DECISION OF THE MARTHA'S VINEYARD COMMISSION DESIGNATING THE CHAPPAQUIDDICK ISLAND DISTRICT AS A DISTRICT OF CRITICAL PLANNING CONCERN

Section 1.00 General

As authorized by Chapter 831 of the Acts of 1977 (“the Act”), as amended, the Martha's Vineyard Commission (“the Commission”) hereby designates as a District of Critical Planning Concern (“a District”), the specific geographical area hereafter described, to be known as the “Chappaquiddick Island District of Critical Planning Concern”.

The MVC received a nomination on April 9, 2001, made by the Edgartown Conservation Commission, by unanimous vote, and by petition of 80 taxpayers. At its April 12, 2001 Special Meeting, the Martha's Vineyard Commission voted to accept for consideration the nominated area.

On May 17, 2001, the Commission held a public hearing at 7:00 P.M., at the Chappaquiddick Community Center, Chappaquiddick Road, Edgartown, , on the proposed Chappaquiddick Island District, after notice to the municipality and notice required by the Act and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 2. The hearing was held as required by the Act to permit the Commission to receive testimony relating to whether it should designate a specific geographic area on Martha's Vineyard as a District of Critical Planning Concern. The public hearing was continued to June 7, 2001, 8:00 P.M, in the Baylies Room of the Old Whaling Church, Main Street, Edgartown, Massachusetts.

Copies of the nomination and documents relating thereto are on file at the Commission offices, Olde Stone Building, New York Avenue, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.

On Thursday, June 7, 2001, the Commission voted to designate the nominated area as a District of Critical Planning Concern. Sections 8 through 10 of the Act provide the process for amending the boundaries, adoption of development guidelines, and regulation of the District to which development must conform. M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Section 2.00 Area Designation

Boundaries:

The “Chappaquiddick Island District” consists of all lands and waters bordered by the mean low water line of the Atlantic Ocean, beginning at Point, at the southern-most point of Edgartown Assessors’ Map 48 Lot 45; thence northerly along the mean low water line to and including Cape Poge Point; continuing southwesterly around said Point to the tip of land known as Cape Poge Elbow, bordered by Edgartown Harbor; thence southeasterly across the waters of Cape Poge Gut to the mean low water line at the northwestern- most corner of Map 18 Lot 2; thence continuing along the mean low water line of Edgartown Harbor in a westerly direction to the point of land known as Chappaquiddick Point; thence continuing along the mean low water line in a southerly direction to the southernmost point of Map 30 Lot 52.1; thence continuing in a southerly direction across the waters of Calebs Creek to the northwestern-most point of Map 35 Lot 2; thence continuing southerly and then easterly along the mean low water line of Katama Bay to the southwestern-most point of Map 49 Lot 1; thence continuing in a southerly direction across land known as Norton Point, Map 51, Lot 49, to the mean low water line of the Atlantic Ocean; thence continuing easterly along the mean low water line of the Atlantic Ocean to the point of origin.

Section 3.00 Why the Area Has Been Designated

The Chappaquiddick Island District boundaries conform to Qualification Section 1.20. The Commission finds that the lands and waters therein reasonably belong within the Chappaquiddick Island District. The lands and waters within the District are a critical area and the Commission finds that the area needs protection afforded by the Act. The area designated is a logical planning area and is suitable for the adoption of coordinated regulations for the District as a whole. Finally, the Commission finds that the boundaries of the Chappaquiddick Island District as established are both convenient and recognizable.

When designating a District, Section 8 of the Act requires the Commission to specify why the area is of critical concern to the region, the problems associated with uncontrolled or inappropriate development, and the advantages to be gained by the development of the area in a controlled manner. In designating a District, the Commission must also consider the need for designation, as required by Section 1.10 of the Qualifications.

Information available to the Commission supports a finding that the Chappaquiddick Island District is of regional importance, that there exist problems of uncontrolled or inappropriate development within the District and 2 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC affecting areas outside the District, and that there are advantages to be gained by development of the area in a controlled manner. The Commission finds that controlled development within the District is essential to ensure an adequate supply of high quality drinking water. The Commission specifically finds that controlled development within the Chappaquiddick Island District is essential to maintenance of the Island's unique cultural values and scenic qualities, and to protect significant historic and pre-historic sites and historic landscapes. The Commission finds that the lands and waters within the District are essential to fishing and wildlife resources and associated natural resource habitats.

In considering the problems of uncontrolled or inappropriate development within the District, the Commission finds that to maintain and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of Island residents and visitors, and for present and future generations, special development controls within the District must be adopted.

The Qualifications require the Commission to address itself to the need for designation. To that end, the Commission finds that there exists a regional need for special regulations and planning to protect the Island and its people from damage and loss resulting from inappropriate development. The Commission also finds after its review that present private and public regulations in a substantial part of the District cannot assure protection, and that damage to the Chappaquiddick Island District lands and waters will be a substantial loss to the region or to two or more towns on the Island.

In adopting its findings, the Commission has particularly been guided by the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4.00 What Kind of District

Section 8 of the Act permits the Commission to designate a District only in accordance with the Criteria and Standards approved under the Act. Such a District may be designated only for: a) An area which possesses unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific or cultural resources of regional or statewide significance; b) An area which possesses marginal soil or topographic conditions which render it unsuitable for intense development; or c) An area significantly affected by, or having significant impact on, on existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major public investment.

3 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

The Chappaquiddick Island District qualifies under the Specific Qualifications, Sections 2.00-2.80 of the Criteria and Standards (“the Specific Qualifications”). The Commission finds that the Chappaquiddick Island District meets Specific Qualifications as described herein.

Specifically, with respect to the first element of Section 8 of the Act, concerning unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific, or cultural resources of regional of statewide significance, the Chappaquiddick Island District meets the Specific Qualifications of the Drinking Water Resource District, Section 2.10; Fishing Resource District, Section 2.20; the Wildlife, Natural, Scientific or Ecological Resource District, Section 2.40, and the Cultural or Historic Resource District, Section 2.50.

Section 4.10 Compliance with Standards and Criteria

Section 4.11 Drinking Water Resources District

A number of groundwater investigations have been made and are discussed below. Available data support the conclusion that the water supply for Chappaquiddick is not connected to the main aquifer supplying the main Island of Martha’s Vineyard. There has been some speculation that a deeper aquifer may be connected, but the deeper aquifer is generally not considered readily available for consumption. There has been speculation that the aquifer supplying Chappaquiddick may be further divided into several discrete aquifers. Such separation, if it exists, may be primarily the result of surface topography, rather than a truly occlusive barrier such as the salt-water wedge separating Chappaquiddick’s water supply from that for the main Island. The eastern moraine materials and associated outwash generally support uncomplicated groundwater transport, including the transport of contaminants.

In their Geologic Map of and the Islands, Massachusetts, Oldale & Barlow mapped the surficial geology of Chappaquiddick as comprised of beach deposits and of Martha’s Vineyard Moraine Outwash sediments (sand and gravel, interbedded) underlain by Martha’s Vineyard Moraine deposits (East of Vineyard Haven: silty gravelly sand, sparse boulders). In Ground- water Hydrology of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, Delaney described ground-water quality and availability. Focusing on public water supply, he noted that the most readily available water is pumped from the outwash deposits and from the stratified sand and gravel beneath the eastern moraine, in contrast to that contained in the more complex geology of the western moraine. Based on information from a deep well exploration made by the U.S.G.S. in the State Forest, he described the primary aquifer extending from the water table to 70 feet below NGVD of 1929 as a high-yield aquifer with some limitation due to high iron concentration. A secondary aquifer lies between 90 and 160 feet below NGVD of 1929, overlain by an impermeable 20- 4 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC foot thick silty sand layer. The secondary aquifer offers a lesser yield and higher iron concentration. Note that the deep well in the State Forest measured the thickest part of each aquifer. Thickness may be expected to decrease radially until approaching zero near the shoreline. Delaney mapped broad water table contours for the primary aquifer, ending with the five-foot contour on the Edgartown side of the harbor and Katama Bay. He did not show any contours on Chappaquiddick.

In 1996, James Chow, of Roy F. Weston, Inc., made a Final Site Inspection Report for the Chappaquiddick dump. Chow concluded that saline water extending from the bottom of the channel into the subsurface created a barrier against the interaction of freshwater groundwater between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha’s Vineyard proper. Basing his investigation on contamination issues rather than water supply issues, he also speculated “the possibility exists that a deep, confined aquifer connects Chappaquiddick Island with Martha’s Vineyard.”

In 1985, M.V.C.’s Russell Smith made a report to the Chappaquiddick Island Association exclusively regarding the water table underlying Chappaquiddick. Based on well data, Smith mapped the shape of the water table, noting that water flows downhill in a direction perpendicular to the contours. He noted, “…it appears that the areas of Toms Neck, North Neck and Calebs Pond Road are separate aquifer systems…”

Smith also discussed water quality on Chappaquiddick… “Generally in rural areas where every residence relies on its own well and its own on-site wastewater disposal system, there is a limit to the density that is appropriate for both activities to co-exist…it takes approximately a minimum of 1 acre per residential unit to support wastewater disposal and private wells.” He went on to map areas with lot sizes of 1 acre, referencing them as “planning areas” that “will probably not have water quality problems if the location of the wells and septic systems are planned, with maximum separations from surrounding lots.” He mapped “potential problem areas” with lots less than 1 acre in size that “may in future experience water quality problems due to the density and closeness of wells and septic systems.” He further noted areas of particular interest around Calebs Pond Road and North Neck that “may need alternate water supply sources in the future, because of limited aquifer beneath the areas and the density of septic systems.”

In 1998, M.V.C.’s William Wilcox examined the smaller lots identified by Smith and by Anderson Nichols’ 1983 Town Board of Health Study. The small lots (less than 1 acre in size) are concentrated in 3 areas: the Sampson’s Hill area extending to the area around Caleb’s Pond, the Wasque area extending from Katama Bay across to Poucha Pond, and the Enos lots across from the old dump. Wilcox found that some lots already have dwellings on them, and projected a buildout scenario with a potential 64 new houses that could be 5 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC built to meet current requirements:

Built Potential at Buildout

Maps 47 and 48 37 64 Map 34 Enos lots 36 60 Maps 30, 31 & 35 17 30.

Wilcox found that, in addition to the 64, an additional 31 houses could conceivably be approved with advanced treatment. Wilcox discussed his findings “At some point in the future, it seems to me that nitrogen loading and drinking water quality issues are going to be overcome by advances in technology. We have available today a number of sewage disposal systems approved for general use or with qualifications that only release one half of the nitrogen of a standard system. There are systems that can be designed to release zero nitrogen such as composting toilets. For these reasons, the issue of growth on these small lots should also revolve around way of life and visual concerns that are much more difficult to put into a quantitative description…It is possible that the eventual presence of about 154 dwellings in these three areas is an outcome which requires modification by purchase of available lots, requirement for advanced nitrogen removing septic systems or other approaches which will reduce their impact.”

Groundwater investigations by the U.S.G.S. included well ENW 75 on Chappaquiddick (off School Road). ENW 75 yielded an iron concentration of 920 ug/L, higher than the median of 270 reported for all the Martha’s Vineyard wells, and the EPA’s drinking water standard of 300, but considerably lower than the maximum value of 13,000 recorded on Martha’s Vineyard. Manganese concentration was 10 ug/L, quite similar to the Martha’s Vineyard median of 15. High concentrations of Iron and Manganese are naturally occurring limitations to the quality of drinking water on Martha’s Vineyard. Laboratory results from the 1996 Weston, Inc. sampling of groundwater, sediments and surface water at the old Chappaquiddick dump documented a release of inorganic compounds to groundwater and to the on-site wetland area. The Education Committee of the Chappaquiddick Island Association and Alton Stone prepared a January 2000 draft review report Hydrogeological Investigation Enos Lots Complex 1998 and 1999 and Private Residence Water Supply Well Sampling 1997 and 1998 Chappaquiddick Island Martha’s Vineyard Massachusetts. The report indicated, “Nitrogen is being discharged to the Island aquifer via septic system effluent…phosphorous probably is being discharged to the Island aquifer system via septic system effluent”. They also reported that sodium concentrations in many of the wells exceeded the EPA health guideline of 20 mg/L (this health standard is important for persons with heart health issues), the mean being 16-22 mg/L in all wells except for the Caleb Pond/Menaca Hill area where the mean was reported to be 38 mg/L “High salt levels indicative of salt-water intrusion have previously been detected 6 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC in residence supply well samples collected from this area. The spatial trend for sodium and chloride concentrations in the 3 rounds of the monitoring well samples indicated that low level salt-water intrusion may be occurring in the Enos Lots complex. This is probably due to the combined pumping of the wells in the relatively densely developed complex”. None of the samples approached the EPA’s standard of 250 mg/L for salty taste. In the July 1999 draft Summary of Enos Lots Complex Hydrogeological Investigation and Residential Water Supply Well Sampling Martha’s Vineyard Massachusetts, the Education Committee further discussed salinity “sodium and chloride concentrations in both rounds of the monitoring well samples indicated a trend of increasing concentration from the up gradient location nearest the center of the Island, to the down gradient location nearest the ocean. This gradient is expected. Approaching the ocean, the thickness of the freshwater lens decreases and sodium and chloride levels would be expected to increase. Also of note is that sodium and chloride concentrations were 2 to 3 times higher in samples collected from within and down gradient of the Enos lots complex, as compared to samples collected from the 2 up gradient monitoring wells.”

Section 4.12 Fishing Resource District

Charles Banks wrote in 1911 about historical fisheries and the fish and fisheries of his day, including “scallops...and that valuable bivalve the clam, of which there are two abundant varieties, the ‘poquahock’ of the Indian, or round clam (‘little necks’), and the ‘sikkissuog’ or long clam, with soft shell. These are found principally in the waters about Chappaquiddick and Capoag pond, and their gathering for the market constitutes a large business for the fishermen of that section.” In 1989, the Martha's Vineyard Commission produced a report describing shellfish trends. Although one town or another may have had a “good year” or a “bad year”, particularly for scallops, the trend report found a steady level of commercial shellfish activity overall during the years 1966 through 1987: “Although the volume of catches in the towns varies greatly, the numbers indicate a steady level of activity in shellfishing.” The same report documented the significance of the bay scallop catch, particularly that of Edgartown: “Edgartown has led all communities in the state in scallop catches in 1987 and 1988. In 1987, 52 percent of all scallops caught in Massachusetts came from Edgartown; in 1988, 49 percent of total state catch came from Edgartown.” In 1993, the Martha's Vineyard Commission produced the report Martha's Vineyard Commercial Fishing Survey. Fifty-four percent of the respondents were Edgartown fishermen and others associated with the fishing industry; 59% of respondents reported using Edgartown Harbor, 56% Cape Poge Bay and 49% Katama Bay.

Expansive eelgrass beds and wetlands make Cape Poge Bay an extremely fertile but fragile environment. Open water areas in Cape Poge Bay presently display excellent water quality and are classified “Approved” for harvest of

7 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC shellfish. Reports for the Town have varied from year to year, depending primarily on the abundance of scallops in Cape Poge Bay. In the year 1988, when Edgartown led the Commonwealth in harvest of bay scallops and produced 49% of the Commonwealth's total harvest, the Town issued 1,132 shellfish licenses, 138 of those commercial, and reported a commercial catch with a wholesale value of $2,033,740, including $1,754,220 from bay scallops. In the year 1987, when Edgartown also led the Commonwealth, producing 52% of the entire harvest, the Town issued 1,035 licenses, 167 of those commercial, and recorded a commercial catch with a wholesale value of $1,875,235, $1,615,260 from bay scallops. In 1983, the Town issued 1,338 licenses, 216 of those commercial, and reported a commercial catch with a wholesale value of $1,712,239, including a record catch of 36,622 bushels of bay scallops with a wholesale value of $1,264,270. The Edgartown shellfish records, printed in the Annual Town Reports, list the following catches, in bushels:

8 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Year Quahog Scallop Oyster Clam 66 all 557 8712 1245 67 f. 189 128 311 c. 414 6785 876 68 f. 830 478 54 824 c. 351 8704 956 69 f. No report c. 438 14842 492 70 f. No report c. 505 21218 1208 71 f. No report c. 1048 17750 1236 72 f. No report c. 763 17108 47 73 f. No report c. 763 8333 1086 74 f. No report c. 2114 14309 490 75 f. No report c. 2140 12080 500 76 f. c. 4660 8746 1683 77 f. 850 c. 6770 14549 2288 78 f. 800 c. 4027 13452 1938 79 f. c. 4897 18690 402 530 80 f. 1250 1325~ c. 4047 17536 300 490 81 f. 2200 1410~ c. 3197 13950 150 675 82 f. 2500 1500~ c. 2610 14192 330 590 83 f. 1200 1200~ c. 1922 36622 2442 987 84 f. 937 1027~ c. 1897 35671 4021 872 85 f. 872 975~ c. 2006 27851 921 927 86 f. 900 1000~ c. 2421 21425 1320 745 87 f. 750 900~ c. 2503 26921 260 125 88 f. 1200 1100~ c. 2527 29237 960 142 89 f. 1200 1100~ c. 2740 26125 327 90 f. 605 1045 52 375 c. 3002 13648 1044 572 ~total includes quahogs and soft clams

9 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Since 1991, reports have been broken down by pond. The following reports include breakdown of species harvested, both commercially and recreationally, by pond, in bushels: Clams Quahogs Scallops 2000 Cape Poge 30 140 2,950 Calebs Pond 12 77 ------Poucha Pond 12 ------Total Commercial Catch …………………………………………………….$458,117 1999 Cape Poge 270 85 752 Calebs Pond 22 93 ------Poucha Pond 22 ------Total Commercial Catch…………………………………………………….$339,787 1998 Cape Poge 26 121 2,121 Calebs Pond 263 277 ------Poucha Pond 27 28 ------Total Commercial Catch…………..……………………………………….$552,364 1997 Cape Poge 47 181 1,913 Calebs Pond 68 233 ------Poucha Pond 28 21 ------Total Commercial Catch…………..……………………………………….$497,347 1996 Cape Poge 27 25 362 Calebs Pond 74 123 ------Poucha Pond 16 10 ------Total Commercial Catch…………..……………………………………….$515,165 1995 Cape Poge 32 105 3,740 Calebs Pond 17 245 ------Poucha Pond 6 14 ------Total Commercial Catch…………………………….…………………….$530,995 1994 Cape Poge 36 81 1,037 Calebs Pond 13 307 39 Poucha Pond 12 10 ------Total Commercial Catch…………..……………………………………….$437,227 1993 Cape Poge 6 54 2,187 Calebs Pond 16 541 ------Poucha Pond 7 12 ------Total Commercial Catch…………..……………………………………….$538,146 1992 Cape Poge 33 87 11,138 Calebs Pond 35 24 ------Poucha Pond 30 22 6 Total Commercial Catch…………………………………………………..$1,084,388 1991 Cape Poge 103 78 9,859 Calebs Pond 35 31 15 Poucha Pond 27 11 5 Total Commercial Catch…………………………………………………..$1,026,052

The District is noted for its finfish resources. According to the nomination, “Wasque, East Beach and Cape Poge’s ocean beaches are world renowned and attract fishermen from all over the Island as well as from elsewhere”. In 1996, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission surveyed travelers to Chappaquiddick via the ferry and 12% listed “fishing” as an intended activity.

10 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Section 4.12 Wildlife, Natural, Scientific or Ecological Resource District

According to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, the District includes portions of the following Priority Habitats of Rare Species: PH 1786 and PH 1793. The District includes portions of the following Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools: WH 512, WH 520, WH 1130 and WH 7292. These mapped designations indicate that those areas are important in the life cycles of some protected species. According to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, protected species within the proposed District include:

Species: Taxon Status Common Tern (sterna hirundo) bird special concern Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) bird special concern Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) bird threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) bird threatened Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) bird endangered Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisea) bird special concern Water-willow Stem Borer (Papaipema sulphurata) insect threatened Common Barn Owl (Tyto alba) bird special concern Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus) mammal special concern Chain Dot Geometer (Cingilia catenaria) insect special concern Spiny Oakworm (Anisota stigma) insect special concern Purple Tiger Beetle (Cicindela purpurea) insect special concern Regal Frittillary (Speyaria idalia) insect endangered Bushy Rockrose (Helianthemum dumosum) plant special concern Sandplain Blue-eyed Grass (Sisyrinchium arenicola) plant special concern Purple Needlegrass (Aristida purpurascens) plant threatened Papillose Nut-sedge (Scleria pauciflora var. caroliniana) plant endangered Shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis) plant special concern Bristly Foxtail (Setaria geniculata) plant special concern New England Blazing Star (Liatris scariosa var. novaeangliae) plant special concern

According to the Natural Heritage Program’s web site, www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw, the majority of the rare species inhabit sandplain grasslands, the large Priority Habitat PH 1786 that covers most of Chappaquiddick. The sandplain grasslands habitat has flourished on Chappaquiddick because of the relatively low intensity of development and because of its history of grazing livestock. The early Europeans who settled in Edgartown did not live on Chappaquiddick. They used the land to graze their livestock, a practice that promotes sandplain grasslands habitat by keeping down invasive shade-introducing species. Grazing of livestock and fire are the known means to promote sandplain grasslands habitat. The plants tend to be intolerant of shade, and are easily crowded out by invasion of taller plants. Threats to the plants include destruction of habitat, loss of protective measures such as grazing, and by suppression of fire.

11 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

In addition to plants, the sandplain grasslands habitat supports a number of rare insects and animals, all of which depend on the plants for some parts of their life cycles (breeding, foraging, etc.) Threats to the insects and animals include pesticides and destruction of habitat. Lights also threaten the moths by drawing them out of their habitats. The Barn Owl is particularly susceptible to nest disturbance, mating only once or twice in its lifetime. The Water-willow Borer is found only in Southeastern Massachusetts and nowhere else in the world.

The Wetlands Conservancy Program mapped the eelgrass beds of Martha’s Vineyard in 1995 and again in 2000. According to the maps, there are a number of eelgrass beds in the district. Eelgrass beds are important habitat for juvenile species of finfish and shellfish, particularly scallops.

Section 4.23 Cultural or Historic Resource District

According to the nomination, “Chappy is in danger of losing its unique rural character which is appreciated by its residents and people who visit it…The vistas from the first mile or so of the Chappy Road are spectacular and give a real sense of the small island surrounded by its harbor and bays. The vista from the local Chappy cemetery, overlooking Cape Poge Bay, has been restored…. The scenic value of the farmland is important to Chappaquiddick. Efforts have been made to keep these views open along the roadsides.”

“There is a lot of history on Chappy. There used to be a life saving station at Wasque. Captain Martin, the only black whaling captain lived here and his house is right on the paved road. Two of the houses on Chappy are arguably the oldest on the Island, closely contested by the Vincent House in Edgartown and the Mitchell House in West Tisbury. One of these is visible from the Dyke Road and makes a unique farm vista. The early Victorian summerhouses are architecturally unique. One was designed by Stanford White. There are at least two Native American graveyards on Chappy that should be protected…There is a long term Native American presence here. The traditional ways of the Island life are still practiced on the ponds and bays. Chappy’s setting, surrounded by water, gives a sense of the importance of the sea to the early settlers. There are Indian middens and artifacts that turn up frequently.”

Scenic vistas of water views, beaches, fields, and woodlands make up part of the rural character of Chappaquiddick. Other visual aspects of rural identity include human influences such as the “camps”, farms, roadways, and historic buildings that define the character of Chappaquiddick. In even more personal terms, the people of Chappaquiddick, and those who have gone before them, define the character. The history of the earliest inhabitants is found in remnants of their tools, shell middens and other physical artifacts, there being no written record of that time. In his History of Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., 12 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Banks wrote about Chappaquiddick at the time of the arrival of the white settlers. It was one of the four sachemships on Martha’s Vineyard, ruled by a sachem called Pahkepunnassoo. The were, he wrote “…the people inhabiting our island as lords of the soil, from the remotest periods to the time when it passed into the possession of the English owners by ‘right’ of discovery and settlement”. The early Edgartown settlers used Chappaquiddick for its excellent grazing facilities, where cattle could be pastured without the need of fencing. Some lands were, never the less, reserved for the occupation of the Wampanoags. Banks described the reservation, “on the north side of the road leading from Collop’s Pond eastward, and comprised all the land to the shore bordering the harbor and bay”. The division of lands appears documented on the early maps of the area, including the 1794 Smith map, a 1795 survey of Chappaquiddick, the 1871 Walling and Gray map, and the 1830 Crapo map (“Indian Cleared Land” and “Indian Meeting House” labeled). Two graveyards, at least, are known to remain intact. In about 1750, Captain Thomas Arey is believed to have been the first Englishman to actually take up residence on Chappaquiddick, original proprietor of the lands now known as Tom’s Neck Farm. Chappaquiddick has continued to draw settlers and visitors who seem to appreciate the quiet, rural lifestyle traditionally practiced there. The nomination expressed the hope to balance the need to accommodate housing and other development with the desire to maintain the quiet, rural character that could be lost to the urbanization or suburbanization of over- development.

According to State Archeologist Brona Simon, “The cultural resources that contribute to the unique heritage of Chappaquiddick include archeological sites of the pre-Contact and historic periods, buildings, landscapes, burial grounds and Native American traditional sacred and cultural properties…Chappaquiddick’s preserved open space reflects its rural heritage. Prior to European contact, Native Americans lived off the land, hunting, gathering, fishing and farming. Europeans settled in Edgartown in 1642, and for more than one hundred years they used the island primarily for grazing cattle and procuring wood…A recent reconnaissance survey of Edgartown recorded four known burial grounds on Chappaquiddick and two possible unmarked Euro-American burying grounds related to Native American habitation of the island. There may also be unmarked Euro-American burying grounds associated with a British camp and a smallpox hospital on Cape Poge Refuge. It is anticipated that additional unrecorded Euro-American family plots and unmarked Native American gravesites will be located on the island. Native American burial grounds are considered properties of traditional religious and cultural importance. MHC suggests that MVC consult with the Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) in order to identify other properties of traditional religious and cultural importance on Chappaquiddick. Creating a DCPC for the Island of Chappaquiddick would protect many of these significant cultural, archeological, and historic resources, which contribute to the unique character of the Island”. 13 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Regarding vistas and historic landscapes, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s Regional Island Plan includes direction “Preserve the Island’s natural beauty and visual diversity for reasons of economy, heritage, character, recreation and aesthetics...The appearance of openness and great space is appreciated by Islanders and visitors, and it must be preserved. Manage change and growth to enhance the traditional and natural landscapes of Martha's Vineyard. Require that development plans fit the scale and quality of the inherited landscape so that generations to come will have views and open vistas to enjoy.”

According to Looking at the Vineyard, “Within the diverse general landscapes of the Vineyard there are also some very special locations about which Vineyarders hold strong feelings. These feelings may be based on historic or personal association, or on unique visual qualities. Some of these places are specific spots, others broad regions. Of all these places, we can say that, should we lose them or see them altered, and then we have lost something valuable, which cannot be replaced, just as we speak about the destruction of a fine old house, or the death of a person. For these particular places, then, we are justified in taking special precautions for their preservation.” Chappaquiddick’s East Shore is one of the ten special locations singled out: “The sea edge from Cape Poge to Wasque Point is a notable habitat for birds and fish. Egrets and herons breed at Little Neck in Cape Poge Bay, and oystercatchers may be seen there. East Beach slopes gently to the water, sprinkled with shells. The ponds from Dyke Bridge to Poucha Pond are still undeveloped, although privately owned. The marshes and vegetation on the western shores of those ponds are an important part of this fine landscape”.

14 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Section 5.00 Guidelines

The Commission adopts the following guidelines (“the Guidelines”) for the development of the Chappaquiddick Island District. In adopting the Guidelines, the Commission has evaluated each of the considerations enumerated by Section 8 of the Act and, in addition has considered other relevant matters. The Town of Edgartown shall, in the manner required by the Act, adopt Regulations which at a minimum comply with these Guidelines for the development of the District. The Town may adopt such regulations under zoning, general by- law or any combination of such authorities the Town deems best suited for the purpose. The Commission draws the Town’s attention to Section 10 of the Act, which in part provides, “In adopting such regulations, each municipality shall have all powers it otherwise had under the General Laws”. Regulations adopted under these Guidelines are essential to evaluate and adjust the physical impact of development in the District so that irrevocable damage to the Town and the Island does not result.

Section 5.10 Goals

To preserve and enhance the unique rural character and natural beauty of Chappaquiddick, while managing growth in a fair and functional manner:

To maintain scenic vistas and to ensure that new construction is consistent in design and scale with the rural character of Chappaquiddick, as viewed from any public way or water body; to ensure that affordable housing remains available to the next generation of Chappaquiddick residents;

To maintain the rural values, traditions and culture of Chappaquiddick; to preserve for future generations significant historic and prehistoric sites; to ensure that burial grounds and other significant archeological sites are protected; to ensure that significant historic buildings and landscapes are protected.

To assure an adequate supply of high quality drinking water; to promote and protect shellfish and finfish habitats and fisheries; to protect special plant and animal life and their habitats.

To promote only those non-residential uses that will serve the residents and visitors without sacrificing rural character and to ensure that persons engaged in such activities may live and work on Chappaquiddick;

To maintain traditional uses of the land, such as hunting, fishing, gathering, hiking, biking and beach going; to ensure appropriate access for those activities; and to meet the needs of residents and visitors for safe and adequate motorized and non-motorized transportation in a manner protective of the visual experience of traveling on Chappaquiddick’s rural roads.

15 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Section 5.20 Establishment of Guidelines

As used herein the terms "development", "permit" and "regulations" shall have the same meaning as in the Act.

The Town shall adopt regulations of the types described in the Act, as appropriate to conform to these Guidelines to control development within the Chappaquiddick Island District. In appropriate cases, after notice and a Public Hearing, the Martha's Vineyard Commission may permit a town to adopt regulations that are less restrictive than these guidelines if the Commission finds that such regulations will carry out the purpose of the Act and the intent of these Guidelines for the District.

Section 5.30 Development Guidelines

The Town of Edgartown shall adopt regulations that include or adequately consider the following:

1. That the Town shall update its 1979 Open Space Plan, review existing regulations and develop appropriate land use controls to promote the goals of the district, including but not limited to the following: a. That the Town shall establish regulations that ensure future affordable housing on Chappaquiddick. b. That the Town shall establish regulations to maintain traditional uses of the land, such as hunting, fishing, gathering, hiking, biking and beach going. 2. That the Town shall determine a sustainable number and establish regulations to limit the issuance of building permits for residential structures on Chappaquiddick to a sustainable number per year, for up to two years. a. That the Town shall establish regulations that provide a fair and equitable means of issuing the individual allocations. b. That the Town may utilize up to two years of building permit limitation to fully develop the appropriate land use controls, so that the Town may propose such regulations as subsequent amendments.

By Vote of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission June 7, 2001

______James Vercruysse, Chairman

16 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

REFERENCES

Chapter 831, Acts of 1977 as amended

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas 2000-2001 Edition

Correspondence from Christine Vaccaro, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, May 11, 2001

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Fact Sheets from www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw

Wetlands Conservancy Program, 2000, "Eelgrass Mapping Inventory"

Wetlands Conservancy Program, 1995, “Eelgrass Mapping Inventory”

Vineyard Open Land Foundation, 1973, Looking at the Vineyard

Correspondence from Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission, May 17, 2001

Town of Edgartown, 1997, Edgartown Harbor Plan

David Delaney, U.S.G.S., 1980, Ground-water Hydrology of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts

Robert Oldale & Roger Barlow, U.S.G.S., 1986, Geologic Map of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts

Russell Smith, M.V.C., 1985, groundwater report to Chappaquiddick Island Association

James Chow, Roy F. Weston, Inc, 1996, Final Site Inspection Prioritization Report Chappaquiddick Dump

William Wilcox, M.V.C., 1998, draft Chappaquiddick Small Lot Survey

The Education Committee of the Chappaquiddick Island Association, July 1999, draft summary report Summary of Enos Lots Complex Hydrogeological Investigation and Residential Water Supply Well Sampling Martha’s Vineyard Massachusetts

The Education Committee of the Chappaquiddick Island Association & Alton Stone, January 2000, draft review report Hydrogeological Investigation Enos Lots Complex 1998 and 1999 and Private Residence Water Supply Well 17 M.V.C. decision designating the Chappaquiddick Island DCPC

Sampling 1997 and 1998 Chappaquiddick Island Martha’s Vineyard Massachusetts

Martha’s Vineyard Commission, 1991, Regional Island Plan

Banks, Charles, The History of Martha's Vineyard Dukes County Massachusetts, 1911, (published 1966 by Dukes County Historical Society

Vineyard Open Land Foundation, 1973, Looking at the Vineyard

Martha's Vineyard Commission, Shellfish Harvest Trends for Martha's Vineyard, with Results of Surface Water Quality Survey, 1989

Martha's Vineyard Commission, Commercial Fishing Survey, 1994

Town of Edgartown, Annual Town Reports

Martha’s Vineyard Commission, 1996, report regarding ferry line surveys, reported as correspondence to the Chappaquiddick Island Association August 26, 1996

Chappaquiddick Island Association, March 2001, Master Planning Objectives Report

Edgartown Conservation Commission and a petition of 80 taxpayers, April 9, 2001, nomination

18