gov/Help/Opp
ortunities_Development.htm
DCNR Park Rehabilitation and
Development Grants
Quadratec Cares 'Energize The
Environment' Grant Program
RKMF Grants - Southwestern
Pennsylvania
RKMF Grants - Western
Pennsylvania
https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Wate
r/Compacts%20and%20Commissions/C
oastal%20Resources%20Management%
20Program/Pages/Grants.aspx
http://peopleforbikes.org/grantguidelines/
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://pittsburghfoundation.org/endow
mentforbutlercounty
https://www.polaris.com/en-us/trailsapplication/
https://www.quadratec.com/page/quad
ratec-cares-grant-program
https://www.rkmf.org/pages/grantfunding-priorities
https://www.rkmf.org/pages/grantfunding-priorities
Robert F. Schumann Foundation
Grant
https://www.wellsfargo.com/privatefoundations/schumann-foundation
Robert F. Schumann Foundation
Grant
Catalyst Fund
https://roddenberryfoundation.org/ourwork/catalyst-fund/
Catalyst Fund
RSF Seed Fund Grant
https://rsfsocialfinance.org/getfunding/seed-fund/
RSF Seed Fund Grant
Coastal Zone Management
Grant Program
PFB Community Grant
Pittsburgh /
Western PA Trusts
via PNC Bank
Grants from Pittsburgh &
Western PA Trusts via PNC Bank
Pittsburgh
Foundation
Endowment for Butler County
Grant
Polaris Foundation
T.R.A.I.L.S. Grant
Richard King
Mellon Foundation
Richard King
Mellon Foundation
Robert F.
Schumann
Foundation
Roddenberry
Foundation
Rudolf Steiner
Foundation - RSF
Social Finance
http://www.overlook.org/
DCNR Motorized Trails Grants
PeopleForBikes
Quadratec
June 2020 Final Draft
Ruth Beecher
Charitable Trust
Ruth Beecher Charitable Trust
Grant
Safe Routes to
School National
Parternship
Safe Routes to Parks Activating
Communities Program
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/
healthycommunities/saferoutestoparks/2020application
139
Coastal Zone Management
Grant Program
PFB Community Grant
Grants from Pittsburgh &
Western PA Trusts via PNC Bank
Endowment for Butler County
Grant
T.R.A.I.L.S. Grant
Quadratec Cares 'Energize The
Environment' Grant Program
RKMF Grants - Southwestern
Pennsylvania
RKMF Grants - Western
Pennsylvania
Ruth Beecher Charitable Trust
Grant
Safe Routes to Parks Activating
Communities Program
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
Funder Name
Grant Name
Samuel Justus
Charitable Trust
Samuel Justus Charitable Trust
Grant
Save-A-Lot Food
Stores
Save-A-Lot Donation Requests
Stantec
Stantec Community
Engagement Grant
Surdna Foundation
Surdna Foundation Grants
Sustainable
Forestry Initiative
Temper of the
Times Foundation
The Lawrence
Foundation
The North Face
The Oak
Foundation
The Olive Tree
Foundation
The Overbrook
Foundation
The Scherman
Foundation
The Sweetgrass
Foundation
US Department of
Commerce:
Economic
Development
Administration
(EDA)
US Department of
the Interior: Fish
and Wildlife Service
(FWS)
US Department of
the Interior:
National Park
Service (NPS)
Vulcan Materials
Company
Foundation
SFI Conservation Grant
TTF Advertising for the
Environment Grant
Lawrence Foundation Grant
The North Face Explore Fund
Grant
Environment: Climate Change
Strategy Grant
Olive Tree Foundation Grant
Overbrook Foundation Grant
Program
The Scherman Foundation
Rosin Fund: Environmental
Program Grant
Sweetgrass Foundation Grant
Program
June 2020 Final Draft
Grant Website
https://www.pnc.com/en/aboutpnc/corporateresponsibility/philanthropy/charitabletrusts.html
https://save-alot.com/corporate/community
https://www.stantec.com/en/about/co
mmunity-engagement/funding-priorities
https://surdna.org/prospectivegrantees/
https://www.sfiprogram.org/conservatio
ngrants/
http://temperfund.org/blog/
https://thelawrencefoundation.org/appl
ication-process/
https://www.thenorthface.com/aboutus/outdoor-exploration/explorefund.html
https://oakfnd.org/programmes/enviro
nment/
https://theolivetreefoundation.org/howto-apply/
http://www.overbrook.org/apply/
http://scherman.org/programs/environ
ment/rosin-fund/
http://www.thesweetgrassfoundation.or
g/submit-proposal/
Instrumentl Grant
Samuel Justus Charitable Trust
Grant
Save-A-Lot Donation Requests
Stantec Community
Engagement Grant
Surdna Foundation Grants
SFI Conservation Grant
TTF Advertising for the
Environment Grant
Lawrence Foundation Grant
The North Face Explore Fund
Grant
Environment: Climate Change
Strategy Grant
Olive Tree Foundation Grant
Overbrook Foundation Grant
Program
The Scherman Foundation
Rosin Fund: Environmental
Program Grant
Sweetgrass Foundation Grant
Program
FY 2020 EDA Public Works and
Economic Adjustment
Assistance Programs
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/vie
w-opportunity.html?oppId=321695
FY 2020 EDA Public Works and
Economic Adjustment
Assistance Programs
FY 2020 Modern Multistate
Conservation Grant Program
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/vie
w-opportunity.html?oppId=326100
FY 2020 Modern Multistate
Conservation Grant Program
FY2019 Paul Bruhn Historic
Revitalization Grants Program,
formerly known as the Historic
Revitalization Subgrant Program
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/vie
w-opportunity.html?oppId=325519
FY2019 Paul Bruhn Historic
Revitalization Grants Program,
formerly known as the Historic
Revitalization Subgrant Program
Vulcan Materials Company
Foundation Grant
https://www.vulcanmaterials.com/socia
l-responsibility/vulcan-foundation
Vulcan Materials Company
Foundation Grant
Wabtec Foundation
Wabtec Foundation Grant
Walter J. Miller
Trust
Walter J. Miller Trust Grant
Westinghouse
Westinghouse Charitable Giving
Program
William Talbott
Hillman Foundation
William Talbott Hillman
Foundation Grant
Wyndham
Worldwide
Foundation
Wyndham Charitable Donations
https://www.wabtec.com/businessunits/unitrac-railroad-materials/aboutus
https://www.wellsfargo.com/privatefoundations/miller-trust-walter
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/a
bout/community-andeducation/charitable-giving-program
https://hillmanfamilyfoundations.org/fo
undations/william-talbott-hillmanfoundation/#forgrantseekers
https://www.wyndhamdestinations.com
/social-responsibility/philanthropy
140
Wabtec Foundation Grant
Walter J. Miller Trust Grant
Westinghouse Charitable Giving
Program
William Talbott Hillman
Foundation Grant
Wyndham Charitable Donations
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX F: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ATTENDANCE SUMMARY
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Meeting – October 6, 2017
DCNR – Bureau of Forestry
Cecile Stelter
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Kathy Frankel
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jeremy Rekich
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Erifili Draklellis
Davitt Woodwell
Marla Meyer Papernick
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC
Andrew JG Schwartz
Allan Kapoor
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Meeting – November 21, 2017
DCNR – Bureau of Forestry
Cecile Stelter
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Kathy Frankel
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jeremy Rekich
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Erifili Draklellis
Davitt Woodwell
Marla Meyer Papernick
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC
Andrew JG Schwartz
Allan Kapoor
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Conference Call – January 12, 2018
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Kathy Frankel
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jeremy Rekich
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Erifili Draklellis
Davitt Woodwell
Marla Meyer Papernick
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC
Andrew JG Schwartz
141
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Meeting – May 8, 2018
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Erin Wiley Moyers
Northwest Commission
Sue Smith
Jen Feehan
Office of the Governor
Julie Slomski
Oil Region Alliance
Marilyn Black
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT)
Jim Andrews
Tom McClelland
Robb Dean
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Chad Foster
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Roger Coup
Feasibility Study Steering Committee Meeting – October 9, 2018
Butler County Tourism and Convention
Bureau
Jack Cohen
DCNR – Bureau of Forestry
Cecile Stelter
DCNR – Bureau of Geological Survey
Kris Carter
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Kathy Frankel
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jeremy Rekich
Frances Stein
French Creek Conservancy
Brenda Costa
Northwest Commission
Jan Feehan
Oil Region Alliance
Erie to Pittsburgh Trail Alliance
Kim Harris
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission (PHMC)
Bill Callahan
Pennsylvania Recreation and Parks Society
Emily Gates
142
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Lew Villotti
VisitErie
Emily Beck
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Erifili Draklellis
Davitt Woodwell
Marla Meyer Papernick
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC
Andrew JG Schwartz
Phillip Wu
Final Presentation to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee – March 23, 2020
Butler County Tourism and Convention
Bureau
Jack Cohen
DCNR – Bureau of Forestry
Cecile Stelter
DCNR – Bureau of Geological Survey
Kris Carter
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
Kathy Frankel
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jeremy Rekich
Frances Stein
French Creek Conservancy
Brenda Costa
Oil Region Alliance
Erie to Pittsburgh Trail Alliance
Kim Harris
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission (PHMC)
Bill Callahan
VisitErie
Emily Beck
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
Davitt Woodwell
Marla Meyer Papernick
Environmental Planning & Design, LLC
Andrew JG Schwartz
Phillip Wu
143
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX G: PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE SUMMARY
Public Meeting #1 (Meadville, Crawford County) – January 24, 2020
Linda Armstrong
DCNR – Pymatuning State Park (retired)
Sean Benson
DCNR – Pymatuning State Park
Dan Bickel
DCNR – Pymatuning State Park
Tom Cermak
Pennsylvania Sea Grant
Brenda Costa
French Creek Valley Conservancy
Allegheny College
Dustin Drew
DCNR – Moraine State Park
Stacie Hall
DCNR – Pymatuning State Park
Kim Harris
Oil Region Alliance
Cathy Kentzel
Barnard House Bed & Breakfast
Venango Area Chamber of Commerce
Paul Kentzel
Barnard House Bed & Breakfast
Emlenton Borough Council
Allegheny Valley Trail Association
Jody Lasko
USDA – Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Kendra Nemeth
Allegheny College
Zachary Norwood
Crawford County Planning Office
Milt Ostrofsky
Allegheny College
French Creek Valley Conservancy
Frances Stein
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Jay Varno
Meadville Area Recreation Authority
Andy Walker
City of Meadville
French Creek Valley Conservancy
Katie Wickert
Borough of Linesville
City of Meadville
Erin Wiley Moyers
DCNR – Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation
name illegible
Edinboro University
144
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
Public Meeting #2 (Cranberry Township, Butler County) – January 31, 2020
Valerie Bader
North Country Trail Association
Mike Baker
Erie County Department of Planning
Jack Cohen
Butler County Tourism and Convention
Bureau
Gary Fleeger
DCNR – Bureau of Geological Survey
(retired)
Brian Flores
DCNR – Moraine State Park
Courtney Mahronich Vita
Friends of the Riverfront
Mark Mann
Butler Eagle (retired)
Ryan Martin
Office of State Rep. Marci Mustello
Bob Mulshine
Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy
Ellen Pardee
Greenville Area Economic Development
Corporation
Kelsey Rapper
Friends of the Riverfront
Ann Sand
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Randy P. Seitz
Penn-Northwest Development Corporation
Frances Stein
DCNR – Bureau of State Parks
Wil Taylor
DCNR – Jennings Environmental Education
Center
Chas Wagner
Dewy Grass Club
145
Glacier’s Edge Feasibility Study
June 2020 Final Draft
APPENDIX H: INTERVIEWED AND SURVEYED ORGANIZATIONS
Allegheny College
Allegheny County Economic Development
Allegheny Valley Land Trust
Beaver County Office of Planning and Redevelopment
BEG Group LLC
Butler County Conservation District
Butler County Tourism and Convention Bureau
Crawford County Planning Office
Drake Well Museum & Park
Erie to Pittsburgh Trail Alliance
French Creek Conservancy
Industrial Heartland Trail Coalition
Mercer / Grove City KOA
North Country Brewing Company
North Country Trail Association
Pashek + MTR
Penn Soil Resource Conservation and Development Council
Pennsylvania Council on the Arts
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Geological
Survey
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of State Parks
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation
Office
Pennsylvania Sea Grant
Purple Martin Conservation Association
Pymatuning Trail Blazers Snowmobile Club
Richard King Mellon Foundation
Slippery Rock Watershed Coalition
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Venango Land Trust
VisitErie
VisitPittsburgh
Wiegel on the Water
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Workhorse Transport & Outfitters
146