Options for Cape Cod's future APCC's growth report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

r-rhatio n'

APCC
GROWTH
REPORT
-A

Aid

F
FOR CAPE COD S FUTURE
le

72
.0
A8
1985 ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CAPE COD
636, ORLEANS, MASS. 02653

APCC's Growth Study and Report have been produced by:

PHILIP B. HERR & ASSOCIATES
Community and Regional Planning Consultants
Demographics and Economic Resource Analysis

APCC STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS
Project Co-Chairmen: Peggy R. Collins
Russell Ford
Project Director: Esther A. Snyder
Administrative Assistant: Elizabeth W. Price
Cover Design: James S. Morse
Senior Editor: Judith M. Barnet
Editors: Anne C. Anderson
David W. Lillie
Victoria H. Lowell

AND THE MANY OTHERS LISTED ON PAGE ii

APCC is indebted to the many planners, assessors, water suppliers and other town officials
for their time in helping us assemble data from town records.

Funding for this report has come from:
Bird Companies Charitable Foundation
W. Alton Jones Foundation, Inc.
R. K. Mellon Family Foundation
300 APCC members

Material in this report may be reproduced provided that the Association for the Preservation
of Cape Cod (APCC) is appropriately credited.

APCC'S GROWTH REPORT

OPTIONS FOR CAPE COD'S FUTURE

JANUARY 1985

COASTAL INFORMATION
CENTER

Property of CDC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
F72.C3 A8 1985 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTOWN, SC 29405-2413
12415479
Dec 15, 1987

CAPE COD CITIZENS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE.APCC GROWTH REPORT

Robert J. Bartels Albert R. Lamb III

Gabrielle C. Belfit Nancy Lamb

Brenda J. Boleyn Joseph C. Lowell

Frederick S. Brace David B. H. Martin

Richard L. Brown Alan McClennen

Peter Dow Campbell II Michael B. McGrath

John J. Clarke Gregor I. McGregor

Elizabeth Cochran Heather M. McMurtrie

Tina Stonorov Daly Gary Nickerson

Kate Davis Susan L. Nickerson

Mary A. Delola Marian M. O'Mara

Edward C. Donnelly Edward A. Oswalt

Gregory M. Downs Robert L. Prescott, Jr.

Graham S. Giese Henri Rauschenbach

Joshua L. Gottli.eb Sylvia L. Reynolds

David k.'Hall Seth Rolbein

Burton C. Hallowell Peter C. Ryner

Paul B. Hamilton Donald A. Sander

Doris C. Holland Elizabeth Sheehy

Scott W. Horsley Marianne L. Simmel

Patricia-E. Hughes Irene J. Smith

Henry Kelley II Lawrence 0. Spaulding, Jr.

William B. Kerfoot :lean Stearns

Harriel A. Kimball Arlene M. Wilson-

Kathie Lee Kinney Jon D. Witten

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside front cover
CAPE COD CITIZENS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE APCC GROWTH REPORT . . . . . . ii
FIGURES AND TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

1. GROWING WITH CARE ............................ 1
A. Achieving Caring Growth . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. An APCC Action Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

11. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ON CAPE COD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Coastal Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Harbors 16
D. Freshwater and Saltwater Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
E. Freshwater Wetlands, Salt Marshes & Estuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
F. The Wetlands Protection Act & Town ByLaws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
G. Waste Disposal-Sewage and Septage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
H. Health Regulations to Protect Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Environmental Resource Administrator: A Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

111111. CAPE COD GROWTH FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A. Income . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
D. Construction . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
E. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
F. Town-Level Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

IV. MANAGING GROWTH RATES ON CAPE COD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A. Direct Rate Techniques ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
B Indirect Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
C Lowering the Saturation Ceiling . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 78
D. A History of Policy Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

CONTENTS (Continued)
V. CAPE COD LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 85
A. Town Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 85
B. Innovative Zoni
ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C. Subdivision Control . . . . . . . . . 92
D. Techniques to Secure Open Space and Recreation Land . . . . . . . . . . 94
E. Community Land Trusts 96
F. Conservation Easements and Agricultural Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
G. Land Transfer Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
H. Consumption of Land: Brief Case Studies . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 105
1. Visual Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

V1. PERSISTENT LONG TERM ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
A. Introduction: The Hydrologic Cycl.e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
B. Water Supply and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
C. Solid Waste Disposal . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 120
D. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
E. Town Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . 132
F. The Economic Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 136

VI 1. REGIONAL COORDINATION . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
COMMUNITY CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION . . . . . . 142

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
A. Water Supply & Demand Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B. Forecast Methodology, Tables & Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1:42 Typical Cesspool . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 2:43 Typical Septic Tan@ a*nd* L*ea*ch'in'g 'Fac*ility . . . . . . . . * * * . . . . 43
Figure 3:44 Location of Sewage/Septage Disposal Facilities on Cape Cod . . . . . ... 44
Tab, e 1:45 Summary of adoptions of 208 recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 2:48 Summary of local health regulations supplementing Title V . . . . . . . . 48
Table 1:55 Types of income, Cape Cod, 1980 . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 55
Figure 1:56 Basic income sources . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 2:56 Cape Cod basic income . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 2:57 Income sources, Cape Cod, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 3:57 Income sources 1970-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 4:58 Year round population aged 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 3:58 Cape population age structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 4:60 1982 population by month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 5:60 Cape Cod summer-only population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 5:62 Cape Cod peak population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 6:62 Income growth, 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 7:64 Forecast population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 8:65 Comparisons: Winter population forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 9:65 Comparisons: Peak population forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 6:66 Cape Cod industry groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 7:66 Cape Cod employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 10:67 Cape Cod employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 11:68 Cape Cod homebuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 8:68 Home building rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 9:69 Cape Cod land analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 12:70 Cape Cod land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 13:72 Town winter total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 14:73 Town peak total population . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 73
Buildout Scenarios . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2020 Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 82
2020 Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
County building .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Bourne building . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 83
Sandwich building 84
Table 1: 104 Revenues from land transfer tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Orleans additional housing capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Falmouth developable residential lot study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Wellfleet housin@ unit potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Components of the water budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112A
Probable zones of contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Table 1: 122 Solid waste generation, 1980-2000 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Table 11: 123 Estimated annual variation in solid w Iaste quantities,,:. 1.9,85 . . . . . . . 123
Table 111:124 Landfill life expectancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

P R E F A C E

Because of mounting concern regarding the intense growth on CapeCod,
the Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod has produced this
report for the citizens of Barnstable County. The study includes
recommendations for individual town bylaws, health regulations,
regional programs and legislative'measures to insure caring management
and conservation of our natural resources.

APCC has recognized that the use of Cape Cod'-s finite resources must
be coordinated with the rising population, so has framed a series of
questions for major study.

Will growth continue? How fast? For how long? What.powers the
growth? What will eventually limit it? To answer these questions,
the APCC Board of Directors asked Philip B. Herr & Associates to
develop -demographic and economic growth analyses and forecasts to the
year 2000., building on and updating work done in 1976 by Herr for the
CCPEDC 208 study. While APCC's work made use of published sources
such as the census, a great deal of-critical information was gathered
in painstaking door-to-door surveys, collection of unpublished town
records, and lot by lot analysis of assessor's records, all carried
out by APCC volunteers who contributed enormous energies to making
this effort uniquely well-informed about current Cape Cod realities.

What are the consequences of the forecast growth f.or our resources,
environment, and quality of life and what can be done to make impacts
more favorab@le? To answer that, APCC enlisted the aid of Cape Cod
experts on a whole array of topics of concern. Those experts
contributed their time and expertise, and provided working papers on
how gr .owth as forecast should be linked to policy on natural resource
protection, land use planning, and regional coordination. Based on
those contributions, the APCC Board of Directors and Science Advisors
developed recommendations for public and private action to enhance the
living and environmental qualities of Cape Cod. The final results
comprise a comprehensive data resource on Cape Cod and its towns, a
technical report, and a citizen's checklist for action geared to
official, civic and educational groups.

1. GRCWIN6 WITH ME

For two years APCC has studied Cape Cod's growth ' drawing -on staff,
consultants, experts in many fields, and the efforts of many volun-
teers. The result is a caref ul delineation of the Cape's present
situation and f uture growth prospectsf an assessment of the con-
sequences of that growth, and exploration of how community ef fort
could help shape a better. future for Cape Cod.

The dimensions of probable growth over the next 16 years are enormous.
The Cape is likely to add half again to its winter population and a
third again to its summer population by the end of the '90's. For
every two homes existing in 1980 there will be three homes shortly
after the year 2000. In fewer than 20 years it is likely that there
will be more people on Cape Cod in the summer than live in the city of
Boston. The Cape's year-round population is forecast to swell from
under 150,000 people in 1980 to nearly 220,000 people in 2000, while
summer peak population booms from 370,000 in 1980 to 500,000 in 2000.

A-long with growth will come functional change. Increasingly, Cape Cod
will functionmore like a suburb than like a rural region. The compo-
nents of Cape Cod's growth which are growing fastest, commuting and
retirement, mean support for a population which resides one place,
Cape Cod, but whose. earnings come f rom a dif f erent place, of f-Cape,
which is exactly the suburban formula. If the Cape looks more. like a
suburb in the future it will be because it iL more like a suburb. The
social and political ramifications of that reality, as well as the
developmental ones, are profound.

Current zoning and environmental controls won't stop that growth.
With current zoning, all the projected growth can be accommodated and
still leave land for at least another generation of development.
Furthermore, the market has demonstrated a robust ability to find
customers willing to buy or rent despite any limitations or costs
which current development controls may impose. Inadequate water
supply won't stop growth either, although as consumption demand rises
and potential clean supplies dwindle, the cost of keeping supply up
with demand is likely to escalate..

Even the Cape's celebrated traffi c problems won't stop growth, though
if it were not for worsening congestion, growth would be even greater
than we have forecast. Nor will other deteriorating conditions stop
growth, but those conditions W_ill be worsened by it. Problems of
sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, overtaxed harbor facilities,
crowded beaches, loss of wildlife habitatsp and destruction of Cape
Cod's character and charm will all grow with further development.-

There is no assurance that growth will balance that by helping to
resolve social and economic problems, On'the contrary, growth may
make them worse. Without special efforts, even more Cape Codders in
the future may find the housing the market produces. too costly to
afford. Unemployment disparities versus the rest of the state may
grow. Health care problems may grow. The destruction of community
cohesion will almost surely be accelerated.

However, it is in that very superabundance of growth pressure that the
ability to make a better Cape Cod lies. Growth pressure on Cape Cod
is so great that- it creates the possibility of choice: the possibil-
ity of choosing for the Cape only that growth which is caring in its
environmental consequences and caring in serving the Cape's social and
economic needs. An appropriate policy is not "no-growth", but "caring
growth",, growth which is equitable to property owners, environment-
ally supportable, and socially constructive. That choice is available
on Cape Cod precisely because growth demand is so strong.

In considering. growth policy for Cape Cod, it is important to consider
that not only does the Cape have available choice in its gr.owth, but
so too does the vast majority of the people whose coming to the Cape
powers its growth. Second-home buyers and in-migrating retirees are
making discretionary choices about leisure living, not just meeting
basic shelter needs constrained by such things as Job location,
schooling and income. The obligation to provide unfettered access for
those presently choosing among the Cape, eastern Long Island and Maine
is far different from the metropolitan imperative to provide suburban
housing, and different from.the necessity of serving the housing needs
of Cape Cod's service population. The appropriateness of intervention
to protect the interests of future generations is especially clear
under these conditions.

The population to which the Cape might ultimately grow depends upon
zoning-controlled density and open space reservation. That satura-
tion limit is many years away: our year 2000 forecast is for 216,000
year-round residents, while at least 250,000 year-round residents, and
perhaps more, can be accommodated at satur-ation, a level which won't
be reached until the year 2020 or later. It is premature to debate
policy on ultimate population, or to use that issue as a basis for
current actions. It !,a important that low-density sprawl and its
excessive land consumption be controlled so that future choices about
growth aren't preempted. Open space acquisition, growth rate control,
and sensible density regulations can all contribute to avoiding
sprawl.

It is "-t premature to se t policy on growth 1,als. Years ago CCPEDC
advocated managing the Cape's growth to achieve 2,500 new housing
units per year, a rate exceeded every year since 1976 1 with nearly
4,000 units added in 1983. The benefits of legislatively controlled
growth rate are now apparent in Bourne and Sandwich, which adopted
such controls in the '70s, and corroborated by experience on Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket. The current rate of change on Cape Cod is
destructively fast, and is without either social necessity or public
benefit. "Caring growth" for the eighties and nineties should include
care to avoid excessive rates such as those of the past two years.

A. ACHIEVING CARING GROWTH

Throughout this report an array of suggestions is made for managing
growth, including private actions, actions for local government, and
actions at the regional level. In summary, three things are needed:
strengthened organizational capacity, improved regulatory authority,
and adequate financial resources. All are achievable.

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY

Being able to choose benef icial growth requires organizational capa-
bilities which are now generally lacking. For one thing, questions
which cross local boundaries such as environmental management, water
quality, and transportation continue to elude effective resolution,
despite efforts of CCPEDC and the Capel.s many formal and informal
regional organizations. Only with a Cape Cod government will
there be an appropriate mechanism for choice where the major con-
siderations in that choice overspill local boundaries, as they
commonly do. A _Eje-al government has a legislature and has taxation
authority. County government in Massachusetts has neither. For Capee
Cod the county is a sound geographic basis for governance, and con-
struction of real government at that level is a key step in building
necessary public capacity, regardless of directions other regions may
take.

While the establishment of a real county government is moving through
the legislature, much could be done at the regional level. For one
thing, CCPEDC's work in water@ quality management has earned national
attention, and deserves stronger budgeted financial support so that
ef forts now spent on grant-chasing can instead be spent on problem-
solving.

Both formal and informal regional associations promote intertown
communication, but a,gain more cou .ld be done. An array of groups
ranging from the long-establ i shed Selectmen's Association through the
newer Cape Cod Council-of Conservation Commis,sions, to an a-d b.Q-c
organizationof the Cape's few professional planner-s contributes to
improving communication and dialogue among towns. Such organizations
should be strongly supported, and their efforts supplemented with such
things as occasional joint meetings between planning boards in adja-
cent towns, now a rare, but @not unheard of event.

At the local level there'needs to bean earlier., stronger, and more
positive voice in government advocating careful-natural resource man-
agement. Conservation Commissions too often are confined to the role
of policing the last stop in the.' development, control process, earning
them the stigma of nay-.sayers. There are many .ways of giving more
effective voice to resource concerns, with different approaches appro-
priate to different towns..: A development.cabinet,.such as Barnstable
has established, can give that voice an early forum. Interagency plan
review committees, somewhat like that just created in Orleans, can get
environmental review interacting with, rather than following, other
reviews. A full-time conser.vation agent or even part-time pro-
fessional assistance on conserviation matters can help by creating a
real presence for day-to-day interactions in Town Hall, strengthening
reviews, and freeing Commissi,.on energies f@or more creative ef forts
than reactive plan reviews.

Similarlyr the value of. professional planners in town government has
only recently been demonstrate(i on Cape Cod. Barnstable, Dennis,
Falmouth, Mashpee and Yarmouth now employ full-time professional plan-
ners whose training, time ava ilability, and. role greatly strengthen

local capacities. More communities should make more extensive use of
professional help, if not through full-time staff then through shared
staff, "circuit-riders", regular consultant arrangements, or other
means.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Growth on Cape Cod is regulated under statutes and state regulations
drafted for the whole of. Massachusetts -in a legislative process often
dominated by the homebuilding industry. The result is a set of tools
which are far short of ideal for this region, given its rapid growth
and fragile resources. However, with skill and creativity an adequate
fap-e fQ-d regulatory framework can be developed.

Concern over excessive grow.th rate can and should be directly
addressed through explicit growth rate controls which allow reasonable
growth, which respond to market and financing fluctuations, but which
constrain the.- destructive peaks of growth currently being experienced.
Legal precedent and adequate models exist and with careful drafting,
effective and equitable rate limiting systems can be shaped to each
community's peculiar circumstance for local adoptioh. Given that
control, other choices in, the regulatory system, such as allowable
density and type of housing, can be shaped to respond more precisely
to other -environmental and social objectives, without being limited by
a second role as a control to slow down growth.

With growth jA_te controlled the next need is to be able t o
development which is caring about its consequences. That means
choosing growth which contributes to the,year-round economy,, not just
th@e seasonal one; growth which helps resolve housing problems rather
than makingthem worse; growth which is considerate in fitting into
the visual context; and growth which carefully avoids or mitigates
harmful effects on the natural enviro.nment.

There is an array of tools available to do that, such as incentive
systems, which reward rather than punish, and development rights
transfers, which allow preservation without penalty. Just emerging in
current work is an approach which enables local planning boards to
choose, among alternatives for development, rather than being obliged
to accept just any proposal whose technical details meet regulatory
standards. Criteria for that choice again would be based on caring:
caring for environmental, social, and visual consequences. Such a
system of choice places both developers and communitiesin the posi-
tion of benefiting from development which serves community concerns,
explicitly joining interests which too often have been adversaries.

Wetlands control is a-cr ucial function on the Cape, but is exercised
through a defective system. '.Each town should have its own wetlands
bylaw tailored to its circumstance, affording a local means of control
supplementing the state-created Wetlands Protection Act, whose imple-
mentation and appeals procedures d -on't always serve the Cape well.
Given such a local law, procedures and authorities can be clarified by
placing essentially all wetlands control in the Conservation
Commission, eliminating the- dua-l-track confusion of also having Board
of Appeals wetland control under zoning.

Similarly, Title V of the state Environmental Code inadequately pro-
tects Cape Cod's special circumstance of geology and hydrology, so it
should be supplemented with strict but fair health regulations adopted
by each local Board of Health.

Visual resource management is still at a crude level compared with,
say, groundwater management. Historic districts and sign controls
have prompted controversy and displayed inability to deal with the
major questions of community character, yet those questions are as
important to Cape Cod's f uture as any. Better, more objective tools
are possible, but require an effort comparable to the 1970's EPA-
funded "208" effort on groundwater to develop a comparable level of
competence. Somehow that effort should be made.

Regulations are worse than useless unless enforced, and enforcement
has often been the weakest link in Cape Cod's resource management.
Enforcement is commonly deficient not because of lack of personnel but
because of lack of leadership support for that personnel. it is
crucial that enforcement agents be capable, well trained, and given
adequate staff. It is also important that they be given adequate
political and legal backup to assure that laws, once adopted, are
enforced.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

The only appropriate.use for many land parcels is to be retained in a
natural state, and often the only way of assurinq that is through
purchase either of the land or of the development rights to the land.
Ei tber requires substantial up front f inancial resources, while the
benefits will accrue only over many years. Even requlation has public
costs: costs for competent drafting, and costs for careful adminis-
tration, which means not only enforcement, but also assisting devel-
opers'to meet community expectations. Resource protection sometimes
also calls for funding of public construction, such as public sewers
to abate pollution. Resource management, as discussed before, calls
for planners, conservation agents, and other professional support, all
requiring financial resources.

Proposition 2 1/2 is no less severe for towns on Cape Cod than for
those elsewhere, sharply curtailing community ability to finance vital
resource management efforts. For that reason adoption of a,land
transfer tax for Barnstable County is crucial to expanding the public
capacity for resource protection. If state enabling legislation is
passed, such a tax would apply to land sales over $50,000 in those
towns which choose to apply it. At suggested rates, such a tax could
raise f rom $1 million to $5 million dollars per year f or all of Cape
Cod, dedicated to open space preservation. That isn't a huge sum in
relation to the cost of land,,.bu,t by- borr,ovi t future revenues
, p.g,agains
from that source and using it @to gain 'state and f ederal assistance,
the potential for early action becomes large. Coupled with a care-
fully designed plan for strategic use of those financial resources, a
land transfer tax could allow timely acquisition mv while key Farcels

are still there to be acquired. In addition, existence of that
funding would probably be catalytic in spurring communities to do
realistic action-oriented planning to make sound use of those
resources.

Public costs of regulation are actually relatively small'. but politi-
cally vulnerable. An adequate system of fees, however, can assure
that those costs are borne by the development which occasions them.
By national norms, building and development fees on Cape Cod are
miniscule. Raised to a level reflecting real costs, including the
costs of professional stafff fees can readily support a fully com-
petent development management program.

Similarly, there is no reason why present residents need subsidize
utility services for new development, but that is the current prac-
tice, with connection fees which fail to recover each development's
fair share of capital investment in system facilities. Again, fee
reform could eq-uitably redistribute costs and help assure financial
adequacy.

Finally, users should support the full costs of resources they use.
That practice is not only equitabler it also improves resource alloca-
tion. Water use fees ought to cover AU costse including system capi-
tal costs and the costs of protecting aquifer zones through acqui-
sition of protective areas. Those increased use charges would help
constrain profligate use of a limite-d resource,, as well as put costs
where they belong.

B. AN APCC ACTION AGENDA

The dangers of g-rowth controlled only as at present are finally being
widely recognized across the Cape, and this report will both help
clarify the nature of the Cape's growth and help spread that recogni-
tion. Beyond that, there is a need for explicit action.

Action is-needed by the state and by the towns. APCC will press for
needed state legislation, especially that authorizing a land transfer
tax and that creating a real Barnstable County government. APCC will
monitor and continue to oppose state actions, often proposed, which
would limit local freedom to adopt locally designed health, wetland,
and other controls more effective for Cape Cod than statewide
"minimum" regulations.

A community checklist has been designed for evaluating the adequacy of
local efforts to manage growth. We will seek to help community
leaders in each of the Cape's 15 towns to hold nGrowth Workshops". At
those workshops, participants will review each town's status on that
checklist, and press for remedial actions, with the promise of full
support from APCC for carrying out needed efforts.

Finally, APCC will 'seek every available forum to publicize the central
message of this study. Massive growth will continue but _cAn be
managed for the benefit of Cape Codders if we will muster the effort

to make difficult choices which reject indiscriminate growth powered
only by profit, and if we consistently select a caring development
future which serves community needs as well as private ones.

111. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ON CAPE COD

INTRODUCTION

A map in the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) office in Barnstable shows
us that the entire Cape is designated a Coastal Zone. In the conti-
nental sense, it most certain ly is. But in order to understand the
Cape's current problems along its shoreline, the processes at work,
why the Cape looks and act s the way it does, and pr esents us w ith j oys
and frustrations, it is necessary to go back to the beginning.

That was a very long time ago, and the end of the story is not yet in
sight. The characters in this long and fascinating story have names
such as Pleistocene Epoch and Wisconsin Stage, glacial till, glacial
erratics, moraines, and many more. The vibrancy and excitement of
this story belie the millions of years in the making of it.

What !-a Cape Cod? You will get one answer from the bird watcher,
another from the summer tourist stuck in the car bumper-to-bumper on
Route 6, still another from the wind surfer, the artist, the baker,
the candlestick maker.

But it is the geologist's answer we are seeking here. What is the
Cape made of and how did it get here? For the geologist the clues are
everywhere: in front and back of the dunes, in the tidal creeks,
ponds, in the pebbles, sand, and rocks. Measured by geological time,
Cape Cod is very young indeed; in the geological drama, the curtain
has only just gone up. For the rest of us who count our time some-
where between the butterfly's moment and the geologist's epochs, we
can (loosely speaking) skip many years and begin our story about fifty
thousand years ago, at the time of the final Ice Age, commonly known
as the Wisconsin Stage. By that time the vast ice sheet which had
originated in Labrador covered much of the North American continent.
By then, these ice sheets had, so to speak, "gone as far as they could
go." Thousands of years in the making, they remained for thousands
more, concealing under their icy sheets what they had dislodged and
brought w itb them on thei r j ourney f rom the North. Once they began to
spread and move, these great ice sheets acted as a vast continental
sculptor.

Before the ice invasions of the Wisconsin Stage, between fifty and
seventy thousand years ago, Cape Cod did not exist, f or the present
Cape Cod is the top of one of several large piles of sand, gravel, and
clay that were dumped along the East Coast more than ten thousand
years ago by the last Ice Age. Af ter the last of the ice melted away,
the mineral debris that had been plucked and gorged and wrenched free
by the glacier as it moved along revealed that the ancient sculptor
.had created a most impressive piece of work -- the string of rolling
hills along the Cape's backbone, which the geologist calls a moraine.

Building, moving, dredging, and melting are all part of the glacier's
story -- the building up of ice and its melting down. The ice sheets
would not have f ormed as they did had it not been f or the ocean; large

amounts of. ocean water were held,in storage by them. This borrowing
of ocean w 'ater by the glacier meant that duringthe Ice Ages there was
a lowering of sea level.

Rather abruptly .(if we'adopt the geologist's time fraipe), about fif-
teen thousand years ago,,. there was a global warming trend. The
melting outpaced glacial construction and, in the end, the ocean
received back the water taken by the glaciers. Pond water filled the
der,ressions formed by giant blocks of ice that had been buried deep in
the mineral debris. These are the Cape's kettle ponds, almost f ive
hundred of them -- "enough, Cape Codders say, to drown every gossip
in," as Dorothy Sterling reports in her book, Ille QIft-eL Lands.

What the glaciers took from the ocean during their building boom, they
returned. Ever since the end of the last Ice Ace the sea level has
been rising; Cape Cod, composed of what the glacier brought with it,
is being gradually but..steadily submerged by the rising sea level.
Records produced, by the tide recorders located at east coast harbors
show that during the twentieth.century the relative sea level has been
rising at an average rate of about one foot each century. How does
this translate into land loss- along the coasts? We can put it this
way: A one foot rise in ' sea level results in approximately a one
percent decrease in the land area of-Cape Cod. This does not. sound
too alarming, not much to worry about, but this arithmetic is only-
part of the story. This estimate does not take into account the
additional losses resulting from erosion of exposed coastal land by
wave action. Wave ero sIion produces an average coastal retreat of
three feet each ye.ar along the cliffed, section of the Cape's most
exposed east coast, and lesser but 'still significant r-etreat along the
Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and Nantucket Sound
shores.

All is. not lost, of cours 'e, when the coastal banks and dunes are
eroded by wave action. Some of the sediment supplied by the.erosive
process joins the littoral system (sediment transported along the
shore by waves) and ois deposited again in the form of other beaches
and dunes. Shakespeare surely did not have the ocean in mind when he
wrote, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be," for at almost any g,iven
.moment, like some giant, financier, it is both.

The beaches, themselv es, the product of erosion, are constantly
created and recreated, doing the ocean's bidding; the wcrk of the
ocean, in turn, takes its instruction from the wind that forms the
waves.

The beach, its sands always shifting by this orchestraticn of viiLnd and
wave, so delightful to the teachcomher, the sw_Ji,,qr-,.er, t,,:) the eye and.
heart, serves a purpose: the beach, buf fers the zones behind it from
wave action, and some beaches, tbe-bar .r i ex, beaches, are especially
prized by Cape Codders because of the waters, wetlands, shellfish and
wildlife habitats that they protect.

Despite the moodiness and caprices of the wind and sea, nature's
zoning laws work- remarkably well, and it is helpf ul to think of the
Cape divided into several ecological zones. On the outer, ocean-

f acing coast, the f irst such zone is the beach itself, vital to the
natural protection, of all that lies behind it. The beach's sloping
contour and slight angle to . the surf makes it uniquely suited to
absorb and dissipate the energy of the incoming wave,s. Coastal ecolo-
gist Tom Cross points out that with the dunes behind, "the beach
constitutes an intricate sand-sharing system: The dunes provide a
reservoir of sand to replenish and sustain the beach's natural contour
as sand and nutrient material move to offshore sandbars." Aided by
the littoral drift, the beaches have established a remarkable modus
vivendi with the sea. In case the sea acts up (and it frequently
does), the seaside vegetation stands ready. The salt tolerant plants
simply bend their heads when the sea, following its own laws, washes
over them. This overwash, Cross writes, is nature's way of "rolling
with the punches" to avoid the head-on force of the storm. An added
advantage is that this overwash allows sand to accumulate in areas it
does not ordinarily reach, and it provides nutrients for the plant
1 if e.

All of the forces that result in the shifting of sand, the tearing
away of the dune's face, the winter storm waves that reach beyond the
beaches -- this seeming, willy-nilly accommoda ti on of one force to
another, have managed to establish ecological zones that work well.
Equally important, nature's efforts to maintain. these zones are vital
to the food chain itself.

Th.e zone that borders on the bay is the baybeach zone'. The baybeach
is also one of sloping elevation; at the top the upland with its pitch
pines, beach plum, and other low lying -bushest slopes gradually
downward to the marsh grasses, the marsh itself, and the tidal flats,,
twice daily flooded over by the sea. Here an incredible variety of
marine life lives and breeds and is protected.

All who live and work and visit on Cape Cod do so at the sufferance of
the sea. We might be wise to look to the plant and animal life whose
accommoda'tion to each other and the sea is nothing short of a natural
marvel. -This accommodation was hundreds of millions of years in the
making. How are we doing? Wba_j are we doing (or _ao_t doing) to
accommodate ourselves to the natural forces and rhythms already so
long established and upon whose continuation the Cape's life and our
own depend?

A . COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The Coastal Zone Management Act became public law on October 27, 1972
(PL' 92-583). It is presently administered by the U. S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Serviceo, office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
Through the Act,. Congress made it national policy to "...preserve,,
protect, develop and where possible to restore or enhance, the re-
sources of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding genera-
tions".

It further encouraged states to establish management programs that
would: protect the nation's natural resources, properly manage
coastal development, give priority to coastally dependent uses,
provide for public access to the shore, improve ports and harbors,
coordinate and simplify procedures for coastal resource management
decision making, support comprehensive environmental planning,
encourage the preparation of special area management plans for
significant natural resources and encourage the participation of
state, regional and local governments and citizens in managing the
nation's 95,429 miles of shoreline.

Initiated as a voluntary program, Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
offered coastal states two incentives for preparing and implementing
their owri plans in order to carry out the Act on the state level. The
first was direct federal financial assistance in the form of grants,
one-third of which were to be directed to coastal cities and towns.

The second incentive was the federal consistency provision which
emphasized state and federal cooperation and coordination of coastal
development at all levels. Once a state's CZM program is accepted by
the Secretary of Commerce, all federal activities that "directly
affect" a state's designated coastal zone must be consistent "to the
maximum extent practicable" with the state's approved CZM program.
There are presently twenty-four states and five territories with
approved programs.

Desiring no new levels of bureaucracy and increased regulations, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the 1970s revamped several of its
already existing environmental laws and networked its environmental
agencies to work in cooperation with a Coastal Zone Management Program
within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). The core
of the Massachusetts CZM Program is twenty-seven coastal policies,
thirteen of which have their basis in already existing regulatory law.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan was accepted by tbp
U.S. Department of Commerce on April 27, 1978.

After five years of successful operation, Governor Michael Dukakis in
1983 signed the Coastal Protection Bill (ch. 589) which, among other
things, established the CZM program as a statutory office within EOEA.
Thus, regardless of federal funding, Massachusetts is guaranteed a
permanent ability to review federal activities directly affecting the
Commonwealth's coastal zone.

The challenges facing Coastal Zone Management? as the nation prepares
for reauthorization of the Act in 1985, are critical. Vital on the
federal level is federal financial participation in the CZM Program.
A priority for those who desire a strong CZM program is to preserve
the integrity of the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing bill,
which allots a percentage of all OCS revenues paid to the U.S.
Treasury by the oil and gas industry to coastal states. in the form of
block grants, subject to the appropriations process. The present
Administration is opposed to the legislation and all federal funding
for the national CZM Program, so eventual enactment of an 6CS revenue
sharing law to fund ocean and coastal resource management efforts is
in question.

The other major hurdle for CZM on the federal level is the preserva-
tion of the consistency review as the federal government seeks to
exempt offshore oil and gas leasing from CZM regulations. Protection
of the consistency provisions will be part of the battle for reautho-
rization of the CZM Act in 1985.

On the state level, the Massachusetts CZM office is concentrating its
efforts on the identification of and cleaning up of polluted marine
waters in the commercial and industrial ports of Boston and New
Bedford, and the acquisition and improvement of public access to the
coast. The Coastal Facilities Improvement Program makes matching
funds available to local communities for purchase or improvement of
piers and harbor facilities and for open space.

Nowhere is CZM's role in protecting Georges Bank more Iim portant than
on.the Cape anId Islands. This one-half billion dollar a year fishery
.has been continually threatened by U.S. Department of the Interior's
.attempts to lease the fertile fishing grounds to allow forthe explo-
ration of uncertain amounts of oil and gas. 'The Government. and indus-
try in partnership remain committed to drilling in the.Nortb Atlantic
as the Interior Department prepares its new Five Year Plan And Lease
Sale. No. * 96, scheduled for February. 1986.

Although state and federal law have significantly increased protection
.over the nation's environment since the early 1970s, towns on the Cape
should not come. to@ rely completely on the law, regulations and techni-
cIal assistance. offered 'by outside agencies. 'State and federal law
offer communities m.inimum standards of-protection over their environ-
ment. It is up to towns themselves to take that 'protection a step
further and mold 'it to the Cape's own unique circumstances.

'Although the Department, of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
and CZM are frequently cited as the important stateand federal
regulatory agencies for the Cape, the Massachusetts Environmental
Protection Agency (MEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
State Department of Environmental Management (DEM) also serve as
protective overseers.

MEPA acts as an.informational coordinator between state agencies
whenever state monies or state (DEQE) permits'are involved. The MEPA
unit reviews specified projects for the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs, identifying the environmental concerns and recommending

information which should be requi 'red of the project proponent in an
Environmental Impact Report. Project review/on-site inspection by
this agency is most frequently triggered by DEQE wetland appeals,
applications to the state DPW for curb cuts to state highways, DEQE
Water Pollution Control Permits, and state-funded projects such as
housing or septage facilities design.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Waters Act and
Navigable Waters Act issues license permits for dredging or f illing
activities for tidal and great pond waters of the Commonwealth. Corps
jurisdiction extends to such coastal activities as piers, floats,
revetments and bulkheads.

The Department of Environmental Management previously controlled the
coastal areas identified under the Wetlands Restriction program. That
program is now administered by DEQE, while DEM still participates in
the designation and administration of-Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern.

Since late 1983 the DEQE has taken over the administration and regula-
tion of many of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
programs suchlas point source discharge permits and sewer permits.
The recent designation of the Cape as a Sole Source Aquifer may once
again increase the EPA's role.

All of these agencies have the potential to regulate or control any
project of significant size or impact. It is up to the local citizenry
to alert those agencies so the proper safeguards for environmental
protection will be imposed.

B. COASTAL EROSION

increasingly in the twentieth century, the rush for waterfront
property and the sheer pressure of an expanding population have
resulted in the development of our coastal areas and disturbance of
our coastal ecosystems.

.The lovely and fragile environment the Cape affords, so wondrously
balanced, is threatened by the building boom of recent years. The
zoning laws nature has instituted are critically threatened by the
haphazard and inadequate human ones which have allowed construction on
the edges of both sea and marsh. As houses are built on the edges of
dunes and fragile wetlands, natural ecosystems are disturbed.

When houses are threatened by eroding beaches, their owners want to
take measures to hold back the force of the sea. For some the answer
is: build seawalls, groins, revetments, breakwaters; sometimes combi-
nations of these' various man-make devices. Coastal engineering firms
have developed designs intended to be effective and appropriate for
the various dune and beach conditions: zig-zag vertical structures,
rip-rap (the use of loose stones instead of cement) and other designs
whose purpose is to stop or alter the force of the waves.

Rising sea level and wave action are indeed powerful forces shaping
the coast, but the rapid increase in the building of these man-made
structures is disturbing to physical oceanographer Graham Giese. The
walls lead to major disruption; adjusting one small part of the shore-
line by building a wall or groin throws oth-er parts of the coastline
out of balance. Seawalls may slow down the erosion problems at a
particular place - but only in the short run. Eventually they spell
trouble. The structures prohibit the waves from taking their natural
course, from digging into the dunes and distributing sand along the
coast; often such structures cause waves to increase their scour.
Thrown against a seawall for example, the waves are reflected and
returning seaward, collide with incoming waves. The resulting
turbulence scours the shallow ocean floor at the base of the
structure, digging in at the sand and carrying it off. To make
matters worse? the beaches, banks and dunes at either end of the wall
bear part of the brunt of the waves' accommodation. An accelerated
erosion sets in on the adjacent beaches. One seawall tends to beget
another and another.

Coastal ecologists advise people who contemplate buying water front
property and protecting it with seawalls to consider other alterna-
tives. An obvious alternative is to buy inland; another is to plant
beach grass or erect snow fences, or a combination of the two. Vege-
tation can be an effective and inexpensive way to deal with the work
of the waves, to stabilize dunes and protect marshes. There are added
benefits. A vegetated dune, unlike a seawall, is pleasing to the eye
and attracts birds and small animals. While vegetation alone cannot
handle an angry winter storm, neither can a seawall over many winters
and many storms.

New regulations written in 1978 to implement the state's Wetlands
Protection Act reflect the thinking of coastal ecologists. These
regulations prohibit the placement of man-made erosion control devices
to protect shorelines where building has occurred after 1978. And it
is tougher now to gain permits for seawalls and other kinds of struc-
tures for houses built _b_ef_Q_L_e 1978. Permits are supposed to be
granted only after other measures, such as vegetation, have been tried
and have failed.

Some homeowners who have a front row seat, not only on the sea but
over the eroding process as well, are frustrated. So are some members
of local conservation commissions. Commission members, charged to
uphold the Wetland statutes and other conservation regulations on the
one hand, and property owners' interests on the other, find themselves
caught "between the devil and the deep blue sea."

Does all this mean that man-made devices to hold back the sea are
never Justified? The same coastal ecologists who urge alternatives to
these man-made structures concede that there are situations that call
for their construction. Examples include safe navigation in certain
waters, access to certain wetland areas and beaches, and harbor pro-
tection. The important thing, say coastal ecologists, is to plan such
structures according to the natural coastal processes at work and make
adjustments to fit these natural processes. When disturbances must be
made, careful study of the systems involved can go far to minimize the
environmental impacts.

In order to do just t hat, coastal engineers have come up with design
systems custom tailored for the particular situation and site. Yet no
structure, ecologically suitable as it might be, is problem free.
Seawalls and revetments which separate land from water interfere with
the natural erosive process and are subject to scouring. Groins,
those finger-like structures extending perpendicularly from the shore,
interrupt the transport of littoral sediment (the material moved along
the shoreline under the influence of waves and currents) when they are
built to prevent erosion at one site. Breakwaters, placed offshore,
will interfere with shoreline process if built too high; built too
low, they will be ineffective. In addition, the material that fills
in behind the breakwater, might, without that intervention, have ended
up on someone else's beach where nature intended it to be.

Those who oppose the c onstruction of seawalls and other structures do
not do so out of disregard for reasonable measures taken to protect
property built on the edges of coastal banks. But it must be empha-
sized that anyone who does build on the edge of the sea implicitly
accepts the known risks to that property caused by nature's forces,
wind and wave.

On the Cape, politics begins (not ends) at the water's edge. Under-
standing the natural processes at work here is every Cape Codder's
responsibility, not just a matter for the geologist, the oceano-
grapher, the coastal ecologist or the naturalist. Every property
owner, vacationer every citizen who serves on a Local board or

commission must assume responsibility for learning (and understanding)
these natural forces so that our human laws, regulations and codes can
reflect them.

No matter how sound or unsound. our own human environmental laws and
policies are, the natural laws will continue to operate. No law or
regulation or land use policy can ignore forever the natural facts of
the matter: Cape Cod is.diminishing as more people rush to come here.
The sea continues to rise; the Cape to submerge. Nature, aggrieved
just so long, seeks her own redress; not in hearings, or law courts,
but her voices are heard, nonetheless - in the wind and wave, and in
the end these voices will triumph.

Surely your waste and your
desolate places
and your devastated land
surely now you will be too narrow
for your inhabitants
and those who swallowed you up
will be far away...
Isaiah

Perhaps we ought to listen more carefully to the words of the prophet
Isaiah; they may have a special meaning for us on the Cape. All of us
who inhabit this narrow land are charged with the responsibility of
answering the question: When does growth and development cease work
for the common good and, instead, promote the devastation Isaiah
speaks of?

The Tragedy of the Commons teaches us that we cannot be sure which
particular sheep added to the grazing herds spelled the end of the
common pasture. Until the limit was reached, each man's profit was
swelled by adding one more sheep to his herd. Until one day there was
no grass. N-Q grass, = commons, _D_Q living sheep, -n-Q prof it. No one
could say what particular sheep added to the common grazing ground
caused the demise of all. In order to avoid the fate of the Commons,
we must arm ourselves with the knowledge to determine just how many
bulkheads, groins and revetments will one day be too much here for the
delicate balance to sustain?

The geomorphologist, Arthur N. Strahler writes: "Through its whole
extent, Cape Cod consists almost entirely of sand, gravel, silt, clay
and boulders, with no solid bedrock whatsoever showing anywhere or
n
even to be found at depths of many feet below the surface.

Those of us who want to share this Cape with nature will have to form
our own "bedrock" - sound management of growth.

C. HARBORS

This was the most completely maritime town that we were ever in. it
was merely a good harbor, surrounded by land, dry if not firm, - an
inhabited beach, whereon fishermen cured and stored their fish,
without any back country.
Henry Thoreau on Provincetown

Harbors are carved by nature and they assume definition only as they
are discovered and used by mariners. They are to the seafaring world
what depots and stations are to trains,, what terminals are to truckers
and busses, what parking lots are to downtown. Harlbors are natural.
resources and their early character, to the extent character can be
preserved, is an inherited resource. What we have to decide is what
they shall become, because already their past is in conflict with the
present.

Thoreau described Provincetown as a harbor surrounded by an inhabited
beach. Considering the hundreds of fishing vessels that once sailed
from that town and the shoreside employment that industry provided, it
is little wonder that Provincetown then had the highest per capita
income in the state. There waswork for everyone in the middle of the
last century and every dollar came first from the sea and was then
multiplied in the town's economy. At one time there were more than
fifty long wharfs to accommodate the fish business and today there are
two. The character of the harbor has been altered. Forty or so
powered trawlers have displaced the hundreds of sailboats and their
modern efficiency has contributed to the decline of the fish stocks
and the vast employment that industry once insured. This will forever
be a fishing port, but we have to focus now on the rest of the harbor
and ask what might become of it. Provincetown is asking itself that
question right now. Other towns are now showing concern and need
encouragement to do the same.

A harbor is f irst of all a place f or boats to saf ely anchor and to
conduct maritime commerce. Other than commercial fishing and support
facilities, commerce in rural harbors today is limited mainly to
recreational fishing and tourist excursions. We have substantial
charter fleets, a number of head boats and whale watching vessels,, and
a few ferry terminals. It is hard to see the day when these needs and
services will not existr and yet it is easy to visualize a scenario in
which the waterfront land needed to support these activities is bought
by developers for high cost condominiums and other lucrative adven-
tures. New England farmers sold to developers as the value of their
land soared above the returns from agriculture. There is no reason to
believe these same pressures will not be brought to bear upon those
who do business along our harbors. When the harbor.and the beach no
longer nourish one another, harbors will lose their traditional
character. They will be something else and the past will not be
retrievable.

Part of our planning assignment is to guarantee that a sufficient
segment of each harbor shoreline is preserved to support a myriad of
recreational and commercial marine activities. Boatyards and off-
loading piers, boat slips, launching ramps and supply stores - these
are the kinds of indigenous harbor facilities that require protection
forever. Both our resident and visiting public deserve walking access
where they can come close to enjoy their fascination with boats and
harbor activity, where they can come at dusk to appreciate a sense of
quiet beauty before a setting sun.

Webster defines harbor as "a protected inlet, or branch of a seat
lake, etc.,, esp. one with port facilities." In other wordsi, harbors
come in all sizes. A river,, the Bass River f-or exampler may be a
harbor and so also might the inlet of a tidal creek, such as Rock
Harbor. It could be an estuary like Nauset Inlet. It is in these
smaller places that traditional uses 'have been most severely tested
and the challenges come-from neighborsip homeowners, some of whom have
harrassed or successfully curtailed certain activities that commercial
fishermen consider essential to their livelihood. Maybe their trucks
are found objectionable, or their use of the beach. Maybe they are
denied the right to have a loading dock, even on public property.
Actions against rural fishermen have increased substantially in the
past decade as more and more neighborhood associations organize.
Protecting the ancient and traditional, rights of fishermen in these
places will require careful zoning and/or legislationr thoughtful
enough also to protect towns against frequent and excessive court
costs. Slowly and painfully the character and first purposes of these
harbors and anchorages are changing under pressure. Our most ancient
native industry is threatened.

But its major threat,, recreational boating, is also import ant to a
growing number of Cape Codders and to the tourist trade essential to
the livelihood of other Cape Codders. The pressure for dock and
mooring space of all kinds continues to risef and responses come from
both towns and in *dividuals developing marinas, service docks and
mooring systems. Each permitted wharf from a harbor shore may en-
croach upon open mooring space. Too many moorings may make entering
and leaving a harbor difficult and dangerous. Excessive fees for slip
rentals and moorings tend inevitably to favor a boating elite who can
afford the fees.

It is clear that the orderly further evolution of our harbors must be
regulated and controlled in a manner fair to all; - 'pleasure boats,
fishermen and other commercial boating. Each harbor has unique
characteristics,, however, and where one may be ideally suited for
marine developmentr another may preferably encourage launching areasr
skiff docks and moorings, or a third may warrant unique protection of
fishermen16-- docks and processing areas. The necessary controls must
come through local harbor zoning ordinances, guided by State and
Federal statutes and responsive to them. We are opposed to any Cape-
wide blanket harbor zoning provisions and believe that town Planning
Boards should be the major focus of harbor zoning control, giving
balanced consideration to the conflicting desires of their various
local users.

The development. and management of marinas by the Towns themselves may
be a reasonable approach to providing harbor boating facilities.
These must be managed, however, in such a way as to provide well
maintained and protected docking space equitably allotted and at fair
prices. It is reasonable in such cases to have the users bear the
costs rather than the non-using taxpayers.

Adequate dredging of shallow harbor entrances is an important factor
.in the safe and convenient use of our harbors. Towns should ensure
that this is carried out on a regular and cost effective basis, using

State and Federal aid wherever possible. Advance planning and careful
contract procedures are necessary, however, in order to avoid problems
such as the present impasse over dredging the entrance to Bass River.

llolli)tion is always a threat to our waterways and especially to
Phellf ish beds, The Commonwealth appointed its f irst coastal warden
in 1929 and he was assigned to Cape Cod. Our maj or harbors were badly
contaminated and regulation of shellfishing was essential * In those
days, household septage flowing directly into the harbors was the
unquestioned cause. Over the vears the harbors became cleaner, but
again we are witnessing the closure of one bed after another. The
reversal is sometimes blamed on domesticated waterfowl, sometimes it
is septic saturation of surrounding land where overbuilding has
occurred, and often the fault lies with run-off from storm drains and
nearby asphalt areas. The problem of too much asphalt is causinq
major crises throughout the Northeast. Cape Cod is not immune. Even
we have too much asphalt. Our zoning codes require more parking than
is sometimes necessary. Developers are encouraged to use asphalt.
Large asphalt parkinq areas at public beaches and town landings and
next to our harbors are all contributors to the pollution problem. We
need alt.ernative areas.that do not resist natural drainage.

Boats can be a source of pollution. Automatic bilge pumps and minor
fueling spills can put an oily sheen on the water's surface. Boat
toilets do not always have holding tanks. But significant progress
has been made. Owners have become better educated and rarely would
they knowingly foul their own nest. Outboards no longer require as
much oil in the fuel mix as they once did. New Coast Guard regula-
tions dealing with oil pollution and marine toilets have helped
measurably. Perhaps the most serious problem with boats today 'comes
simply from the multiplication of their numbers.

There is no end to the demand for more boat slips in all harbors.
Recreational boating is big business in this country and there are
thousands of potential boat buyers who can do nothing but wait until
they have a slip. -We could cover every square inch of water surface
in our harbors with boat slips and the demand might still be as great
for more. It may be that we have to think of an end to expansion of
such facilities. The discussion should at least take place.

Each of our harbors is unique in its natural design and its historic
character. Our examination of protective possibilities must be
approached with a sensitive commitment to preserve the individuality
of each.

D. FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER BODIES

Often the objectives of lake eutrophication control are framed in
technical terms such as algae control, reduction of nutrient concen-
trations and aquatic nuisance weed control. Socioeconomic factors
such as maintenance of.shoreline property values and recreational
attractliveness, however, are likely to be the principal factors in
motivating policies to insure the water quality of Cape Cod's salt and
fresh ponds. The following case history exemplifies the existing and
potential problems.

In the mid-1970s, a typical retirement couple decided to move to Cape
Cod, intent upon purchasing. a retirement home on a quiet 30 acre
kettle pond in a secluded cove suitable for launching a small dinghy
or sailboat to putter around the shore. The selected house was
somewhat in want of minor repairs, so they launched into a major
upgrading of the house, enlarging the dining room, installing bay
windows and large sliding glass doors and a pretty patio to improve
the view of the pond, also improving the outside landscaping by
creating a long, bricked entryway highlighted by ground-hugging
junipers in woodchip enclaves. During the warm summer months they
enjoyed pushing their dinghy off the driveway launch area across the
shallow sandy beach spit, created by a nearby stream, into the pond
and rowing around the northern basin, occasionally going sailing in
the central large southern basin which enjoyed a strong sea breeze in
the af ternoon.

In 1978, events outside their control began to impinge on the retire-
ment paradise. A 40-acre parcel of land across from the property was
sold to a developer, who planned to construct 91 clustered condominium
units on the area. After extensive hearings and negotiations, the
number was reduced to 62 units. The developer agreed to provide a
100-foot buffer along the border of the pond, hired a well-recognized
engineering firm to design and supervise installation of septic dispo-
sal systems which strictly complied with the state's Title V environ-
mental code, and made sure that erosion control through hay bale lines
was used during construction. Construction began in 1979 and occu-
pancy in 1980. The developer had no difficulty in selling the accom-
modations and considered the project to be a very successful venture.

During 1980, scattered regions of macrophytic vegetation (pond weeds)
were present, usually comprised of Ceratopjyjun _deM9X_9j_UD (coontail),
(pond weed), -2. JQJ1D_&.u_g (leafy pondweed), with
the attached algae -marind, _a@p. and
_a.p. -The patches did not interfere with rowing or sailing, but would
break away from the bottom and drift through the basin.

However? in 1981 and 1982 a substantial increase in thickness and
coverage occurred. Roughly one-third of the northern basin contained
attached macrophytes which reached to the near-surface, often from
depths of two meters or more. The thickness of the patches presented
a noticeable obstruction to rowing, the weight of the vegetation mass
clinging to the oars and interfering with forward progress. Simi-
larly, centerboards had to be withdrawn to allow sailboats to pass
through the masses of pond weeds. Fishing lures also required weed-
guards to avoid becoming snarled in the shoreline masses of vegeta-
tion.

Although the couple did not understand that the increased nutrient
loading induced by the development had caused the changes, they did
complain that the previously clear beach area now contained pond
weeds, which stretched out over fifty feet into the pond, and would
not allow them easily to launch the boat. In addition, during the
late hot summer months, the water would turn a milky white color and
emit a distinct septic odor if the wind suddenly churned the surface.

bearing in March, 1982, complaining about the c6ntinually deterior-
ating situation. To their dismay, even more property near the house
was being considered for development, despite the existing condition
@of the waterfront. In 19-83, fearing the loss of value of their prop-
erty and feeling that the cost of remedies would be high and take a
long timer they decided to sell their property and relocate.

Town planners, conservation commissions, developers, environmental
engineers and scientists should reflect momentarily on what. went wrong
and why lake management is worthwhile. Traditionally, impacts of pond
aging or eutrophication have been assessed on, the basis of limnolo-
gical considerations. Because of its technical and often complex
nature, the limnology of a water body may be difficult - or
.unintelligible - to the public. The Cape Cod shoreline owner's
perception of the benefits of water quality and eutrophication control
is far more likely to focus on the water body as an extension of
property ownership. The surface water body and its condition become
an extension of the personal self-image,, much like the model of car a
person drives. Loss of control of the condition of the shoreline
carries a psychological impact as well as a monetary one. . The average
shoreline owner, while vaguely appreciating the technical aspects of
water pollution, probably assesses water quality most often on its
aesthetic value (Gregor and Rast, 1980)1.

On Cape Cod, the aesthetic benefits may be very tangible. The bene-
fits of eutrophication control on kettle ponds would include:

1. Enhanced shorefront property values.
2. Enhanced recreational values.
3. Reduced need for costly last-resort control (sewering).
Omerod (1970)2 considered the impact of algae-fouled beaches on prop-
erty values along the Canadian shorefront of Lake Erie. He compared
the real estate values, (average value per foot of water frontage) for
three classes of algae-fouling: 1) no algal cover; 2) light algal
cover; and 3) heavy algal cover. Omerod found that combined light and
heavy algal covered properties exhibited a 15 to 20 percent lower
value than those on the shorefront areas with no algal cover.

Cape Cod has enjoyed a continuing climb in shoreline property values,
particularly since the late 1970s when valuable property could be used
as a hedge against inflation. Cape-wide an acre lot could be pur-
chased for $1,000 in the 1940s, $2,000 in the 1950s, $7,000 in.the
1960s, $15,000 in the 1970s and over $30,000 in the early 1980s.
Market values for inland, parcels have failed to show a similar in-
crease. Interior land values have continued to increase, but at about
half the value of shoreline property. An acre of land in the-interior
in the 1970s would have sold for about $7,500, around $15,000 in the
early 1980s.

Cape Cod contains over 350 freshwater ponds, with 209 of-those being
Great Ponds of ten acres or more (CCPEDC/EPA, 1-478). The classifi-
cation of a pond as a Great Pond has many significant legal implica-
tions. All standing water bodies having an acreage in excess of 10
acres are classified as Great Ponds (Section 35 of Chapter 91 of the

General Laws) and are open to general publi c use unless restricted b
3y
special acts or considerations of the Legislature (McCann, 1969) .
The water of these ponds constitutes about 8 percent of the surface
area of Cape Cod.

Generally, the enhanced value of property due to a water body is not
limited to the shoreline lots, but extends to at least 1,000 feet from
its shoreline. Residents within this region have convenient. access,
i.e. walking distance to the water or a water view. Their benefit is
not as great as the immediate property owner's, but their dwellings or
property command a price above that of interior land regions. If we
take the total shoreline miles of the freshwater ponds (an estimated
0.6 miles for every 10 acre lake; 240 total miles of shoreline) times
a 1,000 foot strip around the pond as the economic area of influence
of the pond, about 45 square miles (approximately 30,000 acres) or
about 12 percent of the Cape's land is economically influenced by
shorelines, without even counting its traditionally valued saltwater
areas.

If towns and homeowners neglect their pond areas, the prognosis will
not be good. On Long-Island the lakes and ponds in Nassau County,
which has undergone urbanization, are presently eutrophic. This
undesirable state is due chiefly to a large nutrient load compared to
the swall assimilative capacity (carrying capacity) of the lakes (LMS.
1982) . Bringing a lake that has gone hyper-eutrophic back to
mesotrophic (a level which can sustain sport fish and recreational
uses) can be expensive:
Estimated costs of dredging: $20,000 - $45,000/lake acre

Aeration systems:
equipment $790/lake acre
operating: $1,500/year

Sewering recharge area: $700,000/mile shoreline

The total cost of recuperation of the Cape Cod Great Ponds could run
beyond 500 million dollars. The control of sources of nutrients which
cause eutrophication represents an institutional problem as well as a
scientific one. As has been pointed out by Peters and Krause (1979)5 r
"Health departments rarely monitor the operation and effects of onsite
systems. They normally address existing problems on a complaint basis
only."

To maintain the property values which the ponds bring with them, it is
going to be necessary to understand the factors which combine to
determine their condition. A municipal management plan should include
the following objectives:

1. Identify the "carrying capacity" of the water body. Each
pond has a "carrying capacity" for development based upon
its flushing rate and the nutrient loading from the adjacent
land use.

2. Define the recharge area and runoff watershed for each water
body. Understand the source and flow rate@ of the water
which flows up into the pond through its lake bottom and
into it during storm runoff events.

3. Through a sampling programr identify the current condition
of the water body. This includes mapping the extent of
shoreline vegetation, defining the clarity of the water,
determining the concentrations of algae and nutrients in the
water column.

4. Develop planning guidelines wh ich estimate the ultimate
amount of nutrients generated with different densities of
land use and road drainage and their cumulative loading on
the receiving waters.

5. Monitor the hydraulic and water quality condition of the
pond at defined intervals, perhaps at least once every 5
years. As development occurs around a pond, increased vege-
tation, erosion. and runoff causes plugging of the lake
bottom, altering the carrying capacity of the pond. The
initial guidelines may have to be revised at periodic
intervals to correct for reduced flushing.

6. Identify the extent of breakthrough of phosphorus and nitro-
gen from septic systems at different distances from the
shoreline. Recognizing that some regions in the recharge
zones may have more rapid groundwater flow into the pond
than others recommend changes in spetic system design and
location to reduce groundwater loadings.

7. Avoid direct storm water drainage into surface waters.
Where possible, plan to divert runoff into dry kettle holes
outside recharge regions. Use multiple recharge catch
basins to reduce direct runoff, silt and nutrient loadings
to the pond.

The two largest-towns on Cape Cod, Barnstable and Falmouth, have both
begun to develop programs for pond management. The Barnstable Conser-
vation Commission, with the aid of its conservation planner, pro-
gressively began to define the carrying capacities of its freshwater
ponds, starting with Wequaquet Lake and working down in size.
Falmouth has developed its own program for salt ponds and fresh ponds.
In 1984 Falmouth's Town Meeting voted bylaws and the Planning Board
adopted subdivison regulations which define guidelines for nutrient
loading and require developers to adjust proposed plans if they exceed
those guidelines.

Other towns on Cape Cod should follow the examples of Barnstable and
Falmouth. The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission
should develop a model bylaw for pond management, such as the ones
done for groundwater protection. Towns should authorize matching
funds to supplement the state's 301 monies for pond restoration.

McGregor, D.J. & Rast, W., - 1 HO. Benefits and Problems of Eutrophi-
ca-tion Control. In: -R-eq-tDi-ai-i-Qjn -Qf LAI" And lnlan-d EA-1-ex-51 EPA
440/5-81-010, U.S. EPA Off ice of Water Regulations and Standards.
2 0 m e r o d,. T. F.. 19 7 0. B-e-JAjd-Qn-ab_jp _B_Q_t_W_e_eD R-eAj _EjqjA_t_e _VA-111gax &.12gA-e
Aa Water Levels. Lake Erie Task Force, Department of Public Works,
Ottawar Ontario.
3 McCann, Jamesr 1969. Jnvea_t_Q.Ky _Q_f 2_Qjj-dq, I&Jig,$ _aD_d
Barnstabl Lmuityu Mas Water Resource Research Center, University
of Massachusetts.
4 LMS, 1982. BABgAll @QDAI=y
Nassau County Department of
Public Works, Mineola, New York.
5 Peters and Krause, 1979. -t-Q Ruic-A.1 IA"
VALIgyAlgx
System Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

E. FRESHWATER WETLANDS, SALT MARSHES AND.ESTUARIES

INTRODUCTION

.There are many terms (n one with much aesthetic appeal) in use to
describe wetlands, including marsh, swamp, bog, pothole and wet
meadow. Generally speaking, these are lowland areas which are covered
to some degree with water during a good part of the year. Due to, and
according to, the degree -of wetness, the soils and vegetation are
distinctive. Wetland plants must adapt to difficult growing
conditions in order to survive.

Coastal wetlands are generally tidal, e.g. salt marshes, and may be
described as estuarine if located in a region where fresh water meets
salt water, e.g. rivers with a tidal pulse. Inland wetlands are
generally freshwater in nature, and fed by flowing water or ground-
water.

Although saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands perf orm many simi-
lar roles in their respective -ecosystems, they are distinct enough to
be described separately.

FRESHWATER WETLANDS

During recent.years, coastal scientists have had some success in
convincing citizens and policy-makers of the importance of salt
marshes and estuaries. Their success in making a similar case for the
freshwater wetlands has been-markedlylower, the effort far more
difficult.

Freshwater wetlands have for many generations been perceived as
undesirable areas - stagnant, mucky, insect-infected, and unpleasant -
places best used for filling'or dumping. Their wildlife, including
birds, turtles and fish, often go unappreciated.

Even less appreciated, invisible, and complex is the biochemistry
which goes on in these waters. This chemistry is responsible for
purifying the water which flows through these lands. One of the most
important examples of this cleaning.action is the breakdown or removal
of nitrates, now known to be harmful to infants in concentrations as
low as 20-30 ppm (EPA. standard is 10 ppm.). Nitrates in our drinking
water supplies pose a Irapidly increasing problem since they are such
an important component of the fertilizers which we tend to apply so
liberally. Septic system leachate from on-site disposal systems is
another source of nitrate contamination. In sandy soils such as those
on the Cape, these dissolved salts tend to percolate rapidly away from
the reach of plant roots and into the groundwater. We shall be
depending upon our wetlands in ever greater measure to help to miti-
gate rising levels of nitrates in our.drinking water. In wetlands,
the water tends to move slowly through its heavy organic soils,
gaining the timenecessary for chemical reactions to occur as the
groundwater is recharged.

Anaerobic wetlands soils (lacking oxygen) are also coming to be asso-
ciated with effective absorption (withholding) of toxic heavy metals,
phosphatesf and some pesticides, thus removing or reducing their
circulation and furthering the wetland's role of improving water
qua 1 i ty. Clean water is a product of healthy wetland areas,, a most
important point to consider as we read daily of contaminated ground-
water in a growing number of communities.

Cape Cod is not as subject to inland flooding as many areas of the
country, but even here the freshwater wetlands play a-very important
role in holding and preserving excessive rainfall and ensuring its
gradual release into the groundwater. In this wayr water loss via
excessive runoff is checked, retention enhanced, and the maintenance
of a high water table ma-de more likely.

Like their coastal counterparts, inland wetlands serve as critical
wildlife habitats for which there is no substitute. There is no
replacement for the food, nesting sites, and shelter provided by these
areas. The stability and protection afforded in wetlands is crucial
to the survival of many species, including waterfowl, many of which
depend upon wetlands as a stop on their migration routes.

As we sacrifice our wetlands to other uses, we must expect to see
diminished the roles and functions described here. Perhaps we may
take heart in the fact that - at long last - the losses are beginning
to be noticed. A recent report in Congress from the Office of Tech-
nology Assessment raises the alert that we are destroying more than
400,000 acres of freshwater wetlands nationwide each year.

Gradually, the word is getting out that these wetlands are not waste-
lands. As we learn more about the complexities of these important
ecosystemsr we hope we can produce better laws and regulations to
preserve them. We had better not lose too much more time.

SALT MARSHES AND ESTUARIES

Salt marshes and estuaries are coastal features: they feel the pulse
of the tides and mediate between the land and the sea. They represent
that portion of the marine world closest to man's activities and are
first to absorb the effects of those activities.

During most of the year on Cape Cod, salt marshes appear quite brown
and dreary; to the casual observer, they would seem of dubious value.
It is therefor.e not surprising that people have sought to replace them
with what they have perceived to be more useful features, like
buildings, harbors, marinas. Since World War II such efforts have
cost the East Coast approximately 50% of its functional saltmarsh
acreage. Only recently have biologists and other coastal scientists
been able to make convincing arguments as to the importance of these
ecosystems.

A Cape Cod salt marsh is a delicately balanced, productive, and
protective ecosystem which is in turn dependent upon the protection of
other coastal features. Marshes cannot by themselves sustain the
assault of the open ocean, and are thus found tucked behind barrier

beaches, e.g. Sandy Neck, or along river banks of estuaries. They are
noted for their remarkable Spartina grasses which dominate the stable
habitat and support a complex and highly productive food wet. An
excerpt f rom.L_ift _an_d.De_a_t_b _Q_f jb_e. 9A_1_t M-alah by John and Mildred Teal
(1969) best describes one aspect of this biological productivity:

"Two thirds of the value of the commercial catch of
fish and shellfish landed on the East Coast of the
United States comes from species that live at least
part of their life cycles in marshy estuaries."

What the salt marshes provide is the food and protection necessary for
larval and juvenile marine organisms to reach a degree of maturity.
The grasses prevent these tiny animals and theirfood supply (smaller
plants and animals) being swept out to sea.

More than 25 years ago the Annual Report of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (1958) stated, "As our knowledge of the biology
of our major commercial and sport fishery resources grows, we are
becoming more and more impressed with the significance of estuaries
and inshore waters, from Maine to Florida, as breeding and nursery
grounds for many of the most important species". It is now apparent
that we must do much more than "become impressed". The plight of one
of the most extraordinary marsh-estuaries in the world, the
Chesapeake, has received wide publicity during the past year. Its
condition is a clear warning to all of us that our coastal systems
cannot be expected to continue to produce under the growing pressures
which we are imposing upon them. The decline of striped bass and
contamination of bluefish are merely the most obvious of the symptoms.

Salt marshes perform other functions important to coastal dwellers:
they attenuate and absorb billions of gallons of water brought ashore
by high tides, storm surges, winds, and related meteorological events.
To see a salt marsh at work during a good storm is a sight to behold.
In combination with a barrier beach (which intercepts heavy wave
action) a salt marsh provides one of the most protective coastal
systems known to man. It appears that salt marshes provide a signifi-
cant barrier to water moving from the opposite direction as well, the
groundwater emerging from our aquifer under the Cape. By virtue of
the elevated salinity (density) and saturation of salt marsh Peats,
the seaward flow (loss) of our fresh water from the aquifer is
,impeded.

Salt marshes take up and accommodate significant contributions of
domestic pollutants found in coastal runoff. -Some of these, e.g.
nitrates and phosphates, can act as fertilizers in reasonable concen-
trations, and bolster the overall productivity of the marsh. Others,
such as potentially toxic heavy metals and some pesticides, appear to
be sequestered to varying degrees by soils and plants (as in fresh-
water wetlands), and less is known about their cycling within the
ecosystem. There is strong agreement, however, that salt marshes play
a powerful role in maintaining the cleanliness of our coastal waters.
Unfortunately, the evidence is growing that we are not doing well in
looking after these waters. Fishermen report increasing percentages
of foul-smelling, tumor-ridden fishes in their catches. Coastal com-

munities, in order to release more sewage into our coastal waters, are
appealing for exemptions to the Massach-usetts Ocean Sanctuary Act.
Concerns have finally risen to the point where offshore dumping
qrounds (off Massachusetts and other New Enqland states) are cominq
under increased scrutiny by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admini stration.

There is no question about the value of our salt marshes. We need
them more than we have ever needed them before. To promote a caring
attitude about them, our citizens need to understand the roles of
these marvelous coastal systems. On Cape Cod, we are f ortunate to
have an especially fine coastal endowment which includes some 13,000
acres of salt marshes. But every year in every town, this acreage is
being relentlessly reduced - bit by bit, acre by acre. We must f ind
ways to preserve and protect what we have left.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In 1968 William Niering, Director of the Connecticut Arboretum, wrote,
"Although the nation's marshes, swamps, and bogs are among the most
productive landscapes in the world, these liquid assets have suffered
greater destruction and abuse than any other natural habitat manipu-
lated by man". Access to open water through wetlands should be
strictly limited. Only one or two well-elevated walkways should be
permitted for each subdivision.,

Paradoxically. wetlands are.-at once both resilient and vulnerable.
They can recover quite successfully from most natural disturbances,
but their ability to survive man-made impacts is less certain.
Draining, dredging, filling, and chemical pollution have proven over-
wbelming in their consequences. Wetlands are receiving increasingly
toxic levels of sewage,-pavement run-off, solid waste leachate, pesti-
cides, and fertilizers. They are being constantly nibbled away by
cumulative encroachments. It is estimated that we have reduced our
wetland assets nationwide (not including Alaska) from more than 125
million acres to fewer than 70 million acres, and that this destruc-
tion continues at a rate of at least 1%,per year. Towns should adopt
bylaws of greater protective stringency than those of the Common-
wealth, especially with reqard to run-off and to distances from septic
systems.

Recent data for Cape Cod (MacConnell, February 1984) show a heart-
warming decrease in the acreage of wetlands being lost to development.
The author. credits the Wetlands Protection Act and the work of conser-
vation commissions with this encouraging trend. However, we may not
complacently assume that the pressures are deterred. While large
tracts of wetland are thankfully more untouchable than they were 20
years aqo. the nibbling at the edges continues as conservation
commissions are required constantly to evaluate "significance" of
impact. The cumulative effect of dozens of small projects deemed less
than significant seems never to be assessed. Conservation commissions
should keep records of losses from wetland acreage, regardless of
size.

Another concern under the recently revised wetlands regulations, is
the acceptance of compensatory wetlands as a substitute for estab-
lished wetlands slated for sacrifice. Such contrived wetlands may
store flood waters to an acceptable degree, but we should not naively
assume that we can recreate the complex and productive ecosystem of a
wetland which has developed over hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.
In addition to sound drainage. design, any compensatory wetlands 1-,,ropo-
sal- must be carefully evaluated for nutrient potential.

Although wildlife exists in all areas of the Cape, it is most abundant
in estuaries, marshes and wetlands areas. Strengthening the protec-
tion of all state-listed endangered or threatened flora and fauna is a
top priority. (See list on following page.) State-listed species
should, within the Commonwealth, have the same status as federally-
listed species. Another essential element is aggressive land manage-
rient to assure that wildlife habitats are preserved. Finally, a
thorough examination should be made of -all open space or conservation
land purchases to assure that critical habitat is protected.

As Cape Cod tries to accommodate more human beings than it has ever
served before, we can expect the pressures to accelerate. Based upon
our understanding of wetlands and their capacity to carry out particu-
lar physical, chemical, and biological functions, we must take
effective action to save them -- in the long-term best interests of
everyone. Damage to wetlands from man's activities can be prevented
-- if we have the will to do so.

References

Banus, M.D., I. Valiela, and J. Teal, 1975. Lead, Zinc and Cadmium
Budgets in Experimentally Enriched Salt Marsh Ecosystems.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science (3): 421-430.
Giblin, A.E., A. Bourg, I. Valiela, and J. Teal, 1980. Uptake and
Losses of Heavy'Metals in Sewage Sludge by a New England Salt
Marsh, Amer. J. Botany 67(7): 1059-1068.
Nickerson, N.H., 1975. Salinities of Ambient and Interstitial Waters
of Some Cape Cod Salt Marshes, Dept. Biology, Tufts University.
Nickerson, N.H., 1978. Freshwater Wetlands: Their Nature and.
Importance to Man, New England Env. Network, Tufts University.
Niering, W., 1968. The Ecology of Wetlands in Urban Areas, Garden
Journal, NY Botanical Garden.
Nixon, S.W. and C. Oviatt, 1973. Ecology of a New England Salt
Marsh, Ecol. Monographs, 43(4): 463-498.
Nixon, S. W. and C. Oviatt, 1983. Estuarine Ecology - a Comparative
and Experimental Analysis, Graduate School of Oceanography,
Univ. R.I., (report to U. S. EPA).
Teal, J.M. and M. Teal, 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Macsh,
Atlantic-Little, Brown, Boston.
Thomson, B.F. ed., 1970. Preserving our Freshwater Wetlands,
Connecticut Arboretum Bull. No. 17, Conn. College.
Valiela, I., J. Teal and W. Sass, 1975. Production and Dynamics of
Salt Marsh Vegetation and the Effects of Experimental Treatment
with Sewage Sludge, J. Appl. Ecol (12): 973--982.-

29-

RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECII-EIS

Federally-listed Endangered Species

Reptiles: Atlantic Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacia) Marine; migrant
Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) - Marine; migrant; summer
resident
Atlantic Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) - Marine; migrant
Birds: Bald Eagle (Raliaeetus leucocephalus) - Coastal; migrant
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) - Coastal; migrant
Eskirio Curlew (Nunenius borealis) - Coastal; migrant
Mammals: Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). - Marine; migrant (spring,
fall); resident (winter)
Sei Whale (Balaenopte a borealis) Marine
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Marine
Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Marine; migrant; seasonal
resident
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) - Marine; migrant;
summer resident
Sperm Whale (Physeter macroephalus) - Marine

Federally-listed Threatened Species

Reptiles: Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas) Marine; migrant; summer
resident
Loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta) Marine; migrant; summer
resident

.State-listed Rare Species

Fish: Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus - Migratory marine
populations; freshwater breeding populations undocumented for
many years and probably extirpated.
Reptiles: Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene caroling caroling) - Woodland
Northern Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin
terrapin) - Saltmarsh; upland nester
Birds: Arctic Tern (Sterna baradisaea) - Migrant; barrier beach nester
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) - Migrant; barrier beach nester
Northern Parula (Parula americana) - Migrant; remnant breeding
population
Mammals: Gray Seal (Halichoerug. grypus) Migrant; winter resident
Plants: Slender Arrowhead (S ia teres) - Freshwater beaches
51,@t a r@
Sea Lime Grass (Elymus arenarius) Saltmarsh borders
Panic Grass (Panicum commonsianum.) Dry sandy clearings
Spike Rush (Eleocharia melanocarpa) Freshwater beaches
Dwarf Umbrella Grass (Fuirena Dumila) - Freshwater beaches
Golden Club (Orontium 7icu;) - Pond edge
Blue-eyed Grass (Sisyrinchium arenicola) - Sandy soil
Swamp Pink (Arethusa bulbosa) -,Swamps
Post Oak (Quercus stellata) - Sandy barrens
Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) - Sandy beaches
Rich's Sea Blight (Sueda richii) - Saltmarshes
Thread-leaved Sundew (Drosera filiformis) - Sandy pond shores
Broom Crowberry (Corema conradii) - Moors and barrens

State-listed Rare $2LL1@es (cont'd)

Common Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) -, Dry woods
Plymouth Gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) - Freshwater beaches
Butterfly-weed (Asclepias tuberosa - Sandy barrens
Two-flowered Bladderwort (Utricularia biflora) Ponds

State-listed Local Species

Amphibians: Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) - Temporary ponds;
woodlands
Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylum scutatum) - Bogs
Turtles: Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) - Ponds
Birds: American Bittern ( 'Botaurus lentiginosus) - Marsh;.nester
Marsh Hawk.(Circus cyaneus) Migrant; grasslands; nester
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Migrant; coastal nester
American Oystercatcher (Haematopua palliatu.0 - Migrant;
barrier beach nester
Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) - Migrant; grassland
nester
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) - Migrant; saltmarsh edge
nester
Red Knot (Calidris canutus) - Migrant
Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) - Migrant; barrier beach nester
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) - Migrant; barrier beach nester
Barn Owl (Tyto alba) - Nester
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) - Grassland nester
Purple Martin (Progne subis) - Migrant; nester
Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) - Grassland nester
Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes grami-neus) - Grassland nester

Of Special Concern - Cape Cod Breeding Birds Which Are Declining (in
addition to state-listed species)

Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nvcticorax) - Coastal thickets
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) - Barrier beach; may soon be federally-
listed as endangered
Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) - Pine barren woodland nester
Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialia) - Open field/grassland nester
Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) - Grassland nester

Non-Game Wildlife for Special Consideration in Massachusetts, Mass. Div. of
Fish and Wildlife 1983. Bradford G. Blodget and James E. Cardoza.

Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in Mass., New England Botanical
Club, 1978. Jonathan Coddington and Katharine G. Field.

F. THE WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT AND TOWN BYLAWS

The first .significant step towards the conservation of wetlands in
Massachusetts was the enactment of the Conservation Commission Act
(MGL. Chapter 40 Section 86 in 1957. This Act authorized the forma-
tion of conservation commissions in each state or city. The major
emphasis of the Act was on the development of techniques for the
acquisition of land that was deemed, for whatever reason, valuable to
preserve in its natural state. Initially the regulation of land use
was not a function of the conservation commissions. This function was
yet to come. Later, two pieces of legislation, the Jones Act (MGL 130
section 27A 1963) entitled "An Act Providing for the Protection of the
Coastal Wetlands of the Commonwealth", and the Hatch Act (MGL Chapter
131 Section 40 (1965) entitled "Protection of Floodplains, Seacoasts
and Other Wetlands", were passed. Their main function was to alert a
number of town aqencies and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
to projected development or other activities in coastal and inland
wetland areas. Later this function of the DNR was taken over by the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). a division of
the Office of Environmental Affairs. The Massachusetts Legislature
initially believed that these statutes would protect an unsuspecting
public from unscrupulous or unknowledgeable developers and likewise.
ignorant home-owners from their own ignorance. These statutes became
known as dry basement laws. Rarely, however, did they protect wet-
lands, contrary to the implication of their titles.

Inadequacies of this leqislation led in 1972 to the combination of the
two statutes into a single act, entitled "An Act Relative to the
Protection of Wetlands", or more succinctly the Wetlands Act (MGL
Chapter 131, Section 40 (1972). At the same time, the Jones Act was
repealed. The primary administrative responsibility for the new Act
was put into the hands of -the municipalities, with conservation
commissions chosen as the local vehicles for implementation.

On Cape Cod, because a state senator had been the primary sponsor of
one of the original statutes (the Jones Act) and because of an
awakening of public consciousness of the need to protect the Cape's
water resources. the enforcement of the Wetlands Act was pursued with
vigor and often with little regard to the actual working of the
statute. In a relatively short time, shortcomings of the Wetlands Act
became apparent. As a result, thanks to the efforts of the Massachu-
setts Association of Conservation Commissions in cooperation with
various state agencies, requlations were devised and adopted. These
requlations essentially changed a statute which initially was designed
to protect people, into a statute f or the protection of the
environment. This change reflected a slow and steady realization that
the protection of wetlands was more important than the protection of
dr y basements; the environment became more important than the people
occupying it.

Reflecting an increased concern for the protection of wetlands, two
acts, the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (MGL. Chapter 131, Section
40A) (1976) and the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (MGL. Chapter
130, Section 105) (1976) were passed. Under the Department of Envi-
ronmental Manaqement both of these acts resulted in mapping of and

deed restrictions to a number of critical wetland areas. Generally
the project was ineffect 'iver partly due to bad mapping practices
(lines on some maps were thick enough to represent 16 feet of land)
and partly due to the fact that the existence of the restrictions was
forgotten or ignored.

Both wetlands restriction programs are now administered by the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). When the
coastal program was first implemented, only salt marshes were
restricted, using the USGS topo maps. The methodology has now been
updated with the use of ortho photographs, at a scale of 1:5000. In
addition to salt marsh acreage, dunes and barrier beaches are now
restricted. Those Cape towns that have had only salt marsh acreage
restricted are Eastham? Orleans? and Truro. Those towns that have had
salt marsh, dunes and their barrier beaches restricted are Barnstable,
Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Falmouth, Harwich, Provincetown,
Sandwich,, Wellfleet, and Yarmouth. Bourne is the only.Cape town to
have both its coastal and inland wetlands restricted, using ortho
photos. Mashpee has not had any wetland acreage restricted. All
towns, with the exception of Mashpee, have been flown and ortho photos
have been produced for them. Each restricted town has a set of maps
delineating the restricted wetlands.

Many wetlands areas are not protected by the Wetlands Act. There are
a dozen ways in which bordering wetlands can be altered, despite the
Act and despite newer, tougher regulations: exemptions under the Act
(agricultural, cranberry operatio "ns, mosquito control, aquaculture),
emergencies, limited projects, 5,000 square feet (with replication),
500 square feet of finger-like projections, variances, overcoming the
presumptions of significance, a special act of the legislature and
areas not subject to jurisdiction under the new regulations, such as
isolated depressions and intermittent streams. Many of these
loopholes could be closed for critical resource areas through the
restriction process.

The wetlands restriction' progr am is an important land-use tool for
Cape towns. Mashpee should petition to have its wetlands, both
coastal and inland:, restricted, and Eastham, Truro and Wellfleet
should be re-restricted, using the ortho-photos. In addition, all the
towns should consider having their inland wetlands restricted.

In 1981 an Executive Order was issued for the protection of barrier
beaches. However, the Executive Order really serves only as an
economic barrier. For in,stancer if the barrier beach/uplands dune
area is wide enough to satisfy Board of Health sewage disposal
requirements, and if certain assurances are supplied (technical and
environmental information required for development, engineering design
and construction practi@ces:-to be folIowed)@.- then development can take
place under the present lavand regulations. Money, patience and time
are all that is necessary, and most developers have plenty of all
these commodities.

From 1972 on, frequent minor amendments to the Wetlands Act were made,
but substantive changes in the interpretation of the Act took place
through the regulations which were designed to clarify and sharpen the

application of the Act. Regulations, once- promulgated by the state
environmental agency, became existing law. In 1978 fairly comprehen-
sive regulationsf'. largely prompted by'the formation and funding of the
CZF1 programse were published by the DEQEr but these regulations still
had inadequacies leading to a thorough review in 1983. Since the late
1970s Cape Cod conservation commissions have shown increasing concern
for the importance of wetland protection, and recent records indicate
that losses to wetland acreage have been sharply reduced during the
past 8-10 years (ViacConnell, Land Use Update for Cape Cod, February
1984).

One concern, however, which accompanies the 1983 revisions to the
wetlands regulations, is that non-bordering wetlands and small inland
ponds (less than 10,000 square feet) and their borders no longer fall
under the jurisdiction of the Act (unless subject to flooding). This
change is a part of a compromise which resulted:in the removal of most
of the Commonwealth's significant wetlands areas from the potential
for development, while significantly reducing the regulation of upland
adjacent to wetland areas.

in spite of the apparently extensive nature of the vario us state
wetlands protection acts, there are continued problems with the pro-
tection of areas deemed valuable. For example, wildlife, wildlife
habitats, recreation areas and areas that should be preserved for
aesthetic reasons are not subject to protection under the existing
state Wetlands Act and its regulations. Any attempts to do so would
probably be promptly over-ruled by the DEQE. This has led municipali-
ties to search for alternatives. The answer appears to be in the form
of local wetlands-protection bylaws. Through these bylaws, clear
authority can be created for the protection of these additional
interests. Although local bylaws vary from town to town, their
overall effect is to increase the regulatory power of a community
beyond the limits of the statutes of the Commonwealth.

This brief overview, gives some perspective for a more detailed exami-
nation of both the legislation and the regulations now in place, so
that concrete recommendations for the improved protection of wetlands,
open space, habitat areas and areas of aesthetic value can be made.

The Wetlands Protection Act,, -as interpreted by current regulations,
addresses seven (7) specific interests: private or public water
supply, groundwater supply, flood control, storm damage prevention,
prevention of pollution, land containing shellfish, and fisheries.
Regulated activities are dredging, filling, removing, or altering. The
resource areas to be protected are any bank, freshwater wetland,
coastal wetland, beach, dune, flat, marsh, or swamp bordering on the
ocean, and any estuary, creek, river, stream, pond, or lake. Also
subject to protection are any water bodies listed above, land subject
to tidal action, land subject to coastal storm flowage and land
subject to flooding.

The revised regulations in 1978 addressed only the sections dealing
with coastal wetlands but they served as the model format for the
subsequent 1983 revisions. These revisions clarified set standards
and assisted local conservation commissions by providing valuable

working guidelines. The CZM program provided funding for such techni-
cal personnel as a coastal geologist and a coastal wetland specialist.
These additional staff personnel were responsible for the advances to
coastal wetland protection that have taken place since 1978.

In 1983 (general) regulations which contained details of procedures,,
presumptions, jurisdiction and purposes were revised to be more
explicit, and the Freshwater or Inland Wetland Regulations, Section
III, were rewritten. In addition, these revisions to the regulations
were accompanied by improved forms for filing, both with the state and
with the local conservation commission, for permits or determination
requests for proposed work. The intent of these revisions was to
detail the performance standards for work and the jurisdiction of the
conservation commissions for freshwater wetlands in the same manner as
had been done for the coastal wetlands in the 1978 revisions. S ome
modifications, particularly with regard to performance standards for
work in or near a bordering vegetated wetland, became more strict in
terms of enforcement, while some of the regulations relative to the
100 foot buffer zone became less restrictive. It should be recognized
clearly that these modifications were made to "appease" specific
interest groups. First, the most valuable wetland resource areas
could be clearly identified and were to be protected "to the hilt".
At the same time, project proponents were given some relief from what
were perceived to be potentially "over- regulating" conservation
commi ssions,

other provisions of the revised regulations allow a property owner to
construct or maintain reasonable access to his/her property. On the
Cape this may have serious consequences. Before the new regulations
were adopted, an access road across a salt marsh or bog to an upland
parcel of land might have been successfully denied. However, now if
it can be shown that the ONLY reasonable access is provided by such a
road and other requirements can be met, e.g. compensatory provisions
elsewhere on the property for lost wetland areas, then it may be
possible to obtain the desired access and to develop the land. In any
event, since a commission is still obligated to protect the interests
of the Wetlands Act and the resource areas, it has the right to
require enough detailed information on a project to evaluate and
document its projected impact. It also has the right to demand that
any proposed project within any resource area be supported by informa-
tion derived from the best available technology. Orders of Conditions
for the project by the conservation commission can be drafted without
regard to the cost to the community as long as the commission's
actions, policies and concerns are reasonable and authorized by
statute. In summaryt there is divided opinion about the 1983 regula-
tions.

On Cape Cod, wetlands protection could be significantly improved by
the drafting of reasonable and comprehensive application guidelines or
regulations to be used in conjunction with the local laws. These
guidelines should be as uniform as possible, and they should put the
onus on the applicant for providing good baseline data.

Data provided to commissions should include:

1. Complete resource identification done on the basis of local
and state def initions. This should include the labelling
and mapping of vegetated and geomorphic resource areas, a
written description of how the decisions about location and
labelling were made, and a vegetative species list.

2. Topographic mapping by a reqistered land surveyor using as a
base National Geodetic vertical datum, not an assumed datum.
This is especially important in mapped flood zones where
an assumed datum may show an area which actually floods as
being above the flood elevation.

3. Relationship of the project to interests to be protected.
This means supplying locus maps of the project on SCS soils
maps, MacConnell's maps, DMF/CZM or local shellf ish and
fisheries maps. and maps supplied by the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage Group showing habitat of rare and
endanqered species.

4. Engineering plans prepared by certified professionals.
showing both existing and proposed features, especially
final grading, which is commonly left off plans.

5. Other relevant studies prepared by qualified professionals,
depending upon the specific project, such as drift studies
by a coastal geologist for shoreline work.

Commissions also need to decide what it is they are protecting under
the interests of wildlife habitat, recreation and aesthetics, if these
interests appear in their bylaw.

A second type of decision that is problematic for wetlands regulators
is how to take into account the pollution attenuation capability of
wetlands. For example. siting septic systems far from an unveqetated
pond edge is more important than locating them far from one with a
wetlands edge. but this difference is often not recoqnized in deci-
sions. Wetlands can also serve to buffer surface waters from the
harmful effects of "urban" drainaqe flows but only within limits. A
policy of making appropriate use of this cleansing capability could be
beneficial but it is much more difficult to implement than a policy of
blanket prohibition of drainage into wetlands because greater techni-
cal expertise and judgment is required.

The role of the local conservation commission is not an easy one.
Gaining a thorougb grasp of the detailed working of state and local
laws pertaining to the protection of wetlands is a demanding require-
ment in itself. Then. there has to be understanding of how wetlands
requlations mesh with other federal. state and local regulations.
Large amounts of time. enerqy and knowledge are necessary to prepare
adequate documentation for decisions that will be tight enough to
withstand appeal to the DEOE or the courts. It is a regrettable fact
that a developer with time, money, legal counsel and persistence can
usually nullify the conservation commission's difficult decisions.

Conservation commissions' problems could be alleviated by having
access to the advice of knowledgeable environmental experts and
lawyers but most conservation commission budgets are hopelessly inade-
quate. There is no money to hire experts or even significant admin-
istrative help. Some local conservation commissions do not even have
the ability to monitor work projects that they have approved.
Regrettably the setting of Orders of Conditions is too commonly the
end of the involvement in development projects by this key local body.

A lack of financial support is intimately tied to the attitude of
local town officials and finance committees. In some towns these
bodies not only do not supply any support, they are positively antago-
nistic to the work of their commission. A reversal of this attitude
is a top priority if continued vigorous protection of wetlands is to
be guaranteed. It is ironic that improving support for the
commissions would probably be easier if commissions had assistance.
Part-time commissioners who are struggling to meet decision deadlines
do not have much opportunity to cultivate the support of other town
officials or the general public.

@37

G.. WASTE DI SFCSAL - SEWAGE AND SEPTAGE

ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL

Over 90 percent of Cape Cod's population disposes of its sewage
through on-site disposal sys.tems. Such systems include older
cesspools and more current septic systems comprising separation tanks
and leaching facilities.

The primary functions of the on-site disposal system are to preclude
public health hazards (systems backing up to the surface of the
ground) and to allow'for the percolation of waste water through the
system in a manner that results in as little contamination as possible
to ground and/or surface waters. Although no passive on-site sewage
disposal system completely removes all threats to water,quality, it is
widely recognized that the effectiveness of these on-site systems is
directly proportional to the distance between the leaching facility
and the groundwater, the types of soils through which the leachate is
flowing and the capacity of the disposal system to separate liquids
and solids.

The first and second criteria, the distance between the leaching
facility and the groundwater an-d the types of soils in which the
leaching facility is located, are obviously independent of the type of
disposal system. However, the capacity. of systems to separate solids
and liquids is vastly different.

Cesspools (Fiaure 1) typically consist of nothing more than a perfo-
rated pit, located below existing grade, into which household sewage
directly flows. Since there is no separation of liquids and solids,
except by normal gravity, frequently the perforations become plugged
with solids and the system fails. The cesspool becomes filled, and
the system backs up, causing raw sewage to flow to the ground surface
where it becomes a direct threat to public health. Once plugged,
strong acids and organic solvents, both serious groundwater contami-
nants, are frequently used to clean out the facility.

Cesspools are characteristically associated with older structures as
installation of this type of system has been prohibited since adoption
of the State Environmental Code, Title V, in 1977. Before that date,
there were no established criteria for the siting of cesspools, so
many of them were, and are presently, installed too close to or
actually into the water table. Such placement provides an easy path
for the movement of many sewage contaminants into the groundwater.

Since 1977 new on-site sewage disposal systems must be designed at a
minimum to the specifications of Title V. (Individual towns can
enforce even stricter standards). The newer Title V systems include a
primary separation tank to promote the separation of solids from the
effluent prior to the flow of the wastewater to the leaching facility.
(Figure 2.). Another requirement of Title V is a minimum of a four
foot vertical distance between the bottom of the leaching facility and
the highest observed groundwater elevation. The State Code also sets
specified setback distances for septic systems from wetland resource
areas.

While the past Titl e V systems provide for improved operation and more
effective microbiological breakdown than cesspools, both types of
systems fail to remove appreciable amounts of nitrate-nitrogen, a
major by-product of human sewage and a prime threat to the quality of
Cape Cod's aquifer. Nitrate-nitrogen moves readily from the system
into and through the groundwater and is not removed-as the effluent
plume passes through soils. Long Island is now requiring in some
instances denitrifying on-site sewage disposal systems, but, it would
appear that, to date, the most effective control of nitrate-nitrogen
(and other contaminants that are not removed by percolation) comes
through regulating population density, i.e., a strategy of prevention,
not treatment.

Although it. is important to recognize the limitations of even the best
conventional on-site systems and plan accordingly, Title V systems are
a distinct advance over the old cesspools.

EXISTING MUNICIPAL SEPTAGE DISPOSAL METHODS

Septage refers to those solids which accumulate in cesspools and
septic systems and are periodically removed through pumping. With
cesspools the pumping occurs as necessary; for sept-ic systems prevent-
ive maintenance pumping once every 2 to 4 years is recommended
depending upon the annual rate of dwelling occupancy. Septage haulers
transport this material to municipal disposal facilities. On Cape Cod
three types of facilities are currently used: 1) septage pits; 2)
septage lagoons;. and 3) septage treatment plants (see Figure 3).

Septage pits and lagoons offer little or no treatment of septic waste.
These facilities basically consist of open unlined holes or series of
holes dug into the ground. Both pits and lagoons operate by allowing
the septage to settlefor a period of time, causing the liquid and
solid material to separate. The liquid effluent percolates through
the soil, while the solids are retained.

Pits have a limited life span and once their capacity has been reached
they are simply covered over and buried. Lagoons are somewhat more
sophisticated than pits in that they incorporate sand f ilter beds to
facilitate the percolation of the liquid effluent.. Theoretically a
larger volume of septage can be treated with a lagoon. Once the
solids have dewatered sufficiently they may be physically removed and
composted or buried in the landfill.

Water quality treatment provided by the lagoon system is not substan-
tially different from that received in an open pit. Some anaerobic
digestion occurs in the settling of septage, but generally very little
treatment is provided. Some removal of bacteria, viruses, suspended
and dissolved solids occurs after the effluent has percolated down
through the sand beds, but many pollutants are not absorbed and are
therefore a significant source of groundwater contamination.

Major drawbacks of septage pits and lagoons include: 1) uncertainty
of groundwater quality protection; 2) odor problems; 3) possible
vector problem (e.g. flies, rodents); 4) soil clogging from grease of

unsettled solids overflowing to percolation beds, which may prevent
inf iltration; and 5) poor stabilization of septage; (anaerobic
digestion can only occur if bacteria have optimal environmental
conditions). Low temperatures, grease, chemicals or detergents may
upset the biological equilibrium, allowing little or no breakdown of
solids to occur. Finally, poor settling and dewatering
characteristics of septage may make lagoons difficult to dry out,
rendering the resulting residue difficult to handle.

EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES

Barnstable, Chatham and Falmouth have limited wastewater collection
and treatment facilities. These facilities consist of sewers which
transport wastewater from individual homes and businesses to central
locations for secondary treatment. Secondary treatment consists of
the removal of solids and biological digestion. These treatment
plants do not remove appreciable amounts of nitrogen.

Barnstable and Chatham treated waters are discharged to the ground,
whereas Falmouth currently uses an ocean outfall. Due to a state law
(the Ocean Sanctuaries Act) it is unlike-ly that future outfalls will
be permitted.

The discharges at Barnstable and Chatham have caused nitrogen contami-
nation of groundwater at those- sites. In the case of Chatham the
disposal site is near and upgradient to an estuary, Cockle Cove Creek.
Hence the groundwater discharges directly to the estuary and is not a
source of drinking water. Estuarine ecosystems generally are able to
utilize nutrients such as nitrogen without detrimental effects; how-
ever, coliform contamination of shellfish resources frequently occurs
resulting in closure of these resource areas

I*n Barn stable, however, the disposal site is inland and upgradient
from lakes, ponds.and possible drinking water supplies. Contaminated
groundwater at this'site flows southerly toward these freshwater
resources and eventually discharges to Nantucket Sound. Hydrogeologic
studies are currently underway to determine the extent of this
groundwater contamination.

PRESENT AND FUTURE MUNICIPAL FUNDING PROGRAMS FOR 201 FACILITIES
PLANNING

The Federal Clean Waters Act authorizes grants for the planning,
design and construction of public wastewater treatment facilities
under Section 201. To date, *grants have been awarded to Barnstable,
Bourne, Chatham,, Falmouth, Orleans, Sandwich, Wellfleet and Yarmouth.
Only three towns (Barnstable, Chatham and Falmouth) 'have proceeded to
the construction phase. The town of Orleans is presently in the
design phase,, along with Brewster and Eastham. The three towns plan
to share a septage treatment facility, which has been planned for a
coastal site adjacent to a salt marsh. The town of Bourne is also
currently in the design phase.

Actions at the federal level to reauthorize Section 201 fundinq indi-
cate that the federal share of these projects, currently at 75 per-
cent. is likely to drop to 55 percent. This will put a greater
financial burden on municipalities to plan, design and construct
treatment and disposal facilities. This fact. coupled with an appa--
rent lack of support on the part of Cape Codders for capital inten-
sive. technoloqical solutions such as wastewater collection systems.
indicates an increased need for preventive actions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The fifteen towns of Cape Cod need to address existing problems with
sewage/septage disposal. Effective action will include the develop-
ment of adequate septaqe treatment and disposal facilities for Bourne.
Brewster, Dennis, Eastham, Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans. Sandwich, Truro,
Wellfleet and Yarmouth-, Proper on-site treatment programs including
mandatory maintenance pumping, enforcement of existing regulations and
standardiz ation of health reqqlations on a Cape-wide basis are needed
to insure the proper protection of water supplies and water resources.

Equally important is the prevention of future sewaqe disposal prob-
lems. Strict enforcement of regulations which require existing
cesspool systems to be brought. into compliance with Title V before any
building or plumbing permits are issued for additions, remodeling or
conversions is strongly recommended. Growth controls and careful
planning may preclude the need for future sewers. as sewers become
necessary only when the waste from development exceeds the carrying
(or more correctly, disposal) capacity of the land. Sensitive areas
where such capacities are low include recharqe areas or zones of
contribution to public supply wells," private wells and f uture water
supplies, poorly flushed lakes,. ponds and coastal embayments, and
areas where existing soil characteristics inhibit adequate
percolation. Appropriate bylaws and requiations must be developed,
adopted and enforced to,protect these areas. This will require the
availability of more personnel. with greater expertise. to the Boards
of Health. Conservation Commissions. Planning Boards and/or Natural
Resource Departments.

If Cape Cod continues to be developed without the emplacement of
adequate planning, zoning and health regulations and without adequate
enforcement of these requlations,,additional water resource contamina-
tion will occur. Elevated nitrate-nitrogen levels will force abandon-
'ment of drinking water supplies;.lakes and ponds will experience
accelerated rates of eutrophication; and coastal embayments will be
closed for shellfishing, fishing and possibly swimming. Individuals
with enough foresight, knowledge and perseverance must act now, while
the opportunity still exists. to guide Cape Cod's growth so as not to
exceed its natural capacity.to, assimilate, wastes. The no action
alternative is not attractive. It will mean either irreversible
changes in environmental quality or painfully expensive future
solutions.

rri
co
J3
co
5E

ITJ
77@

rr,

2A.. IL &
Cl) C@l
pf, -,' .,
co co

Cf)

rn
777@:

C'@ S,*'

itz

rr,

Figure 3

TRURO
zoCOON OF 5EWAGE1,5EPT,4(9E
ASPOA 1r,4C1VT1ES ON PROYINCETMN El
, _7
C,4PE COP 0

KEY
0 5EPTAGEP1TN0TAPPR0l1EPBYPk-.QE WEI-I-FLEET
0 SEPTAGE LAGDON [email protected] INTERIN APP9011AL
N. SEPTAGE LAGOON WITH DEQ.E- PERhfANEN7-,4PPif0i,144,EASTHAAI
SEMAGE TREATMENT Pl-,4NT

0A'1- E,4 Ns
BREWSTER 0
BOURNE
SANDWICH DENN16 0

RARNICH CHAT11A

YARMOUTH

0 BARNSTABLE

ASHPEE

FALMOUTH

0 2 4
cmm=zzm=m= SSACHLISETTS
1 13
,5C,4LE IN VILES
C,4PE COD, M,43SWPUSETTS W,4
44

TABLE I SUMMARY OF ADOPTIONS OF 208 RECONIMENDATIONS

0
4j 4J
C3 CD
4J 4-; (A
4@ 0 0
4J >
Ln
0 Cd Cd ct zt ;_4 Cj Ij
Cn co 0 Cf)
"208" Rocwji;iiendations

Health agent eillployed x x x x x W x x Ix (X) (x) x
(X) x

Title V amendi-iients enacte(Al
x x x x x X x x x x x

x x x x
Septage regulations x x x x

x
On-site system -files developed x
x x x x

S;Initary SUrVOYS C0ndLICt0d
througli 201's or other studies x x x x x x
x x x x

x
Chemicai clean.Ln@, agents banned x x x x
x

Upgracving required:
x x x
O@ 11:ailcd systclyls: x x x x
J.
Ix
of cesspools: x x x x x
x

for alterations: x x x x x x x
x I x x

Financj:.al aid available to
low income residents

(x) town buildl-ing inspector sorves is licalth agent.
Source: Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission

H. HEALTH REGULATIONs To PROTECT GROUND WATER

Groundwater contamination is a public health concern for many reasons.
To beqin with. since the drinking water supply on Cape Cod is essen-
tially from ground water, large segments of the population can be
exposed to harmful constituents present in the aquifer system.
Infinitesimally small amounts of certain chemicals in groundwater, on
the or-der of parts per billion. are considered to be a health threat.
Unless comprehensive water quality monitoring is provided for or
undertaken by communities, serious contamination can be present but
remain undetected indefinitely. The public health effects of.dis-
solved or dispersed pollutants in drinking water range from short-term
acute response, such as blue baby syndrome (the result of ingesting
elevated levels of nitrates) to development of chronic conditions.
varticularly cancer. Many chemicals identified in groundwater conta-
mination incidents nationwide are known or suspected carcinogens.

Once groundwater contamination occurs, rehabilitation of the resource
is extremely costly and frequently less effective than.desired. By
far the most advantageous method of dealing with groundwater degrada-
tion is to prevent it from occurring at all. The preventive approach
is currently being exercised by local officials on Cape Cod.

While zoning has been a. useful tool to govern land use and subsequent
effects on the environment, its value is limited.1 First, existing
land uses are unaffected by zoning. Second, political problems can
arise when upgraded zoning affects extensive areas of town and indi-
viduals perceive regulation of land use as a ta-king without just
compensation. Finally, special permit granting authorities set up to
pass judgment on variance applications may grant permits by subjective
determinations based on political pressure or legal loopholes, rather
than sound scientific and/or engineering documentation.

To augment the benefits of zoning, towns have turned to enactment of
health requaltions on the local level. The health regulation approach
avoids many of the problems of zoning while accomplishing some of the
same goals. However. great care should be exercised in the adoption
of these requiations to try to standardize them throughout the Cape
and to make sure of their leqal validity. Chapter 111. Section 31 of
the Massachusetts General Laws confers tremendous authority on local
boards of health to pass requlations deemed necessary to protect
public health. Using this delegation of power, each of the 15 boards
of health on Cape Cod has adopted various ordinances dealing with
environmental protection for public health purposes. There follows a
general summary of these laws, a discussion of their effectiveness,
and an outline of future needs.

TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HEALTH REGULATION

The 208 Water Quality Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod recommended
development of local health requlations aimed at groundwater protec-
tion. One of the model ordinances developed by the Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commission requlates toxic and hazardous
materials at the local level. Over half of the Cape towns adopted the
ordinance as either a bylaw or a health regulation. The two forms of

the law are similar and provide for management of virgin.materialsr an
area generally ignored by state and federal regulations which deal
primarily with large amounts of hazardous wast . while local ordin-
ances can apply to large quantity waste disposal, they are usually
concerned more with use, storage and disposal of amounts of toxic and
hazardous materials not subject to state and federal regulations. The
activities of smaller businesses which handle seemingly insignificant
volumes of hazardous materials present a greater threat to Cape Cod's
groundwater quality than the slim possibility of large-scale hazardous
waste dumping. It should be noted, however, that most local regula-
tions deal only with underground storage. Local regulations should be
revised to include hazardous waste inventories and process discharges
to septic systems.

Those local ordinances which do govern toxic and hazardous materials
have two unique components: a registration requirement and an inspec-
tion process. All firms storing over threshold quantities of toxic
and hazardous materials must file specific information with the Board
of Health concerning handling of the compounds. The term "toxic and
hazardous materials" has a broad definition so that listings are
comprehensive. Once the Board of Health obtains registration forms,
inspections of firms are conducted on a priority basis. The visits
are meant not only to observe how materials are used, stored and
disposed of, but also to answer questions and offer suqgestions on
optimal means of handling.

To date the most successful program has been conducted- in Barnstable,
where a staffed health department is adequate to the task of implemen-
.tation. It is clear from that town's experience that other towns need
resources in addition to public education about the threat of small
quantities of toxic and hazardous materials to drinking water
supplies. Most other towns that have adopted a. toxic and hazardous
ordinance lack the staff in their health departments to carry out
meaningful implementation. Enforcement of groundwater protection
strategies will require greater funding. one point of view is that
inspection of and education about toxic and hazardous materials may
best be handled on a county-wide basis through expertise hired as
staff or consultants to the Barnstable County Health Department.

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS

The leaking tank incident in Truro during 1978 Provided effective
impetus for almost all Cape towns to adopt health regulations for
underground fuel storage tanks. Recognizing the threat of gross water
supply contamination from hydrocarbon fuels and the exorbitant cost of
clean-up, boards of health and/or local fire departments acted between
1979 and 1983 to devise storage and inspection regulations for hydro-
carbon fuels. Three facets of the health regulation help minimize the
potential of groundwater contamination from leaking tanks: 1) regis-
tration of underground storage tanks with the board of health and/or
fire department; 2) inventory control and leak testing; and 3) regula-
tion of new tank installations.

Table 2 SU.1MRY__0_F LOCALHEALT11 REGUL.ATIO%S SUPPLEMEN7ING TITLE V_

Minimum Distances From: p f Dfs-posal Works Minimum Leaching Septage Haulers
Y:rj ada
Parameters at for Construction Area-Design Regulations
Governed all "suface water supply Soil Test Permit Flo.
By Title V c. water course Validity Calculations.
d. drain Period
e. downhill slope

ss4ptic Tank Leaching Facility
Title V a. so,-- 77 lug, Any time 2 years Required area variei Not specified
b. so- b. 1001 of year with percolation
Requirements c. 2S1 c. SO, rate-110 gal/bedro/
d. 2S1 d. 2S1 day design flow
a. 1SOIx slope a. 150'x glope

Bamstable C. 100. a. ISO, Any time 400 sq.ft. Licensed hauler required
c. 100, of ye@ to use septage treatment
5-17-8 3 USGS minimum leach- facility and are prohibited
Guideline* ing area. from using septic system cleaners

Bourne c. 100, c. 100, Licensed septage haulers shall
report name, address, date and
10-27-82 type of system service prior to
disposal

Eeptage hauler must submit special
Brewster c. 100, Engineer at
d. 1001 septage coupons to Town
7-28-81 time of disposal providing name.address.
date, type of system "r,ices and
volume pumped for each customer.

Chatham b. 100, c. 100, When ground 1 year I or 2 bedrms-28S-2
water is at 3 bedrooms 38S",
12-82 c. SO- highest 4 bedrooms 4851,
elevation 5 bedrooms 58S'-

Dennis b. 1001 c. 75' single family High water I year 115 gallbedroom Haj@!ers must submit coupons at Zate
c. 100, multiply time of @h e leaching field house with name. nddress and total
12-7-76 family year (no utilized gallons on reverse side.
e. daces
specified)

anytime Septage haulers must submit septage
Eastham C. 001 co@pons to Board of lic-alth at time of
c , disDosal
d: 180: d. 100'

Falmouth c. So' c. 100, *.:onthly seprage pumping report contain-
ing name, address, date and volume
2 pumped is required.

Far.ich b. 1001 c. 100' 1401'gal/bdrmiday Se!tage hauler shall Drovide town with
rornat@on required on septage coupons
10- 1-78.
Mashpee a. 1001 c. 75' single familyl I ye@ 115 gallbedro
b. 1001 C. 1001multiply Any time when leaching field
7-27-77 of year utilized
USGS
Guideline-

e as Bourne)
Orleans (Sa.-

C. 751 for accrued (S-e as Bourne)
land

S.nd.ich c. 100, (Same as Bourne)
9- 15-72 d. 1001

(S.=e as Bourne)
T @ZO4 - 7 9

Wellfleet c 50' .c. 100' (Same as Bourne)
6-2 5-84
%'o%,;:J,un onths
Yarmouth 100, a. 150, th 6 n
0
b. i0o, c. 100, uater -able
B-2 5-78 c. 50' d. 100, st be '0'
.d. 501 be I @.. ,round
UG
r.uid.line'

-r@7pzer, Mieael H., 1930, 'Praba@le 11;gh Ground -'Kat er Lev
els on C-;Pe Cod, MA" V.S. Cociog4cal Survey Open ;@Iort -;0-1008
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission

Under this Cape-wide program dozens of leaking tanks have been dis-
covered, many in public supply well recharge areas. These tanks have
been removed and replaced with state-of-the-art facilities in all
instances. While most town health and/or fire regulations apply to
both commercial and residential tanks, the hesitancy of homeowners to
register fuel storage facilities has caused the ordinance to focus
primarily upon commercially owned tanks. However. local officials are
concerned about residential tanks with 1,000 to 2,000 gallon capaci-
ties which are increasing in number almost as fast as new homes. Even
though commercial tanks are more likely to leak, due to dipsticking
practices and greater outward pressure in the larqer tanks. the
necessity for monitoring residential installations is clear. Towns
may need to consider revising their regulations and educational
efforts to transfer greater initiative and awareness onto the home-
owner for reqistering and monitoring individual tanks. For example.
records of new domestic installations should be registered with the
Building Department.

Developing technology in the area of underground leak detection may
also necessitate revision of local ordinances as more accurate methods
become available. Towns may also want to consider more frequent
testing requirements on underground storage of unleaded fuel since its
composition makes it extremely soluble in ground water and ther6fore
even more difficult and costly to clean up than other fuel types.

HERBICIDE REGULATION

Two recent developmentst EPA designation of Cape Cod as a Sole Source
Aquifer and state legistation requiring utilities to notify towns of
their intent to spray herbicides, led in 1982 to region-wide action
,controlling the use of herbicide chemicals. Through the work of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs.
local officials became aware that the Cape Cod aquifer is extremely
susceptible to contamination by pesticides with certain characteris-
tics. ("Pesticides" in this context refers to all herbicides, insec-
ticides, fungicides and rodenticides). Fourteen of the fifteen Cape
towns (Provincetown being the exception) passed health regulations
during 1982 to prohibit or restrict herbicide use along powerline and
railroad track easements. Recognizing that this genre of regulations
dealt only with a small area of pesticide use, a comprehensive model
'health requlation was developed for protecting groundwater resources
from contamination by any type of pesticide application. The model.
being much more extensive than the original right-of-way restriction,
was received cautiously by local boards of health despite having been
reviewed for legal appropriateness by the consultant staff of CCPEDC.
However. Brewster. Dennis, Bourne. Falmouth and potentially Orleans
have adopted all or part of the CCPEDC model.

The area of pesticide manaqement is extremely complex and controver-
sial. Local officials are concerned about incidents of pesticide
contamination elsewhere in the country and implications for the fra-
gile Cape Cod aquifer. However, evaluating the threat to groundwater
of pesticide application requires technical expertise often beyond the
expertise of most local decision-makers. Clear, concise, factual
information is needed to allow boards of health to develop justifiable

regulations o -n pesticide use. Once aqain. the suggestion has been
made that appropriate staff expertise be made available to the Towns
t-hrough the CountV Health Department.

SUPPLEMENTS TO TITLE V, STATE SANITARY CODE FOR INSTALLATION OF
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM

The-state of Massachusetts i n 1977 developed a minimum code governing
design and installation of wastewater disposal systems, particularly
septic systems. On Cape Cod many health officials felt the state code
was inadequate for proper protection of private wells and wetlands or
surface water bodies. given the generally permeable nature of area
soils. Further, the state code does not regulate septage haulers.
Eleven towns increased mini-mum distance requirements between the sep-
tic tank and leaching area and private wells, surface water supplies,
water courses, drains and downhill slopes. Eleven towns also require
.septage haulers to report information to the town on each system
serviced. Barnstable (one of two Cape towns with a municipal waste-
water treatment facility) requires all haulers to use the facility and
prohibits commercial use of septic system cleaners. The@-"town' of
Bourne al.so prohibits certain cleaners and requires special Pe@rmdts
for use of all cleaners, reiuvenators. etc. Other local additions to
Title V include limitations of the time of year a soil test can be
.performed, decreases in the period of validity for a disposal works
construction permit, standardization for the design flow calculations,
and increases in minimum requirements for leaching areas. Although no
towns have formally adopted them as a regulation, most Cape towns
require as policy groundwater elevation corrections to the USGS high
groundwater calculation standards.

The purpose of the Title V supplements is both to increase protection
of water resources and to allow boards of health tighter control over
wastewater disposal- since contact with wastewater is one of the most
insidious modes of pathogen transmittal. However, a significant mis-
conception about Title V systems is that they prevent any sort of
contamination from entering the groundwater system, which is simply
not true. Standard septic systems do nothing to remove the most ubi-
quitous contaminant of groundwater; nitrate-nitrogen. The only way
nitrate concentrations can be kept to an acceptable level in ground-
water without tertiary treatment of wastewater is by limiting the
density of wastewater disposal systems.

Controlling nitrate levels in drinking water is critical since high
levels of the chemical can cause blue baby syndrome (methemoqlobene-
mia) in infants under three months of age by depriving cells of
oxygen. Furthermore. nitrate has been implicated as a contributor to
the development of gastro-intestinal cancers. A maximum allowable
concentration of nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water has been set at 10
varts per million by both state and federal governments to quard
aqainst adverse public health effects.

Many towns on Cape Cod have augmented the benefits of local wastewater
disposal standards by adopting zoning which limits housing density.
But in areas where zoning is ineffectual, some towns are developing
health regulations that limit nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous)

loading to gioundwater based on carrying capaciti es of nearby . surface
water bodies and wetlands. When zoning is inappropriate, boards of
health might also consider limiting septic densities on the basis of
public health concerns for groundwater contamination. The town of
Brewster's proposal limiting volume of wastewater discharge per year
might be reviewed for future consideration in all towns.

REGULATION PROHIBITING ADDITION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM CLEANERS

only two towns on Cape Cod, Dennis and Falmouth. have adopted health
regulations banninq the sale or use of certain septic system addi-
tives. The actions came as the result of experience on Long Island
where gross contamination of the aquifer by organic solvents was
traced to widespread homeowner use of septic system cleaners. In 1979
a number of products containing petroleum distillates were available
in hardward and department stores. So concentrated were these formu-
las. that one gallon had the potential to contaminate 20 million
gallons of groundwater at the parts per billion level. Since that
time legislative action on Long Island and public concern have
prompted many companies.to reformulate their products without such
recognized groundwater contaminants as methylene chloride and 1, 1, 1
trichloroethane. However, the effects on groundwater quality from
chemicals found in the new concoctions are unclear at this time.
Manufacturers claim there are none.

Additives should be unnecessary if a septic system is properly sited
and maintained. When a system is functioning properly, solids are
prevented from spilling over into the leaching area and impairing the
ability of the proximal soils to leach liquids. System pumping every
three to five years is recommended. Some health departments are
considering mandatory pumping requirements as a ground water protec-
tion measure.

Reviewing these groundwater protection strategies, -it is clear that no
single measure is adequate by itself. Rather a multi-faceted frame-
work is necessary that includes all levels of government, and a strong
public education program.

Current State and Federal guidelines and regulations provide communi-
ties with a broad basis of groundwater management, but local decision
makers must implement specific groundwater protection measures which
consider the unique environmental conditions of Cape Cod. Both local
.and regional agencies should develop citizen support for groundwater
protection strategies through public education. But of even greater
significance is the degree of enforcement.of existing and/or proposed
regulations. Local requlations exist, but in many instances for
either political reasons or lackof agent expertise, they go unnoticed
or unenf or ced. Both of these factors should be addressed and
corrected promptly. Other areas of concern. such as those noted pre-
viously for toxic and hazardous materials would probably be best dealt
with through expertise available or to be contracted by the Barnstable
County Health Department staff and lab facilities, since the problems
facing the Cape in relation to these materials are common throughout
the region.

Recently (October 1983) the state Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering has become more directly involved in protecting the
Commonwealth's groundwater resources through the promulgation and
adoption of strict groundwater discharge .regulations. This new pro-
gram sets drinking water standards for all perm it-requi ring discharges
to the ground unless sufficient technical information is provided to
prove that the localized groundwater is previously contaminated and so
defined as Class III water. Discharges requiring permits include such
categories as all industrial waste and all discharges over 15,000
gallons per day. Strict enforcement of this regulation could be a
tool in slowing the process of use conversions (such as motel/condo,
etc.).

The problems of surface water contamination should also receive strong
consideration. Each year -more shellfish areas.are being closed due to
contamination, especially from contaminated groundwater reaching the
bays, rivers, etc.. At present, towns do not have adequate financial
resources to document pollution sources properly, let alone pay for
the engineering design and facilities construction to deal with
possible methods of eliminating the pollutant sources once they are
identified. Outside sources of funding - state and federal - are
needed so that proper baseline data can be gathered and corrective
measures initiated to deal with these problems.

V.-at e s

Horsley, Scott W. 1982 Beyond Zoning: Municipal ordinances to
Protect Groundwater. Proceedings of the Sixth National Groundwater
Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, Sept. 22 - 24.
2 Entropy Ltd. 1984. Lecture at CCPEDC workshop on Underground Fuel
Storage, Cape Cod Community College, W. Barnstable, Massachusetts.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ADMINISTRATOR: A PROPOSAL

Environmentalists are expressing concern over the effectiveness of
local zoning Boards of Appeals to deal with land use issues. The
concern is well founded. The criticism, however, should not be
directed at Board of Appeals members. The problem with the system is
more fundamental as the requlatory structure does not provide for an
advocate for the environmental interests of the town as a whole.

The Board of Appeals has been chartered in our General Laws as a
judicial-administrative body. Its role is not to advocate any posi-
tion. It is not even charged with the duty to preserve the Master
Plan as it dispenses variances and special permits.

We pay for building inspectors and master plans. We pay in the long
run dearly for imprudent development. It is time to pay for a spokes-
person to represent the overall best interests of the towns in which
we live-

What is needed is a professional advocate for the town - a champion of
the Master Plan - an ombudsman, so to speak.

The need for each town to have a full time professional Environmental
Resource Administrator (as presently represented in Barnstable by the
Conservation Aqent) is as imperative as the need for a Town Planner, a
post which has been funded in five Cape Cod towns in recent years. In
Barnstable the position has been basically responsible for technical
and administrative assistance to the conservation commission, natural
resources commission or water quality advisory board. It could also
encompass the responsibility of appearing bef ore the Planning Board
and the Board of Appeals as an advocate to the town's natural
resources. Both boards listen to arguments of legal and technical
experts on behalf of the developer. It is indeed time for these
boards to have the benef it of adversarial arqument on behalf of all
the citizens of the community - for the common good.

There is no single best place for such a position on a town's organi-
zation chart. Ideally the Environmental Resource Administrator would
have a broad mandate and would not be seen as expressing the interests
of anv one board.

111. CAPE WD GROWTH FORECASTS

In the short decade and a half separating us f rom the year. 2000 . the
transformation of Cape Cod will be profound. This report describes
the economic, demoqraphic, and land use dimensions of that change as a
basis for judging impacts, setting policy, and taking action.

By the year 2000. Cape Cod's winter population is likely to be nearly
half again as large as it was in 1980, and peak summer population is
likely to be about one third aqain as larqe as in 1980. growing to
500,000 persons, perhaps as many people as by then will reside in
Boston.

That growth will be driven by increases in commuting, retirement
population, and seasonal visitors. More and more, Cape residents'
income will ac)t depend on the Cape economy. but rather on jobs off-
Cape or on retirement income independent of current employment. In
that sense the Cape will be functioning morelike a suburbthanlike a
rural region.

Growth of a third in peak population. 40% in jobs, and nearly 50% in
winter population will place heavy demand on the Cape's resources.
most visibly on its land. While the rate of building is projected to
turn downward as land supply and policy tighten, the rate will con-
tinue to be rapid, close to 2.000 dwelling units per year in the last
decade of the century. Developed land, only 24% of the Cape's total in
.1980, will swell to 35% of the Cape's total in 2000, while vacant
buildable land will drop from 35% of the total in 1980 to 18% in 2000,
approaching but not yet reaching virtual land saturation.

Growth, of course, will be uneven among towns. Winter population
growth will range from under 25% in 1 and-shy -Province town to over 125%
in booming and land-rich Ma 'shpee, peak summer growth from 9% in
Chatham to nearly 100% in Truro.

All these forecasts are predicated on continuation of the trend of
past efforts to control local growth. Increasinqly, Cape towns have
used zoning and land acquisition to intervene in growth. These
forecasts anticipate still tighter requlation and more open land
acquisition. If that doesn't happen. growth could easily be even more
rapid than projected.

A. INCOME

It i s str i king that in 19 80 wor k earnings f r om j obs on Cape Cod wer e
less than half the income Cape Cod residents received (see Table 1).
The rest came from inyp-p-tmenta (bank dividends. stocks and bonds. and
real estate, of which 25% was imputed income f rom owner-occupied
homes*, etc.), transfers (social security. unemployment compensation).
and ne-t D-u-t--commutilig. To predict the future of Cape Cod it is
necessary to under-stand the future of those "unearned" and "outside"
sources of income, as well as the f uture of jobs on Cape Cod.

*That is, the net annual value of their rent-free accommodations.

Table 1
TYPES OF INCOME, CAPE COD, 1980

Dollars Percent

WORY EARNINGS
On Cape Cod $668,000,000 44%
Commuting 157,000,000 le

PROPERTY 397,000,000 26

TRANSFER 293,000,000 19

TOTAL $1 , 515 0 0 0 , 00 0 100%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1981.

Of particular importance is the way income, here termed "basic"
income, is brought onto Cape Cod from outside. That income is brought
to the Cape by retirees, summer (and other leisure) visitors,
commuters, the military, and a variety of others. The extent to which
each contributes to the Cape economy was estimated through an analysis
of specific types of income and earnings. The rest of the income on
the Cape, the difference between total income and "basic" income,
comes from internal re-spending, "taking in each other's laundry",
which is an important part of the economy, but not the source of
growth (see Table 2).

The largest percentage changes over the past decade are the relative
decline of military income and the rise of commuter income. In 1970
retirement was already a major but relatively unrecognized component
of basic income. Leisure as a source of income has provided a
steadily declining share of the Cape's economic base until in 1980 it
represented barely one-quarter of all basic or "import" income.

Over the 30 years 1970 to 2000, a profound change in the Cape economy
is expected, as illustrated in Figure 1. From a position of equiva-
lence with the leisure industry, retirement is likely to grow rapidly
to a position of dominance. Commuting off-Cape is also expected to
grow rapidly, becoming the third largest "industry". Taken together,
growth in all those sources is expected to be robust riqht throuqh the

Figure

BASIC INCOME SOURCES

600 -

500-

4-00

300
@7

200

100

0
z 4
Leisure Retired Military Commuter Other

1 970 r7,z::] 1980 1990 2000

Figure 2
CAPE COD BASIC INCOME

1.3 -

1.2 -

0.9-

0.8-
CD
0.7 -

0.6-

0. 5

o.A-

0.3

0.2-1

0.1 -

0
1970 1975 1980 1 985 1990 1 @95 2000
YX

xmmq

W/X,

Lel

year 2000, as illustrated in Figure 2, though the of growth is
likely to slow as land supply dwindles, the Cape's urbanization
impacts its tourism appeal, and the demographics supporting in-
migration of the retired gradually shift.

Table 2
INCOME SOURCES, CAPE COD, 1980

Dollars Percent

Retirees $331,000,000 36%
Leisure 247,000,000 27
Commuters 157,000,000 17
Military 36,000,000 4
other outside 145,000,000 16

Total outside $916,000,000 100%
Respending 597,000,000
T_;_tal__1-ncome $1,513,000,000

Source: Herr Associates analysis of BEA data

Table 3
INCOME SOURCES 1970-1980

1970 1975 1980

Retirees 34% 35% 36%
Leisure 32 30 27
Commuters 5 15 17
Military 13 5 4
All Other 15 15 16

Total 100% 100% 100%

Source: Herr Associates analysis of BEA data

RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION

Forecasting the income contribution of the retirement population in-
volves forecasting how many retirees there will be, and what their
income contribution per capita will be.

Table 4
'11"EAR ROUND POPULATION AGED 65+

Year Annual % Increase
Cape Cod Massachusetts

-------------------

1970 16,300
8.3% 1.0%
1975 24,300
4.9 1.1
1980 30,700
3.7 0.8
1985 37,000
3.1 0.0
1990 43,100
1.1 0.0
1995 45,500
1.0 1.0
2000 47,900

- - - -----------

Source: 1970-1980 and Massachusetts projection: U.S.
Census Cape Cod projection: Herr Associates

Figure 3

CAPE POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE

50
r'00

40-

35 -

vJ
O-V 30 - 80
cc

W 25 -

20 -

10 .60

5
0-4- 1 5-24 25-34 35-44- 45-54- 55-64 65+

Age Groups

The Cape has a powerf ul attraction for retirees. Between 1970 and
1980 the Cape population of persons over sixty-five years of age
almost doubled, growing from 16,000 to 30,000, the result of aging,
mortality, and net in- migration of 13,000 persons in that age
category. In 1970, 16% of the Cape population was over sixty-five
years of age, growing to 21% in 1980.

Complex changes are happening to that demographic group, including
recent sharp increases in longevity and for a while, projected de-
creases in the number of persons nationally reaching retirement age
(the result of the depression "baby bust"). Growth of that age group
on Cape Cod was analyzed both in relation to the statewide number of
persons in that age group and in relation to historically experienced
in-migration rates.

The extraordinary attracti on of the Cape for retirees seems likely to
be tempered.as growth diminishes rural seaside charm, raises taxes,
reduces availability of housing sites, and pushes housing costs up-
ward, and as zoning and other restrictions on growth become more
stringent. On the other hand, parallel things are also happening in
competitive areas. The results of modelling survival and migration,
given our expectations of sharply reduced rates of elderly net in-
migration show that the retirement population is still likely to grow
far faster on Cape Cod than in Massachusetts as a whole, resulting in
about the same proportion of retired to other population in the year
2000 as at present, about 22%. It is worth noting that this is only
two-thirds as large a proportion as found in such national retirement
centers as Charlotte County, Florida, where 34% of the population is
over 65.

Assuming no change in the income supported per retiree, the
retir ement- supported income increases in parallel with the retirement
population, at first more slowly than in the last decade, then
markedly slower after 1990.

LEISURE CONTRIBUTION

Summer home owners, rentersy house guests, guests of year-round resi-
dents, and those staying in motels, campgrounds, and other seasonal
accommodations produce the leisure component of "basic" income. They
collectively contribute just over $1,000 per visitor accommodation
(1980 dollars) to the net personal income received by the Cape's year-
round residents. Clearly visitors z_p@ much more than that, Lut much
of what they spend winds up in Saudi Arabia or Boston rather than
staying on Cape Cod. That figure changed insignificantly over the
'701s, after accounting for inflation. Our expectation is that J.t
also will not substantially change (in constant dollars) through the
year 2000.

As can be seen in Figure 4, the seasonal increase in population on
Cape Cod is chiefly from second home residents, with commercial accom-
modation.s (which in this discussion includes campgrounds, even public
ones, as well as hotels and motels) making a far smaller addition.
The year-round population is also supplemented by a summer burgeoning
of extra houseguests, as well as by recovery from a deep-winter low

Figure 4

1982 POPULATION BY MONTH

4-00

350-

300-

250-

200-

150-
100-7,/

50-

0
i F A M i A S O@ N D

YR R D EXTRA 2ND Comm.

Table 5
CAPE COD SUMMER-ONLY POPULATION

Annual
Number % increase

1970 115,000
2.7
1975 200,000
2.4
1980 225,000
1.9
1985 247,000
1.0
1990 260,000
1.1
1995 275,000
0.4
2000 281,000

Source: Herr Associates

In the past. growth in the number of second homes on Cape Cod has
apparently been closely related to the nearby population' in the mid-
years aqe brackets likeliest to have interest in and capability of
supporting such homes, a market approximated by the Massachusetts
population aqed 35"54. That market population. after a decade of
near-stability, is now growing sharply and will continue to do so for
a decade as the "baby- boomers" enter that aqe level. Our forecast of
second homes grows accordingly, despite our judgment that the Cape's
capture rate of such homes will decline as the regdon urbanizes,
becomes more costly, and more stringently controls growth.

The* number of summer guests in year-round homes is expected to gr'ow at
the same rate as the number. of year-round homes grows. Best estimates
are that summer population in motels. campgrounds. and other non-
dwelling accommodations has grown more slowly than the seasonal popu-
lation in dwellings. and our forecasts presume continuation of that
trend.

Adding all the components of summer population together yields growth
in summer-only population from 225,000 in 1980 to 281,000 in the year
2000, with the rate of increase falling over time (see Figure 5).
Assuming no change in income contribution per visitor. the same
changes are true for total income contribution as for seasonal popula-
tion: sharp increases in the near future. then slower growth.

COMMUTERS

The reported number of on-Cape residents commuting to of f-Cape jobs
nearly tripled from 1970 to 19,80, from 2,100 to 5,900. Net out-
commuting, the excess of out-commuters over in-commuters, rose even
more sharply with the early 170's decline of commuters from off-Cape
Otis Air Force Base.

Given the continued exurbanization of Boston-centered employment and
the attractiveness of Cape Cod residence, further growth in out-
commuting can be expected. Our forecasts suggest growth in commuter-
supported income at a rate slightly lower than the growth from 1975-80
and growing at a steadily declining rate through the year 2000.

MILITARY

Despite its recent resurqence. Otis Air Force Base supports less than
half the income it did in 1970. The Base now seems to have a secure
set of missions and a future of stability or growth, but is so
dependent upon unpredictable governmental circumstance and policy that
we are proiecting simple continuation of income contribution at the
present level, recognizing the large Uncertainty involved.

Figure 5

CAPE COD PEAK POPULATION

500

4-00 \\\N MON

3001
fn

0 0
12 :-,
wo R\00'@@
t, 200-

10 0

0
1970 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000

YR RD 2 nd EXTRA ffm Comm

Table 6
INCOME GROWTH, 1980-2000

1980 2000 Annual %
Change

'Income ($ millions)
Retirees $331 $516 2.2
Leisure 247 309 1.3
Commuters 157 280 2.9
Military 36 36 0.0
Other outside 145 233 2.4

Total "basic" 916 2.1
Re-spending .597 893 2.0

Total income $1,513 $2,267 2.0

Source: Herr Associates
v

OTHER "EXPORTS"

Most of the remaining income brought in from outside is unearned:
interest and dividends from off-Cape investments and deposits paid to
non-elderly residents, unemployment compensation, and other property
and transfer income not already accounted for. In 1980 that amounted
to over $100 million.

In addition, about $42 million in wages and profits derived from the
sale of goods and services for off-Cape consumption, not including
tourism (already counted), but includinq fishing, marine research, and
a wide array of other activities.

Such income is sure to grow, but again a rational basis for fore-
casting is elusive. We have estimated annual growth of about $4
million per year in this "all other" category, faster than growth over
the past five years but slower than growth over the past ten years.

RE-SPENDING

Incoming gained by Cape Codders from other Cape Codders constitutes
re-spending of income originally gained for the region through "ex-
ports" to other regions. Such re-spending has added about two-thirds
again to export income over the past decade, and in thi.s study is
forecast to remain in that relationship through the year 2000.

B. POPULATION

Summinq the income forecasts for each of the income sources yields
total income to the year 2000. The winter population which that
income would support was next estimated. Total income was divided by
income per capita, assumed to be constant in real value, which is
consistent with the assumptions behind the income growth forecasts.
That results in a 46% increase in winter population over the next two
decades. Table 7 shows the results.

It is important to understand that these figures reflect the judgment
that local growth controls will likely become more severe over the
next two decades. If that is not true, or true to a lesser degree
than reflected here, population growth will be higher, possibly _mILQb
higher.

COMPARISONS

Comparing results of these forecasts with those made earlier by our-
selves or by others indicates close agreement. For 1985 year round
population there is essentially no difference among these projections
and those made by us for the mid-70s 208 program, a post-census CCPEDC
staf f update using different techniques, and a state Department of
Public Health projection using yet different techniques. By 1995 the
spread between these projections and those others is under 8%, giving
a false sense of precision, since f or an area of this size and
complexity to be safely within 15% of the real figure 15 years from
the base year is about as good as can be claimed.

Table 7

FORECAST POPULATION

1980 -1990 2000 Increase
1980-2000

WINTER POPULATION. -
Elderly 31-000 43-000 48,000 55%
Other 117,000 144,000 168,000 44
Total 148,000 187,000 216,000 46

SUMMER POPULATION
Summer home 145.000 164.000 175.000 21
House quests 25,000 34,000 40,000 60
Other 55,000 61-000 67.000 22
Total 225,000 260,000 @281,000 25

PEAK POPULATION 373.000 447,000 497,000 33

Source: Herr Associates

It should be noted that the mechanics of projection continually
suggested results which were higher than these, but by our judgment
seemed incredibly high. Our final figures are conservative and
reflect some effort to constrain the faster growth indications which
.the models produced. For example. simple continuation of 1970-80 age-
specific migration rates yield, an.unbelievable year 2000 estimate of
314,000 spring population. It should also be noted that these final
forecasts assume no consistent direct public control over regional
rates of growth That assumption could prove wrong. Bourne and
Sandwich have adopted explicit growth rate limitation bylaws.
Falmouth is aqaln discussing one after rejecting an earlier proposal.
A major growth management initiative is underway in Barnstable. Those
communities collectively accounted for over half of the Cape's year-
round population growth 1970-1980. It is clear that public choice
will play a larqe role in what the actual 1990 and 2000 population
levels are, though growth will not be halted. Even if the Cape
attracts no more tourists and in-migrating retirees than it did in
1980, its winter population would still increase 20% over the next two
decades, to 180-000 by year 2000.

C. EmPLOYMENT

In most reqions job growth impels population growth but. as we've
shown, on Cape Cod it. is the reverse. As retirees and second-home
occupants choose to reside on Cape Cod, their spending stimulates job
growth. In this case, jobs follow population rather than vice versa.

Table 8
COMPARISONS: WINTER POPULATION FORECASTS

-- - ------------------ - - ---- - --

1985 1990 1995 2000

- ----- - --- - ------

This study 167,000 187,000 203,000 216,000
"208" (Herr), 1976a 166,000 180,000 187,000

b
CCPEDC, 1982 168,000 190,000 214,000 230,000
Mass. DPHC 168,000 190,000

- --------------------------

Table 9
COMPARISONS: PEAK POPULATION FORECASTS

------------- - ------ ------------------------- -

1985 1990 1995 2000

------------------------------- - -- - ---------------- --

This study 414,000 447,000 478,000 497,000
"208" (Herr),a 490,000 540,000 570,000
CCPEDC, 1982b 494,000 535,000 5751 000 603,000

a . Herr Associates, Development Projections for g e Cod, for 'CCPEDC,
1976.

b. CCPEDC, "Population Estimates and Projections for Barnstable
County, 1980-2000", c. June, 1982.

c. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health, 1285 ancl 1290 PopulAtigrl
Projections,,. Mass. DPH, c. 1983.

Figure 6

CAPE COD INDUSTRY GROUPS
28- Employment 19 70-2000

26 -

24-

22 -

20 -

is
7q

16
C
po
E. 12
Lit-,
10
N

0
Gov't Trade Serve utility C-onst Other

1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 7

CAPE COD EMPLOYMENT

70 -

60-

50-

W c
P,m 40-
mg
E-,
Lit, 30

0
1970 1980 1990 2000

GOV TRAD SER UT IL CON OTH

The structure of Cape Cod's economy is little affected by the national
shift from goods to services, since it is already services-dominated,
and has been for decades. Agriculture and fisheries account for under
2% of the Cape's reported employment, manufacturing for about .6%,
while.trade is over 35%. services are over 25%, and government over
16% (see Table 10).

Trade and services domination is likely to continue. Employment in
services will likely have the most rapid growth, with growth in trade
emplovment starting from a higher level and almost as strong (see
Fiqure 6). Government shows little likelihood of strong growth, nor
does the cateqory of utilities, communications, and transportation-
Construction employment has declined over the past decade. and seems
unlikely to grow more than slightly. based on projected homebuilding
rates. The "other" category is over half manufacturing, largely
servicing on-Cape customers (e.g. with building components) so likely
to grow with the population. Finance, insurance,. and real estate. the
other major component. is also likely to grow with the population.
Agriculture and f ishing is much smaller, its growth having little
impact even on the "other" category.

Overall- growth in employment is likely to closely parallel growth in
population (see Figure 7 and Table 10). Note that these are average
annual figures. As such. they reflect the summer surge of employment.
much of which goes to off-Cape residents, so does little to support
year-round population.

Table 10
CAPE COD EMPLOYMENT

increase
1970 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000

Government 8500 9786 10100 10300 5.0
Wholesale. retail trade 9451 18105 23200 27600 52.4
Misc. services 5242 12746 17600 21300 67.1
Trans., commun. utility 1739 3130 3150 3200 2.2
Construction 2681 2331 2500 2600 11.5
Other 3351 6419 8150 9350 45.7

Total 3C964 52517 64700 74350 41.6

D. CONSTRUCTION

Construction rates are carefully monitored on Cape Cod for good
reason. The building industry is of large, though declining, impor-
tance to the year-round economy of Cape Cod. Construction rates are
an indicator of the rate of environmental change, and they provide
evidence of growing population.

Table 11
CAPE COD HOMEBUILDING

Total Added per
Housing-units year

1960 46,800
1960-70 1910
1970 66,000
1970-80 3400
1980 100,000
1980-90 2620
1990 126,000
1990-2000 1790
2000 144FOOO

Figure 8
HOMEBUILDING RATE

DIWELLIN,-2- IJ14ITS AUTWO-RIZED ANNUALLY

X_
2

3:
Cj

C;
1 '17 0 75 80 85 90 S.5 20CIO

0 Historic Projec-tt-d A%!t:r<jat

These forecasts indicate. continuation of rbbust building on Cape Cod,
though not at the frenetic pace of the '70s.

The forecast of homebuilding. rates depends basically on forecasts of
population growth an.d.change (decline) in average household size. We
have assumed the number of summer vacant units to remain unchanged,
and no net change through demolition or conversion. Household size is
forecast to decline- but much more slowly than in the past decade.
Slower decline in household size, coupled with declining rate of
population growth, results in substantially reduced construction
rates.

E. LAND USE

Development actually cove rs only about a quarter of Cape Cod's land
area today, though it seems to occupy more, and certainly impacts more
(see Table 12). Reserved open space. such as the National Seashore
and conservation commission lands, covers slightly more land than is
developed and appears to be expanding about as fast as land is being
developed. Thus, a little less than half the land remains susceptible
to development, about one-third of which is wetland or dune and can-
not, therefore, readily, be developed. In sum, then, about one-third
of the Cape's land remains available for development.

Figure 9

CAPIE COD LAND ANALYSIS

260

240

220-

200-

180 /01//
X
160 Z-1

FN
W
0 140
Fn
U :)
0 120

100-

10
40

1975 1980,
2000

Devel C= Reserve UnL-ld venant

Two opposite forces are pressing on density of development. Town
eff orts to slow growth, control its qualityr and protect water
resources have led to steadily increasing lot area requirements,, and
those efforts are certain to continue, perhaps with even greater
intensity. On the other hand, obviously vanishing development oppor-
tunities and concern over housing affordability have led to greater
acceptance of multifamily housing and its higher densities. That,
too, seems likely to continue.

Table 12
CAPE COD LAND USE

A C R E S
1975 1980 1990 2000

Developed 55,800 61,500 77,100 88,700
Reserved open 61,700 70,100 82,900 92,200
Unbuildable 35,100 33,400 29,500 27,200
Vacant buildable 100,900 88,600 .63,900 45r4OO

Total land 253,500 253,500 253,500 253,500

P E R C E N T
1975- 1980 .1990 2000

Developed @22 24 30 35
Reserved open 24 28 33 36
Unbuildable 14 13 11 11
Vacant buildable 40 35 25 18

Total land 100 1,00 100 100

On balance, land consumption per dwelling unit has apparently been
increasing in recent years. our 1983-1990 land consumption forecasts
are based on a 15 percent increase in added land per added housing
unit over the 1980-83 rate, and our 1.990-2000 forecasts are based on
continuation of the 1983-90 rate. The result is likely to be growth
in developed land from 60,000 to 90,000 acres between 1980 and 2000,
but it is important torecognize that the figure could be either
higher or lower, depending on both population, growth and public land
policy.

In an average year between 1975 and 1983, open space acquisitions by
all levels of government and private conservation groups amounted to
about 1 percent of the undeveloped and unreserved land on Cape Cod at
the beginning of that period. Perhaps optimistically, we have based

Table 14
TOWN PEAK TOTAL POPULATION

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

--------------------------- -------------------------------
BOURNE 17380 21480 26300 30000 32500
FALMOUTH 25750 37510 51090 61000 67500
MASHP-EE 5260 7950 12840 17600 22000
SANEVICH 10020 11640 18570 23000 27000
OTIS 6590 5600 2050 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 26920 37290 54450 68400 78200
DENNIS 24490 29510 46530 54000 57000
YARMOUTH 17630 30690 43000 52000 56400

BMISTER 7060 9280 15830 20500 25000
CHATHAM. 10840 14040 17410 20000 21000
EASTHAM 8360 10110 13990 16500 18500
HARVTICH 12020 16290 21930 26500 29000
ORLEANS 5360 7990 11800 15000 17000

PROVIN=VN 13370 13480 13370, 14000 15000
TRURO 7980 9090 10560 11500 13000
TVELLFLEET 9390 10800 13310 15000 16000
- --------- - -- - --- n--------- - - -----------------------------
TOTAL 208420 272750 373030 447000 497100

Source: 1960-1980: AP`CC analysis
1990-2000: "Best Judgement" forecasts

IV. MANAGING 6RCWM RATES ON CAPE COD

Of all the characteristics of growth, its rate is the most fundamen-
tal. By influencing growth rate,, all the consequences of growth, good
and bad, are also influenced. Influencing other characteristics of
growth, such as its pattern or location. while important, is less
universal in its effect.

Intervening in growth rates is an old American practice. Until rela-
tively recently, that intervention has almost universally been aimed
at speeding growth through devices such as public land sales. specula-
tively extending roads and service-s at public cost. and granting
favorable.tax treatment. Now, however. many communities and regions
and a few states are acting to deliberately slow growth in order to
protect existing qualities of life. chiefly using regulatory devices
not labelled "growth control" but instead called such things as "two-
acre zoning" and naqricultural protection", and using fiscal devices.
such as huge fees for new development's share of schools and other
public services.

It is only in the past 10 or 15 years that communities have directly
controlled or limited growth and called it that, producing a storm of
litiqation which firmly established the community right reasonably and
frontally to intervene to slow growth rates.1

The rationale for intervening in growth is different in leisure areas
such as Cape Cod than it is in suburban areas. where the imperative
for accommodating growth is clearer. There is no strong reason why
this decade's second-home buyers and retirees must have untrammelled
access to Cape Cod's limited resources, since there are later decades
for which that land must also serve, and there are many alternatives
to Cape Cod for that leisure population. both in the Northeast and
elsewhere.

The consequences of growth intervention are also different in leisure
areas than in suburban areas. Cape - Cod's "product" is not goods such
as autos or computer chips or even such services as education or
medicine. Its "product" is living accommodation for visitors and
retirees. so slowing residential growth is also slowing growth in the
region's basic industry. That isn't true on Route 128.

intervening in growth has impacts on the Cape's complex dual housing
market. To the degree that growth management either uses increased
housing costs as a control device or has increased housing costs as a
consequence, a major segment of the non-leisure population is hurt.
That segment then finds it harder than ever to compete for housing
against vacationers who are either wealthy or able to pay
stratospheric costs by staying only a short while or aqainst retirees
who bring accumulated home equity and enjoy a tax treatment
that encouraqes its reinvestment in housing.

Finally, one town intervening in growth is very different from a
reqional policy of intervening in growth. Given their size and proxi-
mity, Cape Cod towns individually enjoy no monopoly position, so the
market effects of growth restraint in any one of them are tiny, other

towns readily absorbing any growth "pushed away". How ever, Plymouth
County and the Islands couldn't readily off set the consequence of an
effective Cape-wide action to slow growth; the results of which would
clearly impact on the Cape's housing costs and social stratification.

In summary, growth rate control is not new, is.clearly legal, can
ethically be applied and probably should be; but to avoid negative
secondary consequences, should be sensitively designed to protect both
the region's economy and the housing needs of the non-leisdre communi-
ty. The remainder of this chapter outlines techniques which can be
woven into such a design, with the hope that with better understanding
of available methods, sound public policy can be better implemented.

Techniques fall into three categories: direct, indirect, and caps.
All three types are in common use.

A. DIRECT RATE TECHNIQUES

This family of techniques contro ls growth rate more or less. directly.
Four common direct devices are moratoria, quotas,. phasing, and
stretchout.

MORATORIA

Moratoria proliferated in Massachusetts in the early 170s. Typically,
they impose a zero growth rate for some class of development for a
limited time while the community makes efforts to deal better with the
development on a regular basis. , Moratoria ar.e timing controls in the
sense that they don't change what you can do, only when you can do it.
Probably half the towns on Cape Cod have used or debated using mora-
toria in the past decade, with current moratorium issues in Brewster,
Barnstable, Orleans, Mashpee,, and probably elsewhere. Although
limited in time, the categor ical prohibitions of moratoria make them
extreme devices. They have possible severe consequences for some
developers, but probably have little lasting consequence for the
general population other than the intended effect of gaining time for
the town to develop better controls or put infrastructure in place.

QUOTA SYSTEMS

Quota systems are `pure" rate controls. Under them, the community
adopts a rule limiting annual growth to a stated rate: 400 dwelling
units a year, perhaps, or 40,000 gallons per year of added daily waste
disposaL No such "pure" system exists on Cape Cod: one was proposed
for Falmouth in 1978 but not adopted, and Brewster recently deb -ated
but didn't accept a variant on such a system. Nationally, however,
quota systems are fairly common,. the most famous being that adopted in
Petaluma, California. Nantucket xecently a-dopted such a system for
seasonal dwellings.

The key to the design of quota systems is the method of allocating
permits in the event that the limit is reached. "Fir st- come f i r st -
served" is clearly unreasonable, though often used (e.g. in Nantucket
and in southern New Hampshire). Petaluma used and Falmouth proposed a
point system to rank-order applicants, highest-scoring getting per-

mits, others put back in the pool. That requires delaying approvals
until a pool is assembled for comparison, which means delays of sev-
eral months if permits are acted on quarterly, or longer if Petaluma's
annual actions were to be followed. If absolute growth rates are low,
say under 100 dwelling units per yearr it is'difficult to make that
competitive system work fairly and quickly.

Marin County, California, has adopted such a system countywide, with
an annual county quota broken down by sub-county regions, then divided
among towns in each region to establish responsible town-level quotas.
That is one way of avoiding the evident danger of an inappropriate
collective res'ult from town' actions which may individually seem
reasonable.

PHASING SYSTEMS

Under phasing systems, growth and supporting services are directly
linked. Rules are adopted which require some level of water, sewer,
and nearby school adequacy as preconditions to eligibility for
buildinq permits. At the same time, the community lays out a schedule
for extending services so that the level of services at any given
location w!-U be adequate to accommodate permits by some certain date.
The system allows potential builders to base application for future
permits on the present schedule, with the permit to be granted later
even if the community falls behind its own schedule.

The key to these systems is the services schedule. The schedule is
designed, so that the amount of -"adequately" serviced land will grow at
a rate resulting in a rate of development the community is willing
(and presumably able) to accept. Growth rate is controlled by
scheduling services and linking development to them.

Few Massachusetts commu"nities and no Cape Cod communities, schedule
service extensions with enough committed foresight to warrant basing
controls on such schedules. The form of government, fiscal uncertain-
ties, and the demands on scarce professional staff effectively pre-
clude such scheduling, desirable though it may be. Ramapo,, New York
adopted such a phasing system, and was followed by Salem, Massachu-
setts, whose strong staff and circumstances allowed that approach.
Recently, Ramapo dropped its system, citing changed circumstances.

Sometimes r)art of the phasing approach is adopted, the part requiring
adequate services, without connection to a scheduled commitment for
improvements. That partial approach is sometimes called "Adequate
Public Facilities" (APF) laws. Such laws can raise serious issues of
equity, and in the absence of scheduled improvements? aren't direct
rate controls.

STRETCHOUT

Stretchout devices oblige developers to stretch out their developments
over a fixed period, commonly seven to ten years. Tisbury may have
been first in the nationtoa-dopt such a law, andBourne followedwith
several key refinements, one providing that such stretchout is
necessary only when the townwide building rate exceeds a given level,

and a second refinement providing exemption for small developments.
Variants on those models have been adopted in Sandwich, Ch il mar k,
Edgartown. and most recently Falmouth, About a dozen other Massachu-
setts communities have adopted similar controls.

Popularity of this device is understandable. It doesn't depend on
difficult facilities scheduling, and avoids the problems of deter-
mining who wins and who loses under strict quota systems. By incor-
porating a "trigger" or nthreshold" rule. in slow years the stretch
system imposes no administrative burden or imposition on property
owners..

B. INDIRECT TECHNIQUES

More common than direct growth controls are indirect ones, often not
explicitly discussed as growth controls but motivated by concern over
growth rate. nevertheless. In this category are all the manipulations
of either housing supply or housing demand which communities exercise.
The classic is larqe-lot zoning, which lowers growth rate by pricing
out a substantial part of the housing market, but there are many
others. most carrying less substantial secondary consequences.

The most common techniques operate by either taking land out of
available supply. or by creating conditions which encourage landowners
to hold onto rather than develop land.

TAKING LAND OUT OF SUPPLY

Intuitively, it seems that by reducing land available for development,
development rates should be reduced, and to a degree, that is true.
The most obvious way of doing that is through public acquisition. an
option widely employed on Cape Cod. Not only is there more reserved
open land on Cape Cod than there is developed land (75-000 acres
reserved versus 67,000 acres developed), but in the last eight years
apparently more land was added to reserved open space than was
developed (about 13,000 added acres of open space versus about 11,000
added acres of developed land).

Public land ownership can be supplemented with other supply- mana gem ent
devices. Deeded restrictions, for example, can effectively achieve
the same reduction of land availability for development. while leaving
the land in question in private ownership, privately maintained. and
paying at least some taxes.

Requlations can have a similar effect. For example. a growing number
of communities exclude wetlands from the definition of "lot area". in
effect removing substantial land from that available to be credited
towards meeting development rules. Though rare on Cape Cod. in other
regions exclusive industrial zones prohibiting residences have been
adopted, aimed as much at excluding land from the residential market
as at promoting industrial development.

REDUCING HOLDING COSTS

A more positive approach to managing land availability is to reduce
the costs of holding it, thus encouraging more property owners to hold
out longer before selling or developing their land. Towns have sev-
eral means of doing this, chiefly the tax treatment given to unde-
veloped land. Encouraging and facilitating the use of agricultural or
forest use-value assessments for land, and differentiating tax rates
among categories of land use (classification) are methods provided for
in statutory law, and are supplemented by an array of more informal
discretionary actions which together can substantially reduce the
owner's annual cost of holding vacant land, thereby reducing the
likelihood of it being put onto the development market.

Publicly installed services im pact land supply two ways. Firsti, for
many builders land simply isn't available unless it is serviced with
town water or sewer or both. Even in the absence of a phased growth
bylaw, residential growth rate can be influenced by caref ul planning
of the rate and pattern of services extension or, in the case of
public sewerage on Cape Cod, system creation.

Second, the way those services are paid for can raise or.avoid raising
the holding costs for land, and thus impact land availability. The
details of the design of betterment charges, user charges, and
improvement districts (e.g. water districts) can have major effects on
the costs of holding land out of development.
C. LOWERING THE SATURATION CEILING

By the year 2000, there will still be a substantial amount of unde-
veloped and unreserved but apparently buildable land on Cape Cod,
about 45,000 buildable acres based on our projections, or just under
20 percent of the total land area of the Cape. Careful projections
haven't been made beyond that date, but rough calculations suggest
,that by the year 2000 with continuation of recent trends (our Basic
scenario) there would stil.1 be 19,000 buildable acres left on the
Cape, with a winter 'population of some 250,000 people. Clearly, given
continuation of past trends it will be very many years before the
Cape's growth is constrained by running out of land,. or reaching a
"cap".

Many towns increasing required lot sizes would produce a large-lot
alternative to the Basic scenario. The Basic scenario involves some
increase in average lot sizes. The Large-lot alternative involves
much greater increase in lot sizes and a 50 percent in-crease in
average land consumption per dwelling unit over the Basic scenario.
This Large-lot scenario probably has no effect on the Cape-wide amount
of development, but rather spreads it out. The result is land satura--
tion by 2020, "capping" the Cape's population at about 250,000 per-
sons. That is one kind of growth control: using large lots to lower
the "cap" orceiling.

The same lowered ceiling or cap can be reached in a very different
way, through a Focused scenario. This Focused scenario involves not
larger lots but smaller ones, or more multifamily units at relatively

high density. This scenario assumes land consumption per added
dwelling unit at three-fourths the amount in the Basic scenario, or
half the amount consumed in the Large-lot scenario. Alongside that
higher-density development would be accelerated open-space acquisi-
tion, in fact triple the rate assumed in the Basic scenario (open
space acquisition is projected at a percentage of total remaining
undeveloped land in each decade, divided between developable land
taken out of potenti.al development and unbuildable wetlands and
dunes). This, too, results in land saturation in 2020 with the same
number of dwelling units and the same 250,000 winter population as in
the Basic scenario, but with a very different land use pattern. In
the Large-lot scenario, there is about one-fourth more developed land
than reserved open space at saturation. In the Focused scenario ''
there is one-half more open space reserved than there is developed
land. That huge gain in open space can be thought of as not being in
competition with building, 'but being in competition with large-lot
zoning, since potential to accommodate 250,000 persons in 2020 is
consistent, with eithe.1 large-lot zoning _Q_E reduced-lot zoning and
aggressive open-space acquisition, but not with both.

There is another possibility for building to 2020: a relatively
uncaring unfettered approach with both reduced land consumption per
dwelling unit and a reduced rate of open space acquisition. In this
case, saturation is = reached by 2020 if the rate of building is the
same as in the other scenarios, in fact nearly as much vacant land
remains in 2020 under this scenario as remained in 2000 under the
Basic scenario. The "cap" would still be a generation or two. away.

It is clear that there is a wide range of policy.choice available
regarding "build-out" or saturation. with no concerted intervention,
there are far more than another 40 years of land availability left.
Alternatively, we could have lower-density building and es,sential-ly
full development in the year 2020., or higher density buiiding and
either a great deal more reserved open space or an even greater
reserve of buildable land for yet decades more of building and a
higher ultimate population.

BUILDOUT SCENARIOS
S C E N A R 1 0 S
Ba'sic Large-Lot Focused Unfettered

2020 LAND USE ACRES
Developed 105,200 124,300 96,600 93,700
Reserved open land 105-?100 102,100 144,700 92,200
Vacant unreserved
Buildable 19,300 3,200 2,500 40,600
Unbuildable 24j,000 24,000 lOr6OO 27,000

Total land 253,500 253,500 253,500 253,500

1983-2020
Acres/year developed 11100 1,600 800 800
Acres/year reserved 800 700 1,900 500

WINTER POPULATION
2020 250'' 000 250,000 250,000 250,000
Saturation 300,000 250,000 250,000 350,000

D. -A HISTORY OF POLICY CHOICE'
In the early '70s, spurred by an unprecedented b@ilding boom, CCPEDC
and others debated Cape-wide growth intervention. A policy target of
2.500 dwelling units per year was considered and judged by many to be
appropriate, allowing continued growth but not allowing this period to
preempt all land for future generations. Had that suggestion somehow
become law, growth on Cape Cod would have been lower than it was in
seven of the ten past years, though until last year not by huge
amounts.

In the later 170s Bourne and Sandwich adopted local growth rate con-
trols. Both have had apparently ambiguous effect because of building
downturns nationally and Capewide. which would have slowed development
anyhow, and building peaks well above bylaw thresholds, chief ly the
result of subdivisions which enjoy exemption because of "grandfather
,rights". However, when examined more closely, those laws have in fact
affected the way development takes place. encouraqing smaller develop-
ments and shielding the towns f rom even greater year-to-year
gyrations.

In Bourne. adoption of growth rate controls provided an "umbrella of
protection" against repetition of early 170s runaway development
rates. Knowledge of that protection allowed the town.greater freedom
to implement requlatory changes liberalizing development controls.
For example. multifamily development is allowed virtually everywhere
in Bourne, a rule which has resulted in, among other things, develop-
ment of low-density. environmentally sound, but affordable housing
units. It is just such interweaving of control over growth rate with
@concern over housing cost and availability which ought to be
encouraged Cape-wide.

The policy concern over growth rate began more than a decade ago.
Tight and expensive money produced a building slow-down which lulled
many into believing there to be no problem. Current unprecedented
growth rates give currency to the policy debate again. This time the
tools are known and tested. A responsible program of growth rate
mana.gement deserves.to be high on the regional agenda.

C-Q.1liu-a Y.. lDwn Qf Arling-t-Qn, (Mass) (1975) 329 N.E. 2d, was the
first Massachusetts case to validate a timing or rate intervention, a
moratorium- _G_Qld_en Y. Planning B-Qal-d -of E-am-a.po, 30 N.Y. 2d, 1972,
N.E. 2d 291, 1972, upheld a growth phasing law in a carefully con-
tested case which is the first national precedent for growth rate
controls. "asKj@qction Industry Associatiom of Sonoma -C-Qun-ty Y,, City
_Qf Petal-u.ma 522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir- 1976) certiori derived, 965.Ct.
1148 (1976) provided a test of growth quotas, Petaluma ultimately
being upheld by refusal of the Supreme Court to review the case.
atu ra i a Y.- T-Qw-Li Q1 Chi- Ima r@ (l 9 8 0) 40 2 N. E2d 1346, 380 Mass. 246, is
the Massachusetts precede-nt upholding a growth "stretching" bylaw-
2 See, for example, the policy statement "Resource Management",
approved August 31- 1972 by. CCPEDC. and "Land Use Policy and
Strategy", by Ho-rr Associates for CCPEDC, December 31, 1974.

2.02 0 LAND USE

14 Ci

.3 0

1 10

?3 0
N
-7r

C, - -

I c'

0
D s-nve I o pf--d Rt, s6rved Urbl-dabbe Va,--a nt

D LGE--LOT
Focul-s UNFETrEF,

A/ a, &Ni AP C C -

2020 SCENARIOS

7 7, 7,-,: 7 7, 77
V
-4-0
77.
"20

-1,30
N

1.3c;
N

100
7-

v@o

0 ZLZ
BASI C LG E- - L OT FOCUSSED UNFETTER

Res@erie LJnblj voc

COUN-r',@' BUILDING

5 --- - -- - ---------------------- --------

4. -

PA r rriit---

2 -

1965 1970

BOUIRNF HUILDI N G

500

4-00 -

300 -

Permit.,.-

200

100

0
1965 1 970

Y-, j r

SAN DWIC 1-1 BU I L DI NG

320
Pe rr) ii ff::I
300-

280-

24-0-

220 -

200 -
U-
iso - /4

160 -

140 -

120 -

100 -

80-
(30- )ar-

.4o -f r

--T ---7-'--T-T---- T --'-T-T- --T --- r---r--.-r --- i
1961-5 1970 1975 1980

Yea rs

V. CAW COD LMD USE PLMNIN6

Almost all Cape Cod towns have prepared Master Plans, but most of them
date f rom the early 160s and early 170s and have not been employed
consistently as planning tools. By contemporary standards the Cape's
towns are only now beginnin to plan effectively for the use of their
land. This chapter outlines methods by which the use of land can be
planned with greater care.

There are three traditional land use techniques, still the center of
most planning board efforts: town planning, zoning and subdivision
control. Each is discussed here, not in its traditional form but as
it gugh-t to be if growth is to be managed effectively, involving
commitment. of resources and willingness to innovate.

But gaining land for use as open space and recreation requires a
different set of techniques, the most applicable of which are also
discussed in this section. Special attention is given to two of them:
community land trusts and conservation easements. Inevitably, meeting
open space objectives will require funding. A land transfer tax
dedicated to open space acquisition is presented here as one of the
major proposals toward that end, and as a means of gaining needed
funding.

Finally, land consumption is explored through case studies, and visual
concerns are addressed: how local character. and visual quality can be
protected or even strengthened in the face of.rapid development.

A. TOWN PLANNING

The image of "rural seaside charm".may have originated in the 1920s as
a clever marketing campaign to promote tourism and second home devel-
opment, but it also reflects a special quality, even magic, that
literally millions of people have found here. Cape Cod is a special
place, and for that very reason it is imperative.to mobilize planning
efforts to safeguard the essential qualities. that make it special.

Planning includes many things: creating visions of a wished-for
future, comparing that future with what is likely, designing public
actions to bring the likely closer to the wished-for, working with
town officials and others to get those designs implemented, and then
reviewing the specific proposals through which change takes place:
subdivisions, site development plans, and public facility investments.

Few towns do all of that. Most planning boards do the last of those,
reviewing proposals, and a little of the designing of public interven-
tions, chiefly through the medium of zoning amendments. Unfortun-
ately, creatively designinghoped-for futures and joining efforts
across town agencies are rare efforts, grossly out of pace with Cape
Cod's rate of change. Town zoning inadequately substitutes for town
planning: by default zoning plans become the blueprints for the
future.

The speed and intensity of gro wth now taking place on Cape Cod are
transforming the very essence of our communities. Now it appears that

each buildable lot will contain at least one building, and open space
will remain only where construction is physically impossible, or where
a deliberate decision has been made to avoid development. In less
than ten years most undeveloped land in many towns will be subdivided;
within the next 25 years many communities will have arrived at a
'$saturated" state of development.

Each year Cape Cod communities make painful new discoveries as to how
inadequate are their planning, zoning, and land use regulations; how
unprepared they are for the growth that is taking place; and how
fragile and transient are the basic ingredients of@ the Cape Cod
environment. Inadequate trash and waste disposal, contamination of
the ponds and groundwater supply, crowded traffic conditions, and
destruction of town character are among the most obvious problems
resulting from the applications of the zoning blueprints and the
evident lack of sufficient planning.

Had all Cape Cod towns done more planning at least 10 years ago, some
major losses that have occurred could have been avoided. Yet there is
still time for positive action. 'The greatest challenge at this time
is to reach agreement within each town and among all of the towns that
there are problems, that.action is needed, and that action can be
effective.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

1. Obtai Professional Plannin!9 Assistanc

Professionalism in planning has made enormous strides on Cape Cod.
Ten years ago no town on Cape Cod had a professional planner. Today,
a third of the towns, containing 60 percent of the Cape's current
population and almost 60 percent of the Cape's -projected growth to
2000, have at least one full-time planner. Barnstable led in hiring
professional staff, followed by Falmouth, Yarmouth. Dennis, and
Mashpee. Others have increased their use of other professional
rssources, including assistance from CCPEDC and professional
consultants.

It still isn't enough The demands on planning staff in the larger
and faster growing towns are so large that current reactive reviews
and administration consume all available time. Two-thirds of the
towns still have no full-time staff.

Traditionally, Cape towns have relied upon volunteer citizen planning
boards, and in fact, the state has charged these boards with the
authority and responsibility for community planning. Town planning
boards face a heavy work load of subdivision reviews, reflecting
extensive residential and commercial construction. Many planning
boards have additional responsibilities for review of cluster develop-
ment proposals, site plan review, and sign and architectural review.
The record of these boards is for the most part quite impressive, but
part-time citizen boards, no matter how conscientious and experienced
in the mechanics of subdivision review, cannot by themselves prepare
the full range of plans, performance standards, and implementation

strategies that community planning demands. Their work load-leaves
neither time nor energy for other planning work, even though board
members keep fighting to find extra time.

The answer for the larger and faster growing towns is full-time staff.
More towns should join the ranks of the first five to have such staff.
However, given the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2 and the under-
%standablp reluctance to increase the size of town government, some
communities may not find it feasible to hire a full-time professional
planning staff. Fortunately, there are other means of gaining needed
assistance.

Here are three such options. First - a multi.-town planner. Two or
more towns could jointly employ one or more professional planners on a
contracted service basis to provide professional planning assistance.
These "circuit riders" could either be employed by individual towns or
by the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission.

A second option is for a town to get planning services through con-
tracts rather than employment. Although all Cape Cod towns would
benefit from continued professional planning assistance, what is of
greatest importance is immediate help in developing growth management
policies, goals and tools to insure proper implementation and updating
of community plans. Professional planners or planning firms can be
hired on a short-term, contract basis for these tasks, shielding towns
from the commitment to permanent staff.

Finally, all Cape Cod towns could jointly explore a new level of
special planning assistance, the 'Financial Planning Assistant. Cape
Cod is the fastest growing county in the Commonwealth and in New
England; improper planning will have state-wide consequences. With
towns unable fully to address growth-related problems under Proposi-
tion 2 1/2, it is perhaps time to request or even demand adequate
state assistance. This could take the form of planning grants such as
the one recently awarded to Yarmouth, or the provisi-on of top--quality
itinerant planners.

2. A-saux--e a C-QmT)rehensive Persvective

The turf of Cape Cod planning boards is typically limited to land use.
Planning boards are not and probably should not be super boards,
exerting influence and authority over Conservation Commissions, Water
Commissions, Historic District Commissions and Sewer Commissions, to
say nothing of Selectmen and School Committee. However, managing town
character and function cuts across the functions of all those agen-
cies. For planning to be fully effective, with or without profes-
sional staff, there needs to be horizontal integration as well as a
long-term perspective. The best way of getting that horizontal inte-
gration will vary among towns. However it is done, it is urgent that
integration J@e done. These are some of the possibilities.

a. A Development Cabinet structure, in which agency representa-
tives meet regularly to review what has been happening and
to plan next steps. That group could, with the Planning
Board's blessing, be charged with doing comprehensive
planning.

b. Creation of a growth committee, similar to a development
cabinet but -perhaps not a permanent structure, and involving
non-agency citizen participants as well as town officials.
Again, this could be the group charged with planning, both
developing policy and doing necessary implementation.

C. Use of ad hoc workshops and other devices. Without formal
structural change, enormous improvement in understanding can
result from conscious efforts at promoting communication.
Occasional joint meetings, occasional cross-departmental
workshops, and members designated to attend meetings of
other agencies are but a few of the ways communication can
be enhanced.

3. Prepar Plans

Townspeople themselves need to clarify what they must do to make a
better f uture. The plans of the 60s and 70s should have pin-pointed
those actions but seldom did, in part because the plans were generally
created by off-Cape professionals remote from the local scene, and in
part because the plans focused on ideal future states rather than on
needed actions. Planners now know better how to engage the public,
involve all necessary agencies and facilitate the local evolution of
'plans that truly reflect local priorities. Forging action strategies
depends heavily on that laborious, time consuming but indispensable
investment in creative rather than reactive planning.

To put it another way, an old-fashioned "revealed" blueprint for a
distant future ignores too many contingencies and specifics to be
useful, while a more dynamic and locally-grown approach can better
help towns gain perspective, galvanize action and achieve control of-
their future.

The elements of those plans and the tools to carry them out are
contained in this manual. What is needed is the local effort to bring
those tools into action.

B. INNOVATIVE ZONING

The zoning bylaws and the zoning map are the strongest and most widely
employed planning tools available to a community to control the use of
land and the density of development. For many years in Massachusetts,
Chapter 40A of the General Laws, "The Zoning Act", has provided the
legal -basis for community zoning, which, in its simplest form, speci-
fied areas for single and multi-family housing, for retail and whole-
sale businesses, for light and heavy industry (if desired) and for
public uses such as parks, schools, hospitals and simi,lar community
institutions. Minimum lot sizes, set-backs from proper-ty.* lines, maxi-
mum height of buildings and attendant parking requirem'ents (where

our land forecasts on conti nuation of-that rate. with about one-
quarter of the acquired land coming out of unbuildable wetland and
dune. the rest out of buildable vacant land.

By the year 2000, development and land reservation will 'still leave
vacant developable land, but only about half the amount now available.
By then, twice as much land will have been developed as will remain
for future building.

F. ToWN-LEVEL FORECASTS

Forecasts of winter population and peak population have been made- for
each of the Cape's 15 towns, using four different projection tech-
niques. then making a fifth "best judgment". Results are summarized
in Tables 13 and 14.

The "linear extrapolationn figures are what would result if the number
of added winter and peak period residents per year were the same in
each town in the period 1980-2000 as it had been in the period 1960-
1980. The total of those extrapolations is some 6-8% higher than the
Cape-wide total population.we have forecast, though in some individual
towns extrapolation produces projections lower than those produced by
other methods.

The "land share" method bases growth on vacant land availability. The
projected 1980-1990 Cape-wide construction of new housing units is
distributed among the towns in proportion to their share of the Cape's
1980 vacant buildable land. and 1990-2000 construction is distributed
based on projected 1990, buildable vacant land. The total resulting
housing units in each town are then divided between year-round and
seasonal occupancy, @ and dwelling units converted to population by
using estimates of population per dwelling unit. The basic method
assures that the town figures sum to the Cape-wide forecast. In most
cases this projection provides the figure in which we placed greatest
reliance in reaching "best. judgment".

"Shift share of population" is another way of distributing the Cape-
Me forecast among towns. This method, instead of extrapolating
population trends, extrapolates the trends in percentage share each
town has of the. Cape-wide total population. winter or peak. Those
extrapolated shares, applied to the Cape-wide forecast, give town-by-
town projections.

Similarly, "shift share of dwelling unitSn extrapolates each town's
share of the Cape-wide total.of dwelling units, uses that share to
project the number of dwelling units in each town. splits those units
between year-round and seasonal occupancy, then converts units to
population.
All those projections ([email protected])' were graphed, and "best judgments"
made for each town. For example, linear extrapolation is clearly.too
low in Mashpee because of past events unlikely to be repeated, but is
unsustainably high in Falmouth.. Land share is plummeting so fast in
Yarmouth that projections based on it are probably low. while Bourne's
land resources are so vast that proje,ctions based on them seem clearly

too high. On the other hand, Bourne's share of Cape population has
steadily dropped, attributable in part to the influence of Otis.
Extrapolation of that share is unreasonably low. Dennis' share of
Cape-wide population grew sharply over the past decade, but land
availability won't allow that to continue.

on the average, the highest projections for year 2000 town peak popu-
lations exceed the lowest projections by 22 percent, excluding
Provincetown (which has a 96 percent range). That is a fair indica-
of the sort of uncertainty- involved. At the town level (espe-
cially the smaller towns), town forecasts which fall within 10 percent
of the actual fiqure within a decade from the base year would be
fairly good, and forecasts averaging within 5 percent of the actual'
figures would simply be fortuitous.

Table 13
TOWN WINTER TOTAL POPULATION

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

BOURNE 7430 8770 11830 14100 16200
FAL MO U TH .13,040 15820 23635 29000 33000
MASHPEE 870 1290 3700 6200 8400
SANDWICH 2080 3630 8730 12600 15500
OTIS 6590 5600 2045 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 13470 19840 30900 39000 4*5000
DENNIS 3730 6450 12360 15500- 17000
YARMOUTH 5500 12:0310 18450 22000 24300

BREWSTER 1240 1800 5230 8000 10000
CHATHAM 3270 4550 6010 7500 8200
EASTHAM 1200 2040 3470 4700 5700
HARWICH 3750 5900 8970 11200 13000
ORLEANS 2340 3060 5300 6900 8000

PROVINCETOWN 3390 3700 3540 4200 4400
-TRURO 100C 1230 1490 1800 2000
WELLFLEET 1400 1740 2200 2700 3200

TOTAL 70300 .97450 147860 187400 215900

Source: 1960-1980: US Census.of Population
1990-2000: "Best Judgment" forecasts

applicable), as well as commercial sign control are Provisions common
to most zoned cities and towns throughout-the Commonwealth.

This simple zoning format served as the blueprint for most of the
towns on Cape Cod, as noted in the previous section.

More sophisticated means to guide future growth, while bet ter pro-
tecting the environment, are now possible with the mid-70s revision of
the Zoning Act (Chapter 808 of the General Laws), and with the design
and judicial approval of new techniques. Indeed, if properly drafted
and applied with great care to avoid overstepping legal bounds, cer-
tain of the zoning innovations cited hereafter offer the Cape towns
the best opportunity to turn the tide of development into constructive
channels.

OVERLAY DISTRICTS

Flood plain zoning, groundwater districts and historic districts are
all familiar examples of dverlay zoning. It is a flexible technique
which allows towns to recognize unique areas or critical resources.
In such districts "overlay" regulations are applied in addition to the
existing, regular zoning of the underlying zone.

Of great significance, overlay zon-ing permits towns to proclaim
legally that not all land in the same basic zoning district is
identical. It puts the control where it is needed without subjecting
property owners to undue regulatory interference. However, it does
require careful work to def ine the district adequately prior to
adopting a bylaw. Without a clearly identifiable district the
enforcement and administration of a bylaw becomes a mire open to legal
challenge, which could result in overturning an otherwise well-written
law.

The best know forms of overlay districts on Cape Cod are floodplain,
aquifer and historic districts. Others as well can yield real
benefits for many parts of the Cape. Examples include:

1. Ecological districts, identifying and providing protection
to wildlife habitats, etc.
2. Harbor or coastal overlay zones for control of the visual
environment, including special set-backs and/or planting.
3. Onshore districts to insure that important maritime activi-
ties will have land access to perpetuate the fishing and
boat-building industries.

WATER ZONING

Zoning districts need not stop at the water's edge. They can continue
over the water, providing a legislative means of managing use of water
bodies. Few communities have done anything to manage water bodies for
appropriate uses - except, perhaps, to ban motorboats on a few ponds.
Stricter zoninq would appear to be absolutely essential unless Cape
waterways and harbors are to be regarded as future extensions for
population growth with floating neighborhoods of houseboats.

In addition to prevention of the.foregoingr water zoning should give
consideration to.-

1. Mooring areas with channel capacity reserved for commercial
fishing. Areas for pleasure craft, recreational use, skin
'divers.

2. Areas free of motor-boating.

3. Water areas, as well as wetlands, reserved for wildlife.

CONTROL OF GROWTH RATES (SEE SECTION IV, MANAGING GROWTH RATES ON CAPE
COD)

INCENTIVE ZONING (AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 9 OF CHAPTER 40A)

Instead of zoning always saying what " _nQt allowed, incentive zoning
focuses on what " wante . The town of Bourne, for example, explicit-
ly retains woodland, or gets housing equipped and reserved for the
elderly, in exchange for bonuses to the developer such as a specific
percentage increase in the allowable number of dwelling units.

Other towns might reward provision of housing for low and moderate
income families or amenities such as off-site pedestrian improvements
with similar percentage increases in allowable density. The law
specifies only that trade-offs be explicit and that a limit to the
bonuses be established.

PERFORMANCE ZONING

Performance zoning is based on the premise that more flexibility in
the application of zoning regulations can often achieve development
which more precisely carries out the regulatory intent - similar to
the way incentive zoning works. Performance characteristics of the
land (suggested by topography, soil types, and soil conditions, for
example) together with the performance attributes of development (such
as sewage output,, potential traffic to be generated) serve as the
basis for regulation, rather than basing it on categorie-a of land use
and categgries of district.

Refining zoning in this manner requires skill and care to avoid making
administration more complex. Cape towns, with growing planning exper-
tise, may be prepared to adopt this innovation in the near future.

TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Under many. present bylaws, "cluster" or "open space village" develop-
ment employs transfer of development rights (TDR) permitting the
developer to transfer all his building rights to one part of his

Edited from A fluide t_Q Massachusetts' Ney Zoning _Ajat - Chapter 8OfL
DI JIe A_clz gl 1_9_@, prepared by Philip B. Herr and issued by the
Cooperative Extension Service.

property in favor of permanent open space on another portion of his
land, while not exceeding the overall allowa.bIe number of housing
units. Bylaws in some Cape Cod towns go farther and allow the
transfer of development rights to adjacent parcels as well, even
though the parcels may not be under the same ownership.

The next step is to allow transfers between non-contiguous parcels, as
a number of of f-Cape towns now do. In this way, transfer of develop-
ment rights can achieve the preservation of agricultural, horticul-
tural and forest land or scenic views. The virtue of this approach is
that it encourages development on.well-suited parcels and allows those
parcels.best undeveloped to remain in their.natural state.

OPEN SPACE VILLAGES II

The open space village (OSV) model for cluster developmentl designed
in the early 170s under CCPEDC sponsorship, has,had major influence
on Cape Cod land development, having been adopted in various forms by
many of the Cape's towns. Perhaps now it is time f or OSVII. These
are the key features of the OSVII approach.

1. AII subdivisio n of, say ten or more lots would require a
.special permit.

2. A submittal requirement for that special permit would be
concept-level plans for two or more alternative schemes,
including at least one utilizing OSVII flexibility. The
Planning, Board would be able to select that plan which best
serves the bylaw criteria, including habitat preservation,
protection of groundwater quality, and impact on town
character.

3. The. OSV rules would, as the older model does, fix the
overall development density at the parcel level, and allow
individual building lots to be' smaller if compensated for by
reserved open space. The difference in OSVII would be one
of degree, allowing much deeper reductions in individual lot
area requirements and in turn allowing reservation of much
more significant open spaces.,

4. There would be several refinements beyond the OSV rules to
allow wide application, including. provision that the open
space need not be common open space (but could be more
simply deed-restricted against development while remaining
individually owned), and elimination of the common minimum
tract threshold of 10 to 20 acres.

The foregoing are the most prominent of innovative zoninq possibili-
ties now available to communities under Chapter 808 (and Section 9 of
Chapter 40A). Of course, it should be stressed that communities still
cannot take property without compensation or in any other way violate
the United States or, Commonwealth Constitutions.

C SUBDIVISION CONTROL

Town control over subdivisions is authorized by the Subdivision Con-
trol Law,, Chapter 41F section 81-A to 81-GG. Unlike the Zoning Act,,
the Subdivision Control Law has not undergone comprehensive revision
in recent years, still retaining its 1950s structure despite ad hoc
amendments since then. APCC has been clear in its criticism of that
law (see "The Massachusetts Subdivision Control Law and Local Control
by the Towns", Nickerson and Nickerson,, APCC,, 1974). However, in
spite of the law's constraints on local authority, much constructive
management beyond that commonly exercised is possible under it. Three
things in particular should be done by Cape Cod towns.

First, the standards by which subdivision streets are built has enor-
mous impact on how streets affect town character. There is a choice
between rural and. suburban character in arcane topics like maximum
allowable grades, lengths of tangents connecting curves and vertical
curve specifications. Too often wrong choices are made because of
inability to understand that connection, because of anxiety to serve
vehicular convenience and because of belief that only controls which
are punitive to developers are sound. The result is legislated
suburbia. Rules which are strict:in regard to how steep or curvy
roads may be, or whether there are cur'bs or sidewalks, often destroy
Cape Cod character in service to the auto and urban amenities. Simi-
lar and even more obscure issues regarding stormwater management also
actively require environmental destruction. Each town should
reexamine its subdivision controls, most of which reflect 1950s ideas
if not 1950s authorship, to see how they might be revised to better
f it roads to the land rather than vice versa, and how to more substan-
tially emphasize environmental protection in the process of develop-
ment.

Second,, a great deal of development escapes subdivision control
altogether by dividing land along existing ways having some degree of
public standing. These "appr-oval not required", "81-p" or "Form A"
plans, as they are variously called, are the vehicle for a great deal
of the Cape's development and have permitted development where road
conditions and utilities are i-nadequate.- two of the worst offenses.
Recent court decisionsi, however, clarify that nothing of the sort
need be allowed.

Towns may and should specify in their subdivision regulations what
standardsare to bemet byexisting roads in order toqualify land for
division. Those standards would vary with potemtial demand, roads
potentially serving many homes@ being required to be more substantial
than those potentially serving few. Plans for lots having frontage on
substandard roads and which therefore fail to provide access as
intended by the Subdivision Control Law can then be refused.

Similarly, recent case law allows towns to establish standards of
access for the streets by which a potential subdivision is to be
reached, and to require that, within reason, the.developer brip the
access streets to that standard or be refused plan approval. Too
often perfectly sound streets within a subdivision are only reached

via hopelessly inadequate existing ones. The town is under no obliga-
tion to upgrade streets simply in order to make land speculation
profitable; however, upgrading can and often should be made a private
obligation.

Third, town planning boards should be given choices in acting on
plans, not just be forced to face a single "take it or leave it" plan,
as is common. Alternative plans can reasonably be requested at the
preliminary plan stage, perhaps showing conventional versus clustered
development, or even single-family versus' multifamily development.
only by wide choices can decisions effectively address the broad
questions of habitat protection, visual character and environmental
quality. The cost of designing alternatives at the early stage is
small, especially when compared with the private cost of later defini-
tive plan rejection, let alone the public cost of permanent environ-
mental damage.
Alternatives may be requested under subdivision control, but reguiring
them appears to demand provisions under zoninq as well. Recent case
law is. encouraging in having left intact a town's requirement that
certai@ divisions of land be authorized only under a zoning special
permit. An example of this new zoning concept might be that subdivi-
sion of more than, say, ten lots would be allowable only on special
permit with a requirement for submittal of alternative plans. A
carefully constructed set of decision criteria would be the basis for
selecting among those alternatives. Precedent for this doesn't
exists, but its promise merits its exploration.

Alternatives are meaningless unless controls are flexible enough to
allow real choice. The typical Cape Cod town's cluster zoning allows
some variation, but flexibility is limited by the relatively small
reduction allowed in individual lot size. Greater choice and there-
fore potentially greater environmental protection is offered when
zoning fixes the density at the parcel level but then gives great
flexibility in choice of dwelling type, whether single-family detached
or townhouse, and in minimum lot size, whether essentially uniform or
varying down to that which is the very smallest environmentally
supportable. By allowing more compact development on parts of the
parcel in return for open space reservation on other parts,, locatio
becomes a choice within the parcel. It is then no longer necessary to
cover all of the land with development,, as results even with conserva-
tive cluster laws, and as a result there is real choice and the
potential for truly creative solutions to development opportunities.

Notes

See especially, Perry Y.- 2-JanDimg Boar Df Nantucket (1983) 444 N.E.
2d389, 15 Mass. App. 144.
2 North Corp. Y.. P1,annijaZ aDs-u_d _Qf (1981) N.E. 2d
934, 382 Mass. 432.
3 L-Qu" 9_iuJj&.na -e-t A-1. v.. T-Q-wjl -of E@d_qAxJ_QXn_L _e_t -al, Civil Action 81-
2868-6, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Feb. 8,
1982.

n. TECHN!IOUES TO SECURE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION LAND

Providing open space and recreati,onal. opportunities together with
establishing land conservation programs is not a luxury that Cape Cod
towns can afford to provide afte all their other needs are satisfied.
It is an essential ingredient in the lives of town residents and thus
must have high priority in the planning for services and facilities.
Land conservation planning can hardly occur too early, for as develop-
ment. pressures i-ncrease, the opportunities for meeting recreational
and conservation needs automatically decrease.

Depleted municipal revenues and inflated costs of undeveloped land
have reduced individual towns' abilities to purchase land. The
increasing number of sales of land parcels to commercial, industrial
and residential developers has reduced the amount of land available
for acquisition. Although such development may serve to broaden the
local tax baser (an initial plusf but increasinglyr a long term minus
due to the costs of added services), several Cape towns have
discovered that in many instances within their more congested
neighborhoodst they have lost the only land available for needed park,
recreation and conservation lands.

The acquisition and protection of open space provides a number of
economic and social benefits to the community. In addition to
allowing for park and outdoor recreation opportunities, the preserva-
tion of community open space increases adjacent land values, helps
retain a community's character, and most significantly, permits the
channeling of growth in a more effective manner than mere enforcement
of zoning or subdivision regulations. For these very reasons, it is.
recommended that Cape officials and residents take advantage of what-
ever programs, processes and regulations are available for the syste-
matic procurement of open land within the towns.

Once traditional methods of land planning for park and outdoor recre-
ation facilities are no longer accepted as entirely reliable. Old
formulae such as space standards are inadequate guidelines for local
acquisition programs. Furthermore, @plentiful dollars and abundant
land are simply not available. There exist, however, numerous innova-
tive legal and administrative techniques individual towns can use to
acquire and preserve lands for parks and outdoor recreation facili-
ties, as well as conservation and agricultural lands.

Although many land acquisition and control techniques are available to
municipalities, they have traditionally been grouped into three major
categories: acquisition (fee simple, easements and convenants); taxa-
tion (preferential assessment, tax deductions); and regulation
(zoning, subdivision controls). Recently, many municipalities have
supplemented these traditional acquisition strategies by establishing
community land trusts. A discussion of this variation from the tradi-
tional methods of land procurement follows a brief review of subdivi-
sion dedication requirements, purchase and lease back, community land
.banks and acceptance of private donations which continue to enjoy
considerable success.

SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS

Subdivision dedication requirements permit towns to require land
developers to reserve land for park and outdoor recreational uses
within a subdivision. By requiring developers to provide adequate
open lands as well as septic systems, drainage and road improvements,.
subdivision regulations can positively guide the-development of a
municipality. Mandatory dedication requirements represent an
effective means of procuring park land in developing municipal areas
This acquisition device is least useful, however, in those portions oi
a municipality-already developed.

Although statutes.requiring the dedication of park land as a precondi-'
tion to the approval of subdivision plans exist in most states, Massa-
chusetts prohibits planning boards from requiring mandatory dedication
of park lands for a period of more than three years. This prohibition
seriously reduces the ability of rapidly developing towns such as
Falmouth and Barnstable to set aside open space through subdivision,
control regulations.

The town of Falmouth countered this difficulty by establishing an
"Open Space Residential Development" zoning bylaw. In addition.to
being an imaginative alternative to the typical grid layout of lots in
a subdivision, the bylaw allows the town to require land from sub-,
dividers to be set aside in perpetuity as open space. In return#, the
subdivider enjoys several benefits vis-a-vis lower roadway, utility
and construction costs.

MGL, Chapter 40A, section 9 allows towns to accept lands set aside as
open space within open space residential developments. This provision
allows Falmouth an opportunity to develop interconnected open space
throughout the town as open space residential developments are laid
out.

PURCHASE AND LEASEBACK

As a form of land use control,, purchase and lease,back. has been
successfully used by the town of Falmouth for several years. Purchase
and leaseback is the acquisition of land by purchase, eminent domain
taking, or by gift, and the subsequent leasing of the land to an
individual or individuals for a specific use.

Falmouth has been using purchase and leaseback in the operation of the
town's cranberry bogs by acquiring the bogs and then leasing the
rights to farm the land on a ten-year basis. This arrangement could
easily be expanded to include farmlands. Essentially, towns would
acquire suitable agricultural properties, post bidding notices and
grant long-term farming leases to the highest qualified bidder. The
town would also have the right to impose restrictions on what can be
done on the land, in a fashion similar to the restrictions imposed
upon the lessee of Falmouth's cranberry bogs.

COMMUNITY LAND BANKS

currently being
Land banks.have traditionally been used, and are
,..viewed as a more efficient and effective means of combatting the
disappearance of park and open space land than subdivision
regulations, easements or .-other traditional land acquisition strate-
gies. In actuality, land banking refers to the process of the town
entering the. real estate market to buy and sell land. An advantage of
community *land banks is that the municipal ownership of the land
perm'its implementation of comprehensive land use plans that would
otherwise be impossible. The principal advantage of land banks,
therefore, is that the town makes major development decisions, rather
than having a host of private developers make such decisions.

The advantages of establishing a municipal land bank include many
other benefits which are well beyond the scope of this paper. These
benefits, like the costs associated with a municipal land bank (lost
tax revenues, distrust of governmental land ownership, and the potential
'conflict of purchasing private lands with public funds for an assumed
public purpose.) must be weighed by Cape town officials and residents.

E. COMMUN I TY LAND TRUSTS

As a response to the acute shortage of suitable park land in many
municipaliti 'es and an inability to purchase land because of lack of
dollars in others, towns are searching for ways to solicit land, funds
and services from the private sector.

The motivation for donating-or selling land to a municipality at a
reduced market value is similar for both the corporate sector and
private individuals. Tax deductions, improved community relations, a
desire t-opreserve an aesthetically pleasing parcel of land or the
inability to develop' profitably a particular land parcel are some of
the reasons private sector contributions of land are made. It is
important, therefore, that Cape Cod's town officials not only be aware
of the.pool of private land available in their jurisdiction, but also
that they formulate ways to tap this resource.

A conservation trust is a private organization dependent upon public
support for its initial creation and continued existence. It is'
Private in @the sense that it is not an instrumentality of government.
..It@@is: aneffective mechanism for, the acquisition and administration of
land@ for.:pre:se'rvation in its open and natural state.

.,Conservation trusts arose as a positive step out of a dissatisfaction
With in str,umental i ties of government such as conservation commissions.
Unf.:or tuna tely 0, conservation commissions are so inundated with plans
..for development that they do not have time to work on their other
delegated function, which is to acquire land for preservation.

Asa charitable organization, a conservation trust has a perpetual
existence. Its Board of Trustees is analogous to the-:Board of
Directors of a corporation, but as a -requirement of its non-profit
status, it has members rather than shareholders. Another form of
organization for the same purposes is the conservation foundation,

which can also be a non-prof it corporation. A key attribute of both
these entities is that upon the winding up of their affairs, should
that ever have to occur, the assets thereof are not distributed among
the members, but rather are turned over to another similarly qualified
non-prof it corporation.

The existence and utilization of the trust as an organizational entity
has long been recognized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. In terms of the conservation trust organizations with which
the writer is most intimately connected, the trust form of organiza-
tion was selected on the basis that a trust is a simpler device to
operate than a corporation, even a non-profit corporation. Both can,
however, achieve the same,results.

After the organizers of either a conservation trust or a conservation
foundation have chosen that form, there must be obtained from the
Internal Revenue Service a designation as a qualified charity. This
has two effects. First, such a designation means that the organiza-
tion is exempt from federal income taxation. Normally, the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts will recognize a determination of tax
exemption by the Internal Revenue Service. Secondly,, the determina-
tion from the IRS qualifies the organization as a charitable entity,
making donations from donors deductible as a charitable contribution.
This latter designation is obviously vital in terms of attracting
donors for the support and operation of the organization from the
public at large.

As an indication of the perceived need for conservation organizations
of this type, f ive such organizations have been created on the Lower
Cape within the last f ive years. One Cape town, Dennis, has gone
another route, acquiring considerable acreage of land for the purposes
of conservation through governmental efforts. Dennis has even used
bonding and eminent domain to acquire conservation land. This
suggests that there are considerable tools available for the purposes
of preservation when and if the*citizenry is aroused to utilize them.

Despite fears to the contraryt land designated for conservation by one
of these instruments is fairly safe. While a town meeting can vote to
rescind land being held for conservation purposes, Massachusetts law
allows land so held to be removed from that designation only by a
special act of the Legislature. Such acts are seldom opposed, how-
ever, and routinely sail through the Legislature. In contras't, the
trustees of a conservation trust or foundation which relies on public
donations must be very public-relations conscious about their manage-
ment decisions if the public is to be encouraged to continue making
donations. A conservation trust relies on public trust, and so far in
over a decade of experience on Cape Cod, this trust has been fully
justified.

For the most part, conservation trusts rely on donations of land for
the holding which they acquire. In some instances purchase has been
resorted to, but they are few and far between. However, the existence
of an organization like a conservation trust is a mighty tool for a
campaign to acquire funds for the purpose of land which needs to be
protected and preserved in its natural and open state. These fully

qualified charitable non-profit organizations provide an inducement to
the public at large to make cash donations, if needed, to raise, funds
for purchase. Along the same linesl this charitable entity consti-
tutes a selling tool that can be employed to convince a land owner
planning to convey his land in exchange for money to do so at less
than full market value. He, too, can take a deduction for that por-
tion of the value that he donates, an action which saves him some
portion of capital gains taxes.

A-conservation trust is an effective method of acqui-ring land to
preserve it in its open and natural state. In this manner we may
continue to enjoy it in the face of the unrelenting pressures of
development.

F. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND AGRICULTURAL RESTRICTIONS

Conservation easements offer many property owners a valuable option.
By foregoing future development of the land, the owner benefits from
significantly lower property taxes and, upon sale or inheritance, the
estate should also benefit from much reduced capital gains taxes. Of
course, the community benefits as well by a reduction of developable
land and the addition of permanently protected open space.

while this option may have its widest appeal among large land owners,
there are many smaller holdings to which the conservation easement can
apply. While conservation easements may be designed to suit the
property and persons involved, care must be taken to be consistent
with federal and state laws in the preparation of such agreements
between the grantors (owners) and the grantees (towns) to avoid legal
misinterpretations that might negate or lessen the benefits to both
parties. (Recent IRS examinations give importance to this note of
warning.)

For example, conservation or restriction, easements may:

1. Restrict the number of houses to be build upon a certain
parcel of land;

2. Restrict the future uses of a piece of land;

3. Allow public access across the land;

4. Specify that the land remain undeveloped in perpetuity,
prohibiting clear cutting of trees or vegetation, for
example;

5. Prohibit the location of billboards, signs, etc., upon the
land.

It is important to note that conservation easements do not necessarily
guarantee public access to private land. Specific access and/or
construction plans, if applicable, must be written into each easement.
This must be worked out between the land owner and the town or re-
ceiving agency. Generally, conservation easements and restrictions do
not remove land from the tax rolls in its entirety or remove the

owner's right to sell or lease the land at any @ime. sub3ect to the
terms of the restriction and - under certain circumstances - the
repayment of back taxes. The Massachusetts Land League cities esti-
mated annual losses of agricultural land in excess of 11,000 acres per
year between-1951 and 1971 to urbanization. In the past decade losses
have continued at a reduced pace. In forty years Massachusetts has
lost over a million and a half acres of farm land. The disparity
between the value of land for agriculture and and the value of devel-
opment land has widened rapidly since World War II. The incentive to
sell farm land for non-agricultural uses is too often difficult to
resist. Even the value of farm land carries too high a price for
another farmer if the potential development value is included in the
asking price.

In 1980 the Commonwealth added to its conservation restriction options
the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program (APR) to help offset
the continued rapid.loss of farmland. The voluntary APR Program
provides for purchase of-the development rights from a prioritized
list of applicants. (Priorities are based upon specific criteria
employed by the APR nine-member committee.)

The Commonwealth pays the landowner the difference between the
appraised value of the land for development and its agricultural.
value. Thereafter? the land is taxed solely as farmland. The econo-
mics of this program have kept more than 130 farms in business and
thus have passed on the opportunity to continue farming that, property.

A model of the success of this program is the 220-acre Windstar farm
on Cape Cod. According to the August 1984 letter from the Massachu-.
setts Land League, this farm was destined to become a 440-unit condo-
minium development and golf course. It is "now producing over 25 tons
of vegetables this year because two young farmers have had the
opportunity to lease the farm on a long-term basis now that the owner
has sold his development rightsu.

The APR Program is currently funded through legislative, bond authori-
.zation in the amount of 45 million dollars.

The above two programs,, conservation easements and agricultural
restrictions, differ in that the first is negotiated with the town and
the second with a state agency. A third program again works locally.
The MGL Chapter 61A tax assessment law enables a working farmer tG
apply to local assessors for a tax abatement which in some instances
on Cape Cod has cut tax liability by a factor of 20 (from a "highest
and best use" market value-based tax of $20,000 down to $1,.000. per
acre for a vegetable farm in Falmouth.) To qualify, farmland must
total five contiguous acres and show revenue of $500 per year " fortwo
years in a row. Town tax assessors or the County Extension Agent can
supply complete details of the program's fairly complicated require-
ments.

To be more useful on Cape Cod, the required acreage under Chapter 61A
needs to be reduced to three contiguous or five non-contiguous acres,-
and the tax incentive should begin on the first day rather than only
being available as a rollback after two years. These - amendments are

the subject of legislation which has been filed several times in the
General Court and is being carried by the Massachusetts Farm Bureau,
whose current president is a Cape Cod.farmer.
G. LAND TRANSFER TAX

The fairest and most straightforward way to control the use of land
and/or i,ts:development is to buy land outright. This is how our
..earli&st American communities regulated land-use for the benefit of
the.:common " good. Acquiring open-space land would return to the prac-
tice of the community ownership of "common" lands,, with one important
distinction. Cape Cod's earlier community leaders were concerned to
And from very
promote the settlement and exploitation of Cape Cod.
....,early times, their approach to this task was to pursue policies that,
throughout the history of Cape Cod, have tended to deplete its natural
resources. The present day objective for acquiring "common lands" is
to.promote the general welfare and protect the quality of life by
preserving natural areas.

One. consequence of the development of Cape Cod has been to create a
very substantial economic base from which to generate the wherewithal
to carry out a plan of community acquisition of land, or development
rights in land. The authority for such acquisitions exists -- by
negotiated purchase or taking by eminent domain. Improved procedures
are needed for linking the authority to acquire land with the resource
capacity to pay for acquisitions.

'A promising new mechanism which has been established by state legisla-
tion enacted in 1983 for Nantucket County is the so-called "land
bank."' . This type of legislation could well be the key to the future
as, it provides a viable model for 1) just compensation of land owners
2) proper municipal acquisition and protection of important
resources. The Nantucket bill created a special new Nantucket Islands
Land Bank Commission which is empowered to acquire and manage land and
interests in land as follows:

ocean, harbor and pond frontage in the form of beaches,
dunes and adjoining backlands;

2. barrier beaches;

3. fresh and salt water marshes, estuaries and adjoining
uplands; and

4. heathland and moors,

The commission is obliged to hold the land it acquires "in its
natural, scenic or open condi.tion" and is charged not to allow any
exploitation 2of th e land or anything unsightly or detrimental to be
done thereon,

The commission is given the right to finance land acquisitions by
-borrowing money,3 or by drawing upon a special land bank fund into
which are to be deposited , f unds appropriated by the count
commissioners of Nantucket County or a town meeting of Nantucket,x

100

voluntary contributions to the fund, proceeds from disposal of real
property or interests therein, and revenues from a 2 percent fee on
the purchase price paid for the transfer of land or any nterest in
land situated in Nantucket, subject to certain exemptions.

The authority to use the land-bank funds for this pur.pose achieves the
necessary linkage of authority to acquire,land with the wherewithal,to
pay for acquisitions. It means that the commission can, without time-
consuming prior approval procedures, proceed promptly to -negotiate
purchases that are within the current fiscal capacity of the land-bank
fund. When land acquisitions must be made by condemnation, or when
the commission elects to raise funds by the issuance of bonds, there
must be a two-thirds vote of town meeting. However, the commission's
authority to use land-bank funds to pay for staff and professional'
services assures its ability to prepare necessary surveys, appraisals,
and public information materials without delay or the need for prior
approvals.

it is too early to assess the Nantucket commission's land-acquisition
program, but transfer-tax revenues are reported t.o be running at an
annualized rate of about $2 million.

Bills have been introduced to establish land-bank arrangement for
Dukes County (Martha's Vineyard)6 and Ca .pe Cod.7 Because our concern
is for Cape Cod, and because the measure proposed for the Cape differs
more widely from the Nantucket legislation than does. the Dukes County
bill, we will focus on the proposal for the Cape.

The chief difference between the land bank proposed for Cape Cod and
those for the islands is that the former is not a regional arrange.-
ment. Instead of providing land-acquisition authority and funding
capacity to be employed on a countywide basis, the Cape Cod proposal
would establish a land bank in each of the Cape's 15 towns. A .ny two
or more towns could presumably concert their efforts, but the proposed
legislation gives towns no obligation, incentive, or facilitation to
work together on a regional or sub-regional basis.
Instead, the proposed bill for Cape Cod cal Ils- f-or@., each', t ow n, in
Barnstable County to decide, for itself, by referendum, whether or not
to accept the proposed "open space land fun.d" legislation,,' - I-f a
town's voters accept the law, a 2 percent sales tax goes .. i nto ef fe.c1t
on the purchase price over $50,000 of all transfer-s of, land in, the.
town, subject to certain exemptions.8 The town would, be free t o,:1 ow e r
the rate of tax and/or to raise the $50,000 thresho1d,of taxable
purchase-price, through the adoption of a general. to.wn bylaw, by,
majority vote of town meeting.

Revenues generated by the land-transfer tax would be received by'the
Barnstable County Registrar of Deeds on behalf of each town's tax
collector, and paid over to the town treasurer for deposit in a
special account. The Cape Cod bill creates no new body to expend
these revenues for the acquisition of open space land. Instead,,as
explained below,. the bill provides that revenues may be used@ by the.

101

town conservation commission for various land-acquisition and manage-
.,ment purposes for which towns already possess authority under the
Gener-al Laws of Massachusetts.

thee bill provide.s that the town's conservation commission may use the
land-bank funds for all its activities authorized by MGL Chapter 40,
section 8-C,, Y_iz.; 1) promoting and developing natural resources, 2)
protecting watershed resources, 3) researching local land areas, 4)
coordinating unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes, 5)
producing and distributing books, maps, charts, plans, and pamphlets
necessary for its work, 6) employing staf f and consultants, 7)
purchasing interests in any land or waters in the town, 8) acquiring,
maintaining,. improving, protecting, limiting future use of, or other-
wise conserving and properly using, open space in land and water areas
within the town. The,bill provides that for any single expense 2,ez-a
than 15-1.1UG approval of the selectmen/town manager is needed; for
any single expense ija _e.Xgg_gZ Df E5_DUD_, town meeting action by
simple majority vote is needed, with two-thirds majority vote required
for condemnation of land.

Under. the bill,, the conservation commission may also use land-bank
funds. for 9) recreational purposes deemed by the selectmen/town
manager to be. "active recreational purposes not harmful to the
environment", and.10) acquisition of agricultural, horticultural, and
forest lands held under MGL Chapter 61 and C. 61A. For these two
purposes, the bill calls for town meeting action, by simple majority
vote, with.a two-thirds majority vote required for condemnation of
land..

The bill also provides that revenues from the land-transfer tax may be
expended to retire any debt incurred by a town to acquire land for
conse 'rvation, recreation, or open space purposes, even if the debt was
incurred, or the acquisition made, before the town accepted the open
space land-fund law.

Table, 1.@ shows what the revenues would have been from a 2 percent land
sales tax f or each of, the 15 towns of Cape Cod, if the tax as proposed
had been in force in 1983.

Consider,ation is being given to modifying the Cape Cod land-bank
propotsal to provide for a portionof the land-transfer tax revenues to
be,: retained in a land-bank found to be managed by some county body for
purposesi This would facilitate theacquisition of key
-,@pa:rcels .,of: open s] pace land lying athwart town boundaries. It would
also enable the, county to provi.de incentives and assistance to towns,
and: t o; -a ch ieve' economies, with respect to the administration of their
land-acquisition programs.

Notesi

1983, Ma s,sa chusetts Acts, C., 669.

I bid, Sec. 6.

102

Notes
3 Through the issuance of bonds to be general obligations of Nantucket
(town or county), as authorized by a two-thirds vote of a Nantucket
town meeting.
4 County and town.are one and co-extensive in Nantucket.
5 Exemptions include the first $100,000 of the price of any first time
purchase of Nantucket property made for a permanent domicile, and
transfers made to any government agency, without consideration, to
any charitable or religious organization.
6 1984, S. No. 1972.
7 1984, H. No. 5914.
8 1984, H. No. 5914, Sec. 14E. Exempted transfers would include those
to government agencies, those made without consideration, and those
made to public charitable or religious organizations.

103

Table 1
Revenues from land transfer tax,
as per House' Bill No. 5914(1984)
based on 1983 land transactions

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Sales @ Price >$50,000 $ Value of Taxable Tax yield
Town No. $ Value exemptions value at 2%

Barnstable 1,196 $ 11.7,151,860 $ 59,800 ' 000 $ 57,351,860 $1,147,037
Bourne 247 21,689,966 12,350,000 9,339,966 186,799
Brewster 162 17,479,800 8,100,000 9,379,800 187,596
Chatham 291 34,119,092 14,500,000 19,619,092 392,382
Dennis 490 42,267,304 24,500,000 17,767,304 355,346
Eastham 129 10,155,032 6,450,000 3,705,032 74,101
Falmouth 548 62,484,546 27,660,000 34,824,546 696,491
Harwich 301 28,679,218 15,050,000 13,629,218 272,584
Mashpee 240 29,308,090 12,000,000 17,308,090 346,162
Orleans 217 25,462,514 10,943,000 14,519,514 290,390
Provincetown ill 15,514,000 5,550,000 9,964,000 199,280
Sandwich 320 26,107,305 16,040,000 10,067,305 201,346
Truro 61 7,098,250 3,050,000 4)048,250 80,965
Wellfleet 74 6,908,050 3,700,000 32208,050 64,161
Yarmouth 687 61,012,879 34,350,000 26,662P879 533,258

Cape Cod 5,074 $ 505,437,906 $254,043,000 $251,394,906 $5,027,898

These statistics were compiled with assistance provided by the Cape Cod
Planning and Economic Development Commission. from data on individual transfers
recorded at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds and published by Warren
Publishing Corporation (Boston) in Banker & Tradesman, and aggregated and
republished by Real Estate Data Pub@lishing (Framingham) in the 1983 Transfer
Directory for Barnstable County.

(1) Total number of 1903 land transactions at a price of more than $50,000.
(2) Total dollar value of the transactions counted in column (1).
(3) $50,000 per transaction counted in column (1), plus the entire value
above $50,000 for each transaction entirely exempt, e.g, transfers to
government agencies and to religious or charitable organizations.
(4) Column (2) minus column (3).
(5) 2% of column (4).

104

H. CONSUMPTION OF LAND: BRIEF CASE STUDIES

One of the key elements in the APCC Growth Report is a survey of the
potential capacity for additional housing permitted under the indi-
vidual town zoninq bylaws. Just what are the town's capacities for
additional population, based on their current zoned lot area minimums?

Such a survey requires reviewinq each parcel of land in the town in
relation to its zoninq. Since it was impractical to conduct such a
survey in each town in Barnstable County, the next best approach was
to select a sample of towns based on character, location within the
Cape, and availability of records. Four of the 15 towns were thus
chosen: Falmouth, to represent a typical highly developed South Shore
area; Harwich, a rapidly developinq Mid-Cape town; Orleans, a quickly
urbanizing town on the Outer Cape; and Wellfleet, an Outer Cape town
still retaining much of its rural seaside charm. In each case. the
surveys indicate that these towns have the potential capacity to more
than double their number of housinq units.

1. ORLEANS RESIDENTIAL ZONING CAPACITY

The 1980 census found a total of 3,678 housinq units in the town.
Building permits for another 313 units were issued up to January,
1983, resulting in a total of 3.991 housinq units as of that date. A
survey of Orleans' Assessors' parcel data as of January, 1983, reveals
that a theoretical 5.458 additional housinq units could be built under
existing town zoninq on remaininq developable land. About 2,000 of
these units would be eliqible under "grandfatherinq" of non-conforminq
lots (see below).

Orleans has a total land area of about 9,000 acres, of which about
3,200 acres are developed, according to APCC data. APCC, as part of
its Cape-wide buildable lots survey, estimates from aerial survey data
that the town has about 3.700 acres of "vacant buildable" land. This
area compares closely to the theoretical developable residential
acreage of 3.762 acres, based on da.ta from the assessors' print-out.

In the following table summarizing APCC's findings, please note this
caveat:

"Gz_=
_dfathere Lots

Current zoning requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet lot size for
new subdivisions. There were 1,302 vacant parc'els in the print-out
with 40,000 square feet or more. , The town's zoninq allows an addi-
tional housinq unit on existing lots of one to two acres (40.000 to
80,000 square feet), without allowinq such lots to be subdivided.
This was to "qrandfather" rights created under previous zoning when a
minimum of 20,000 square foot lot area per house was required. The
print-out indicated 1.060 such lots.

Large Lotz

Vacant parcels of five or more acres have been reduced by 10 percent
to allows for access road areas in computinq potential housinq units.

105

ORLEANS ADDITIONAL HOUSING CAPACITY
as of January, 1983

Developable Estimated
Parcels 'Land Potential
i&mbuerl .--(Acres) Housing Qnita

Total Vacant Parcels 2,219 2,140. 3.312

Total Developed Parcels
with additional housing
unit capacity, two acres
or more, subdividable, 1-.122

Subtotal 2.502 3,262 4,398

Additional Housing Units
permitted on developed
lots under two acres,
not subdividable __50_0

Total Potential Housing
Unit Additions 3,562 3,762 5,458

The impression many have that the town no lonqer has many large
parcels of land awaiting subdivision appears to be true. The
assessorsi print-out lists only,18 parcels of 10 acres or more,
totalling just under 300 acres. Another 34 parcels are between five
and ten acres, totalinq only 123 acres. Most of the developable land
has,thus already been subdivided.

Wet-lands

The assessors' print-out did not separate out wetlands portions of
otherwise buildable -lots. The town previously required 30-000 square
feet of upland, and recently increased it to 40,000 square feet (equal
to the minimum lot size) per housing unit. This further analysis
could adjust the potential housing units accordingly, but would be
time-consuming. Since the assessors' parcel map atlas does depict
those portions of lots classified as wetlands, we recommend that the
-town assessors include a wetlands area classification in their next
computer print-out data up-date.

2. HARWICH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH CAPACITY

The town of Harwich could more than double its present number of
housing units under current zoninq, APCC has found. At least 7.000
additional housing units could be built on vacant land. The town had
6,510 housinq units, according to the 1980 Census.
At least 2,000 housing units could be built on existinq vacant subdi-
vided lots, and 5.000 more on unsubdivided larqer parcels. Over 40

106

percent of the subdivided lots are "grandfathered", i.e., buildable
but below current zoninq minimum lot size. Undevelopable wetlands
were excluded where possible.

3. FALMOUTH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH CAPACITY

The followinq is a quantitative analysis of the potential for land
division and accompanyinq population growth within the town of
Falmouth based upon 1984 zoninq requlations. It should be emphasized
that this study does not include potential population increases or
dwelling unit additions as regards multi-family development or conver-
sion of existinq dwellings into two or more units. Thus. this study
represents only the potential of existing zoning in relation to vacant
acreage. It does not estimate the additional population increases
that could result from multi-family development, dwelling unit conver-
sions, variance or changes in zoninq requlations.

TOWN OF FALMOUTH
Developable Residential Lot Study

I. Subdividable Parcels:
Total Parcela - 1,216; TD-tal Are - .9,918 acres
Net Developable Total Lots/Dwellinq Units Tota-1 Population
9,037.60 acres 8,813 lots/dwlg units 26,439

II. Existing Vacant Lots:
T o t a 1 Al-ea TD-tal LQ_ts/_DUg TD"l PDP__U1at1_Qn
1.155.68 acres 3,552 10,656

III. Sum Total I + II: Tot 1LD_t_a Total F_Q"lAti_Qn
12,365 37,095

IV. Existing Winter Population: 25,823

V. Potential'Winter Population - III + IV: 62,918

Notes to accompany residential lot study:

a. Multi-family developments are allowed only in Business and Light
Industrial Zoning Districts. These Districts comprise approximately 9
percent of Falmouth's gross land area.

b. Falmouth Zoninq bylaws allow for a Board of Appeals Special
Permit for the conversion of dwellinqs on lots since January 1, 1980
in Residential, Public Use and General Residence Districts into up to
four dwelling units if the conversion involves.. "no material changes
to the exterior of the existing dwelling, and if the Board of Appeals
determines that the size of the buildinq and the lot are suitable for
the remodelinq."

P. Total subdividable parcels were calculated by determining if the
parcels could be divided'as an "approval not required" division (Mass.
Gen. Laws, Ch. 41, Sect. 81-P). Other parcels were subdivided in
accordance with the requlations of Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 41, Sect. 81-L
-and Sect. 81-0 and Sect. 3441 of the Falmouth Zoning Bylaw.

107

d. Net developable acres is a category used to ref lect true sub-
dividable acreage for those, parcels requiring subdivision approval.
Net developable acres is the total area of the parcel less 15 percent
of the area subtracted for road and utility layouts. Falmouth wetland
areas cannot be used to meet minimum lot size requirements.

e. Total lots and dwelling units were determined by dividinq the net
developable acreage by the minimum acreage allowed within the parcels,
zoning district. Section 3430 of the Falmouth Zoninq Bylaw restricts
new development with Residential Districts to one dwelling per lot.

f. Total population was calculated by -multl'plyinq total lots/
dwelling units by a factor of three persons per 'dwelling.

q. Existingvacant lots represent lots "grandfathered" by state or
local statute and thus protected from subsequent zoning changes. (See
Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 40A, Sect. 6 and Sections 3410-3422 and 3441 of
the Falmouth Zoning Bylaws.)

h. Existing wi nter p9pulation f igures represent 1985 estimates by
the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission, Population
ilms
-and 21-Qig-c-ti f" BArn5tAbl-e CDa"y 1,98-0=2.0.00. June, 1982.

4. WELLFLEET HOUSING UNIT POTENTIAL

Existing housing units: 1980 Census 2,629; 1984 CCPEDC estimate
2,860.

Additional potential housinq units by categories:

Grandfathered vacant lots, under 20,000 square feet.
5,000 - 10,000 sq. ft., 12 acres est. 73 H.Uls.
10,000 - 20.000 sa. ft., 6
-1 acres est. 177 H.Uls.
73 acres 250 H.Uls.

Small vacant lots, over 20.000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft. - 5 acres,@1300 acres est. 1543 H.Uls.

Large vacant parcels
5'- 10 acres, 95 acres
10 acres plus, 35-3- acres
448 615 H.Uls.

Developed lots with additional potential H.Uls.

2 5 acres 183 acres
5 acres plus, 3Q9- acres
492 acres 650 H.Uls.

Total Additional Housinq Units-2.300 acres est. (rounded) 3058.H.U'S.

at 37,000 sq. ft. average parcel size.

108

1. VISUAL CHARACTER

The mention of Cape Cod raises expectations of wide sandy beaches and
neat shingled cottages. Each of us can expand on these simple images
to include sailboats, pine trees, beach plums, blueberries. striped
bass, golf courses and clambakes.

Cape Cod is the epitome of rural seaside charm,. surrounded by salt
water bays, warmed by the Gulf Stream and bounded by miles of wide
beaches. The land is low and gently rolling. The predominant oak and
pine are sculpted by the ocean winds. Acres of salt marshes provide
a dynamic transition between the sand beaches and wooded uplands.

Cape Cod is thought to be a land in balance. The tide flushes the
marshes twice a day, presenting plentiful banquets to waiting fish.
Sea birds roost on nearby dunes. Our activities respond to the
seasons and celebrate historic happenings. Cape Cod is the place
where we recharge our senses.

The historic Cape Cod cottage with its single story height and pairs
of single paned windows bracketing the central door is a cherished
image. Several hundred years later, however, Ye@ continue and
encourage its widespread reproduction with litttle -co .ncern for the
copy's fidelity to proportion or siting. We espouse its image to such
a degree as to discourage a contemporary design of compatible scale.
We applaud a new bank's colonial facade. quickly forgetting the three
displaced historic houses which were so integral to the historic
villaqe-scape.

Historic architecture evolved by responding to realities of particular
eras: craftsmanship, natural and political climates and available
materials. What evolved on Cape Cod - as to scale, texture and color
- was a sense of region, where architecture with low profiles was
better protected against the frequent coastal storm, and a house clad
in indigenous cedar shingles would dry out quickly.

The study of historic patterns is important for understand,ing the
changes and adaptations that are occurring in these patterns.- Early
residents of Cape Cod evolved patterns of living 'that complemented the
land.

Traveling the length of the Cape. we notice that the original villages
have certain similarities. Houses are close together with narrow
front yards. Large trees archover the main street. The houses are
typically one story. village centers are for people, not cars.
Between the villages the road is defined by natural hedges and marsh
grasses, pine trees and forest trees, rather than street trees. The
houses become homesteads set some distance from the road, separated by
f ields, orchards, wood lots and marsh. The critical ingredients of
this scene are thetrees and proximity of building to building and
buildings to the road. This pattern from village center to more open
land illustrtes a strong social pattern. Many of these historic
Patterns persist today, although in an overtaxed condition or in an
entirely different context. Narrow lanes and northside stagecoach
routes have become state highways. Villages are now towns. New

109

houses fill the fields and orchards and line the marshes. Social
awareness and understanding need to be translated into actions in
order.to retain the valued character while allowing contemporary
patterns to evolve. The historic patterns present us with comparisons
and choice toward our future growth.

Change is coming fast. Villages centering along Route 6A are
expanding with various convenience and specialty stories serving a
growing market. The village populations are multiplying. Development
along Route 28 is starting to witness a second generation of business,
motels, stores and housing. Just as some landscapes are ecologically
important to such things as the quality and quantity of water, other
landscapes are., psychologically important to meet our expectations of
the quality of life which attracted us to Cape Cod. The land that is
ecologically critical or culturally significant must be defined and
managed. The psychologically important land, the land representing
the quality of life upon which our expectations are set, must also be
identified. From this assembled information, management priorities in
the form of policies, regulations and quidelines can be supported.
The time is right for local institutions to define the visual
character they want for their communities, and to evolve the
mechanisms needed to help assure it.

Visual character clearly involves much more than building design. it
involves the overall development pattern, whether of clustered
villaqes or continuous development. It involves the siting of
building's, parking, landscaping and other elements within a parcel.
The same "ingredients" of land use and even building design produce
sharply different visual consequences depending upon relationship to
the road, to ocean views, to hilltops and to other site-related
elements. Visual character also involves building design, but most
importantly the scale, massing, materials and pro-portions of
buildings, only secondarily the commonly regulated issue-of style.

Unfortunately, efforts to manage Cape Cod's visual character have
centered on architectural style to the neglect of the rest, and
11style" is the hardest issue of all, involving subjectivity and
,difficult choice (are vinyl clapboards "appropriate"?). However, no
amount of architectural review can protect the overall pattern of
clustered village centers and open areas. Only careful zoning design
inteqrated with open space acquisitio In, utilities policy and road
design. can do that. Well-designed and well-administered site plan
review rules can assure that the road's edge is respected by major
development, that parking is not the chief visual feature and that
scenic views are respected. Many Cape 'Cod towns' subdivision
regulations unwittingly require suburban qualities in new development.
When the complex rules_governing street geography, drainage and other
features are written, visual character should claim equal footing with
automotive safety and convenience. By doing so. the rqulations can at
least avoid requiring the worst of suburban character.

110

scenic roads laws can protect the road's edge. Sign laws can reflect
pedestrian versus highway scale in requlating signage. The common
rules of zoning control can be re-examined with visual character in
mind. Are yard and height regulations in fact. supportive of desired
character? How about the parking rules? Too often th.ese rules
require that development be destructive.

Finally, if communities choose, even building desiqn can be managed
with some objectivity through carefully-drawn rules about thingsthe
community cares about. whether it be avoiding blank walls along
Pedestrian streets or controlling roof pitch or even stating
preferences in colors and materials, all of which can be legislated
and administered without subjective.discretion.

The Old King 's Highway Reqional Historic District was created to
preserve historic buildinqs valued by society and to rule on the
appropriateness of new construction within the district. The Historic
District contributes valuable service to Cape Cod by makinq us further
aware of our heritaqe. Unfortunately, the Historic District is
concerned more with historic stvlina than with issues of scale,
proportion, materials. siting and continuity. Most architecture
constructed on the Cape from 1700-1880 resulted from a companionship
with the land and climate. as well as the social patterns of the day.
By evaluating new construction only on the basis of style, a mere
portion of historic significance and form is acknowledged, often to
the exclusion of contemporary creative responses toward the present or
future.

All this may seem simple and even obvious, but it has largely eluded
the towns to date. . What is needed is a planninq effort centered on
manaqing visual character, not on historic preservation or open space
or zoning but all of those and more. It requires self-education.
dialoque and invention. When successful, it can be a key to
maintaining Cape Cod's livability in the face of growth.

VI. PERSISTENT LONG-TERM ISSUES

A. INTRODUCTION: THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE

The hydrologic cycle refers to the continuous circulation of water
which is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere-to the land and
back to the ocean by the physical processes of evaporation and
r)recivitation, During this cycle water may become temporarily stored
in streams, lakes, soil or as groundwater, at which time it becomes
available for use by plants, humans or animals. The components of the
hydrologic cycle are illustrated in Figure 1.

Energy from th.e sun provides the initial driving force of the
hydrologic cycle by evaporating water from the ocean and other surface
water bodies such as lakes, ponds and rivers. The evaporated water is
then carried by winds and forms clouds. Upon encountering the right
atmospheric conditions, the clouds will precipitate the trapped water,
generally as rain or snow. As the prg@qkp -itat,-j_Q_a travels to the earth,
some of the water may not actually reach the earth's surface. Water
may be temporarily stored as snow accumulation if conditions are cold
enough. If the precipitation is in the form of rain, some of the
moisture may be caught by vegetation and evaporated directly back to
the atmosphere, a process known as intercet)tion.

Once the precipitation has reached the earth's surface as rain or
melted snowl the water may follow many different paths. On Cape Cod
most of the water is absorbed directly into the soil by the process of
lia-f Small amounts of precipitation are held in the upper
layer.s of soil as soil moisture, but if the water content is increased
water will percolate vertically through the soil until it reaches the
water table or groundwater zone, where all the pores of the soil are
completely filled with water.

Groundwater then moves slowly towards the ocean, where it is
discharged. Along the way, where the land surface intercepts the
water table, lakes, ponds and streams are formed. Water which is not
absorbed by the soil may collect in small depressions and eventually
run downslope as overlan fjo_W. Areas with poor infiltrative surfaces
such as paved areas or ground with hardpacked clay can generate this
type of runoff. Overland flow may discharge into lakes or ponds, or
to the ground via catchbasins or upon encountering porous soils.

A small portion of the precipitation which has been absorbed by the
soil will not be recharged to the ground. Some remains in the topsoil
and is returned to the atmosphere by evaporatio from the soil surface
or by ranspiration by plants - collectively this process is called
evapotranspiration. Once the water has been transformed into atmos-
pheric moisture, the hydrologic cycle is ready to begin again.

Cape Cod depends on precipitation to replenish drinking water
supplies, virtually all of which come from groundwater. Certain human
activities, such as the construction of homes, parking lots and roads,
may interfere with the natural path of precipitation as it recharges
into the soil. These activities create impervious surfaces and
restrict the amount of land area available to soak up precipitation.

112

VZTT-T

pl,

rh A rN

Fri

C@
r7>@
Q) ta 00
-fl

*44

Z-4

Q-1

Measures that may be taken to maximize recharge include construction
of roads using pervious materials, avoiding construction of densely
sited dwellings, and preserving native vegetation.

B. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

It is almost impossible to have a conversation about growth, the
future and Cape Cod without someone raising the question, "Do we have
enough water?", and then the next question, although articulated in
many different ways, is, "Won't there be a time when the water
situation tells us that the Cape can accept no further population
increase?"

If there were easy answers to these questions, the conversations could
quickly shift to another topic, perhaps the impact of growth on
traffic, recreation opportunities, aesthetics or where the best quahog
beds are. But, unfortunately, as for so many other public policy
issues, there are no ready answers, and time devoted to the study,
discussion and planning of Cape Cod's water supply continues to
increase.

There are two aspects to water supply, quantity and quality. At the
present time, the Cape is naturally well endowed with both. There is
a plentiful indigenous supply of high quality fresh water. In some
locations it appears on the surface in the form of ponds, lakes and
fresh water wetlands, but for the most part it is stored well below
the land's surface elevation in the pore spaces of the soil. Because
the Cape's soils are relatively permeable, this groundwater aquifer is
highly transmissive, which makes it possible to pump millions of
gallons of water per day from public supply wells on a continuous
basis.

The problem for the Cape is that the same characteristics that make
the groundwater so productive mean that contaminants can easily be
drawn into the water supply system. With the continuing growth of the
Cape's population, development has gradually moved away from the
coastline into the interior, the prime water supply recharge areas.
Now, waste disposal and potential sources of contamination that
accompany development threaten the future quality of the recharge that
replenishes our water supplies. A more appropriate water supply
question for the Cape is not "Do we have enough?" but rather "Will the
Cape towns have sufficient higb quality- water to meet rising demand?"

Having the right question does not necessarily make it easy to give a
precise answer. However, using generally accepted assumptions,
existing information and available projections, it is possible to make
estimates of available supply and demand and to show the relationship
between them. This type of analysis has been done for each Cape Cod
town, and the results are presented on the water supply and demand
graphs that accompany this report.

113

METHODOLOGY OF GRAPHS (See Appendix A)

A brief explanation of the construction of the graphs is necessary to
understand both what they show and their limitations. The following
assumptions are the basis of the graphs:

1. Of the average of more than 40" of rain that falls on Cape
Cod each year, an average of 16" is annually recharged to
the groundwater aquifer.

2. The recharge areas of Cape Cod that are suitable for public
water supply are those where the groundwater elevation is at
least five feet above sea level. (High volume pumping at a
lower groundwater elevation could result in the intrusion of
salt water into the supply.) The amount of land area in
each town under which groundwater elevations are at or above
the five foot level is identified as the -t-Q-t-a-I rg-c-h-ax,"
acreag-e available on the gra-ph. It seems best for planning
purposes to focus on the recharge areas suitable for public
supply as the trend has been to extend municipal water to an
increasing percentage of the population.

3. The total volume of water supply which is available for a
town on an annual basis can be calculated by multiplying the
recharge area by the recharge rate, 16" per year. The
annual supply available is converted to an average daily
supply by dividing by 365. The graphs show water supply and
demand on a daily basis, as m_i.J.J_i9n_.9 -g-f qaJ_JDaa D-f miates @Rgx
-d a y. Since a constant rate of recharge is assumed, it
follows that the towns with the largest recharge areas have
the most potential supply.

4. The quality of the water recharged to the aquifer is related
to population density and other uses that accompany develop-
ment. On Cape Cod leachate from municipal landf ills and
septage lagoons and nitrates from fertilizers and septic
systems are the prime concern. By using nitrate loading
estimates developed by the Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission in combination with twenty year pro-
jections for population increases, observed development
patterns and land use regulations, it is possible to predict
when the recharge for a given area will contain nitrates in
excess of the five parts per million which is the level
recommended as the maximum for drinking water supply
planning purposes. The key assumption is that if nitrates
are above that level in the recharge, the recharge should be
considered degraded and not a reliable, source of drinking
quality water. The quality supply line on each graph repre-
sents the change in the amount of non-degraded vis a vis
degraded* recharge that will occur as a result of projected
development in the recharge areas. Degraded recharge is
represented by that portion of the total supply above the
quality supply line, non-degraded recharge by that portion
below the quality supply line.

114

5. For towns with extensive public water supplies, water use is
shown in millions of gallons on an average daily basis for
the year ' summer months of June, July, and August, and week
of maximum use. The basic source of the information is
water department pumping records. Because there is no town
in which 100% of the population is served by public water
supply,, the pumping figures are adjusted to create a measure
of total water use. The adjustment was done by using the
public suppliers' estimates of the percent of population
served and then assuming that for a given period the remain-
der of the population would have used water at a similar
rate. For towns without public supply, estimates were made
only for average summer daily use. This was done by
assuming per capita water use of 65 gallons per day and
multiplying that figure by the estimated summer population.
(For Provincetown-Truro a hybrid calculation was used.) It
is assumed that if there is no policy of intervention,
demand for water will increase at a rate proportional to
population increase. (Specific projections have only been
graphed for those towns which are without public supply
systems.)

THE GRAPHS' MESSAGE (See Appendix A. page 152),,

The graphs are certainly not an appropriate tool for detailed planning
as they do not take into account the specific location of degraded
recharge. Their value is that they bring into focus a striking
feature of our groundwater resource. Namely, while groundwater is a
renewable resource, i.e. on average the total recharge available
remains constant,- it is being "consumed" from two different
directions. on the one side, there is increasing use of water, and on
the other the quality of the available resource is being diminished by
the impact of development on the ground above it. There is rising
demand to use recharge areas for waste disposal. Projecting into the
future, it is obvious that if both of these demands on the groundwater
continue to increase, there is a time at which the demand for water
will exceed the supply of non-degraded water. In some towns, endowed
with vast areas of recharge and volumes of underlying aquifer, the
point at which demand would meet supply is remote,- but in others the
possibility for demand to outstrip supply is not at all remote. In
all towns, however, the demand and supply curves are converging.

Once it is acknowledged that the potential exists for water demand to
exceed the amount of non-degraded supply, it is time to address the
next question: What are the policy options for Cape Cod? The graphic
water quality supply/demand format makes clear what the long term
choices for water policy are:

1. To maintain the level of supply by protecting the quality of
the resource.

2. To control demand.

3. A combination of the above.

115

4. A default option: to let present trends continue and accept
the fact that eventually some towns w@ill be treating water
or obtaining_supplies@from another political*jurisdiction.

Particular strategies to carry out these options are varied. All
involve political economic and/or social costs, some to be borne by
individual property owners, others by the community as a whole. A
non-inclusive list of strategies for options one or two would be as
follows: Water quality can be protected by land acquisition, regula-
tion of activities, large lot zoning and/or sewering with appropriate
recharge. Demand can be constrained by adopting measures to limit
population growth, by taking steps to reduce per capita water use or
by restructuring- supply so that water of drinking water quality is
supplied only for those uses that require it. .

The fourth option at this point is problematic. Water treatment on a
reliable long term basis is very expensive and leaves behind a waste
product which creates disposal problems. How long it would take to
make the political and economic -arrangements for large scale transfer
of water from one part of the Cape to another is unpredictable.
Another factor is the difficulty of restoring the quality of ground-
water once it is degraded. A purposeful decision to allow its indis-
criminate contamination hardly seems a wise policy.

The Cape towns do not appear to be choosing the default option.
Facing the reality that quality water supplies are a finite and poten-
tially endangered resource, towns have begun resource protection
planning. Most of the strategies developed so far fall under the
classification of option 1. Towns have adopted water resource protec-
tion zones, hazardous materials by-laws, regulations for underground
storage tanks and requirements for-increased lot sizes. There has
been an increased effort to purchase land to protect well sites.

Even those towns that appear groundwater rich have realized that they
cannot be complacent. Regardless of their relative groundwater
wealth, towns may have site specific water quality problems. The Town
of Falmouth had to close its Ashumet well less than two years af ter it
began pumping because of contamination that originated at the Otis Air
Force Base sewage treatment plant. The Provincetown Water Department
was forced to shut down its South Hollow well because of gasoline
leaking from an.underground storage tank. Elevated nitrate levels are
being observed at wells in Barnstable and Yarmouth. once public
supply wells are devel oped, there is a large investment to be pro-
tected. The cost of losing or renovating a particular source of
supply is too high to make neglect of protection an acceptable policy.

A COMPL ICATING FACTOR

There is a complicating factor to the water supply situation which is
obscured by analyzing supply and demand on a town by town basis. The
fact that is ignored is that groundwater flows across political
boundaries. The public supply well zones of contribution map prepared
@by CCPEDC (Figure 1) makes the regional nature of the resource abund-
antly clear. It shows that water which emerges at the well head in

116

one town often begins as recharge within another town's boundaries,
and that ultimately no town has the luxury of total control over its
water supply.

The common property aspect of groundwater has advantages and dis-
advantages. The advantage for towns with limited recharge areas is
obvious. By strategic placement of their wells, they have access to
more potential supply than if groundwater respected political bound-
aries. The disadvantage or perhaps it could better be termed the
challenge is that while effective groundwater management should be
done on a regional basis, virtually all the existing management tools
are only available at the local town level. Negotiating the political
and economic arrangements to enable regional management will certainly
be one of the prime policy challenges as the Cape Cod towns prepare to
enter the 21st century.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Specific recommendations on water policy can only be made after
deciding on the basic goal. The choice for Cape Cod is: Should we
try to live within our natural endowment of high quality water or
should we accept the inevitability of treatment and/or desalinization?
The basic premise of the recommendations that follow is that Cape Cod
should live within its groundwater means, by both taking steps to
protect supply and control demand.

Water policy cannot be made in isolation from other policies.
Acceptance of the above premise brings with it a commitment to the
idea that Cape Cod has a unique environment, a unique endowment of
resources which deserve to be protected. A corollary basic premise of
these recommendations is that limits and controls on growth are
essential and desirable in order to maintain not only a high quality
water supply but a high quality natural environment.

1. The towns should set definite goals for the ultimate amount of
water they want and expect to be able to supply on an annual and peak
basis.

2. New sources of water to meet the supply goals should be identi-
fied as soon as possible.

3. The efforts already begun to protect supplies should be
strengthened. More accurate delineation of some aspects of zones of
contribution to supply wells is essential if protective strategies are
to be improved upon. Regular monitoring of the location and behavior
of contaminated plumes (e.g. from landfills and septage lagoons) is
needed to avoid their being drawn into the supply system.

4. APCC advocates that users pay the full cost of water resources
and services they use, including the cost of the protection of the
aquifer by land acquisition or otherwise.

5. The role of the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission in water Planning should be expanded. The model regula-
tions and by-laws developed by the Commission's staff have been widely

117

used. Once towns have identified specific zones of contribution, the
Commission could recommend strategies for protecting the supply.
Wbere protection requires regional cooperation, the Commission could
act as a liaison in developing a joint strategy. Where Cape towns are
competing for state funds for water protection, the Commission should
be given the authority to rank proposals. Willingness to cooperate on
regional water planning should be a prerequisite for high ranking.

6. Purchase of development rights and/or transfer of development
rights should be explored as an alternative to full purchase of land
or as a substitute for large lot size requirements. While a community
cannot be expected to purchase all the land in its water resource
areas, it is inequitable to-expect individual property owners to
underwrite the cost of protecting supply beyond a certain level.

7. Continuing analysis of the projected demand and its relation to
supply is essential. With existing land use regulations what is the
expected future volume of water demand? Is it feasible to limit
demand on public water supplies by requiring that water used for
outdoor purposes be drawn from on-site private wells?

8. At locations where existing development h 'as caused or threatened.
serious degradation of water quality, testing of innovative on-site
(de-nitrifying) sewage disposal systems should be encouraged.

.9. Title V requlations should be revised to provide better protec-
tion in Cape Cod-soil conditions to prevent direct contamination
problems between septic systems and wells.

10. Need for water is only one element of development impact. Given
the abundance of water on the Cape, with careful planning, it will be
a long time before the quality of water becomes a :limiting factor to
the Cape's population growth. For those who are drawn to the Cape
because.it provides a uniquely pleasant environmental character, there
are compelling reasons to limit development other than the long term
adequacy of the water supply. The management tools to shape and/or
limit development are weak in relation to the pressures for growth.
Since state laws have been the source of authority to manage develop-
ment, to a large extent the ability of Cape Cod to maintain a special
environment will in the long run depend on the state's recognition
that the Cape is different, that its environment is an asset that
deserves a higher level of protection.

118

Provincetown

Truro

PROME ZOTS OF MTTRIBUTION Wellfleet

r
FOR RJBLIC SLRLY 1-01S
al WE COD MACASEM
Eastham

ourne. Orleans
..........
Brewster
Sandwich.
Dennis
op

'aft.
J

Chatham
a rrwq c h

Yarmouth

Barnstable

MashP4
Falmouth

0 2 4
=2==WX=
MASSACHUSETTS
..scale :in, miles.

Cape Cod Planninq & Economic
Development Commission 4
=MASSACHUSIETTS

119

C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

MORE SOLID WASTE - LESS WATER

The importance of safe solid waste disposal lies in its relation to
the@quality of the water supply of Cape Cod. Protecting the quality
of the Cape's water supply is of extreme importance because, unlike
other New England towns, the towns on the Cape have no rivers or*
extensive watersheds from which storage reservoirs can be filled
during periods of high run-off. The Cape's water supply consists of
its ponds and underground aquifer. It is a,sole source aquifer that
depends upon precipitation for replenishment.

Once pollution from sources such as leaking fuel tanks, road salt,
improper se .ptage disposal or improper solid waste disposal has seeped
into the ground, it forms a plume which then moves through the
aquifer. A number of such -plumes now exist, and each represents a
threat to a portion of the water supply, in some cases making it no
longe-r available for use as drinking water. -

Since the disposal of solid waste can pose a direct threat to ground-
water quality, it becomes very important to understand how best to
dispose of this waste. While the rest of this section deals with
solid waste as a distinct problem, the reader should not lose sight of
its importance to water quality and the future growth and development
on Cape Cod.

SOLID WASTE HOW MUCH

There has been much discussion on how to estimate the daily,flow into
any given landfill. Weighing, sampling and other methods have proven
unr' eliable. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended
the fiqure of 3.5 pounds per day for each individual. . This same
f igure was used by Harvard University in solid waste studies 'in New
England. All things considered, it would appear tha 't in the absence
of much industrial waste, a figure,of 3 'pounds per day per individual
is as clo-se as can be estimated.

Pounds of waste translate into volume going into the landfill. The
ordinary degree of compaction achieved in landfills on Cape Cod varies
with the equipment used and the depth of cover. . Generally 600 pounds
per cubic yard is an acceptable figure. , Present . day compactors' are
said to achieve 1000 pounds or more per cubic yard. But using 600
pounds, every ton of solid waste going to the landfill would occupy
3.3 cubic yards of space.

The most recent information regarding generation and disposal statis-
tics for Cape Cod has been compiled in CCPEDC's study ALTERNATIVE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR BARNSTABLE COUNTYF October 1982,
and will be relied upon heavily in the following discussion.

Table I provides the estimated total yearly volumes of solid waste for
each Cape Cod town. It is to be noted that the towns are divided into
three subregions for the purpose of analyzing subregional disposal
alternatives. Table II shows the estimated volumes generated in each

120

subregion by month. This illustrates the great fluctuation that
occurs and shows the grea-t difficulty in planning and sizing a solid
waste facility. A facility which can handle the peak summer load will
by definition be operating at less than capacity for most of the year.

SANITARY LANDFILL - HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT?

The question most frequently asked when the subject of solid w aste
comes up is: "How much time do we have left in our dump?" Sanitary
landfill is at present the only method of disposal in use on the Cape.
Under new regulations which are being proposed and those already in
place, it is probable that no new landfills will ever be opened on the
Cape for the following reasons: First, compliance with requirements
such as monitoring wells, lining of the disposal area,, collection of
leachate, disposal of leachate, and venting for methane gas will make
this method of disposal very expensive. It may be more costly per ton
than disposing of solid waste through a resource recovery facility.

Second, land on the Cape is becoming more and more expensive as it
becomes less and less available. In the future a, tract of land large
enough for a landfill operation may not be available a 't any price.
Third, opening a new landf ill in an area where none has existed bef ore
is guaranteed to bring on a storm of protests and lawsuits.

Notwithstanding the foregoing,, and no matter what other technology is
used for disposal of solid waste, some form of sanitary landfill will
always be necessary because many wastes can be disposed of only by
landfill. Their operation will also be needed for emergencies such as
plant breakdown or work stoppage for other reasons.

Table III, also from ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR
BARNSTABLE COUNTY shows the estimated years of use,, as supplied by
each town, in their landf ills. This table can be summarized as
follows:

1. Ten towns have less than ten years use, left.

2. Three towns have in excess of 15 years, with the other two
towns somewhere in between.

These figures do not reflect consideration of increasing populations
.or the two-year lapse since publication of the CCPEDC report.

121

TABLE I
SOLID WASTEGENERATION, 1980-2000

@(Tons,Per Year)

SUBREGION 1 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Bourne 14,256 15,208 16,273 17,563 18,463
Falmouth 24,781 26,768 28,566 31,119 32,566
Mashpee 4,718 6,480 8,460 10,814' 12,885
Sandwich 8,803 10,899 12,967 15,540 18,180.

Total 52,558 59,355 66,230 75,036 82,094

SUBREGION 2 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Barnstable 32,625 38,213 44,174 49,588 52,762
Dennis 13,443 15,035 16,536 17,851 18,705
Yarmouth -22,596 24,489 26,315 28,219 28,797

Total 68,664 77,737 87,025 95,658 100,264

SUBREGION 3 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Brewster 5,168 6,397 7,404 8,638 9,784
Chatham 5f952 6,388 6F885 7,269 7r627
Eastham 4,171 4,716 5,204 5,603 5,832
Harwich 8,156 9,207 10,247 11,169 11,653
Orleans 4,624 5,099 5,576 5,995 6,329
Provincetown 3,909 4,159 4,259 4,341 4,417
Truro . . 2,410 2,718 2,985 3,158 31338
Wellfleet 2,978 .3F212 3,474 3,730 .3,956

Total 37,368 41,896 46,034 49,903 52,936

1980 .1985 1990 1995 2000

CAPE COD 158,590 178,988 199,289 220,597 235,295

SOURCE: Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission,
January, 1982

1@2

TABLE II
ESTIMATED ANNUAL VARIATION IN SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES, 1985

(Tons)
Barnstable
"bregi-Qn .1 S-ublegio Z Subregion 3- . . ....... @@@Y-

January .3 400 4,600 1,720 9r720

February 4,110 4,560 1,920 10,590

March 3,740 5,080 2,150 10,960

April 4,140 5,830 2,690 12,660
May 6,270 6,610 3,450. 16,330

June 5,150 7,220 4,550 16,920

July 5F900 9,020 6,360 21,280

August 7,450 9,490 6F580 23f520

Septem1ber 5j020 7,480 4,410 16,910

October 5,490 6,410 3r220 15,110

November 4,950 5F820 2,560 13,330

December 2,290 Aildla

,TOTAL 59r360 77,740 41,900 178,990

SOURCE: Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission, January
.1982.

123

TABLE III - LANDFILL LIFE EXPECTANCIES

Landfill Life Landfill Size
Town Expectanc (Yrs.) j&CJg_a) Plan For Expansion

Barnstable *2 61 Study committee to make
recommendations by April
1983

Bourne 15-20 24 None

Brewster 25 44 None

Chatham 10* 35 None

Dennis 14 167 None

Eastham 4-5 5.5 Have tentative site for
future use

Falmouth 20 53 None

Harwich 18 150 None

Mashpee 4-6 16 Seeking to obtain 35
acres to extend land-
f ill life to at least
15 years

Orleans 8-10 18 None

Provincetown 9 25 None

Sandwich 3* .14 Seeking to obtain 10
acres adjacent to
existing landfill to
extend landfill life to
10 years

Truro 7 5.5 Plan on talks with the
Cape National Seashore
(CCNS) about expansion

Wellfleet 9-12 months 10 Awaiting DEQE decision
on "stacking" plan on
extend landfill life on
5 years

Yarmouth 7 105 None

Otis 20+ 176 None

SOURCE: Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission,
January 1982. *September 1982 data.

124

LAG TIME - THE CRISIS TRIGGER

Even allowing for a year or two plus or minus variation in the
foregoing estimates, the stark reality becomes alarming when they are
considered in relation to "lag time". This is the period of time that
lapses between the point of first serious consideration of a new
facility and the construction and actual first operation. Pittsfield,
Massachusetts completed in 1981 a resource recovery plant in which the
lag time was ten years. A project in North Andover, Massachusetts had
a lag time of f if teen years. A period of at least six to ten years
must be expected. It is also true that construction time for the
simpler prefabricated units is shorter than the more complicated
field-erected resource recovery plants.

Another illustration of lag time is the fact that during the past f ive
years three private f irms, SEMASS (Energy Answers Corp.), TRICIL
(Resources Limited Corp.) and STELEC, have held discussions with town
officials with a view toward securing contracts for delivery of solid
waste for the proposed plants. As of this time, only SEMASS has taken
positive contractual steps based on their own capital expenditure.

If a lapse time of eight years is taken as reasonable and then applied
to the estimates in Table III, a solid waste crisis exists for many
towns. With rapid growth projected until the year 2000 and beyond,
those towns with more landfill time would do well to consider
contractual arrangements now and conserve these areas for materials
that will not be handled by SEMASS.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

In the summer of 1983 the selectmen of the towns of Barnstable,
Dennis, Fashpee, Sandwich and Yarmouth formed a Five Town Committee
for the purpose of exploring methods of solid waste disposal for their
towns. Other Cape towns immediately expressed their interest and
requested that any.facility considered be large enough to include
their waste. This request was favorably received, but the Committee
decided for the sake of expediency to retain its five town membership.
This Committee considered all viable methods of solid waste disposal,
including on-Cape facilities. However, it has now concentrated on a
specific proposal of SEMASS to construct a plant at Rochester, Mass.,
using solid waste to generate electricity. Hurdles still to be
overcome:

For SEMASS
state air quality permit
approval of transfer station by Yarmouth Board of Health/voters
state DPW approval of limited-access ramp to Yarmouth landf-ill
revised landfill agreement with the Tri-Town Regional Landfill
District.
commitment of private equity (25% of capital cost) from a credit-
worthy institution
a modified contract with COM Electric
a contract with a construction contractor to build the plant
achievement of financing package (including issuance of revenue
bonds)

125

for towns
development of an efficient regional transportation strategy
development of weight data (town and SEMASS scales)
decide what actions, if any, should be taken regarding waste
control
development of improved strategies for disposal of non-
proces,sable waste (composting, stump dumps, recycling)
design and.layout of transfer stations (provide input to SEMASS)
minor modifications in contract if desirable
pursue investigations for a site for an on-Cape facility in case
SEMASS does not overcome its hurdles.

As of now, Chatham, Provincetown, Wellfleet and Yarmouth have signed
binding 27-year contracts with SEMASS, and the other eleven Cape Cod
towns have signed letters of intent. These eleven towns have made a
commitment to place articles in their town warrants to seek Town
Meeting approval for contractual arrangements with SEMASS.

Yashpee and Brewster at Town Meetings in December authorized their
selectmen to sign the contract, but Truro's meeting was postponed.
Barnstable, Bourne, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth, Harwich, Orleans and
Sandwich, will decide at spring Town Meetings.

The state Department of Environmental Quality Engineering has refused
to exempt the Rochester plant from using scrubbers, which control
emissions of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride--the chemicals which
combine to form acid rain. Installation of the expensive scrubbers
could raise waste disposal fees by $4 to $14 per ton of waste.

In 1971 APCC, by issuing Impact Study II "The Environmental Impact of
Solid Waste Disposal on Cape Cod", sounded the alarm regarding this
environmental "time bomb", which had much the same effect as APCC's
later report Impact Study III, "The Environmental Impact of
Groundwater Use on Cape'Cod"" in stirring the communities to action.

The solid waste disposal problems for Cape Coe, towns are far from
over, but after more than a decade of investigation of alternatives a
viable solution may be at hand.

126

D TRANS POR TAT ION

ROADS AND HIGHWAYS

Cape Cod has an extensive road system which is one of its charms as
well as one of its chief environmental hazards. Route 6A on the north
or bay side of the Cape is doubtless one of the most scenic highways
in the country. Its winding and rolling character reveals periodic
views of beauty and contrast, from great marshes to intimate villages
of historical character.

On the other hand, Barnstable County has one of the significantly high
accident rates in the state. The only-arterial on the Cape of modern
highway design is the four-lane divided, controlled access portion of
the Mid-Cape Highway, Route 6, going between the Canal and Dennis.
The remaining thirteen mile Mid-Cape between Dennis and Orleans, while
having controlled access, has a two-lane undivided design which has
earned it the common name of "Suicide Alley". Few major highways of
this design are leftin the country because they allow passing against
on-coming high speed traffic. Poor passing judgment results in deadly
head-on collisions or severe side swipes, as the accident record for
that section of the highway shows.

The remaining portion of Route 6, the thirty mile stretch from Orleans
to Provincetown, is not. controlled access. In the four-lane sections
vehicles may cross all four lanes to reach a destination on the oppo-
site side of the highway. Such a destination may be a side road, a
highway business or even a private house. Route 6 also contains
several three-lane se'c"tions. The three-lane design has long been
regarded as extremely hazardous and is prohibited in most states
today.

Another problem of Route 6 is the three rotaries that serve as traffic
interchanges at the two Canal bridges and the Orleans/Eastham line.
Such rotaries are considered obsolete for today's high speeds and
traffic volumes and are 'rarely found at major highway intersections
elsewhere.

The hazards of Route 6 cannot be avoided by driving along the south or
Nantucket Sound side.of the Cape. Route 28 has problems that are
equal to those of Route 6. It experiences intersection traffic jams
of formidable size and has a notoriously high accident rate per mile.
These attributes have earned it the reputation of being one of the
most congested and hazardous highways in the state.

Because Cape Cod is a peninsula, all the traf f ic that comes onto the
Cape at the Canal must leave by the same road system. It has no
"through tr,affic",and,:-,li-ttle choice of routes. Hence at peak use
periods dr'ivers'oin@ or.approaching Cape Cod experience some of the
longest traffic backups in the country.

Despite the high traffic flows that the Cape generates, it has no
federal interstate highways. There also is no county-maintained road
system. Except f or the relatively few state highways, inter-town
roads are maintained by the county's f if teen individual towns.

127

Technically there are some county roads but there is no county highway
department to maintain them. By default or by choice, the towns must
do the job and the maintenance that does occur is not necessarily done
in a coordinated fashion.

Much of the Cape's road system dates back to Colonial America. Such
roads generally contribute to the "rural seaside charm" of Cape Cod
but portions of them have become extremely hazardous. Some of their
charm, deriving from tortuous curves and a meandering nature, is not
conducive to the safe handling of the present traffic volumes. Laid
out to connect rural hamlets, these roads do not well serve many
square miles of small lot subdivisions.

The net result of an incompatibility with the current level of devel-
opment is miles of traffic jams, high accident rates and intersection
gridlock. Lack of street lighting and a high proportion of older-
drivers, the latter resulting from the Cape's attraction for retirees,
only make the traffic problems worse for all concerned.

A TRANSPORTATION PHILOSOPHY

It is much easier to recite the litany of Cape Cod's automobile
traff ic problems than to offer solutions. Each situation must be
reviewed in detail before deciding what specific improvements would be
desirable. However, the making of specific decisions will be facili-
tated if Cape Codders can agree on a transportation philosophy. Some
suggestions regarding this philosophy follow.

1. The extreme view that co 'ngestion is the ultimate growth control
f-or Cape Cod and that highway improvements are undesirable
because they will only result in more business coming hereis
unacceptably short-sighted. Existing development becomes
blighted as traffic problems interfere with access and failing
commercial districts are in the interest of no one. If traffic
problems are not alleviated, the pressure to allow commercial
development to sprawl out to less congested areas increases, and
a very inefficient pattern of land use occurs.

2. Equally unacceptable is the opposing extreme that Cape Cod's
roadways should be ever widened, straightened and otherwise
improved to maximize their carrying capacities. The benefits of
highway improvements have to be measured against the cost in
environmental quality, such as visual ugliness, pollution from
run-off and loss of open space 'and wetlands. The present lack of
funds and environmental review requirements have at least tempo-
rarily made the construction extreme almost moot, but this situa-
tion could change if allowed.

3. A desirable transportation philosophy will be one that re cognizes
the need to find a balance point between extremes. In some
situations such as the often proposed widening of R 'oute 6 east of
Dennis, finding the balance will be extremely difficult, but for
others it may be easier. In congested commercial areas a
public/private cooperation should be possible that would combine
publicly financed intersection and roadway improvements with

128

private agreements to improve parking lot design and aesthetics,
or even to develop parallel servi.ce roads. Because many of the
worst congestion problems involve state roads, it will be
necessary to secure a corresponding commitment f rom state
transportation officials to design solutions that seek to balance
.different interests and values. Evidence of such commitment will
be increased coor.dination between state officials and local
officials and interest groups.

4. The other cornerstone of the Cape Cod transportation philosophy
should be support for as many attractive alternatives to private
automobile use as possible. In some instances the alternative
can be as small scale as a sidewalk and in others it could be a
bike path. An alternative with increasing potential is transit
service to beaches. With beach parking lots reaching capacity in
the morning hours, remote parking with transit service is
becoming a more attractive option for beach goers. At a larger
scale and expense this philosophy dictates that when transporta-
tion plans are made there be constant consideration of the poten-
tial for increasing public bus and train transit.

A detailed analysis of Route 28 and other similar Cape highways, an in
depth look at the alternatives for widening Route 6 from Dennis to
Orleans and the investigation of the merits of hydroplane service
between Provincetown and Boston are beyond the scope of this report.
Clearly these three issues should be addressed in the near future by
those repsonsible for transportation planning on Cape Cod.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

in the mid-70s state legislation was passed which authorized regional
transportation authorities outside the MBTA district. In so doing the
legislation insured that each region would have an institutional
advocate for and provider of alternatives. to private automobile use.
On Cape Cod the intent of the legislation has been realized. The Cape
Cod Regional Transit Authority has become synonymous with public
transportation here. A Cape Cod Growth Report would be incomplete
without reference to the existing projects and future plans and con-
cerns of the Authority.

The Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority was created to provide, regu-
late, plan and coordinate mass transportation services on Cape Cod.
The Transit Authority',s member towns (Eastham is not a member) work
together to design and manage a network of transportation services
which will meet the diverse transportation needs of the region, for
today and the years ahead.

This Transit Authority is currently working on a long range plan that
will provide, a framework@ whereby its advisory board can plan and enact
decisions with a constancy of purpose. The goal is to foster the most
efficient and effective utilization of the various components of Cape
Cod's network of transportation services.

The Transit Authority can become involved with service in a variety of
ways. One is to contract for a service totally controlled by the

129

Authority. The b-bus system is the best example of this. A second is
to provide a partial subsidy to a private operator, in exchange re-
ceiving guarantees regard.i.ng some aspects of routes, fares and
schedules. The subsidy paid to Cape Cod Bus Lines to add a midday run
to its Provincetown-Hyannis service is such-a case. The Authority
exercising regulatory jurisdicti.on over transit service, such as
Plymouth 'and.,Brockton's Chatham-Hyannis, route, is a third type of
involvement.' A'fourth is for the Transit Authority to provide techni-
cal assistance to an individual town or transportation firm. Finally,
the Authority acts on behalf of the entire Cape on any development
with potential for impacting on transportation in the region.

1. Railroa SeLmige _f"m N_ew JwA

The reinstitution of passenger rail service from New York, scheduled
for 1986, constitutes the single most important development in Cape
Cod's network of transportation services in years.. The Transit
Authority will not have any regulatory jurisdiction over this rail
service; neither wil.1 any of the Cape towns. The state controls the
development and, in the future, management of the New York-Cape Cod
railroad operation.

It is imperative, however, that Cape Cod have real input in deter-
mining how this service is'designed, developed and managed. The issue
that the Authority must address directly is how to manage the flow of
people and vehicles in the neighborhoods surrounding each train
station.

Local control, by the Authority and its member towns, is most suited
to the development of a coherent plan for managing traffic in adjacent
neighborhoods, as well a.s moving private automobiles, taxis, pedes-
trians, limousines," buses and other vehicles in and out of the sta-
tions smoothly and efficiently. With local control in hand, the
Authority and those towns with train stations should plan, regulate,
coordinate and manage the broad variety of privately- held firms which
will certainly express interest -in operating transportation services
to meet the New York trains.

A town can directly control. this situation by limiting the number of
local licenses it issues. A local license. is required in order for a
firm to operate over the town's streets. The towns,@ using the
Authority as a technical resource,. should reach a compromise between
two.considerations: free market competition versus controlling a
potentially devastating traffic problem. The Transit Authority will
issue operating rights to firms for the operation of bus routes which
allow train passengers to reach a variety of destinations throughout
the Cape without the need for a private automobile.

2. lize-d Rout Service

Buses running on a f ixed route and schedule have existed on the Cape
for decades. There is excellent service linking -Cape Cod to Boston,
as well as to New York and the eastern seaboard. However, in recent
years fixed route services have played a very limited role in meeting,
our intra-Cape travel needs.

130

Year-round f ixed route services currently serving this on-Cape travel
market include the Cape Cod Bus Lines/Provincetown-Hyannis service;
Plymouth and Brockton's Chatham-Hyannis route; and the transit
Authority's Wo6ds Hole-Hyannis service. These three routes, in con-
junction with the various off-Cape bus routes originating in Hyannis
and Falmouth, provide year-round connections to all fifteen towns.
There are also seasonal fixed route services in Falmouth and
Provincetown.

A repeated theme of this report is that the Cape will continue to
experience a rapid rate of growth. Some of the growth will result in
increased density of development, which provides an improved situation
for fixed route bus service. In addition, an ever growing population
base means an increase in the number of people wanting or needing
transit. Simply put, each year there will be more potential riders.
The Transit Authority should be evaluating the need for additional
fixed route service-s'-on an annual basis. Trends of growth in the area
of fixed route services must be closely monitored and predicted. This
way sufficient lead time can be maintained in identifying and filling
a need for buses.

3. B=Bus

The b-bus system is an advanced reservation, door-to-door mini-bus
service administered by the Transit Authority and operated by its
prime contractor, Cape Transit, Inc. Although the system-is available
to all Cape residents, the b-bus exists primarily to serve the transit
dependent population. The handicapped, the elderly, the poor,
children and single-parent families are the people most in need of
public transportati,on and the b-bus service is designed and operated
in such a manner as.to give priority to their needs.

4. Vehicle Leasipa*Policies

Vehicles purchased' by,the Transit Authority and then leased out for
operations by another'entity can provide needed service to the region
with only a relatively 'small investment of capital funds. Under
existing policies,' the 'federal government pays 80 percent of the cost
of vehicles and other capital expenses.

Two avenues present themselves for the leasing of Authority-owned
vehicles. First., mini-buses can be leased out to individual member
towns. The towns then pay all operational costs and are given a broad
degree of freedom in how the vehicles may be used. This has already
been done for 'several years, with the towns typically obtaining the
mini-bus for their Council on Aging. Second, buses can be purchased
and leased to private companies for operation on fixed routes serving
the Cape. This, too, has been done recently; Plymouth and Brockton
operates four,CCRTA,bu,se-,s on its Chatham-Hyannis-Boston service and
Cape Cod Bus Lines run's two CCRTA buses on its Provincetown-Hyannis
route.

131

Demand f rom member towns for CCRTA@vehicles has not yet exceeded the
supply of vehicles available f or lease. At some point it will, and
when this occurs the Authority will have to evaluate all existing and
proposed leases and decide whether a reallocation of resources is
needed. Having the CCRTA purchase and own such buses, whether or not
they operate them, may be the best possible way of f illing this need.

CONCLUSION

Choosing a course of action which not only meets current needs but
lays a foundation upon which we can build for the Cape's transporta-
future will not be easy. The days of rapid expansion of public
funding for transportation are probably past. Therefore, it will be
very important for the Authority to identify clearly its long term
goals. Once these goals are defined, the Authority can build towards
the future one step at a time. Over a perio 'd of five to ten years the
cumulative result of a series of small advances co .uld be several major
new transit programs. It is possible that ten years from now the
Cape's fifteen towns will be linked by an extensive network of fixed
route transit services, operating on a coordinated schedule and
through a central terminal in Hyannis.

E. TOWN FINANCES

In 1773 the colonists of Massachusetts revolted against taxation
without representation. More than 200 years after the famous Boston
Tea Partyl, the people of Massachusetts are continuing to debate the
issue of financing government. While it is generally accepted that
government has a responsibility to provide essential services, there
is still little agreement concerning the level of service which should,
be provided, and the method of taxation to finance theseservices.

Taxes have been defined as an "enforced contribution." many studies
of the various f'orms of taxation have indicated that the income tax is
an equitable method because it is directly related to a person's
ability to pay. The limited sales tax, which excludes tax on foodand
clothing, is also considered a flair method of 'raising revenue. Prop-
erty taxes, however, are related.specifically to market value and are
not directly related to a person's ability to pay. Income taxes
generated by payroll deduction and sales taxes.paid at the time of
purchase are relatively easy to collect., The assessment and collec-
tion of property taxes, is a cumbersome system requiring complex mass
appraisal systems which are costly to administer.

Historically Massachusetts has relied heavily on the. property tax to
finance municipal and county government. In addition, cities and
towns are assessed by the state for the operation of a number of
programs including state recreation areas mosquito control, projects.,
and regional transit systems. .-State aid to local communities is
@distributed through several complex formulas. A few of these cate-
gories represent partial reimbursement for such actual expenditures as
abatements for the elderly, veteran and blind persons, 'school trans-
.portation, veterans' benefits and maintenance of.highways. These

132

reimbursements amount to a small percentage of municipality total
operating budget and are subject to annual appropriation by the legis-
lature. In recent years, total state funding for these accounts has
been insufficient to reimburse the communities to the extent provided
by law, thus requiring municipalities to fund a number of state' man-
dated programs through the local property tax.

State aid to education, known as Chapter 70, is based on a fo.rmula
which relies heavily on a community's ability to pay as measured by
its relative wealth in property value. Because Cape Cod towns have
high property values in relation to the number of school age children,
they receive the minimum amount of state aid to education under the
"hold-harmless clause" of Chapter 70. (In 1980 the Legislature
enacted a provision known as the "hold-harmless clause" which guaran-
tees that all communities will receive, as a minimum, a percentage of
the Chapter 70 school aid which they received in 1979.)

The distribution of the local aid fund also relies on an equalizing
formula which divides the population of a community by its total
property valuation and compares the per capita valuation of each
community to the statewide per capita valuation. Because of the high
property values in Barnstable County and the number of non-resident
taxpayers, Cape Cod communities receive a relatively small share of
the local aid fund. On the other hand, other economic factors indi-
cate that the permanent residents of Cape Cod fall below the state
average in terms of ability to pay. The 1980 Federal census indicates
that the median family income in Barnstable County is only 91 percent
of the Massachusetts median family income. In addition, unemployment
in Barnstable County has been approximately 2 percent higher than the
statewide percentages over the past five years. Unfortunately the
distribution of state aid, like the property tax itself, is not based
on the ability of the individual taxpayer to support necessary public
services.

Due in large part to limited state support of education and other
local services, property taxes in Massachusetts ranked among the
highest in the nation by the late 1970s. In 1980 a group known as
Citizens for Limited Taxation persuaded the voters of Massachusetts to
enact Proposition-2 1/2 which limits the total taxes which may be
assessed by a community to no more than 2 1/2 percent-of the total
property valuation. The supporters of Proposition 2 1/2 theorized
that limiting property taxes would force the state to increase local
aid to municipalities. However, Proposition 2 1/2 did not provide for
tax reform, nor did it guarantee that state aid would replace the
property tax in providing for essential services. In practice,, all
communities have received some additional state aid since 1980.
However, nearly every municipality has also been required to cut
services.

Until recent years, local officials encouraged growth. Because new
construction added to a town's total valuation, it was assumed that
growth in the tax base would allow a community to raise additional
revenue without increasing the burden on existing residents.

133

Now it is more widely recognized thatf in fact, residential develop-
ments may or. may not support their own costs, depending upon how many
of their residents are school@,-atten6ing children, and how heavily they
are assessed relative to the existing average dwelling. Even under
Proposition 2 1/2, growth does indeed add to the permissible town
budget, but the added demandz may be even greater. That is especially
true on Cape Cod, whose growth involves. a great deal of conversion of
homes to year-round octupancy by householders who were once only
seasonal visitors.

Along with the conversion of the summer residence to a year-round
home, there is frequently a change in the newly permanent resident's
attitude toward the quaint rural quality of-Cape Cod. The individual
who retired to Cape Cod to get away from it all often finds that the
dirt road with no sidewalks or streetlights, which provided *an ideal
atmosphere for a summer retreat, is not acceptable for year-round
residential use. Increased demands for road improvements, street-
lights, traffic signals, sidewalks, ambulance service, police protec-
tion, public transportation, senior centers, etc., can not be accommo-
dated within the tax levy limits imposed by Proposition 2 1/2.

Recognizing that residential growth may create demands for public
services in excess of the additional tax revenue generated by the new
construction, some communities have begun to encourage commercial and
limited light industrial growth. Many Cape Cod towns are in the
process of developing industrial parks in the hopes of gaining addi-
tional tax reve'nue as well as creating employment opportunities for
local people. If new commercial enterprises employ existing resi-
dents, require limited water resources, discharge no pollutants and
create no demands for highway and traffic control improvements, local
communities benefit from commercial growth. However, due to the
difficulty in attracting commer'cial enterprises which are compatible
with Cape Cod's limited resources, the commercial tax base remains a
small percentage of the total proper ty valuation in Barnstable County.

Massachusetts communities with a high percentage of commercial and
industrial property have been able to take advantage of a constitu-
tional amendment passed in 1978 which allows communities to shift part
of the tax burden from the residential class to the commercial and
industrial classes of property. Under the law local officials must
assess all classes of property at 100 percent of fair market value,
but are permitte 'd to increase the tax rate for the,commercial and
industrial classes. In cities such as Boston the commercial and
industrial properties were-frequently assessed at a higher percentage
of fair market value than residential properties. Such communities
resisted the court-mandated revaluation programs because assessing all
property at 100 percent of fair market value would shift the tax
burden from the commercial and industrial classes to the residential
class of property. By implementing classification, Boston and other
cities with similar assessing practices are able to retain the same
distribution of the tax burden whi.ch existed prior to revaluation.

Because of the high percentage of residential property on Cape Cod, it
is not feasible to shift the property tax burden to the commercial and
industrial classes of -property. The savings to the individual resi-

134

dential taxpayer would be very small, while the increased taxes
assessed to the commercial and industrial properties would be signifi-
cant. In addition it would be difficult to implement classification
in an equitable manner due to the permissive zoning laws on Cape Cod
which permit residents to conduct home occupations in residential
areas, and the seasonal nature of many local businesses such as guest
houses which onlyoperate duringa few monthsof theyear. For these
reasons, public officials on Cape Cod have elected to tax all classes
of property at the same rate.

Another provision of the classification amendment permits local
officials to classify vacant land as open space and to reduce the
share of the property tax burden paid by this class of property. How-
ever, assessors must determine that the property contributes signifi-
cantly to the public good and is not being held for the production of
income. A more appropriate method of r-educing the tax burden on open
space parcels is the use of the conservation restriction. For those
landowners who wish to preserve open land in perpetuity while
retaining private ownership of the property, a conservation restric-
tion makes it possible for local officials to reduce the assessed
valuation of property to reflect the fact that it cannot be sold for
development and therefore has a greatly reduced market value. The
process of revaluation has resulted in an increased number of land-
owners being willing to trade their development rights for signif i-
cantly lower taxes. In other cases, homeowners with additional
building lots adjacent to their residential property have chosen to
combine the extra lots with the developed parcel rather than pay taxes
on the value of separate building lots. Frequently this process of
combining lots has resulted in the elimination of undersized lots
which were protected from zoning changes by various "grandfather"
clauses in local, zoning bylaws., For those property owners who are
unwilling to give up the right to develop their vacant land, the
increased taxes which result from revaluation may cause landowners to
develop or sell their property for development rather than continue to
pay the higher taxes.

Faced with rising costs of providing public services and the limita-
tion on taxation imposed by Proposition 2 1/2, local officials have
attempted to increase revenue by charging higher fees for water,
sewer, shellfish permits, beach stickers, licenses, parking meters,
and parking fines. The result of changing fee structures to bring
charges in line with costs has been beneficial to those taxpayers not
making use of the service, as they are no longer subsidizing the
operation of these activities through the property tax. As government
is not designed to be in the business of making a prof it, however,
various state laws restrict local governments from charging more for a
service than it costs to deliver it. There is also a limit to taxpayer
tolerance of ever increasing fees for services previously paid for in
large part by property taxes, along with a suspicion that local
officials are simply attempting to take their money out of a different
pocket.

communities on Cape Cod are now faced with another threat to financial
stability. The legislature has become increasingly alarmed about the
effects of Proposition 2 1/2 on communities that were required to make

135

siqnif icant reductions, in the property tax levy to comply with the,
1 aw. The result is a series of efforts to alter state aid formulas to
shift resources from the "rich" to the "poor" measured at the munici-
pal level usinq such distorting (for Cape Cod) measures as assessed
valuation per capita. School aid formula revisions are a favorite
device. Under one recent proposal, every town on Cape Cod would have
received ne.qative school aid, actually being assessed to contribute
to meeting school costs for areas with better numbers.

For example, serious consideration has recently been given to amending
state aid distribution formulas to include another "equalizing"
criterion which would provide increased amounts of local aid to
communities already assessing taxes at the full 2 '1/2% of the total
valuation. or at a tax rate of $25. The theory behind this additional
aid being granted to communities taxinq the maximum allowed by law is
that those municipalities have ro other option to increase revenues,
whereas in theory, Cape Cod communities may obtain additional tax
revenue by asking the voters to approve property tax increases beyond
the annual increase of 2 1/2 percent allowed by law.

In pr actice, it is extremely difficult to obtain voter approval of
property tax increases. It is also unrealistic to assume that the
property taxpayer on Cape Cod has the ability to pay taxes at the rate
of $25 per thousand when property valuations on Cape Cod have esca-
lated at a rate much faster than the increases in valuations for the
state as a whole, and residents, many on fixed incomes, have purchase6
property at values reflecting.the traditionally lower Cape Cod tax
r at e s. The new theory of "equalizing", based on the ability of the
community to increase' its tax rate to $25 per thousand, does not take
into account the fact that the Cape.Cod taxpayer would be required to
pay $2.500 in taxes for a property which might well be taxedat $1,250
if it were located in a different community.

The proposals to eliminate the "hold-harmless clause" in the chapter
70 school aid distribution formulas, combined with the proposal to
distribute increasing amounts of local aid to those communities
already taxing at $25 per thousand could lead to serious reductions in
state aid to Cape Cod communities. If the present trend in growth on
Cape Cod continues, it will become increasingly difficult to provide
local services to the expanding population. Those who have retired to
Cape Cod on fixed incomes, as well as those with incomes well below
the statewide averaqe, will be faced with the alternatives of voting
to increase property taxes beyond the limit of their ability to pay,
or facing reductions in the level of local services.

F., THE ECONOMic FUTURE

The growth of a community is shaped by the needs and desires of its
residents and the directions of its economic and business thrusts. if
the trends described in the previous portions of this report continue,
by the year 2000 the business community of Cape Cod will have under-
qone a series of subtle yet profound shifts. Perhaps the best way to
understand them is to take important elements of the economy and see
where each is headed.

136

CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE

Currently one of the most important factors in Cape Cod's economy, the
number of con struction-r elated jobs as a percentage of the total will
drop significantly over the next 15 years. Subdivision and commercial
development will be slowed by lack of land, tighter zoning restric-
tions and building moratoria. The building trades will be forced to
greater specialization in additions, alterations, and interiors,
rather than soup-to-nuts building or "spec" housing. Finish work will
replace rough work.

Related to this, real estate agents will also find less business, and
their numbers may decline. The reason is simple: fewer new proper-
ties will be created, and fewer old properties will change hands.

HEALTH SERVICES

Health and human services may replace construction as the perceived
backbone of the peninsula's economy. The continuing expansion of the
number of nursing homes, the anticipated growth in the size of the
Cape Cod Hospital, the constantly increasinq percentage of elderly in
the population all point in this direction. For example the Cape
population 65 years old and above was 16 percent in 1970, 21 percent
in 1980 and is projected to be 22 percent by the year 2000. Jobs
related to servicinq this seqment of the population run the qamut from
institutional support through office and secretarial personnel,
therapists, nurses, pharmacists and physicians.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

To a large extent the proliferation on Cape Cod of professional ser-
vices such as accountants, lawyers and stockbrokers relates directly
to high unearned income levels in the retirement population. These
.professionals will probably constitute an even qreater share of the
workforce in the year 2000 than they.do today.

TOURISM

The tourist economy may be expected to occupy a smaller share of the
business pie. The earlier analysis of Cape Cod income sources in this
report showed that income from leisure related sources on the Cape had
decreased from 32.2 percent of the total in 1970 to 27.1 percent in
1980. This number is estimated to decrease to 21.7 percent in the
year 2000 as the relative share introduced by retirees and commuters
is increased. The Cape businesses will still rely heavily on the
summer to make their money, however. It is possible that we are on
the brink of overbuilding motels, and that many of these will be
converted to condominiums by the year 2000. The number of pure summer
entertainment palaces--bars, lounges and nightspots--will if anything
decrease.

FISHING

The fishing industry has a cyclical pattern which can be dramatically
affected by environmental issues both local to Cape waters and foreign

137

to them. The present enormous drop in the stiped bass population, for
example, may well in part be related-to acid rain conditions in their
spawning grounds-in the Chesapeake Bay. Practical local issues such
as harbor maintenance and dock space are also important, however, and
these may be serious obstacles to an expanded fishing industry on the
Ca pe. It will be diffcult to prevent some shrinkage of a beleaguered
industry faced with a local fish population reduced by over fishing
and strong pressures for growing recreational use of the available
waterf ront space,

While at present the probability of large scale oil drilling on
Georges Bank appears relatively low, changing events may renew this
possibility. The influence it might have on fishing and other aspects
of the Cape's economy cannot be readily predicted since the scale of
operations will depend entirely on the significance of the oil or gas
findings which might be made.

BANKING

The past several decades have seen continuinq expansion in the number
of banking institutions on the Cape and the number of operating
branches. Employment levels in the industry have thus been
increasing. " A significant counter trend is now developinq through the
use of automated tellers and similar innovations. This can be
expected to actually reduce the levels of employment in the local
banking industry over the next.15 years.

OTHER TRENDS

1. Raw Buaingz_a Numbgra

Recent census information shows us that the raw number of Cape Cod
businesses is not increasing. It appears that as many businesses are
fail ing as are being created. However, those businesses which remain
are growing larger as the economy expands. This trend is expected to
continue. .

2. -CDmputer D-ecentralizAti-Qu

increasingly sophisticated communication means that businesses can
locate in remote areas yet not lose access to their contacts and
markets. Already Cape Cod has begun to see a few relatively high-
growth businesses locate here rather than, say, New York City, simply
because computers and telephone lines are eliminating the idea of a
"central" home office. Because of quality of life considerations. the
Cape will see an increasing number of idiosyncratic, high-tech, fast
growing businesses setting up shop.

3. IndustrializAt'

On the other hand Cape Cod will not become an industrial area to any
great extent. The industrial parks presently blocked out will sur-
vive, but may turn more towards professional parks for the service
industries. Plymouth County will abosrb the bulk of industrialization
taking place south of Boston, while -Cape areas close to the bridges,

138

like Sandwich, will tend to become bedroom communities for those
industrial areas.

4.. Busines Ownershi

An increasing percentage of Cape Cod business will,not be owned by
people living on Cape Cod. The attractiveness of this area for finan-
cial return is not lost on sophisticated marketers. Already chains,
both regional and national r play a major role in the local economy.
This phenomenon will have the effect of circulating money spent on
cape Cod off Cape Cod more quickly. While historically the Cape has
imported much more money than it has exported, the future will see a
balancing of payments and perhaps, a strong shift in the opposite
direction.

5. Geographic Concentration

While Hyannis will remain the economic hub of the Cape, and Falmouth
will remain the second economic focus,.Orleans will emerge as a strong
third, attracting commercial activity from across the Outer Cape.
Residential growth in Sandwich and Mashpee will spur strong economic
growth in those two towns, particularly Sandwich. Provincetown will
probably be the least changed economic community by the year 2000,
mainly because it has no land to grow into and no water to support
such growth.

139

VII, REGIONAL COORDINATION

It is clear that water, waste disposal, coastal protection, transpor-
tation and land use all have both local and regional aspects. What
one locality does inevitably affects' its neighbors, and the need for
cooperation on a regional basis is clear. It is less clear what we
mean by regional. Is the region state-wide, county-wide or smaller
groupings within the county? Should the regional cooperation be
coordinated by private groups, by governmental entities or by both?
It is instructive first to consider what regional coordination exists
today. Then we can consider what ought to exist tomorrow.

The two organizations probably most involved with long range planning
for the Cape as a whole are the Association f or the Preservation of
Cape Cod (APCC) and the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission (CCPEDC). The former is a private organization founded in
1968 and funded by grants and private donations. Its annual budget is
approximately $85,000. The latter (CCPEDC) was-established in 1965 as
an advisory agency to-Barnstable County and its 15 municipalities "for
the purpose of improving, developing and protecting the area's
resources through research, recommendation and coordination of
existing agencies with similar aims". Its annual expenditures are
about $300,000.

Both of these groups have been active in assessing trends in the
demographics and environmental character on Cape Cod. APCC, for
example, has held seminars such as "Growth Management on Cape Cod" in
Osterville in November of 1983. At that meeting a group of about 100
invited leaders from all segments of the Cape examined groundwater
protection, planning tools and the changing nature of the Cape's
economy. Studies have been commissioned such as that on "Income and
Population" by Philip B. Herr & Associates. This present growth study
is perhaps the most ambitious undertaking of APCC in regional
coordination.

CCPEDC has made numerous studies of critical regional problems.
Examples are the July 1983 study on "Regional Groundwater Management
Needs", a study of "Estimated Future Landfill Costs in Barnstable
County" in September 1983, a report on "Alternative Solid Waste
Management Systems for Barnstable County" in October 1982 and "The
Economy of Cape Cod - An Overview and Considerations" in March 1982.

While these are the two major "umbrella type" organizations trying to
ensure regional, coordination on Cape Cod, there are numerous state and
national organizations with coordinating roles in many aspects of the
Cape's environment and economy.- A few of these are the Massachusetts
Department of Water Pollution Control, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service. The Cape Cod National Seashore administers
44,000 acres of land on the Lower Cape and has a major regional
coordination function in that area. At the other end of the Cape,
Camp Edwards occupies 22 ,000 acres in Bourne, Falmouth, Mashp .ee and
Sandwich. While most of this land is owned by the Commonwealth of

140

Massachusetts, it is under long term lease to the U. S. Government
which places this huge tract essentially outside the normal routines
of regional influence or regulation.

There are too many other organizations playing significant roles in
regional coordination in selected areas to list them all. A few
examples will help to highlight their range and nature, however. A
Selectmen's Association made up of the Selectmen of all of the Cape
towns holds regular meetings to provide information and discuss issues
common to all the towns. The various conservation commissions on the
Cape have recently formed a Cape Cod Council of Conservation
Commissions (CCCCC) to consider regional implications. of local conser-
vation actions. Groups such as the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History
and the Audubon Society are active in environmental education and
control on the Cape.

A growing trend in regional land management is the establishment of
private foundations for acquiring and managing land for conservation
purposes and controlled public use. Conservation foundations or
trusts now exist in Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Eastham,
Orleans, Provincetown, Yarmouth, Truro and Wellfleet. These bodies
can accept land by bequest for conservation purposes and can raise
funds by public subscription for the purchase of land to be set aside
for public use.

A Water Resources Advisory Council has been established under the
auspices of The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission
with a member from each Cape town and other interested organizations.

It can be seen from the above -paragraphs that Cape Cod is not wanting
for bodies interested in regional coordination in-all the growth areas
of concern. Common to almost all of these bodies, however, is the
fact that they are advisory in nature. The problem is not,, therefore,
obtaining data or recognizing the need for action; it is the imple-
mentation of this action in a forceful and coordinated manner.

On the following pages a checklist has been developed by a consultant
to APCC to help citizens in each town learn more about how their town
stands on the scale of environmental protection. We urge individuals
in each town to pursue those questions which most interest them.

141

COMMIUI-1111ITY CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION

The following checklist w ill help measure how well your community
protects the environment and public health. It tests the adequacy of
local environmental law, the use of legal authority to the maximum,
the adequacy of staff and budget, and citizen participation. Cities
and towns differ widely in appreciating environmental and public
health issues, understanding legal powers and implementing authority
in bylaws and regulations. As a result, protection of the public's
health, safety and welfare varies tremendously from one town to
another.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ON THE BOOKS

Massachusetts municipalities have extensive authority to adopt
environmental bylaws and ordinances supplementing state environmental
statutes. This municipal "environmental law" is the cutting edge of
environmental protection today. Do not expect comprehensive federal
and state,legislation to bail your town out of environmental problems
such as groundwater contamination, watershed development, dwindling
open space and recreation resources, suburban sprawl, strip develop-
ment, industrial pollution or ugly buildings.

There is enabling legislation which allows towns to create environment-
al law tailored to their individual needs.

1. Has your Town Meeting adopted floodplain zoning?

2. Has your town adopted wetland zoning?

3. Do you have aquifer and well,or reservoir protection districts in
your zoning?

4. Do you have Site Plan Review in your town? Do your bylaws
require a local "environmental impact analysis" for major devel-
opments?

5. Have you adopted growth rate. controls in zoning?

6. Do you have a non-zoning Home Rule Wetlands Protection Bylaw
administered by the Conservation Commission?

7. Do your bylaws cover sand and gravel removal, erosion control at
construction sites, outdoor advertising, historic districts and
architectural design?

8. Are you developing groundwater, timber and agricultural bylaws?

IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL BOARDS

Having the basic legal authorities in place is only part of it.
Effective implementation is next. Examine whether your boards have
adopted policies, regulations and practices to.be effective.

142

1 Has your Planning Board adopted comprehensive subdivision control
regulations?

2. Has the Board of Health adopted local septic system regulations
supplementing the state code?

3. Did your conservation commission issue guidelines under the
Wetlands Protection Act or regulations under its local wetlands
bylaw?

4. Are your wetlands mapped?

5. Is your Town Meeting considering adopting revised floodplain
mapping?

6. Have the zones of contribution of your wells been established and
mapped?

Have wildlife habitats (flora and fauna) been identified and
mapped?

8. Does your community have an underground fuel tank testing and
inspection program?

STAFFING

Volunteer boards unaided by adequate staff sometimes are unable to do
more than process plans submitted to them. Professional personnel or
consultants are essential to match resources with permit applicants
and polluters. Find out whether your boards have depth beyond just
meeting periodically and reacting to what comes before them.

1. Does your town have a full time planner?

2. Are engineering and water resource consultants on staff or on
retainer?

3. Does the conservation commission have an office and staff?

4. Is there an agent fot the Board of Health?

5. Has ahazardous waste coordinator been appointed? Is there a
municipal coordinator for the hazardous materials Right-To-Know
law?

6. Does each board centralize its files and organize them?

7. Are the resources and staff of one board or department available
to others? Does the Town Engineer help boards to review techni-
cal plans?

143

LONG RANGE PLANNING

There is a tendency to f ight "brush f ires". Long range items at the
end of the agenda never seem to be reached. Make sure your boards are
studying, debating and resolving long term policy and program matters.

1. Is there a Comprehensive Master@ Plan?

2. Has the Open Space and Recreation part of the plan been updated
to make the community eligible for state funds?

3. Is there a management and maintenance plan for open space areas?

4. Does your town actively use the service of a Regional Planning
Agency? The Soil Conservation Service? Conservation Districts?
Other state or county agencies?

5. Have your boards joined the Massachusetts Federation of Planning
Boards and Boards of Appeals? The Mas-sachusetts Association of
Conservation Commissions? The Board of Health federations?

6. Has your community adopted a written growth policy? Is it being
implemented?

7. Does each board schedule a monthly or quarterly meeting devoted
only to long range or planning items?

BUDGETS AND FINANCE

Money must be available for effective local environmental protection.
The cost of inaction is greater than'any budget expense. See if your
officials get the money they need to spend.

1. Is there an appropriation for each regulatory board in town?
Does it include funds for expert consultants?

2. Do the boards have money to pay dues to their professional asso-
ciations (MACC, MFPB, etc.)?

3. Does Town Meeting add to the Conservation Fund each year?

4. Do town boards solicit volunteer time from knowledgeable citizens
and technical experts?

5. Have the boards set permit fee schedules for applicants?

6. Do the boards have a good working -relationship with the finance
committee?

7. Do your boards know that state money can be available for
acquiring open space and recreation land; properties on lakes,
rivers, great ponds and the' ocean; easements to important
resources; and aquifer and recharge areas? For rehabilitating
town squares and commons? To buy rare and endangered species
habitats? To purchase promises not to develop farmland? To

144

create trail networks? To expand wildlife management areas? To
add to state parks? To close publicly owned landfills? And to
rehabilitate ponds and lakes?

8. Does the town budget money for board members to go to conferences
and workshops and subscribe to useful publications to gain per-
spective and professional expertise?

PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT

It is a disservice to the community for boards to just process the
paperwork with routine approvals. Test whether they make maximum use
of legal authority to require data and set permit conditions. See if
they issue decisions which stick. See if they know how to foster
voluntary compliance and take serious violators to court.

1. Do the boards require permit applicants to submit all data
required by local bylaws and regulations? Do they set permit
conditions reflecting current knowledge and legal standards?

2. Do your boards acquiesce when challenged because of costs
involved in litigation?

3. Are the boards familiar with routine enforcement tools to secure
prompt and continued,compliance by viola 'tors? Have the boards
made examples in some cases to foster voluntary compliance by
others?

4. Does each board offi ce have a complete, current set of applicable
regulations and forms?

5. Do your boards issue written, understandable decisions explaining
factual and legal reasons?

6. Do town departments comply with permit requirements for their own
projects?

7. Does the Town Counsel respond in timely fashion to requests for
legal action and opinions? Is she/he familiar with the laws you
enforce? Have you arranged in advance for quick action.when
needed? Is there legal funding for advice and enforcement?

CITIZEN INPUT

A healthy approach to citizen input is a must. Check if boards know
and obey the basic open meeting and public document 1 aw s. Test if
boards appreciate the value of information from the public they
protect as well as the parties they regulate.

1. Do your boards comply with the Open Meeting Law? The Public
Records Statute?

2. Do they schedule a regul ar "public voice" section on the agenda
for each meeting?

145

3. Do-they appoint advisory committees to help with revisions of
policies and programs?

4. Do they actively foster public input in decisions?

5. Are they aware that any ten citizens and any municipality can
enforce Ma.ssachusetts environmental law in court -using the
Citizen Suit Statute?

6. Do they know that any ten persons can intervene in state license,
permit and enforcement-type proceedings where damage to the
environment is involved?

7. Are copies of written materials and maps available at Town Hall
and the public library? Are copying facilities for the public
available at these locations?

CITIZEN ACTION

Boards respond to an active constituency. Build that constituency for
them. Counter the opposite pressures they get.

1. Have citizens in your town educated the general public, legisla-
tors and local officials through brochures, fairs, lobbying, new
articles, environmental materials in the schools and libraries?

Are your citizens familiar with board jurisdictions and limits of
authority? Do your citizens ask the boards to do what is
realistic and allowed by law?

3. Do your citizens at hearings arm themselves with technical infor-
mation, legal standards and policy arguments instead of just
personal preferences?

4. Do they know how to use the Open Meeting Law and the Public
Records statute? Do they utilize information provided by Right-
to-Know and hazardous waste reporting requirements? Are they
aware of the right of ten citizens in Massachusetts to sue
environmental violators? Do they know about the ten person right
to intervene in state adjudicatory proceedings?

5. Has a land conservation trust been formed to buy or accept gifts
of land or conservation restrictions?

6. Do interested and informed persons regularly attend each board's
mee ting?

7. Does a newspaper actively report board actions?

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

A good test is whether your town has learn.ed the lessons of the
environmental movement since Earth Day,1970 Does your town have an
environmental ethic?

146

1 In cases of doubt do boards give the benef it of the doubt to
environmental protection?

2. Do your officials appreciate the indirect, secondary impacts of
their decisions? Do they realize the value of interdisciplinary
decisions, drawing on different areas of expertise?

3. Do your officials understand the cumulative impacts of individ-
ually small decisions?

4. Do your officials decide matters on relevant standards?

5. Does your town give tax abatements to those who conserve land or
keep it in timber or agriculture? Does your town.understand the
economic benefits to the town of these tax incentives?

6. Are there publicly adopted memos of understanding between boards
to make sure environmental matters receive proper attention?

7. Is there a recycling program sponsored by the town?

8. Are your boards sensitive to regional impacts of actions they
take? Is your town a good neighbor?

Use this checklist to "take the temperature" of your town's commitment
to environmental quality and daily implementation of environmenta'l
law.

At the present time actions may be carried out by the towns through
executive orders where permissible or by the passage of warrant items
by the Town Meetings. The present county government can and does act
in many regional affairs such as law enforcementf regional planning
through CCPEDC and health matters through the Barnstable County Health
Department. By tradition and its organization the county government
is severely limited, however, in the extent to which it can act in
important regional matters such as water quality control, waste
disposal, coastal and wetlands management and transportation develop-
ment and control. Both federal and state agencies operate from too
great a distance to deal effectively with problems in a region as
small and cohesive as Cape Cod,, yet coordination through cooperative
efforts of 15 towns is too cumbersome. It is fortuitous that
Barnstable County almost exactly matches the natural boundaries of the
Cape. It is thus ideally constituted to play a major role as a
regional coordinating authority. A stronger county government with
ability to pass legislation and fund its actions appears to be the
only path to a truly effective regional governmental body combining
the power to act and the necessary sensitivity to regional concerns.
The recent recommendations made by the Barnstable County Government
Review Committee urge the creation of just such a strong county
government and call for a Charter Commission to set about establishing
it. It is in our judgment imperative that this course be pursued
vigorously and that such a government be constituted as soon as
humanly possible.

147

In the meantime each community must take its future in its own hands,
working with the town governments, the many private organizations
dedicated to beneficial contr'olled growth, the limited but effective
assistance of the present county organization and the powerful but
diffuse resources of the state and federal governments.

THE COMMUN I TY OF CAPE COD

The Random House Dictionary defines community as "a social croup whose
members live in a specific locality, share government and have a
common heritage". The Community of Cape Cod thus describes a region
of common geography, common and diverse interests, shared government
and a common heritage. This unique peninsula can only grow wisely if
we recognize that it is our community and that all of us must parti-
ci pate by working not only f or our own good but f or the good of our
neighbors and the environment in which we all live. The growth
problems we all face are a challenge to our wisdom, our integrity and
our courage. To solve the problems we must first understand them. It
is our hope that this report will help provide the understanding on
which wise growth policy must be based.

148

KEY To ABBREVIATIONS

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
ACE Army Corps of Engineers
ANR Approval Not Required (Plan)
APCC Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
APR Agricultural Preservation Restriction
ARM Acid Rain Monitoring

BCHD Barnstable County Health Department
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
Bt -Bacillus thuringiensis (Insecticide)

CAA Clean Air Act
CCCCC Cape Cod Coalition of Conservation Commissions
CCNS Cape Cod National Seashore
CCPEDC Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission
CCRTA Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CLF Conservation Law Foundation
CLT Community Land Trust
Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay
CRAB Coastal Resources Advisory Board
CWA Clean Water Act
CZM Coastal Zone Management
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEM Dept. of Environmental Management (Mass.)
DEQE Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering (Mass.)
DMF Dept. of Marine Fisheries
DOC Dept. of Commerce
DOE Dept. of Energy
DOI Dept. of the Interior

EDF Environmental Defense Fund
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Study
ELM Environmental Lobby of Massachusetts
ENF Environmental Notification Form
EOEA Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs (Mass.)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act

FEV!A Federal Emergency Management Agency
Friends of the Earth

HDC Historic Districts Commission
HTA7B Hazardous Waste Board

IRS Internal Revenue Service

LORAN Long range aid to navigation
LUST Leaking underground storage tanks

149

MACC Mass. Association of Conservation Commissions
MEPA Mass. Environmental Protection Act

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF National Science Foundation

OCS Outer Continental Shelf
ORV Off-road vehicle

PCCS Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies
PIRG Public Interest Research Group

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act
RPA Regional Planning Authority
RTA Regional Transit Authority

SCS Soil Conservation Service
SENE Southeastern New England Study
SWAC Solid Waste Advisory Committee

TDR Transfer of development rights
TOSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey,

VOCC Volunteers of Cape Cod

WPA Wetlands Protection Act (Mass.)
WQAC Water Quality Advisory Committee
WRA Wetlands Restriction Act
WRC Water Resources Council

201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Program
208 Water Quality Management Program
301 Massachusetts Pond and Lake Restoration Program

150

APPENDIX

151

A. WATER SUPPLY & DEMAND GRAPHS

152

BA R N STABLE
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
30,ooo-

tjj 26,000-
-30

22,000-
24,obo--

-25
UALITY
> 20,000--
< I I SUPPLY <
18,000--
LLJ
0 -20 Cc
< 16,000- LLJ
Li-i
Cr- 14,000--
12,000-- -15 (J)
LLJ MAXIMUM WEEK z
0
10,000-- 1
ry 10 1
< 8,000- 9 <
-F SUMMER MONTHS -8 0
4-
6,000- -7
Lli AVERAGE ANNUAL -6
cr DAILY (f)
4,000- -5 Z
WATER USE -4 0
21000 -3
-2

7!
YEAR 1930 4b 5'0 do 0 80 90 2 dOO
69% PUBLIC SUPPLY 4 WATER DISTRICTS)

RECHARGE ACREAGE AVAILABLE

m r%i 'co 'o
o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1

z 0
0.
m U)
cl)
>
> < >
M - rrl 0 -n
x 0 -n 03
>

M
-u U) n > >
r- m > >
0 z z --4
> M

CP
c:
v
-0
0
rri
c
>
z
0

co m
0- K
> (J) >
z C::> z
Z K x 0
c: Ez
> M.

rTi
Z m

.0
0- lj@ -k (.P
0 m (J) 0 c:
x c C >

r\-) -P@ 00 (D 0
MI LLIONS 0 F GALLONS WATER/DAY

BRE W STE R
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

TOTAL 10TAL

15,000 -

14,000 -

Lli
13,000- <(
15 01
12,000-
QUALITY
< II'Ooo-- SUPPLY Li I
>
< 10,000
9,000- ZZ
-10
8,000- (f)
Lli z
Q@ 7,000-
0
C"Ooo - <

5,000-
cr_
< 4,000 - - 5
r
MAXIMUM WEEK - 4 W
0 3,000- z
ui 3
2,000 - AVERAGE
/ SUMMER MONTHS 2 j
DAI LY
1,000-
WATER USE >

-I - " -, 1 1
YEAR 1930 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000
9307o PUBLIC SUPPLY

CHATHAM
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Lli
TOTAL TOTAL
5
cl)
< 4,000

<
> 4 3:
3,000 U)
z
< MAXIMUM WEEK -,30
-i
Llj QUALITY -i
<
02,000 SUPPLY
< SUMMER MONTHS
Lli

AVERAGE
1,000 ANNUAL
DAI LY
WATER USE
Lli

50 @o go
YEAR 1930 40 60 7 2000

55076 PUBLIC SUPPLY.

DENNIS
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

TOTAL TOTAL

7,000

Lli <
6@000 7
<

Lu
< 5,000 6
< MAXIMUM WEEK
QUALITY- 5
4,000 SUPPLY u)
< z
w -40
cr- -i
o 3,000 SUMMER MONTHS

-3

L+-
2,000 0
ANNUAL - 2 (f)
< z
AVERAGE 0
',000 DAI LY -J
WATER USE

YEAR 1930 40 50 60 76 8@ 9'0 2800
95% PUBLIC SUPPLY

EASTHAM

WATER SU P PLY AND DEMAND

LLJ

OD 5,000
< TOTA L Cy-
_j LLJ
< <
> 4,000-

NATIONAL SEASHORE LAND
LLJ 4
(D
;000-
_j
Lij <
rr Nat ionai
U Seashore)
< 2000- Qualily
y Supply 0
LLJ W
(D SUMMER Z
cc -------.MONTH$ 0
1 /000-
AVERAGE (E-National -1
DAILY Seashore)
WATER USE Quahtg Supply

YEAR 1930 40 50 60 70@ 80 90 2000

#Estimate - 65 gal Ion-s,-,capita,- day x summer population

FALMOUTH

Lli

CD WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
< 20,000- TOTAL
_j
< 18,000-
LLJ
16,000- -20 1--

QUA LITY
14,000- SUPPLY
U-)
Lli -15 Z
12,000- 0
-i
10,000- -1
Li 8,000- -10 4-
CD -9 0
0-1 . -8 U)
< 6,000- -7 z
SUMMER MONTHS 0
-6
4 -5
,000- AVERAGE
Lli DAI LY ANNUAL -4 -j
WATER USE
(r- 2,000- -3 5:
-2
-1
YEAR 1930 40 5@ @O k 80 90 2000

807. PUBLIC SUPPLY
SE

HARWICH

WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY

TOTAL TOT AL

11,000- -13
Lij
cf) 10,000 - -12
9,000- -11
< QUALIT@
> 10 <
< 8,000- SUPPLY

7,000- 8 U)
< z
LLJ 6,000- 0
7 _j

5,0.00- 6
4,000- 5
MAXIMUM WEEK
4
< 3,000- co
AVERAGE
SUMMER MONTHS 3 Z
Lij 2,000- DAILY 0
cr- WATER USE 2 -J
1,000- ANNUAL

YEAR 1930 4b 5b 6o 70 80 90 2000

78076 PUBLIC SUPPLY
>G

MASHPEE

WATER SUPPLY AN D DEMAND TOTAL
12,000-
OTIS AFB LAND -14
LLJ QUAL ITY
_j SUPR Y
OD OTIST <
< 10,000- QUALI TY -12 C-)
E X@UOPTPLY)
is

10 Ld
8jO00-
LLJ

LLJ 6,000-
0

4,000- 5
0 4 4-
cr_ 0
< 3 (f)
M z
U 21000- 2 0
LLI AVE RAGE
or_ SUMMER
DAILY
WATER USE HIGHWOOD WATER CO.

YEAR 1930 40 50 60 70 so 90 2000

*Estimatc of Mashpcc total: 65 gallons/capita/day x -summer population

ORLEANS

cn WATE R SUPPLY AND DEMAND
TOTAL

Lli
75 1-
4,000-

3,000-
Lij QUALITY 0
rlr SUPPLY -3 -j

2.,000-

4-
LLJ MAXIMUM WEEK -2 0
(D
rr_ (f)
SUMMER MONI'HS 7-
1/000- -1 0
AVERAGE ANNUAL. -1
DAILY
WATER USE

T--T-
YEAR 1930 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000

9 0%, PUBLIC SUPPLY

PROVINCETOWN TRURO
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL

QUA L I TY
15,000- SU PP LY
Lli -t-NAT IONAL
I SEASHORE)
CID
5,000-
< NATIONAL SEASHORE LAND
> Lli

4,000-

Ld
(D
w 3,000- z
m 0
u

2
,,000 AVERAGE
DAILY
Ld WATER USE -2 0
SUMMER MONTHS-" Cf)

0
r I"OOO_ QUALI TY -1 -
ANNUALt SUPPLY _j
LLJ (Ek@ NAT IONA 4
SEASHORE)

YEAR 1930 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000
TOTAL USE PROVINCETOWN -TRURO ESTIMATED
PROVINCETOWN WATER DEPT. PUMPING ONLY

RECHARGE ACREAGE AVAI LAB LE

N) _O K)
,a@ _CD
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W ?

a-Z, 0

c: U)

a 01
0

rn
m r- x
-<>
G-)
rrl >
c:
(JI
rrl
r <

>
z

OD rn
0-

z
0 [cf) >
c:

Z
Z rTl

o rr, rr,
)@- c > 0 c: >

rj (,j
-I-- (.p 0. OD (D 0 cr
MILLIONSof GALLONS WATE R D AY

WELLFLEET

Lli
1 5,000- WATER SUPPLY A N D DEMAND ?
CD TO TAL
C-)

QUA LI TY SUPPLY
4,000- NATIONAL SEASHORE) -5 LFJJ

Lu -4
0
< 3000- NATIONAL SEASHORE LAND z
Lli 0

21000-
LIJ 4-
-2 0
SUMMER w
< 1/000--.- MONTHS
r
u AVERAG@ QUALI TY
Lli DAILY SUPPLY
cr- WATE R USE* (EX-NATIONAL SEASHORE)

YEAR 1930 .40 50 60 70 80 90 2000
ESTIMATE 65 GALLONS/CAPITA/DAY x SUMMER POPULATION

RECHARGE ACREAGE AVAILABLE

rn
> IN,
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

(.0

>
<
m
rn
c: >
C)
M
C:

c: >
0 --1
m

>
z

GD >
0 z

m >
> M ><
z C:)C ;)K
z
c . z K
> K
m
M

U) %D

> 0
--4
>
--i
<

N) CA 4-- CP M ---J

V, L LIONSof GALLONS WATER/DAY

B. FORECAST METHODOLOGY, TABLES & GRAPHS

166

FORECAST METHODOLOGY

The following briefly outlines the methods used in the growth
forecasts made in this study. Among the key sources were these:

Income: unpublished data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis.

Employment: Massachusetts Division of Employment Security-
Construction: building permit data compiled by @the Cape Cod
Planning and Economic Development Commission.

Population and housing: U.S. Census of Population and Housing.

Seasonal occupancy: field survey by APCC, 1982.

1. CAPEWIDE NON-WINTER POPULATION

1.1 Project number of second homes by five year intervals, based on the
capture (declining from a rate of 0.03 in 1980 to 0.026 in 2000) of
a growing Mass. population ages 35-54

(Number of 2nd homes = Capture rate x Mass population 35-54)

1.2 Project the persons in second homes as function of a declining
person/second home rate (from 4.0 in 1980 to 3.8 in 2000)

(Second home population = persons/second home x Number of second
homes)

1.3 Project extra summer population in year round homes using a con-
stant 0.43 extra persons per year round home. The constant is
based on findings from the 198.2 APCC survey.

(Extra population = 0.43 x Number of year round homes),

1.4 Project non-dwelling population as a function of the sum of second
& year-round homes. . The non-dwelling factor is assumed to remain
constant at slightly below.the 1980 level.

[Non-dwelling unit population = Non-dwelling unit factor x (Number
second homes + Number year round homes)]

1.5 Calculate non-winter population by five year intervals by summing
second home population, extra population in year round homes and
non-dwelling population.

(Non-winter population = Second home population + Extra population
in year round homes + Non-dwelling unit population)

1.6 Project leisure supported income by assuming a constant 1980
adjusted basic income/non-winter population rate.

(Leisure supported income = Non-winter population x Adjusted basic
income/ Non-winter population)

2. CAPEWIDE WINTER POPULATION AND INCOME

2.1 Capewide retirement aged population

2.1.1 Project Cape population aged 65+ based on 1980 mortality ra te
applied to existing Cape population aged 55-64 and 65+, and a
migration rate that is a,half of 1980's in 1990, and a third of
1980's in 2000.

(Population 55-64 + Pop. 65+) x (I- Mortality rate + Migration
Rate)

2.1.2 Project retirement supported income by assuming a constant 1980
adjusted basic income per Cape population aged 65+.

(Retirement supported income = Cape population 65+ x Adjusted
basic income/Cape pop 65+)

2.2 Other supported winter population

2.2.1 Project military supported income to remain at 1980 level through
year 2000.

2.2.2 Project commuter supported income to increase by $30 million (in
1980 dollars) at five year intervals.

2.2.3 Project other outside supported income to increase by $22 million
(in 1980 dollars) at five year intervals.

2.3 Calculate total outside supported income by summing leisure,
retirement, military, commuter and other outside supported incomes.

(Total outside supported income = leisure support income + retire-
ment support income + military support income + commuter support
income + other outside support income).

2.4 Project respending income by assuming a constant 1980 respending
rate.

(Respending income = total outside support income x respending
rate).

2.5 Calculate total income by summing total outside supported income
and respending income.

2.6 Project winter population based on the assumption that total income
per capita remains constant through year 2000.
(Winter population = total income /total income per capita)
2.7 Calculate peak population by adding non-winter and winter popula-
tions.

3. TOWN WINTER POPULATION

3.1 Project 1990 and 2000 winter population by town using four alterna-
tive ways:

a) Linear Extrapolation
b) Land Share
C) Shift Share by Population
d) Shift Share by Dwelling Unit

3.2 Project by linear extrapolation.

3.2.1 Project year 2000 population.by town by adding population change
between 1960 and 1980 to 1980 base.

3.2.2 Project 1990 population by interpolation (midpoint).

3.3 Project by land share method

3.3.1 Calculate land consumption by town for 1975 and 1983 based on
1971 and 1980 land use information, town open space and recrea-
tion inventories, and an estimate of land consumed since base
date as a function of the number of dwelling units authorized.

3.3.2 Calculate town's share of Capewide vacant land.

3.3.3 Project town's total dwelling units by distributing added dwel-
ling units according to its share of vacant land.

3.3.4 Project town's winter population as a function of the percentage
winter occupied units, household sizef and total dwelling units
(percent winter occupancy based on 1970 to 1980 trend; household
size estimated to be 0.94 of 1980 level in 1990 and 0.92 of 1980
level in 2000).

3.4 Project by shift share of population.

3.4.1 Calculate percent share of winter population at ten year inter-
vals between 1960-80.

3.4.2 Project town's share of winter population to 1990 and 2000.

3.4.3 Calculate town's winter population by multiplying projected
share of winter population with the project Capewide population.

3.5 Project by shift share of dwelling units.

3.5.1 Calculate percent town's share of Capewide dwelling units for
1960 to 1983.

3.5.2 Project town's share of dwelling units for 1990 and 2000.

3.5.3 Calculate town's total number of dwelling units by multiplying
the town's projected share of dwelling units with the Capewide
total.

3.5.4 Project the town's percent share of winter occupied dwelling
units based on 1970 to 1980 data.

3.5.5 Calculate town's winter population by multiplying the town's
winter occupied units by the town's household size.

3.6 Judgmentally make-estimates based on above results.

4. TOWN PEAK POPULATION

4.1 Project peak populations for each alternative way of projecting
winter populat 'ion using the following general method of calculating
non-winter population.

4.1.1 Calculate the number of second homes by town as the difference
between total projected units, winter occupied units and units
vacant for other reasons.

4.1.2 Calculate percentage of second homes by town.

4.1.3 Project second home population based on a declining second home
occupancy rate (for 4.0 in 1980 to 3.8 in 2000).

4.1.4 Project the extra population in year round homesusing the
assumed constant 0.43 extra persons per year round home.

4.1.5 Project the non-dwelling population as a function of the 1983
town's population share in commercial accommodations as modified
by the town's share of Capewide winter population growth.

[Non-dwelling unit population = town's existing non-dwelling
unit population � (Percentage town's share of Capewide commer-
cial accommodation in 1983 + Percent town's share of winter
population growth x (1/2 x Capewide non-dwelling unit popula-
tion growth)]

4.1.6 Calculate toWn!_s@ non-winter population by summing second home
population + extra year round population + non-dwelling popula-
tion.

4.1.7 Calculate town's peak population by adding non-winter and winter
population for each alternative way.

5. CAPEWIDE COVERED EMPLOYMENT

5.1 Calculate cov'ered employment by town by job sector, summing . to
get Capewide totals. (Government jobs are estimated for 1970-78
based on recent years' breakdown of government jobs into federal,
state and other).

5.2 Calculate earned income (in 1980 dollars) per covered job and
earned income per total income for 1970-1982.

5.3 Project total jobs to year 2000 based on a con stant earned
income/total income rate of 0.42 and an income per job of
$13,000.

5.4 Distribute total projected jobs among job sectors by shift share
and by linear extrapolation.

5.5 Judgmentally distribute total projected jobs among job sectors
based on above results.

6. HOUSING STOCK

6.1 Calculate town's housing stock by summing the number of second
homes, year round homes and dwelling units vacant for other
reason-s (assumed to remain const.ant to year 2000).

6.2 Calculate homebuilding rate by calculating the annual change in
the housing stock by town.

Data in the following tables in general should have 2-figure
accuracy, although for convenience figures are often displayed as
if having five or more significant digits. For that reason, and
the use of many data sources which are not all in perfect
agreement, figures for the same item may vary slightly among
tables. This study, unlike the 1976 one, accepted the most
recent U. S. Census figures as being accurate. More recent field
information in Provincetown indicates that may not always be the
case.

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Title

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1 1982 Seasonal Distribution Of Cape Cod Population
G-2 1982 Cape Cod Housing Units: Survey Results
G-3 Cape Cod Population In Housing Units: Survey Results
G-4 Cape Cod Seasonal Population In Dwellings, Summer 1983
G-5 Other Accomodations On Cape Cod, Summer 1983
G-6 Cape Co&Seasonal Population, Summer 1983

H-1 Town Land Use Changes, 1975 and 1983
H-2 1975 Town Reserved Open Space
u-3 1983 Town Reserved Open Space
H-4 Town Residential Construction, 1970 - 1983
H-5 Town Land Development, 1975
H-6 Town Land Development, 1983
11-7 Town Land Development, 1990 and 2000
H-8 Cape Cod 2020 Basic Development Scenario
H-9 Other Cape Cod 2020 Development Scenarios
H-10 Housing Stock
H-11 Home Building Rate

Table.idx/APCC

LIST OF TABLES SEPTEMBER 26, 1984

Table Title

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1 Cape Cod Population, 1970-2000
A-2 Cape-Cod Population, 1970-2000 (Details)
A-3 1980 Cape Cod Income Analysis
A-4 .1980 Net Income to Winter Cape Cod Residents
A-5 Adjusted Basic Income to Winter Cape Cod Residents

B-1 Cape Cod Cohort Survival History
B-2 'Cape Cod Cohort Survival Projections
B-3 .Projected Effect of Greatly Reduced Net Inmigration on Cape Cod Population

C-1 Cape Cod Employment History
C-2 Cape Cod Employment Projections

D-1 1990 Town Winter Population: -Summary
D-2 1990 Town Peak Population: Summary
D-3 2000 Town Winter Population: Summary
D-4 2000 Town Peak Population: Summary

E-1 Town Winter Population
E-2 Average Town Household Size, 1950-2000
E-3 1990 Town Winter Population (By Land Share Method)
E-4 2000 Town Winter Population (By Land Share Method)
E-5 Town Winter Population (By Shift Share of Population Method)
E-6 Distribution of Dwelling Units (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method)
E-7 Town Winter Population (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method)

F-1 Town Peak Population History
F-2 Town Peak Population Projection (By Linear Extrapolation Method)
F-3 1990 Town Peak Population (By Land Share Method)
F-4 2000 Town Peak Population (By Land Share Method)
F-5 Town Peak Population (By Shift Share of Population Method)
F-6 1990 Town Peak Population (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method)
F-7 2000 Town Peak Population (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method)

Table H-2 Table H-3
1975 TOWN RESERVED OPEN SPACE 1983 TOWN RESERVED OPEN SPACE July 11,1984

Town and Total Town and Total
'Federally State Other Reserved Federally State Other Reserved
Owned Owned Owned Open . Owned Owned Owned Open
-------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 8700 500 700 9900 BOURNE 9200 500 1400 11100
FALMOUTH 200 1600 1800 3600 FALMOUTH 200 1700 1800 3700
MASHPEE 400 0 800' 1200 MASHPEE 900 500 1300 2700
SANDWICH 8100 800 1000 9900 SANDWICH 8100 900 2100 11100

BARNSTABLE 0* 100 1700 1800 BARNSTABLE 0 300 5000 5300
DENNIS 0 0 1100 1100 DENNIS 0 0 2500 2500
YARMOUTH 0 0 700 700 YARMOUTH 0 0 2600 2600

BREWSTER 0 1800 500 2300 BREWSTER 0 1800 700 2500
CHATHAM 3700 0 600 4300 CHATHAM 3700 0 800 4500
EASTHAM 3000 0 100 3100 EASTHAM 3000 0 400 3400
HARWICH 0 100 700 800 HARWICH 0 200 1200 1400
ORLEANS 1000 0 500 1500 ORLEANS 1000 0 900 1900

PROVINCETOWN 4500 0 15 4515 PR6VINCETOWM 4500 0 15 4515
TRURO 8900 0 100 9000 TRURO 8900 0 100 9000
WELLFLEET 7900 0 100 8000 WELLFLEET 8600 0 300 8900

------------------------------------ 7----------------------------------- -------------------------------
TOTAL 46400 4900 10415 61715 TOTAL 48100 5900 21115 75115

Note: Federally owned land includes open land at Otis and the National Seashore.
State owned land is estimated from 1971 SCORP data.
Town owned land is estimated from community,open space plans where available
and does not include school land, town buildings land, and other town land not
normally associated with open space. Other reserved open space includes public
and semi-public open space likely to be perpetually preserved and private land
under permanent conservation restrictions.

Space75/APCC-3

Table U-1
TOWN LAND USE CHANGES, 1975 AND 1983** July 11,1984

Nonreserved Reserved Vacant
Total, Wet, Sand Open Developed Buildable
Except --------------------------------------------------------------
Water 1975 1983* 1975 1983 1975 1983 1975 1983 %Change

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 26300 4100 3900 9900 11100 4600 5300 7700 6000 -22
FALMOUTH 28300 4200 3900 3600 3700 7400 9000 13100 11700 -11
MASHPEE 14600 2500 2400 1200 2700 2200 2900 8700 6600 -24
SANDWICH 27700 2900 2900 9900 11100 .5100 6600 9800 7100 -28

BARNSTABLE 38500 .8000 6600 1800 5300 10100 12600 18600 140OU -25
DENNIS ; 13200 2800 2600 1100 2500 4500 5100 4800 3055 -38
YARMOUTH 15400 2400 2100 700 2600 5200 6000 7100 4700 -34

BREWSTER 14400 2400 2200 2300 2500 2300 2900 7400 6800 -8
CHATHAM 10200 600 600 4300 4500 2900 3400 2400 1700 -29
EASTHAM 9200 700 700 3100 3400 2100 2500 3300, 2600 -21
HARWICH 13400 2000 2000 800 1400 3300 3600 7300 6400 -12
ORLEANS 9000 500 500 .1500 .1900 2460 2900 4600 3700 -M

PROVINCETOWN 6400 600 600 4515 4515 570 630. 715 655 -8
TRURO 13600 500 400 9000 9000 1400 1700 2700 2500 -7
WELLFLEET 13300 900 900 8000 8900 1700 1900 2700 1600 -41

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPE TOTAL 253500 35100 32300 61715 75115 55770 67030 100915 79055 -22

Estimated from open space data where available. Otherwise, assumed no change since
CCPEDC 1976 report.

In acres

Note: Estimates of reserved open land b ased on community open space plans where available.
Estimates of developed land based on MacConnell's 1971 and 1980 land use data and
local building permit information.

LandUse/APCC-2

Table A-1
CAPE COD POPULATION, 1970 - 2000 November 30,1983

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINTER POPULATION (from income analyses in constant 1980 dollars).:
Leisure supported income* 192 247 247 271 285 302 309
Retirement supp. income* 203 296 331 399 462 493 516
Military supported income* 75 38 36 36 36 36 36
Commuter supported income* 32 125 157 190 220 250 280
Other outside supp. income* 91 128 145 167 189 211 233
Total outside supp. income* 594 834 916 1063 1192 1292 1374
Respending income* 411 540 597 708 795 861 893
Total income* 1005 1374 1513 1753 1967 2132 2267
Total income/capita 10359 10731 10230 10500 10500 10500 .10500
Winter population 97000 128000 147900 167000 187400 203100 215900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NON-WINTER POPULATION:
Second home population 114120 129790 145400 158800 164500 172600 174900
"Extra" summer populatiBn 13850 19570 25000 29700 - 33800 37200 39800
Non-dwelling population+ 47350 50780 54500 58400 61400 65000 66500
Non-winter population+ 175310 200140 225000 246900 259700 274800 281200
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEAK POPULATION+ 272310 328140 372900 413900 @447000 477900 497100

* in millions of dollars
* Nationa,l Guardsmen from Otis not included in total. In 1980, there were 1200.

CPCensus/APCC-l

Table A-2
CAPE COD POPULATION, 1970 - 2000 (Details) August 15, 1984

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA pop 35-54# 1296800 1248000 1211800 1340000 1479700 1630000 1770200
Capture rate .022 .026 .03, .03 .0285 .0275 .026
No. second homes# 28530 32448 36354 40200 42171 44825 46025
Persons/second home 4 4 4 3.95 3.9 3.85 3.8
Second home population 114118 129792 145416 158790 164469 172576 174896
Year-round homes 32200 45500 58200 69000 78500 86500 92500
"Extra" summer pop/home .43 .43 .43 .43 .43 .43 .43
"Extra" summer population 13846 19565 25026 29670 33755 37195 39775
Non-D.U. Factor .37 .34 .32 .31 .31 .31 .31
Non-dwelling population+ 47347 50781 54541 58423 61449 65029 66548
Non-winter population+ 175311 200138 224983 246883 259673 274800 281219
Adj Bas. Inc./Nonwinter Pop 1094 1233 1098 1098 1098 1098 1098
Leisure supported income* 192 247 247 271 285 302 309
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape population 654 16348 24266 30721 37000 42900 45800 47900
Adj Bas. Inc./Cape Pop. 65+ 12434 12202 10774 10774 '10774 10774 10774
Retirement supp. income* 203 296 331 399 462 493 516
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military supported income* 75 38 36 36 36 36 36

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter supported income* 32 125 157 190 220 250 280

------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Other outside supp. income* 91 128 145 167 189 211 233

---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
Total outside supp. income* 594 834 916 1063 1192 1292 1374
Respending rate 0.69 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Respending income* 411 540 597 691 775 840 893
Total income* 1005 1374 1513 1753 1967 2132 2267

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total income/capita 10359 10731 10230 10500 10500 10500 10500
Winter population 97000 128000 @147900 166995 187362 203054 215888
Peak population+ 272311 328138 372883 413877 447035 477854 497107

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income analyses in constant 1980 dollars
from Census data
in millions of dollars
+ National Guardsmen from Otis not included in total. In 1980, there were 1200.
Year round units only include occupied units.

CPcensus/APCC-l

Table A-3
1980 CAPE COD INCO14E ANALYSIS ($ million) July 27,1984

Sector Total Adjusted Basic Military Property TransferCommutingVisitsale Offsale
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Earnings
Cons,truction 42 41 20 0 0 0 0 20 0
Manufacturing 45 44 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Farin 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Military 13 13 13 13 0 0 0 0 0
Federal civil. 23 22 22 22 0 0 0 0 0
Other gov't. 101 98 13 0 0 0 0 0 13
Trade, service 459 447 224 0 0 0 0 217 7
Subtotal 686 668 315 35 0 0 0 237 42

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Income 407 397 222 0 222 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Income 301 293 220 0 0 220 0 0 0

--- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuting Income 161 157 157 0 0 0 1 157 0 0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Insurance -39 0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL INCOME 1516 1515 913 35 222 220 157 237 42
Percent of Basic 100 4 24 24 17 26 5
Population Support 147900 5679 35955 35612 25398 38431 6825

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visitsale is sales to visitors. Offsale is sales to outside Cape Cod but not including sales to
visitors.
Income is in millions of dollars.

INCO14E3/APCC-1

Table A-4
1980 NET INCOME TO WINTER CAPE COD RESIDENTS ($ million) July 23,1984

S 0 U R C E

------------------------------------------------------
Sector Military Retirees Leisure Commuters Others Total
------------------------------------- 7----------------------------------
Military 35 0 0 0 0 35
Property 0 155 9 0 58 222
Transfer 0 176 0 0 44 220
Commuting 0 0 0 157 0 157
Sales to Visitors 0 0 237 0 0 237
Sales off-Cape 0 0 0 0 42 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL BASIC INCOME 35 331 246 157 144 913
Percent of Basic 4 36 27 17 16 100
Population Support 5679 53658 39869 25398 23296 147900
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Income is in millions of dollars.

INCOME3/APCC-4
Table A-5
ADJUSTED BASIC INCOME TO WINTER CAPE COD RESIDENTS ($ million) August 3,1984

--- Military ---- --- Retirees ---- ---- Leisure ---- --- Commuters --- ---- Others ----- ----- Total -----
Sector '69 '73 '77 '80 '69 '73 '77 '80 '69 '73 '77 '80 '69 '73 '77.'80 '69 '73 '77 '80 '69 '73 '77 '80

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConManFarmNMGovt 9 11 17 23 0 0 0 0 11 18 16 21 0 0 0 0 8 15 23 36 28 44 56 80
Trade & Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 103 150 217 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 7 60 106 155 224
Military 29 8 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8 10 13
Property Income 0 0 0 0 44 67 104 155 2 4 6 9 0 0 0 0 16 25 38 58 62 96 148 222
Transfer Income 0 0 0 30 66 122 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 30 44 38 82 152 220
Commuting Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 53 100 157 0 0 0 0 1 53 100 157

-------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Totl Adj Basic 38 19 27 36 74 133 226 331 71 125 172 247 1 53 100 157 34 59 96 145 218 389 621 916
Percent of Total 17 5 4 4 34 34 36 36 33 32 28 27 0 14 16 17 16 15 15 16 no no loo ioo
Pop. Supp. (000) 16 5 6 6 31 38 50 53 30 36 38 40 0 15 22 25 14 17 21 23 91 Ill 137 148
----------------------------------------- 7----------------------------------------------------------------------
Income is in millions of dollars.

BEA3/APCC-4

Table F-1
CAPE COD COHORT SURVIVAL HISTORY July 27,1984

Cape
Years Births Rate

---------------------------
1955-59 8551 0.32
1960-64 8039 0.30
1965-69 6503 0.19
1970-74 7046 0.21
1975-79 7624 0.13

---------------------------

Age 1960 MA Death 1970 MA Death 1980 MA Death
Groups Deaths Rate Deaths Rate Deaths Rate

---------------------------------------------------------------
age 0-4 2414 .0044014 1794 .0038165 875 .0025948
5-14 394 4.226E-4 340 3.097E-4 170 2.033E-4
15-24 482 7.347E-4 860 8.785E-4 940 8.537E-4
25-34 651 .0010297 727 .0010902 925 9.887E-4
35-44 1845 .0026441 1702 .0027116 1191 .0018986
45-54 4397 .0072185 4449 .0066526 3050 .0052151
55-64 8797 .0175622 8702 .0160283 7455 .0126704
65+ 37138 .06@49710 38365 .0603048 40325 .0555035

---------------------------- --------- -------------------------

Age Cape Cape Survival 1960-70 Cape Survival 1970-80
Groups Pop 1960 Pop 1970 Rate Migrated Rate Pop 1980 Rate Migrated Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a-e 0-4 8423 7122 .9810627 742 0.12 8007 .9870932 481 0.06
5-14 1i312 18093 .9766923 2015 0.12 19398 .9800817 5512 0.39
15-24 9065 13618 .9935137 1386 0.11 21152 .9941983 3164 0.17
25-34 9066 - 10118 .9909130 1135 0.13 21587 .9907032 8096 0.59
35-44 8623 10196 .9814505 1298 0.14 14570 .9851560 4602 0.45
45-54 7180 10410 .9544765 2180 0.25 13564 .9610659 3765 0.37
55-64 6657 10751 .8896610 4363 0.61 18926 .9074789 9479 0.91
65+ 8960 16348 .5870183 7181 0.46 30721 .6078742 14248 0.53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 70286 96656 147925

Source: MA Dept. of Health Annual Reports of Vital Statistics

AL7COHO/APCC-1

Table B-2
CAPE COD COHORT SURVIVAL PROJECTIONS July 27, 1984

Estim. Birtb Rates

----------------
1980-84 .13
1985-89 .13
1990-94 .13
95-1999 .1.3

-------------------

Estimated Migration Multipliers

------------------------------------
1980-1990: 0-54 years 0.80
55+ years 0.50
1990-2000: 0-54 years 0.40
55+ years 0.33
-----------------------------------

Age 1980-1990 Rates Pop. 1990-2000 Rates Pop.
Groups Survive Migrate 1990 Survive Migrate

---------------------------------------------------------------
age 0-4 .9870932 0.05 7730 .9870932 0.02 10806
5-14 .9800817 0.31 19960 .9800817 0.15 19520
15-24 .9941983 0.14 21999 .9941983 0.07 21223
25-34 .9907032 0.48 31015 .9907032 0.23 26961
35-44 .9851560 0.36 29122 .9851560 0.18 36127
45-54 .9610659 0.30 18307 .9610659 0.15 32235
55-64 .9074789 0.45 18423 .9074789 0.30 22032
65+ .6078742 0.26 43102 .6078742 0.17 47915

---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 189658 216818

AL7COHO/APCC-l

Table B-3
PROJECTED EFFECT OF GREATLY REDUCED NET INMIGRATION
ON CAPE COD POPULATION July 23,1984

Estim. Birth Rates

------------------
1980-84 .13
1985-89 .13
1990-94 .13
95-1999 .13

-------------------

Estimated Migration Multipliers
-------------------------------------
1980-1990.: 0-54 years 0.45
55+ years 0.30
1990-2000: 0-54 years 0.35
55+ years 0.20
------------------------------------

Age 1980-1990 Rates Pop. 1990-2000 Rates Pop. Percentage
Groups Survive Migrate 1990 Survive Migrate 2000 1980 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
age 0-4 .9870932 0.03 7566 .9870932 0.02 9592 5 5
5-14 .9800817 0.18 17855 .9800817 0.14 17918 13 10
15-24 .9941983 0.08 20812 .9941993 0.06 18845 14 11
25-34 .9907032 0.27 26614 .9907032 0.21 24949 15 14
35-44 .9851560 0.20 25685 .9851560 0.16 30456 10 17
45-54 .9610659 0.17 16424 .9610659 0.13 28005 9 16
55-64 .9074789 0.27 16014 .9074-789 0.18 17895 13 10
65+ .6078742 0.00 30179 .6078742 0.00 28080 21 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 161149 175739 100 100

For ages 65+, assume no net inmigration.

COROnom/APCC-1

Table C-1
CAPE COD EMPLOYMENT HISTORY June 13, 1984

Agriculture Transport. Wholesale Finance
Forest/Fish Communicat. & Retail Insurance Total
.Year Government & Mining Construct. Manufacture Utilities Trade Real Estate Services Jobs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I----------------------
1970 8500 526 2681 1527 1739 9451 1298 5242 30964
% 27.45 1.70 8.66 4.93 5.62 30.52 4.19 16.93 100.00

1974 7100 532 2835 1957 2579 12749 1899 8861 38512
% 18.44 1.38 7.36 5.08 6.70 33.10 4.93, 23.01 100.00

1978 8100 631 2613 2790 2846 16245 2117 10732 46074
% 17.58 1.37 5.67 6.06 6.18 35.26 4.59 23.29 100.00

1980 9786 777 2331 3268 3130 18105 2374 12746 52517
% 18.63 1.48 4.44 6.22 5.96 34.47 4.52 24.27 100.00

1981 9413 774 2487 3575 3167 19343 2622 13644 55025
% 17.11 1.41 4.52 6.50 5.76 35.15 4.77 24.80 100.00

1982 9319 824 2414 3527 3014 19524 2787 14167 55576
% 16.77 1.48 4.34 6.35 5.42 35.13 5.01 25.49 100.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earned Incomel Earn.Inc./
Year Income Total jobs Total Inc.
---------------------------------------------
1970 564 18219 .561363636
1974 653 16947 .491228070
1978 722 15668 .473594549
1980 685 13043 .451846966
1981 686 12467 .440483036
1982 689 12397 .424572317

--------------------------------------------

Note: Employment is average annual covered employment from MA Div. of Employment Security, Employment and
Wages: Cities and Towns. Government jobs include military jobs. Between 1970 and 1978, government jobs
are estimated by PBH.
Earned income data is from Bureau of Economic Analysis.

CovEmp2/APCC-l

Table C-2
CAPE COD EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS June 20, 1984

Total Earned/ Earned Income/ Total
Year Income Total Inc. Income Job Jobs

------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2000 .42 840 13000 64615
2000 2300 .42 966 13000 74308

------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Transport. Wholesale Finance
Forest/Fish Communicat. & Retail Insurance Total
,@@Government & Mining Construct. Manufacture Utilities Trade Real Estate Services Jobs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990: Shift Share
%Total Jobs 15.60 1.40 4.25 6.20 4.45 36.00 4.90 27.20 100.00
Jobs 10080 905 2746 4006 2875 23262 3166 17575 64615

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linear Extrapolation
Jobs 11072 1028 1981 5009 4521 26759 3450 20250 74070

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Judgement
Jobs 10100 950 2500 4000 3150 23200 3200 17600 64700

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000: Shift Share
%Total Jobs 13.81 1.24 4.10 6.19 3.90 37.14 5.05 28.57 100.00
Jobs 10262 920 3043 4600 2902 27600 3751 21231 74308

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linear Extrapolation
Jobs 12358 1279 1631 6750 5912 35413 4526 27754 95623
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Judgement
Jobs 10300 950 2600 4600 3200 27600 3800 21300 74350
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:.Employment is average annual covered employment.

CovEmp2/APCC-1

Table D-1
1990 TOWN WINTER POPULATION: SUMMARY 24-Sep -84

1 9 9 0 W i n t e r P o p u 1 a t i o n - - - - -
208 Shift Shift
1960 1970 1980 1976 Linear Land Share By Share By Best
Pop. Pop. Pop. Analysis Extrapol. Share Population Dwelling Judgem6nt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 7430 8770 11830 14000 14030 14300 13100 13700 14100
FALMOUTH 13040 15820 23635 28800 28935 29000 29000 28500 29000
MASHPEE 870 1290 3700 5200 5100 6300 6200 5600 6200
SANDWICH 2080 3630 8730 10300 12030 12400 13300 11300 12600
OTIS 6590 56oo 2045 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE @13470 19840 30900 36100 39600 38700 39300 38800 .39000
DENNIS 3730 6450 12360 14000 16660 14500 16900 16100 15500
YARMOUTH 5500 12030 18450 22700 24950 20200 23400 21700 22000

BREWSTER 1240 1800 5230 7000 7230 7800 8400 7200 8000
CHATHAM 3270 4550 6010 8200 7410 7300 6700 7800 7500
EASTVAM 1200 2040 3470 5000 4570 4700 4700 4800 4700
HARWICH 3750 5900 8970 11100 11570 11400 11200 .10800 11200
ORLEANS 2340 3060 5300 6200 6800 6900 6700 6700 6900

PROVINCETOWN 3390 3700 3540 4200 3610 5700 2400 5700 4200
TRURO 1000 1230 1490 2000 1740 2000 1400 1700 1800
WELLFLEET 1400 '1740 2200 2700 2600 2800 2400 2800 2700

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 70000 97000 147860 179500 188835 186000 187100 185200 187400

2TWNPOP/APCC-3

Table D-2
1990 TOWN PEAK POPULATION: SUMMARY. 24-Sep-84

1 9 9 0 P e a k P o p u I a t i o n
208 Shift Shift
1960 1970 1980 1976 Linear Land Share By Share by Best
Pop. Pop. Pop. Analysis Extrapol. Share Population Dwelling Judgement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 17390 21480 26300 39000 30700 30600 28610 29400 30000
FALMOUTH 25750 37510 51090 74000 63700 60800 62590 59700 61000
MASHPEE 5260 7950 12840 21000 16600 19800 17430 17600 17600
SANDWICH 10020 11640 18570 26000 22800 25000 22350 23000 23000
OTIS 6590 5600 2050 3200 2000 2000 2010 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 26920 37290 54450 80000 68200 68300 68400 68400 69400
DENNIS 24490 29510 46530 57000 57600 48700 56770 53760 54000
YARMOUTH 17630 30690 43000 61000 55800 47500 54540 50700 52000

BREWSTER 7060 9280 15830 28000 20200 21600 20560 20200 20500
CHATHAM 10840 14040 17410 25000 20600 19400 19670 20700 20000
EASTHAM 8360 10110 13990 23000 16800 16700 16320 17000 16500
HARWICH 12020 16290 21930 33000 26900 26700 26380 25200 26500
ORLEANS 5360 7990 11800 16000 15000 14800 15200 14400 15000

PROVINCETOWN 13370 13480 13370 19000 13400 16000 11620 16100 14000
TRURO 7980 9090 10560 17000 11800 12700 10280 11600 11500
WELLFLEET 9390 10800 13310 18000 15300 15100 14310 15100 15000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 208420 272750 373030 540200 457400 445700 447040 444800 447000

Summer/APCC-3

.Table D-3
2000 TOWN WINTER POPULATION: SUMMARY .16-Jan-85

2 0 0 0 W i n t e r P o p u a t i o n
Shift Shift
1970 1980 1990 Linear Land Share By Share By Best
Pop. Pop. Pop. Extrapolation Share Population Dwelling Judgement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 8770 11830 14100 16200 16900 13000 15200 16200
FALMOUTH 15820 23635 29000- 34200 33400 32800 31800 33000
M-ASHPEE 1290 3700 6200 6500 8500 8400 7600 8400
SA14DWICII 3630 8730 12600 15400 15200 17300 13500 15500
OTIS 5600 2b45 2000 2000 2000 2100 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 19840 30900 39000 48300 43800 45600 44500 45000
DENNIS 6450 12360 15500 21000 15700 20500 19200 17000
YARMOUTH 12030 18450 22000 31400 21900 27100 24800 24300

BREWSTER 1800 5230 8000 9200 10000 11000 8900 10000
CHATHAM 4550 6010 7500 8800 7900 6700 9100 8200
EASTHAM 2040 3470 4700 5700 5800 5600 5800 5700
HARWICH 5900 8970 11200, 14200 13600 13000 12000 13000
ORLEANS 3060 5300 6900 8300 8100 7300 7900 8000

PROVINCETOWN 3700 3540 4200 3700 6000 1900 6100 4400
TRURO 1230 1490 1800 2000 2500 1300 1900 2000
WELLFLEET 1740 2200 2700 3000 3300 2400 3300 3200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 97000 147860 187400 229900 214600 216000 213600 215900

Note: 1990 population is the best judgement projection

2TWNPOP/APCC-3

Table E-1
TOWN WINTER POPULATION (By Linear Extrapolation Method) April 4, 1984

1960 1980 Population Proj. 1990 Proj. 2000 %
Population Population Added,'60-'80 Population* Population Share
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
BOURNE 7430 11830 4400 14030 16200 7
FALMOUTH 13040 23635 10595 28935 34200 15
MASBPEE 870 3700 2830 5100 6500 3
SANDWICH 2080 8730 6650 12030 15400 7
OTIS 6590 2045 -4545 2000 2000 1

BARNSTABLE 13470 30900 17430 39600 48300 21
DENNIS 3730 12360 8630 16660 21000 9
YARMOUTH 5500 18450 12950 24950 31400 14

BREWSTER 1240 5230 3990 7230 9200 4
CHATHAM 3270 6010 2740 7410 8800 4
EASTHAM 1200 3470 2270 4570 5700 2
HARWICH 3750 8970 5220 11570 14200 6
ORLEANS 2340 5300 2960 6800 8300 4

PROVINCETOWN 3390 3540 150 3610 3700 2
TRURO 1000 1490 490 1740 2000 1
WELLFLEET 1400 2200 800 2600 3000 1

------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
TOTAL 70000 147860 77560 188835 229900 100

1990 population is interpolated between 1980 and projected 2000 populations.
Note: Population at Otis is assumed to remain at the 1980 level.

twnpopEA/APCC-1

Table D-4
2000 TOWN PEAK POPUIATION: SUMMARY 29-Atig-84

2 0 0 0 P e a k P o p u I a t i o n
Shift Shift
1970 1980 1990 Linear Land Share By Share By Best
Pop. Pop. Pop. Extrapolation Share Population Dwellin@@ Jud&ement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 214000 26300 30000 35200 34600 28830 31300 32500
FALMOUTH 37510 51090 61000 76400 68300 71580 64900 67500
14ASIIPEE 7950 12840 17600 20400 24200 21380 21500 22000
SANDWICH 11640 18570 23000 27100 29600 25350 26600 27000
OTIS 5600 2050 2000 2000 2000 1990 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 37290 54450 68400 82000 77200 79540 78200 78200
DE14141S 29510 46530 54000 68600 49900 64130 60000 57000
YARMOUTH 30690 43000 52000 68400 50200 63630 56400 56400

BREWSTER 9280 15830 20500 24600 26300 24850 23800 25000
CHATHAM 14040 17410 20000 23900 20000 20380 22900 21000
EASTHAM 10110 13990 16500 19600 18300 17900 18300 18500
HARWICH 16290 21930 26500 31800 31000 29330 27300 29000
ORLEANS 7990 11800 15000 18300 16900 17400 16500 17000

PROVINCETOWN 13480 13370 14000 13400 16500 8450 16700 15000
TRURO 9090 10560 11500 13200 14400 8950 12100 13000
.WELLFLEET 10800 13310 15000 17200 16100 13420 15900 16000

-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
TOTIAL 272750 373030 447000 542100 495500 497110 494400 497100

Note: 1990 population is the best judgement projection

Suim,.ier/APCC-3

Table E-4
2000 TOWN WINTER POPULATION (By Land Share Method) July 23,1984

% Share of D.U.'s Total % of D.U.'s D.U.'s Proj. 2000
Vacant Land Added D.U.'s Wint. Occ. Winter Winter
1990 1990 - 2000 2000 2000 Occupied Population
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 7.37 1320 9560 68.92 6590' 16900
FALMOUTH 14.85 2660 20690 67.00 13860 33400
MASHPEE 8.52 1520 7390 49.77 3680 8500
SANDWICH 8.02 1440 7910 74.66 5910 15200
OTIS 600 600 2000

BARNSTABLE. 17.84 3190 24890 75.61 18820 43800
DENNIS 4.07 730 14260 51.69 7370 15700
YARMOUTH 6.31 1130 15210 66.05 10050 21900

BREWSTER 8.63 1540 6950 62.21 4320 10000
CHATHAM 2.17 390 6240 61.26 3820 7900
EASTUAM 3.22 580 5130 48.82 2500 .5800
HARWICH 8.75 1570 9910 62.21 6170 13600
ORLEANS 4.60 820 5690 69.88 3980 8100

PROVINCETOWN 0.91 160 3400 64.13 2180 6000
TRURO 2.68 480 2680 41.16 1100 2500
WELLFLEET 2.06 370 3500 44.99 1570 3300

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 100.00 17900 144010 92520 214600

D.U.= dwelling or housing unit

Note: Amount of vacant land available in 1990 is calculated by subtracting the land
developed between 1983 to 1990 from the vacant land in 1983. Dwelling units added
between 1990 and 2000 are distributed according to the availability of vacant land.
The share of dwelling units that is winter occupied is projected from 1950 to 1980
.U.S. Census data. Winter population is calculated by multiplying the winter occupied
units with the household size (estimated to be 0.92 of 1980 levels).

TwnPop3/APCC-l

Table E-5
TOWN WINTER POPULATION (By Shift'Share of Population Method) April 4, 1984

P er c e n t S h a r e 0 f W i n t e r P o p u 1 a t i o n Number Of'.'Residents
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1990 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 10.57 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 13100 13000
FALMOUTH 18.55 16.23 15.98 15.50 15.20 29000 32800
MASHPEE 1'.24 1.32 2.50 3.30 3.90 6200 8400
SANDWICH 2.96 5.90 7.10 8.00 13300, 17300
OTIS 9.37 5.75 1.38 1.05 0.95 2000 2100

BARNSTABLE 19.16 20.36 20.90 21.00 21.10 39300 45600
DENNIS 5.31 6.62 8.36 9.00 9.50 16900 20500
YARMOUTH 7.82 12.34 121.48 12.50 12.55 23400 27100

BREWSTER 1.76 1.85 3.54, 4.50 5.10 8400 11000
CHATHAM 4.65 4.6T 4.06 3.60 3.10 6700 6700
EASTHAM 1.71 2.09 2.35 2.50 2.60 4700 5600
HARWICH 5.33 6.05 6.07 6.00 6.00 11200 13000
ORLFANS 3.33 3.14 3.58 3.60 3.40 6700' 7300

PROVINCETOWN 4.82 3.80 2.39 1.30 0.90 2400 1900
TRURO 1 1.42 1.26 1.01 0.75 0.60 1400 1300
WELLFLEET 1.99 1.79 1.49 1.30 1.10 2400 2400

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 187100 216000

Note: The number of residents is calculated by multiplying the projected share of winter population
with the projected capewide population (see Table A-2).

TWNWIN/APCC-2

Table E-2
AVERAGE TOWN HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1950-2000 July 27,1984

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 3.40 3.51 3.36 2.78 2.61 2.56
FALMOUTH 3.20 3.22 3.02 2.62 2.46 2.41
-MASUPEE 3.50 3.50 .2.88 2.51 2.36 2.31
'SANDWICH 2.90 2.90 2.98 2.79 2.62 2.57
OTIS

BARNSTABLE 3.30 3.04 2.90 2.53 2.38 2.33
DENNIS 2.70 2.70 2.60 2.32 2.18 2.13
YARMOUTH 3.10 3.00 2.76 2.37 2.23 2.18

BREWSTER 2.80 2.84 2.60 2.52 2.37 2.32
CHATHAM 2.90 2.81 2.67 2.25 2.12 2.07
EASTHAM 2.80 2.76 2.76 2.50 2.35 2.30
HARWICH 2.90 2.91 2.64 2.40 2.26 2.21
ORLEANS 2.80 2.77 2.63 2.20 2.07 2.02

PROVINCETOWN 3.00 2.80 2.41 2.98 2.80 2.74
TRURO 3.00 2.95 2.92 2.44 2.29 2.24
WELLFLEET 2.80 2.78 2.69 2.28 2.14 2.10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPE AVERAGE 3.09 3.06 2.86 2.48 2.36 2.31

Note: Household sizes for 1990 and 2000 are projected to be 0.94 and 0.92 of 1980's.

TwnpopSS/APCC-2

Table E-3
1990 TOIdi WINTER POPULATION (By Land Share Method) July 23,1984

Share of Total Added Total % of D.U.'s D.U.'s Proj. 1990
Vacant Land D. U.'s D.U.'s D.U.'s Winter Winter Winter
June 1983 June 1983 6/83 to 1990 1990 Occupied '90 Occupied '90 Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 7.59 7000 1240 8240 .66.36 .5470 14300
FALMOUTH 14.80 15600 2430 18030 65.40 11790 -29000
MASHPEE 8.35 4500 1370 5870 45.20 2650 6300
SANDWICH 8.98 5000 1470 6470 73.10 4730 1240.0
OTIS 600 600 600

BARNSTABLE 18800 2900 21700 75.03 16280
17.71 38700
DENNIS 3.86 12900 630 13530 49.06 6640 1450G
YARMOUTH 5.95 13100 980 14080 64.44 9070 20,200

BREWSTER 8.60 4000 1410 5410 60.60 3280 7800
CHATHAM 2.11 5500 350 5850 58.67 3430 7300
EASTHAM 3.33 4000 550 4550 44.24 2010 4700
HARWICH 8.16 7000 1340 8340 60.60 5050
ORLEANS 4.68 4100 770 4870 68.30 3330 6900

PROVINCETOWN 0.83 3100 140 3240 62.52 2030 5700
TRURO 3.04. 1700 500 2200 -39.44 870 2000
WELLFLEET 2.02 2800 330 3130 41.36 1290 2800

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 100.00 10000 16410 126110 78520 186000

D.U.= dwelling or housing unit

Note: See Table G-1 for estimates of vacant land area. Dwelling units added by 1990 are distributed
according to the availability of vacant land. The share of dwelling units that is winter occupied
is projected from 1950 to 1980 U.S. Census data. Iiinter population is calculated by multiplying
the winter occupied units with the household size (estimated to be 0.94 of 1980 levels).

TwnPop3/APCC-1

Table E-7
TOWN WINTER POPULATION (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method) August 22,1984
Total Dwelling Units Percent Share of Winter Occupied Dwelling Units Winter Population
1990 2000 1970 1975 1980 1990 2000 1990 2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 7907 8604 54.51 54.10 62.12 66@46 69.06 13700 15200
FALMOUTH 17696 19646 54.24 59.66 61.81 65.49 67'* 14 28500 31800
MASHPEE 5271 6596 22.60 31.03 38.89 45.27 49.87 5600 7600
SANDWICH 5899 7027 56.44 68.75 70.45 73.20 74.81 11300 13500
OTIS 600 600 2000 2000
BARNSTABLE 21712 25238 65.10 68.61 73.17 75.13 75.77 38800 44500
DENNIS 15060 17351 33.84 36.63 43.44 49.13 51.80 16100 19200
YARMOUTH 15060 17208 57.43 63.73 63.41 64.53 66.18 21700 24800
BREWSTER 5020 6166 45.24 55.56 57.14 60.68 62.34 7200 8900
CHATHAM 6275 7170 43.37 50.00 54.00 58.75 61.38 7800 9100
EASTHAM 4644 5162 27.54 36.36 38.89 44.30 48.92 4800 5800
HARWICH 7907 48.95 53.45 56.92 60.68 62.34 10800 12000
ORLEANS 4769 5593 52.04 58.62 64.86 68.39 70.02 6700 7900
PROVINCET014N 3263 3442 53.57 55.17 60.00 62.60 64.26 5700 6100
TRURO 1883 2008 33.57 35.38 37.50 39.49 41.25 1700 1900
WELLFLEET 3138 3442 33.63 33.04 38.46 41.42 45.08 2800 3300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 126100 144000 49.69 54.56 58.55 62.26 64.24 185200 213600.
Note: Winter population is projected by first multiplying the projected share of winter occupied units with the total
dwelling units to get the number of winter occupied units and then multiplying that by the household size
(estimated to be 0.94 of 1980 levels in 1990 and 0.92 of 1980 levels in 2000).

twnpopSS/APCC-2

Table E-6
DISTRIBUTION OF DWELLING UNITS By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method) July 23,1984

P e r c e n t S h a r e 0 f T o t a I D w e 1 1 i n g U n i t s Added Dwelling Units
1960 1970 1980 1983 1990 2000 1990 2000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 9.45 7.76 6.64 6.42 6.30 6.00 907 698
FALMOUTH 14.51 14.79 14.49 14.30 14.10 13.70 2096 1950
HASHPEE 2.64 3.07 3.62 4.12 4.20 4.60 771 1325
SANDWICH 3.74 3.39 4.43 4.58 4.70 4.90 899 1128
OTIS

BARNSTABLE 15.82 15.88 16.50 17.23 17.30 17.60 2912 3527
DENNIS 11.65 11.31 12.27 11.82 12.00 12.10 2160 2291
YARMOUTH 8.13 11.69 12.37 12.01 12.00 12.00 1960 2148

BREWSTER 2.00 2.32 3.52 3.67 4.00 4.30 1020 1146
CHATHAM 6.15 6.08 5.03 5.04 5.00 5.00 775 895
EASTHAM 4.40 4.15 3.62 3.67 3.70 3.60 644 519
HARWICH 7.03 7.00 6.54 6.42 6.30 6.10 907 841
ORLEANS 3.30 3.44 3.72 3.76 3.80 3.90 6.69 824

PROVINCETOWN 5.93 4.32 3.02 2.84 2.60 2.40 163 179
TRURO 2.04 1.75 1.61 1.56 1.50 @1.40 183 125
WELLFLEET 3.52 2.98 2.62 2.57 2.50 2.40 338 304

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
TOTAL 100.31 99.94 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 16400 17900

Note: The added.dwelling (or housing) units are calculated by multiplying the projected share of total
dwelling units with the projected capewide total (see Table A-2).

twnpopSS/APCC-2

Z H I :c H tv 0 ;z r4 n t;j 0 m I t- I I I txj "i I
0 1 m z m p 3@ P@- - -11 H P.- D.o I I x 11) 1 * 0
@-3 i t@ cl. o t@ cn = w C: I -t a,

ID
t> P-3 J= cr -q
tz: tyl -3 tD.
0(D w
w pul 00 :P,"
Cl
E;
(D 2)
0 1

C@
03 0
W Na
D 1- 0 1
t-n ' C@ 0% -1 %D (D t-n %0 ke. f-D
0 0 1 -1 Co @.n C) CD CD W C) C> (D C> e-r% CD Cl) a% M
0 cr V, 40 Co (D <D Cp C@ C@ o.--. Q C@ Cl e-) CD C@ 0 f t:
V
0

CIC 00 Kj to I rD
-j %0 -@j Co co co v
P- (:> -j CD I-n 4= 0 CD CM n C> C@ 0
a e-) C-3 CD C:p C> C) (D CD C> CD 0 C> CD C> C) C@ 0

cr0
C: r_
4--
@..n f C% %@o t.) w 0% CD co m,
:5o M 0 1 e-) 0 0 0 (D C> 0 0 0 0 00 1 OD M
OQ t, 10 1 CD C@ (D Cl (D C> 0 C@ C> 0 4D CD CD <D c) I CD 0

!Z tr0
eD ID w
-j 4-- W I.- J@- CO LO L%)
t-j %D
" r4) t,3 K) -1 0% W -4 4-- 1 CN M
to p- 2. Cl CD C> C-14 c) (:D 0 cD C> C> 0 (D C@ CD C) C@ C@ 0
pi

tn t-j 0
Na I ION L.) -4 --j (7% W 4- -J "-i , 0 1 .
t, %-n co C@p ON Na I.- co t-n 00 0 4- 4-n @O 4- 0 1 r--
CD CD (D C3 =, c, C:, 0 C@ 0 C@ 0 0 00 (D Li CD

Qn I
H. et co ! I.- " uj I.- t'3 Lo 00 P. C,
C-c 0% 00
-P, -i T-- -4 CD co w CD No
0rt 0 c@ CD C:D CD C> C> C@ C) C@ CD C) C@ (D C) 00
m ll@
C> C@ C> v 0 (D CD C:o C) C> Q Co 0 <D0 CD C:o

CT
Ts "0 lt@ Li I P-
0 --) I --j t_n C@ w @j
IC e." %.o %.o,,o C@ ts) co @j 4-- %D Uj J
C: n- ko -i co " 1-i -@n ON %-n -,-%D C> t_n ON
o CD co tj w --j as 00 C@ X- LI) @j p, C:,

tr,
OD %0 -J co w -j co ON
W C) co -j %0 w Q 4.- js ON C) p. (D ON (7% @j
Wcn 0 %-n <7% Co " %0 -J CO OD @.A ON Ln C@ t-n ,o C:) -4 :3
w 0" 4.- 4- 1.0 -rl W %0 W t-n Y.
(D

eD W
(D t-n 1 %0 %0 CM C@ C) -r- ") %0 %0 li X,
CO ' Cl OD I-n %,0 %..A W ON t-q '.- t-n Co - 4.- 4- o
1@0 I c -4 " 0 Un - W @o Uq 0% t-n w 4.- -4 00 Ivi
@.o0 W -J C) (C) C@ Un %.D 00 -4 c)
r*

C- C,
00 w I-n Om (D -i -J 4S 0% 0% C) -_n -j I I.-
(,) %0 w Li C> w 00 40 C7% 4.-%0 " C) PQ -j Li I %D
.0 -4 -4 C7% 11.) @.A W ON " 00 " @o " a% r.,w I C7%
C) co t-J W -J CN 4- co In co 0 4- w @j C@ po
ID m

00 W co
C) %0 Lo ON 0= t-- %0 e--> %,o -j k-n -4 -11
-j (=> 1.0 11) CD " U-% un Ili 0% C,% 4- pv
o tn I k.0 %0 co 00 %0 Lo Co CO "0 CD w -j 0
%0 LI) k-n CD UD %0 CD Lp C> pv

I-n

L4 LA) C) La I.- Lo -i t_n Li cy% p. C-3 N3 (7%
W t_n w co z -@o 4- co C) CD k.M rv) Qw %.0
n C% cr, C@ f@l 00 CD w C@ t-n @J W CoV 1 00 0 co
-j 0 ko t-n -1 4:5 C> t-n r., C@ 1@0 co --j I C)

Table F-2
TOI%q,l PEAK POPULATION PROJECTION (By Linear Extrapolation) August 15,1984

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons/second home 4.10 4.00 4.00 3.90 3.80
Extra population/ year round home 0.43 0..43 0.43 0.43 0.43
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Winter Population Winter Population Peak Population
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 14477 16700 19000 11830 14000 16200 26307 30700 35200
FALNIOUTH 27448 34800 42200 23640 28900 34200 51088 63700, 76400
MASHPEE 9139 11500 13900 3700 5100 6500 12839 16600 20400
SANDWICH 9.841 16800 11700 8730 12000 15400 18571 22800 27100
OTIS 2050 2000 2000 2050@ 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 23554 28600 33700 30900 39600 48300 54454 68200 82000
DENNIS 34165 40900 47600 12360 16700 21000 46525 57600 68600
YARMOUTH 24550 30800 37000 18450 25000 31400 43000 55800 68400

BREWSTER 10600 13000 15400 5230 7200 9200 15830 20200 24600
CHATHAM 11337 13200 15100 6070 7400 8800 17407 20600 23900
EASTIWAL 10515 12200 13900 3470 4600 .5700 13985 16800 19600
HARWICH 12959 15300 17600 8970 11600 14200 21929 26900 31800
ORLLANS 6500 8200 10000 5300 6800 8300 11800 15000 18300

PROVINCETOWN 9829 9800 9700 3540 3600 3700 13369 13400 13400
TRURO 9072 10100 11200 1490 1700 2000 10562 11800 13200
WELLFLEET 11107 12700 14200 2200 2600 3000 13307 15300 17200

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 225093 268600 312200 147930 188800 229900 373023 457400 542100

Note: Peak population is the sum of non-winter and winter populations. Winter
population for 1990 and 2000 was previously projected by linear the
extrapolation method. The non-dwelling population component of the non-
winter population is calculated by distributing a projected Cape total
according to a summer 1983 survey of conuiiercial accomodations and
winter population growth.

PkPopIE/APCC-2

Table F-3
1990 TOWN PEAK POPULATION (By Land Share Method) August 15,1984

1990 2000

------------------------------------------
Persons/Second Home 3.90 3.80
Extra Pop/Year Round Home 0.43 0.43
------------------------------------------

Second Total % 1990 Second YearRd Extra Non-DU Non- Winter Peak
Homes D.U.'s Second Second Home Homes YearRd Pop. Winter Pop. Pop.
1980 1990 Homes Homes Pop'90 1990 Pop'90 1990 Pop'90 1990 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 2300 8240 29.77 2453 9566 5470 2352 4417 16300 14300 30600
FALMOUTH 4900 18030 30.51 5501 21455 11790 5070 5267 31800 29000 60800
MASHPEE 2000 5870 50.24 .2949 11502 2650 1140 828 13500 6300 19800
SANDWICH 1000 6470 21.33 1380 5383 4730 2034 5150 12600 12400 25000
OTIS 600 600 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 3500 21700 20.23 4389 17117 16280 7000 5475 29600 38700 68300
DENNIS. 6400 13530 46.16 6246 24359 6640 2855 6939 34200 14500 48700
YARMOUTH 3700 14080 28.99 4081 15917 9070 3900 7445 27300 20200 47500

BREWSTER 1300. 5410 34.51 1867 7281 3280 1410 5076 13800 7800 21600
CHATHAM 2200 5850 39.38 2304 8985 3430 1475 1600 12100 7300 19400
FASTHAM 2200 4550 55.43 2522 9837 2010 864 1315 12000 4700 16700
HARWICH 2500 8340 35.01 2919 11386 5050 2172 1711 15300 11400 26700
ORLEANS 1200 4870 29.36 1430 5577 3330 1432 878 7900 6900 14800

PROVINCETOWN 1100 3240 34.02 1102 4299 , 2030 873 5152 10300 5700 16000
TRURO 900 2200 55.52 1221 470 870 374 5588 10700 2000 12700
WELLFLEET 1600 3130 58.37, 1827 7126 1290 555 4608 12300 2800 15100

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 36800 126110 42193 164551 78520 33506 61449 259700 186000 445700

Note: The share of total dwelling (or housing) units in each community was previously
derived. The percent share of second homes is the difference between total units,
winter occupied, and units vacant for other reasons (for rent or for sale, for ex.).
Yearround units are winter occupied. Non-D.U. population is a function of the
1983 population share in commercial accomodations and winter population growth.

SumProj/APCC-1

Table F-4
2000 TOWN PEAK POPULATION (By Land Share Method) August 15,1984

1990 2000

-------------------------------------------
Persons/Second Home 3.90 3.80
Extra Pop/Year Round Home 0.43 0.43

------------------------------------------ -

Second Total % , 2000 Second YearRd Extra Non-DU Non- Winter Peak
Homes D.U.'s Second Second Home Homes YearRd Pop. Winter Pop. Pop.
1990 2000 Homes Homes Pop. 2000 Pop. -20.00 Pop. 2000 2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 2453 9560 27.71 2649 10065 6590 2834 4832 17700 16900 34600
FALMOUTH 5501 20690 29.39 6081 23108 13860 5960 5874 34900 33400 68300
MASUPEE 2949 7390 46.45 3432 13043 3690 1582 1053 15700 8500 24200
SANDWICH 1380 7910 20.69 1637 6220 5910 2541 5612 14400 15200 29600
OTIS 600 600 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 4@89 24890 20.21 5029 19112 18820 8093 6149 33400 43800 77200
DENNIS 6246 14260 43.76 6240 23711 7370 3169 7342 34200 15700 49900
YARMOUTH 4081 15210 27.78 4226 16058 1'0050 4322 7916 28300 21900 50200

BREWSTER 1867 6950 33.97 2361 8972 4320 1858 5484 16300 10000 26300
CHATHAM 2304 6240 36.88 2301 8745 3820 1643 1720 12100 7900 20000
EASTHAM 2522 5130 50.86 2609 9914 2500 1075 1466 12500 5800 18300
HARWICH 2919 9910 33.93 3363 12779 6170 2653 1975 17400 13600 31000
ORLEANS 1430 5690 28.07 1597 6069 3980 1711' 1019 8800 8100 16900

PROVINCETOWN 1102 3400 32.68 1111 4222 2180 937 5.390 10500 6000 16500
TRURO 1221 2680 54.78 1468 5579 1100 473 5869 11900 2500 14400
WELLFLEET 1827 3500 54.70 1915 7275 1570 675 4848 12800 3300 16100

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 42193 144010 46019 174872 92520 39526 66548 280900 214600 495500

Note: The non-dwelling population is calculated by distributing Cape total according to the
summer 1983 survey of commercial accomodations and winter population growth.

SumProj/APCC-1

Table F-5
T011V PEAK POPULATION (By Shift Share of Population Method) August 15,1984

Projected % Share
% Share Of Peak Population Of Peak Population Number Of Residents
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1990 .2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
BOURNE 8.34 7.87 7.05 6'40 5.80 28610 28832
FAUIOUTH 12.35 13.75 13.70 14:00 14.40 62585 71583
MASHPEE 2.53 2.91 3.44 3.90 4.30 17434, 21376
SANDWICH 4.81 4.27 4.98 5.00 5.10 22352 25352
OTIS 3.16 2.05 0.55 0.45 0.40 2012 1988

BArNSTABLE 12.92 13.67 14.60 15.30 16.00 68396 79537
DENNIS 11.75 10.82 12.47 12.70 12.90 56773 64127
YARMOUTH 8.46 11.25 11.53 12.20 12.80 54538 63630

BREWSTER 3.39 3.40 4.24 4.60 5.00 20564 24855
CHATHMI 5.20 5.15 4.67 4.40 4.10 19670 20381
EASTHAM 4.01 3.71 3.75 3.65 3.60 16317 17896
HARWICH 5.77 5.97 5.88 5.90 5.90 26375 29329
ORLEANS 2.57 2.93 3.16 3.40 3.50 15199 17399

PROVINCETOWN 6.42 4.94 3.58 2.60 1.70 11623 8451
TRURO 3.83 3.33 2.83 2.30 1.80 10282 8948
WELLFLEET 4.51 3.96 3.57 3.20 2.70 14305 13422
------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 447035 497107

PkpopssP/APCC-2

Table F-6
1990 TOWN PEAK POPULATION (By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method) August 15,1984

1990 2000

------------------------------------------
Persons/Second Home 3.90 3.80
Extra Pop/Year Round Home 0.43 0.43
------------------------------------------

Second Total 1990 Second YearRd Extra Non-DU Non- Winter Peak
Homes D.U.'s Second Second Home Homes YearRd Pop. Winter Pop. Pop.
1980 1990 Homes Homes Pop. 1990 Pop. 1990 Pop. 1990 1990
------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
BOURNE 2300 7907 29.55 2337. 9112 5254 2259 4366 15700 13700 29400
FAUIOUTH 4900 '17696 30.34 5369 20940 11589 4983 5231 31200 28500 59700
MASHPEE 2000 5271 49.64 2617 W05 .2386 1026 769 12000 5600 17600
SANDWICH 1000 5899 20.72 1222 4767, 4318 1857 5055 11700 11300 @23000
OTIS 600 600 1000 2000

BARNSTABLE 3500 21712 20.12 4369 17040 16312 7014 5500 29600 38800 68400,
DENNIS 6400 15060 46..56 7012 27345 7399 3182 7091 37600 16100 53700
YARMOUTH 3700 15060 29.29 4411 17203 9718 4179 7587 29000 21700 50700

BREWSTER 1300 5020 34.10. 1712 6677 3046 1310 5026 13000 7200 20200
CHATHAM .2200 6275 39.37 2471 9635 3687 1585 1649 12900 7800 20700
EASTHAM 2200 4644 55.32 2569 10019 2057 885 1326 12200 4800 17000
HARWICH 2500 7907 34.65 '2740 10685 4798 2063 1660 14400 10800 25200
@ORLEANS 1200 4769 29.30 1397 5449 3262 1403 862 7700 6700 14400

PROVINCETOWN 1100 3263 34.08 1112 4337 2043 878. 5156 10400 5700 16100
TRURO 900 1883 54.84 1033 4028 743 319 5561 9900 1700 11600,
WELLFLEET 1600 . 3138 58.19 1826 7122 1299 559 4610 12300 2800 15100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 36800 126104 42196 164563 78511 33502 259600 185200 444800

Note: The share of total dwelling (or housing) units in each community was previously
derived.. See winter population .projections by shift share of dwelling unit method.
The non-dwelling population is calculated by distributing Cape total according to the
summer 1983 survey of commercial accomodations and winter growth.

SumPSS/APCC-2

Table F-7
2000 TOWN PEAK POPULATION(By Shift Share of Dwelling Unit Method) August 15,1984

1990 2000

------------------------------------------
Persons/Second Home 3.90 3.80
Extra Pop/Year Round Home 0.43 0.43
------------------------------------------

Second Total % 2000 Second YearRd Extra Non-DU Non- I-linter Peak
Homes D.U.'s Second Second Home Homes YearRd Pop. Winter Pop. Pop.
1990 2000 Homes Homes Pop. 2000 Pop. 2000 Pop. 2000 2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 2337 8604 27.24 2343 8905 5942 2555 4684 16100 15200 31300
FALMOUTH 5369 19646 29.07 5711 21701 13190 5672 5742 33100 31800 64900
MASHPEE 2617 6596 45.97 3032 11521 3290 1415 977 13900 7600 21500
SANDWICH 1222 7027 20.05 1409 5354 5257 2261 5465 13100 13500 26600
OTIS 600 600 2000 2000

BARNSTABLE 4369 25238 20.11 5075 19284 19123 8223 6230 33700 44500 78200
DENNIS 7012 17351 44.39 7702 29267 8988 3865 7665 40800 19200 60000
YARMOUTH 4411 17208 28.36 4880 18545 11389 4897 8185 31600 24800 56400

BREWSTER 1712 6166 33.34 2056 7812 3844 1653 5390 14900 8900 23800
CHATHAM 2471 7170 36.93 2648 10062 4401 1892 1831 13800 9100 22900
EASTHAM 2569 5162 50.68 2616 9942 2525 1086 1469 12500 5800 18300
HARWICH 2740 8747 33.39 2921 11099 5453 2345 1836 15300 12000 27300
ORLEANS 1397 5593 27.97 1565 5945 3916 -1684 1004 8600 7900 16500

PROVINCETOWN 1112 3442 32.57 1121 4260 2212 951 5403 10600 6100 16700
TRURO 1033 2008' 53.36 1072 4072 828 356 5816 10200 1900 12100
WELLFLEET 1826 3442 54.48 1875 7125 1552 667 4849 12600 3300 15900

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 42196 144000 46025 174895 92510 39511 66548 280800 213600 494400

SuiaPSS/APCC-2

Table G-1
1982 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CAPE COD POPULATION August 15, 1984

Capacity(Unit or occupancy) Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-------------------------------------------
YearRound Unit-YR Occup. 54326 54484 54642 54800 54958 55116 55274 55432 55590 55748 55906 56064
YearRound Unit-Extra Summer 54326 54484, 54642 54800 54958 55116 55274 55432 55590 55748 55906 56064
YearRound Unit-SprSum Occup 7734 7756 7778 7800 7822 7844 7866 7888 7910 7932 7954 7976
Second Home-Sum Only 37708 37772 37836 37900 37964 38028 38092 38156 38220 38284 38348 38412
Comm. Accomodations(Occ.) 57279 57344 57409 57474 57539 57604 57669 57734 57799 57864 57929 57994

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OccupancyDensity or Rate Jan. Feb. March April May June July August ,Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
---------------- ------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
.Pop./YR Unit-YR Occup. 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42
Pop./YR Unit-SprSum Occup. 0.60 0.00 J.02 ' 2.08 '@.30 2.43 2.56 2.56 2.30 2.08 1.02 0.00
Extra Pop./YrRound Unit 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.43 0.43 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pop./Second Home-Sum Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.98 3.95 3.95 1.98 0.00 0.0 '0 0.00
Comm. Accom. Occupancy Rate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Housing Pop.(Survey) 132700 132900 141100 149200 149500 238300 327500 328100 239700 151000 143300 135600
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YearRound Population 132555. 132832 141073 149617 151680 153008 154342 154671 152961 151505 143418 135563
Extra Pop.in YrRound Units 0 0 0 0 0 11850 23768 23836 11952 0 0 0
Second Home Population 0 0 0 0 0 75105 150463 150716 75485 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;---------------------------
Total Housing Population 132555 132832 141073 149617 151680 239964 328573 329223 240397 151505 143418 135563
Population in Comm. Accom. 0 0 0 '0 14385 28802 57669 57734 28900 14466 0 0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL POPULATION 132555 132832 141073 149617 166064 268766 386242 386957 269296 165971 143418 135563

Note: Population in each housing unit and total housing population were based on results of the APCC survey.
Year round population includes the population living in both year round and spring-summer occupied
year round housing units.
Commercial accomodations were derived from summer 1983 data.

Seas/APCC-3

Table C-2 Tabl e C-3 July 23, 1984
1982 CAPE COD 11011,SING UNITS: SURVEY RLSLI1,TS 7-23-1.984 CAPE COD POPULATION IN. HOUSING UNITS: SURVEY RESULTS

Unit Occupancy Unit Occupancy
Smilmer Spring & Year- Summer Sprilig & Year-
oilly Surawer round Total 0111y SUMILier round Total
-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
EsLimated 7. distribution 1980 & 1982 du Total Persons, February, 1982
Seasonal area 50 30 5 Seasonal area 0 0 6562 6562
Mixed area 40 20 30 Mixed area 0 0 42252 42252
Year-rd. area 10 50 65 Year-rd. area 0 0 84666 84666
Total 100 100 100 Total 0 0 133479 133479
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
Estimated 1982 divelling LmiLs, April- ToLal. Persons, April., 1982
Total 37900 7800 54800 100500 Seasonal area 0 5021 6491 11512
Seasonal area 18950 2340 2740 24030 Mixed area 0 3970 42170 40140
Mixed area 1-5160 1560 16440 33160 Year-rd. area 0 7231 84313 91544
Year-rd. area 3790 3900 35620 43310 Total 0 16222 132974 149196
------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
Calc. % of all du,1982 Total Persons, August, 1982
Seasonal area 19 2 3 24 Seasonal area 77137 6829 9102 93068
Mixed area 15 2 16 33 Mixed area 614*63 5104 53812 120378
Year-rd. area 4 4 35 43 Year-rd. area 10930 8034 93133 112097
Total 38 8 55 100 Total 149530 19967 156046 325543
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
Estimated 1980 du, April Persons/dwelling unit, February, 1982
Total 37000 7000 53600 95600 Seasonal area 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.27
Seasonal area 18500 2100 2680 23280 Mixed area 0.00 0.00 2.57 1.27
Mixed area 14800 14-00 16080 32280 Year-rd. area 0.00 0.00 2.38 1.95
Year-rd. area 3700 3500 34840 42040 Total 0.00 0.00 2.44 1.33
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
APCC4/APCC-1 Persons/dwelling unit, April, 1982
Seasonal area 0.00 2.15 2.37 0.48
Mixed area 0.00 2.54 2.57 1.39
Year-rd. area 0.00 1.85 2.37 2.11
Total 0.00 2.08 2.43 1.48

------------------------------------------------------
Persons/dwelling unit, August
Seasonal area 4.07 2.92 3.32 3.87
Mixed area 4.05 3.27 3.27 3.63
Year-rd. area 2.88 2.06 2.61 2.59
Total 3.95 2.56 2.85 3.24

------------------------------------------------------
APCC4/APCC-l

rn C) En 1-1 ITIv 1 0
rl 0 @d @A = > > > 5 > 5 1 >
C-- ;a zn > 121 = w t-I C: I Pd a,
7, 0 n c ;c -:,1 171, -3 -3- IV :r :!@= I
--I > C-n rt, @v0
"71 = -.1 = @-qm f--
n tn n. m -3 0 r)

:C n rt-
I M En
C l< c
r)
>
Cf)
0

>
0 o 0@

r-0 "o I I.- LA) (71 W i-- N) Un Z "o
w 0 N.;,1 00 @-o C) tj t-n Lo L.) 00 Un N.0 w I t- cn C
- I c@ -.0 @m m 4- -.7 -4 1'.) 0@ 4- J.- I " m
CY) I N@ 4- P) W ON -4 LJ 00 @_n @.n N) K) 1 (P C) >
0
(TI

M
C, 0 *
:7
cr,
N3 I (D
w Pl C:) %0 I'D I-A t-M ON %..n 41 ID C) %0 m )I-
w Li " %D L.) 113 -j @-nW 0
--j -,j ON X.- CY, @10 C@ - un @o ON 0
C) 00 (7% W -n C71% t,.) i-n C> L.) 0) X,

0 C-. m ri)

el
C: U)
CO N) L.) N.) 00 ON 4- Im
CD I @ -j I-ID --j fl) cr, 04- @o W 00 c)
4, t_n @n 4-- un - 4@- -f-I %M 00 @-- C:) )t..
-i ul C@l all 00 w t-n t1a %,n 00 9)
cz
v
CL
m rD co
0 0 LO

-f-I W CO 00 C7% W 0 co ON aN oo L.) @m i o cQ Y.
@D (=) -n jo w %D C> -_n ON @-n oo .4- (7N 0% as U)
I -j CO @o C) C) t-n w w

m U.) 4- (ON Q.) t.@Aw co P- P@ k.A a% 1 :3
:r. C) CD 00 @.o L.) 1@0 co -i w '.0 z-" %.D We
-I wn P- -@A a, N.) w w L4 r..) --4 1 r" :X. Y'. >
41 C> I w Y- a
CN w 41

03
ri)
N3
--J 4- 47, rlj C> C@ a% 140 00 - - 0% C@ P- 10 =s
j N3 W - C) 0% 1-0 @,- %.0 I'D @.n 00 0 00
w C@ co C@ 4- -J C'@ @O Qq -j C> --i t-4 co 00
t-n .0 ON 0 W -J 0

Table C-5
OTHER ACCOMODATIONS ON CAPE COD, SUMMER 1983 August 8, 1984

Campgrounds Motels Guesthouses All Accommodations
units persons units persons units persons units persons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 804 3216 415 955 -- 0 1219 4171
FALMOUTH 226 904 1564 3597 170 391 1960 4892
MASHPEE 140 560 40 92 -- 0 180 652
SANDWICH 1098 4392 186 428 9 21 1293 4841

BARNSTABLE -- 0 2060 4738 106 244 2166 4982
DENNIS 738 2952 1627 3742 20 46 2385 6740
YARMOUTH 295 1180 2544 5851 109 251 2948 7282

BREWSTER 1143 4572 42 97 63 145 1248 4814
CHATHAM 0 0 604 1389 46 106 650 1495
EASTHAM, 55 220 416 957 16 37 487 1214
HARWICH 0 0 452 1040 220 506 672 1546
ORLEANS 0 0 290 667 50 115 340 782

PROVINCETOWN 218 872 1033 2376 679 1562 1930 4810
TRURO 726 2904 1045 2404 37 85 1808 5393
WELLFLEET 490 1960 578 1329 500 1150 1568 4439

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 5933 23732 .12896 29661 2025 4658 20854 58050

Note: Population is calculated by multiplying the number of units with the following occupancy factors:
4.0 persons per unit at campgrounds and 2.3 persons per unit in motels and guesthouses.

SeasT3.DIF/APCC-l

rn -01 H I z -3 Id 0 L%l Cl) w ti t;j w ftl cl I n @-i
= = -@l :9- @> P> C) I r)
11 c 0 1 L71 = = w @P- W
r- -3 1 0 lz M tl@ C4. C, 0'
@j Z: @-3 Z M., Z
> -4 11 v) @4 zn 'o 0 1 rz
I t-4 t> t;- cr
I
m cn
rD
C- rl t-4

0 lb >
CD t,4

00 11.1 1 lb
1 0
4D "o oo I =
w C), c) Zj 00 I-A 10 ON CD 0 z
0 4- C) C) C) C> 0 0 4.- 01 t' 0.

(D w 41 Lo cN c-) %0 w 00 -4 @j i-n .D
C) -j ON r,- tn N.0 @R W tj ko @a tn 0
M co 00 " -J vi :3

0 n r) :e,-
El 0 a * 00
m Y- w
CA Y,

Lj a M.
%0
co a, C) L.) C) 4.-
C) C) "i

td 0
0,
PI

"L-
ri) a co @.,n 4-- 4- -J (7% 4- 4- 1.-
(D 4- W 00 -4 QI N) 4- CO N) -J -,D ()0 ON C)o I.-
t-n %,n 00 X- 00 4- k-n Y@
C> N) 0@ 'Cr. t-n t.) CD

.A C) %.n %-n
Q. oo P,3 %.o t) W w %D w -j r.- Cs t-n W
CD --i @:, CY, -", ON @.o Cp C7% a% " oN
00 4- C% W I-n a% t,) t_n L.) C> s.- -J 0%

ID
0)

Ch 4.- @d 0 A
M ON W co ON I.- e-71 00 L-j %D 1 0 r- Y-
@D C) %-n 00 W @o 0 un CrA @.A 00 4- 42% ON ON =@ * >
-j co C) CD 00 W -A 4- C) (D. r-
co

-4 LO a% un C7% C) )--%0 t-n :5

-4 -4 -J C) 0 rD
t-n 1@0 %.D 00 t-n 1@0

Table H-3
1983 TOWN RESERVED OPEN SPACE July 11,1984

Town and Total
Federally State Other Reserved
Owned Owned Owned Open
-------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 9200 500 1400 11100
FALMOUTH 200 1700 1800 3700
MASHPEE 900 500 1300 2700
SANDWICH 8100 900 2100 11100

BARNSTABLE 0 300 5000 5300
DENNIS 0 0 2500 2500
YARMOUTH 0 0 2600 2600

BREWSTER 0 1800 700 2500
CHATHAM 3700 800 4500
EASTRAM 3000 0 400 3400
HARWICH 0 200 1200 1400
ORLEANS 1000 0 900 1900

PROVINCETOWN 4500 0 15 4515
TRURO 8900 0 100 9000
WELLFLEET 8600 0 300 8900

-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 48100 5900 21115 75115

Note: Federally owned land includes open land at Otis and the National Seashore.
State owned land is estimated from SCORP data or community open space plans.
Town owned land is estimated from community open space plans where available
and does not include school land, town buildings land, and other town land not
normally associated with open space. Other reserved open space includes public
and semi-public open space likely to be perpetually preserved and private land.
under permanent conservation restrictions.

Space83/APCC-3

Table H-4
TOWN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, 1970 1983* July 11,1984

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 120 304 202 414 97 96 102 119 229 135 118 132 142 221
FALMOUTH 372 422 519 765 320 285 363 519 336 345 364 240 269 519
MASPHEE 117 156 252 266 113 232 102 14 22 60 190 311 185 488
SANDWICH 145 188 255 268 133 126 177 266 265 214 154 208 190 308

BARNSTABLE 425 1001 805 832 390 230 420 630 652 692 537 791 679 727
DENNIS 433 616 836 621 324 128 283 290 314 292 271 223 175 202
YARMOUTH 627 868 538 435 220 144 232 325 353 392 204 238 249 293

BREWSTER 123 198 244 379 266 44 91 144 139 176 148 144 134 305
CHATHAM 119 178 169 95 64 70 102 138 83 100 85 127 '171 134
EASTHAM 93 151 134 134 82 52 93 112 96 102 112 100 95 148
HARWICH .189 367 427 216 93 97 89 125 1'92 278 148 126 118 147
ORLEANS 111 107 119 212 98 38 63 174 70 88 141 93 77 194

PROVINCETOWN 11 10 25 18 14 55 87 26 11 15 7 6 14 73
TRURO 35 39 44 45 32 14 27 39 31 38 55. 44 38 46
WELLFLEET 50 52 108 80 59 36 64 42 60 35 51 72 45 63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 2970 4657 4677 4780 2305 1647 2295 2963 2853 2962 2585 2855 2581 3868

Based on the number of dwelling units authorized on building permits.

Source: CCPEDC

BP/APCC-3

Table R-5
TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT, 1975* July 11,1984

'Developed Developed Land D.U.'s D.U.'s Land Total Average Land
Land Land Developed Authorized Authorized Developed Developed Devel. Per
1971 1980 1971-1980 1971-1974 1971-1980 1971-1974 Land,1975 D.U. Autb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 4000 4960 060 1017 1698 575 4575 0.57
FALMOUTH 6500 8310 1810 2026 3874 947 7447 0.47
MASRPEE 1900 2410 510 787 1217 330 2230 0.42
SANDWICH 44.00 5920 1520 844 1892 678 5078 0.80

BARNSTABLE 8700 11310 2610 3028 5652 1398 10098 0.46
DENNIS 3900 4870 970 2397 3704 628 4528 0.26
YARMOUTH 4600 5660 1060 2061 3507 623 5223 0.30

BREWSTER 1800 2590 790 1087 1681 511 2311 0.47
CHATHAM 2700 3160 460 506 999 233 2933 0.46
EASTHAM 1800 2310 510 501 956 267 2067 0.53
HARWICH 3000 3450 450 1103 1884 263 3263 0.24
ORLEANS 2100 2610 510 536 969 282 2382 0.53

PROVINCETOWN 550 620 70 67 261 18 568 0.27
TRURO 1200 1500 300 160 309 .155 1355 0.97
WELLFLEET .1500 :1800 300 459 696 198 1698 0.143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 48650 61480 12830 16579 29299 7106 .55756

Revision of estimates made in CCPEDC 1976 report.

Source: MacConnell et al. 1971 updating vith local building permit information.
HacConnell et al, 1980.

land75/APCC-2.

Table B-6
TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT, 1983 July 16,1984

Years 1980-1983

--------------------------
Inflator*. 1.20
------------------------
Developed D.U.'s Average Land Land Total
Land Authorized Devel. Per Developed Developed
1980 1/80-6/83 D.u. Auth. 1/80-6/83 Land,6/83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 4955 476 0.57 326 5281
FALMOUTH 8305 1158 0.47 653 8958
MASHPEE 2410 897 0.42 452 2862
SANDWICH 5922 685 0.80 658 6580
BARNSTABLE 1614 2320 0.46 1281 12595
DENNIS 4871 765 0.26 239 5110
YARMOUTH 5661 827 0.30 298 5959

BREWSTER 2587 508 0.47 287 2874
CHATHAM 3162 451 0.46 249 3411
EASTRAM 2307 380 0.53 242 2549
HARWICH 3445 459 0.24 132 3577
ORLEANS 2612 439 0.53 279 2891

PROVINCETOWN 617 52 0.27, 14 631
TRURO 1502 159 0.97 1005 1687
WELLFLEET 1801 180r, 0.43 97 18900
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19764 5390
TOTAL 61471 66361

The land consumption inflator adjusts for the larger lot sizes
required by local zoning by-laws by increasing the 1971-1980 average
0
developed land required per dwel-ling unit authorized by 20 percent.
The inflator is not used in tbe case of Provincetown.

Source: MacConnell et al, 1980 update and local building permit
information.

Land83on/APCC-2

Table U-7
TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT, 1990 AND 2000 July 27,1984

Years 1980-1983 1983-1990 1990-2000

------------------------------------------------
Inflator* 1.20 1.40 1.40

------------------------------------------------
Total Est. D.U.'s Land Total Est. D.U.'s Land Total
Developed Authorized Developed Developed Authorized Developed Developed
Land,6/83 6/83-1/90 6/83-1/90 Land,1990 1990-2000 1990-2000 Land.2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOURNE 5281 897 716 5996 1069 853 6849
FALMOUTH 8958 2096 1379 10337 2449 1611 11948
MASHPEE 2862 1203 707 3569 1490 876 4446
SANDWICH 6580 1360 1523 8103 1512 1693 9796

BARNSTABLE- 12595 2715 1748 14343 3718 2394 16737
DENNIS 5110 1235 450 5559 951 346 5905
YARMOUTH 5959 1900 798 6757 1574 661 7419

BREWSTER 2874 1457 959 3832 1355 892 4724
'CHATHAM 3411 476 307 3717 435 280 3998
EASTRAM 2549 453 336 2885 561 416 3301
HARWICH 3577 1075 361 3938 1276 429 4367
ORLEANS 2891 652 484 3375 774 574 3949

PROVINCETOWN 631 487 131 763 166 45 807
TRURO 1687 193 262 1949 178 242 2191
WELLFLEET 1898 199 120 2018 349 210 2228

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 66861 16398 10281 77142 17856 11523 88665

The land consumption inflator is applied to all communities except Provincetown. The inflator
adjusts for the projected larger lot sizes required by local zoning by-laws by increasing the
1971-1980 average developed land required per dwelling unit authorized by 40 percent for devel
opment 1983 2000.

Source: MacConnell et al, 1980 update and local building permit information. The number of
dwelling units authorized is projected by PBH.

Land83on/APCC-2

Table H-8
CAPE.COD 2020 BASIC DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO July 27,1984

Period '75-'80 '80-6/83 6/83-'90.'90-2000 2000-'10 2010-'20
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ;---------
D.U.'s Authorized 12720 9770 16400 17860 15000 10000
Inflated Land Dev./D.U. 0.45 0.55 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.66

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter Population 1 162646 187400 215900 237166 251064
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC SCENARIO

----------------------------------
Lot size factor: 1
Open space factor: 1

----------------------------------

1971 1975 1980 1983 1990 2000 2010 2.02.0
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Total Land (Except Water) 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500
Developed Land 48650 55760 61480 66870 77150 88670 98570 105170
Reserved Open.Land 61715 70090 75115 82921 92264 99521 105061
Unbuildable land 35100 33350 32300 29512 27176 25362 23977
Vacant Buildable Land 100925 88580 79215 63917 45390 30047 19291

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2020/APCC-3

Table H-9
OTHER CAPE COD 2020 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS. July 27, 1984

LARGE-LOT SCENARIO

--------------- ------------
Lot size factor:
Open space factor: I
-----------------------------
1971 1975 1980 1983 1990 2000 2010 2020
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
Total Land (Except Water) 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500
Developed Land 48650 55760 61480 66870 82290 99570 114420 124326
Reserved Open Land 61715 70090 75115 82921 91750 97968 102079
Unbuildable land 35100 35100 32300 29698 27049 25184 23951
Vacant Buildable Land 100925 86830 79215 58591 35131 15928 3150

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOCUSSED SCENARIO

----------------------------------
Lot size factor: I
Open space factor: 3
----------------------------------
1971 1975 1980 1983 1990 2000 2010 2020

--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------
Total Land (Except Water) 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500
Developed Land 48650 55760 61480 66870 74580 83220 90650 95600
Reserved Open Land- 61715 70090 75115 98533 122649 136938 144712
Unbuildable land 35100 35100 32300 24494 17259 12972 10640
Vacant Buildable Land 100925 86830 79215 55893 30372 12939 2548

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNFETTERED SCENARIO

----------------------------------
Lot size factor: I
Open space factor: 1
----------------------------------
1971 1975 1980 1983 1990 2000 2010 2020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Land (Except Water) 253500 @253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500 253500
Developed Land 48650 55760 61480 66870 74070 82140 89070 93690
Reserved Open Land 61715 70090 75115 79018 84039 88405 92206
Unbuildable land 35100 35100 32300 30999 29493 28183 27043
Vacant Buildable Land 100925 86830 79215 69413 57829 47842 40561

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020/APCC-3

Table 11-10 Table 11-11
HOUSING STOCK (Housing Units) 227Aug-84 HOMEBUILDlNG RATE (Units/Year) 22-Aug-84

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-2000

---------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------ ----------------------------------------
BOURNE 4300 5027 6600 7973 9042 BOURNE 73 157 137 107
FALMOUTH 6600 9587 14400 17654 20102 FALMOUTH 299 481 325 245
MASHPEE @1200 1991 3600 5700 7190 MAS11PEE 79 161 210 149
SANDWICH 1700 2197 4400 6445 7957 SA14DWICII 50 220 .204 151
OTIS 1200 1200 600 600 600 OTIS 0 0 0 0

BARNSTABLE 7200 10292 16400 21435 25153 BARNSTABLE 309 611 503 372
DENNIS 5300 7329 12200 14208 15159 DENNIS 203 487 201 95
YARMOUTH 3700 7574 12300 15027 16601 YARMOUTH 387 473 273 157

BREWSTER 910 1503 3500 5465 6820 BREWSTER 59 200 197 135
CHATHAM 2800 3943 5000 5927 6362 CHATHAM 114 106 93 43
EASTHAM 2000 2687 3600 4433 4994 EASTILAM 69 91 83 56
HARWICH 3200, 4535 6500 8034 9310 HARWICH 134 197 153 128
ORLEANS 1500 2229 3700 4791 5565 ORLEANS 73 147 109 77

PROVINCETOWN 2700 2800 3000 3539 3705 PROVINCETOWN 10 20 54 17
TRURO 930 1132 1600 1952 2130 TRURO 20 47 35 18
WELLFLEET 1600 1933 2600 2987 3336 WELLFLEET 33 67 39 35

------------------------------ 4---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 46840 65959 100000 126171 144025 TOTAL 1912 3404 2617 1785

11meBld2/APCC-3 Note: The loss of 600 units at Otis is not included.

HmeBld2/APCC-3

r-@ ^ I-b I, I c--ir- A ! r-

-E 2 0 B

z c

2 9

2 Ci

1 cl
9 Fj 0 1970 1 9BO 1 990 2 CJO Cl

r% e@"r A I r-
-@3 ! AA i--@-

Surnrnm r

H 0

7 0

TO so

Ile
19 5c! Ile

20
i 9FJ C-1 i 7 cl J C-4 5 i--l i C-4 ci 0 01 C,
0

OF E = Linear Extrapolation
L = Land Share
P = Snift Snare of Pooullation
D = Shift Share of Dwellino
J = Best Judmement

-1 w ID W _j

L J-1
Z, :,7.
Nil lu
:Dl NJ
0 [A
C',

LO CA a] cl ml M Ti. CA CA 03 M
r) ri rl F3 114 CA

(!;;pum:t',bqL:) (41umt'104L
mi-pjrdrid

r% r- vvi S Ir"r-
iritz r

10 LO

2 C! B

V 9

CL r%
clA 1
F3

.1
1960 1970 1 960 19 40 2000

Ym m r

r% r% ?-I @ A Y t"- IT'r- r%
SD M C_ vv 1@3 1

2 La .9 C413

27
L

P
24!.4
2 :3 -4
-2
21

-z' c

1 7
CL F-h

1 4.
1 3

196 Cl 1970 1 930 1990 2 0 cl C,

c H A V

Aj.

1 1-74 7 0 :T Cf --D C!
C,

ri
CHATI 'AV

2155 2 9 R

2A.

172

C: P
D'a
-Z C:

17 -

10
i 9so 1 9 7 C, I it@ Ll

Y-1

r% F-If.1k Ile-
i-s= 1 q 1 44 1 @>

W inte r
21 E

14. 208

8L L

i 913 C, i!970 i 9SCI i 9-qo LQ Ll

a r

r% rm bL. I k.1 I e@
L) ;_ !'4041

Surnmer
70

6 A. ri

EjL5 _j

O'D

40 -4

35 -4
__-Er

20.
1980 1970 1 E4B 0 2 cl C, 0

Yea-

JW0- -7jo6.:

U
ij L
in El

T-- -I- T -'-I-
133 In Ln irl LO fr] m Irl ri r4 c) ri, a3 t-, a In
ui pi N r4 ri r4 r-A - - - - - -

;-All. V 0 UTH

I La
L
UP,

El
2 Lq
-7

L% 70.

17 1

CL 23 -J
D rt I
CL 22

17 -J
le
1-

13
i 9so 1970 1960 1 9SO 2000

Yeor

xA Lik@.`; "J"I H

Surnme r

205

C: V,
50-1
ELF

4.0

3 C,
4POP10--

20
1 9ect 1970 1 95 ci 1-990 2000

Year

I I A r%'L A j' I

EL
L,
IL

1 970 1 961--i 1 9:;cl 2 Cm

H A F` "I C

Surnme r

32 -4 J I E

20
2E! 4
27
IP

25
zv
-Z C:

20 -4 Iz
i IIIPI
le

1 E
Eir

4.
1.4

12
960

Vy In te- r

E: V@
D 'D

M LI W@-4 Ll Q

I r%

Summer
75
_;4 L

-72

1 7 -4

1 5

1 4.

13
12 -4

1 915 C, 1 S70 i SSID i 9 C-4 Cj 2000

"IT T -

W ri +.r- r

r: V@
5 --4

75-

1 9 JT 0 i 960 i gg k-I 2 CIO CI

Ymor

ICD L

u m rr, a r
1 9
E
1 E3 IZI

14-

13 -
R, 12 -

i 9BO i -97 0 G 0 2, 0 3 C,

CIA ul

L-d Ld

r*-'-'T---I---,-r ------- -7T - -T-
U-1 IJ3 Lr] Ln in LrI M if] in 03 t-I fil LO tr3 N
Lrl ri -

CL 0

ID
cy-,
14

-T'-F---F-1-T-T-F7-"T-J= I 'T-"T'
r, in in tq E,4 0 ai m t., in m -4 ri N 0 131 mt-tu Ln-4141N -':)Ulm t-ra
- - - - - r3 N v4 r4 r,4 r-4 r-4 r4 r,4 r4 I-N

utq-4.ajndoLA

1 1 rl% 0@%

W 1 ri 4.L-- r-

2.2-1

.2 O'@- co ss

1.9

.p I.E

EL 1. 7
CIA

i .53

1@-4 tj Ij i 970 96 C, i f4:Z4 Cl 2 CIO 0

Yeor

Irr%l lr%^
M k_) r@ k_)

Surrime r
17 Wfp

1 E

i 4-

j E

EL r4 J

1 13

9
.7r

1 96 Ct i 19 71 cl i B c! 9 9 C, 2060

Yt- r

VY ri tm r
L D

3.1 -4
3 EE

2.9 4

2.8 -4

2.7 B,

2.6

-z- c

3-1

rLp

1.5 -4

1 96 Cl 1,97 0 196c, 1 990

17 -4

c V@

13-1

i 960 i 971D i C-1

Ye- m r

:5 C,

1961--1 1 C-4 C, 1 980 1 9 S-4 C; 2 c1cl ci

Ya M!-

YARV%e-".')' U TH

Sur-rimmr
7 Ct

_0 @e u b

5 C.,

40
EL
L,
CL

3 u IZII@-

2 ID

I C,
1 9150 i C-47 Cl C, C, 0

Ycclr

INDEX TO TABLES

HISTORIC PROJECTED
Capewid.e By Town Capewide By Town

POPULATION

Winter
Total A-1,A-2,H-8 D-1,D-3iE-1 A-1,A-2,H-8 D-1,D-3,E-1
F-2 E-3$E-4,E-5
E-7,F-2,F-3,
F-4,F-6,F-7
Over 65 A-2,B-1 A-2,B-2,B-3
Projected by others D-1
By age B-1 B-2,B-3
Persons/household E-2 E-2

Non-winter
Total A-1,F-1,G-4 F-1,G-4,G-5 A-1 F-2
G-6
Components A-1,G-1 G-4,G-5,G-6 A-1 F-3,F-4$F-6,
F-7
Persons/household F-2,G-3 F-2,F-4,F-6
F-7
Peak A-1,A-2,D-2 D-2,D-4,F-I A-1,A-2,D-2 D-2,D-4,F-2
D-4,F-2,F-3 F-3,F-4,F-5
F-4,F-5,F-6 F-6,F-7
F-7
By month G-1,G-3

By source of support A-1,A-2,A-3 A-1,A-2
A-4,A-5

ECONOMY

Employment by industry C-1 C-2
Income A-lsA-2,A-3 A-1,A-2
A-4,A-5

INDEX TO TABLES (continued)

HISTORIC PROJECTED
Capewide By Town Capewide By Town

LAND USE

% share vacant land E-3 E-4
By component H-1,H-2,H-3, H-1,H-2,H-3, H-8,H-9
H-8,H-9 H-5 H-7
Developed H-1,H-5,H-6 H-1,H-5,H-6 H-7,H-8,H-9 H-7
H-7,H-8,H-9 H-7
Total H-1,H-8,H-9 H-1,H-5,H-6 H-8,H-9

Increment H-5,H-6 H-7

HOUSING UNITS

Year-round occupied A-2,G-1,G-2 F-1,G-4 A-2,E-3,F-7 E-3,E-4,F-3
G-4 F-4,F-7
Second homes A-2,G-2,G-4 F-1,F-3,F-6 A-2,F-7 F-3,F-4,F-6,
G-4' F-7
Total E-3,G-2,G-4 E-3,G-4,H-10 E-3,E-4,F-7 E-3,E-4,E-7
H-10 H-10 F-4,F-6,F-7
H-10

Authorized or added
By year H-4 H-4
By year group H-5,H-6,H-8 H-5,H-6,H-11 E-3,E-40H-8 E-3,E-4,E-6
H-11 H-11 H-7,H-11

INTABLE/APCC3

APCC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
T. W. Osler Abbott William B. Kerfoot
Peter Auger Kathie Lee Kinney
Clair L. Baisly David W. Lillie
John R. Blizard Victoria Lowell
Rosemary F. Bowler David B. H. Martin
Tina S. Daly, President Barbara S. Mayo
Kate Davis John Ohman
Russell Ford Robert 1,. Prescott, Jr.
William E. Forrest Donald A. Sander, Vice President
Scott W. Horsley Lawrence 0. Spaulding, Jr.
Patricia E. Hughes Herbert E. Whitlock

APCC BOARD OF SCEENTIFEC ADVISORS
Dr. William B. Kerfoot, Dr. Cindy Lee
Chairman Dr. Norton H. Nickerson
Dr. Bernhard E. Bartels Dr. Peter H. Rich
Dr. D. W. Caldwell Dr. Raymond Siever
Dr. Graham S. Giese Dr. Michael Soukup
Dr. Francis R. Hall Dr. Arthur N. Strahler
Dr. Paul B. Hamilton Dr. John M. Teal
Dr. Robert W. Howarth Dr. Herbert E. Whitlock

APCC STAFF
Esther A. Snyder, Executive Director
Elizabeth W. Price, Office Manager
Mary A. Delola, Clerk-Typist, Receptionist
Linda W. Gordon, Researcher

APCC VOLUNTEERS
Sylvia Appelbaum Sylvester McGinn
Paul Baisly Marian O'Mara
Robert Bednarek Sylvia Reynolds
Muriel Benoy Helen Ruykhaver
Barbara Bunker Grace Schmidt
Marian Brown Marianne Simmel
W. M. Dunkle Irene J. Smith
Erma J. Fisk James Talin
Harriet Kimball Susan Talin
Craig Kreisberg Frances Whitney
Everett Learnard Katharine Whittum
Joseph C. Lowell, Treasurer

P.O. Box 636, Orleans, MA 02653
(617) 255-4142

PROVJ.NCETOVJN

TRURO

ABOUT THE APCC
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod WELLFLEET
is a non-profit corporation which conducts research
and publishes position papers, informational bul-
letins and impact'studies on environmental issues.
Membership dues and donations are tax-deductible
and support research and cost of publications.

EASTHA
Information on membership and lists of publications
are available from APCC, Inc., Box 636, Orleans,
MA 02653.

DATE DUE

ORLEANS

IREWSTER
SANDWICH

BOURNE

BAII,
HARWICH
/CHATHAM

MASHPEE

FALMOOTH

GAYLORD No. 2333 NINTED m U.S.A.

F
72
3 6668 14107 8750
M
A8
1-985
Text printing & binding by Crane Duplicating Service, W. Barnstable, MA