LEADSPONSOR Quorum, Quantum of Vote, and Other Procedural ...€¦ · Sally A. Zielinski, Ph.D. Carlisle Vice President for Education Amy Ball, CWS Sandwich ... Alexandra Dawson,

Thank You to MACC’s 2010Annual EnvironmentalConference Sponsors!!

LEAD SPONSOR

SPONSORMcGregor & Associates, P. C .

CONTRIBUTORSLEC Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Norfolk Ram Group

March/April 2010 The Newsletter of the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions Volume XXXX Number 2

InsideMACC Seeks Executive Director .2Congratulations Graduates . . . . . .2New State Ocean Plan

Makes Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Grassroots Success in Controlling

Purple Loosestrife . . . . . . . . . . . .4Funds Available for Training . . . . .5Spring/Summer Training . . . .7, 8, 9Join MACC in Celebrating withAlexandra Dawson . . . . . . . . . .16

Help Improve HabitatConnectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Top Ten-Most Pathetic Excusesfor Violating an OOC . . . . . . . . .17

In Memoriam-Robert Conway . . .17MACC Environmental ServiceAwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 19

Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

MACC is a private non-profit servicecorporation. Our voting members are theC o n s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s o fMassachusetts. Nonvoting memberships areavailable to others interested in communityresource protection and include receipt ofthis newsletter. MACC welcomes letters,articles, drawings and photographs fromreaders, but reserves the right to edit or rejectsubmissions. Non-staff articles do notnecessarily represent the opinions of MACC.Reproduction in whole or in part is permittedwith proper credit. For advertising rates andmembership information call MACC a t617.489.3930.

Quorum, Quantum of Vote,and Other Procedural Quandaries

for Conservation CommissionsBy Kate Connolly, Esq.

This season’s frequently-asked question has come to MACC in severalvariations, but is, essentially, what constitutes a quorum of a ConservationCommission for conducting meetings and taking action. Necessarily, thisquestion leads to further inquiry as to what quantum of vote is required fora commission to act; what to do if a voting member has missed a hearing;and how many commissioners must sign a decision once it is voted.Sometimes the question takes a different turn, like when one or moremembers of a commission are not reappointed, yet their seats remainunfilled. How many commissioners are there? Worse yet, what happens ifa commission is left, due to an unfilled seat or resignation, with an evennumber of members leading to the potential for tie votes, and what does a tiemean? This article attempts to provide an understanding of these issues thatcommissioners may apply to other factual changes.1

(Quorum, Quantum of Vote.....continued on page 6)

(2010 Annual Environmental Conference.....continued on page 5)

2010 Annual EnvironmentalConference Highlights

On February 27th over 750 people from aroundNew England assembled in Worcester to participatein MACC’s Annual Environmental Conference. Theconference hosted 44 exhibitors and offered 27workshops, four Fundamentals for ConservationCommissioners Units and an Advance Core Daytraining program. In addition to conducting annualbusiness for the organization, commissioners honored this year’senvironmental service award recipients (see pages 18 and 19) and heardincoming MACC President Pat Garner announce an effort to achievesignificant simplification of the Wetland Protection Regulations.

Dr. Raymond Bradley, Distinguished Professor and Director of UMass

2 MACC Newsletter March/April 2010

Massachusetts Association of Conservation CommissionsCommunity Conservation Since 1961

Board of Directors

President

Patrick Garner Northborough

First Vice President

Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. Hopkinton

Past President

Sally A. Zielinski, Ph.D. Carlisle

Vice President for Education

Amy Ball, CWS Sandwich

Vice President for Advocacy

Kenneth F. Whittaker, Ph.D., Esq. We n h a m

Treasurer

Helen D. Bethell Manchester

Secretary

Michele Grzenda Lincoln

Directors

Jo-Anne Burdin TempletonMargaret Carroll UptonShepley Evans Stockbridge

Brandon Faneuf W. Warwick, RIDave Gorden Dedham

Ingeborg Hegemann StowScott Jackson WhatelyBrenda Kelly Bedford

Francesca Maltese AmherstMichael Marcus Amherst

Gregor McGregor, Esq. ConcordTim Purinton Ipswich

E. Heidi Ricci ShirleySeth Wilkinson Orleans

MACC Office10 Juniper Road, Belmont, MA 02478Phone 617.489.3930 • Fax 617.489.3935

www.maccweb.org

Acting Executive Director

Michèle Girard

Newsletter Editor

Membership & Publications Coordinator

Lindsay Martucci

Technology Coordinator

Database Administrator

Rick Chaff

Bookkeeper

Candace Domos

Board of Advisors

Bernie McHugh Edward O. WilsonBrian Rehrig George Wilslocki

President’s Council

Alexandra Dawson, J.D.Judith Eiseman

George Hall, Esq.

MACC Seeks Executive Director

The Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions(MACC) seeks an Executive Director. The mission of MACC is theeducation of and support for Conservation Commissions across thestate. MACC supports science-based laws and regulations that protectwetlands, water resources, open space, and other natural resources.The Executive Director is the Chief Executive Officer and isresponsible for promoting and implementing MACC’s Strategic Plan,including the roles of education, advocacy, and fundraising. TheExecutive Director reports to the Board of Directors, and will workwith a staff of 3.5 FTEs. The successful candidate will have anunderstanding of Massachusetts environmental law, regulations, andpolicy; an understanding of non-profit management and fundraising; apassion for natural resources, and will have excellent presentation andwriting skills. For a full description of the position, please visit ourwebsite at www.maccweb.org/resources_jobs.html. All cover letterand resume submissions must be electronic and addressed [email protected]. Submissions will be accepted until April 15th.No phone calls please.

Congratulations!!

Fundamentals Graduates

Tara Churchill RussellMaureen Doyle SouthbridgeJoyce Eichacker WarrenGeralyn Falco SwampscottAnn Hicks N. BrookfieldFrank Schellenger HansonKenneth Walls Washington

Advanced Graduates

Larry Bairstow TewksburyLeslie Gabrilska TownsendMary Guiney HalifaxWilliam Merriam Framingham

3MACC Newsletter March/April 2010

Massachusetts made news as well as new law inpromulgating the nation's first ocean managementplan. The final version, December 31, 2009, sixmonths after the release of the June 2009 draftplan, sets guidelines for managing, reviewing andpermitting proposed uses of state waters. As theMassachusetts Ocean Plan has the force of law, itgoes beyond earlier examples elsewhere of “ocean spatialplanning” for areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and seas.Really, it can be called “ocean spatial management.”

The goal of the Ocean Plan, developed under theMassachusetts Oceans Act of 2008, is to facilitate statedecisions through a framework promoting sustainableocean development while considering environmentalcriteria. The idea is that governmental decisions willbalance protection of vulnerable wildlife and marinehabitats with responsible ocean uses.

Specifically, the Ocean Plan, like the Oceans Act, dealswith and governs state coastal waters at least 0.3 nauticalmiles seaward of mean high water (excluding mostdeveloped harbor and port areas) out to the three-mile limitof state legal control. Within that water area, the Ocean

New State Ocean Plan Makes WavesBy Gregor I. McGregor, Esq.

Plan creates three management categories.

The categories are the Prohibited Area, locatedin the state waters east of Lower Cape Codcoinciding with the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuaryand abutting the Cape Cod National Seashorewhere uses, activities and facilities are expressly

prohibited; the Multi-Use Area (about two-thirds of theplan area) with new protections for critical species andcritical habitat like eelgrass beds and underwater rockyareas; and the area designated suitable for commercialwind energy development (about two percent of the planarea), known as the Gosnold Wind Energy Area and theMartha’s Vineyard Wind Energy Area.

The Ocean Plan promotes offshore renewable energydevelopment by opening up, in the newly designated area,opportunities to access the wind to create clean energy andreduce greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energ ydevelopment, including wind energy projects, wasformerly prohibited in most state waters.

The Ocean Plan sets forth the implementing purposes,(New State Ocean Plan Make Waves....Continued on page 12)


The shallow marsh wetlands along MartinsBrook in North Reading were a stronghold for theinvasive purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.)for years. It was a major infestation and onceestablished, the aggressive purple loosestrife wasa near monoculture resulting in a loss of nativeplant diversity, impeding flow in the Brook andproviding little food, poor cover and few nestingmaterials for native wildlife.

In 2002, under the leadership of Janet Nicosia and othermembers of the Martins Pond Association, a biologicalcontrol plan for a long term, insect-based effort to controlthe loosestrife was hatched. Biological control, also knownas biocontrol, is a means to control an identified pestpopulation (in this case invasive purple loosestrife) byusing the pest’s natural enemies. In its native habitats andgeographic regions, purple loosestrife is naturallysuppressed by insect species that feed on it. These naturalherbivores of purple loosestrife can be used as biologicalcontrol agents. In Europe, the major grazers on purpleloosestrife are beetles in the genus Galerucella. In 1992,the USDA approved the use of Galerucella calmariensis L.and Galerucella pusilla Duft, beetles for biological controlbecause they are host specific, meaning they will eat onlypurple loosestrife. As larvae (caterpillars) they eat the budsof plants (tip feeding) and the leaves. This type ofherbivory is called ‘window feeding’ because it results in abrown, thin and translucent leaf. Once the new adults haveemerged from the soil they begin to feed on leaves. Adultfeeding is described as ‘skeletonized feeding’ because ofthe complete holes made in the leaves. Adult beetle feedingoccurs in both late spring and later in the summer. Thecombined impacts of larval and adult beetle feeding meansthat herbivory can occur throughout the growing season.

The management goal in using Galerucella beetles is toreduce the abundance of purple loosestrife in areas where ithas invaded, to approximately 10% of its current level overabout 90% of its range.

Use of Galerucella beetles for biological control inMassachusetts requires a permit from the MassachusettsWetlands Restoration Program's Purple LoosestrifeBiocontrol Project. The Martins Pond Association workedin partnership with the Town of North Reading andMerrimack College to obtain necessary permits and carryout the project. In all years, except 2008, beetles were

Grassroots Success in Controlling Purple LoosestrifeBy Jon Lyon

purchased from the Philip Alampi BeneficialInsect Rearing Laboratory through the NewJersey Department of Agriculture. In 2008,beetles were collected manually from a wetlandsite located on private property in Hamilton,MA. Volunteers harvested root balls, andbeetles were bred and reared in the MerrimackCollege greenhouse facility and released in2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Percent herbivory damage was measured every year.Loosestrife cover, biomass and flower production weremonitored in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009 at the threerelease sites. Patience proved to be an importantingredient in the project.

Based on the results of a 2009 study, the biocontrolproject was deemed successful. Not unexpectedly, it tookfrom 3 to 5 years for the impacts of the beetles to be seenin the wetlands. Galerucella release resulted in increasedloosestrife herbivory damage, decreased loosestrife cover,decreased biomass and reductions in reproductive capacity(flowering). This time frame is consistent with otherstudies using Galerucella beetles as biocontrol agents. By2009, the project had met the overall goal of reducing theabundance of purple loosestrife in areas where it hadinvaded, to approximately 10% of its pre-control levelsover about 90% of its range. This was true for 2 of the 3release sites and in nearby areas to which the beetles hadmigrated.

In 2009, beetle herbivory was found (at various levels ofintensity) in every patch of loosestrife within a 3 km radiusof the three release sites, meaning that beetles dispersed toevery known existing patch of loosestrife in this zone.Though herbivory levels were relatively low in someisolated loosestrife patches, the presence of beetles in thesepopulations indicates significant beetle dispersal and thepotential for long-term loosestrife reductions throughoutthe study area. Based on the results of the 2009 study, noadditional releases of beetles are required at this time.

The project highlights that wetland managementobjectives can be achieved if the right partnerships are inplace. By engaging volunteers, sharing resources, dividingup tasks, and making a long-term commitment, projectpartners were able to achieve the management goals withan entire 7-year investment of only a few thousand dollars.

5MACC Newsletter March/April 2010 5

Funds Now Available for ConservationCommissioner Training

MACC is reminding commissions that it is acceptingapplications for the Frederick J. Fawcett II EducationFund to help pay for commissioners and agents who,because of financial hardship, are not able to attendMACC training, conferences and workshops.

The scholarship application and review criteria are nowavailable. Please contact the office at (617) 489-3930 forthe one-page application or to donate to the fund. Youmay also visit us on the web at www.maccweb.org.

The next step is to determine the extent to which nativevegetation is making a comeback. Future surveys arebeing planned to determine if native vegetation isreplacing loosestrife and to assess the long-term impacts ofbeetles on loosestrife populations.

The complete loosestrife report can be found at:www.martinspond.org/.

Jon Lyon is an Associate Professor of Biology atMerrimack College.

(Continued from page 1, 2010 Annual Environmental Conference.....)

A m h e r s t ’s Climate SystemsResearch Center, delivered thekeynote address laying out theevidence that global warming isalready occurring anddescribing how scientists usemultiple lines of evidence todetermine the most likely cause for the warming trend. Indescribing how the evidence points to human release ofgreenhouse gases, Dr. Bradley provided commissionersand conservationists with a greater understanding of theissue and essential information that can be used tocommunicate to the public the seriousness of the threat.The expected impact of climate change in Massachusettswill provide major challenges to the ways that we regulateand protect wetlands, water bodies and their water resourcevalues. It is clear that climate change will continue to be animportant topic at future conferences.

MACC wants to extend its sincere thanks to this year’sconference sponsors, led by NSTAR Electric and Gas (seepage one and the MACC website for full list).


As a starting point, the MACCHandbook (Environmental Handbook forM a s s a c h u s e t t s C o n s e r v a t i o nCommissioners) contains chapters on thepowers and duties of commissioners, andthe organization and dynamics of acommission that, taken together, provideshelpful answers to these proceduralquestions. It is important to note that acommission is charged with administeringand enforcing both the state We t l a n d sProtection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 (“the WPA”) and itsRegulations at 310 CMR 10.00, et seq., and its local ByLawor Ordinance, assuming it has one. Thus, procedural issuesmust be checked against any provisions of a local bylaw orordinance that may differ from those of the WPA withrespect to quorum, quantum of vote, etc. For purposes ofthis article, information applies to commissions actingunder the WPA and its regulations at 310 CMR 10.00 et seq.

What Constitutes a Quorum?

MACC’s position, based mostly on court decisions andinterpretations of the state regulations, due to an absence ofclear guidance in the relevant statutes, is that a quorum of acommission is a majority of the seats filled, or thecommissioners currently serving (again, at least where acommission is acting under the WPA). Those who arguethat a majority of the entire board, that is, the total numberof seats as set by town meeting or the city council, rely onG.L. c. 4, §6, cl. 5, which states: “Words purporting to givea joint authority to, or to direct any act by, three or morepublic officers or other persons shall be construed as givingsuch authority to, or directing such act by, a majority ofsuch officers or persons.” Interpreting this section to meanthat a majority of the entire number of slots is required totake action is not supported by recent court decisions.Furthermore, this interpretation would allow a board ofselectmen to control a commission by intentionallydelaying filling a position.

Notwithstanding these practical considerations, thisinterpretation is further supported by the Regulations,which provide, where discussing actions by ConservationCommissions, that: “Where M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 states thata particular action (except receipt of a request or notice) isto be taken by the Conservation Commission, that action isto be taken by more than half the members present at ameeting of at least a quorum. A quorum is defined as amajority of the members then in office.” 310 CMR10.05(2) [Emphasis added].

The definition of “quorum” under the Open MeetingLaw, G.L. c. 39, § 32A, is:

“Quorum, a simple majority of agovernmental body unless otherwisedefined by constitution, charter, rule orlaw applicable to such governing body.”(emphasis supplied).

This definition recognizes that aquorum may be “otherwise defined” by“rule [i.e. regulation] or law applicableto such governing body.” Therefore, for

purposes of Conservation Commissions, the W PARegulations can be said to provide the alternative definitionallowed by the Open Meeting Law, thus reducing thequorum requirement for a Conservation Commission to actto a “majority of the members then in office” rather than a“majority of [the] governmental body.” If town meeting orcity council set the number of seats for the ConservationCommission as 7, but only 5 of those seats are filled withmembers who have been appointed, sworn in, and are readyto serve, then the members in office equal 5, and a quorumfor purposes of meeting or acting is 3.

In any case, it may be most efficient and practical tochange the number of seats from 7 to 5, by vote of townmeeting or city council, if only 5 people continue to remainwilling and able to serve. In all of the discussion ofmembers in office or members serving, it is important toconsider another factor: illness or failure to attendmeetings does not count as a vacant slot.

What is the Quantum of Vote?

Once the quorum to act is established, we turn ourattention to what constitutes a quantum of vote for acommission, that is, how many members are needed to voteto issue or deny a wetlands permit (again, dealing here withthe WPA; your bylaw or ordinance may set different ormore stringent provisions). These are two diff e r e n tquestions. Once you have a quorum present, the generalrule for municipal boards is that what is required forapproval is a majority of those actually voting, not of thosepresent at the meeting (i.e. abstentions are generally notcounted in votes of other municipal boards). ForConservation Commissions, however, the W PARegulations are actually more stringent with respect toquantum of vote, because under 310 CMR 10.05(2), anaction “taken by the Conservation Commission” must betaken by “more than half the members present at a meetingof at least a quorum.” (310 CMR 10.05(2) also expressly

(Continued from page 1, Quorum, Quantum of Vote.....)

(Quorum, Quantum of Vote.....continued on page 10)


Fundamentals for Conservation Commissioners

Spring-Summer 2010 Schedule

The “Fundamentals for Conservation Commissioners” Units listed here are funded in part with

a grant from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (supported by sales of specialty license plates)

Date Morning Afternoon Location

(North Shore Region)

Saturday, April 10 Unit 7 Unit 8 Edgewater Technology, WakefieldSaturday, April 17 Unit 1 Unit 3 Edgewater Technology, Wakefield

(Cape Cod Region)

Friday, April 30 Unit 5 Unit 6 Cape Cod Community College, BarnstableSaturday, May 1 Unit 2 Unit 4 Cape Cod Community College, BarnstableFriday, May 21 Unit 1 Unit 3 Brewster Ladies Library, BrewsterSaturday, May 22 Unit 7 Unit 8 Brewster Ladies Library, Brewster

(Central MA Region)

Friday, June 11 Unit 2 Unit 4 Doyle Conservation Center, LeominsterFriday, June 25 Unit 5 Unit 6 DCR, West Boylston


(Registration Form on page 9 or register online at www.maccweb.org/edu_workshops.html)

Unit 1 • Overview of Conservation Commissions: Relationships, Responsibilities, Funds and FeesUnit 2 • Getting Home Before Midnight: How to Run an Effective MeetingUnit 3 • The Wetlands Protection Act: Fundamentals, Process and ProceduresUnit 4 • Plan Review and Site Visit Procedures Unit 5 • Wetland Types: Their Functions and ValuesUnit 6 • Writing Effective Orders of ConditionsUnit 7 • Open Space Planning and Protection Techniques Unit 8 • Managing Conservation Land: Inventories, Goals and Conflicts

MACC Members* $45 per unit • Non-members $60 per unit*Member fee applies to Conservation Commissioners, the principal Commission staff person,

and other individual and corporate members of MACC.

General Fundamentals Agenda

8:30 - 9:00 a.m. Check-in9:00 - 11:30 a.m. Morning Unit

11:30 - 12:30 p.m. Lunch Break/ Second Unit Check-in12:30 - 3:00 p.m.* Afternoon Unit (*4:00 p.m. for Unit 4)

Anyone is welcome to participate in the Training Program. Units can be taken in any order. Times may vary slightly,depending on location. Confirmation with exact time and directions will be sent via e-mail. Please dress

appropriately for the field session (Unit 4). Morning refreshments will be served. Bring a bag lunch.


Basic Wetland Delineation: Soils

Saturday, May 15(Check-in: 8:00 a.m.) Class: 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Marion Town House, MarionMACC Members $90 • Non-members $105

Focus is on hydric soils, indicators of wetlandhydrology and understanding the DEP B V WDelineation Field Data form: Section II. Indicators ofHydrology (limit 15) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

Lunch and DEP manual Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands under the Massachusetts Wetlands

Protection Act are included in each session. Bring pen/pencil and pocket calculator. Field work in theafternoon. Presented in cooperation with the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program.

Basic Wetland Delineation Workshops with John Rockwell

Having delivered his “Basic Wetland Delineation Workshop” to hundreds of Conservation Commissioners and

wetland aficionados in Marion, Massachusetts over the past several years, John Rockwell, Buzzards Bay National

Estuary Program Wetland Specialist, will now split his one-day workshop into two full-day workshops.

Participants in both workshops will become more familiar with the state methodology of wetland delineation

through practice sessions, case studies and a field session; they’ll be introduced to plant identification and be

shown how to use the DEP manual “Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands under the Massachusetts

Wetlands Protection Act”.

Basic Wetland Delineation: Vegetation

Saturday, June 5(Check-in: 8:00 a.m.) Class: 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Marion Town House, Marion

MACC Members $90 • Non-members $105

Focus is on wetland vegetation and understanding theDEP BVW Delineation Field Data Form: Section I.Vegetation. (limit 15) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

“Beyond Beginners” Wetland Delineation Workshop

Saturday, May 8 (Check-in: 8:00 a.m.) Class: 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Marion Town House, Marion

MACC Members $90 • Non-members $105

Ever heard the expression, “A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”? This workshop is designed toexpand upon the information and techniques presented in John's two full-day Basic Delineation Workshops: Soilsand Vegetation. Attendees will improve their understanding of the state delineation methodology and their ability tomake those tough soils and vegetation determinations through practice sessions, case studies and field work. Lunchand workshop materials are included in the fee. Bring pencil/pen and pocket calculator. Optional: soils auger,sharpshooter and Munsell Color Book. Prerequisites: registrants must have previously attended both of John's full-day basic delineation workshops (soils and vegetation), provide proof of prior delineation training (college level) ORbe a practicing wetland professional. (limit 15) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

AGENDA

8:00 - 8:30 registration; coffee, etc.8:30 - 10:15 lecture: vegetation & analysis

10:15 - 10:35 break10:35 - 12:00 lecture: difficult to analyze soils12:00 - 12:30 lunch (provided)

12:45 - 4:00 field work


MACC Spring-Summer 2010 Registration Form(or register online at www.maccweb.org/edu_workshops.html)

Name ____________________________________ E-mail _____________________________________Commission/Organization _______________________________________________________________Address __________________________ City____________________ State__________ Zip _________

Phone (w) _______________________________ (h) ____________________________

Please include your payment and mail to: MACC, 10 Juniper Road, Belmont, MA 02478. Membership fee applies toMACC members, Conservation Commissioners, and staff when members dues are paid. Cancellation must bereceived in writing (mail, fax, email) at least 2 business days prior to session. No refund or credit for less than 2days notice. A $10 processing fee will be charged for cancellation. Call 617.489.3930 if you have questions. Toreceive program credit, you must attend entire workshop. Fax: 617.489.3935 • Email: [email protected]


(MACC Members $45 per unit, non-members $60 per unit)

( unit choices)Saturday • April 10 • Edgewater Technology, WakefieldMorning: Unit 7 ______ c0400 Afternoon: Unit 8 ______ c0401 $ ________Saturday • April 17 • Edgewater Technology, WakefieldMorning: Unit 1 ______ c0402 Afternoon: Unit 3 ______c0403 $ ________Friday • April 30 • Cape Cod Community College, BarnstableMorning: Unit 5 ______ c0404 Afternoon: Unit 6 ______ c0405 $ ________Saturday • May 1 • Cape Cod Community College, BarnstableMorning: Unit 2 ______ c0406 Afternoon: Unit 4 ______ c0407 $ ________Friday • May 21 • Brewster Ladies Library, BrewsterMorning: Unit 1 ______ c0408 Afternoon: Unit 3 ______ c0409 $ ________Saturday • May 22 • Brewster Ladies Library, BrewsterMorning: Unit 7 ______ c0410 Afternoon: Unit 8 ______ c0411 $ ________Friday • June 11 • Doyle Conservation Center, LeominsterMorning: Unit 2 ______ c0412 Afternoon: Unit 4 ______ c0413 $ ________Friday • June 25 • DCR, West BoylstonMorning: Unit 5 ______ c0414 Afternoon: Unit 6 ______ c0415 $ ________

Workshops

“Beyond Beginners” Wetland Delineation c0420(MACC Members $90, Non-members $105) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

Saturday • May 8 • Marion Town House, Marion $ ________

Basic Wetland Delineation: Soils c0421(MACC Members $90, Non-members $105) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

Saturday • May 15 • Marion Town House, Marion $ ________Basic Wetland Delineation: Vegetation c0422(MACC Members $90, Non-members $105) (2.0 Advanced Credits)

Saturday • June 5 • Marion Town House, Marion $ ________

TOTAL $ ________Method of Payment:

Check enclosed (payable to MACC ) Bill my credit card: Visa MasterCard American Express DiscoverCard Number: _____________________________________ Expiration Date ________________


states that all permits must be signed by a majority of thecommission, even though a bare majority of a quorum isadequate to vote whether to issue the permit.) So, forexample, if 4 members of a Conservation Commission arepresent and that constitutes a quorum, 3 must vote in theaffirmative for the commission to act. Two in favor, oneopposed and one abstaining will be insufficient for anaffirmative vote to pass by “more than half the memberspresent.”

The law on this issue is, nonetheless, somewhatunsettled, as shown by a 2000 decision by the SupremeJudicial Court which addresses this issue with respect toPlanning Boards. See, McElderry v. Planning Bd. OfNantucket, 431 Mass. 722 (2000). The McElderry courtheld that since the subdivision control law (like the WPA)requires a majority of the board to sign an approval, thenthe Legislature must have intended that a majority of theboard (not a majority of the quorum) is required to vote infavor of a permit. Other cases since McElderry seemed torely on the holding in McElderry. In Shoestring LimitedPa r t n e rship v. Barnstable Conservation Commission,2005 WL 3669836 (Massachusetts Superior Court), thecourt found that in the “absence of statutory restriction thegeneral rule is that the majority of a council or board is a

quorum and a majority of the quorum can act.” CitingMcElderry v. Planning board of Nantucket, 431 Mass. 722(2000), quoting Merrill v. Lowell, 236 Mass. 463, 467(1920). However, the S h o e s t r i n g decision made noreference to the above DEP regulation as affecting thegeneral rule nor did the court make any acknowledgementof the different statutes and regulations governing planningboards and Conservation Commissions. To date, no casehas addressed the issue directly. Also, significantly, thestatute at issue in McElderry, governing the approval ofsubdivision plans (G.L. c. 41, §81L) and the related zoningstatute referenced in those cases, governing the granting ofspecial permits (the state Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A, §9)contains a specific voting requirement, while the WPAmerely contains a signing requirement, a purely ministerialact. Finally, neither of those cases made any mention ofthe WPA regulations - specifically 310 CMR 10.05(2) -which, of course, would not apply to planning boards.

Until a court case deals directly with the quantum ofvote under the WPA, commissions’ decisions by a majorityof a quorum that are unchallenged have support in thelanguage of the WPA and Regulations. Still, the mostcautious approach is to base commission decisions on amajority vote of the sitting commission, not just a majorityof a quorum of the commission: certainly this “McElderryRule” should be followed when issuing decisions underyour bylaws or ordinances, provided you otherwise act inconformance with your bylaw or ordinance requirements.But when acting under the WPA, note the distinctions thatcan be made between Conservation Commissions andother municipal boards based on the express language ofthe WPA regulations at 310 CMR 10.05(2), which allowsvotes to be taken by the reduced number of members, thatis, by a majority of a quorum. In the end, any irregularitiesin Conservation Commission practice under the WPA canbe cured by an appeal to the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP).

The quantum of vote relates to the substantive decisionsof a Conservation Commission as to whether to issue ordeny a permit. The WPA regulations also contain aquorum requirement that is purely ministerial, that is, thesigning majority requirement mentioned above.

Who is Eligible to Vote?

Other factors that frequently arise when commissionsare considering the necessary quorum and quantum of voteare the eligibility of a member who has missed a hearingsession to vote, the role of associate or alternate members,and “holdover” members. These topics are addressed inthe MACC Handbook.



Whenever possible, votes by a municipal board onpermit applications should be made by the same peoplewho attended all sessions of a hearing on a particular matteror application. This rule is based on an Appeals Courtdecision in Mullin v. Planning Board of Brewster, 17 Mass.App. Ct. 139 (1983), and applies to “quasi-judicial”decisions of boards. This again raises the distinction ofwhether a commission is acting under the WPA or alocal bylaw or ordinance. Some counsel that acommission’s review of an application under WPAis not “quasi-judicial” because the process ofappeals to DEP results in a wholly new hearingprocess, separate from that of the commission.Where the commission is acting under its local bylaw orordinance, that is clearly quasi-judicial because appeals ofthose commission decisions are to superior court. Onappeal, the court reviews the record to determine whether acommission acted arbitrarily or capriciously or based on anerror of law. In other words, the court’s review is limitedto how the commission handled the proceeding, rather thanstarting anew in reviewing the project. The cautiousapproach here is to attempt to always have the samemembers voting who attended all hearings; however, a2006 statutory amendment partially overturns the precedentset by Mullin.

Chapter 79 of the Acts of 2006, entitled "An Act further (Quorum, Quantum of Vote.....continued on page 15)

Regulating Meetings of Municipal Boards," becameeffective August 10, 2006. The Act inserts a new section inG.L. c.39, G.L. c.39, §23D, which, upon acceptance by amunicipality authorizes a member of a board, committee orcommission holding an adjudicatory hearing to vote in thematter even though the individual has missed one session,provided that certain conditions are met. Assuming that

the board properly adopts the statute, the memberwho missed a hearing will be allowed to voteprovided that he or she missed only one session;that the missed session was due to absence ratherthan, e.g. disqualification due to conflict; that themissed session is available by transcript or

recording; and that the member certifies in writing that heor she has examined all evidence from the missed session.If all of these conditions of Chapter 39, §23D are not met,then the Mullin rule otherwise applies and the member whomissed a session should not vote.

Under the Conservation Commission Act (G.L. c. 40,§8C) only 3 to 7 officially appointed commissioners mayvote. Some commissions identify additional associate oralternate members which are, in essence, members intraining. Only through a charter provision or a special actof the Legislature may alternates obtain the power to vote,

....the most cautiousa p p ro a ch is to basecommission decisionson a majority vote oft h e s i t t i n gcommission, not just amajority of a quorumof the commission.


procedures, and criteria for decisions with special legalprotections for special, sensitive and unique marineresources (SSUs). These are 11 types of areas particularlyvulnerable to certain ocean uses such as sand and gravelmining and seafloor construction work and structures. Theycan disturb ecologically important habitat areas such aseelgrass and undersea rocky formations and disruptactivities of recreationally and commercially important fishor endangered species such as the North Atlantic rightwhale.

Compared with the June 2009 draft, the final Ocean Plantightens standards for protecting the most sensitive speciesand habitats; allows more community-scale wind energydevelopment; creates a formal role for regional planningauthorities (RPAs) in wind energy planning; and outlines afive-year, $2.5 million research plan to be pursued with andfunded by the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership, a privatenonprofit group that helped facilitate the progressMassachusetts has made.

There were 300 written comments, 20 informationmeetings, and five public hearings on the draft, as well asmeetings of the state Ocean Advisory Commission and

Ocean Science Advisory Council plus the MassachusettsOcean Partnership, and individual sessions with the“stakeholders” such as pilots, fishermen, NGOs, renewableenergy experts, educators, researchers, municipalities, andadvocates.

Some of these changes made by the EOEEA Secretary, inresponse to all this input, added important legal teeth.

For example, the standards protecting the most sensitiveor unique environmental resources were tightened to ensurethat proposed projects won’t have significant impacts.Included in siting and performance criteria are measurespresuming a project sited outside of the specificallyprotected resource areas represents on its face a lessenvironmentally damaging practicable alternative than alocation within the resource areas. These legal criteria alsoestablish a balancing test whereby public benefits mustoutweigh detriments to the resources in order for the projectto be allowed in an area with a specifically protectedresource. The standards also require that in environmentalpermitting all practicable steps be taken to avoid impacts onthese resources.

With regard to the two designated wind energy areas theOcean Plan grants those RPAs with statutorily derivedregulatory authority the legal ability to define theappropriate scale of renewable energy projects in statewaters of their member communities. Under the OceanPlan, the concept of “appropriate scale” includes suchfactors as protecting interests associated with fishing,fowling and navigation; ensuring public safety; andminimizing incompatibility with existing uses and visualimpacts.

For community-scale renewable energy projects theOcean Plan creates legal boundaries for them and allocatesa set number of turbines to each of the state’s seven RPAson a sliding scale based on the region’s length of shorelineand area of coastal waters. It also requires that the hostcommunity endorse the project and the economic benefitsfrom the project (energy, royalties, or other municipalimprovements) be directed back to that community.

The Ocean Plan establishes legal policies and proceduresfor updates and amendments, application of mitigation andcompensation fees, disbursements from an OceanResources and Waterways Trust funded by those fees, andmechanisms for continued stakeholder input, expert advice,and partnerships.

Beginning February 2010, state agencies began toimplement the Ocean Plan by undertaking rule-making tobring existing environmental regulations into compliance

(Continued from page 3, New State Ocean Plan Make Waves....)


with the increased protections required. In addition,EOEEA will continue to work with the MassachusettsOcean Partnership and the Science Advisory Council toimplement the five-year research plan. This researchagenda will ensure that the Commonwealth continues toaddress the most pressing management and science issuesidentified in this final plan, including the need to fullycharacterize marine habitats, identify and respond to thecumulative impacts of human uses and climate change, andcarefully monitor the ocean system to track theeffectiveness of management measures. As part of thiseffort, EOEEA will continue to engage stakeholders andthe public and monitor success by measuring actualperformance against formally defined indicators developedas part of the science framework.

The Ocean Act and Ocean Plan legally do not governcommercial fisheries (by an exemption in the Act) or thepending Cape Wind project (by the nature of federaljurisdiction). The U.S. Interior Department said it hoped toreach an agreement by March 1, 2010, over thiscontroversial, long-delayed wind power project to belocated in federal waters off Cape Cod.

The Cape Wind project in 2001 became the nation's firstmajor proposed offshore wind farm. Its developers, CapeWind Associates LLC, propose to construct 130 towers440 feet above the surface of the Nantucket Sound. The

proposed $1 billion wind farm would provide electricity toabout 400,000 homes, but would be within view of popularCape Cod resorts and homes, prompting serious oppositionfrom business leaders and politicians. Interior SecretarySalazar had said Interior would make a decision on theproject by end of 2009, but the decision was held up bylocal native tribes who requested that the area where theproject would be located be designated a "traditionalcultural property."

The National Park Service determined that NantucketSound is eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places, requiring Interior to consider any relatedsignificant archeological, historic and cultural values whenreviewing the permit for Cape Wind. The MA S t a t eHistoric Preservation Officer (and State Archeologist) inMarch commented favorably on the local tribes’ issues, soit is expected that a final decision under federal laweventually will be made by Secretary Salazar.

The Massachusetts Ocean Plan culminates six years ofeffort. Spurred by growing competition for ocean resourcesfor a variety of energ y, transportation, food andrecreational uses, the Massachusetts Ocean ManagementTask Force, a 23-member team of diverse stakeholdersappointed by the previous Administration, recommended

(New State Ocean Plan Make Waves....continued on page 14)


Environmental Consulting ServicesFor Conservation CommissionsThird Party Permit ReviewsWetland Delineation ReviewsConstruction Compliance MonitoringErosion Control PlansStormwater Management System EvaluationsWetland Restoration & Mitigation PlansRare Species Habitat StudiesVernal Pool AssessmentsWetland Plant Nursery and PlantingServices

Wetlands Preservation, Inc.Environmental Consulting Services

475 Ipswich Road, Boxford, MA 01921 (978) 352-790347 Newton Road, Plaistow, NH 03865 (603) 382-3435FAX : (603) 382-3492 E-MAIL: [email protected]

Website: www.wetlandwpi.com

in 2004 that the state adopt a new and comprehensive lawto give public agencies clear direction and strongerauthority for managing state waters. The resulting OceansAct in 2008 was the culmination of four years ofnegotiation and collaboration between state legislators,state agencies, environmental groups, fishingorganizations, energy and utility interests, and other oceanusers. The Oceans Act required the Ocean Plan by the endof 2009.

State ocean waters support rich and diverse populationsof fish including the cod, haddock and flounder fisheriesthat have been the bedrock of New England coastaleconomies for centuries. Each year, federally-endangeredNorth Atlantic right whales come to Cape Cod Bay to feedand nurse their young. As many as one-half of the world’spopulation of endangered roseate terns can be found inBuzzards Bay.

Ocean spatial management, based on comprehensive,integrated science, policy and stakeholder input, is beingutilized at the federal level. In the works is a NationalOcean Policy built around regional ocean managementplans, a priority of the Obama administration.

On December 14, 2009, President Obama’s InteragencyOcean Policy Task Force, led by the White House Councilon Environmental Quality created in June 2009, releasedits Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and MarineSpatial Planning for public review and comment. Withcompeting interests in the ocean, our coasts and the GreatLakes, the Framework offers a new approach to planningand managing uses and activities. Under the Framework,coastal and marine spatial planning would be regional inscope, developed cooperatively among federal, state,tribal, local authorities, and regional governance structure.

The Obama administration also has proposed a newclimate service that would provide Americans withpredictions on how global warming will affect everythingfrom drought to sea levels. The National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Climate Service, modeledloosely on the 140-year-old National Weather Service,would provide forecasts to farmers, regional watermanagers and businesses affected by changing climateconditions. The move is essentially a reorganization ofNOAA, and would bring the agency's climate research armtogether with its more consumer-oriented services. In orderto formally launch the reorganization, the House andSenate Appropriations committees with jurisdiction overNOAA, will have to approve the move, which is plannedfor October 1, 2010.

In addition a bill known as the Renewable EnergyEnvironmental Research Act of 2009 (S. 2852) wouldestablish within NOAA an integrated and comprehensiveocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric research,prediction, and environmental information program tosupport renewable energy.

Mr. McGregor is an MACC Board Member and formerpresident. This article was originally published in thespring 2010 issue of REBA News, the quarterly printpublication of the Real Estate Bar Association forMassachusetts.

(Continued from page 13, New State Ocean Plan Make Waves....)


and only a dozen or so municipalities in the Commonwealthhave thus far sought such special legislation. If acommission has obtained special legislation or a charterprovision allowing alternate members to vote, thosemembers’ authority will be expressed by the terms of thelegislation. For example, the Town of Bourne obtained therequisite legislation in 2004 (Chapter 339 of Acts of 2004)and under that Act, the associate member is only allowed to“sit” in the case of absence, inability to act (or conflict ofinterest), or where there is a vacancy on the board.

Sometimes a commissioner’s term ends and theselectboard does not immediately make a new appointment,or there is nobody interested in serving. This sometimesleads to “holdovers,” and questions have arisen as towhether holdovers can vote, or are their positions to beconsidered vacant for quorum and quantum purposes.2

In any case, there is precedent to holdovers beingallowed to continue to vote. An Opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, 7 Ops. Atty. Gen. 1924, p. 417, indicates that anelected municipal official may continue in office after his orher term expires until a successor is sworn in. This policyhas been applied to appointed officials, like ConservationCommissioners, as well. In a 2001 case, an appointed townofficial was deemed illegally discharged when she was letgo before her successor was “qualified,” that is, selectedand sworn in, rather than being allowed by the town tocontinue as a holdover. Town of Eastham v. BarnstableCounty Retirement Board, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 734. TheAppeals Court found in that case that the holdover period,while not technically part of the term for which an officialis elected or appointed, is “a period during which theofficial is entitled to remain in office.” That case, like manyit cited, dealt with the position of town accountant, andinvolved a state statute defining terms of holdovers, whichdoes not apply to Conservation Commissions; still, theCourt cited the Opinion of the Attorney General, and

otherwise found that unless there is legislative intent to thecontrary, municipal officials may holdover until successorsare appointed. The key words are “may” and “is entitledto,” because there may be instances in which the persondoes not wish to continue and the seat will remain empty.

If the person whose term has expired does not wish tocontinue serving, and no successor has been appointed orduly sworn into the office, it will remain vacant.Sometimes a commissioner’s term ends because he or sheresigns, dies, or moves out of town with no stated intentionof continuing in office. The potential problem is thepossibility of a tie vote due to the remaining number ofcommission seats becoming an even number. A tie vote canbe considered either a denial or interpreted as “no action,”which is equivalent to a denial and appealable to MassDEP.Presumably bylaws and ordinances would not havedifferent language on this point, and would also consider atie to be akin to a denial. The solution to this problem is toensure that your commission has an odd number of seats inorder to avoid tie votes. Typically, that will mean that youneed to find a member to fill one last seat, as most cities andtowns set up their commissions properly with an oddnumber of seats. If a commission finds itself with an evennumber of members and just can’t fill that last seat, it maybe time to consider reducing the number of seats by a voteof the city council or town meeting, provided it can bereduced to an acceptable and reasonable number (i.e. from7 to 5, or even from 5 to 3), and provided that the remainingthree members are not left overwhelmed withresponsibility!).

Overall, the solution for many of the potential problemsin getting a quorum and determining the quantum of vote isto ensure that your commission has a reasonable number ofseats, and that they are filled with knowledgeable memberswho have the time and inclination to serve in their duties ascommissioners.

Kathleen Connolly is an environmental and land useattorney with Murtha Cullina LLP, and an MACC Officer.

1These issues are also discussed at MACC’s Advanced Law Core DayTraining presented by an MACC Attorney at the Annual EnvironmentalConference and at other workshops.

2To add to the confusion as to whether a holdover has voting rightsare certain statutory requirements of holding office; for example, underc. 41§107, each time a member is reappointed, he or she must be swornin by town clerk. Thus, the question arises of whether a holdover whohas not been sworn in, may vote. This, of course, applies to any memberwho has not been sworn into office. We are not aware of any case lawin which a decision issued by a commission whose members have notbeen sworn into office has been overturned, but as with our other adviceon procedural issues, it is best to be safe and follow your municipal oathof office and other procedures.


16 MACC Newsletter March/April 201016 MACC Newsletter January/February 2010

Join MACC in Celebratingwith Alexandra Dawson

Help Improve Habitat Connectivity andReduce Wildlife Roadkill

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation,the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and EndangeredSpecies Program, and the Vernal Pool Association havelaunched an effort to minimize the impact of roads onwildlife, while improving highway safety.

A website has been established to gather informationon the locations of wildlife roadkill hotspots. Anyonecan submit data on locations of all types of wildliferoadkills as well as places where turtles or salamanderscross roads to get to and from breeding areas. Thisinformation is being compiled on maps and will beused to prioritize where improvements to wildlifepassage would have the greatest benefits. Pleaseparticipate, and encourage other people you know tojoin in too.

http://linkinglandscapes.info/roads/home.html

In Memoriam

Robert Conway, a Conservation Commissioner inCarver, died suddenly on Saturday, February 6,2010. A naturalist, he was an expert in theidentification of rare and endangered species andwildlife, an expert in land management andhabitat, as well as a prizewinning photographer ofplants, animals, flora and fauna. His photographyaided in identifying many previouslyundocumented species located in SoutheasternMassachusetts for many conservation agencies.


TOP TENMost Pathetic Excuses for Violating

an Order of Conditions

This year’s list was presented during the OpeningSession of the Annual Environmental Conference(AEC) 2010. MACC thanks everyone who submitteditems. The winning entries came from theLongmeadow, Lincoln, Shutesbury, Norfolk, Taunton,and Middleton Conservation Commissions, and fromEcoTec and several individuals. All of the Top Tenlists are posted on the MACC web site: maccweb.org.

10. Not my interpretation of what the Order says.

9. But those areas aren’t wet now.

8. Congress doesn’t read bills before voting: Don’t blame me for not reading the permit.

7. Didn’t think you’d catch me.

6. Followed plans submitted to board of health, not those given to Cons Com.

5. Maybe you told her no clear-cutting, but I don’t talk to my wife.

4. The neighbor’s dog did it.

3. “You” didn’t leave me enough room between the house and the wetland.

2. Had to dump its load to get my truck out of the swamp.

1. My realtor said it was okay.

Check Out CZM's New CoastalLandscaping Website

Landscaping with native plants can help coastalproperty owners prevent storm damage and erosion,provide wildlife habitat, and reduce coastal waterpollution—all while improving a property's visualappeal and natural character. CZM's new CoastalL a n d s c a p i n g w e b s i t e< h t t p : / / w w w . m a s s . g o v / c z m / c o a s t a l _landscaping/> presents: detailed information on thebenefits of these landscaping techniques; step-by-stepinstructions on landscaping a bank, beach, or dune; tipsfor planting, installation, and maintenance; plant listsand photos; sample landscape plans; information onpermitting; suggestions on where to purchase nativeplants; and links to additional information.


MACC 2010 Environmental Service Awards(presented at the Annual Environmental Conference on Feburary 27)

Long Term Conservation Leadership

George BatesGeorge Bates has been actively involved in conservation activities in the Town of Weston for over 46 years, as a ConservationCommissioner and as a leader of the Weston Forest and Trail Association. Appointed to the Commission in 1988, Georgeserved as Chair for 19 years and continues to be a vital asset to the board. Working through both the Conservation Commissionand the Forest and Trail Association, George has steadily added dozens of parcels, conservation restrictions (CRs), and traileasements to Weston’s 2,000 acres of conservation land. In a landmark legal case, George’s precise knowledge of the boundariesof Weston’s protected open space led to the discovery of a CR encroachment and a precedent-setting case with statewideimplications for the protection of conservation land. But perhaps George’s greatest contribution is Weston’s system of some100 miles of trails. He laid out many of the trails, and was largely responsible for creating the first set of trail maps more thanthirty years ago. Today it is possible to walk from one corner of Weston to the other almost entirely on trails, because Georgehas patiently stitched the system together one easement or parcel at a time. George truly believes in promoting conservationand passive recreation for the generations to come.

Conservation Commissioner of the YearDavid Johnson

In 1969, Chairman David Johnson called the very first meeting of the Palmer Conservation Commission to order. There begana remarkable career of community and environmental service. Chairman Johnson is still at it! From the outset, David saw landconservation and river protection as keys to natural resource stewardship. In the early 1970s he partnered with the Army Corpsto study Palmer’s four rivers, worked to secure one of the first Agricultural Preservation Restrictions in the area; and helpedestablish an open space fund. In the 1980s David led efforts to name contaminated riverfront a Superfund site (leading tocleanup), designate the Quaboag River as Wild and Scenic, pass a wetlands bylaw, and convert antique roadways to publicwalkways managed by the Commission. In the 1990s, under David’s leadership, the Commission developed a conservationland management plan which included active forestry. Then he secured legislation allowing the board to sell timber to fundland maintenance. With his guidance a long-term effort to anticipate and finance land conservation initiatives was recentlybegun. Over the past 40 years, the seeds of active resource conservation and stewardship planted by David Johnson have takenroot in Palmer. Today the Town enjoys an extraordinary diversity of open spaces and recreational opportunities on over 500acres of protected land.

Awardees present to receive awards from left to right:Sylvia Willard, Ellen Douglas, David Johnson


Conservation Administrator of the YearSylvia Willard

Sylvia Willard has distinguished herself in a decade of service as Conservation Administrator for the Town of Carlisle. Sheperforms the usual duties of the position in an exemplary fashion, helping the Conservation Commission perform in an efficientand consistent manner. Sylvia also does much more, demonstrating leadership in working with residents and developers tobuild support for conservation throughout the community. She established and organizes monthly Conservation Coffees thatconnect residents to a variety of environmental topics and taps local experts to share this information in an engaging yetinformal format. Sylvia communicates in a most effective way with the public, including violators, helping them understandregulations and processes and the reasons why wetlands protection is so important. Notably, Sylvia accomplishes this in afriendly and helpful manner. She has developed a stellar reputation as being fair and consistent, thereby building public supportfor wetlands regulation. She helped form a Land Stewardship Committee, initiated annual vernal pool education programs, andworks regularly with the local Trails Committee and Conservation Restriction Advisory Committee. Sylvia also helped theCommission revise the Carlisle Wetlands Bylaw and update the town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan. Throughout all of herwork, Sylvia is recognized as “the personification of an effective conservation advocate.”

Outstanding Environmental Education LeadershipEllen Douglas, P.E., P.G., Ph.D.

Ellen Douglas, a professor of hydrology at UMass-Boston, is on the front lines of quantifying how rivers, harbors, and wetlandsin Massachusetts and elsewhere are changing. Her research involves the analysis of hydrologic processes and the impacts ofhuman water use on the hydrologic cycle. Her specific research activities include examining sustainable water managementissues at the watershed to regional scale. Her work focuses on estimating the impacts of climate change on hydroclimatologyand coastal systems, monitoring the effects of river restoration activities and using economic models for promoting sustainablewater use. Through an active and engaged graduate student program Ellen has been instrumental in quantifying thegeomorphic effects of the Red Brook restoration in Wareham and Plymouth. She is also studying the economic costs andenvironmental benefits of dam removal, and how that affects the decision-making process around dam removal versus repair.Ellen has also been looking at environmental justice issues. She is investigating whether the rising waters of Boston Harborcould inundate homes near Chelsea Creek. One supporter of her nomination sums up her commitment: “Ellen is a terrificand caring professor, an energetic researcher, and works tirelessly to translate science into on-the-ground actions that protect theenvironment.”

Lifetime Achievement in Natural Resource Protection (Posthumous)James Kenneth (Ken) Taylor

Ken Taylor first went to Westfield as a Red Cross volunteer, helping victims of the devastating Flood of 1955. One year laterhe accepted a position at Westfield State Teachers College. In the 1960s when it became Westfield State College, Ken helpedfound the Biology Department. He taught at Westfield for 40 years. Ken also chaired the Westfield Conservation Commissionfor over 40 years and was recently recognized as the longest serving chairperson in Massachusetts’ history. He was a foundingmember of the Westfield River Watershed Association and Winding River Land Conservancy (where he held leadershippositions including president), and served on the board of the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee. Ken tirelesslyadvocated for our wetlands and environment, and volunteered for water restoration projects, as well as Habitat for Humanityand Meals on Wheels. He organized a group of students to help in New York after September 11th. He was a longtime memberof the Hampden Conservation District, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Districts, and Westfield River WatershedAssociation, and was long affiliated with the National Science Foundation, National Science Teachers Association andMassachusetts Envirothon. Ken was a teacher both in and out of the classroom - described by one friend and colleague as “anencyclopedia of environmental knowledge.”

Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions10 Juniper RoadBelmont, MA 02478617.489.3930www.maccweb.org

CALENDAR

MACC is a Member of Earth Share ofNew England and the Massachusetts

Environmental Collaborative.

Non-profit OrganizationU.S. POSTAGE PAIDBelmont, MA 02478Permit No. 56583

April 7, 2010. 2010 Vulnerable Wetlands Forum.Sponsored by NEIWPCC & EPA Region 1. Plymouth. Fordetails: www.neiwpcc.org.

April 7, 2010. Monitoring & Responding to Water

R e s o u rce Challenges. Sponsored by MA Wa t e rR e s o u r c e s R e s e a r c h C e n t e r. F o r d e t a i l s : w w w. W R R Cconference.com

April 10, 2010. Fundamentals for Conserv a t i o n

Commissioners Units 7 & 8. Wakefield. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.


Commissioners Units 1 & 3. Wakefield. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.

April 21, 2010. Invasive Species are Everywhere: How

You Can Help. Sponsored by DCR (and others). WaquoitBay National Estuary Research Reserve. For details:www.waquoitbayreserve.org.


Commissioners Units 5 & 6. Barnstable. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.

May 1, 2010. Fundamentals for Conserv a t i o n

Commissioners Units 2 & 4. Barnstable. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.

May 8, 2010. “Beyond Beginners” We t l a n d

Delineation Workshop. Marion. See page 8 for details andpage 9 for registration.

May 15, 2010. Basic Wetland Delineation: Soils.Marion. See page 8 for details and page 9 for registration.


Commissioners Units 1 & 3. Brewster. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.


Commissioners Units 7 & 8. Brewster. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.

May 27 & June 3, 2010. Identifying Fre s h w a t e r

Wetlands in the Landscape. Sponsored by UMassExtension & UMass Dept. of Plant, Soil & Insect Sciences.Amherst. For details: www.umassgreeninfo.org.

June 5, 2010. Basic Wetland Delineation: Vegetation.

Marion. See page 8 for details and page 9 for registration.June 10-12, 2010. Northeast Trail Symposium. Great

Barrington. For info, contact [email protected].

June 11, 2010. Fundamentals for Conserv a t i o n

Commissioners Units 2 & 4. Leominster. See page 7 fordetails and page 9 for registration.

June 25, 2010. Fundamentals for Conserv a t i o n

Commissioners Units 5 & 6. West Boylston. See page 7for details and page 9 for registration.

Documents

LEADSPONSOR Quorum, Quantum of Vote, and Other Procedural ...€¦ · Sally A. Zielinski, Ph.D. Carlisle Vice President for Education Amy Ball, CWS Sandwich ... Alexandra Dawson,