MCV Spring Update

It has been a busy few weeks for the Massachusetts Conservation Voters, and for the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Please find an update on recent activities below.

Department of Conservation and Recreation Stewardship Council

Over the past year, the DCR Stewardship Council has lost half of its membership – some did not receive a reappointment (Walter Bickford, Antonia Pollack, Elisa Campbell), others left at the end of their terms (Michelle Hanss, Heather Clish). In March, Chairman Whitney Hatch was the latest Councilor to be informed he would not be reappointed. Whitney began his service on the Stewardship Council when DCR was initially formed in 2003. Through all of DCR’s growing pains, Whitney was a steadying hand, a cheerleader, and a critic of state underfunding. His voice will be greatly missed.

Currently, the Stewardship Council has nine members out of a required 13. The most recent appointment, Jennifer Wilson has not yet begun her term. Of the four remaining vacant positions, two will come from a list of six nominations submitted by a select group of environmental organizations. For the second month in a row, Commissioner Leo Roy has reported that he is still awaiting the nominations list. Also vacant is the legally mandated Berkshire County seat.

Since Hatch’s departure, the Council has been led by acting Chairman, Dennis Smith (Plymouth) and has met twice. Much of their meeting discussions have revolved around reorganizing. During the last meeting, new officers were elected: Nate Walton (Suffolk County), Chairman; Melissa Harper (Plymouth County), Vice Chairman; and Anne Canedy (Barnstable County), Secretary.

Other reorganization issues that the Council has wrestled with are new subcommittees, which may indicate emerging interests: Finance, Policy, Operations, and Stakeholders, and membership on those subcommittees; a meeting schedule, and submitting legislation making changes to the Stewardship Council enabling legislation.

Because of the change in leadership and the relative inexperience of the Council it did not file a letter on the House Budget proposal or increased funding amendment, which we see as a lost opportunity.

However, while the inexperience of the Councilors has meant delaying important work, there is a renewed sense of mission and a new determination to fulfill their responsibilities, particularly the long-delayed Resource Management Plans (aka, Park Management Plans).

MCV has some additional suggestions: the DCR Stewardship Council enabling legislation provides for it to be involved in the annual budget by requiring it to “…develop an oversight strategy of park (resource) management plans, capital planning, and policy development. Such oversight strategies will be published annually and after a 30-day public comment period will be finalized and submitted to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. Such oversight plans must be prepared and submitted 45 days prior to the submission to the legislature of the governor’s annual budget.”

Such a yearly document with public comment seems a sound practice.

Additionally, MCV continues to be concerned about the Retained Revenue account in the DCR annual budget. Specifically, that the pressure to bring in money may have a negative effect on

DCR staff’s focus on maintaining heavily used facilities, and that residents who can least afford to bear the burden of increased fees may be priced out of our public parks. It is time for the Stewardship Council to make this account more transparent to the public. The FY 2020 budget as proposed relies on $25 million dollars in retained revenue for DCR. Because DCR only keeps 80 percent of the revenue it raises, the agency will have to raise nearly $32 million to meet that target. And yet there is no public accounting of where that money comes from, how it is spent, and how those fees impact users of the park system. We urge the Stewardship Council to shed some needed light on this DCR account.

Finally, it is time to consider changing the original enabling legislation that created the Stewardship Council to stagger the members’ seven-year terms to guard against the large-scale turnover that is temporarily hindering the Council’s ability to function as a cohesive unit. This idea was broached several years ago and never developed enough support to get off of the ground.

At The State House

In other MCV business, Executive Director Doug Pizzi recently testified in front of two legislative committees on DCR related matters. First, before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, he asked the committee to consider a $6 million increase in the DCR operations account (Line 2810-0100). House 1, the Governor’s budget, sought to increase that account by $2 million more than last fiscal year. The House Ways & Means budget proposed adding an additional $2 million for a $4 million increase. MCV and other groups supported an amendment offered by Environment Natural Resources and Agriculture (ENRA) House Chairman William “Smitty” Pignatelli to bump that total up an additional $2 million to the $6 million MCV and others were asking for. Ultimately, the House added an additional $500,000 to its original proposal, for a proposed total $4.5 million increase, not everything needed, but a large step in the right direction for DCR.

Following action in the House, the Senate Ways & Means Committee released its budget on May 7, which funded the 2800-0100 DCR operations line item at a level closer to the Governor’s budget, at $42.5 million. However, Sen. Anne Gobi, Senate ENRA chair, filed amendment 936, which calls for that line item to come in at $47 million. MCV will support that amendment when the Senate begins debate. Any difference in the House and Senate figures will be ironed out by the House Senate Conference Committee once the Senate passes its final budget.

Doug also testified in front of ENRA in favor of An Act Protecting the Natural Resources of the Commonwealth (S-459, H-732), commonly called the Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA). The PLPA would codify state policy on proposals to convert public open spaces protected by Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution to other uses. The policy, currently administered by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, calls for no net loss of open space through these conversion proposals by requiring compensatory land be offered at a ratio of at least acre for acre. The policy also calls for said compensatory land to be of equal or greater ecological value than the land being taken. And it sets up a process for bringing these proposals to the Legislature, which, in turn must vote by a two-thirds majority in order for a conversion to go forward.

The bill has been refiled every session for more than 15 years and has received ENRA support but has not received final passage. MCV supports the bill because it would force a public process on efforts to convert conservation land to other uses, such as last legislative session’s proposal to convert 85 acres of the Leominster State Forest to expand the Fitchburg Westminster Landfill. The marked lack of a public process on this proposal – there was little if any public discussion of it until proponents filed the bill in the Legislature late in the session, and to date the compensatory land has yet to be identified – has prompted MCV and other PLPA advocates to redouble efforts to get the bill passed this session. Had the PLPA been in place last session, the compensatory land would have been identified and evaluated for suitability before the bill to take the 85 acres could have been filed.

To date, the bill to convert the forest parcel to a landfill has not been refiled. But opponents of the landfill expansion are under no illusions this proposal is dead. So let’s get the PLPA across the finish line to give the public a timely opportunity to weigh in on this proposal when it returns and other proposals when they come along.