Pepin v. Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 467 Mass. 210

William and Marlene Pepin own ~36 acres in Hampden, MA and sought to build a single‑family home on one lot.
In 2006 the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (the division) designated the parcel as "priority habitat" for the eastern box turtle (a "species of special concern") under MESA regulations; the designation relied in part on a 1991 sighting of a reproductive adult turtle.
Because the property lay in priority habitat, the Pepins had to submit project materials; the division found a potential "take" but later approved the project as a conditional no‑take subject to a deed restriction and conservation easement.
The Pepins requested reconsideration and a site visit occurred; the division confirmed the priority habitat delineation and denied reconsideration.
The Pepins sought an adjudicatory hearing challenging (1) the facial validity of the priority habitat regulations (arguing they exceed MESA because they lack procedural protections given to "significant habitat" owners) and (2) the division’s application of its mapping guidelines to their parcel. The magistrate dismissed the facial challenge and granted the division’s motion for a directed decision on the mapping application for insufficient petitioner evidence.
The Superior Court affirmed both rulings; the SJC affirmed, upholding the priority habitat regulations as a permissible implementation of MESA and agreeing the directed decision was proper because petitioners failed to carry their evidentiary burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of priority‑habitat regulations under MESA	Priority habitat regs unlawfully restrict development without the statutory procedural protections afforded to "significant habitat" designations	Regulations reasonably implement MESA’s broad take prohibition by mapping and screening habitat for all State‑listed species and are more flexible than significant‑habitat rules	Upheld: regs are a rational, lawful means to implement MESA’s take prohibition and need not mirror significant‑habitat procedural protections
Directed decision (no hearing / no cross‑examination) on mapping application	Granting a directed decision deprived petitioners of right to confront division witnesses and required live hearing/cross‑examination	A hearing is unnecessary where petitioner’s written submissions are conclusory and fail to rebut division’s technical evidence; party bears burden to present preponderant evidence	Upheld: magistrate properly granted directed decision because petitioners’ evidence was insufficient and a hearing would not have changed outcome

Massachusetts Fed’n of Teachers, AFT, AFL‑CIO v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763 (agency regulations are presumptively valid and deserve deference)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 459 Mass. 319 (agency regulation upheld if rationally related to statutory goals)
Commonwealth v. Maker, 459 Mass. 46 (agency may not exercise powers not granted by statute)
Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 379 Mass. 70 (regulation need only be consistent with overall statutory scheme)
Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837 (summary administrative disposition permissible where hearing is unnecessary)
Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Council v. Massachusetts Advertising Bd., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 775 (administrative summary procedures okay when papers conclusively show hearing would serve no purpose)