The BEAT News June 26, 2013

News Headlines

Action Alert: EPA to Raise Allowable Concentrations of Glyphosate  – Comments Needed by July 1

(NaturalNews) This is an urgent action alert from Natural News and the Health Ranger. Public comments are due by July 1 to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place, allowing glyphosate contamination of food crops, edible oils and waterways at concentrations which are thousands of times higher than the amount needed to cause cancer.

The new regulation, which can be viewed HERE, sets the following regulations regarding glyphosate residues on crops:

• It allows forage and hay teff to contain up to 100 ppm glyphosate (that’s over one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer according to a recent study).

• Allows oilseed crops (flax oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, etc.) to contain up to 40 ppm glyphosate (which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer)

• RAISES the allowable glyphosate contamination level of root crops (such as potatoes) from 200 ppb to 6000 ppb.

• Allows glyphosate contamination of fruits at anywhere from 200 ppb to 500 ppb.

Importantly, the EPA says no one even commented on all this when it was initially filed! “There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.” Since then, a total of just 396 people have posted a public comment at the time of this story being published.

You can post your comments with the EPA

Return to list of headlines

Connecticut, Maine Pass GE Labeling Bills

from Just Label It

In early June, Connecticut became the first state to pass GE labeling legislation, after an amended bill passed through the state’s government. Last week, a bill to label genetically engineered foods passed easily through Maine’s House and Senate, furthering the New England as a leader in the right-to-know movement.  While both states’ bills contain clauses that require a number of neighboring states to enact similar legislation before they can go into effect, the historic votes mark continuing momentum at the grassroots level on this issue. Read More >>

Return to list of headlines

Proposal for a Massachusetts Carbon Tax

There is currently a bill in the Massachusetts legislature to institute a Carbon Tax.
An Act relative to shifting from carbon emissions to transportation investment
Bill H.2532
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H2532

Here is a link to a Boston Globe article.

And here is an analysis BEAT received that views the proposed tax as revenue-neutral and shifting the tax from income tax to carbon emitter tax.

… a separate fund to be known as the Carbon Tax Revenue Fund, consisting of amounts transferred to the fund in accordance with the provisions of section 4(c) and section 8 of this chapter, and income derived from the investment of amounts so transferred. The purpose of the fund shall be to maintain a reserve which shall be used only in the manner as provided herein:
(1) A decrease in the rate of tax for general corporate income….
(2) An increase in the amounts of the personal exemption allowable on the income tax….
(3) An increase in the amount of exempt income of individuals of the income tax…
(4) An increase in the amount of the potential tax credit (the so-called “senior circuit breaker”)….
(5) An increase in the rate of the earned income tax credit…

… with some other provisions for transportation related disbursements, including:
eliminating the Central Artery/Tunnel debt, Preventing an increase in tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority operating and capital needs, and Massachusetts association of regional transit authorities

Return to list of headlines

Patrick Administration Kicks Off Norwottuck Rail Trail Reconstruction Project

Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rick Sullivan today joined officials from The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to celebrate the start of the Norwottuck Rail Trail Reconstruction Project.

The Norwottuck Rail Trail, which was originally built in 1993 through a joint venture with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), was DCR’s first rail trail project – turning retired rail road tracks into recreational trails. Popular and heavily used, the Trail, now twenty-years old, is ready for updates.

“The Patrick Administration strives to develop and maintain areas like the Norwottuck Rail Trail and to improve our parks and recreational assets across the Commonwealth.” said Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Secretary, Richard K.Sullivan. “We are looking forward to the successful completion of this project, and to making the trail available again for recreational uses.”

The $3.2 million renovation aims to widen the trail to a full 10 feet wherever possible (the current rail trail standard DCR employs), continue the protection of wetland resource areas along the trail, re-deck the trail’s four bridges, improve the two parking areas, and realign the trail at the Route 9 tunnel pass. The trail will also receive accessibility improvements and enhanced safe road crossings. This work will benefit the local communities of Northampton, Hadley and Amherst directly, as well as the Five-College communities.

“I am so pleased to see the Norwottuck Rail Trail project underway,” Congressman Jim McGovern said. “This project represents the very best in collaborative partnership.  I want to pay special tribute to my friend John Olver for all of his incredible work on this and so many other issues.”

This is one of many trail improvement projects that DCR and Mass DOT are working on this year across the state as part of the Patrick Administration’s commitment to investing in the Commonwealth’s alternative transportation and recreational trails network.

“As both MassDOT and DCR take steps to provide or enhance access to healthy transportation choices, we continue to make steady progress toward our goal of tripling the amount of people who walk, cycle, or use public transportation to get around,” said MassDOT Secretary and CEO Richard A. Davey.  “The fact that we’re back here to widen this trial is proof that our strategy is working and, more important, our goal is attainable.”

“DCR is excited to be kicking off renovations to the precedent-setting Norwottuck Rail Trail,” said DCR Commissioner Jack Murray. “DCR is committed to growing and improving our network of rail trails, encouraging both recreation and alternative transportation. Making sure our founding rail trail is in top shape is part of that effort.”

This 11-mile rail trail, which runs from Northampton to Belchertown, is very popular, with more than 7,000 users per week in season. Over the years, the trail surface has suffered from glass in the asphalt, root damage and a sub-standard width. Congressman John Olver secured a $4 million federal earmark for rehabilitation in 2004 (funds made available in 2008). Since then DCR has worked with MassDOT to design a reconstruction.

The railroad, on which Norwottuck Rail Trail now lays, was built in 1887 by the Central Massachusetts Railroad Company. It connected the City of Boston with the City of Northampton. Shortly after the railroad was completed, it was leased by the Boston and Maine Railroad Company and referred to as the Central Massachusetts Branch. By the 1920s there were three round trip passenger trains and numerous freight trains running between Boston and Northampton. As the automobile and trucking industries grew, railroads began to lose their importance. Passenger service continued until 1932 and freight service continued until 1979, primarily to deliver goods to the Farmer’s Supply warehouse in Amherst. The property was acquired by the DCR (then the Department of Environmental Management) in 1985 and in 1993 was developed with MassDOT, as DCR’s first rail trail.

DCR is dedicated to preserving and enhancing the environmental experiences of the commonwealth community and proudly stands by its commitment to support the Norwottuck Rail Trail Reconstruction and other meaningful ventures which will prove beneficial to the greater community.

###

The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), an agency of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, oversees 450,000 acres of parks and forests, beaches, bike trails, watersheds, dams, and parkways. Led by Commissioner Edward M. Lambert Jr., the agency’s mission is to protect, promote, and enhance our common wealth of natural, cultural, and recreational resources. To learn more about DCR, our facilities, and our programs, please visit www.mass.gov/dcr. Contact us at mass.parks@state.ma.us.

Return to list of headlines

Clean Water Act: EPA Has After-The-Fact Veto Authority Over Corps of Engineers’ Water Quality Permit

By Jeff Kray

June 21, 2013 A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a lower court, has held for the first time that EPA has express authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA)[1] to veto a Section 404 dredge and fill permit that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) had issued years earlier. Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency.

The appellate court held that Section 404 of the Act imposes no temporal limit on EPA’s authority to deny or restrict disposal sites “whenever” the EPA Administrator makes a determination that an “unacceptable adverse effect will result.”[2] The practical effect of the decision is to create uncertainty and risk to a broad range of businesses – including those in the construction and mining industries – that EPA will veto a CWA Section 404 permit long after it has been issued by the Corps. Mingo Logan recently requested that the D.C. Circuit review the decision en banc, a likely precursor to seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the issue.

Clean Water Act Permitting Process

The CWA prohibits the discharge of a pollutant by any person, except in compliance with specified statutory requirements.[3] Under CWA Section 404, the Corps has authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States.[4] The Corps must choose the disposal site through application of EPA guidelines, but EPA has the final authority to prohibit a disposal site.[5] CWA Section 404(c) grants EPA the power to veto or restrict a CWA Section 404 permit if the discharge would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishing areas, wildlife, or recreational areas.[6] CWA Section 404(c) also provides the EPA with authority to prohibit or restrict use of sites for discharges even if no permit application is pending. Courts have consistently given substantial deference to EPA when its CWA Section 404(c) vetoes have been challenged.[7] However, prior to the Mingo Logan case, no court had been called upon to determine whether EPA had authority to veto a disposal site after-the-fact of the Corps issuing a permit.

Case Background

Mingo Logan owns and operates the Spruce No. 1 mountaintop coal mine in Logan County, West Virginia.[8] Mountaintop mining involves removing the top of a mountain to recover the coal within it.[9] This process generates excess rock, topsoil, and debris (spoil) that cannot be returned to the mined area.[10] Typically, these materials are deposited in adjacent valleys, creating valley fills.[11]In 1998, Mingo Logan obtained a permit under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)[12] from the State of West Virginia. The original design called for the mine to discharge spoil in portions of several streams.[13] Mingo Logan also applied for and obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under CWA Section 402 from the State of West Virginia. EPA initially opposed the proposed permit, but ultimately withdrew its objections.[14]Mingo Logan further applied to the Corps for a CWA Section 404 permit, the subject of the litigation discussed in this article.[15] Mingo Logan sought to discharge material from the Spruce No. 1 Mine into the same streams addressed in its state mining permit.[16] The Corps began the process of developing an EIS for the project.[17] EPA commented on a preliminary draft EIS in August 2001 and a draft EIS in August 2002. In December 2005, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection granted state certification for the permit based on its determination that the project would not violate state water quality standards or anti-degradation regulations.[18] The Corps released the final EIS in September 2006, and EPA again submitted comments.[19]On January 22, 2007, the Corps issued Mingo Logan a CWA Section 404 permit for the Spruce project.[20] The permit authorized Mingo Logan to discharge dredged or fill material into the designated stream segments until December 31, 2031.[21] The permit stated that the Corps “may reevaluate its decision on the permit at any time the circumstances warrant.”[22] The permit made no mention of any future EPA action.[23]On September 3, 2009 – almost two years after the Corps issued the Section 404 permit to Mingo Logan – EPA sent a letter to the Corps, requesting that it use its discretionary authority to suspend, revoke, or modify the permit on grounds that recent data and analyses had revealed downstream water quality impacts that were not adequately addressed by the permit.[24] The Corps rejected EPA’s request, finding no grounds to suspend, revoke, or modify the permit.[25]Six months later, on March 26, 2010, EPA published a notice of its proposed determination to withdraw or restrict the specification of some of the applicable streams as disposal sites for fill material.[26] On January 13, 2011, EPA issued its Final Determination to “withdraw the specification of Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch and their tributaries … as a disposal site for dredged or fill material in connection with the construction of the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine … .”[27] The streams EPA sought to withdraw from specification as disposal sites make up roughly eighty-eight percent of the total discharge area authorized by Mingo Logan’s permit.[28]

Mingo Logan Suit and District Court Decision

Mingo Logan brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) seeking a declaration from the Court that EPA lacked the authority to modify or revoke Mingo Logan’s Section 404 permit, that its attempt to modify the permit was unlawful, and that the permit is still operative. In addition, Mingo Logan asked the Court to vacate EPA’s Final Determination on the grounds that it exceeded the agency’s statutory authority under CWA Section 404(c), and that it was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law for a number of reasons. Mingo Logan and EPA filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had held that the EPA exceeded its authority under the CWA when it attempted to invalidate the permit the Corps issued authorizing Mingo Logan Mingo Logan to discharge fill material from coal mining into nearby streams. A copy of the district court’s opinion is here. EPA’s decision was the first time in the forty-year history of the Act that it had determined to “veto” a permit after it had been issued by the Corps. The district court concluded that the CWA does not give EPA the power to render a permit invalid once it has been issued by the Corps. The parties and the court all agreed that Congress gave EPA the right to step in and veto the use of certain disposal sites at the start, thereby blocking the Corps from issuing permits for those sites.[29] Stating, however, that “EPA’s attempt to withdraw the specification of discharge sites after a permit has been issued is unprecedented in the history of the Clean Water Act,” the district court concluded that EPA exceeded its authority under CWA Section 404(c) when it attempted to invalidate an existing permit by withdrawing the specification of certain areas as disposal sites after the Corps had issued Mingo Logan a permit under CWA Section 404(a). Based on considering the provision in question, the language and structure of the entire statutory scheme, and the legislative history, the court concluded that the statute does not give EPA the power to render a permit invalid once it has been issued by the Corps. “EPA’s view of its authority is inconsistent with clear provisions in the statute, which deem compliance with a permit to be compliance with the Act, and with the legislative history of section 404.” The court held that it could deem EPA’s action to be unlawful without venturing beyond the first step of the two-step analysis called for by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.”[30]The district court further concluded, however, that “it is undeniable that the provision in question [CWA Section 404(c)] is awkwardly written and extremely unclear.” Therefore, the court went on to rule – under the second step of the Chevron analysis – that even if the absence of a clear grant of authority to EPA to invalidate a permit is seen as a gap or ambiguity in the statute, and even if the court accords the agency some deference, EPA’s interpretation of the statute to confer this power on itself is not reasonable. The court held that “neither the statute nor the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Corps makes any provision for a post-permit veto, and the agency was completely unable to articulate what the practical consequence of its action would be.”  Mingo Logan argued that it should be able to rely on a valid permit issued by the Corps and that EPA’s interpretation of its authority runs counter to the unambiguous Congressional directive embodied in the CWA. The district court agreed, writing that “[i]n short, the Clean Water Act deems any discharges made without a permit to be unlawful, but it also expressly provides that discharges made pursuant to a permit are lawful.”[31] On these grounds, therefore, the court granted Mingo Logan’s motion for summary judgment.

D.C. Circuit Decision

The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court concluding that EPA has post-permit withdrawal authority and remanded the case for further proceedings to address Mingo Logan’s APA challenge to EPA’s Final Determination to remove the streams as disposal sites.[32] Because the district court did not address that issue, it has yet to weigh the merits of EPA’s decision to withdraw approval for the disposal sites. Like the district court, the D.C. Circuit applied the two-part Chevron test to its analysis. However, the Circuit Court construed CWA Section 404(c) under Chevron step 1 because the court concluded – in direct contradiction of the district court’s decision – that the language of the statute unambiguously expresses Congress’s intent. The D.C. Circuit found that in CWA Section 404(c), Congress granted EPA a broad environmental “backstop” authority over the selection of discharge sites.[33] It further found that “Section 404 imposes no temporal limit on the Administrator’s authority to withdraw the Corps’ specification but instead expressly empowers him to prohibit, restrict or withdraw the specification ‘whenever’ he makes a determination that the statutory ‘unacceptable adverse effect” will result.”[34]The appellate court was persuaded by Congress’ use of the word “withdraw,” indicating that such withdrawal could only happen after the Corps had issued a permit. The Corps supported EPA on appeal. Mingo Logan asserted that EPA’s interpretation of Section 404(c) conflicted with Section 404 as a whole in that it shifted final permitting authority to EPA rather than the Corps. Mingo Logan further argued that EPA’s interpretation also conflicted with the goal of giving such permits certainty and finality. Finally, Mingo Logan argued that legislative history confirms Congress limited EPA’s veto authority to pre-permit. Returning consistently to the plain language of the statute, the D.C. Circuit found “none of Mingo Logan’s arguments persuasive.”[35]The D.C. Circuit’s Mingo Logan decision sets precedent on a previously open question about the relationship between the EPA and the Corps in administering CWA Section 404 permits. Under the decision, EPA’s role in specifying whether a disposal site is valid does not end when the Corps issues the permit. EPA retains authority to veto the permit and the permitted party cannot wholly rely on the permit as issued. The decision creates new uncertainty to a broad range of businesses that operate under CWA Section 404 permits, including those in the construction and mining industries. Mingo Logan’s parent company, Arch Coal Inc., recently hired former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to work on the case. On June 7, 2013, Mingo Logan filed pleadings asking the full bench of the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case en banc. The company wrote that “It makes no sense to allow EPA to effectively nullify a permit issued by the Corps based on nothing more than the fact that EPA – but not the Corps – has changed its mind.” Mingo Logan’s actions indicate that it is willing to pursue the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if it is not successful in rehearing at the D.C. Circuit.

For more information on Marten Law’s water quality and Clean Water Act practice please contact Jeff Kray.[1] 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.[2] Opinion at 9, citing 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c).[3] 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).[4] 33 U.S.C. § 1344.[5] 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c).[6] Id.[7] James City County v. EPA, 12 F.3d 1330 (4th Cir. 1993); Bersani v. EPA, 850 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir. 1988).[8] District Court Opinion at p. 3.[9] Id.[10] Id.[11] Id.[12] 30 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.[13] District Court Opinion at p. 3.[14] Id.[15] District Court Opinion at p. 4.[16] Id.[17] Id.[18] District Court Opinion at p. 5.[19] Id.[20] District Court Opinion at p. 6.[21] Id.[22] Appellate Opinion at p. 4.[23] Id.[24] Opinion at p. 7.[25] Id.[26] Id.[27] Opinion at pp. 7-8.[28] Id.[29] Opinion at pp. 11-12, citing 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c).[30] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).[31] Opinion at p. 16, citing 33 U.S.C. § 1344(p); Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 111 (D.C. Cir. 1987).[32] Appellate Opinion at p. 3.[33] Id. at p. 8.[34] Id. at p. 9 (emphasis in opinion). – See more at: http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130621-epa-veto-authority-water-quality-permit?utm_source=Marten+Law+News&utm_campaign=0f939f0894-Marten_Law_News_June_24_20136_23_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ff00f67215-0f939f0894-222101701#sthash.lJtp1Eh6.dpuf

Return to list of headlines

The City of Pittsfield Department of Community Development Recreation Program has announced that it will be continuing the Summer Parks Playground Program at three city parks this summer for six weeks.

The program offers a wide variety of recreation activities to city children at no cost.  Playground Leaders will create safe, supervised and fun-filled environments with activities including sports, games, arts and crafts, and nature activities.

The program begins Monday, July 8.  Normal hours will be Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon, and then 1 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. through Friday, August 16th.  Playground Leaders will be stationed at Clapp Park, Pitt Park, and Deming Park.   The Summer Playground Program is designed to provide “drop-in” activities for children and is not a substitute for day camp or childcare.

The Summer Playground Program offers even more than a fun time – it fosters self-esteem and friendships and provides participants with positive and caring role models. Also, it lets parents feel good about sending their children to their neighborhood playground, knowing that there will be supervision.

Please share this with others who may be interested.

Return to list of headlines

Junior Ranger Program at Mount Greylock

LANESBOROUGH- Mount Greylock State Reservation announces the Junior Ranger program for children ages 8-12. The program is FREE, begins on July 11 and held every Thursday, from 10:00am to noon, for seven weeks through August 22. Parents or guardians must register children by July 11.

Led by a state park interpreter, Junior Ranger activities promote outdoor recreation and appreciation of the natural world through fun activities. Easy hikes to various locations on Mount Greylock explore water, geology, climate, plants and animals. Children must wear appropriate clothing for the weather. Sturdy walking shoes, water, a snack, sun screen and bug spray are recommended. Parents and guardians are encouraged to come and participate.

For the first session on July 11 participants are requested to bring a plain T-shirt to decorate with tracking prints to be used as a Junior Ranger uniform. Certificates and patches to awarded to those who attend 5 sessions, or show outstanding participation. Sessions meet at the Visitor Center at 30 Rockwell Road in Lanesborough.

 

The Mount Greylock Visitor Center is located on the Rockwell Road, 1.5 miles from North Main Street and Route 7 in Lanesborough. Sponsored by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Registration forms are available at the Visitor Center in Lanesborough or call (413) 499-4262.

Return to list of headlines

Northeast Organic Farming Association Summer Conference: Transforming the Northeast’s Food System
– August 9-11, UMass Amherst­

AMHERST – The Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) will hold its 39th Annual Summer Conference this August at UMass Amherst­. The regional conference will offer educational opportunities for people from across the Northeast interested in organic food and farming. Each year the conference attracts 1,400 farmers, backyard gardeners, urban agriculturists and many others. The weekend features 200+ practical skills workshops, live entertainment, children’s and teen conferences, a country fair, organic meals, 100+ exhibitors and a welcoming environment to develop new friendships, skills and contacts.

The workshops are geared to all skill levels, ages and interests. Some of the Northeast’s brightest minds in organic practices will present on topics such as soil and fertility, organic farming, farm management, alternative energy, seed saving, land care, sustainability, commercial vegetable and meat production, gardening, green burials and much more. Half-day long pre-conferences on bees, flowers, poultry, farm profitability & soils will also take place on Friday, August 9th.

 

Several options for creative financing are available, including group discounts for five or more from a farm, school, or other small organization; scholarships for individuals who lack strong financial means, but are passionate about organic farming; and work exchange. Affordable accommodations are also available, including camping and dorms.

 

Organic farmer and author, Atina Diffley of Minnesota, will keynote the conference Friday night. A longtime veteran of the organic farming movement, she will address the challenges and triumphs of organic farmers. Diffley’s book, Turn Here Sweet Corn: Organic Farming Works, documents her family’s struggle with loss of farmland to suburban development and their success in preventing their farm from being devastated by a crude oil pipeline. The conference will host a debate on Saturday night on the question: “Is organic certification right for you?” Debate participants include two active certified organic farmers, and two uncertified farmers who use organic methods.

FOR MORE INFORMATION on the Northeast Organic Farming Association Summer Conference visit www.nofasummerconference.org or contact NOFA/Mass Public Relations Director, Nicole Belanger at nicole@nofamass.org or 508-450-2441.

Return to list of headlines

HVA Needs Volunteers to Complete Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessments in the Housatonic Watershed

Volunteers are invited to help the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) complete water quality assessments in the Housatonic River watershed. HVA received funding from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust to complete water quality assessments on various sections of the Housatonic River and its tributaries. As an alternative to expensive chemical analyses of the rivers’ waters, these assessments will sample and analyze the invertebrates living in the bottom of the river –the benthic macroinvertebrates. These assessments will provide data to help inform not only HVA, but also the MA Department of Environmental Protection and EPA about the quality of our local rivers. The training for volunteers to learn how to sample the river is scheduled for Saturday, July 13 from 9am – 1pm at Interlaken Park in Stockbridge. HVA welcomes interested volunteers who are able to attend the training and then assist with collecting samples on three additional dates. While participation is free, registration is required. For more information call Dennis Regan at HVA at 413-394-9796.

A whole host of invertebrates inhabit the river bottom and are an important part of the river ecology and the food chain. Our rivers are also a nursery for many invertebrates including insects such as dragonflies, craneflies and some beetles. Eggs laid in the water hatch and the aquatic larvae develop over several months or years depending upon the species. While some invertebrates are tolerant, many are susceptible to pollution. Finding out which invertebrates are thriving in a river help indicate the quality of the water. Many species of mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies are sensitive to pollution and, when found in the river bottom, are key indicators of good quality water.

Volunteers will learn more about the inhabitants of the river bottom and the sampling protocol for this program. Additional sampling dates will be scheduled this summer and fall. Participants are asked to commit time to volunteer to assist in at least three additional sampling dates over the next few months.

Return to list of headlines

Kestrel Announces Position Openings

Kestrel Land Trust is pleased to announce that for the fourth year, we will be hosting two full-time AmeriCorps MassLIFT service members to increase our capacity to conserve the Valley you love. The new service term runs from September 16, 2013 through August 15, 2014. The MassLIFT program is now accepting applications for these positions at Kestrel and at 12 other land conservation organizations throughout Massachusetts.

For all the details, and applicationrequirements, just click here. Please share this with potential candidates you know who want to help conserve the Valley we love!

Return to list of headlines

Back To Top