Budget process starting NOW
The Executive Office of Energy and Environment (EOEEA) will hold a hearing to allow interested parties to provide their comments as part of our Fiscal Year 2009 recommendation process.
Written comment is encouraged prior to the hearing. Interested parties may also submit written comments at the hearing or through the close of business on September 10, 2007. Please address them to:
Ian A. Bowles, Secretary
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA02114
ATTENTION: FY 09 Budget
For those attending the hearing please be sure to bring a picture I.D. in order to pass through the building security.
BEAT suggests we should be aksing for:
- funding for a dramatic increase in Environmental Police in the Berkshires to decrease illegal habitat destruction by ATVs and jet skis
- Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program should NOT pay overhead, and indeed should receive $1,000,000 in state funding to be used, in part, as matching funds for applying for a federal State Wildlife Action Grant to help implement our Wildlife Action Plan (Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy)
- Making the DEP Circuit Rider Program a part of the budget so these hard working people have permanent jobs with benefits
- $600,000 for the Riverways Program – one of the most cost effective programs the state has
Jan Reitsma Appointed Executive Director of John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission and
Superintendent of Roger Williams National Memorial
Jan Reitsma has been named the Executive Director of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the Roger Williams National Memorial in Providence, Rhode Island. He will enter on duty on September 2, 2007. Acting Executive Director Thomas E. Ross will return to his position as Deputy Superintendent for the Corridor and Roger Williams.
The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was designated by Congress in 1986 to commemorate the region’s place in history as the birthplace of the American industrial revolution. It encompasses 24 communities between Worcester, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island along the 46-mile Blackstone River.
"The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a model for heritage corridor development," said John Latschar, Acting Regional Director for the National Park Service Northeast Region. "We sought a director with strong skills in partnership development and strategic planning. Jan also understands the Corridor’s tradition of success."
Reitsma has had a successful career in public service and environmental protection. He served as Assistant Secretary, Environmental Impact Review, and served as Undersecretary for Policy and Programs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). He was the Director of Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), an organization of more than 500 employees with an operating budget of $75 million.
In his capacity as RIDEM Director, Reitsma was an active Corridor Commissioner. "Jan was valued for his hands-on approach and leadership." said Commission Chairman Edward F. Sanderson. "He brings the skills we need to lead the Corridor into the future."
"It is a privilege to serve as the next Executive Director to the Commission at this time in the Corridor’s development," Reitsma stated. "My work in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and with the Heritage Corridor has made it clear to me that work of the Commission, the National Park Service staff, and corridor partners have been the catalyst for considerable collaboration, vision, and tangible results in preserving the resources and heritage of this region. I look forward to continuing the tradition of bi-state collaboration and partnerships during my tenure."
Recently, Reitsma has worked as a consultant on environmental issues, specializing in brokering collaboration among government, industry, academia, and grass roots organizations. He also served as adjunct lecturer at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies. He has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate from Northeastern University School of Law. He enjoys sailing and other outdoor activities. Reitsma resides with his family in Barrington, RI.
From the Massachusetts Environmental Collaborative – August 22, 2007
End of an era As most of you know, our fearless leader, Jim Gomes, is leaving ELM.
His last day in the office will be August 31st. Jim has served as President of the organization for more than 14 years and we will miss him terribly. Jim’s combination of political savvy, policy depth, sense of timing, ability to collaborate and foster and maintain relationships has served not only ELM well, but the environmental community as a whole. It is fair to say that key environmental accomplishments during the past decade are a result of Jim’s talents and skills. From the Massachusetts Environmental Collaborative to the Mass. League of Environmental Voters to the Mass. Smart Growth Alliance, Jim leaves a legacy of working to broaden and strengthen our influence. From a strong Community Preservation Act, a focus on adequate funding for the environmental agencies, and a robust effort to reduce toxic chemicals in the state, we see the results of Jim’s work. We could go on, but we will have ample time to laud Jim and his accomplishments and to celebrate his tenure at ELM at several upcoming events, so stay posted.
Jim is looking forward to the next chapter in his professional career and is actively pursuing a number of interesting possibilities. We will, of course, let you know once he accepts a new position. In terms of finding a new President for ELM, a transition committee of the Board and staff has been active and is in the process of interviewing candidates with a hope that we will have someone new at the helm this fall.
We wish Jim all the best and thank him for everything he has done for ELM and for the Massachusetts environment. ___________________________________________________________________
Boston Globe- "A limit on environmental appeals Rules would restrict residents’ power"
By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent – August 19, 2007
Local environmentalists say rules changes proposed by state regulators would cut ordinary citizens out of the democratic process and leave the environment vulnerable to ill-considered development projects.
They point to cases where citizen involvement has made a crucial difference in heading off developments, such as a plan to build houses on wetlands adjacent to Silver Lake in Kingston. The environmentally sensitive area ultimately became the Silver Lake Sanctuary, after residents appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection under the state’s Wetlands Protection Act.
The Department of Environmental Protection last month proposed changes intended to speed up environmental decisions that leave developers hanging for two years or more and imperil financing for worthwhile projects. The new rules would eliminate the right of any 10 residents of a community to appeal a DEP decision to the department’s administrative law division for a hearing before an administrative law judge. But state officials say the new rules would retain essential protections.
"There are many ways to participate short of an appeal," said spokesman Bob Keough of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
Acting on a directive from Governor Deval Patrick to make the wetlands appeals process more efficient, the DEP has proposed to limit who can appeal, require parties to present their evidence early in the proceedings, and set a six-month deadline for the appeal to be resolved.
State officials point to Hoosac Wind, a proposed wind farm in the Berkshires, as a project hung up for three years after a permit was successfully appealed to the department’s administrative division. The decision was overruled by the department’s commissioner and then taken to court by local petitioners.
Although the number of appeals has not been overwhelming in recent years — 13 so far this year, only four last year — wetlands appeals have been used for "other than environmental grounds," Keough said, such as the desire not have a project built in the petitioners’ backyard.
But advocates say the rules changes would have a chilling effect on civic participation by ordinary citizens.
"The changes would eliminate an important part of environmental protection," said Mettie Whipple, president of the Plymouth-based Eel River Watershed Association.
The right to appeal lends weight to issues raised by residents, who are often more knowledgeable about local terrain than regulators and developers, environmentalists say. The potential for an appeal may cause parties to make changes or accept conditions proposed by folks "on the ground."
"The process makes everybody come to the table and say what the issues are and what the facts are," said Tom Palmer, president of the Friends of the Blue Hills.
The proposed rules would restrict the right of appeal to residents who can show they would be "personally harmed" by a project, said Deidre Menoyo, a former DEP assistant commissioner who opposes the change. Demonstrating harm to the environment would no longer be enough. "It’s a hard standard," Menoyo said. The old rules allowed residents who could gather at least 10 signatures on a petition to file an appeal.
Opponents say the change runs counter to the Wetlands Protection Act, which refers to wetlands as "public resources." In the Silver Lake case, Menoyo said, citizen intervention protected an important public resource that provides part of Brockton’s water supply and became a 92-acre conservation area.
In another instance, the Friends of the Blue Hills four years ago backed a 10-citizen appeal of a proposal to fill a naturally vegetated area and build condos on the Quincy waterfront near Marina Bay. A DEP administrative judge stayed the project indefinitely, and the property was eventually purchased by Quincy for open space.
Appeals don’t always go the petitioners’ way. Two years ago the Friends of the Blue Hills appealed the DEP’s approval of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s draining of a reservoir in the Blue Hills Reservation, contending that the agency should require the replacement of the lost wetlands acres. The group won its appeal, but the decision was reversed by the DEP commissioner, permitting the MWRA to go forward.
Even then something good came out of the process, Palmer said. "People know what’s going on," he said.
A measure of the issue’s importance to the general public, say rules change opponents, is the nearly 500 comments on it posted to the governor’s website (devalpatrick.com). The issue is number three on the site’s "myissue" space, just behind marriage equality.
Keough said the strong public response is likely to cause at least one alteration in the proposed regulations before they go into effect (the final public hearing was held this month in Worcester). If adopted, he said, the new regulations will make it clear that groups such as regional watershed associations would still have standing to appeal DEP decisions — a right, he said, the new rules had never intended to question.
"We thought it was well-established in case law that established environmental organizations like watershed organizations would continue to have standing to file appeals," Keough said.
Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com.
C Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
_________________________________________________________________
Globe Editorial- "To spray or not to spray"
August 16, 2007
THE MASSACHUSETTS Highway Department has gone back and forth on whether to use herbicides to control roadside vegetation. It sprayed them in the 1990s, stopped until 2003, and then resumed using them that year. It should go on the wagon again.
The alternatives are to use nontoxic, organic herbicides and to remove plants by hand or with mowers or weed whackers. These options are the preference of the Massachusetts Coalition for Pesticide Reduction, which includes such groups as the Toxics Action Center and Environment Massachusetts. Twelve legislators have joined in opposing the spraying.
The core of the coalition’s argument is that humans and the environment at large are already exposed to enough harmful chemicals without additional ones from the highway department. The department says that it removes unwanted bushes and weeds manually or mechanically on the vast majority of the 48,200 acres it maintains but needs the herbicides for about 188 acres — less than half of 1 percent of the total — where manual removal is too hazardous to workers. Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky says that much of the vegetation removal is needed for safety reasons, to maintain drivers’ sight lines. She says the state takes all precautions to protect its workers from the chemicals.
Yet the country’s basic approach to toxic substances that have been in use for decades — innocent until proven guilty — makes more sense with defendants in courts than with chemicals in the environment. Except in the most obvious cases, like DDT or Agent Orange, conclusive guilt is difficult to prove. So the country’s farmlands, orchards, utility and railroad rights of way, and highways continue to be sprayed with chemicals.
There are indications, however, that their toxicity extends beyond the vegetation or insects they are intended to kill. Oust, one of the herbicides the state uses, has been shown to harm animal reproductive systems. Cornell University professor David Pimentel says the country loses 67 million birds each year to pesticide use on farmland alone.
The commissioner says the department does not spray near residential areas or wetlands. "We take extraordinary steps to limit the environmental impact," she says. And she suggests that the alternatives are not always sufficient. Scientists at the University of Massachusetts studying organic herbicides or steam applications as ways of controlling road vegetation have reported in a preliminary finding, she said, that such methods do not attack nuisance plants as systematically as commercial herbicides do. She also said the organic herbicides require more frequent applications than toxic herbicides.
Those disadvantages have to be weighed against the cost to the environment. The state should return to its old policy of controlling unwanted vegetation without herbicides.
C Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
__________________________________________________________________
This bulletin prepared by:
David L. DeKing
Vice President for Education and Collaboration
mailto:ddeking@environmentalleague.org
Bernard J McHugh
Citizen Education Coordinator
mailto:bmchugh@environmentalleague.org
Isabel T. Grantham
Research Assistant
mailto:igrantham@environmentalleague.org
Environmental League of Massachusetts
14 Beacon Street, Suite 714
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: 617-742-2553
Fax: 617-742-9656
Hi folks,
Since we seem to be in the midst of the 2007 low flow season, please keep your eyes open for any unusually low streams or rivers that you may encounter. Riverways would love to hear about them and receive photographs to help us update our Low Flow Inventory (see http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/programs/rifls/lowflow_inventory.htm for the data we had collected as of 2004). The date, time river name and town name along with any photos would be very helpful as well as whatever you know about what might be causing the situation. Good locations for photographs include riffles (rocky areas where flow is normally fastest) or well-defined channels, where it is easier to see how much aquatic habitat is available (i.e. how much of the stream bed is wet or dry and whether the water is moving or standing still). Feel free to email information and photos to myself (margaret.kearns@state.ma.us) or Alex Hackman (alex.hackman@state.ma.u) or Joanna Carey (Joanna.Carey@state.ma.us) who also work on the River Instream Flow program here at Riverways.
Thanks for your help!
Margaret Kearns
Watershed Ecologist, Riverways Program
251 Causeway St., Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 626-1533
COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA)
The peak of harvest season seems like a good time to announce that one of my goals for Pittsfield in the next two years is to have a CSA Farm established here. For the uninitiated, a CSA Farm is simply an arrangement where consumers can purchase a share of a farm’s harvest at the beginning of the growing season and then pick up freshly picked produce on a weekly basis.
The benefit to the consumer is a variety of fresh produce at a great value. The benefit to the farmer is having your crop sold before you plant it. The benefits to the community include boosting the local economy and preserving open landscapes.
Currently there are five CSA Farms in Berkshire County and the closest one to Pittsfield is the Garden at Holiday Farm in Dalton. I’m a member there and it’s a great CSA but it’s very small and it has a waiting list every year.
I think that Pittsfield could easily support a CSA Farm of its own, so I’m conducting a survey of interest to establish market demand and hopefully encourage local farmers to give it a try. (There’s an article on small farm diversification in yesterday’s Berkshire Eagle. 8/20/07)
So help me out. If you are a likely customer of a CSA in Pittsfield please click the link below and join the list. This does not commit you to anything and I will not share your information with anyone. I will only use it to contact you in the future or announce CSA opportunities in Pittsfield. Feel free to forward this email to your friends — the more names, the better!
CLICK HERE:
http://surveys. lsw.com/survey. php?UserID= 5
Thanks,
Mike Ward
City Councilor
Ward 4 Pittsfield, MA
ward4ward4.com
413-499-0462
MassHighway Planning to Spray Toxic Chemicals on Roadsides Across the State
During his first couple weeks, Environment Massachusetts’ new field organizer Winston has gotten right to work fighting toxic herbicides that the highway department is spraying along roads in 60 communities across the state. He’s done a great job so far, working with our coalition partners to get 12 legislators and the Boston Globe on our side, and now he’s asked me to pass a message along to you to enlist your help as well! Here’s what he has to say:
Before 2003, the state maintained the roadsides by removing vegetation with weed whackers and lawn mowers. Then, in 2003, MassHighway began using toxic chemicals to get rid of weeds — toxic chemicals that can run off into our water supply and which can present significant health hazards. There’s no need to expose these communities to dangerous chemicals when a lawnmower or a pair of hedge trimmers will do the trick.
Plans are in the works to begin using these toxic chemicals later this month, so we need to act quickly. We’ve asked the Secretary of Transportation and Construction Bernard Cohen to choose safer alternatives, and I’d like to ask you to do the same. Click below to sign our petition, and be sure to spread the word to your friends and family as well. https://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/action/healthy-massachusetts/herbicides?id4=ES
To read the Boston Globe editorial in support of safer alternatives, click here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/16/to_spray_or_not_to_spray/
…What kind of chemicals? What could happen to me or my kids if we are exposed to them? Are they going to be spraying in my backyard? Let me tell you the answers to those questions and more.
The chemicals that MassHighway is currently using or planning to use are Oust Extra and Accord Concentrate. The toxic ingredient in Accord Concentrate is Glyphosate, and it has been linked to such health risks as eye soreness, headaches and flu-like symptoms. Long term exposure could affect reproductive development and has shown an increase in pancreas and liver tumors in lab rats. Oust Extra has Sulfometuron Methyl which can cause blurred vision, reproductive issues and anemia.
MassHighway has plans to spray these chemicals in dozens of cities and towns across the state. Click on the link below to see a map of where spraying is happening or may happen, and you can click on the pins on each city to find out more about which roadsides are being sprayed. https://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/action/healthy-massachusetts/herbicides-map3?id4=ES
Please pass this information on to people you know who live in one of these cities or towns. To find out more about Glyphosate, click on the links below: http://data.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33138 http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidefactsheets/toxic/glyphosate.htm
From
Frank Gorke
Environment Massachusetts Director
FrankGorke@environmentmassachusetts.org http://www.environmentmassachusetts.org
New Guidance on Watershed Permitting
EPA has published a new technical guidance that will help integrate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits into watershed management plans. "Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting Technical Guidance" is a follow up to the 2003 implementation guidance and leads permitting interested parties through the analysis of watershed data and developing a framework for implementing an NPDES program.
"This guidance helps citizens and regulators accelerate watershed protection through more innovative and holistic permits and programs under the Clean Water Act," said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. "The detailed information and case studies provide a road map to cleaner and healthier watersheds."
The guidance supports approaches to permitting that may help target the watershed’s most pressing environmental needs. The approaches will help achieve water quality-based effluent limitations based on water quality standards while providing opportunities for cost reductions and improved efficiencies such as water quality trading. The guidance includes case studies describing how watershed approaches involving NPDES permitting have been implemented across the country. The agency is accepting comments on the guidance on a continuing basis. For an electronic copy of the guidance: www.epa.gov/npdes/watersheds
Bush Administration Mountaintop Mining Rule Called a Disgrace
Friends of the Earth disagrees with rule and rulemaking process, calls for congressional oversight
WASHINGTON – August 23 -Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder responded to the Bush administration’s planned mountaintop coal mining rule with the following statement:
“The Bush administration’s effort to sanction mountaintop mining is a disgrace. I’ve flown over mountains and seen firsthand the massive scale of the destruction where this mining has occurred. This type of mining blows mountains to pieces, destroys habitat, sends toxic runoff into streams and rivers, and causes hardship and adversity for the people who live nearby. And of course, coal has other problems. Turning away from coal would mean not only less destruction in our heartland but also more safety for our workers and less global warming, giving our planet a better chance of long-term survival. “In addition to disagreeing with the substance of the proposed rule, Friends of the Earth has concerns about the rulemaking process. According to press accounts, administration officials have said they are not likely to change the proposed rule in response to comments received during the 60-day period. This makes a mockery of the public comment process and violates basic legal principles. We are also concerned about the possibility that former Interior Department staffer J. Steven Griles, a convicted felon associated with Jack Abramoff, may have played an improper role in the rule’s formation. Congress should use its oversight authority to address these concerns.”
PROPOSED NEW REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Name & Citation of Regulation(s): The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): 310 CMR 7.70 (7.70), 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B (7), 310 CMR 7.29.
Brief Explanation and Rationale for Proposed Changes: Massachusetts is the first of 10 member states to issue rules for instituting a market-based mechanism for reducing emissions associated with global climate change. The new regulations address three separate areas:
- 310 CMR 7.70 (7.70) – This regulation will implement the Cap and Trade system to control emissions of CO2 from power plants in Massachusetts. This proposal is based on the Model Rule. MassDEP will auction nearly 100% of allowances. There will be a small set-aside for the exchange of certain unused GHG Credits. Allowances will be retired for voluntary renewable energy purchases. There will be an upper limit on this retirement of 200,000 CO2 allowances per year.
- 310 CMR 7.29 (7.29) – The existing regulation addressing CO2 emissions from six power plants in the Commonwealth will be modified and ultimately replaced by 7.70. Postpone and combine the 2007 and 2008 compliance demonstrations into one demonstration due by September 1, 2009.
- 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B(7) (B (7)) – The existing regulation addressing the creation of Greenhouse Gas Credits (GHG Credits) will be modified and ultimately replaced by 7.70.
Web Link to View Draft Regulations:
The draft regulations are posted at http://mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#co2trade and http://mass.gov/doer/RGGI.
Public Hearing Information:
Public hearings will be conducted to receive public comment, both oral and written, on the proposed regulations on the following dates:
Monday, Sept. 10, 2007, 6 p.m.
MassDEP–Northeast Regional Office
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, 6 p.m.
1st Floor Conference Room
MassDEP–Southeast Region Main Office
20 Riverside Drive
Lakeville, MA 02347
Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, 6 p.m.
Lesley Phillips Forum, Fine and Performing Arts Building (C Building)
Holyoke Community College
303 Homestead Avenue
Holyoke, MA 01040
Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m.
MassDEP
One Winter Street, 2nd Floor, Rooms A, B, and C
Boston, MA 02108
Written comment on the regulations will be accepted until 5 p.m. Monday, September 24.
MassDEP requests that written testimony regarding its proposed regulations be submitted electronically via e-mail (Word, WordPerfect, Rich Text, Plain Text or HTML formats preferred) to Nicholas.M.Bianco@state.ma.us, or by mail to Nicholas Bianco, MassDEP, One Winter Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. Copies of the MassDEP regulation, background document, and filed comments will be available for inspection during normal business hours at MassDEP, One Winter Street, Boston, MA. These documents will also be available at: http://mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#proposed.
For questions about MassDEP’s proposed regulations, please contact Bill Lamkin (978-694-3294, william.lamkin@state.ma.us) or Nicholas Bianco (617-292-5705, Nicholas.M.Bianco@state.ma.us).
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION GRANTS
FY08 Drinking Water Supply Protection Grant Program
Application Deadline: 3 p.m. Wednesday, September 5th, 2007
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, is pleased to issue the FY08 Request for Responses for the 2008 Drinking Water
Supply Protection Grant Program.
This grant program provides funding to public water systems and municipalities for land acquisitions that protect public drinking water supplies and drinking water quality. The direct recipient of a grant must be a municipality
or public water system authorized by the Commonwealth to provide water to the public. Eligible land
acquisitions include land located in existing drinking water supply areas. Land may be acquired through
purchase of fee
simple title, purchase of a conservation restriction, or purchase of a combination of fee simple title and conservation restriction(s).
The maximum grant award for a single project is $500,000. The maximum reimbursement amount available is 50% of the total project cost. This Request for Responses is being issued in anticipation of the availability of funding. Final grant awards are continent upon funding. There is no guarantee that monies will be awarded. Multiple contracts may be awarded by MassDEP.
Qualified applications will be selected on a competitive basis. We look forward to receiving your applications. Applications must be submitted no later than Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
The complete Drinking Water Supply Protection Request for Responses (RFR) is now available on the Comm-
PASS website: https://www.comm-pass.com/ Directions for negotiating the site are included below.
Questions? Contact Christy Edwards (EOEEA) via email at Christy.edwards@state.ma.us
FY08 Drinking Water Supply Protection Grant Comm-PASS Instructions:
1.) On the Comm-PASS home page (http://www.comm-pass.com/) select the “Solicitations” tab at the top-left of the page.
2.) Select “Search for a Solicitation”.
3.) In the "Search by Specific Criteria" section enter “BRP 2007-03” in the Document Number field.
4.) This search will yield one result. Click on the sentence on the top of the page that says: "There are 1 Solicitation(s) found that match your search criteria".
5.) Select the spectacle icon on the far right-hand column to view all information available for this grant
program.
6.) Click on the tab that says "Specifications" to view the grant Request for Response. Answers to questions and amendments to the original RFR (if necessary) will also be posted here. Click on the spectacle
icon to view and print any document posted in this section.
This schedule is subject to change. For questions please contact the Committee at (617) 722-2210
All hearings in State House Hearing Room A-1 unless otherwise noted
Pesticides & Hazardous Waste – September 10, 2007 – 1:00 PM
Fish and Game – September 17, 2007 – 1:00 PM
Policies – September 24, 2007 – 1:00 PM
Dept. of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) – October 1, 2007 – 1:00 PM
Sewers, Title V, Wetlands – October 15, 2007 – 1:00 PM
Miscellaneous – October 22, 2007 – 1:00 PM