HISTORY

Our story actually begins with the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western (DL&W) Railroad Company. Formally established through the consolidation of several smaller rail lines in 1853, the company connected northeastern Pennsylvania to New Jersey, New York City, and upstate New York. Its main purpose: transporting coal from the anthracite coal region to other markets. For decades, the DL&W conducted mining and transportation operations concurrently. This led to accusations of monopolistic practices, and in 1914 the United States Government filed suit against the DL&W for antitrust violations. Although the initial suit was dismissed, lawsuits against the DL&W continued. By 1921, the DL&W divested itself of its anthracite mining arm. Those operations came to be known as the Glen Alden Coal Company, often known as the largest producer of anthracite coal in the world. Over the years, the company made numerous acquisitions, becoming a massive conglomerate. In 1955, it reorganized as the Glen Alden Corporation, which, in addition to its coal division, held interests in leather goods, automotives, building materials, textiles, and even the famous chain of RKO theaters.

Glen Alden’s shift into consumer goods made the divestment of its mining operations a logical step. In 1966, the coal division was sold to the Blue Coal Corporation for around $10 million. It was stated the company was a “completely independent firm.”tGlen Alden Sells Coal Holdings to New Firm for over $10 million, Times Leader, February 19, 1966 However, little about the company changed. Leadership, production, and distribution generally remained the same.

Why Blue Coal? By the 1930s, Glen Alden had added a blue wash to its coal. Easily distinguishable from its competitors, the tint spawned slogans like “Don’t buy blind” and “The blue means quality.” Blue Coal was touted as “The world’s finest anthracite.” In addition to extensive advertising through its distributors, Blue Coal produced and sponsored several popular radio programs like the Blue Coal Minstrels, the Blue Coal Radio Revue, and, most famously, The Shadow. It made sense for the “new” corporation to take advantage of the already well-established brand.

Anthracite mining in the Wyoming Valley peaked by 1920. While there was a brief increase during World War II, afterwards, sales continued to decline. Natural gas was rising in popularity, with many homes and businesses converting to it. In 1959, the Knox mine disaster – in which the Susquehanna River broke through its bed near Pittston – flooded the underground mines throughout the valley. Pumping out the mine water, especially for the coal companies where operations were already dwindling, was cost prohibitive. Strip mining did continue. Still, the numbers employed were thousands less than in previous years. In the early 1930s, Glen Alden had employed 34,000.tInglis Announces Coal Merger Terms, Wilkes-Barre Record, September 25, 1929 By World War II, the number had fallen to 12,000.tThe Glen Alden Story, Bigler, 1958 Only 2,000 were employed when Blue Coal took over in 1966.tGlen Alden Sells Coal Holdings to New Firm for over $10 Million, Times Leader, February 19, 1966

In November 1973, the Great American Coal Company, led by James Durkin, Sr., purchased 10 area coal companies, including Blue Coal. The holdings, purchased for $33.8 million, totaled about 30,000 acres across six counties. Through the purchase, it was reported that coal production would increase fourfold and that a “major employment initiative” would occur.tAnthracite Mining May Aid 'Valley', The Evening Sun, November 28, 1973 In the two years that followed, however, that promise failed to hold true.

In truth, Great American never made a serious attempt to revive Blue Coal’s mining operations. Work at the collieries was slow and sporadic. In some instances, operations were shut down entirely. By June 1974, Durkin announced he was getting out of the coal business, instead leasing his properties to independent contractors.tDurkin Giving Up Coal Holdings; Production Drop Expected, Times Tribune, June 4, 1974 This sentiment was echoed in an interview with his son, who disclosed, “it was never his father’s intent to get into coal mining.”tStrip Mine Backfilling Pact Reached, Times Leader, August 14, 1974 In the ensuing months, rumormongering was constant amidst a backdrop of strikes, fines, tax evasion, and unpaid debts. Moreover, the company’s large footprint paired with its slowdown in production brought accusations of anti-trust violations and price gouging. The Department of Environmental Resources became increasingly vocal about the company’s failure to backfill strip mines and flout court orders. To top it off, lessees were found to be selling substandard coal products.

In July 1975, Great American was purchased by Hyman Green, a real estate mogul from New York City. It was then discovered that, in fact, he had owned 50% of the company since the beginning. Green had an extensive history with the Teamsters and was considered an “old-time associate” of James “Jimmy” Hoffa.tDurkin Loses Control of Great American Coal Co., Times Leader, July 30, 1975 By November 1976, six coal companies, including Blue Coal, were indicted by the US Justice Department for price fixing. Entities ranging from the Philadelphia School District to the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed additional suits. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives also opened an investigation into the matter, with the resolution to form the committee passing the chamber 194-0. On December 17, 1976, Blue Coal was forced into bankruptcy by its creditors, through a filing by Wilkes-Barre Attorney John Doran.

The 1976 bankruptcy of the Blue Coal Corporation triggered a wave of lawsuits, the first filed in February 1977. Claims for breach of contract were estimated to total $40 to $45 million. Over $10 million was owed in unpaid state and federal taxes. In January 1979, Scranton attorney James J. Haggerty was appointed trustee of the Blue Coal Corporation. Tasked with overseeing the bankruptcy process, Haggerty managed asset sales, distributed funds to creditors, and ensured compliance with legal requirements. Notably, he also pursued legal action against former Blue Coal officials and associates, including James Durkin, alleging conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. John Doran served as a key member of the Blue Coal legal team.

The bankruptcy process was not smooth. First, Blue Coal, under Haggerty’s guidance, had to demonstrate the initial sale of property to the Great American Coal Company and related transactions were fraudulent. This involved untangling a complex web of loans, stock purchases, mortgages, and improper sales. In November 1982, the first of three cases was presented to the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That trial alone involved 68 days of testimony, more than 2,000 exhibits, and nearly 10,000 pages of transcripts.tDecision in Blue Coal Case Still Weeks Away, Times Leader, March 21, 1983 In September 1983, Judge Malcolm Muir ruled in Blue Coal’s favor and voided the original sale. This decision became final in April 1984. As the land was now free and clear, Blue Coal attorney Robert Nowalis declared, “We are now in the real estate business.”tBlue Coal Ruling Frees for Sale Some 30,000 Acres, Times Tribune, April 12, 1984 A prospectus was prepared to sell the vast Blue Coal acreage, with parcels available from Laflin to Mocanaqua. However, legal challenges persisted. In 1985, two companies impacted by Judge Muir’s ruling filed petitions contesting his decision. They sought to reorganize Blue Coal under bankruptcy laws, which halted any sales. Muir stood by his decision. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately affirmed the ruling in June 1987.

Around this time, Haggerty had been appointed as Secretary of the Commonwealth by Governor Robert P. Casey. Scranton attorney Frank McDonnell was tapped as Blue Coal’s new trustee. Just before his arrival, a potential buyer for the Blue Coal lands emerged: GA Resources, a Wilkes-Barre firm, offered $21 million. Touted as one of the largest land transactions in Pennsylvania history, the deal faltered over time and collapsed in 1988. A second deal surfaced in 1989. The Kingston-based Energy Recycling Group (ERG), a consortium of 36 investors, offered $18 million for the property. Although the sale was approved by the bankruptcy judge, ERG also failed to secure financing.

With the unsuccessful sale to ERG, Blue Coal shifted to a piecemeal liquidation of its holdings. In 1991, the company made small payments on its back taxes and managed to sell a single 320-acre parcel. A new headline appeared, however, in early 1992. Newspapers teased of a coming announcement by US Representative Paul Kanjorski regarding the Blue Coal lands, one he proclaimed to be “the most important announcement in the past 20 years.”tKanjorski Mum on Blue Coal Bombshell, Times Leader, January 11, 1992 Early reports spoke of a major initiative “for ecological and environmental research-and-development projects,” potentially encompassing water jets, artificial wetlands, and even a highway.tKanjorski to Announce Blue Coal Plans, Times Leader, January 10, 1992 The Regional Equipment Center, another Kanjorski-backed project, would also be involved. Funding for the project was to be secured through an appropriation in the US Department of Defense’s National Defense Authorization Act.

On January 14, 1992, Kanjorski held a press conference at the former offices of the Blue Coal Corporation in Ashley. Standing in front of the crowd of about 100 local officials and business leaders, Kanjorski detailed his plans for the newly formed Earth Conservancy. The first goal of the project was to purchase the Blue Coal lands. The second was to establish the Applied Research Center. The enterprise – a collaboration among Wilkes University, King’s College, and the University of Missouri-Rolla – would use the environmentally-damaged properties as a laboratory to develop promising technologies for recycling and reclamation. The land, once repaired, could be used for future development. Back taxes and outstanding debts would be paid. Through Earth Conservancy, Kanjorski contended, “[w]e’ll recycle our past for a better future.”tGrant Would Help Reclaim Blue Coal Land, Standard Speaker, January 15, 1992 It was an “experiment,” Kanjorski would later come to say, one that would not only better northeastern Pennsylvania, but also create a national model where “old coal lands could be turned into reproductive, environmentally clean, economically valuable resources.”

During an interview, Kanjorski recalled his daily commute as a young lawyer, travelling from Nanticoke to Wilkes-Barre through the barren coal lands. “It disturbed me,” he said, “to see them laying fallow and with little promise because nothing was being done.” His election to the US House of Representative in 1984 provided him with a new platform to address the issue. From the start, he began strategizing for the land’s revival, recognizing ownership was key. A meeting with executives from Waste Management in Philadelphia intensified his efforts. They too were eyeing the Blue Coal lands. But landfills were not what Kanjorski envisioned for the region’s future. He began approaching various entities to move forward with a land purchase. He spoke with the Luzerne County commissioners, met with US Judge Max Rosenn and Rev. Dr. Wallace F. Stettler about starting a nonprofit, and instigated negotiations between the Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce and the Blue Coal trustee. All these cases faced one primary obstruction: Just like with previous attempts to acquire the lands, financing could not be secured.

In 1991, Kanjorski approached Dr. Christopher Breiseth, President of Wilkes University. Kanjorski continued to favor the idea of starting a nonprofit organization to oversee the revitalization of the Blue Coal property. He now added a focus on emerging technologies, specifically high-powered water jets, which stemmed from conversations with US Representative Bill Emerson. A Republican from Missouri. Emerson and Kanjorski had been friends since serving together in the US Senate Page Program. Each had an engineering school in his district, and creating a “laboratory” on the abandoned mine lands offered a unique opportunity to collaborate. Breiseth conferred with university leadership and also discussed Kanjorski’s proposal with faculty. It was agreed that Wilkes would participate. With the initial parties on board, Earth Conservancy’s articles of incorporation were finalized in November 1991.

During development of the budget for fiscal year (FY) 1992 for the Department of Defense, a line item was included for a $20 million grant to a nonprofit organization to establish “an advanced applied technology demonstration facility for environmental technology.” But by December, the language of the bill had changed. Members of the Senate had opened the grant to institutions of higher education, removed language about anthracite coal, and added in stricter qualifications and cost sharing requirements. Always confident, Kanjorski was certain Earth Conservancy would be the recipient of the funds, and monies would be in hand in the next four to six months.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t. But the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 afforded Kanjorski more favorable conditions to secure a different earmark. Once again, during budgeting for the Department of Defense in late 1992, an appropriation of $20 million was included in the bill. This time, however, the line item was specifically designated as for Earth Conservancy. In March 1993, the $20 million grant was officially awarded, with $14 million allocated for launching the organization, including purchase of the land. The remaining $6 million would fund the proposed research initiatives. There was hope the original $20 million grant – now down to $19.3 million – would also come through. However, in May 1993, it was awarded to Rice University in Texas.

When Kanjorski approached Breiseth, it wasn’t just to ask for Wilkes University’s involvement. Kanjorski wanted him to chair the Earth Conservancy board. By December, a working group had been established. In addition to Breiseth, there were two other members: Paul’s brother, Attorney Peter A. Kanjorski; and Joseph Yudichak, a trusted friend of Kanjorski’s and head of the 11th District Regional Equipment Center.

Kanjorski’s announcement regarding Earth Conservancy came on January 14, 1992. Four days later, on January 18, 1992, the organization held its inaugural board meeting at Wilkes. Additional members to the board included James Manley, a Marine veteran and accomplished investment executive; Herbert Nash, Jr., a Navy veteran and vice-president of PP&L’s central division; Harold Rose, Jr., an Army veteran, former banker, and real estate investor; Susan Shoval, co-founder of GUARD Insurance; Harold Snowdon, a local businessman and community leader; and Eleanor Winsor, president of a mediation firm with expertise in environmental matters. Reverend James Lackenmeier, president of King’s College, was also on the board. Breiseth’s agreement to chair Earth Conservancy had hinged upon Lackenmeier’s inclusion.

The group, however, recognized additional members were required. Breiseth recalls wanting a board that was both “broad and deep.” While Kanjorski offered recommendations – “great people […], wonderful people,” Breiseth notes – both he and Lackenmeier emphasized the importance of strong local representation, including some who didn’t align politically with Kanjorski. Breiseth felt a deep sense of responsibility, reflecting, “I wanted a board that was so well-positioned, it would create a foundation to resist the negative press” and the growing doubts about the organization. By February, a list of 82 names as potential board members had been drafted.

But before reaching out to prospective members, several within the existing group pushed for Earth Conservancy to formally clarify its objectives. Even among themselves, there was uncertainty about what the fledgling organization wanted to achieve and, more importantly, how it would be done. Articulating a mission with strategies and measurable goals and objectives was imperative. In the March board meeting, Earth Conservancy’s mission statement was approved:

The Earth Conservancy is a nonprofit institution to solve the human and environmental problems by developing creative, institutional, scientific, and technical mechanisms taking the risk to experiment and find new answers and thereby improve the quality of life in northeastern Pennsylvania initially and ultimately have applicability in similar situations through the United States and the world.

Still to be answered was who would serve as Earth Conservancy’s chief executive officer. Within a month of the January press event, unsolicited applications for the position began to arrive in the mail. Initially, Wilkes University took on administrative duties. Alongside Breiseth, Paul O’Hop, Wilkes’s Vice-President of Business Affairs & Auxiliary Enterprises, played a significant role in guiding the organization’s establishment. It was clear, however, a CEO was necessary. Early drafts of the job description listed a wide range of requisite skills, including staff acquisition, public relations, fiscal management, grant writing, and administration, as well as the ability to coordinate with the Wilkes research team.

Harold Rose, Jr., vice-president of the Board of Directors, volunteered to serve as the part-time, interim CEO. He was soon joined by James O’Karma, who brought experience from the Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center where he directed marketing and development, as well as from the City of Wilkes-Barre’s Office of Community and Economic Development. For months, the two worked without compensation. When funding became available in July 1993, they were formally hired: Rose as CEO with a monthly salary of $2,500, and O’Karma, as Executive Administrator, earning $48,000 annually.

Despite his part-time status, Rose worked nearly full-time for the Conservancy. He stepped down from the CEO role in April 1994, although continued to serve on the board. This coincided with an advertisement for the CEO position in newspapers across northeastern Pennsylvania and in Harrisburg and Allentown. With a starting salary of $70,000, the posting sought a seasoned corporate executive with a master’s degree and a proven track-record in management, finance, economic development, contracts, and policy. The hope was that the person would also have local ties. But it was the special skills wanted that distinguished the listing. In addition to “superb interpersonal and organizational skills,” the ideal candidate would possess “a consensus-building leadership style, tenacity and enthusiasm, entrepreneurial talent, and political sensitivity.” As Karen Feather, Kanjorski’s chief of staff recalled, “If we hadn’t had the right CEO, this could have been a disaster.” Over sixty applicants vied for the position, with a search committee – comprised of Breiseth, Rose, Shoval, Snowdon, and Stephen Barrouk – narrowing the field to five for interviews. By the end of May, two candidates remained. Both were interviewed by the full board and Congressman Kanjorski. On June 15, 1994, Michael A. Dziak was named CEO.

Born and raised in Exeter, Pennsylvania, Dziak served four years with the US Navy before pursuing a degree at Wilkes University in commerce and finance, with a minor in engineering. Balancing part-time work with his studies, he graduated in 1967. It was a time, he recalled, where there were jobs to be had – just not locally. He consequently moved to Binghamton, New York, for a position at IBM. Over the next 27 years, Dziak rose through the ranks, ultimately managing a technology development and manufacturing division with 800 employees and a $5 million budget, overseeing operations both in the US and abroad.

Having retired from IBM, Dziak recollected thinking at the time, “It would be nice to do something different.” By chance, a classmate from Wilkes had sent the Earth Conservancy job announcement to him. Dziak and his wife, Rachael, owned a summer home at Harvey’s Lake; they already had been contemplating a return to the area. Landing the CEO post cemented their decision. Things moved quickly after his hire. On his third day, he and Breiseth held a press conference, fielding a barrage of questions, including rumors that toxic waste and nuclear weapons coming to the Earth Conservancy lands. At the same time, he and Snowdon began a month-long, high-stakes mission to secure $1 million in loans from community members and businesses for the fast-approaching land purchase. The minimum amount they would accept was $50,000. They cautioned there was no guarantee of repayment.

Helming Earth Conservancy was unquestionably a challenge, especially early on with the organization facing widespread cynicism and distrust. But as Steve Barrouk, president of the Greater Wilkes-Barre Partnership and an early board member, observed, “Dziak came in as a tough corporate guy.” His negotiating skills were outstanding, and, through his handling of timber, culm, silt, and land sales, he not only managed to keep the organization afloat, but also repay the $1 million in loans. Moreover, he excelled in developing relationships with federal and state agencies, leading to several grants and bolstering Earth Conservancy’s reputation. “We…started to build this confidence that we’re going to do something, and when we said we were going to do it, we’d deliver,” Dziak remarked.

Still, times were usually lean. At one point, pay cuts were required and the staff was reduced. Yet the organization persisted, Dziak reflecting, “Fortunately, through good management – our finance manager [John Renfer] and the staff that was here – everybody said, ‘Hey, we want to do this. We’re going to stay.’” Shoval praised Dziak’s determination, commenting, “I think Mike was turned down ten times for every request he made, but eventually, in the vast majority of cases, he prevailed.” She added, “He was a master of pulling rabbits out of hats.” She also commended his fortitude: “Mike was really good about sticking with the vision and resisting a lot of pressure from people who were used to throwing their weight around to get what they wanted.”

Reflecting on Earth Conservancy’s history, Congressman Kanjorski observed, “By good fortune, we had the right people, in the right place, at the right time.” Critical contributions came from all levels. Kanjorski highlighted the relationships he built with his Washington colleagues, such as Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, Congressman John Murtha, and President Bill Clinton. Breiseth, in turn, praised Congressman Kanjorski as “one of the most extraordinary people I’ve ever known,” particularly in his ability to creatively conceptualize information and then translate it into policy. He also commended Dziak for “leading brilliantly.” “He had just the right practical understanding…. He was sophisticated technologically. He was tough as nails politically…. He had the kind of gravitas that was necessary,” Breiseth said. He credited the dynamic between Kanjorski and Dziak – often at odds – with “pushing the thing into high gear.” Breiseth also acknowledged his own role. As the initial leader and chair, it was he who gave the organization form, cultivating the board and tempering Kanjorski’s inspired initiatives with the practicalities of stewarding 17,000 acres of land.

Regarding the Earth Conservancy project, Karen Feather candidly noted, “It was not an easy path, and I have a hard time fully expressing how difficult it was.” The key, she contended, was getting people to suspend their normal skepticism, and then to deliver what was promised. Fortuitously, those who were involved at the beginning embraced the role. They were competent, engaged, dedicated, and believed strongly in the potential of the Wyoming Valley. “We really were dedicated to good things happening,” remarked Rhea Simms, another early board member. Inevitably, disagreements arose, with Breiseth remembering long meetings and occasionally heated debates. However, when faced with adversity, “Everybody stood up for what they believed in the project,” asserted Barrouk. “If any of these people would have backed out,” he continued, “I think it would have cost the project. Everybody stood steady and worked real hard.”

Earth Conservancy’s plan was ambitious. The proposal submitted to the US Department of Defense envisioned “a new type of American institution where the public and private sectors form a partnership to solve local and national problems, create exciting new economic opportunities, and reestablish environmental integrity.” Of the $20 million awarded, $6 million would go to research activities.

First to be established was the Applied Research Center (ARC). With its own board of directors, ARC represented a consortium of faculty from Wilkes University, the University of Missouri-Rolla, and King’s College, tasked with commercializing new, research-based strategies to solve environmental and energy-related challenges. Their laboratory? The Blue Coal lands. Headed by Dr. Umid Nejib from Wilkes, three distinct initiatives would use the mine-scarred property for technology development. They included:

• SESLU, the System for Environmental Survey & Land Use, which aimed to develop a computer model using satellite data, remote sensing imagery, and geographic information systems to evaluate large, environmentally-damaged sites and plan for their restoration and future reuse;
• ROW, the Recycling Operations with Waterjet project, which focused on expanding the use of high-pressure waterjet technology already developed at the University of Missouri-Rolla. Potential applications included recycling tires, cleaning military munitions, and even future mining of anthracite coal; and
• REES, the Remediation of Environmentally Exploited Sites project, which would test experimental technologies to clean up the Blue Coal lands. With REES, the Regional Equipment Center (REC) would play an integral role. Established in 1989 by Congressman Kanjorski, the REC received surplus heavy machinery – bulldozers, tractors, backhoes, etc. – from the US Department of Defense. It then functioned as “lending library,” provided equipment and construction services to local municipalities and nonprofits at discounted rates. With Earth Conservancy, REC would become the primary contractor for any earthmoving work.

Additional grants were awarded to Earth Conservancy from the US Environmental Protection Agency to support a demonstration wetlands project, which would evaluate different methods to treat acid mine drainage.

Promising approaches from each initiative would be handed over to ARC for further development. The intent was to bring the technology to market, while also benefiting the local environment and the US Department of Defense through broader applications. It was through the sale of restored land the commercialization of its technologies that Earth Conservancy envisioned achieving self-sufficiency. When that milestone was reached, the Northeastern Pennsylvania Future Foundation would be established. Proceeds from Earth Conservancy would go to support long-term environmental and economic projects within local communities.

For fiscal year 1994, the House of Representatives recommended a $40 million allocation to Earth Conservancy to support its continued work with the Department of Defense. The US Senate offered no funding. Through negotiations, a compromise of $10 million was reached. However, this effort ultimately proved unsuccessful. The Department of Defense deemed Earth Conservancy’s initiative duplicative of existing programs and declined to award the grant.

Of the $20 million appropriation to Earth Conservancy from the US Department of Defense, $14 million was earmarked to purchase the land and to set up an office space. The other $6 million was allocated to the Advanced Research Center at Wilkes University and its associated programs. Any other projects planned by Earth Conservancy would need separate funding. The Land Development Project, which aimed to “help plan and develop the land held by Earth Conservancy in the best long-term interests of the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania,” was one of those initiatives. Throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, the Earth Conservancy team referenced the project to prevent a piecemeal sale. As the exact footprint and condition of the Blue Coal lands were unknown, Earth Conservancy was uncertain as to which parcels would prove essential to its plans. A comprehensive analysis was needed.

Thus, in September 1994, after the land sale was completed, Earth Conservancy launched the Land Development Project. Two things happened concurrently: 1.) drafting a request for qualifications (RFQ) for a project consultant; and 2.) seeking funding to cover the estimated $625,000 project cost. Grant opportunities were pursued through the US Economic Development Agency (EDA), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and Luzerne County’s Department of Community Development. Earth Conservancy planned to contribute primarily through in-kind services. Surprisingly, however, the cash wasn’t the greatest concern for those involved. As Edward Schechter, the planning committee’s chair, observed, the most important element of the project was to “sell the plan to the community. The acceptance by the community is crucial to the true success of this plan.”

Schechter, hailing from New York City, came to Luzerne County in 1953. He quickly became a prominent figure in the area, known for successfully founding and leading several businesses and organizations. He had a reputation for his outstanding organizational skills, ability to build consensus, and deep sense of civic responsibility. At the first meeting of the Land Use Planning Committee, it was questioned why he was chosen as chair. Mike Dziak, Earth Conservancy’s president and CEO, reported that the board, following its by-laws, made the appointment. Schechter went a step further, elaborating on his educational, business, and community service background. A motion was made, seconded, and, without further discussion, unanimously approved for Schechter to chair the committee.

The planning committee started with 23 members, eventually growing to 38. They represented a range of perspectives, including the county and municipal governments; elected officials; and the planning, academic, infrastructure, environmental, and business sectors. In addition to their role on the main committee, individuals also contributed to specialized working groups, focusing on areas like consultant selection, transportation, or the environment. Although some board members of Earth Conservancy served on the committee, Schechter made it clear that the committee would function independently from the board. This autonomy was crucial. It valued the members’ expertise and experiences, encouraged diverse opinions, and underscored their vital role in tackling the monumental task ahead.

The inaugural meeting of the Land Use Planning Committee took place on January 12, 1995. After approving Schechter’s role, the next order of business was deciding whether meetings should be open to the public. Ever since Kanjorski’s press conference in January 1992, Earth Conservancy had been dogged by accusations of concealment and cronyism. Keeping these meetings closed – even with “very respected and trusted people” involved and a Citizens’ Advisory Committee in the works – deepened criticism.

In fact, Luzerne County refused to participate if the meetings were kept “under a shroud of secrecy,” as chief county clerk/administrator, Gene Klein, called it. He bluntly added, “That’s crap.”

Dziak initially contended the first meeting was for purely organizational purposes. Members needed to acquaint themselves and to devise a plan of action without the added pressure of an audience. But by the time of the meeting, Dziak reconsidered, recognizing it was a decision only the committee could make. Thus, following welcoming remarks and an overview of Earth Conservancy, Ed Schechter presented his case to open up the meetings. According to reporter Shannon McNulty, Schechter said, “Any land use plan the committee created behind closed doors would be useless. The committee’s work must be open for detailed discussion and responsive to the views of the public in order for it to be accepted and utilized by local governments.”

A motion to conduct all meetings in public unanimously passed. The audience, including reporters, numbered around 20.

By the February meeting, a draft advertisement for qualifications for a planning consultant was ready for review, and subsequently released in March. The response was impressive: 47 firms requested application materials; 21 submitted a preliminary proposal. The committee then narrowed the field to six, inviting each firm to prepare a full response to the RFQ. Four delivered public presentations in June. All were strong. Schechter, impressed by the quality, wrote in one of his regular memos to the planning committee, “Whichever consultant is finally selected, we are certain to receive experienced advise [sic] from well-known economists, transportation planners, civil, environmental, and mining engineers, and conservation experts.” He also was pleased with the inclusion of several local firms as subconsultants. By July, the final decision was made. EDAW of Alexandria, Virginia, was selected to lead the project.

But before the contract could be signed and work could begin, funding still needed to be secured. Early feedback on the grant applications was promising; however, formal awards had not been made. On August 9th, Earth Conservancy received notification from the EDA of a $150,000 award for the land use plan. This was followed on September 13, 1995, by a $350,000 grant from ARC. With the federal awards secure, Luzerne County’s Office of Community Development then released an additional $100,000 grant to the project on September 29th. Now with the funding in place, EDAW signed its agreement with Earth Conservancy on October 9, 1995. Two days later, the team officially launched the project, meeting with the Land Use Planning Committee and Earth Conservancy’s board of directors.

As mentioned earlier, the Land Use Planning Committee had opened its meetings to the public from the start. However, despite the intense interest in January, only two members of the public attended the February meeting. Neither advertisements nor articles succeeded in boosting attendance, including for meetings of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee. In September, Dziak indicated public apathy was one of the project’s biggest challenges, commenting, “The question is are people going to help us. It’s a two-way street.”

Fortunately, the trend did not hold for the first public program. Although a snowstorm postponed the meeting by a week, over 100 people showed up to participate in EDAW’s “visioning workshop” at Luzerne County Community College (LCCC) on November 21, 1995. During the workshop, attendees worked in small groups, analyzing the region’s assets and challenges, articulating wants and needs, and brainstorming future uses for the land.

In addition to work on the plan, meetings featured presentations on land use initiatives already underway. For example, one meeting explored the development of the demonstration wetlands in Hanover Township. Another highlighted the enrollment of over 9,000 acres into the PA Game Commission’s Forest-Game Cooperators Program. In mid-February, a day-long event was held where members of the EDAW team reported on national economic trends and local market conditions. This was followed by two moderated panels of local experts. One focused on industrial and business development in the region. The other discussed housing, retail, and recreational issues.

Based on stakeholder input received and extensive research, EDAW developed three distinct land use alternatives, which were unveiled to the public at a second workshop on March 28, 1996. Alternative A prioritized economic development, proposing five new employment centers along a newly-created business corridor. Alternative B was amenity-based, with investments in parks, historical sites, and commercial hubs to boost recreation and tourism. Alternative C’s theme was “revitalizing traditional communities” through a “sustainable village” concept. Growth depended on the specific needs – and aspirations – of each municipality. It also emphasized expansion of residential areas, incorporating a variety of housing options.

Approximately 60 people attended the meeting. Again, they were broken into smaller groups, this time tasked with evaluating the three proposed plans. According to newspaper reports, Alternative B garnered the most support, although many questioned its financial viability. Others asked whether attracting outside visitors was even desired. Alternative A received mixed reviews, with attendees challenging the need to devote so much land to industrial use. Alternative C was the least favored. The fear was that if left to the towns, development would progress too slowly, if at all, and without future goals in mind.

After the meeting, Schechter summarized his observations in a memo to the Land Use Planning Committee. His first comment: “Concept 3[C], much to my surprise, is dead.” He had expected the close-knit communities to favor preserving their independence, admitting, “I am happy to have been proven wrong.” Schechter recommended combining the best elements of Concepts A and B. But he cautioned the committee that future messaging was critical. The public needed to recognize the challenges – and realities – of such an ambitious project.

One item to clarify was the necessity of land sales. Converting all the property to greenspace would not create a tax base; nor would income from tourism generate the amount that land sales would. Money was essential to rehabilitating the mine-scarred landscape. Another crucial point was countering the misconception that the remaining coal, including culm, would be a money-making resource. It “does not have a golden core,” Schechter wrote. This was corroborated by a project subconsultant, who questioned the original $24.7 million appraisal. While the quantity of coal reserved might have been accurate, the amount recoverable was overestimated. The depth of the coal, its submersion under the mine pools, and the current market significantly lowered its value. Most importantly, Schechter addressed the project’s long-term duration. At the meeting, attendees questioned the need for new roads, rail lines, and other infrastructure. Schechter emphasized: “This plan has a 25-year time-frame; we are not planning for the population and activities of today, but for the future.” Demographics, needs, and uses would change over time. Phased development was required.

By mid-June, enough data had been compiled that Earth Conservancy officials embarked on a tour of the municipalities affected by the Land Use Plan. Their goal was to engage directly with each community. According to the Press Enterprise, which covered the first presentation in Conyngham Township, Earth Conservancy staff arrived with “armfuls of maps and charts,” ready to share information, answer questions, and listen to concerns.

This step was crucial to the overall planning process, ensuring stakeholder feedback was considered before final decisions were made. Moreover, as Dziak recalled, these meetings were instrumental in establishing positive communication channels with the communities.

The final draft of the plan was released for public review on September 11, 1996, during the first open meeting of Earth Conservancy’s Board of Directors – a fitting occasion for such an important milestone. Dziak noted it was the generally positive atmosphere of the open Land Use Planning Committee meetings that had influenced the board’s decision to open its own sessions to the public. The public was given 30 days to submit comments. On October 30th, the Land Use Planning Committee approved the report by a vote of 35 to 1. The lone dissenting vote opposed only the allocation of 45 acres in Nanticoke to LCCC. The final version of the Land Use Plan was officially adopted by Earth Conservancy’s Board of Directors on November 7, 1996.

Earth Conservancy’s Land Use Plan was the first comprehensive planning endeavor in Luzerne County since the 1970s. During a stakeholder meeting with the board, Congressman Paul Kanjorski emphasized its transformational potential: “We have the opportunity to do it right. It should be the most imaginative, well-thought-out plan and one that learns from other people’s mistakes.” In the end, over 30 meetings with staff, committees, and the public were conducted by the EDAW team. Thousands of hours were spent compiling and synthesizing geographic, demographic, economic, and anecdotal data. Ed Schechter considered the Land Use Plan one of his proudest accomplishments, says his daughter, Claire. Karen Feather, Kanjorski’s chief of staff, called it “a tremendous gift to northeastern Pennsylvania.” Moreover, once completed, the report was not simply filed away. As Dziak noted, “We – to this day – are still doing the things that the Land Use Plan recommended.”

The Land Use Plan laid a crucial foundation for future studies. Early on, one of the most important was the preparation of roadway concepts that would eventually become the South Valley Parkway, which connected vast tracts of mine-scarred land to the highway system. A second study focused on a proposed co-generation plant in Newport Township by Foster-Wheeler, although it ultimately did not progress. Another plan developed out of a two-week summer internship program run by EDAW with eleven US and international college and graduate students. Interestingly, their plan for the Blue Coal lands centered on the individual communities, believing growth should develop from what was “familiar” and in response to the culture and needs of each small town.

And lastly, spurred by the Land Use Plan’s goal to conserve 10,000 acres, efforts started to envision regional opportunities for recreation and green space. In fact, at the same board meeting that the Land Use Plan was approved, Earth Conservancy’s Director of Public Affairs, Liz Ortega, reported that members of the environmental and recreation sectors were already showing strong support. Earth Conservancy’s Open Space Master Plan was completed in 1998.

Earth Conservancy was awarded its first PA Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence for the Land Use Plan in 1998.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

<img style="float: right;" width="400" src="" />