By Anne Marie Toccket

An estimated 70 outspoken community members gathered at a public meeting Nov. 20 to voice their opinions about the most recent developments in the Spring Creek Canyon planning process. They received few answers to their questions.

The meeting took place at the Christ Community Church, a nondescript building off of Benner Pike, hunkered down behind warehouses and retailers. It was facilitated by A.J. Schwartz, of Environmental Planning & Design, the consulting firm hired by Benner Township to develop a master plan funded by the township plus the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), Penn State University and Don Hamer through the Hamer Foundation.

The public sat patiently through a 45 minutes presentation containing vague language about goals, objectives, principles and recommendations for the canyon’s future. The presentation also listed key members of the process’s steering committee, including Benner Township, Penn State, ClearWater Conservancy and the DCNR.

The meeting heated up when Schwartz opened the floor for questions.

“If the canyon is such a unique and precious resource, why aren’t we handing it over to DCNR?” asked one attendee. “Why are we trusting a collection of groups that have no experience with this kind of thing?”

The DCNR representative said the state doesn’t have the capacity or financial resources to manage the land. DCNR currently oversees 24 million acres in Pennsylvania. The land in question is 1,800 acres.

Officials from another state agency, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, have stated publicly that they were willing to pay $1,800 per acre, or twice the price Penn State is offering for 900 acres of the land. The game commission became interested in the land after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service informed the agency that 950 acres of its land next to Toftrees had been adversely affected due to Penn State’s spraying of treated waste water, according to a June 2007 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club.

The game commission was not invited to help fund the management plan, according to a Voices article published in April 2008. It backed off of its interest in the land once Penn State stated its intention to purchase the land, according to letter from the commission to Rep. Babette Josephs (D-182nd) in June 2008.

Benner Township Supervisor John Elnitski objected to turning the land over to the state, saying that the DCNR has harmed conservation areas in the past. Penn State, he said, came to the township with a plan in hand and is ready to implement it and nobody else has been able to offer concrete plans. Other residents questioned the motivation and specifics of Penn State’s plan, as well as the timing for approaching Benner Township just as their agricultural lands are being exhausted. A Voices examination of the agreement between Benner Township and Penn State turned up a clause that gives the university the right to spread manure on the land at a time when that process is increasing nitrate levels on its current property. Nitrate-laden run off from such fields can leach into surface and groundwater and interfere with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen. According to the Environmental Protection Agency excessive levels of nitrate in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome, which is a condition that can lead to serious illness and sometimes even death in infants. Several studies have suggested that chronic high levels of nitrates may cause cancer. High nitrate levels in water and feed can also lead to increased stillbirth, low birth weight and slow weight gain in livestock.

“The Township agrees to properly zone the University parcel in order that the University can utilize the University parcel for the purposes of normal agricultural operations as defined in Act No. 38 of 2005, P.L. 112,” the agreement states, “and for agricultural industrial, teaching, extension and research uses.”

Act No. 38 of 2005 relates solely to animal manure spreading regulations.

Penn State officials have repeatedly stated that the university has no plans to develop the land and only wants to use it for agricultural research. ClearWater Conservancy officials point to the permanent easement they would negotiate to protect the land from development as well. When asked about the manure spreading, officials put off answers until February.

As for the DCNR’s role, Schwartz said the agency will provide recommendations to the stakeholders as they develop and implement the master plan, but will not actively oversee the process.

As community members bombarded Schwartz and other officials with questions about the specific uses of the land, what protections an easement would include, what it would cost to maintain an easement, or if Penn State really is destined to control it in the future, his responses were limited to saying he didn’t know or telling the audience to wait until February to find out more.

Schwartz repeatedly emphasized that the planning process is just getting off the ground, and that the “broad goals and objectives” are still being nailed down. More specific questions and answers will have to wait until later, when public input, as well as that of steering committee entities, can be taken into account.

Just how much later, a few people wondered aloud.

The next general public meeting is scheduled for February, though no exact date has been named.

The presentation and FAQs are available at www.canyonplanning.com.