Sflfl’ri SEES M53 E‘JfiLUA‘i‘Eéfié 5??" 355535 fififié?§§¥-§E’S gifféififli Siéfig‘iiifi‘s'é‘a'fififi £3? ~?§§$S§%§€$ {fififi £3153}. Theséstortha DegreeofM.S. MICHiGAH ST AYE UNIVERSITY MALCOLM; TAYLOR 19M w |\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N \ 3 129310396 9477 ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND EVALUATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS (1963-1973) By Malcolm Taylor The seventeen—year development of municipal conservation commissions is most advanced in the northeastern United States. Indications are, though, that this concept of local governmental environmental units is spreading to other states taking on whatever basic structural form best fits the particular political format. For this reason the movement has wide appeal. However this variation in form makes it most difficult to inventory and assess their effectiveness. The legal charge a conservation commission receives, first at the hands of the state legislature and eventually from the local governing body, varies from state to state. As strictly environ- mentally oriented advisory bodies in some regions, these truly volunteer/citizen commissions are often delegated review and/or regulatory powers. This paper deals with a segment of the so-called conservation commission movement. The writer attempts to measure, especially, its Malcolm Taylor From all of this it was possible to construct a reliable commission issue/function matrix. Many conservation commissions in New Hampshire, and else- where, still operate against a backdrop of reluctance to change or innovate, but indications are that this situation itself is changing. Entering upon their second decade in New Hampshire, municipal conservation commissions are very much a part of the political/govern- mental scene. The writer asserts they will be tested more than ever as the citizenry continues to resist the challenging and changing of firmly established institutions and lifestyles, but that they will ultimately emerge as potent agencies giving meaning to that change. Malcolm Taylor impact upon the New Hampshire community and the state's environmental efforts in general. An in—depth examination is made of New Hamp— shire's traditional governmental structures particularly at the local (town and city) level. An attempt to measure, in a general sense, commission effectiveness became an exercise in equating both quantitative accomplishments with related qualitative aspects. In this latter instance, degree of meaningful community social/political change was an indicator of "effectiveness". A 57-item questionnaire was administered to gather most of the data. But a search of the literature revealed little information on municipal conservation commissions. It was concluded that the conservation commission in New Hamp- shire is truly a compromise --- a community's way of acknowledging that environmental problems do exist and are in need of addressing, but that these commissions are also a way of retaining a degree of "home rule" which may have the effect of fragmenting the approach to their solution. Other conclusions were made. New Hampshire's 183 municipal agencies charged with protecting the environment are highly motivated, perhaps the highest. They are becoming a recognized constituency while becoming more politically adept. "Effectiveness" traits also include good rapport with other agencies and citizen groups, good public communications and a dialogue with surrounding communities. The better commissions also share common goals with their members and constituencies. Proximity to urban problems was a strong indicator as well. BACKGROUND AND EVALUATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS (1963-1973) by Malcolm Taylor A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1974 IT WOULD BE WORTH THE WHILE IF IN EACH TOWN THERE WERE A COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO SEE THAT THE BEAUTY OF THE TOWN RECEIVED NO DETRIMENT. Henry David Thoreau ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank the following persons and organ- izations for their invaluable assistance in preparation of this thesis: Dr. Clifford Humphrys, my major advisor, Drs. Eckhart Dersch and Aureal Cross, the other committee members. Gratitude is also extended to the numerous town and city conservation commission members for their patience during interviews and for sharing their store of knowledge, and to other municipal officials, editors and townspeople in general. Frank Towle of The Centralized Data Processing Center, State of New Hampshire, assisted in having the data tabulated and computer cards punched, Gordon Lewis of Michigan State University assisted in subsequent programing and interpretation of the results along with staff members of The Kiewit Computation Center, Dartmouth College. To the Trustees of the Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trust, and especially Eugene Struckhoff, its secretary for financial assistance and guidance, again my sincerest thanks. Paul Bofinger, forester and president of the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, and Leslie Clark, its educational director, should also be singled out for special thanks. The constant input from Joe Quinn, Floyd Barker, Dave Mann and others in and out of state service was most reassuring. iii Finally, my father spent many long hours helping double-check the data. Nuna Montgomery offered numerous constructive criticisms and, what is more important, offered an unending devotion and faithfulness that greatly eased the strain in the final weeks before the deadline. The Directors of the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions were most tolerant with my various and often sudden leaves in the final month of thesis preparation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INmODUCI'ION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Chapter I I HSIORICAL CONMT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 Origins in Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Commission Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 As Part of the Overall Environmental Movement . . . . 5 II. THE PROBLEM IN DETERMINING COMMISSION EFFECTIVENESS . . 8 Timeliness of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . 13 IV. THE CASE FOR AN EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION . . . . . . . . 15 Search for Local Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Actual Parameters of Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . 17 V. POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . . . . . . 20 Truly Representative Government . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Functions of Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Sources of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 To Fill A Void in Local Funding . . . . . . . . . . . 25 State Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Other Levels of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Advantages of New Hampshire's Local Approach . . . . . 28 Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A Framework to Work Within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 VI. CONSERVATION MOVEMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . . . . . . . 30 New Hampshire's First Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter Page VII. HOW CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS BEGAN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . 35 An Enabling Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Attempts at Technical Back—up . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Formation of Association of Conservation Commissions . 37 Non-Governmental Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 The Ford Foundation Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 More Legislative Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 VIII. VARIOUS COMMISSION ENABLING ACTS} A COMPARISON . . . . . 43 Points in Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 IX. EARLY GROWTH OF COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . . . . 49 Early Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 More Crisis Oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 City Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Commission Versus Planning Board . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Inadequacy at the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 How NHACC Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The Ford Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 "Benchmarks" in the Movement: A Summary . . . . . . . 61 Other Success Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 x I T1IEORETICAL Fmom I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6"" XI. TECHNIQUES OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 XII . FORMT OF III-IE DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 69 Effectiveness Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 The Effective Commission: A Profile . . . . . . . . . 74 XIII. COMSSION ACTIVITY PI'IASES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 76 An Issue/Function Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Definition Of Tems Used I o I o o o o o o o o o o o o 77 The More Advanced Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 XIV I GENERAL FINDINGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 82" Profile of a Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 The Truly Effective Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Growth as it Relates to Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Other Indicators of Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . 87 How a Commission is Viewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 vi Chapter Page An Increasing Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Tenacity as Indicator of Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Wider Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Contributions; Summary and Future . . . . . . . . . . . 96 APPENDIX A STATUTES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMISSIONSoooooooooooooocoooooo 98 APPENDIX B MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 APPENDIX C CHRONOLOGY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . . . . 102 APPENDIX D COMPUTER DATA ON NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWNS AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 APPENDIX E THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 BI BLI mm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 128 vii INTRODUCTION MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE The local conservation commission in New Hampshire, now very much at the center of the state‘s environmental programs and problems, is an official agency of municipal or local community-level govern- ment. It has its roots in the state enabling act for conservation commissions, New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 36—A, passed by the General Court in 1963 and amended in 1973. A conservation commission is established when a town meeting so votes, or when a city council adopts the state enabling act. Anywhere from three to seven commissioners are appointed for three- year terms by the chief municipal officials, selectmen, mayors or city managers. There are 233 municipalities in New Hampshire--220 towns, 13 cities. Of these, 183 have chosen to enact and establish conservation commissions. State law calls for commissions to engage in the overall protection and encouragement of proper utilization of their community's natural resources. Commissions are also required to take measures to protect watershed areas and conduct research on usage of local land and water areas. This includes municipally- or state-owned areas. There is the additional requirement that commissions shall seek to coordinate the activities of unofficial groups such as conservation councils, town forest committees, etc. organized for similar purposes. Under the same statute, the legislature also mandated the indexing of open space and wetlands within the community accompanied by relative information for their proper or best use. Additionally an annual report must be filed describing a commission's activities throughout the year. A conservation commission has the power to accept gifts of real or personal property, or money, in the name of the town but subject to approval of the city or town fathers. Less than full fee interests such as easements, convenants, leases or development rights may also be accepted to further the legislative mandate. Many commissions are now tending to favor easements over outright purchase, realizing that the same purposes may be served for considerably less expenditure of public funds. However, the power of eminent domain is expressly prohibited under the law. There is one rather unique power conferred under the enabling statute, though. It is a provision that allows, at the conclusion of each fiscal year, for unexpended appropriations to "carry over" and be allowed to accumulate in a special conservation trust fund. This power does not exist with any other municipal agency in New Hampshire without special arrangement. CHAPTER I HISTORICAL CONTEXT New Hampshire was the fourth state to adopt the concept of local governmental environmental agencies (see Appendix). It is not surprising that such a movement should have had its beginnings in that part of the nation where a strong sense of local or home rule has always been evident. In the wake of increasing land use confrontations at the local level, home rule and the town meeting have become even more significant than they were just a few years ago, both detrimental in some cases, and a decided advantage in other instances. Origing in Massachusetts A proposal to drain and fill a marsh in the eastern Massachu- setts town of Ipswich in 1956 provided the impetus for local action which eventually evolved into the conservation commission movement in the northeast. Concerned residents of Ipswich sought appropriate local authority to save the marsh when it was learned that severe ecological damage would result. There was no municipal governmental machinery for directly dealing with the problem. Acquisition of the marsh by eminent domain, the last resort when regulatory proceedings failed, was said by the courts to be outside the traditional use of the "police powers" when used for such protective purposes. Opponents to the marsh development then seized upon an existing Massachusetts statute which allowed for creation of local industrial development authorities. Although opponents of the project were not out to promote industrial growth in Ipswich, they were able to justify their move on the grounds that preserving the marsh with all its ecological implications protected or enhanced community property values. Their strategy worked! Ipswich resident and state legislator John Dolan, then serving on two very important committees of the Massachusetts House of Repre- sentatives, joined the action. He sat on one committee hearing conservation legislation, and on another dealing with municipal govern- ment. The proper ingredients were present and the first conservation commission enabling act was introduced and subsequently passed in Massachusetts in 1957.1 Rhode Island picked up the idea and passed similar legislation in 1960, Connecticut in 1961 and New Hampshire in 1963. Today all New 2 England states, New York and New Jersey have established conservation commissions at the local level. The concept has been introduced in other states as well but the form of final adoption has not been 3 adequately researched. IAndrew J. W. Scheffey, "Conservation Commissions in Massachu- setts," The Conservation Foundation (Washington: 1969), p. 30. 2Vermont has no specific conservation commission enabling act but has established eight commissions under its "Home Rule" statute. 3Other states with or considering some form of local or county conservation or environmental commission are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana, Montana, and the Province of Ontario. Commission Cross-section It is difficult to typify the members of an "average" municipal conservation commission. There are, however, a few common character- istics that may be observed. Commissions are normally made up of laymen in the fields of environmental science. Commissioners are likely to be garage mechanics, teachers, shopkeepers, farmers and bankers rather than limnologists or professional ecologists. But most have some association, past or present, with a broadly based "environ- mental" organization. Commissioners are often members of sportsmen's clubs, 4-H clubs, garden or civic improvement groups. They may be Audubon members or belong to an organization such as the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests. The nucleus of many conservation commissions is often a single individual who, through personal contact outside his community, has brought home the idea presenting it to the city council or town meeting for approval. As Partgof the Overall EnvironmentalqMovement Conservation commissions in the northeast became even more active, prominent and viable with the recent resurgence of nationwide environmental concern culminating in the late 1960s. But many of them had been deeply involved with much less newsworthy chores long before this. Coincidental with the first National Earth Day in April of 1970 there was suddenly a renewed interest in local conservation commissions. Twenty-two New Hampshire communities voted to establish commissions in that year, twenty the following year (see Chronology in Appendix). Thirteen towns and one city established commissions in the spring of 1973 bringing the state's total to 182. They are, in many instances, the logical outgrowth of the conservation movement at the local level. More than 1500 conservation commissions have emerged through all of this interest and activity in eight northeastern states. Expansion of the environmental impact statement concept with its emphasis upon the local hearing and review process, expanded wetlands legislation, numerous grants both private and governmental, the presence of greater expertise on the local level and a broader citizen involvement in the affairs of state are but a few of the reasons for this rapid growth. It might be well to note a broadening of the traditional term "conservation" to better understand the expanded roles of conservation commissions. "Conservation" historically has concerned itself with the use of various nonrenewable or slowly renewable natural resources-- forests, soils, natural habitats or wilderness areas. "Environment" as it is now defined encompasses such other things as the consumption of fuels, ambient air quality, the oceans, noise, extra terrestrial space and even occupational healthy-factors some say equate to the "quality of life". This broader interpretation of conservation has led to the creation of additional governmental units at all political levels, including the town and city, but with broader environmental issues tending to be centralized within state governments and with the federal.“ 1+Denton E. Morrison, Kenneth E. Hornback, and W. Keith Warner, "The Environmental Movement," Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1971, p. h. New Hampshire's conservation commissions, increasing in numbers year by year, perform a variety of administrative, advisory and review functions within this framework. These range from sending local teenagers to conservation camps, testifying at hearings, inventorying local soils and wetlands, managing town—owned lands and even litigating against violators of local land use regulations. This paper addresses itself to many of these functions and interpretations of purpose by municipal conservation commissions. The writer feels that certain supportive data tend to indicate why some commissions are more effective than others. This paper will also attempt to formulate "parameters of effectiveness" in order to rank the commissions studied and interviewed. This will necessitate some examination of traditional social institutions, governmental and other- wise, community customs and infrastructure, the effect of various assistance grants, recent legislation, local initiative and the sus- taining of interest and effort. Eighty-six conservation commissions were examined and inter- viewed over a period of a year. Other relative data concerning these communities were tabulated as well. From this it is hoped that new insights will be gained into the conservation commission movement in New Hampshire and elsewhere to assist in strengthening the many local efforts being made in its name. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM IN DETERMINING COMMISSION EFFECTIVENESS The real problem here seems to be in accurately defining and evaluating the municipal conservation commission movement in general, and individual commissions within the context of that movement. In the latter case "parameters of effectiveness" are envisioned as a scale or continuum denoting degree of success or accomplishment related to aspirations and goals established within the setting of a particular community. Disappointingly it was not possible to develop a sophis- ticated measurement and evaluation process beyond the stage of well educated generalizations in some instances. These were made from quantitative data gathered and numerous empirical observations. The self assessment of each commission as to its own performance became an important factor but had to be tempered with "outside" information from other sources.5 The reasons for assessing the overall impact and value of the local conservation commission movement, and for comparing the effective- ness of one commission with another are, in a sense, the same as in 5Interviews with local newspaper editors, planning board members, selectmen, other municipal and state officials, grants officers, etc. other areas of sociological measurement. Program planners, administra- tors, governmental officials and municipal conservation commissioners themselves are anxious to assess their past efforts with an eye toward the future. Legislative leaders are also anxious to determine if the state's Enabling Act has worked. With a relatively few citizens involved directly with local government in each community, an "economy of effort" is desirable to take best advantage of their limited efforts. Further, to evaluate and compare a variety of efforts may lead to re-establishment of priorities at a time when they are needed most. Citizen support and the endorsement of key people within the community, so essential to any grassroots program, may be bolstered through greater knowledge and confidence in such an effort. To accomplish this, periodic assessments are imperative. By demonstrating to the citizenry that constructive change has occurred as the result of a commission's participation in a program, future citizen confidence and support is gained. This, in turn, instills greater commission identity. The town or city sees it as their commission and commissioners are clearer on their overall role in the scheme of things. Periodic evaluation also helps to determine the extent and kind of overall change in conditions and whether this has been constructive. The temptation is to measure this purely in terms of numbers such as total acres acquired for conservation purposes, frequency of meetings or total amount of operating appropriations, etc. Much more difficult 10 to measure are the quality of programs and relationships causing con— structive change. With certainty it may be added that periodic evaluation of such programs as those carried on by municipal conservation commissions bolsters personal and group satisfaction. Tangible signs of progress or "benchmarks" are needed, especially when a program is about to be expanded to a more sophisticated phase. The above assumption should facilitate more enthusiastic short and long range goal setting through continuing evaluation. This enthusiasm becomes a direct function of ongoing goal redefinition, and measured "effectiveness" reduces much of the uncertainty. This tends to result in goals being thus redefined upward into another area of some significant uncertainty and the whole evaluation process repeats itself.6 All of this is most desirable to the continued viability of a program such as local conservation commissions which, at times, shows definite signs of being threadbare.7 Timeliness of the Problem The significance of the problem stated above, as it relates to commissions involved in environmental review, regulation and planning is quite timely. The movement in New Hampshire was ten years old on 21 June of 1973 and has grown rapidly in popularity statewide as well 6Richard M. Emerson, "Mount Everest: A Case Study of Communi- cation Feedback and Sustained Group Goal—Striving," Sociometry, Vol. 29, No. 3, Sept. 1966, p. 214. 7Comments of the now Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Dr. Charles H. W. Foster at the November 15-17, 1970 New England Conservation Commission Congress at Bedford, New Hampshire. 11 as throughout the Northeast. Indications are now that what was once basically a Massachusetts response to a local political situation could well become a nationwide model. Recent attention given the commission movement by such organizations as the Ford Foundation,8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Interior, the Conservation Foundation, Rockefeller Trust and even the editorial support of the New York Times9 attest to this. In New Hampshire alone there were in the spring of 1973 four legislative bills recognizing and dealing directly with local conservation commissions in the state.10 The trials and tribulations of local conservation commissions is, in part, a microcosmos of the overall struggle to assimulate natural/ecological law into the manmade systems of economics and political science. But it was easier to study. For this reason, closer examination of commissions could serve the larger case as well. Data are badly needed in the whole area of local governmental administration and regulation of environmental affairs. The diversity 8i.e., Ford Foundation's $685,000 assistance grant to north- eastern conservation commissions, December 29, 1972 meeting between EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus and head of New Hampshire Ass'n. of Conservation Commissions and April 2, 1973 Trenton, New Jersey meeting with seven states' commission representatives, Carling's partial sponsorship of the New England Conservation Commission Congress November 15—17, 1970, Rockefeller Trust's partial sponsorship of Conservation Commission-Silver Bay Conference June 24-27, 1973. 9New York Times, November 9, 1971. loBills designed to broaden basic review powers, the charge, technical assistance to and duties of commissions in New Hampshire. (See New Hampshire 1973 Legislative House Bills 664, 683, 817 and 307. 12 of the field has tended to discourage any comprehensive investigative examination to date. This paper will confine itself mostly to the New Hampshire experience and will only deal with outside factors which are necessary to further explain the in—state situation. Further, this paper takes full advantage of several factors, not the least of which is the writer's intimate firsthand knowledge of the commission movement in New Hampshire. Associated with the efforts of towns and cities to establish functioning commissions since 1966, as chairman of one such commission since 1968 and now as state executive secretary for the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, the writer is able to bring to bear many personal experiences which serve to punctuate what few data are available. By bringing together such firsthand accounts, what data that do exist, various state enabling statutes plus the elicited responses of almost 100 conservation commissions, municipal officials and other state governmental and private technicians in related fielda,it is hoped that a clearer picture of the past and future of the movement can be gained. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION At the time this thesis was begun, conservation commissions in New Hampshire were seven years old. However, the movement itself, taking in the northeastern United States, was thirteen years old. Yet little research into this social phenomenon had been done. Only isolated articles of a popular nature had appeared. In the past three years a few more technical works were com- pleted and talk of taking the idea of local conservation commissions to the rest of the nation has become more realistic. Actions in pursuance of this were taken by the Ford Foundation and various state associations of conservation commissions to introduce the concept nationwide. Top federal officials11 were approached at Foundation— sponsored meetings.12 Therefore it seems appropriate to this writer that further contributions should be made to the meager literature on conservation commissions. 11Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ‘William D. Ruckelshaus who met directly with association heads and Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of Interior, who assigned a staff con— tact man. 12April 2, 1973 meeting in Trenton, New Jersey with Mr. Ituckelshaus and April 27, 1973 meeting with heads of state commission associations and all seven northeastern state resource commissioners in New York. 13 14 The writer also felt a need to explore the goals and accom- plishments of commissions in New Hampshire in the light of the overall effort, and within the context of the times, namely, the late sixties as the years of the "environmental crisis". This effort was also suggested by the state's leading environmental organization, the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests and Spaulding—Potter Trusts (see Appendix). Finally, research such as that encompassed herein was sought as background for a proposal to the Ford Foundation to support the 3 seven-state efforts of local conservation commissions in 1972-1973.1 l3Malcolm Taylor, Program of Assistance to Municipal Conser- vation commissions in New England, New York and New Jersey: A Proposal, The Ford Foundation, New York, January, 1972. CHAPTER IV THE CASE FOR AN EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION As stated earlier, there are conservation commissions which are effective within their respective communities, and those which are not, plus a wide array in between these extremes. It is possible to measure and rank these although little has been done in this area to date. An effectiveness scale to gauge progress has been suggested in other reports as well 14 With much of the literature already dwelling upon the quanti- tative aspects of assessing effectiveness of community subgroups, it has been asserted that the magnitude of activity, equated to effective- ness, logically breaks down into both "symbolic" and "functional" group analysis.15 Here the authors defined "activity" as "...a socially defined public use of symbols in a set of formal or informal «16 social relations. But efforts here are more directed toward "functional" aspects. 14See also unpublished works by Steven Crandall (New Jersey Conservation Commissions), Princeton University 1971, and Theodore Siegler (New Hampshire Conservation Commissionss, University of New Hampshire , 1973 . l5W. Lloyd Warner, J. 0. Low, S. Paul, and Leo Srole, Yankee Cit , Vol. I (London-Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 134-135. l6Ibid., p. 135. 15 16 Dynamic group activity and the interrelationship between groups must be studied within the context of these various social interdependicies. Kenneth Wilkinson cites, as a major weakness in the literature on community group participation and leadership, the inadequacy of merely explaining "action networks" within which community roles are played.17 Social change basically occurs at the local level and doesn't truly become a reality until adopted, accepted and implemented at this level. "Community" or "local level" within the context of this paper generally means municipality. Therefore, as previously stated, the search here is for those individuals and groups most effecting meaningful change. In a semi-rural but fast urbanizing state such as New Hamp- shire, the federal governmental power still seems remote. The same may even be true, at times, of state government as it relates to the towns. Geographical separation and poor communications gave New England its close ties with grassroots town government. Now more decisions are being handed down from more distant levels of government, often with imperfect knowledge of the local situations present or the eventual consequences of decisions made. l7kenneth P. Wilkinson, "Phases and Roles in Community Action," Rural Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 1, March, 1970, p. 54. 17 Search for Local_Leadership "(The state)...cannot truly heed the uniqueness of a local situation. Social and economic transformation is rather a communal process," states Friedman following his study of South.American towns.18 The communal or community process operates within the larger regional, state or federal framework, adjusting to outside changes. But local leadership and effectiveness, or lack of same, are still key factors. The tendency thus far has been to measure effectiveness as a function of the degree of activity, change, innovation, etc., where it is less difficult to collect dependable datar-at the county, state or higher levels. Here standard measurements and statistics are more easily defined and discernable than at the local level. In order to select leadership/effectiveness parameters for this thesis, the writer had to accept a large degree of empirical data. Actual Parameters of Effectiveness Community or group effectiveness is distinguished from other dimensions of local action by degrees of the following suggested 19 criteria: 1) Degree of comprehensiveness of interests pursued and needs met, 2) degree to which the action is identified with the locality, 3) relative number, status and degree of involvement of local residents, 4) relative number and significance of local associations 18John Friedman, Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966), p. 65. 19Harold F. Kaufman, "Toward an Interactional Conception of Community," Social Forces, Vol. 38, October, 1959, pp. 8-17. 18 involved, 5) degree to which the action maintains or changes the local society, and 6) extent of the organization of action. Other such parameters of effectiveness (action) are discussed by Sutton andKolaja.20 They break it down into only four basic elements: 1) number of actors, 2) awareness of the action, 3) goal of the action, and 4) recipients of the action. Of course the relevance of any action depends largely upon its prominence within the community value system. Actions, although they may be nominal, are related through intricate social networks. Com— munity relationships often occupy adjoining niches and affect one another through these webs of very complicated social/value systems far beyond the grasp of this thesis. But certain relationships, especially within the context of traditional social/governmental institutions, "are realized...through groups (within these systems) which coordinate and carry out community activity."21 Conservation commissions as governmental units fall well within this definition. An attempt at equating degree of effectiveness with magnitude of community activity and its resultant relevancy to specific community goals, values and citizen needs has been made in this context, "task accomplishment" versus "structure development" is defined by Cart- wright, et al.22 20Willis A. Sutton and Jiri Kolaja, "The Concept of Community,” Rural Sociolo , Vol. 25, June, 1960, pp. 197-198. 21Harold.F. Kaufman (see footnote #19). 22Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.), "Leadership and Performance of Group Functions: Introduction," Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (New York: Harper and Row, 1968). 19 The definition of "effectiveness" logically involves next identifying community leadership traits. As stated above, degree of meaningful change occurring is one valid measurement of program success. Now all that remains is to connect community leadership with certain changes in attitude and process. This may be done directly or indirectly. In the case of administering the questionnaires, assessing annual town reports, talking with local editors and municipal officials, attainment of community goals was taken into account and weighted heavily. CHAPTER V POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE It is obvious that the conservation commission is not the only politically social structure affecting community resource decision- making. Other "outside" institutions can have a great deal to do with commission success. It is often the ambition, energy and tenacity of one or two articulate and hard-working citizens that spells success or failure, and not necessarily the commission's structure or any formal community social system. The object here is to look at some of the commissions' organ- izational functions and steps toward implementation of goals within the limited scope of inquiry made. It is important, with this in mind, to examine the traditional social/political structures in New Hampshire especially as they affect local government, and conservation com- missions in particular. Truly Representative Government Much of the nation still looks at contemporary New England as the birthplace and, simultaneously, last stronghold of truly local government. The pictorial calendar image portrays the "typical" New England meetinghouse wherein the seat of home rule government still rests. 20 21 It is not due to any love of government or public regulation that New Englanders have clung so tenaciously to home rule. Instead much of this feeling is brought on by the very reverse sentiment-~an innate basic mistrust of, or distaste for, centralized rule. Some early observers of the New England political scene dif- ferentiated between "society" which was basically good in their view and "government" which was basically evil or, as Thomas Paine asserted, "...the punisher."23 Succeeding generations have carried the adage that the "best government is the least government" and the feeling is very much in evidence today, especially in rural and economically depressed areas. So the municipality remains the cominant governmental form in an age of mechanization, mobility and complexity. Its citizens and resources are severely "taxed" in more ways than one. A strong thread of conservatism which runs throughout New Hampshire politics shows up at all levels of government but especially at the local level. The remnants of an agrarian past plus a strong tradition of resistance to change make innovation in government, especially at the community level where there is more direct citizen involvement, very difficult. The municipal conservation commission has provided a compromise to many towns and cities who do not want to see all environmental review and control measures pass to the state or other governmental subdivisions. This same conservatism has fostered a moderate reaction to some 23Thomas Paine, Common Sense, January 10, 1776, Philadelphia. 22 environmental efforts within local government (and at other levels for that matter). During the 1972 town meetings three towns failed to pass articles to establish conservation commissions mainly because "...there is already too much governmental control!" There is fear in some quarters that more strict attention to environmental values could cost jobszu or might restrict a landowner's choices in relation to his land. Traditionally townspeople, apprehensive over rapid social change, have displayed their anger and frustration to local planning boards, zoning commissions, boards of adjustment and selectmen in general, those officials "blessed" with the day-to-day administration and enforcement of land use controls. Lately some of this reactionary feeling has shifted to the conservation commission as it has begun to participate more and more in the local land use decision-making process. In Orford, a Grafton County town of 873 inhabitants, a man who later became governor addressed fellow townspeople over the issue of establishing a conservation commission, saying it was just one more way the state was "...getting its foot in the door of local government." He also suggested that lands might be ”taken" if a commission was established.25 The governor-to-be was not alone in this feeling. anspecially in the towns of Lincoln, Newmarket, Ashland, Epping, and Cities of Berlin and Rochester where critics of environ- mental protection have recently been outspoken. 25Town Meeting, Orford, New Hampshire, March 7, 1972 per tape recording of same by Apertura, Inc. 23 Functions of Local:Government There are numerous other facets of municipal government. Briefly, local government in New Hampshire, a creature of the state, is a multipurpose unit. While designating a political-geographical area, it also comprises a constituency for county, regional and state government. It is a taxing district and provider of local services. Its boundaries may or may not coincide with established communities. It is closest to the electorate and, after decades, has survived as the dominant level of government. The real test of municipal govern- ment's durability will come in the next ten to twenty-five years. The conservation commission, it appears, will be an integral part of this test period. Sources of Revenue In order to evaluate the functionings of any governmental unit, it is imperative to look at sources of funding. New Hampshire prides itself as being the only state in the nation without either a sales or income tax. This has caused an undue burden upon local units to raise the needed revenue for public services and welfare. Thus most of this revenue is generated from a tax upon land and real estate. The state's share of financial assistance to municipalities is among the lowest in the nation. For education it is the lowest. New Hampshire communities in many areas are truly "on their own". This has brought a greater dependency upon federal funding and, in a way, a degree of independence at the same time. 24 The state has attempted to pay the costs of its own adminis- tration through a series of "sin taxes" (i.e., tobacco and alcohol tax, parimutual, gambling, etc.) and by extending vestiges of old colonial taxes (poll and head, stock-in—trade, farm animals, etc.). Some of these are now rescinded or have been ruled Unconstitutional. Still there is a great reliance upon these "less burdensome taxes". The state sweepstakes, passed by the legislature in April 1963, has not adequately financed education as had been expected by its sponsors. The 1973 total grants to all schools was a scant $2.6 million. There is still occasional talk in some northern areas of allowing gambling casinos to provide yet another source of "easy" revenue. But the problems of adequate public financing continue unsolved. This dependency upon such sources, especially the local property tax, have had a direct bearing upon the pattern of land use as well as the funding of the agencies charged with overseeing that use. Funds for capital land acquisition projects are very difficult to come by at the local level except in the more affluent towns. Many conserh vation commissions operate with as little as $50 per year or, not uncommonly, without any public funds at all. Private gifts have done much to fill this gap as a result. Any sort of significant state back-up to towns or cities in New Hampshire is equally difficult for these same reasons. An attempt during the 1973 New Hampshire legislative session to create an Office of Community Assistance and establish a special acquisition fund for conservation commissions was sidetracked in committee for the usual 25 reason. Lack of funding was given as the reason.2 Ironically many town meetings are dominated by long arguments over whether a fire truck tire should cost $75 or $95 while multi- hundred—thousand dollar school budgets slide through in minutes without serious challenge. It is said that most voters can more easily identify with such everyday things as tires than the more s0phisticated require- ments of communities like land use maps, open space policy, etc. This shows up again and again throughout the state during votes to accept town plans, zoning or other land use measures. The recent proliferation of property owner or tax payer type organizations with the sole purpose of "reducing the cost of govern- ment", attests to the growing feeling that public funds are not being spent in the most appropriate places or that, simply, too much is being spent. In this conservative climate, it is often difficult for conservation commissions to function effectively. To Fill A Void in Local Funding Next governmental unit above the municipality is the county (ten in New Hampshire), to most of the citizenry a rather unknown (except by name) but nevertheless official entity. Very few voters can name even one of their three county commissioners. They may know where the county seat is or that their license plate designates county of residence, but that is all. The involvement of the county in land 26 Attempt by Commissioner of Department of Resources and Economic Development to enter state budget item to this effect in May, 1973 - 26 use planning or environmental regulation has been almost nil. Yet the revenues extracted by assessing each town or city treasury are considerable. New Hampshire counties have no power of direct taxation in New Hampshire. In 1972 the figure was $11,112,090 collected state- wide by all ten counties. In the absence of county assistance the planning region, inserted between county and state government both by legislative act and state executive designation, becomes the next administrative level for resource-related decision—making. The planning region, its policies determined by a commission of municipal representatives, has helped to fill part of the void in local environmental planning and administration. Lately conservation commissions have been served more and more by these units which act as conduits for federal funding as well. Most of all, the regional planning commissions have been able to supply, directly or by way of consultants, the professional expertise and technical assistance so desperately needed by member communities. State Government Strong local government in New Hampshire has, in part, been the result of weaker state government. The state's executive office has been described as one of the weakest in the nation. A five-member Governor's Council provides a constant check on the governor over the slightest of details. In the words of some, New Hampshire is said to have six governors. There is also no lieutenant governor. The President of the 27 Senate serves ex officio in this capacity. He is part-time, paid $100 per year and expenses for a maximum of ninety legislative days. The legislature (called the General Court) meets only every other year. It is the third largest Englishrspeaking law-making body in the world with 424 members, each of whom receive only $200 for two years. There tends to be a strong predominance of retired, elderly, pro- fessional, wealthy or self-employed within its membership. Special interest groups are also able to pay their members' salaries in order that their people may serve. Thus it is suggested by some that the New Hampshire law-making body is not a true cross section of the state tending to favor the entrepeneur, management, business interests. With many new demands suddenly being placed on the doorstep of local government, an interesting situation is developing. The towns and cities are pleading for technical and financial assistance. Occasionally they are informed that their particular problem is strictly a local one and that there is no department within state government that has jurisdiction. Again the community must go it alone. Other Levels of Government The only other levels of government are various sub units of municipal government such as precincts, wards or village districts, and special units such as school districts, mutual fire aid and, of late, regional refuse disposal districts. In the environmental field there are such units as Conservation Districts (coterminous with the ten counties), Resource and Conservation Projects, watershed and land trust organizations, all of which have some bearing on the activities of conservation commissions, depending on region. 28 Advantages of New Hampshire's Local Approach "Direct Democracy" as it is often called, does have its advantages in the area of land use control. With such strong emphasis upon local or home rule, a much higher degree of public information is required before innovation is accepted. Few proposals brought before town meeting stand any chance of passage if the majority of voters don't understand the issue. Selectmen, boards and commissions of all types, are thus required to do their homework well. Direct answer— ability by all municipal officials is mandatory sooner or later under this system. More direct participation by the electorate is possible as well. Towns are able to move faster in the event of an emergency situation due to a built-in, quick information flexibility. But long range resource planning is seriously hampered by such a governmental structure and probably belongs to higher stations of public decision- making. Disadvantages According to some critics disadvantages of this form of local government far outweigh any advantages, especially in modern times. Critics claim that local government is too susceptible to short-range expedients or whimsy. The complaint that personalities play too large a part is often voiced. Small vocal minorities often obstruct local progress through burdensome stalling tactics. The traditional argument, that a community-by-community approach to broad environmental problems only fragments any coordinated effort, is common. Lately it has been asserted that, especially in local 29 government, the elected layman is required to perform increasingly technical tasks. Conservation commissions, unfortunately, are also experiencing this problem. The cost of government rises proportionately with the rate of inefficiency and this inefficiency rises as laymen attempt to make more and more technical decisions. In the "pure" Democratic process in New Hampshire this is quite evident. There are considerably more lay "decision-makers" within the town meeting form of government than with any other kind, and this creates a built—in waste factor the citizenry has been willing to live with until very recently. A Framework to Work Within These and other social/political forms have set the stage in which New Hampshire municipal conservation commissions must function. In order to better understand their proceedings and decision-making, it has been necessary to discuss briefly some of the factors affecting or influencing the local process. Conservation commissioners know the approximate magnitude of environmental problems and the need for remedy. The implementation of appropriate solutions is, however, the real crux of the implementation process and the basis of effectiveness. CHAPTER VI CONSERVATION MOVEMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE As previously noted, there is a long-standing conservative New Hampshire sentiment that government is inherently bad; that it already controls far too much and over-taxes its people in the process. Wit- ness, as just one example, the recent unsuccessful struggles, since the mid-fifties, to establish a broad based tax in New Hampshire as a classic example. But as early as 1864 there were those who felt otherwise. A man considered by many to be America's first conservationist, George Perkins Marsh,27 wrote: The popular apprehension of being over-governed, and, I am afraid, more emphatically, the fear of being over taxed, has had much to do with the general abandonment of certain governmental duties by the ruling powers of most modern states.2 Marsh went on to say, though, that considering all possible abuses, there was more to be gained by operating in the public sector: 27Born 1801 at Woodstock, Vermont, died 1882. Held numerous public offices in Vermont and Washington, a student of natural history, many of his principles have endured until today. Henry Clep er, Leaders of American Conservation (New York: Randall Press, 1971 . 28George Perkins Marsh, Man and Nature (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1864), p. 57. 30 31 The multiplication of public placeholders, which they imply, is a serious evil. But the corruption thus engendered, foul as it is, does not strike so deep as the rottenness of private corporations.29 Thus we had early shades of an anti-corporate/business sentiment by a true environmentalist of the day. Roots of this feeling have continued to this day but now are more manifest among liberals and the young. The conservation ethic in New Hampshire, a state more heavily industrialized per capita than its neighbors of Vermont or Maine, began to emerge somewhat later. It had its origin in concern over the rapid and, in some cases, devastating exploitation of the state's forest lands in the late 1800s. The term "conservation", until this period, had no real meaning among the rank and file citizenry. Almost overnight it became a national call to arms much in the way it did in the late l960s. Clepper asserts that undoubtedly the birth of the conservation movement, or an era of concern over the expenditure of natural resources, was in 1873, the year the American Association for Advance- ment of Science petitioned Congress and the states to pass forest 30 protection laws. This resulted in formation of the American Forestry Association two years later. New Hampshire's First Efforts In New Hampshire the very first conservation efforts were likewise directed toward its forests. Great Britain wished to 291bid., p. 52. 30Henry Clepper, Origin of American Conservation (New York: Ronald Press), p. 9. 32 reserve for the Royal Navy the straightest and most choice white pines. A 1691 colonial charter forming the Province of Massachusetts contained provisions reserving and protecting these "royal trees" for the Crown. Officers were appointed to see that this mandate was carried out. All over New Hampshire there are still numerous ”mast roads" and other vestiges of this early conservation endeavor. In 1710 the town of Newington on New Hampshire's seacoast designated a town forest and established a committee to oversee its protection.31 This body could be referred to as the state's first conservation commission. So the idea of a local board to engage in a town's conservation of its natural resources had very early beginnings. Henry David Thoreau made the observation, about 1854, that each town should have a committee to protect the natural beauty. Another step in the evolution of the conservation movement in New Hampshire was the formation, in 1901, of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. It was founded after numerous influential people, most of them from Boston, became concerned over what was happening in the northern mountains under intense logging pressures. Joseph B. Walker, the George Perkins Marsh of New Hampshire, helped in forming the Society.32 It has since become the state's most influential conservation organization. The "Forest Society" has 31Files of the New Hampshire State Forester, Division of Resources, Concord, New Hampshire. 32Paul Bruns, "New Hampshire Everlasting and Unfallen,V A Journal of the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests (Concord, (NH): Evans Printing Co., 1969), p. 7. 33 undoubtedly been the prime mover in most significant conservation efforts in the state since the turn of the century. Whereas the Appalachian Mountain Club, founded twenty—five years before the Society, and other similar organizations, emphasized climbing and hiking and worked diligently toward these recreational ends, the Society, from its inception, strongly emphasized sound forest practices and worked for state-wide conservation. First, the Society promoted town forests, then the establish- ment of an office of state forester, along with a state forestry department. Its crowning accomplishment were efforts toward estab— lishment of the 700,000? acre White Mountain National Forest. Many years later establishment of local conservation commissions in the state proved to be a second marked accomplishment. Another society to make an appearance in 1914 was the New Hampshire Audubon Society. It closely followed formation of the National Audubon and its early emphasis was upon birdlife, wildlife habitat and migration. Eventually its membership came to realize the intrinsic relationship with all other phases of conservation, and New Hampshire Audubon today is now active in statewide conservation efforts including assisting conservation commissions. There were also numerous local garden clubs, historic societies, a few land trusts and conservation camps scattered all over the state who assisted. The official machinery for handling environ- mental problems, especially at the municipal level, came much, much later. Presently the problems of solving the many, complex local 34 problems in New Hampshire, be they operation of the village dump, inspection of septic systems, education, zoning for flood plains, or providing adequate water supply, rests upon the shoulders of 233 New Hampshire municipalities, 7O village precincts and special districts, 10 counties and 8 planning regions, not to mention an alphabet soup of private, quasi-private or semi—official local groups.33 Although many of the present problems are statewide in nature, a simultaneous effort toward greater rule at home continues.3u It is agreed in some quarters that whatever the level of problem-solving, be it local, district, regional or county, its success or failure is a direct reflection of the cohesiveness of the local components, which in sum, make up the community. Thus the continuing strong emphasis upon local conservation commissions. One-hundred years before Marsh urged that the public sector was the lesser of two evils, framers of the New Hampshire State Constitution wrote: Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is there— fore bound to contribute his share of the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary....35 Today conservation commissions, by providing a service opportunity, fit right into this constitutional charge. 33Figures of New Hampshire Municipal Association, Concord, 1973- 3Ll'i.e., March 7, 1974 vote of Legislature to the Town of Durham decide if an oil refinery would be built, resistance to state regu- lation of land, etc. 35Part First, Article 12, Constitution of New Hampshire, October 31, 1783. CHAPTER VII HOW CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS BEGAN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE A representative of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests attended a Harvard Business School forum on the subject of municipal conservation commissions on April 5, 1960.36 At the time there were about twenty such agencies established in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, none yet in New Hampshire. Two years following this forum Society members announced their continuing interest in seeing similar enabling legislation introduced in New Hampshire. It urged members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to take appropriate action. A draft legislative bill was prepared taken basically from the Massachusetts law. The Society then notified the state Department of Resources and Economic Develop- ment of their intent. An Enabling Act On February 14, 1963 an appropriate draft enabling act was submitted to the New Hampshire General Court (legislature) by State Representatives Eloi A. Adams of Madbury, James A. Purington of Exeter 36Forest Notes, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests journal, No. 66, Summer, 1960. 35 36 and William R. Johnson of Hanover. It was immediately referred by the Speaker to the House Committee on Resources, Recreation and Develop- ment. In essence, House Bill 252 (as it came to be titled) sought to create municipal conservation commissions in New Hampshire much in the same way they had first been established in Massachusetts, and subse- quently in Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Massachusetts act had become law in 1956. The legislation won immediate support of the New Hampshire Natural Resources Council and numerous other conservation groups. It had the required appeal; environmentally oriented, stressed local initiative and home rule, and appropriated no funds! On June let of that year, HB 252 became law and was placed on the statutes. Disappointingly the following March (New Hampshire towns have annual meetings in March), no New Hampshire towns chose to adOpt this new state enabling act to establish a conservation commission. It was ultimately realized that few local officials, if any, were aware of the law. Again the Society stepped in to take the initiative. It sent copies of the act and detailed instructions on how to get appropriate articles into the town meeting warrants to its members. Lawrence W. Rathbun, then president of the Society, wrote to a friend in Massachu- setts in April of 1964 pointing out that no New Hampshire communities had taken advantage of the act. He asked for assistance. Finally, at town meeting in March of 1965, the Society's efforts paid off. Eighteen New Hampshire town meetings voted to establish conservation commissions. 37 Attempts at Technical Back-up The Society then undertook, as a second step, organization of a series of six exploratory meetings with federal, state and other governmental agencies to determine the degree of assistance commissions could expect. The following year sixteen more towns joined the slowly swelling ranks. A handbook and guide of available technical assistance was prepared in September of that same year consisting of the gleanings of those six exploratory meetings. It was published by the Department of Resources and Economic Development with the help of the Society. Still the mainstay of the New Hampshire commission movement, the Society, in February of 1967, held a statewide meeting in Concord. It was the first annual meeting of conservation commissions and there has been one each year ever since. Six months after this first meeting the Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trust made a grant to the University of New Hampshire to encourage Federal Title I (Higher Education Act) funding of a position of full-time conservation commission coordinator. Floyd V. Barker was then hired by the C00perative Extension Service to fill this role. That following March twenty-three new communities chose to adopt the enabling act. Egrmation of Association of Conseryation Commissions The need for technical assistance to municipalities, and financial back-up, was emphasized at the Second Regional Congress 38 of 1970.37 Many of the state's then 160 municipal conservation com- missions were represented along with other northeastern states in three days of workshop sessions. Again and again the issue of the inability of small or moderate sized towns to deal with significant 38 Formation of the New Hampshire land use decisions was brought out. Association of Conservation Commissions (NHACC), conceived and designed to provide some of this back-up needed, arose out of this congress. It has served in this capacity with varying degrees of success ever since servicing the now 183 municipalities with commissions in the state. The Association's main appeal has been that, while offering many of the same services available from government, it is not govern— mental in nature and can be more candid and flexible. Member towns and cities also do not feel a loss of autonomy or "home rule". Non-Governmenta178upport The state has been fortunate in having a high degree of private or non-gernmental assistance, financial and technical. In fact, some feel that the governmental structure in the area of land resource management is, perhaps, weaker than in neighboring states due to this very strong philanthropic support from the private sector. Examples are Spaulding-Potter Trust's grants programs to assist commissions. One was designed to issue $250 "seed grants" to help commissions not receiving appropriations through their respective 37Summary Proceedings, Regional Congress of New England Con- servation Commissions, New England Natural Resources Center, November 15-17. 1970- 38Ibid., p. 21. 39 town meetings meet routine operating expenses. The first such allocation was to the Town of Deerfield on September 13, 1967. The Trust made a supplemental grant of $2500 to this program on September 12, 1969. This was followed by the so-called "one-forbtwo" matching grants program to establish community conservation funds. It dispensed to any town or city with a conservation commission which would raise $2, $1 toward a community conservation trust fund or special fund for environ- mental purposes. Under this program a total of $20,000 was allocated. Then, on April 18, 1968, the City of Keene became the first city to approve establishment of a conservation commission. It was done through the city council by ordinance. The following month the Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trust underwrote a University of Connecticut "Townscape" study of six Lakes Region communities in Central New Hampshire. Its purpose was to inventory visual "assets" and "liabilities" and to report its findings and recommendations to local conservation commissions and other appro- priate agencies dealing with the scenic aspects of these respective communities. Some of the recommendations were followed by the inventoried communities. Ford Foundation Assistance On January 2, 1972, following a final proposal submitted by the executive secretary of the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions after preliminary work by Helen Fenske of the New Jersey Association, The Ford Foundation instituted a program of direct finan- cial assistance to local conservation commissions. A total of $300,000 40 was allocated at first to all seven northeast states (New England, New York and New Jersey) with appropriate enabling statutes.39 This latter stipulation made it impossible for Vermont to be included. The first grants were made, in New Hampshire, to the towns of Hollis, Lancaster, Madison, Richmond, Pembroke and Stratford. The early success of the program led the Foundation to refund it for an additional $300,000 a year later. Later and also under the aegis of The Ford Foundation, the environmental and resource commissioners of the seven states were brought together in New York City for an informal discussion of future funding sources for commissions in their home states following com- pletion of the Ford program. This followed by three weeks a meeting between representatives of the seven commission states and William D. Ruckelshaus, then head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on April 2nd. In the winter of 1974 the Maine Legislature passed legis- lation modeled at this session. The following June, this time under the auspices of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the first truly national conference of municipal conservation commissions was held at Silver Bay, Lake George, New York. Members of conservation commissions received partial reimbursement for attending from a grant by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. 39See unpublished proposal to The Ford Foundation by Malcolm Taylor, November, 1971, a preliminary correspondence and data by Helen Fenske. 41 More Legislative Gains Since passage of the original enabling act in 1963 there had been no significant legislation introduced into the New Hampshire General Court to do with conservation commissions. In February, 1973, two legislators, both members of their respective town conservation commissions, introduced legislation profoundly affecting the powers, direction and status of these municipal agencies. The first piece of legislation, submitted by Commissioner/ Representative Marjorie Colburn of New Boston, House Bill 664, broadened and strengthened the New Hampshire commission enabling act (RSA 36-A). It had been ten years without the benefit of review and revision. Briefly, the new legislation clarified the charge of com- missions in such areas as "water bodies" and "land areas". It also clarified the general purposes, making protection and conservation of natural resources a prime charge. The previous law had mandated "promotion and development" which were unclear terms. The bill also clarified the issue of acceptance of easements or other lesser interests in land with the approval of top municipal officials. An- other key provision, as the bill finally emerged from the House Committee on Environment and Agriculture, was that a member of the local planning board should be a member of the commission as well. This was subsequently amended in April of 1974 to encourage but not require such an ex officio office (Senate Bill 23, 1974 Special Legis- lative Session). Representative Raymond Conley's bill, House Bill 683 (later to 42 be merged in Committee with House Bills 817 and 882), called for local commission "review powers" over dredge and fill proposals within the fresh water wetlands or tidal waters of New Hampshire. A fourth piece of legislation (House Bill 307) permitted a representative of New Hampshire commissions to serve on the special open space or Current Use Advisory Board of the state Department of Revenue Administration. It is testimony to the growing credibility and political stance of conservation commissions, with their impressive constituency of almost 1200 members, that all these pieces of legislation passed! Following the regular biennium legislative session of 1973, a meeting of the seven state associations of conservation commissions was held at Rocky Hill in Connecticut with New Jersey president Stephen Levy presiding. This September 22nd gathering discussed formation of a national congress of conservation commission associations among other items of interest to the seven state region. It was the first such occasion called to discuss these issues and indications were that several other states were interested and making inquiries about estab- lishment of their own environmental agencies. This was yet another clear indication of a growing national interest. Interestingly, the following month, Vermont, the only northeast state without a formalized conservation commission effort, summoned to Burlington, Vermont representatives of both the New York and New Hampshire associations to help them form such a group there. CHAPTER VIII VARIOUS COMMISSION ENABLING ACTS: A COMPARISON Vermont is the only one of all the conservation commission states which has not seen fit to establish these local agencies through exercise of a state enabling statute. Instead it has created environ- mental commissions, natural resource committees, town forest committees and similar such bodies through a general "home rule" statute. Thus there is no prescribed format or procedure and, as a result, these local environmental agencies take many forms. New York State, in 1969, found it necessary to pull back from a similar arrangement, regroup and pass adequate legislation at the state level.”0 Its problem was further complicated in that there were many forms of municipalities, plus strong county government. New York now has perhaps the most sophisticated and comprehensive enabling act for commissions. The legislative mandate is quite clear. The New York Act (Ch. 691 Laws of 1967, Amendment 64-b to Town Law) is a reflection of the state's many municipal forms.ul 0Correspondence to author from Charles Morrison, New York State Department Environmental Conservation, December, 1971. ulMonica A. Amiel, "Comparative Analysis of Conservation Com- mission Enabling Legislation in Seven Northeastern States within the Context of National Environmental Policy," (Hatch Project # 29 NE 78, University of Massachusetts, August 1972. (Masters Thesis.) 43 44 Pennsylvania has experienced similar problems with its 338 municipalities.LP2 The prospect of having local environmental or conservation agencies as an extension of regional or state government appeals to many. Several of the states' enabling acts encourage this, in fact. The New Hampshire statute provides that the Department of Resources and Economic Development may initiate a program of assistance to local commissions but this has never been done in any formal way. In Massachusetts their commission enabling act (Ch. 40, Sec. 8-c General Laws of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amended) provides that the Department of Natural Resources establish an office of com- munity assistance (Ch. 132-11, Sec. 11). This has mainly existed to administer the state's "Self Help" program of financial aid to towns for outdoor recreation projects. But other technical assistance is also available including an appeal procedure over local wetlands review. Massachusetts has the oldest enabling act, the lobbying for which actually started in 1965. It has been greatly broadened since that time. Back in 1965 at a planning conference, New York Assemblyman Perry Duryea, now House Speaker, noted a poor response to the recre- ational grants program. Priscilla Redfield Roe, who had moved to Long Island from Massachusetts, suggested conservation commissions and cited 2Correspondence to author from Western Pennsylvania Con- servancy, 1971. 45 the New England Experience. The idea took hold though not until some time later.”3 By 1969 all states except New York had included in their statutes land acquisition and/or management functions. Points in Common The various enabling acts have similar aspects. Most require research into land and/or water areas within the community. Coordi- nation of the efforts of "unofficial" organizations organized for similar purposes is also basic to most acts as is the job of public education. Another task mandated by the legislatures is the inventorying of open space and wetlands. Both New Hampshire and Rhode Island (Ch. 45-35-1, Rhode Island General Laws) go one step further to include "natural areas". This aspect ties in directly with the issuance of current use tax assessment in the former instance. Maine experienced a slow start as did New Hampshire. Although its enabling act became law in 1965, by 1968 only five of the state's 495 municipalities had established conservation commissions. Scheffey points out that one reason for the slow start might have been the legislature's unsuccessful attempt to merge local park commissions into combination conservation and park commissions forming a new hybrid municipal agency.uu At first commissioners were to be elected under Maine statute (Title 30, Sec. 3851, Maine Revised Statutes Amended) but 43Andrew J. W. Scheffey, "Conservation Commissions in Massachu- setts" (Washington: Conservation Foundation, 1969). qubid., p. 191. 46 this had to be scrapped in a subsequent session of the legislature. It was impractical. Five year appointive terms are now mandated this being the longest commission tenure of any state. A provision in Rhode Island's statute (45-35-2, Rhode Island General Laws) allows duly incorporated sportsmen's groups, horticul- tural organizations, wildlife and other similar organizations to submit nominees to local conservation commissions from which the appointing authority must pick at least three of seven commissioners. This has worked well while taking some of burden off already overworked local officials. Little can be added by mentioning the Connecticut statute (Ch. 97, Sec. 7-l3la, Connecticut General Statutes). It is the briefest of all and contains the same basic elements of other com- mission states. A year and a half ago New Jersey changed the official name of its conservation commissions to environmental commissions to suit the fashion of the times. Their enabling law (Ch. 245, supp. Title 40, New Jersey Laws of 1968) came on the heels of the $60 million "Green Acres" open space acquisition referendum approved by the voters in 1961. The commission movement in the nation‘s most heavily urbanized state was sort of a "second coming", replacing the Green Acres program. Unlike Maine and New Hampshire's slow starts, New Jersey got off to an enthusiastic beginning. In one year 54 municipalities had voted in conservation commissions. Not surprising, these first commissions 47 45 were concentrated in the greater New York City area. Evidence indicates that the various states are gradually expanding, through legislation, the scope and powers of conservation commissions.)+6 New York is even moving toward local environmental impact review. Massachusetts requires a permit from the commission before a wetland can be dredged or filled in (Hatch Act, Chapter 131, Sec. 40 General Laws of Commonwealth of Massachusetts) as does New Jersey.47 Review over wetland projects is also required in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As already alluded to, in 1973 the New Hampshire General Court amended the state's wetlands act to require that a developer first notify the commission, which shall have seven days to decide if a thirty-day "stop order" should be issued, to bring about full local review. The commission is then empowered to call a local hearing. There is now interest in New Hampshire for local environ- mental impact review!+8 but no overtures toward appropriate legislation as yet. It is plain to see that the various conservation commission enabling acts, starting with Massachusetts in 1957 and proceeding to 1968 when New Jersey passed its version, carried with them a common philosophy--that of local review. They differ only in degree. 45Scheffey, p. 204. 46Various State Bulletins, Conservation Commission Newsletters, etc. 47Amie1, p. 121. 48i.e., See Town of Enfield (N.H.), correspondence and pro- ceedings, et a1. 48 For instance, the similarity of the wording of such enabling acts as Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire's to the original Massachusetts act is astonishing. More than anything else this undoubtedly indicates the close- ness of the groups originally working on the movement in the northeast. CHAPTER IX EARLY GROWTH OF COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE As previously stated, there were no towns or cities in New Hampshire that chose to adopt the conservation commission enabling act the year following its passage--l964. However, in March of the next year, eighteen town meetings "voted in the affirmative" and duly appointed their respective commissioners.49 Most of these towns were acting in response to an "emergency" mailing by the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests to its key members, and to a similar effort by the New Hampshire Audubon Society, urging the initiation of action within their communities toward bringing the idea of a commission before the town meeting. So the main impetus toward the start of conservation com— missions in New Hampshire appears to have had a somewhat uncertain, tenuous and even artificial beginning. But this was not to last. It is not surprising that, along with establishment of those early commissions by an enthusiastic few townspeople, their early ranks were mostly composed of the very same peOple who had urged their establishment. They were Garden Club, Audubon and "Forest Society" 49For a list of towns see Chronology in Appendix. 49 50 members, a few from fish and game clubs and the League of Women Voters plus the "hard core" traditional conservation types. Along with these rather shakey beginnings went a certain degree of inexperience and indecision. Most of the hesitation centered around just what the functions of a new commission should be in actual prac- tice. The enabling act was very general and nebulous in places. A Conservation Commission "...shall keep an index of all open marshlands, swamps and all other wet lands in a like manner..."50 did not give those early towns much sense of direction in how to carry out that mandate. Neither did phrases such as "...shall seek to coordi- nate the activities of unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes...."5l Preparation of a plan for the "...proper utilization of such open areas..." also didn't offer the fledgling commissions much direction. And there are numerous other occasions where a very broad legislative intent was open to equally broad interpretation at the local level. Technical assistance at the state level was also lacking at this point and this was reflected in the slow and unsure start of commissions in New Hampshire. Some observers asserted that the broadness and lack of exacting legal language generated the very strength and flexibility of the act.52 50New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 36-A:2 (Supp.) 1973. 511bid. 52Conversation with Leslie Clark, Educational Director, Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests and early coordinator of conservation commissions in New Hampshire. 51 It was doing just what it was intended to do, enabling communities to accomplish something in the area of local environmental supervision while not being too dictatorial. Early Activities The earlier activities of commissions centered around approaching the planning board, if there was one, for assistance or perhaps the administering of a public opinion questionnaire-survey on conservation issues and local priorities. Early Spaulding-Potter Trust monies were, at first, aimed toward this latter type of activity but later this emphasis was dropped.53 Oftentimes a new commission, filled with a sudden sense of public obligation, would "go to the people" by holding a public meeting or sponsoring a program at the local school, before a Rotary Club or the Chamber of Commerce. Many were able to better establish viable priorities in this manner and, instead of straying too far from com- munity main stream desires, started out on the right foot. Many came back the following year to urge their town meetings to adopt further environmental or planning measures. A few undertook what in retrospect has come to be a most crucial preliminary step; preparation of a natural resources inventory and base map of the municipality. Nothing in the enabling act directly states how such a document should be prepared but such an activity may be inferred from the language of the law and most certainly from the literature and practice since its passage. 53Records of Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trust, 1967-1970, Concord, New Hampshire. 52 Or all too often, the new commission did little or nothing lying dormant only to be revived later by some activist or enthusiastic local official. More Crisis Oriented As time passed many more commissions came into existence as the result of ”crisis oriented" local issues. As these towns grew increas- ingly worried over a particular problem they often saw the commission as a means of better addressing the situation. Along with this effort an even greater environmental awareness emerged at the community level but now there were efforts at articulating the issues. This is especially true during the period encompassing the national environ- mental movement of the late sixties. In fact, in 1970 twenty-two new municipalities voted for the establishment of conservation commissions; twenty the following year.54 The commissions that seem to have withstood the test of time, outliving changing local power structures by remaining flexible, are those which have done meaningful long range planning while not being solely crisis-oriented. Sustaining interest among the commissioners who are, in effect, volunteers, is also not easy, as any chairman can attest. Only the most sophisticated commissions where responsibilities are delegated can maintain an "even keel" through the years. With over ten years of experience, the state's 183 conservation commissions now comprise a sort of scale or continuum ranging from utter lethargy (or even worse, counter-productive activity) to very EXFor a list of towns see Chronology in Appendix. 53 professional, businesslike and highly successful efforts. Some com- 55 while others have repeatedly missions are now involved in litigation sponsored local projects or legislation. In one town, Nottingham, residents are now required to separate refuse at home before it is picked up for recycling! They have built an $80,000 recycling center and expect to make thousands of dollars.56 Thus any measurement of "effectiveness" applied to one or more conservation commission is prone to certain subjective values based, to some extent, upon what direction that commission has taken. A quantifying approach is quite simple--number of meetings held, years since formation, etc-~and this has been done. To define with any accuracy the quality of a commission's efforts devoid of all final results is difficult. City Commissions The first city to adOpt the idea of a conservation commission was Keene, now with a population of 20,477. In New Hampshire commun- ities of over 2500 population may vote to become cities which allows the Aldermen or Council to replace town meeting as the legislative body. It greatly streamlines and makes more efficient the operations of municipal government. There are thirteen cities in New Hampshire but they do not all have conservation commissions. As of December 31, 1973 there were nine cities which had adOpted the commission statute. 55Acworth and Alton. 56See report on Nottingham Recovery System. 54 Although there is no town meeting to contend with, creating a commission in a city can often be just as laborious an effort. By passing an ordinance a city council establishes a commission. But often one or more public hearings are held first. Other city depart- ments may resist efforts to create another "competing" agency, especially if they see it usurping some of their prerogatives or there is marked resistance to the mere proliferation of agencies. A typical example of this was establishment of the Concord City Conservation Commission in 1971.57 Personnel and officials of the planning department first fought, then later attempted to "water down", the enabling ordinance. Basically the role of a city commission is like that of a town-~environmental advocate, watchdog and review agency. Cities seem to be more resigned to growth so their commissions have not normally become involved in preservation or moratoria efforts. However some, like Portsmouth's, are attempting to have greater input into the planning process to the extent of asking "whether" as well as "where" growth shall occur. With new legislation giving conservation commissions power of review over dredge and fill projects, city commissions such as Nashua and Portsmouth are keeping quite busy at this alone. Another example of "environmental input" into the municipal planning process as exercised by a city conservation commission was when the City of Concord's Planning Department approved a shopping 57See minutes of Concord (N.H.) City Council meeting, Septem- ber 1971. 55 center within an area called the South End Marsh. Final papers were being signed and public hearings were scheduled. Then the City's conservation commission, in the winter of 1972, questioned the feasi— bility of the project. Shopping centers were plentiful, they asserted, but the city's remaining wetlands were rapidly dwindling. The upshot of it all was last minute but overwhelming popular support for the commission with subsequent pressure brought to bear upon the Planning Department to reject the proposal which they did.58 Commission Versus Planning Board The basic functions of a municipal planning board and con- servation commission are quite different-~yet there is significant overlap. One of the most commonly asked questions by voters considering a new commission is: What is the difference between these two agencies? Generally speaking, a planning board concerns itself with the man-made environment; street width and location, setback, lot size, heights of signs, and so on.59 The conservation commission's major concern is, in contrast, with the natural environment--soils, wetlands, watershed, water quality, Open space and so on. Of course, there are many more technical differences between the two bodies as dictated by 58See the Concorngonitor, Vol. 116, #30, 37, p. 1, February 5. 15. 1973- 59See New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 36:10, 11 and 31:60. 56 state law, court precedent and common administrative practice through the years.60 Many differences between the two bodies are procedural in nature. As a regulatory as well as planning agency, the planning board's time is consumed much more with holding public hearings, making "go" or "no go" decisions and just plain monitoring of new development. The reviewing of new applications for construction, it is said, can consume almost all a planning board's time. Conversely, a commission has much more time to anticipate future needs of the community and relate them to the resource base. It is also free from all regulatory obligations as well. Inadequacygat the Local Level Few New Hampshire communities have the resources or expertise to adequately respond to local environmental problems. How are part- time, small town officials receiving perhaps $200 per year for their efforts, supposed to properly review and rule on a nuclear power plant siting or an oil refinery proposal? Yet they are being asked to do this as in the cases of Seabrook, Durham, Newmarket, Rochester, Rye, Newington and other communities. Recently other towns in New Hampshire have been faced with other similar land use decisions involving multi- million dollar housing developments. Recently there has not been adequate local governmental machinery to handle and properly review the requests of developers and new residents.61 A sense of frustration 6ORandall Raymond, Extension Service Publication.#l83, Novem- ber, 1967, Resource Economics. 61i.e., Towns of Carroll, Piermont, Grantham, Springfield and Merrimack. 57 often overtakes municipal officials with town meetings resulting in backlash attempts to stop community growth.62 Suddenly all sorts of "environmental" factors for not allowing new industry or residential development are brought into play. All too often the beleaguered conservation commission finds itself right in the middle of this.63 But the battle cry continues to be "home rule" as the local communities cling to past traditional procedures in fear of losing their prerog- atives! Many towns and cities in New Hampshire, as in other states, are slowly and, in some instances, agonizingly learning the economics of regional cooperation. Actually there is a tradition of multi—town cooperation, but in the area of land use controls and resource planning, it is a not yet accepted idea. The central school, itself a consolidation of the various outlying rural school districts, is now a compact with neighboring towns forming a special regional school district. Fire departments work together in combating large fires through Mutual Aid. Regional land planning has arrived recently on the scene and is not yet fully accepted. But the allocation and regulation of land has long been a jealously guarded local prerogative and regional planning has not easily transcended municipal boundaries. 62Legislative attempts at growth moratoria in Barnstead, Plainfield, Portsmouth, Alton, Nashua, etc. 63i.e., Alton, Dublin, Peterborough, Enfield, Acworth, Hamp- stead, etc. 58 Assistance Available Conservation commissions in New Hampshire receive little or no assistance from state government other than what other local agencies are already entitled to. There is no special office for such assis— tance as there is in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and other commission states. The New Hampshire Municipal Association, a quasi-official organization supported mainly by membership dues and grants, comes closest to an office of community assistance. Even the Attorney General's office is restricted from giving legal advice to municipal agencies or local officials. It is ironic that a state which places so much emphasis upon home rule and the autonomy of town government, by and large, often leaves communities floundering without the financial and technical assistance they so desperately need to remain strong and viable local units. At the county level there is also little help in the field of resource management with the exceptions of Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Projects. Through the grassroots efforts of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service these units, coinciding with county lines, have filled the gap. There also exists the office of County Forester part of the cooperative extension service but again nothing is specifically designed for local conser- vation commissions as in other states. Federally there is only beginning to be recognition of the more than 1200 conservation commissions in the northeast. So to fill the numerous voids a handful of private or 59 non—profit groups - Audubon, various trust funds, the "Forest Society," New Hampshire-Tomorrow, and, as of 1970, the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions - have sprung up. As mentioned previously, February of 1967 saw an attempt to establish a fulltime commission consultant through the Cooperative Extension Service. The Spaulding-Potter Trusts matched a grant from Title I of the Higher Education Act and hired a community resource specialist at fulltime salary. But the position has been gradually eroded as the coordinator's time was shifted to other areas not necessarily associated with conservation commissions. The New Hampshire-Tomorrow effort, a large environmental project which started in 1968, sponsored numerous projects involving conservation commissions but there emerged few projects of an ongoing nature. A concerted effort was made, however, to establish new commissions. An ongoing organization in New Hampshire which emerges as being the most helpful to conservation commissions is the state association or New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions (NHACC). Formed in November of 1970 under a $17,000 three year grant from the Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trusts (emphasizing again the continuing importance of the private sector in New Hampshire), NHACC functioned similarly to the New Hampshire Municipal Association with which it soon affiliated. But its purpose was much narrower. 6“Richard D. Sheaff, "The Establishment of Community Conser- vation Commissions; 1970," New Hampshire-Tomorrow Project in Community Activation and Memorandum V-4a of New Hampshire-Tomorrow: A Report (1973). 60 However the backbone of the NHACC as well as the conservation commission movement has remained the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests. It has continually lent logistical as well as financial support to make up for the deficiencies in dues. NHACC has never been able to maintain itself on an entirely self-sustaining basis exclusively from dues despite the increasing dependence of many 65 towns and cities for its services. How NHACC Works A part-time coordinator was hired in 1970 to service commun- ities with conservation commissions much in the same manner as the prior arrangement with the Cooperative Extension Service. This co- ordinator acts as a community consultant visiting towns and cities, publishing a periodic newsletter, a handbook, he offers limited legal help, sends out special legislative bulletins, organizes an annual and subsequent regional meetings, holds training sessions and responds to numerous other daily demands. Municipalities join by paying dues ranging from $20 to $110 per annum (based on population). NHACC is still the only statewide organization specifically operated to service municipal conservation commissions. The Ford Foundation Introduction of The Ford Foundation into the conservation commission movement was undoubtedly the biggest financial boost it had 65See annual meeting minutes, New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, 1972 and 1973 plus subsequent requests for supplemental or service grants. 61 yet received. In January of 1972, $385,000 was allocated by the Foundation for a system of small "seed money" grants borrowing upon the model provided by the Spaulding-Potter Trusts almost five years earlier. No one grant was to exceed $5000, the rules stated, and the funds were to be used as "front end” money to get the kind of projects going that might not otherwise materialize. Municipalities were required to match dollar for dollar beyond the initial $750 granted. All New England states except Vermont, plus New York and New Jersey, were included in the program. At the time they were the only states with clearly identifiable commission enabling acts at the state level. The following year, owing to response to the program, the Ford Foundation refunded the program for another $300,000. All in all, New Hampshire received $94,000 as its share on a formula based upon per- centage of municipalities with conservation commissions. This badly needed financial boost plus the prestige of the Ford Foundation lent credence and status to the entire commission movement and thrust what had been basically a local movement onto the national stage.66 "Benchmarks" in the Movement: A Suaaagy The most significant events which advanced the conservation, commission movement and gave it stature following passage of the enabling act were the early efforts of the Forest Society to initiate, then strengthen commissions in each town, establishment of a fulltime commission coordinator in February of 1967, the two grants-in-aid 66Christopher H. Reed, "An Assessment of the Commission Movement," Forest Notes, No. 116, Fall 1973, p. 23. 62 programs started by Spaulding-Potter Trusts in August of that same year, the New Hampshire-Tomorrow campaign followed by organization of the Association, and the Ford Foundation's Program of Assistance to Conservation Commissions launched in January of 1972, plus the many workshops, annual and regional meetings which lent continuing impetus to the movement. Of late, the passage of four pieces of key legis- lation, all in the 1973 regular session of the New Hampshire General Court, have furthered this still.67 It is quite appropriate that Paul O. Bofinger, President/ Forester of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the organization credited with the establishment and maintenance of commissions in New Hampshire, should comment on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of New Hampshire commissions in September of 1973: No other conservation program in the past decade has had a greater impact on the local decision-making process. In a quiet relatively noncontroversial manner and with a pittance of public funding, commissions are established and actively engaged in their roles as watchdogs and initiators in a majority of munici- palities.68 Mr. Bofinger goes on to list what he feels are the three major reasons for the success of commissions. It is appropriate, in summary, that they be repeated here. The first reason cited for their success is simply that commissions "...run with the grain of New Hampshire life," with their traditional emphasis upon the town as the basic unit of government. 67New dredge and fill statute (HB 817), Enabling Act Amendments (HB 664), Current Use Taxation (HB 307) and Conservation Easements (HB 747). 68Paul 0. Bofinger, "Analyzing A Success," Forest Notes, No. 116, p. 22. 63 The continuous availability of private funding is given as the second reason for their success. This has already been alluded to. And third, he credits his own organization, which has taken the initiative in "keeping the movement alive". But beyond this there are additional factors not the least of which is the commissions' own resourcefulness and local effectiveness. Other Success Factors The advocacy role which is more easily assumed by a conser- vation commission than another municipal agency gives it wider appeal. Beholden to only a minimum of housekeeping chores, a commission is free to be a local governmental gadfly or watchdog calling attention to various environmental wrongs or improprieties. A commission is eligible to receive public and private grants and may accumulate funds from one fiscal year to the next. This power has been invoked in many instances and is a distinct advantage. A commission is also an ongoing effort, as opposed to an ad hoc group which may rise to a particular occasion, then drop back as public sentiment support lessens. Year after year, at town meeting and at other times, there is the conservation commission. And it keeps on reappearing until the voters vote it out. This has never happened in New Hampshire. These are a few of the reasons this writer feels the movement has grown and Yprospered" as it has in New Hampshire. With 79% of the state's municipalities already adopting the enabling act, there is also this testimony to their appeal and utility. CHAPTER X THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Throughout this paper there has existed a theoretical framework within which many assumptions have been made based primarily upon empirical data. This data have been gathered, by and large, through observations of those persons and events closely associated with the conservation commission movement'and what scant information that does exist. One basic premise has been that there are ways to measure effectiveness among the various commissions and that various charac- teristic traits tend to indicate effectiveness. A highly refined study and analysis of such is outside the capability of this paper. But some basic observations are made herein from which generalizations may be drawn. This preliminary data should serve as an impetus for future closer examinations. In order to assess individual commission effectiveness to any significant degree, it was necessary to determine, among other things, the goals and objectives of each agency examined as well as those of their respective communities. This was not always easy. Then it was necessary to ascertain what, if any, changes in public attitude or behavior had occurred as a result. It was only possible in a few of the 86 communities visited to determine behavior change mainly for 65 logistical reasons and due to time constraints. But such information proved useful when available.69 With "effectiveness" defined as a magnitude of commission , function resulting in a change in public attitude most likely leading to a group behavior change, a rudimentary or linear array of pro- gressive accomplishments was possible. An examination was also made of some non-commission communities to determine if similar changes in public attitudes and behavior had occurred without the benefits of a conservation commission. Logically, the frequency with which "effectiveness traits" occurred tended to indicate the more accomplished and sophisticated commissions. It was possible to ascertain, in a very general sense, "community context" for evaluative purposes by interviewing other local officials, etc. I assumed that some accomplishments might appear more significant when such variables as degree of local opposition, level of affluence, education, political philosophy, geographical location, etc. were considered. Individual qualifications of the member com- missioners was also considered and given weight from time to time. Finally, with this data collected and placed along the con- tinuum, I felt that a "typical" commission could be modeled while listing "typically effective traits" to define the outward parameters or extremes, however crude this exercise might be. 69Information gained through conversations with other municipal officials, newspaper editors, state officials assigned to work with communities, New Hampshire Municipal Association, etc. CHAPTER XI TECHNIQUES 0F INVESTIGATION Basic to this thesis was a thorough search of the literature on municipal conservation commissions and New Hampshire local govern- ment in general. Although there was a substantial amount of literature pertaining to the latter, on commissions there Was little of any depth or value. This required confining my inquiry to the literature on municipal government and community deve10pment. A search of various public records was also made. Field interviews were the basis for data collection concerning the activities and accomplishments of local commissions. Community data statistics (see Appendix) were searched at the state level and 'tabulated. Commission personnel, mostly chairmen or secretaries, were querried on fifty-six items set forth on a questionnaire form adminis- tered exclusively by this author. On a very few occasions, the entire commission was querried. However, it soon became evident that the best technique for eliciting candid responses involved no more than two commissioners. Each interview took an average of one and one-half to two hours, requring the summers of 1970 and 1971 to complete. In all, eighty-six municipal bodies were approached which could be officially classified as conservation commissions formally established by law. 66 67 This says nothing for the various planning boards, conservation councils and committees, clubs, sportsmen's groups and other similar organizations which were interviewed or otherwise contacted. Questionnaire items were not pre-tested. They were chosen on the basis of the writer's familiarity with commission operations and by extracting the major elements of the state enabling legislation. Consultation with other state and county agency personnel coming into frequent contact with local community leaders was also held. Greater weight was given to those positive responses made based upon key elements of the enabling act. The mechanics for administering the questionnaire were simple and straight forward. Each commission member or spokesman was asked the questionnaire questions in chronological order or, if the situation allowed, the interviewer, who was completely familiar with the questions, allowed the conversation to take its own course, filling in the responses following the interview. This was done so as not to break the train of thought or candor of the interviewees. I found that pausing to "take down" each answer often inhibited "first impulse" type responses. Unfortunately the questionnaire querries were not designed with a computer in mind. This alternative was suggested at a later date when it became evident a sizable amount of data from a very large sampling of commissions had been gathered. Therefore the method of tabulating the 4816 total responses, mainly through a sort of con- venient system of representative symbols (see Appendix), became quite awkward when storing data on each of two computers. The early data 68 format used to denote degree, position on the continuum scale or mere numerical quantity simply did not lend itself easily to computer "language". But the data were punched on computer cards, neverthless, by personnel of the New Hampshire Central Data Processing Center who felt they should be stored for future use of the information by other departments. This writer then processed the data cards, two for each of the 86 commissions interviewed, at the Michigan State University's Computer Center in late 1971, the print out for which occurs in the Appendix. Ultimately the data cards were duplicated and placed upon magnetic storage tape at the Kiewit Computation Center at Dartmouth College, for future use by their Center for Community Affairs. Any costs were underwritten by the writer. The elementary statistical tests that were applied to the data are set forth in the following chapter. CHAPTER XII FORMAT OF THE DATA If statistics is the art of doing the best with what data you have collected, then that description applies here. The writer would change many things if this study were to be repeated in order to allow for greater flexibility and more accurate application. A great many data were gathered but certain mechanical and time constraints prevented a more in—depth analysis. Even so, many interesting cor- relations were discovered which tended to reinforce some long held views on how commissions operate or become effective within their respective communities. The data are basically binary, consisting mostly of either "yes" or "no" answers, A or B, or some derivation of this basic format. Multiple choice responses were also possible in numerous instances. In this paper an attempt was made at a simple classification system of ranking, using certain key characteristic traits as "effectiveness" criteria. The sample number of commissions, eighty-six out of the then one hundred thirty-five total, may not have been large enough to assure an entirely definitive level of confidence. But for the pur- poses of this examination, eighty-six were more than enough commissions to establish certain trends and tendencies. 69 70 As previously stated, empirical observations were depended upon to a large extent. A degree of subjectivity was also necessary and was applied in the interpretation of certain factors following computer analysis. Borrowing on the long experience and expertise of field experts who have worked with commissions before this writer came on the scene, certain conclusions were drawn as brought out in the following chapter. Therefore the overriding task was to gather, list, define, isolate and weigh those characteristics (or variables) displayed by conservation commissions in New Hampshire, and to show which ones tended to be associated with the more effective commissions, to what degree, and within the context of the local social/political infra- structure. For final checking, commissions were ranked in both alpha- betical order and in descending order of "effectiveness". These tables were entitled "Effectiveness Ratings" (see Appendix). Indicators of characteristic traits of effectiveness were also suggested by various community experts in the field. By submitting the names of towns considered to have the better commissions, along with a second grouping of those with only moderately effective and, finally, the poorest ones, it was possible to correlate some common traits in each of these categories. From this a formula was derived. A raw score was first obtained by assigning a value of-+1 to each of the following ”yes" questionnaire responses: Numbers 8, 14, 15, 30, 32, 34 and 35. A value of +2 was assigned to all "yes" responses between 36 and 41, the 71 reason being that these activities are required by state law (i.e., maintaining an open space index plus one for marshlands, coordinating unofficial groups, filing an annual report, etc.). Finally, the following questionnaire responses which appeared as non-zero were similarly assigned-t1 values to determine raw score: ll, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 29. These items asked such questions as the number of programs underway, amount in the commission's operating budget, numbers of grants since formation, gifts of land, etc. A more thorough analysis would have placed these on a scale. This raw score was then multiplied by 4 to yield a 0-100 scale for easier ranking and other evaluative analysis. Finally a per- centile, or the percentage of other commissions having a lower score, was formulated. The responses that were finally used as "effectiveness indicators" were arrived at after consultation with government officials and other experts in the field who have worked extensively with conser- vation commissions throughout New Hampshire. Effectiveness Criteria Chosen as being more accurate indicators of effectiveness were nineteen responses on the fifty-seven item questionnaire (see Appendix). The first, question eight, ascertained the number of sub- committees the commission had formed to further its work. This was deemed an indicator of a desire for outreach, greater citizen involve- ment through input. Responses fourteen and fifteen were also chosen as viable indicators. They asked about the receipt of Spaulding-Potter Trust 72 grants, a private source of revenue to New Hampshire commissions from August 1967 to November 1970. This was thought to be an indicator of commission motivation and ambition since considerable effort was required to obtain these grants. The thirtieth questionnaire item sought to determine if other municipal officials were encouraged, through sincere commission efforts, to attend commission meetings. The writer felt this to be another reliable indicator of effectiveness being evidence of interbagency communication and cooperation. This may also be said of questionnaire numbers 32, 34 and 35. Items 36 through 41, exclusive of number 40, are mandatory under state law, thus were given the double values previously men- tioned. Questions such as preparation of an open space and wetlands inventory, filing an annual report, coordination of unofficial groups were typical of this group. To this sub—score was added the number of non-zero responses to numbers 11, the number of commission programs underway; l9, amount of annual operating budget; 21, grants or loans of money irrespective of the Spaulding—Potter program received; number 23, gifts of land acquired; number 24, total acreage held; number 26 or funds already accumulated in the municipality's conservation fund and the number of times a commission has met with other groups or agencies within the municipality, number 29. It is possible to see opportunity chance for inaccuracy here. A commission with $10,000 per year appropriation would be assigned a non-zero response as would a commission with only $10 allocated. The 73 writer felt, however, that such an exercise would add dimension to the data already tabulated no matter how slight it was. It was an indicator of financial support. These commissions visited were then ranked from highest score (corrected) to lowest. (See Appendix) The results were similar to those the experts had predicted. 70 had suggested some of the criteria and These community consultants different ones had suggested similar aspects irrespective of each other. They had no way of knowing which traits the others had chosen. To carry things a step further, other factors were found which had a strong connection with the better functioning commissions once these commissions had been tentatively identified. As one might expect, the size of the commission's annual operating budget had much to do with degree of success, i.e., effec— tiveness. So did the size of their conservation fund, number of gifts of land and extent of grants of all kinds. Oddly enough, there was a strong correlation between the presence of a game refuge and town 7OLeslie S. Clark, Educational Director, Society for Pro- tection of New Hampshire Forests, field worker with commissions since their inception in New Hampshire. Joseph F. Quinn, Community Recreation Services and State Bureau of Outdoor Recreation coordinator. Floyd V. Barker, Community Resources Specialist, Coopera- tive Extension Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, first hired in February of 1967 to work full-time coordinating conservation commission efforts. David L. Mann, Executive Director, New Hampshire Municipal Association, many years experience administering municipal projects. Paul O. Bofinger, President, Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests and advocate of initial legislation setting up conservation commissions. 74 forest, and effectiveness. In a category which might be labeled "Activity," there were eight such strongly correlated effectiveness factors: the number of commissioners (apparently the more the better), number of sub- committees formed (as previously indicated) and the number of commission programs. Frequency of commission meetings was an even better indicator. Attendance at commission meetings by other municipal officials was a very good indicator, along with the existence and distribution of commission minutes. Open space and marshland indices plus the amount of research done concluded this assessment phase. These items appeared to increase consistently and significantly when measuring commission effectiveness. The Effective Commission: A Profile It is possible to construct a profile of the "effective" conservation commission. In scanning the data for other municipal- ities exhibiting similar traits, it was found that of all the "most effective" commissions, eighty percent, were in communities with park and recreation commissions as well. All these communities had planning 71 boards, sixty percent a zoning commission, eighty percent a zoning ordinance and sub—division regulations.72 All had a town forest but only twenty percent had some sort of game refuge while sixty percent had a municipal comprehensive plan approved by the voters. 71New Hampshire municipalities with planning boards may also grant them zoning powers. 72In New Hampshire, zoning regulates single lot development, subdivision regulations two or more lots being divided. 75 The average effective conservation commission municipality had 4644 population, a growth rate of 23.6% per decade, an average assessed tax evaluation of $293,520,000, average tax rate of $27.86/$lOOO and an area of 25.3 square miles. This last item was not significant. Although some of the data were arrived at as expected and were obviously the characteristics one might associate with total effective- ness, the appearance of others was quite surprising. These deserve closer scrutiny as the subject of another paper. There were enough data, however, to make several conclusions which follow. From these, recommendations are offered in the final chapter. CHAPTER XIII COMMISSION ACTIVITY PHASES The conservation commission policy-making and action process serves to formulate and coordinate environmental efforts within the municipality. The steps a commission takes, the range and scope of its activity and, its ultimate effectiveness, can best be evaluated by relating such a chronology of activities to that of similar com- missions. More on these relationships follow in Chapter XIV. A review of some of the literature on community action groups and sub-groups reveals five very basic and general phases which occur almost routinely: 1) awareness, 2) organization, 3) decision, 4) resource mobilization, and 5) resource application.73 These are task- accomplishment related. In order to evaluate commission effectiveness along a continuum for determining degree of decision-making sophis- tication, a commission issue/function matrix was devised (see page 83), formulated from the data assembled. An Issug/Function Matrix In the left hand column of the matrix (X axis) are major natural resource-related "actions" which are likely to develop into 73Kenneth P. Wilkinson, "Phases and Roles in Community Action," Rural Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 1, March, 1970, p. 60. 76 77 key issues at the local level.74 Along the left hand side (Y axis) are various phases in the evolutionary process toward a more sophisticated political body (conservation commission in this instance). These designations could be applied to almost any governmental planning review or regulatory agency, but they have been refined here to fit the purposes of this paper. A conservation commission more advanced toward sophisticated functions (near the bottom of the Y axis) has usually earned a higher degree of credibility in the eyes of other town or city officials. Somewhat more belatedly, the electorate also assigns far higher credibility. Before drawing any generalizations from the information sub— mitted by commissions during administration of the questionnaire, it might be beneficial to explain in more detail the "Issues" axis. Definition of Terms Used "Land Use" used here means general residential development, junkyard regulations, open space set aside, rare or endangered plant species protected, town forests, etc. "Extraction" means mining for gravel, sand, other minerals, logging or other forms of harvesting. "Resource Renewal" means reforestation, stocking of fish or game, provision for ground/water recharge, reclamation of borrow pits, etc. "Wetlands Protection" means drainage or filling of marshes, swamps and 7”Taken from US Geological Survey "Information Matrix for Environmental Impact Assessment, Government Circular'#645, Plate I (1971). 78 bogs is reviewed and regulated locally. "Pollution Control" used here means regulating septic tanks, domestic and industrial wastes, air pollution measures taken, pesticides and herbicides legislation. "Scenic Protection" means vistas preserved, billboard regulation, scenic easements enforced, voluntary arrangements with landowners and litter pickup. "Waste Treatment, Recycling" means reclamation of reusable materials normally disposed of by municipalities or community recycling projects underway. On the developmental, or X axis, most terms speak for them- selves. For instance, formation of the commission is often a big initial hurdle.75 Then comes the process of information gathering including a natural resources inventory as mandated by state law (see questionnaire items #36,#38 and #39 in Appendix). Mapping and other graphics, as more sophisticated exercises, usually and logically followed basic information gathering. "Watch dog" function applies to a continuing surveilance for violations of state or local environmental statutes, or merely poor environmental practices. "Issue Analysis" infers that a commission's membership has carefully analyzed the basic issues as opposed to merely reacting to them. An example of this is Durham and the proposed establishment in this small community of a 400,000 bbl. per day refinery. The Durham Conservation Commission acted as an information gathering agency for the selectmen and other municipal officials while 75Recently there have been municipalities which have voted down establishment of conservation commissions partly due to what has been termed a moderate environmental backlash. Communities see higher costs and more restrictions on what they can do with their land as a result of more environmental controls. 79 keeping the electorate informed at the same time. This is the next logical step in the matrix, number 6, "dissemination of public information". Such an exercise is also mandated by the state law for commissions. ”Specialized educational efforts" would suggest a more formal informational or educational effort, as in the case of Nelson where a grant was obtained from the U.S. Office of Education to institute environmental education within the local school, or when the Hills- borough Conservation Commission sponsored a series of conservation programs in its town. "Liaison", or coordination with other local agencies, is an excellent measure of the degree of sophistication attained by any governmental body. Traditionally selectmen, planning boards, health officers and school boards have each functioned separately and if there is any degree of coordination, it is only at budget time in February. Such coordination is required of commissions by the same law but it is not always practiced. "Political action" refers to those activities resulting in various electoral issues being brought before the voters for consid- eration such as wetland and flood plain regulations, herbicide application procedures, local environmental impact statements plus a whole array of definitely political/electoral activities. Also included would be activities such as monitoring the state legislature, as in the case of Durham, Rye, Francestown, Springfield and others. "Extended legal involvement" suggests more than the usual 8O preliminary legal preparation in routine matters. This would include litigation of one kind or another. An "actual demonstration project" is best exemplified in Nottingham's construction of a total recycling depot and requirement of "at source" separation of papers, metals, plastics, cardboard, glass and other materials by local ordinance. There are numerous other examples. The phrase "formal fund raising" indicates a commission has gone beyond the usual revenue or appropriation process. To receive a grant from public or private sources requires a far greater degree of proposal articulation and clearer program analyses, plus final accountability. "Regional participation" infers working with surrounding municipalities or even, as in the case of South Hampton and Haverhill (Massachusetts), towns in adjoining states.76 "Project review powers" have already been granted to com- missions by the state legislature for wetland dredge and fill pro— posals. However, there are only a few communities which, at the local level, have broadened this power. "Regulatory powers" infers review powers carried to their logical ends. And yet this phase cannot be validly applied to any New Hampshire commission unless unconflicting local ordinances are taken into account. In the case of Alton, the town meeting has required 76See also Haverhill (New Hampshire) and Bradford (Vermont) efforts to save Bedell Covered Bridge, June, 1973, or attempts by South Hampton (New Hampshire) and Amesbury (Massachusetts) Conser- vation Commissions at administering a common watershed. 81 that the conservation commission be approached by the contractor before any action is taken on wetland dredge and fill projects. This conflicts with state statute which may permit such operations so it cannot be surmized that the commission has attained any official regulatory role.77 New Hampshire commissions do not have what could truly be called regulatory powers as, say, spelled out in Massachusetts 78 or New Jersey statutes. The More "Advanced" Commissions It is interesting to note the positions of the most "effective" commissions on this matrix. According to criteria already explained the top-rated twelve commissions--Hillsborough, Strafford, Dunbarton, Epping, New Boston, Keene, Newton, Deering, New London, Peterborough, Exeter and.Hampton-—showed numerous traits along the low end of the "function" axis. All of these commissions are at least five years old. Average tenure was seven years indicating the attainment of experience and maturity. Education of the electorate on certain key factors affecting the community resource base was considered important and given weight as not only indicating degree of involvement, but awareness of civic responsibility (see items #6 and.#7 on matrix, page 83). All highest 77See also towns of Richmond, Enfield and Hollis for other regulatory-type local ordinances. 78Example: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hatch Wetlands Act (as amended) and New Jersey Environmental Conservation Commission Enabling Statute. 82 ranking twelve commissions scored in this area as they did under "liaison" (Matrix-#8). These commissions had met formally on an average of more than three times with other agencies or local groups in that calendar year (1970). In short, there was a decidedly strong correlation between higher magnitude along the "function" axis of the matrix and the more effective commissions. 83 TABLE 1.--A Conservation Commission Function/Issue Matrix ISSUE E3 .rs 5: mg 2 §§ 2: E; S3 E31; E; E; 0 a ea 3“. Es FUNCTION (magnitude) .4 E3: o E H :3 D g - U Ego a. E SE e ES 83; a 28 9o 10. ll. 12. 13. 14 . 15o FORMATION PRELIMINARY INFORMATION GATHERING MAPPING, MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, INTERPRETATION PERFORMING A "WATCH DOG" FUNCTION ISSUE DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION MORE SPECIALIZED EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS , DETAILED INTERPRETATION LIAISON WITH OTHER GROUPS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES* POLITICAL ACUITY AND ACTIVITY EXTENDING LEGAL INVOLVEMENT (legislation, litigation) ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FORMAL FUND RAISING EFFORTS FORMAL REGIONAL PARTICIPATION PROJECT REVIEW POWERS (hearings, investigation, etc.) REGULATORY POWERS (approval or disapproval of projects, stop orders, prosecutions) * Liaison would occur at all levels but at this point is marked by a two-way interchange of cooperation. CHAPTER XIV GENERAL FINDINGS The typical municipal conservation commission in New Hampshire now represents not so much a local affluent environmental elite electorate, as in years past, but rather a more grassroots political governmental body comprised of a community-citizen cross-section. Its ' members, or the commissioners, tend to be those "hard core" residents who have traditionally concerned themselves with the general well-being of the community. They tend to visualize direct relationship between environmental quality and community welfare and could just as well be the pillars of the local civic league, church, school board or rotary club.79 This underlying concern for environmental quality manifests itself in many ways among the various commissioners. From their attempts to locate and establish a swimming area (i.e., Thornton, Woodstock), to efforts directed at voting for scenic roads to moni- toring proposed pipelines (Rye, Newington, Portsmouth), they all seem to hold as common purpose the importance of community identity and cohesiveness through guided growth and environmental quality, even though at times they are very hard pressed. 79Most commissioners interviewed saw a direct relationship between social problems and the quality of surroundings. 85 Profile ofta Commissioner It would have been worthwhile to tabulate personal data pertaining to the members of each commission visited. Age, education, occupation, length of service, income range—-these and other factors would have been valuable in determining just who we are talking about when describing conservation commissioners. As an alternative the writer turned to a recent rather thorough examination of who makes up the membership of a typical local conservation organization in the United States.80 This report concluded that conservation organization members tended to be male, over thirty (with a better than 50% chance of being over #0), married, a white collar worker with college degree and income over $10,000. More peculiar to the New Hampshire situation is the personal donation of community time rather than actual cash contributions. The state's smaller communities have long depended upon what basically amounts to volunteer help. The conservation commissioner is very much a part of this "volunteer" force. The fact that, of late, a commission is much more apt to "...represent the middle of the road of the environmental move- ment..."81 being strictly voluntary is testimony to their increasing 80Clem L. Zinger, Project Coordinator, "Findings and Recommen- dations of the Steering Committee of the National Center for Voluntary Action's Environmental Project," Washington, D.C., Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, March, 1973. 81Statement of Helen Milbank, President, New Hampshire Asso- ciation of Conservation Commissions in a report to Commissioner of Department of Resources and Economic Development, January 8, 197A. 86 acceptance by the electorate. New Hampshire citizens have accepted commissions as merely another agency of local government. The Truly Effective Commission A typical conservation commission is not necessarily an effective one although the gap between these two qualities is short- ening. The truly effective commission is now more a reflection of good reporting and communications, good rapport with other municipal officials and the community at large, perseverance and an ideological stance closer to the main-stream of community sentiment. This I have documented or inferred from the data. The most favorable climate within which an effective com- mission can operate is obviously one of sympathetic public sentiment. Thus this study shows a strong tendency for the most effective commissions to appear in such environmentally "sympathetic" towns as Hanover, Dublin, Durham, New London, Harrisville, Rye, Hollis, Amherst, and Peterborough. Yet in some similar communities like Hopkinton, Campton, Sugar Hill and Bedford, much less effective commissions are evident.82 So other more meaningful ingredients are definitely required. The more affluent communities tend to have better rounded and effective commissions, but interestingly, so do the more transient or faster growing towns. Transient populations suggest inhabitants who do not care about long-range planning or continuing social institutions. 82See annual municipal reports for years of 1968-1973 for these communities. 87 These are often mobile professional or seasonal workers who do not wholly identify with the community. But this rapid change simultan- eously suggests a greater awareness, and alarm, on the part of the permanent residents who do remain to face the problems. So these two causal factors-~rapid growth and affluence—~are related to environ- mental awareness. Resistance to innovation and change, in this instance, is fatal and spells sure death for a struggling commission. Growth as it Relates to Activity It was interesting to note that there is also a correlation between a community's immersion in growth problems and the rate of activity (frequency of regular and special meetings, meetings with other groups, etc.) of its commission. In New Hampshire one way this may be represented is by geographical location since the serious growth problems occur nearer the Massachusetts (southern) border. This rate of commission activity is but one more indicator of effec- tiveness. There are several others. A certain stability and consistency, and thus longer sustained effort, was more apt to be evident in those commissions with clearly defined goals and a broader diversity of membership. Other Indicators of Effectiveness Other factors indicating effectiveness were: good records, equal workload among commissioners, businesslike proceedings, periodic reinforcement of what the commission was doing plus good communications 88 from the chairman downward. This was born out by Engel, et al.83 A sharing of goals and their degree of explicitness is crucial to success, let alone effectiveness! The writer found through observation that association and communication with surrounding communities, although not indicated in the computer data, was a strong factor in locating an effective commission. The willingness to share, one commission with another, indicated a general confidence as well as a realization of the regional nature of many environmental problems (see item #13 on Function/Issue Matrix, page 83). Established commissions were often the key factor in establishing new commissions in other municipalities (see question- naire item #1) . How A Commission is Viewed Changing trends in how the local citizenry views the commission also apply to the professional ranks within state resource agencies. State officials not long ago had hardly heard of conservation com- missions, let alone placed any stock in their credibility. The concept of a conservation commission as an extension of state govern— ment at the local level was considered preposterous. All of this is now rapidly changing. Recent legislation attests to a growing confidence at the state and regional commissions. A recent example of this 83Joseph E. Engel, Jeanne Lapointe, Leo A. McCandlish and Virgil Whitney, Consultation Report and Team Effectiveness Evaluation Holderness Conservation Commission, Plymouth (New Hampshire), National Trzining Laboratory Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, July, 19 9. 89 is the so-called Current Use Advisory (Tax) Board's action in February of 1974 which charged commissions with developing criteria to implement New Hampshire's preferential tax assessment for natural areas. As a result of public hearings around the state, and due to the sentiments of various state officials serving on the Board, con- servation commissions were written into the new taxing criteria. These rules and regulations now have the force of law. In the case of "wildlands" the sub-classification of natural areas, the local commission must recommend to the assessing officials before the land may qualify for lower taxes.84 An Increasing Role That conservation commissions have become more a part of the local political landscape is further attested to by the increasing number of requests for assistance by other municipal officials. Instead of being a panel of "way out ecologists" once thought to be by many communities, commissions are now called upon for, among other things, environmental impact assessment. This is particularly true in the larger towns and cities. It is likely that the further a com- mission is removed from the small rural situation the more apt it is to be staffed with typical "non-environmental" types. The whole process of commission appointment in larger communities involves so many more considerations that the tendency by appointing officials is to pick candidates from a broader political spectrum. This point cannot be overemphasized. Minutes of executive session, New Hampshire Current Use Advisory Board, Dept. of Revenue Administration, January 28, 1974 at Concord. 90 This increasingly prestigious and political role now being played by commissions, along with their newly acquired powers, has also contributed to significant change within the movement. One of the main arguments used against conferring regulatory powers upon commissions in Massachusetts was that their traditional membership orientation would change; that developers, real estate promoters and others of similar inclination would suddenly seek membership for a vested interest sake.85 It has become obvious from observations made here that adequate funding at the local level has not occurred in many instances. Conser— vation commissions are, as a rule, unable to undertake all they advocate. The situation is not unique to New Hampshire and merely adds to the growing malaise within local government typical throughout the country. It is not the purpose of this paper to go into the lack of funding at the local level other than to indicate that commissions have and have taken advantage of certain options available which many traditional agencies do not. The ability to accept gifts of property or special financial assistance, the power to accumulate funds from left over appropriations or other means, are just two such examples. Plainly, the more effective commissions have used these options to their ultimate benefit in implementing programs that would otherwise never have been started. The conservation commissions' "view of the world" still tends toward the parochial, somewhat removed from the economic stresses of 85’Statement of Robert Ellis, President of Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, March, 1972 at Annual Meeting, Worcester, Massachusetts. 91 the day. But there is a rapid growth in insight and understanding. Traditional town boundaries are now vanishing in practice. As mentioned earlier, we have already seen a rise in the regional school concept, Mutual fire Aid compacts and other multi-town arrange- ments. But few causes have done more to bring New Hampshire towns into closer ideological proximity and eventual cooperation than their burgeoning environmental problems. Local conservation commissions have played a large part with their numerous watershed proposals, regional solid waste and recycling projects, area land plans, flood- plain protection programs and numerous other projects. These were recently evidenced by the many applications to the Ford Foundation for supplemental funding.86 Yet, at the same time, commissions still desire to remain small and relatively autonomous.87 The desire to stay small and "flexible", stated by many of the commissions querried, reflects a basic notion that "too big" is unworkable. This inclination toward "action-taking" due to smaller workable numbers of members is not a new phenomenon in social groups and sub—groups. With many of the commissions studied, as with James' 86See report by Christopher Reed, Program Officer, Office of Resources and Environment, The Ford Foundation, New York, l97u. 87i.e., the Rockingham Recreational Roadway project of Hampstead, Fremont, Epping, Derry, Sandown, Windham and Danville which still maintains a small executive committee for decision-making pur- poses. 92 studies, this feeling was especially strong.88 The profile of an "effective" commission (see page 74) indicates 5.8 as the average numerical membership. However, there was a strong tendency to see subcommittees formed in an effort to more effectively attack the problems faced by involving a broader base. This lack of hesitancy to create subcommittees seems to be amply equated with effectiveness. These commissions were the groups actually doing the work through the delegation of duties, responsibilities and even preliminary decision-making. This conclusion is further supported by Paul Hare in examining the effectiveness of various sized committees and commissions.89 Their hard won respect has encouraged many commissions to do additional work of a more technical nature. The recognition by official agencies of state, regional and federal governmental units mentioned earlier have played a large part in instilling this con- fidence and the entire movement has thus been enhanced.90 It is most difficult to measure, with any accuracy, the actual impact of individual commissions upon their respective electorates. A partial tabulation of town meeting votes on environmental issues is gathered each April but strongly favors the "returns" sent in by what 88For more on group size and effectiveness see John James, "A Preliminary Study of the Size Determinant in Small Group Inter- action," American Sociological Review, XVI, August, 1951, pp. 474-477. 89A. Paul Hare, "A Study of Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized Groups," American Sociological Review, XVII, June, 1952 ’ PP a 261-268 0 90Terry A. Sopher, "Some Intergovernmental Implications of the Pending National Legislation on Land Use Policy and Planning Assis- tance," Lake George, New York, June, 1973, p. 11. 93 is referred to here as commissions. Less active commissions tend not to report. ' conservation commissioners As community "change agents,7 have, until lately, maintained a relatively low profile. They are now entering into the political arena however. This, it has already been asserted, is seen as a step toward the acceptance of the overall movement. Tenacity as Indicator of Maturity New Hampshire's 183 conservation commissions have definitely become the environmental consciences of their respective communities. Except in a very few instances where a commission may be overshadowed by another local environmental group, they are the focus of environ— mental affairs. During the recent energy crisis a number of towns turned to their commissions in the absence of any other local energy agency. A few commissions were even able to respond to this demand for additional expertise.91 The assumption that ability to respond meaningfully, based upon high motivation, often produces constructive action, appears to be true in this instance. Conservation commissions appear to be among the most highly motivated of all municipal agencies. The "sustaining power" or tenacity of any group concerning a long-range problem which may have no foreseeable end in sight is equally important. Some commissions have been working incredibly long on some projects and Still they manage to stay with it maintaining all 9lReport of New Hampshire Governor's Energy Council on requests for information from municipalities and conservation com- missions. 94 their enthusiasm, month after month. This quality of sustaining interest and effort, not that common among other volunteer groups, was found in higher frequency among those commissions producing a higher effectiveness rating. Commissions that paced themselves and were careful to delegate workload, through subcommittees and other means, were equally effec- tive. The profile of an effective commission (page 74) shows not only a correlation with community size and effectiveness but also with the frequency of meetings, attendance of other municipal officials at commission meetings, plus the distribution of minutes and other records of their activities. These were all significant. Bently defined such group effectiveness in other terms. He used "conflicts" between groups. No one group had any meaning without knowing the activity of another: the activity and effectiveness of one group was a reflection of the activities of another group.92 "Effective" commissions tended to be in larger towns "where the action was." The effective commission profile showed 4644 population to be the mean "effective" numerical membership. In earlier chapters the basic format of local government was touched upon. This is the framework within which commissions must operate. It is a valid technique to evaluate commissions, not only one "in conflict" with another along a continuum scale, but within their own particular communities. The assumption that the more effec- tive commissions were more affected by their municipalities, and that 92Arthur F. Bently, The Process of Government (Evanston, Illinois: Principia Press, 1949), p. 271. 95 they, in turn, exerted more influence upon their communities, is further valid and supported by some of Bently's assumptions. The equalizing of these group-to—group and group-to-community relation— ships is the basis of local government. Government, he asserts, is "...considered as the adjustment or balance of these interests (pressures)."93 Having the momentum of a national environmental movement behind them has not hurt commissions. It has given them a boost at just the right time, "...just when the movement was beginning to become threadbare."9u There is ample evidence from the records of the Secretary of State, State Office of Comprehensive Planning and other state agencies attesting to the growing influence of conservation commissions at the local level. This is now extending to the county, regional and state levels. More and more town meeting articles to protect the environ- ment, regulate growth or prevent pollution are being sponsored by 95 commissions. Wider Recognition Conservation commissions are now, and will be for some time to come, widely recognized as agencies of local government. The citizenry have come to accept and, what is more important, to call upon them. They are attaining a new credibility in the process. This greater 93Ibid., p. 264. 9“See footnote #7. 95Town Reports, news clippings, etc. 96 credibility and role which has developed has resulted in recognition by the state legislature in passing new laws directly affecting com- missions giving them added powers. Recent recognition by the executive branch of state government, too, attests to the increased stature of commissions. This has been documented in the preceding pages. Contributions; Summary and Future Conservation commissions pose a potential and well organized constituency which regional, state and even national agencies will continue to cultivate. This network of local grassroots citizen commissions will be wooed by higher level resource agencies in the years ahead with the ultimate effect of further increasing their impor- tance and impact. This new but well organized constituency has already been realized. In New Hampshire the climate for social change and innovation is not on a par with more urban sections of the nation. A social "lag factor" exists as in many other rural areas. Many claim this is "what has kept the state from becoming like all the others." And it has to some extent. Either way, commissions are faced with resistance to change which has, incidentally, provided a modest grace period by keeping many municipalities from rushing into untested solutions to problems. Operating against this backdrop of reluctance to change and innovation, which leads to avoidance by many municipal officials to perform all but the most routine of housekeeping decisions, commissions have made astonishing strides. Conservation commissions, together as 97 a movement and separately as individual groups operating within their respective communities, must be measured against this New Hampshire social backdrop. Within this process, commission effectiveness varies greatly and some of the reasons for this have been set forth. To prognosticate the future of these groups, which have been charged by the state and local governing bodies with protection of the environment, is difficult. At this writing additional New Hampshire towns and cities are considering establishing conservation commissions under the eleven-year old enabling act. Although public land use policies and New Hampshire's strong sense of private ownership are often in conflict, commissions have been able to assist in, and often innovate, a greater degree of change in local resource management than would have ever been possible other- wise. What started as a small one town effort to save a marsh has grown, in 17 years, into significant and healthy proportions worthy of continued monitoring. APPENDIX A STATUTES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS CHAPTER 550. AN ACT AMENDING THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ENABLING ACT AND PERMITTING TWO PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TO SERVE ON OTHER MUNICIPAL BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 550:1 Changing the Language in Purposes of Conservation Commission. Amend RSA 36-A:2 as inserted by 1963, 168:] by striking out said section and in- serting in place thereof the following: 36—A:2 Conservation Commission. A city or town which accepts the provi- sions of this chapter may establish a conservation commission, hereinafter called the commission, for the prOper utilization and protection of the natural resources and for the protection of watershed resources of said city or town. Such commis- sion shall conduct researches into its local land and water areas and shall seek to coordinate the activities of unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes, and may advertise, prepare, print and distribute books, maps, charts, plans and pamphlets which in its judgment it deems necessary for its work. It shall keep an index of all open space and natural, aesthetic or ecological areas within the city or town, as the case may be, with the plan of obtaining information pertinent to proper utilization of such areas, including lands owned by the state or lands owned by a town or city. It shall kee an index of all marshlands, swamps and all other wet lands in a like manner, an may recommend to the city council or select- men or to the department of resources and economic development a program for the protection, development or better utilization of all such areas. It shall keep accurate records of its meetings and actions and shall file an annual report whic shall be printed in the annual town or municipal report. The commission may appoint such clerks and other employees or subcommittees as it may from time to time requ1re. CHAPTER 550 550:2 Composition of and How Commission Members are Chosen. Amend RSA 36—Az3 as inserted by 1963, 168:1 by striking out said section and inserting in place thereof the following: 36-A:3 Composition of Commission. The commission shall consist of not less than three nor more than seven members. In a city or town which has a planning board, one member of the commission shall also be a member of the planning board and shall be appointed by said board for a one-year term. In cities, the re- maining members shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to the provisions of the city charter, and in towns the remaining members shall be appointed by the selectmen. When a commission is first established, terms of the remaining mem- bers shall be for one, two or three years, and so arranged that the terms of ap- proximately one-third of the members will expire each year, and their successors shall be appointed for terms of three years each. Any member of a commission so appointed may, after afpublic hearing, if requested, be removed for cause by the appointing authority. vacancy occurring otherwise than by expiration of a term shall be lled for the unexpired term in the same manner as an original ap- ponntment. 550:3 Powers of Commission. Amend RSA 36-Az4 as inserted by 1963, 168:] by striking out said section and inserting in place thereof the following: 36—Az4 Powers. Said commission may receive gifts of money and property, both real and personal, in the name of the city or town, subject to the approval of the city council in a city or the selectmen in a town, such gifts to be managed and controlled by the commission for the purposes of this section. Said commis- sion may acquire in the name of the town or city by gift, purchase, grant, be- quest, devise, lease or otherwise the fee in such land or water rights, or any lesser interest, development right, easement, convenant, or other contractual right including conveyances with conditions, limitations or reversions, as may be necessary to acquire, maintain, improve, protect, limit the future use of or other- wise conserve and properly utilize open spaces and other land and water areas within their city or town, and shall manage and control the same, but the city or town or commission shall not have the right to condemn property for these pur- poses. 98 550:4 Deleting the Word “Development” from Appr0priation Section. Amend RSA 36-A25 as inserted bcy 1963, 168:1 by striking out in lines two and three the words “development an ", so that said section as amended shall read as follows: 36—Az5 Appropriations Authorized. For the purposes of establishing and maintaining a conservation commission to promote the better utilization of our natural resources, as authorized by section 2, a town or city may appropriate moneys as is deemed necessary. The whole or any part of money so appropriated in any year may be placed in a conservation fund and allowed to accumulate from year to year. Money may be expended from said fund for the purposes of this‘ chapter. 550:5 Qualifications and Terms of Planning Board Members. Amend RSA 36:5, as amended, by striking out in lines four and five the words “one appointed member shall also serve as a member" and inserting in place thereof the follow- ing (two appointed members shall also serve as members) so that said section as amended shall read as follows: CHAPTER 551 36:5 Qualifications and Terms of Members. No appointed member shall also serve as town or city treasurer, tax collector, trustee of town funds, or as a deputy or assistant to any of the aforementioned officers. In the case of towns, no more than two appointed members shall also serve as members of any other mu- nicipal board or commission. In the case of cities, appointed members shall not hold any other municipal office except that one of such appointed members may be a member of the zoning board of adjustment. The terms of ex officio members shall‘correspond to their respective official tenures, except in the case of cities that the term of the administrative official selected by the mayor shall terminate with the term of the mayor selecting him. The term of each appointed member shall- be six years in the case of nine-member planning boards, five years in the case of seven-member planning boards and four years in the case of five-member planning boards, except that the respective terms of five of the members first ap- pointed to a nine-member or a seven-member planning board shall be one, two, three, four, and five years; and in the case of five-member planning boards that the respective terms of the four members first appointed shall be one, two, three, and four years. 550:6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect sixty days after its passage. [Approved July 5, 1973.] [Effective date September 3, 1973.] Prepared by the N.H. Association of Conservation Com- missions in cooperation with the Society for the Pro- tection of New Hampshire forests. CHAPTER 346. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO THE MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS, PLANNING BOARDS AND REQUIRING THE POSTING OF PERMITS FOR DREDGE AND FILL. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 346:1 Notification of Municipal Planning Boards and Conservation Com- missions. Amend RSA 483-Azl (supp) as inserted by 1967, 215:1, as amended, by inserting at the end of said section the following (At the time of filing with the water resources board, said person shall also file three c0pies of said notice, with or without detailed plan, With the town clerk. The town clerk shall send a copy of the notice to the selectmen, mayor or city manager, the municipal planning board, if any, and the municipal conservation commission, if any.) so that sai section as amended shall read as follows: 483-A:l Excavating and Dredging. No person shall excavate, remove, fill or dredge any bank, flat, marsh, or swamp in and adjacent to any waters of the state without written notice of his intention to excavate, remove, fill or dredge to the water resources board. Said notice shall be sent by registered mail to the water resources board at least thirty days prior to such excavating, removing, filling or dredging with a detailed plan drawn to scale of the proposed project. At the time of filing with the water resources board, said person shall also file three copies of said notice, with or without detailed plan, with the town clerk. The town clerk shall send a copy of the notice to the selectmen, mayor or city man- ager, the municipal planning board, if any, and the municipal conservation com- mission, if any. 346:2 Permits and Violations. Amend RSA 483-Az4-b (supp) as inserted by 1970, 22:3, by striking out said section and inserting in place thereof the follow- ing: 483-A:4-b Posting of Permits and Reports of Violations. Project approval by the board shall be in the form of a permit, a copy of which the applicant shall post in a secured manner in a prominent place at t e site of the approved project. Any person proceeding without a posted permit shall be in violation of this chap- ter. All state, county and local law enforcement officers are directed to be watchful for violations of the provisions of this chapter and to report all suspected viola- tions to the board. CHAPTER 347 346:3 Investigation by Municipal Conservation Commission. Amend RSA 483-A:4~a (supp) as inserted by 1970, 22:3, by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph: IV. Upon written notification by a municipal conservation commission that it intends to investigate any notice received by it pursuant to RSA 483-A.:l, the board shall suspend action upon such notice and shall not make its deciSion on the notice of a minor project nor hold a hearing on it, if a major prOject, until it has received a written report from the conservation commission, or until thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice, whichever occurs earlier. In connec- tion with any local investigation, a conservation commission may hold an infor- mational meeting, the record of which shall be made a part of the record of the board. If notification by a local conservation commission, pursuant to this section, is not received by the board within seven days following the date the notice is filed, the board shall not suspend its normal action, but shall proceed as if no notification had been made. 346:4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect sixty days after its passage. A proved June 27, 197 3.] E ective date August 26, 1973.] 99 Prepared by the .N.H. Association of Conservation Com- missions in cooperation with the Society for the Pro- tection of New Hampshire forests. CURRENT USE TAX LAW, EXCERPTS AFFECTING NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS RSA 79-A:5(I) Assessment of open space land not withstanding the provisions of RSA 75:1, the selectmen or assessing officials shall appraise open space land...excluding any building, appurtenance or other improvement thereon, at valuations based upon the current use values established by the board. RSA 79-A:3(I) & (II) There is hereby established a current use advisory board which shall function within the Department of Revenue Administration. The Board shall consist of 11 members...(one to be the executive secretary of the New Hampshire Association of Conser- vation Commissions...) CRITERIA FOR OPEN SPACE TAXATION VI. A.2 "Wildland" - A tract of unimproved land of any size...being left in its natural state without interference with the ecological process and containing or supporting rare and unusual natural phenomena, the preservation of which is in the public interest and such preser- vation requires substantial limitation of public access as determined and recommended by the municipal conservation commission...the final approval shall rest with the Board of Selectmen. 100 APPENDIX B MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES No. of No. of First Municipalities Conservation Established ngmissions Massachusetts 357 306 1957 Rhode Island 39 30 1960 Connecticut 169 129 1961 New Hampshire 233 183 1963 Maine 495 183 1965 New York 1602 265 e 1967 New Jersey 567 198 1968 Vermont 310 6 1971 * 0 Also 27 county environmental conservation councils out of 57 counties and 5 boroughs in New York City. * No enabling act, established through home rule statute. 101 APPENDIX C CHRONOLOGY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE April 5, 1960 Forest Notes Article (Summer, 1960) March 27, 1962 January 4, 1963 February 14, 1963 February 17, 1963 .Mary 2, 1963 May 21, 1963 Leslie S. Clark reported on first New England conservation conference at Harvard Business School in Boston to discuss prob— lems and programs of Conservation Commissions in Massachusetts (only 20 at the time). Letter to Annette Cottrell of Hillsborough from Leslie Clark, Society for the Pro- tection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), announcing his interest in drafting conser- vation commission legislation. Letter from Leslie Clark to Mary Louise Hancock, Planner, Department of Resources and Economic Development, saying Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests was considering pushing a conservation com- mission bill - sent her rough draft. House Bill 252, a proposed enabling act, introduced into New Hampshire General Court by Representatives Adams of Madbury, Purington of Exeter, Johnson of Hanover - Referred to House Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development (taken from Chapter 40, General Laws of Massachusetts, passed in commonwealth in 1956). Letter from Jean Hennessey of Hanover to Leslie Clark, SPNHF regarding support for the conservation commission bill submitted to New Hampshire legislature. New Hampshire Natural Resources Council Chairman Colonel Thielen passed resolution favoring HB 252. New Hampshire House of Representatives passed HB 252 after amending section 4 to broaden commission powers to accept gifts. 102 May 23, 1963 June 5, 1963 June 19, 1963 June 21, 1963 March 10, 1964 April 1964 December 18, 1964 March 9, 1965 March 31 , 196 5 June 2, 1965 103 House sent HB 252 to N.H. Senate. Hearing on HB 252 before the N.H. Senate. Senate passed HB 252, it is enrolled. Governor John King signed conservation commission enabling act into law. Became Ch. 168 of the Session Laws of 1963, ultimately 36-A of the Revised Statutes Annotated of N.H. Town Meetings — No commission voted in by any town (little knowledge such an enabling act existed). Correspondence from Society for the Pro- tection of New Hampshire Forests Forester Lawrence W. Rathbun to C. P. Conk, Wellesley, Mass. concerning no conservation commissions yet appointed in New Hampshire - mentioned conservation commissions in Mass- achusetts working with town forest committees there. Letters sent to all Society for the Pro- tection of New Hampshire Forests members enclosing conservation commission enabling act and urging local action. Town meetings - 18 towns voted to estab- list conservation commissions - Bedford, Center Harbor, Durham, Epsom, Exeter, Francestown, Gilford, Hampton Falls, Hampton, Hollis, Hookse't't, Littleton, Meredith, New London, Rindge, Rye, Salem and Sunapee, (no cities yet) - Report of Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. New Hampshire’s Conservation Commissioners invited to Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions annual meeting at Chicopee, Mass. by Stuart DeBard, Association Executive Secretary; letter to Lawrance W. Rathbun SPNHF Forester. Sixty people representing 25 New Hampshire towns met at Littleton to hear a panel discussion concerning New Hampshire con- servation commissions, what services were available. Leslie Clark was moderator. November 1965 January 15, 1966 January 18, 1966 January 20, 1966 January 25, 1966 March 8, 1966 September 1966 February 23, 1967 February 28, 1967 104 Society for the Protection of New Hamp- shire Forests held Concord meeting (first of six) of heads of state and federal agencies to explore ways of supplying technical assistance to conservation com- missions. Twenty-one town Conservation Commissions (no cities yet) in existence, report in Concord Daily Monitor—Bill Messeck, State Forester and Leslie Clark, SPNHF, reported. Meeting of Cheshire County conservation commissions at Keene State College. Strafford County meeting of conservation commissions. Rockingham County meeting to help conser- vation commissions in that part of state. Town Meetings - 16 towns vote to establish conservation commissions: Campton, Thornton, Gilmanton, Peterboro, Bow, Hanover, Seabrook, North Hampton, Pembroke, Bristol, Tamworth, Wolfeboro, Chichester, Rochester, Alstead, and Moultonboro. First Handbook of Technical Assistance for conservation commissions published by State Department of Resources and Economic Devel- opment and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. First state-wide meeting of conservation commissions in Concord at Highway Hotel sponsored by Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests - with 40 represen- tatives - formed an informal state associa- tion - attending: Rye, Thornton, Stoddard, Dalton, Sunapee, Hanover, Peterboro, North Hampton, Gilford, Gilmanton, Littleton, Tamworth, Bristol, Belmont, Amherst, New London, Hancock, Alstead, Hampton Falls, and Durham (reported in 24 February 1967, Manchester Union Leader). Fulltime statewide conservation commission coordinator (Floyd V. Barker) is hired at University of New Hampshire by Cooperative Extension Service under promise of a grant from Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trusts. March 14, 1967 May 10, 1967 August 11, 1967 September 13, 1967 March 5, 1968 April 18, 1968 May 31, 1968 March 4, 1969 September 12, 1969 March 10, 1970 105 Town Meetings - twenty-three towns voted to establish conservation commissions. Meeting to determine what agencies and services are available to assist in develop- ment of a pilot conservation plan for Durham. Met in Forestry Warehouse in Concord. Clark reported there were about 60 Conservation Commissions in New Hampshire. $5,000 (first of two such grants) from Spaulding—Potter Charitable Trusts to Cooperative Extension Service at Univer- sity of New Hampshire in Durham to match a $10,000 grant under Title I of the Higher Education Act to underwrite Floyd Barker's services. First "seed money" grant made to Deerfield Conservation Commission by Spaulding- Potter Charitable Trust. Under another funding program, begun in Janaury 1968, $1 for each $2 raised locally toward a conser- vation fund was provided. $20,000 from Spaulding—Potter. Twenty-five towns vote to establish conservation commissions. Keene is first New Hampshire city to vote a conservation commission. Spaulding—Potter funds a University of Connecticut "Townscape" study of the lakes region communities of Wolfeboro, Freedom, Laconia, Holderness, Tamworth, and Plymouth. Twenty towns vote to establish conservation commissions. Supplemental grant of $2500 from Spaulding- Potter to New Hampshire Charitable Fund to continue $250 "seed money" program adminis- tered by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Town Meetings — seventeen towns voted to establish Conservation Commissions: Lyndeboro, Jackson, Conway, Bartlett, Pittsfield, Plymouth, Newbury, New Durham, Lancaster, Henniker, Dublin, Nelson, Haverhill, New Hampton, Londonderry, Nottingham and Bethlehem. November 15-17, 1970 November 17, 1970 March 9, 1971 October 20, 1971 November 13, 1971 January 2, 1972 March 1972 106 Bedford, New Hampshire - Second Congress of New England Conservation Commissions - ten years since first such congress. Formed New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions. Pat Bruns of the Lee Conservation Commission elected first president, Malcolm Taylor of Holderness appointed first executive secre- tary, Constitution adoped. Grant from Spaulding-Potter for $17,000 to phase out in three years makes it possible to hire executive secretary, print newsletter, provide other services. Town Meetings - Madison, Andover, Ells- worth, Gorham, Northwood, Rumney, Harrisville, Winchester, Surry, Marlow, Waterville Valley, Randolph, Newmarket, Richmond, Franconia, East Kingston, Kensington, Hampstead, Swanzey and Barn- stead vote to establish conservation commission. New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions becomes an affiliate of the New Hampshire Municipal Association. lst Annual Meeting of New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions at Lee. Hope Wright of Rye elected second president. Presidents of Maine (Sterling Dow) and Massachusetts (Robert Ellis) Associations attended. The Ford Foundation Program of Assistance to Municipal Conservation Commissions officially begins, $300,000 allocated to seven commission states. (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey.) Town Meetings - twenty towns voted to establish conservation commissions: Springfield, Cornish, Hudson, Jaffrey, Troy, Chesterfield, Acworth, Fitzwilliam, Warren, Wentworth, Sandwich, Temple, Candia, Colebrook, Greenfield, and Hinsdale. April 28, 1972 September 15, 1972 November 4, 1972 February 1973 February 1973 February 1973 April 2, 1973 107 First Ford Foundation Grants made to New Hampshire Conservation Commissions (Hollis, Lancaster Madison, Richmond, Pembroke and Strafford) totaling $8375. Premiere showing of a professional slide- sound production by John Karol of Orford depicting conservation commission movement in New Hampshire which was prepared upon a grant made from Spaulding-Potter Charitable Trusts through the Council on Foundations to Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Film used to recruit new conser- vation commissions and to bolster lagging ones. Second Annual Meeting of New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions at Conway. Harry Bennett of Richmond elected president. Jim Staples prepares for The Ford Foundation a brief report on effectiveness of conser- vation commissions in each state. Comple— ments other papers and studies on the subject. (Not released.). The Ford Foundation announced refunding of their program of assistance to conservation commissions in the Northeast. 33 New Hampshire commissions have received assis- tance for a total thus far of $42,311.00. Foundation allocates an additional $300,000 for a program total of $600,000. Three bills introduced into the New Hamp- shire General Court to further strengthen conservation commissions in the state (HB 683, HB 817, HB 664). Also, new "current use" tax bill has provision requiring the executive secretary of New Hampshire Association of Conservation Com- missions to serve on Advisory Board. Rules promulgated require commission certification of natural areas as prerequisite for lower tax. Leaders of all state conservation commission associations met with William D. Ruckelshaus in Trenton, New Jersey to discuss federal involvement and assistance to conservation commissions. April 18, 1973 April 27. 1973 May 89 1973 June 21, 1973 June 24—27, 1973 June 27. 1973 JUlY 5. 1973 September 22, 1973 108 Hearing on HB 664 (sponsored by New Boston Conservation Commission member and Rep. Marjorie Colburn) to strengthen enabling act for commissions. Resource Commissions of seven northeast states (Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island) met in New York City to dis— cuss future direction of conservation commissions movement, this was a prelude to meeting with William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA head, to determine if there was federal commitment toward direct assistance to municipalities through conservation com- missions. Hearing on HB 683 (sponsored by Sandwich Conservation Commission member and Rep. Ray Conley) giving conservation commissions Review owers over dredge and fill, and HB 817 also sponsored by Marjorie Colburn) requiring that conservation commissions be notified of dredge and fill projects. Conservation commission movement in New Hampshire is 10 years old. Silver Bay Conservation Commission Con- ference at Lake George, New York, offered conservation commissions some technical information and workshop sessions. Spon- sored by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Rockefeller Bros. Fund and Conservation Foundation in Wash- ington. Governor Thomson signed HB 817 (a combin- ation of HB 81?, HB 683 and HB882) into Law to become effective August 26, 1973. Governor signed HB 664 into Law, became effective September 3, 1973. Meeting to organize National Association of Conservation Commissions at Rocky Hill, Connecticut. October 20, 1973 November 3, 1973 December 31, 1973 June 10, 1974 109 Form Vermont Association of Conservation Commissions at Burlington, Vermont. Meeting sponsored by the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Gathering addressed by Malcolm Taylor, Executive Secretary of New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions. Third Annual Meeting of New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions at Nashua. Helen Milbank elected president. The Ford Foundation Program of Assistance to municipal conservation commissions terminates. Senate Bill 23 introduced to clarify the problem of having a planning board member an ex officio conservation commissioner in cities. Results in doing away with compul- sory requirement. In-depth study and evaluative report on New Hampshire Conservation Commissions prepared by Malcolm Tayor, Executive Secre— tary, N.H. Ass'n. of Conservation Commissions. APPENDIX D COMPUTER DATA ON NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWNS AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS cowpwsam> vommmmmm ooo.oam pod % modemsogu ca « Zxohmudoo rDmJHo ..zo»z«:4~e OIOAJHO hzozmru zmnrrcau zzokmmuzaiu zokozaszqu xupmwa3 ozwzmmo :ommwdzmwa 20H4u mmeoa _ w USE x

nezq zoammmzzomimowwa>mmmzoo hwqhzdm z~m~z< ZOPJ< 230» Ororrmz oo.omo oo.rmmm oo.o oa.co om.om oo.oom~ u ,zoemor an; oo.mmm oc.mmom oo.o os.mm co.om oo.ecm zomumz oo.ooa oonrrvmn oo.o OMMML omHMm oo.o~m~ oxomzoeraoz oo.~on oo.r~mo oo.o on.o~ oo.sm oo.coo zozcu> ezoi.i oo.oom oo.ocae~ oo.o oo.o~ o~.om oo.~moo odourlr .niii. -oo.omm oo.maroo some or.mm coward ibo.momm ix.;roedmozoozon --na ,4 oo.o¢~ oo.Goa~o some comer osnm-, auoo.oemm -- reamnaear in oo.wr~ oo.memm oo.o om.m_ oo.oo oo.omc_ cauldrosan oo.onm oo.somm oo.o oc.o~ o~.om oo.~re~ was ooqwam oouwmsma op.emm oo.~m con oo.roan rmsmaozar oo.moe oo.ommma oo.o oo.o oe.ms oo.~rr~ .zOAmczar.- oo.mmo . oo.omm~a oo.o co.an om.o~ oo.soecm wrung : oo.-~ oasmooma ppuamoom cwnrm am.rm co.eoc, zomroao oo.cam oo.~om~m oc.o oc.s¢ o~.mm oo.aoom -I--zcezarior oo.-m oo.oma~m oo.o o~.sm oo.oe oo.somm gamers: oo.oeo ocdmrom oo.o oe.mm oonom oo.meo~ mmuzrwcnor oo.o oo.o oo.o oqeo oa.om oo.msa~ .ocormrnar-- oo.~s oo.m~mo oo.o oo.ma oo.mm oo.cm~ zornrr --, co.oom mo.mmmp~ some oAHWm cram. oo.oeom anardr>ar oo.m~e oo.~oeom oo.o oo.oe oo.m~ oo.eocr .i;;-- ew>ozer.- oo.omm oo.msoo oc.o oe._m oo.m~ oo.ooo rooozar ocqo~a oo.romm oo.o om.- oa.~e ocuwmma mnqau zoaoxar oo.oan oo.soooa oo.o om.ma oo.me oo.-om --e--20eazzwmcc oouonn oo.~cao oo.o oo.n~ o~.o¢ .oo.ema. i: gnzarzmrrw.- use: .zo~»<:u<>u mmaoe . mead xa» ommmumma .u.z.z.3 aura zeroes zoae1d 230» m~m>nazm12owmmarrouizomwm>amw20u lllflfllitllll : er.ma. mo.-mm~ mr.r-o sm.a~ mc.mo mc.~mma zoawan>uo.ocaozaum- - ---:-;..-.:..or.oon ; o~.~mmowi. Ac.woma .immwmn smuvmiii. nowooam rear oo.oon oo.moma oo.smao~ oe.rm om.m oo.som roasmeoor u: oo.osm commons" opus omwmn oo.w~ oo.omom odorwuros oo.oom oo.mmsa~ oo.o om.- oc.m- oo.room rarczaa- oo.ooa oo.mw~o oo.o o..o~ oe.- oo.os~m zoenar 1..---Illii i-oo.orm oo.mnsm coupe: enamel oc.om oo.~mm~ reams . so.om~ oo.o~em oo.omooe oa.mo oo.rao .inoo.co~ i--- :11; unuasrmacr oo.o.e oo.oomm oo.o oa.om om.em oo.o2o ocomzouuae - code—m oo.uoom oo.omoma opumm on.mm oo.eom zoazcore co.ocm oo.oama oo.om~ om.oo o~.m oo.cmo~ rerorrea; oo.o~m oo.~aom~ oo.o or.m~ oo.m~ oo.cmm~ uraaznm - co.oom oo.coe_ cone bases o~.¢c oo.osm 2a>arrsn i.eo.~on . oo.mmac oo.o oo.o oa.a oo.omm :-44Hr dream oo.ooo oo.~mrm co.e om.m~ oc.oc oo.-m~ zaraarem - oo.oom oonmcmo oo.o oo.~m oa.mm oo.moo occuuadam oo.ocm . oo.m_e~ ce.o oe.mm on.wo oo.~cm - essencem 92 oo.ooo oo.sme~ oo.o oo.s oo.o~ .oo.mmm zeaczar xenon -auii- .i|.il ii.oo.mor assesses oo.o owner cram oo.omoo raaormrbrom oo.oam oo.mo- oo.o oc.c_ oc.ea oo.oma --. zoaarm oo.~om oo.rooo~ oo.o om.o om.mm oo.mmom rosemam is: oo.oo~ octosGOL oc.o om.oc . om.o~ oo.-o~ 20ezdomram oo.ome oo.mma- oo.o oo.mm os.n-. oo.msao~ -, - rmsam oo.oao oo.morm~ oo.o oo.c_ oo.mm oo.mmoe wad oc.~cm oo.ommo_ oo.o o~.~ om.a~ oo.mam~ aroumzaruor oo.rom oo.mom~a coho omnoc oo.mm .zoo.rmosa .: rmenmrooa oo.oon oo.s-o~ so.o oo.oe oa.~n~ oo.ms- moors: -- oo.oem comammma oo.o omnmm om.oo oo.moom crossed oo.ooe oo.emon. oo.o oo.m_ o~.s oo.s_am~ i-ra:ormecoa- oo.aee oo.omkm. oo.o oo.mm oo.~m oo.mmme renos>na - co.omm oo.mvon opuo oenwm om.m~ oo.m~m~ armluzaqnc oo.ooe oo.nsm- oo.o oo.mm om.n~ so.somm -rosocomauema oo.oom oo.~orsa oo.o os.mm om._~ oo._ome mzomrrma a- co.mom obnmomam co.o ownmm oo.ao~ oo.m~cm reruns oo.oom oo.a~mm oo.o o~.mo omnmm oo.~ma 2m mucoe . user x4» oummumma .u.z.z.: «are rezone zonemudeu zo~hammomwo JIa 230.. " lithe!" A. Ill- Ill||l1 . ...... .. u. #1.! instill I it Illltlll . mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» zzoemuuoo - 1:, :.z -4, oz no» -1131! oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm>.:i.t- mm» iii:|,-- , zombie oz no» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» --. ,zoezarolo mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» orounao - oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» ow» mm» oz Azormau mm» mm» oz mm» mm» oz oz mm» mm» zaozzaal-- oz oz. oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» oz zzosmmozaiu . 1 ---:::iiiius._oz no» mm) mm» oz -oz oz oz mm» 2:91;: --zoeozarzeu mm» mm» oz mu> oz mm» mm» mm» mm» -, . enemas oz oz oz mu» oz mm» mm» oz oz roman oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» ,oz oraaow oz oz oz mm» oz mm» mm» mm» -i zoaaw,i mm> mu» oz mm; mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» :qrqoo , it oz .oz ow» mm» mm» mm» mm». oz mm» ,oziii zoazaoroo oz mm» oz mm» mm» or» oz mm» mm» -|::it.. zanroo mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» sermo eiiiiil oz oz mm» oz oz oz mu» oz ozacooo oz. oz mm» mm» mm» oz mm» oz .oouaurmmo mu» oz oz oz mm» oz oz mu» oz zoeoeo :u2.iliiii. mm» mm» oz mm» oz oz oz. mu» mu>uiaiiii:i > mm» mm» oz roammroaro oz mm» oz mu» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» zroammniero -,u mu» o2 oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» :iiommdar roazmo oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» oz >domamAzeo:z oz oz mm» oz mm» oz mm» mm» oz zoaazao -- oz oz oz mm» mm» 02 our mu» mm».i. .mw>-i_ i.-i-mzaoeoorm mm» mm» oz oz oz mu» oz oz mm» mm» roamacn oz oz oz oz oz mm» oz mu» mu» «usezmoolar oz no» oz mu» mu> mm» mm» mm» mm» oooaezoir oz oz oz mm» oz oz oz mu» oz ioaouoarr x mm» mm» oz mu» mm» mm» oz mm» mm» roe ----1iiiiiz-zilmw> oz oz mu» Mo» .92 oz mu» .mu»:. ezozorr mu» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» -Iia- odouoor - oz oz oz mm» oz oz oz oz oz Forearm i- oz oz oz oz oz oz oz mm» mm» sneeze mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mu> mm» mm» -uwmmmxzeli mu» oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» oz zoeo< ,i sill. mm» oz oz oz oz oz oz mm» mm» - oauemoa 244a .zzoo uoouum homaou poor» .omo .zzoo oa~orom ozszoN oszoN oszzaac a.o zzoe msm>oaz<.zo~wwazzoo zoswa>ruwzoo zo—pdnmummo u>~h oz mm» mo» :02. zosamz . mm» or» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» erodaoz - - i : -- mo» -.i. oz oz iiill mo» - mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» zoozoa 2oz oz oz oz mm» mm» oz ,oz- I oziiuiiizmo>.iii:i-mm» .;-;a roazmaa nor mm» mm» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm) zoeozaroz t.. mo» oz oz mm» oz oz oz mo» oz zoenzai 3oz oz oz oz mm» mo» oz oz mm» or.. -ali---zarzoo rnz. oz no». oz oz oz mo» mm» mm» mm, moemso 3oz .i-ii!l§|lII||II3 02 n 02 02 mm» 02 mm» 02 mm> oz >1Dm3wz oz zioz oz mm» mm» mm» oz oz oz-i ..oz.. :19.. zoomoo rnz . oz oz oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» oz zomomz ,oz oz oz mm» oz oz mm» mm» oz ococzoooooz mm> oz oz mo» mm» mm» may mm» mm» oz zozeos ozoz mu» no» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» acorns: ..... .s was oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» roararerz mus mm» .oz mm> mm» oz oz moriu mu».-: sir--- renomrnz oz oz oz mu» oz mo> mm» mm» oz zomea oz oz oz mu» oz mm» mm» mm» or oaormozso oz ii.oz. mu» oz oz oz oz mm» ui.oz-i:|iiliail mass 4 mm» mm» oz mm; mm» mm» mm» oz mm; Eauozoozoo :.m iii:uii!ii:.mm> -mw» oz mm» mm» mos -oz mm»- -mo»-.|ii:2.- zoamrosau oz no» oz oz oz mo> mm» mm» mm» oorauroalo oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» who -i mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» imamaozao mm> oz oz mm» mm; mm» . oz mm» _oz-l.|11il-é zoomoz: mm» mm» oz mm» mo> mm» mm> mu» mzmmz - oz oz oz mu» oz oz oz oz oz zomzoao mu» - oz oz mu» oz mo» mu» mm>.iiiiiimu».-iii-nii- zeazazior mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» somroo: 1 oz mm» mm» oz mo» oz oz mm» mm» mmmramonoi oz no» oz mm» mm» oz oz mu>nlllliimm».-ir:su .. oconmuoar oz oz oz mo> oz oz oz oz mo» zozror . it- . oz oz oz oz oz oz mm» mm» 43:53? mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» .mu» mm>.illillmm» -iz---.ui;- mwsorz oz no» oz mm» mm» mo» mm» mm» mm» zoooze -oz oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» or mores zoearar mm» mm» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» i. zoenzcr, oz no» oz mu» mm> oz . . oz oz mm» mm» wnna>zomdo ,,,,, mm» oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» oz ozeozmmro zoooom ozazoN ozozo~ ozuzzqoo o.o zzo» zomhdnmumuo w>mpmuwzoo 'Iilll ill‘Illl :ill'villill'vl. . om no so” ~n _ ~¢ o: no N“ m: oz 4z. .ii oz :ez.-i-: rear. oz mu> oz oz oz oz mooa>rm» oz lizi;- zeazzerh oz mw> mm» oz oz mm» . mm» . razozzoh oz mm» oz oz oz mm» mm» umaazom oz mu» oz oz, mm» mm» .ii oz ,IIII. z<>_ooom oz oz mm» mm» mm» oz 442: zeoom oz mm» . mm» mm» mm» mm» oz zeroarhm oz mm» . oz mm» oz oz mm» [iii oaouuuran a\. mu» oz . oz oz oz oz oz ocaoooem oz o2 . mu» oz mm» mm» oz zoaazar reoom --:,|,i:i- 1 oz mm» mm» mm» -mu». -umu» -mm»- Ii--r»zoznzwzom oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» oz zoaurm oz oz mm» oz oz oz oz zooumqrm oz mm» mm» .mo» mm» mm» mm» -zoezcorzam oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mo» . zoocm oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» msa oz mm» . mus oz :oz mu>.ll. ..... oz :i- ozoumzaoooa oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mu> mo» iii--. ewamorood oz oz oz , oz mm» mm» mm» mm» mm» uoozau ,iiii oz oz oz oz oz oz oz mm» mm» ozor>da mm> no» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mow mm» -reoormezoc oz mo» oz oz oz mm» mm» mm» mm» reooz»na i a::iizllil.:i oz oz oz mm> oz mm» mm}. mm» mm» oomauzaaoo mm» mm» mm» oz mm» mm» mm» mo> i:mo> xooodoocmeoc mm» mm» oz mu» oz mu» oz mm» mm» wzorozma : mm» mm» oz oz mo» mus oz on» was zeros; oz oz mo» oz mm» mm» mm» oz zarozaaeoz mm» mm» oz oz mm» mm» mm» mw> oz zopozar razoz i i anioz oz oz oz mo» oz oz mm» mm» .oomnuxezoz z<4m .zxou woouwa pmwaou hmomh .omo .rzoo omqom .ozoo .uum mzaonom ozHZON ozozoN oz_zz<4o z.o 22o» zompd~mumwo w>-Jeza.zo~mwoflwoo zoomaymmmzoo ii .‘I IIIIIITIiIIII‘ ll .II x I z I I I I I I x x o 090 coco: o 3:: o co: :ococ x ccooo : o o: I I :2: oz: c I x I I I a s so no\rc n 7chczHr c L U c D o mmc :ost z hm: H :2: 2::nn x :2:;; H o a: I I :M: or: I x I IIMIWIH2Iwo\ro H Tram: &IHIT I I I I I x x K : 3)) 3c:c: c so: 2 Xxx 12:2: x :c::; c : c: I I :27 1:; c I x I I I m m :c fio\srimiI|lI .wa{::II H w I I I I o x c J :Hm oorH: x me: : o:H ozHoo c ooooo o H c: I :22 32H m m I I I H H Ho ncxne m mcH P o I I U 3 T :3: 323:: c 3:: 3 ::H mCHroIalbbwrcIH M.#: I llbchmcwlMiI.H I U,~ c H: :O\x£ N TmufwaJfl --H u -.II-I~:v x;m.Nzo.HrouaIzIwooImIasHIa:rea-H cacao onIM: o:: ::H x x I I I m i;Ho Ho\sr H.-: oooznroH; K I m I I I x .f. H : :rc oasoc c :3: z 9.: 33:2: x 2:23. o c a: I I :3; co: N I x I I I n h H: moles H Hr; lelmil I I I x f K M fir: oHsz o to: : :oH :HHo: x 2:27: : o 3: I I :c: 3:: c I x I I . I m H Ho fio\ro m J.H111>;: o:r:; c :;: o ;:H :::Ho x :2::: : H I: I 3:; ::H m I x I I I a m ¢C\cr m romeo: adoruo .iIImIH.?IIIH I I x x a : :rr coco; : to: 3 xxx ::::: x :o::; : : a: I I o:o :;H H I x I I I c m o: NOVOMImIIIIHr:allH2 M mm -II H m I I I I x x x : rt: ::JH: x o.: H ::H ozroo A :o::: z m a: I co: co: m I x I I I m m Ho omvwdlmllIIIIIowomolri. I I I I I I I I x x x 2 or: ooze; o 3:: s «so zoos: x :c::: o c e: I.I coo co: o I x I I I m m m: nC\o~ M Hmoenqr I-IH IIIII LIN I I x r : H ex: ::;A; x me 3 4:3 coco: x coco: H o s: I coo ::H H I m I I I W N we mc\3o H chmq H I z I I x u H 3 Ho: oozzz o :oo : oz: IIIII a zero: o o :o I I zoo zoo c I x I I . I mIm ooINo\ro.MI-II;I:oomHmoc. NHCorsrmomHs E cm was own in an 1 zeroes T m_-HaoHor s ore» N L mzdIHllI! ZCHPdEISJZH 7CHVVHEICU liIlll i mHmrchq ZCHmmszCu chpd>awmzou H c I I I x m : n :cH oorH: : com o ::H cont: «I :oo:: : H e: co . ooH o x I A a H: mo\rc N yoc.m: :: --I H o ,- II .- III- we mIM--.:...I:I. o....m:IIzIIo,m.: ... amHIIozIzHH: c ..dHHHIHCIIHIImIImH. ozHHwImHHHIuIIoIN IIIn. .m. :2. note .... I 232.: :2. . x I m I I I I u m x : or; :ooo: o 2:: o :2: ::::c a ::N:: c : e: I so: :oH o m I s h Ho MC\ro m mach H m I I I 4 u m H H :3: o:r_: x NH: : :oH :on:: 4 :r~:: N H a: :2: ::H r I x I H m mo no\~c e overz.:.uo. <-I z I I I I I x z x m ::o ::;;o o oz; : :o: :2::: x zoos: : : so I oo: :o: c N H I n a HdedxucIm- IIzc»;acrn H w I I I x m z ; oz: ozzoo 1 :oo H :oH coco. x ::::o m e: I coo ooH m I m I s o Ho H-o\o c m eroszq H .m I I I “H x x ,L o;H :orH.. x Hzr. o .:1. :z::_: o -..: r.;_ 2 .. rH o.;. 3,.H N .I x I r. m HH. noxgtl m “lwsovirm . . H C I I- I x x x .H .Hc._ HH:_.H:H-I©I.:H.:I-:I :_:_ :HCIHo... < -:,.._;HIJMIHflIHHaI I :HHMHIMIHHI .r I .m L;.© .M IHHH HHH.\~.I H» ,II JIHHT. ~l<.__uz 4 I L. I x u. x : :rH H:::c: .H 3:: .HH:_: ::H:;H : 7.:;:H : 3 H H I .11: ::H.Hl I x I .cHw Ho HHflfli H sL?.H<1H: H n x v 3 : rH: :JHH: r mm: H ::H orHo: o :rHH: H r s: ::r :2H s H I m m Ho «ox c m :iohnqion -IIIIK-.WI Z.H-I I x x 2 H. ,5ch 3:11.: c .12... : 2:: ......H..._. : H....:,,.:: : c [N I CCQ 2:: C I K I mIIIIWIIIHIc:H.W:.\IC.Im.. .I-.I - 033;...on H r I I I x w H u H:; oozo: o :o: : :zo :oo:o x :oHoo : H r: I :oo :oH o x I r a Ho moxie N relive: lHtor a I z I I I I x v x : o:r o:::: o oz: : ::: :::o: x zero: I I is I or: :oH H I x I m 3 Ho rc\rc : rHaczradron . K I Z I II -.IIIII---- I XIIxIIXIIdIIHHSWII DC. I... C. H.212 C Md: HH_I.IHI:I.IHI_.|IvIII:IH..;l;HH H. H. 33 I HHIHHIHIMUHHHMIIH I x I. HI. I.u._- .-Ho mH\....O d ......L....:.~.c....7. H o I x m r r ox: oozo: r (z: o :o: coco: o N2:r: : o q: I on r: or: m I x I c m Ho no\so M onriciycy : H I x w H : or: :o::: c :;o o 2:; ::::: c HH::: : o :2 oz: o:H m I x I r m Ho mo\rH H zuour IIIIMIIIAV. I x o H H 1:: oars; : 2:: o :2: :ooo: c :or:: H m s: I to: or: m I m I o H «ono\ir:HIII., n»1 H L I I I I I x m D n :H: Herc: : 2:: : :2: ::::o a ::»:: o o h: I co: :cH m I x I n m Ho MC\\L : :.;:h.:H J-H:l x I L I I I I c m H ; :Ho o_;:: o or: o ::o ooze: x 222:: o o s: I co: ooH m I x I r s 2H :o\.c H rH:H mHi3i I z I o .III .IIIIIIIuI-..HIo:IHI.I.I.II:..,alum}... o comIo :co ...:mIs... or dead: o a o: I oo: coo o I x ..-.HINIoH 2%... .s .. -- 32:93; H o I I I x x 2 : NH: torm: : no: : or: coco: x :rmoz : 3 so coo ::H m I x I w m Ho moxie N oHuHiquru III§,.IHIJII I I I I I I x : :33 3:::: : to: o :t: ::::: x ::::: c : o: I ::c ::: c I x I r m a: n:\:h m «HH H u I x m. H n 3H.UQ:THJ: x rs_H M H:_H rHHLH. < :H:_H: c _. a: :c: HZHH m I x I N HwaQIWAiirflImIILHH::h;fllmHm3 7 H ..J. I I I u y. K H... 3.2 3:3: 1 3.: H Hz; :2ch o 2.3:: : o I: :2: ::H H. I x I n r. «2 maize N artisanli n ,H ..H I ---IIII---.x-I.IUI H r nHIoloozoo : :c: o ::H fizz: x 3:2... M c e: I 7H: :3: n. I < I s H. NH no\nc H 2.51.251 +£3.17. H 7. I o r fiJflJmnoHflloo r 3:: H :oH.;H.5 o :oHoo o o a: I .::o.:; r I x I oz~:oo wax e;N . rozz.a o C I I I I o r x o co: :Hzoo : :mH : ::H :H::: x :o::: c o r: I cc: o:H N I x I o m 79 o0\rt N chasl: i-I:Ir.IIm. I x r H o >.:..:::;. w ms? 3 ::H 30::: q .::::..H c a: or: or: U I x I m m H: oc\n.c I 731314 rd? H z I I I I I w x x _. rs... 92:. o ....o o :2. o..::.: c iii. : o mm I or: as: o I.x I H.. mI IIHIoIInoxieIHIIIIisc ......szu... x I Z I I I I I x x x : DJ: ::::: c c:: c ::H caHo: x ::::: c 0 MH I :c: ::H a I x I m m H: Hc\cn a 3: 1:: all x I z I I I I I x x x : c:: :::c: c :2: : ny :::o: x c:::: : : e: I :c 2 :c: o I x I m m H: m0\o~ 1 :<72:; rd: - K I Hi - -HIIIJH W w flflmflle: n......Ec. : .::_ : :z: .2.::: x Hrococ H z. o: I. of: H11. m I K IINIHWI Ho o:\:H.-fiwII - >3pxam?z H m x m H .. Hi: oztd_: z .zih ; oHLH or~.:. x exert: N n .1. H::: ::H H m I m H. H: HHxait m Heroes: sit. IEIIIIX I H I I I I U x > : 1H: 3::CH : 3:: : 2:3 2;:7: x :2::: u H 3: I ::: ::H m I K I r m «H Hoxzo H FCMHuE - H--I.:II I I x ImIIH u. 3:. :ooH: r mm: o .3; 5;; H oEE: H : I: I m: or: r I m I r-.-.oII.m.o. IIHHxaeINIIIeozoms CE: h 3 I I m m 2 C :m: orxm: 1 To: : ::H :::N: H ::::c L n a: ::: ocH N I N I c r c.H NC\rc N CsCu ..H: x I Z I I I I x x x N ::m :t::: o :1: H ::3 3::3: x :co:: : : on I or: on: N I x I a m :0 mo\\c 3 rCcCHirmr -..x I o Lzfi VIIIH:fl fl dIH :or o:::: : co: : oz: zx<H H w I I I u x H... H2: 223:: o :o: o thH o:co: x ::::: o 7 a: I ch:._:HH : I x I m m m: n:\oH m >11CCEDCXCH .I!IIHIIIMII I I I x m H I one oc;cc x :Hc o ::H coat: c ::::o s r mH I :o: ::H a x I a a H: mII\:IIIII .ZOHMHEHH4,- H w I I x m D m soc omxc: z HHo H coH crooo c occoo H N a: I oco ooH c N I h I no noxrr m :HhHaruHH; -H OI I I x w x : om: oozco o oro : oo: oooo: x coco: : H r: so: ooH e I x I s s so mo\mr m won - .H IIIIIIII amhm402q4 om om mm o m mm Hm cm 0H d s CH m mH NH H «OH 0 m a m .N H IIHéitWII: N H o a r h o m c m H o chhqzzcqu onmnszou mHmrHmmmZOU 0H o o m m m N . H H I o o 0 0H m n m. ¢ H» II HH m M NH N m MI H H .I H<3xmozo mzdzooxa no 1mmxsz HH no I oz mH ..H H nu» muuzozwz mzmonmszou o c.m z~xa zozm pzmuxul mm "om 24m: mzqoq oz< mpquo MN m: K mzoz N‘ c xmrwc ~ 0 h¢~o m » oznu hnnxw An 4 Zamwdpmmfirmmq oumm41mpxq33 N no >4rwzargn cc :o >erzc: n mo mzmuz oz» moz~HmumluquumuddumulUAIl. mo 1 :2 L - ... . mm» #2410 withoa 02H943za oqumjduzu!n4¢auammunzqulafll. ¢ad Z¢Mfl % manomo $13 :23 E: .32: am 1* 050 24u: ozzu onp4>ammzou 02“»44323u04 om m4 o 3244 12 d m FZMyumwu m 3 mo mm: on x humoanrmxmzzo C .ujcr flN. U he 24m: . woqmzuq 44kg? 4m A o a m m m cm A A me o a 230 oz: mm ll. zo~p443mqh 324‘»xc_umzfia m3»; ‘l’II/l. .. mm x 02 4 o zmrba 04 H \Hmammxi23ohllllllllil u4m4444>4 mac; go: we h” I 9.2 04 4.. 4 my» cm444 Wycl41944322~mzmh13~Um1~3 m~m>44z< ZOHmmHZTOU ZOHH¢flmmmzod Na c 333mm 4~p41m130u NDZMHZJU Jua4m1 Or: m¢r ha _ ajaxal4~w4xmaoou HI¢HWIQmm4NI or: 14. MN ' :7. NH . ..+ mm» mmeH44zomxua :m4nox1 N4 & 04 x 4202 1 4 0 133,4 I o 4 >Ik<14 m I oszum: 230. MN m EMSHUM4un mzuuzm4phom >24 04 ~m m zo-4u~4asa oz ma N @3313 garb: m4 — cmdci $327.44 41 - mwh4u~4a33 13310 #4:; m: N: x m4o4pmmo oz 9 4 mxum~234o> no {U44 w H ZO—~xopuum~o www>_424 zomwvmzrcu 2cmu4>amvzcu N \m Mx3444m.44~o~ 4 4 mmxn444u 4x3n «Z M 741:4... hr a 43muamuunw qumww$w mm ~ 434mmmuusm >xm> m434444 xo mmuuunm 294mm4xou hp om oo xmr_o s u4 may); {U44 4 cm -Qu2424>24 n no 44momm~o um3441 n 44 zo_b:44oa 144 a an mo4~marx x44u3 o~14r zu4noxa pmuh4mxo mm»4»n mm mm so zwr_o a m4 wdzvulmu44 am am .am .xH>24 x no 4moam43 mmngwx o 44 244434431 r41 o 24 mo4pmorm zmh4; m x_ x3442. .041 m uz m.:x~23dlmu<_ o“ a: zofipa4401 14443 mm 01 hzuzao4m>ma 34441 :m4mamm uuxaaa no I a: on +.. 4 mm» 40m «m; 2H mmozqru :waouuux mm ZO-<433<~ QZ< >zohuw1~o mHm>4MMflZGU APPENDIX E THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED 12,-iv Town Date Person Interviewed LQuestionnairei [Ti-meet con/comm '7'0"l 1 . Commission formation and make-up 1) What was the main impetus for formation of this commission? 2) Year and month of formation? / 3) Time that elapsed before selectmen (council) appointed the first commissioner? 4) Number of commissioners appointed at first? 5) Present number of commissioners ? 6) Has any commissioner ever been removed from office ? 7) General occupational categories of commissioners. 8) Have any subcommittees been formed? Yes No Purpose? 9) Any junior conservation commissioners ? 10)Has formation of this commission stimulated the organization of any other conservation/environmental groups in town? 10A) Local ordinances passed 125 Questionnaire/2 Project con/comm '70 11. Operation of commission 11) Number of programs underway? (list on backside) 12) Per cent self initiated? 13) Per cent undertaken as result of outside requests ? 14) Spaulding-Potter $250 grant? (yes/no) 15) "One-For-Two Spaulding-Potter conservation fund grant? (yes/no) (see separate form for nos. 14 & 15) 16) Frequency of regular meetings ? (bi-weekly, monthly, etc.) 17) Number of special meetings in the last 12 months? 18) Number of public information meetings (hearings) in the last 12 months ? 19) Amount of annual operating budget? 20) How raised (appropriation, otherwise)? 21) Grants or loans of money since formation? (total) 22) Estimate percent of above from private sources ? 23) Gifts of land acquired? 24) Total acreage now held? 25) How held? (gift. loan, use of, easement, etc.) 26) Any accumulating town conservation fund ------ If so, how much? 27) When did the commission last meet? 28) Number of special commission meetings in the last 12 months ? 29) Approximate number of times commission has met with other groups in town (governmental , quasi-governmental , private) ? 30) Are other town officials encouraged to attend commission meetings ? 31) How encouraged? 126 Questionnaire/3 Project con/comm '70 32) Are commission happenings ever released to the media ? 33) How ? 34) Are copies of the minutes of proceedings sent to anyone (copies, etc.) ? 35) Have you distributed materials to anyone, group, etc? III. Required by law 36) Has the commission done research into local land areas, classification, recommended use, etc ? 37) Has the commission sought to coordinate the efforts of unofficial groups ? 38) Is there an index of open space in town? 39) Is there an index of marshlands in town? 40) How extensive are the records of meetings and action taken ? 4l) Is an annual report filed? (May I have a copy?) 42) How is annual report made available, etc. ? IV. General assessment of effectiveness 43) What is (was) the most difficult obstacle the commission has (had) to over- come in order to perform its task ? 44) Is there duplication of the commission's efforts ? 45) If so, what other group (individual)? 46) Is there any phase of the town government process that serves as a "Bottle- neck " to getting the commission's job done? 127 Questionna ire/4 Project con/comm '7 0 47) Are personalities (commissioners, otherwise) a problem? 48) What group or individual helped you the most in getting started? 49) . . .To continue your work ? 50) Is there need for some sort of organization of commissions? 5 1) Why ? How ? L ' _. 52) What is the commission's present general priority of projects ? Most immediate/next/next/least 53) Would you recommend any changes in RSA 36A (Commission Enabling Act)? V. Broad views and self evaluation 54) What do you consider to be the town's greatest resource problem? 55) State's greatest resource problem? 55) What role do you see your commission playing in either of these? 57) Has the commission been a success or failure ? very successful/somewhat successful/neither/some failures/total failure BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bahl, R. W., and Saunders, R. J. "The Role of State and Local Government in the Economic Development of Appalachia." Land Economics, 44 (1968), pp. 50-28. Baker, H. R. Community Program Planning. Key to Community Series, No. 2. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Center for Communities, 1962. Banfield, Edward C. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1958. Barkin, S. "Economic Problems of Expanding and Declining Communities." Social Action, 27 (1961), 5-13. Beegle, J. A., and Hathaway, D. E. The People of Rural America. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968. Biddle, W. W. and L. J. The CommunityfiDevelOpment Process: The Rediscovery of Local Initiative. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, l§65. Bofinger, Paul O. "Analysing A Success." Forest Notes, No. 116. Concord, N.H.: Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, 1973. Bruns, Paul E. A New Hampshire Everlasting and Unfalleni A Journal of The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Concord, New Hampshire: Evans Printing Company, 1959. Busterud, John A. "Environmental Conservation Commissions - A Regional Success on the Eve of National Recognition." New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, (paper at Lake George, New York, June, 1973.) Byron, W. J. "Needed: Local Leadership in Depressed Areas." Harvard Business Review, 38 (1960) llS-l2fl. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin (Eds.). "Leadership and Performance of Group Functions: Introduction." Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. 128 129 Clepper, Henry. Origins of American Conservation. New York: Ronald Press, 1966. Cohn, Edgar s., and Passett, Barry A. (Eds.). Effecting Com- munity Change. New Jersey Community Action Training Institute. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971. Committee For Economic DevelOpment. Community Economic Develop- ment Efforts: Five Case StudiesTTSupp. Papers #18). New York: Area Deve10pment Committee, 196E. Dasmann, Raymond F. An Environment Fit for People, Conservation and Rural Lands. Pamphlet #421. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968. Eisenmenger, R. W. The Dynamics of Growth in New England's Economy, 1870-1964. New England Research Series, #2. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1967. Elliott,Mabel Agnes, and Merrill, Francis E. Social Disorgan— ization. New York: Harper, Row, 1961. Emerson, Richard M. "Mount Everest: A Case Study of Communi- cation Feedback and Sustained Goal-Striving." Sociometry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1966. Etzioni, Amitia (Ed.). Social Change: Sources, Patterns and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, 196E: Fairweather, George W. Methods For Experimental Social Innovation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theopy of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Ford Foundation. Urban Extension: A Report on Experimental Programs Assisted by-the Ford Foundation. New York: Ford Foundation, 1966. Forrer, John 0. "Role of State Offices of Urban Affairs in Strengthening Local Government." (Paper given) Symposium, Tax Institute of America, Washington, D.C., December 1, Foster, Charles H. W. A Land Conservation Program for New Hampshire. New England Natural Resources Center, Boston, December 1970. ' Foulds, J. (Ed.). Community DevelOpment Research Review. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Center for Community Studies. 130 Friedman, John. Regional Develgpment Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966. Giebel, Frederic B., and King, William H. "Conservation Com- missions in Worcester County, Massachusetts: 1957-1971." Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts COOperative Extension Service Series #20. Gullion, Bruce S. "Town Conservation Commissions." The Maine Coast Prospects and Perspectives. Bowdoin College: Center for Resource Studies,-19B7. Hallman, Howard W. Neighborhood Control of Public Programs: Case Studies of Community Corpprations and Neighborhood Boards. Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971. Halmos, Paul. Solitude and Privacy: A Study of Social Isolation, Its Causes and Therapy. New York: Greenwood Press, 1969. Hanley, Wayne. Massachusetts Conservation Commissions. Lincoln, Mass.: Audubon Society, 1967. Hare, A. Paul. "A Study of Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized Groups." American Sociological Review, Vol. XVII, Holberg, Otto G. Exploringpthe Small Community. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1955. Hollander, E. P. Leaders, Groups and Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure; A Study of Decision- Makers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953- International City Management Association._ Municipal Year Book. Washington: International City Management Association, 1973. Jacob, P. Values and the Active Community: A Cross-National Study of the Influence of Local Leadersh_p. New York: Free Press, 1971. Jain, Nemi C. "Authority Innovation - Decisions and Organiza- tional Change," in Communication of Innovation: A Cross- Cultural Approach, by Everett Rogers. New York: Free Press, 1969. ' 131 James, John. "A Preliminary Study of the Size Determinant in Small Group Interaction." American Sociological Review, Vol. XVI, August, 1951, pp. 47flefl77. Jonassen, Christen Tonnes. Interrelationships of Dimensions of Community Systems; A Factor Analysis of 82 Variables. Columbus: Ohio State Press, 1960. Kaufman, Harold F. "Toward An Interactional Conception of Community." Social Forces, Vol. 58, October, 1959. Knittel, Robert E. Organization of Community Groups in Support of the Planning Process and Code Enforcement Administration. Washington: Bureau of Community Environmental Management - Public Health Service Publications #1997, 1970. Kramer, Ralph M. (ed.) and Specht, Harry. Readingp in Community Organization Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Kresh, Paul. The Power of the Unknown Citizen. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1967. ' Krietlow, B. W., and Aiton, E. W. Leadership For Action in Rural Communities. Danville, 111.: Interstate Press, 1960. Kulp, Earl M. Rural Development Planning; Systems Analysis and Working Method. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. Larsen, V. W. The Self-Survey_in Saskatchewan Communities. Key to Community Series, No. 5. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Center for Community Studies, 1962. Little, Charles E. '"The New Oregon Trail: An Account of the Development and Passage of State Land-use Legislation in Oregon." Washington: Conservation Foundation, February, Livingston, A. Blatney. "Open Space vs. Development." Report to City of Palo Alto, California, February 25, 1971. Foothills Environmental Design Study. Lynd, Robert Staughton, and Lynd, Helen Merrill. Middletown: A Study in American Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959. Marris, Peter. Dilemmas of Social Reform; Proverty and Community Action in the U.S. New York: Atherton Press, 1967. ZMarsh, George Perkins. Man and Nature. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1864. 132 Mead, Margaret. The Wagon and The Star;pA Study of American Community Initiative. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1967. Montrone, Wm. L. "PrOposed Usages for Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the State of New Hampshire." A Report for Senate Finance Committee, May 10, 1973, Concord, New Hampshire. Morrison, Charles C. Jr.‘ The Silver Bay Conference on Local Environmental Conservation Commissions in the Northeast. Paper given at Lake George, New York, June 1975. Morrison, Denton E., Hornback, Kenneth E. and Warner, W. Keith. "The Environmental Movement." Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1971. Mushkin, Selma J. "Decentralized Decision Making of New Fiscal Federalism," Public Services Laboratory. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1971. Myers, Phyllis. "Slow Start in Paradise: An Account of the Development, passage and Implementation of State Land-Use Legislation in Florida." Washington: Conservation Foundation, February, 197#. "So Goes Vermont: An Account of the Development, Passage, and Implementation of State Land Use Legislation in Vermont." Washington: The Conservation Foundation, February, 1979. Nuquist, Andrew E. Town Government in Vermont. Burlington: University of Vermont Government Research Center, 196A. Office of Industrial Development, Department of Resources and Economic Development, State of New Hampshire, "The Economic Development of the New Hampshire Community, 1965. Page, Elwin L. "Judicial Beginnings in New Hampshire 1640-1700." Concord (N.H.): New Hampshire Historical Society, 1959. Photiadis, John D. Change in Rural Appalachia; Implications for Action Proposals. .Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1971. Presthus, Robert Vance. Men at the Tpp: A Study in Community Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Public Administration Service. New Hampshire Municipal Associa- tion, "Strengthening Local Government in New Hampshire." Chicago, 1968. 133 Redfield, Robert. The Little Community; Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Reed, Christopher H. "An Assessment of the Commission Movement." Forest Notes, No. 116. Concord: Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, 1975. Sanborn, Frank B. New Hampshire: An Epitome of ngular Govern- ment. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1909. Sanders, Irwin Taylor. The Community, An Introduction to a Social System. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1958. Scheff, Thomas J. "Acculturation and Ties to Former Home of Mexican-Americans in an Industrial City." International Review of Community Development 15. Ikmmh Italy, 1969. Scheffey, Andrew J. W. Conservation Commissions in Massachusetts. Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1969. Sheaff, Richard. "The Establishment of Community Conservation Commissions - 1970." Concord: A New Hampshire Tomorrow Project/New England Regional Commission, January, 1972. Spergel, Irving A. Community Problem Solving; The Delinquency Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Sutton, Willis A. and Kolaja, Jiri. "The Concept of Community." Rural Sociology, vol. 25, June, 1960. Tiebout, Charles M. The Community Economic Base Study. (Supp. Paper #16). Washington: Committee for Economic Develop- ment, 1962. U.S. Government. Review of Regional Economic Research and Planning in New England. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Vidich, Arthur J. and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mass Society. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968. Warner, W. Lloyd, Low, J. 0., Lunt, Paul S., and Srolie, Leo. Yankee City. Vol. 1. London: Yale University Press, 1963. Weissman, Harold H. Community Councils and Community Control; The Workings of Democratic Mythology. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970. 134 Weitz, Raanan, (ed.). Rural Development In a Changing World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1971. Wileden, Arthur Frederick. Community Development: The Dynamics of Planned Chapge. Totona, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1970. Wilkinson, Kenneth P. "Phases and Roles in Community Action." Rural Sociology, V01. 35, No. 1, March 1970. Winston, Eric V. Directory of Urban Affairs Information and Research Centers. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1970. Witherspoon, Gerald S. Financing the Conservation of New Hampshire's Environment. Hanover: Dartmouth College, July 26, 1969. Woodruff, Clinton Rogers, (ed.). City Government By Commission. New York: Appleton, 1912. Young, Frank W. and Bury, Ernest R. "Farm Structure and Field Operations: An Aerial Photographic Study." Rural Sociology 31. Rural Sociology Topical Society. State College, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1966. Zimmerman, Joseph F. "Genesis of the Massachusetts Town." Social Science 41, 1966. . The Massachusetts Town Meeting: A Tenacious Institution. Albany: University of New York, Graduate School of Public Affairs, 1967. Zuckerman, Michael. Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the Eighteenth Century. _New York: Random House, 1970. OTHER DOCUMENTATION Colorado - Correspondence from Albert G. Melcher, Rocky Mt. Center on Environment, Denver, April 27, 1971. Louisiana - Correspondence from Lloyd G. Irland, Louisiana Sierra Club, October 23, 1972. Montana - Correspondence from.Charles E. Brandes to Charles C. Morrison, Jr., NYSDEC, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, October 23, 1975. Ohio — Correspondence from Robert McCance, Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio, September 26, 1973. an!) (It‘ll 3. 11115411 135 Ontario - Correspondence to Charles Morrison, New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation, from St. John River Basin Board, Fredericton, September 1, 1971. Pennsylvania - Correspondence from John C. Oliver III, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Harrisburg, Pa., June 9, 1970. Virginia - See Virginia House of Representatives Bill #778 dated February 13, 1970.