THE CAPE COD AQUIFER
MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP)
I Report
Eastham
CCAMP WAS
UNDERTAKEN BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE
MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
CAPE COD PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
IN COOPERATION WITH:
THE TOWN OF BARNSTABLE AND THE TOWN OF EASTHAM
SEPTEMBER 1988
-------
EPA 901/3-88-006
September 1988
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP)
FINAL REPORT
Editors:
George A. Zoto, Ph.D.
Office of Special Projects
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
and
Tara Gallagher, M.E.S.
Division of Water Supply
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
CCAMP Participating Agencies:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 1
J. F. K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Massachusetts Office
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
CAPE COD PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
First District Court House
Barnstable, MA 02630
Publication » 15.685-202-550-9-88-CR
Approved By Rlc Murphy, Stace Purchasing AgenC
-------
Copies of this report are available from the following distributors:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office of the Massachusetts Secretary of State
State Bookstore
State House
Room 116
Boston, MA 02133
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
The preparation and publication of this report was financed by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
- 111 -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 REGION I
_» L-«_ *
\;t]J^ J-F- KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
December 28, 1987
To Interested Parties Regarding the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project:
The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) was initiated in 1985 amidst
high hopes and expectations from all participating agencies. Not only was
it the first truly cooperative project of its kind in which a unique partner-
ship was established between EPA Region 1 and other participating governmental
agencies, but it was charged with broadly exploring a topic of increased
regional concern; integrated and resource-based groundwater management among
all levels of government. CCAMP was innovative in that it recognized the
need to protect vulnerable areas surrounding groundwater supply wells long
before Congress passed the Wellhead Protection Program as part of the 1986
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
At a time when staff resources were limited, CCAMP provided an opportunity
to explore a new approach to targetting environmental priorities based upon
the degree of risk posed to the resource itself. The Project found certain
groundwater recharge areas were more threatened than others by particular
land use activities; these areas require priority attention within management
programs at all levels of government. The land use study illustrates the
process which may be undertaken to identify these threatening activities and
set these priorities. Numerous insightful recommendations put forth by the
Institutions Committee outline how these priorities should be incorporated
into regulatory programs.
The Project has focused on an environmental resource for which there is
presently minimal national policy guidance, no comprehensive federal regula-
tory programs, and few other case studies which provide direction to ground-
water managers. Some of the most valuable products of CCAMP are the in-depth
case studies and management tools, guidebooks and conclusions which are
transferable to other New England localities, regional agencies and other
states. These will be guides to others who are attempting to set priorities
within their own groundwater management programs.
The challenge of CCAMP was probably not fully understood by all project
participants until the project was underway. The complexities surrounding
groundwater management are numerous and challenge traditional approaches to
environmental management. The success of CCAMP was to document this, provide
constructive analysis and provide new tools and approaches. I believe this
Final Report captures the success of the Project and outlines additional
efforts to be made by all of us to implement an effective groundwater strategy.
David A. Fierra, Director
Water Management Division
EPA Region 1
-------
ot *yttaMaduMet&
Executive Office of &wvv*owme>ntal £yiiav&
S. RUSSELL SYLVA ^'^ ""«- Jbvet, ^o^t^n 02/fl?
Commissioner
December 21, 1987
TO: Readers of the CCAMP Report:
With the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project reaching completion after more
then two years of cooperation between all levels of government, it is time to
assess what we have done and to determine how the information generated will
change the way we do business. I have no doubt there will be changes and I see
them falling into the three following broad areas:
1. The partnership of federal, state, regional and local administrators and
technical staff has worked so well on this project that I see this
association continuing in the management of other projects in the future.
This team approach has resulted in the generation of new information that
has expanded the frontiers of knowledge on ground water management and will
result in benefits far beyond our borders. The combination of expertise
that has been put together has already spurred renewed efforts to provide
more technical assistance to local officials that in turn will benefit the
people of those communities.
2. The emphasis on an interdisciplinary approach to protecting the resource of
ground water has sometimes been difficult for program oriented people who
work with laws, regulations, policies and guidelines that focus on
individual programs. I think this new way of looking at our tasks is
moving us in a direction of closer cooperation and shared responsibility
for ground water protection.
3. The current pressure to clean-up hazardous waste, with the costs and risks
associated with these clean-ups, makes clear the necessity of doing all we
can do to prevent toxics from getting into our soil, water and air in the
first place. CCAMP has served as a valuable catalyst with its continued
emphasis on prevention. We are moving now to looking at reduction of
contaminants at the source in order to keep them out of the waste stream
altogether.
I am confident that all who took part in this exciting project have learned
much from the experience. I am sure we will continue to learn as we put into
practice the many worthy recommendations forged by the serious work of this
joint venture.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors of this report and members of the Steering Committee of
the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) acknowledge with gratitude
the support of former Commissioner S. Russell Sylva of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) and
David A. Fierra, Director of the Water Resources Division of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, whose initial planning efforts
launched this resource-based project. During the two-year tenure of this
project, from August 1985 to December 1987, they not only provided the
vision but also the leadership for ensuring the necessary human and
financial resources within their respective' agencies to complete this
study. We also acknowledge with great appreciation the support provided
by Carol Wood, former director of the EPA Region 1, Office of Groundwater
Protection at the start up of CCAMP.
A project of this magnitude requires the help and assistance of numer-
ous contributors. They provided much of the information needed to
formulate the findings and recommendations of CCAMP. The editors are
greatly indebted to the many dedicated staff at DEQE, EPA Region 1, U. S.
Geological Survey, and Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission who contributed as project participants, as listed on Appendix
A, throughout CCAMP. We also appreciate the support of the many other
agency staff, too numerous to mention, who served temporarily on one or
more CCAMP committees during CCAMP's tenure. We acknowledge the important
contributions of the staff of the Barnstable County Health and Environ-
mental Department and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management who participated as CCAMP committee members.
We are particularly grateful for the the support received from the
boards of selectman of the Towns of Barnstable and Eastham, and important
efforts of the many town employees and interested citizens who volunteered
their time for data gathering and committee assignments, all so crucial in
seeing CCAMP through this study period. Within the Town of Barnstable, we
acknowledge with gratitude the special support provided by Thomas Mullen
of the Barnstable Fire District, John Kelly of the Board of Health,
Russell DeConti of the Office of Planning and Development, Donald Rugg of
the Centerville-Osterville Fire District, the Department of Public Works
staff, the Waste Water Treatment Plant staff, and the fire chiefs in the
villages of Barnstable, Hyannis, Centerville-Osterville for providing
assistance and access to their records. In the Town of Eastham, we are
particularly indebted to Selectman David Humphrey, Joseph Moran and
Herbert Whitlock without whose efforts it would not have been possible to
study aquifer protection for this community. We also greatfully
acknowledge the assistance provided by the Yarmouth selectman and Board of
Health.
Finally, special thanks are in order for the support received from the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Cape Cod Planning and Economic and
Development Commission and the U. S. Geological Survey. Without the
resources provided by these agencies, either financial or personnel, it
would not have been possible to have initiated and completed this
project.
- vi -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Need 1
1. 3 Proj ect Management 4
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM 6
2 .1 Background 6
2.2 Groundwater Protection Issues 6
2.2.1 Barnstable 6
2.2.2 Eastham 7
2. 3 Hydrogeology 7
2.4 Groundwater Problems Facing Cape Cod: A General Overview 12
2.5 Sources of Contamination 12
2.5.1 Sanitary Landfills 12
2.5.2 Underground Storage Tanks 13
2.5.3 Waste-Water Treatment Plants 13
2.5.4 Septage Pits and Lagoons 13
2.5.5 On-Site Wastewater Disposal 14
2.5.6 Fertilizer Use 14
2.5.7 Pesticides 14
2.5.8 Toxic and Hazardous Materials 15
2.5.9 Road Salt 15
CHAPTER 3 - THE RESOURCE-BASED APPROACH 16
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 19
4.1 Introduction 19
4.2 Aquifer Assessment Committee Findings 19
4.2 Characterization of the Resource 20
4.2.1 Water-Table Mapping 20
4.2.2 Observation-Well Inventory 20
4.3. CCAMP Recommendations for Observation-Well Inventory 21
4.4 DRASTIC Analysis of Aquifer Vulnerability 23
4.5 Identification of Zone II, the Wellhead Protection Area 23
4.6 Approaches to Zone II Determinations in the Project Area 23
4.7 Initiation of the Comprehensive Numerical Modeling Project 26
4.8 Documentation of Modeling 26
4.9 Groundwater Protection for Communities on Private Wells 27
4.9.1 Private-Well Recommendations 27
4.9.2 Protection of Future Public-Supply-Well Resources 28
4.10 Protection of the Resource 29
4.10.1 Nitrate Loading in Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas 29
4.10.2.Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection
for Public-Supply Wells 30
- vin -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Number
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES 33
5.1 Groundwater-Data Initiatives 33
5.2 Inventory of Groundwater Related Data Systems 33
5. 3 CCAMP Data Recommendations and Observations 34
5.3.1 Interagency Data-Base Observations 34
5.3.2 Interagency Groundwater Data Standards 34
5.3.3 Need for Information Coordination Function in DEQE and CCPEDC.35
5.3.4 Regional Consistency in Georeferenced Data 35
5.3.5 Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Information at DEQE 36
5.3.6 Water Supply and Quality Information Issues 36
5.3.7 Libraries 36
5.3.8 Water-Table Mapping and Observation-Well Issues 37
5.3.9 Facility Index Data System (FINDS) 37
5. 3.10 CIS Data Standards 37
5.4 Geographic Information Systems Technology: General 37
5.4.1 The CCAMP CIS Project 39
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
WITHIN A ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION 41
6 .1 Study Plan 41
6.2 Characteristics of Barnstable ZOC #1 41
6 . 3 Inventory Approach 42
6.3.1 Data Gathering and Automation 42
6.3.2 Data Quality 47
6.4 Findings 47
6.4.1 Underground Storage Tanks (USTS) 48
6.4.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials 50
6.4.3 Hazardous Waste Manifested 53
6.4.4 Spills and Leaks 53
6.4.5 Road Salt 55
6.4.6 Application of the Nitrate Loading Formula 55
6.5 Discussion 56
6.5.1 Risk to Public-Supply Wells 56
6.5.2 Management Issues 56
Local and State Coverage of Hazardous Materials 57
Implementation of Local Hazardous Materials Controls 57
The Hazardous Waste Manifest Program 60
The Management of Waste Transport ; 60
The Groundwater Discharge Permit Program 61
Control of Underground Storage Tanks 62
6 . 5 Conclusions 62
- ix -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Number
CHAPTER 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 64
7.1 Introduction 64
7.2 CCAMP Recommendations for Improved Program Implementation 64
7.2.1 Water-Supply Planning 64
7.2.2 Enhanced Groundwater Protection in Landfill Programs 65
7.2.3 Private Wells 65
7.2.4 Underground Storage Tanks 66
7.2.5 Septage and Sludge Management 66
7.2.6 Septic Systems 67
7.2.7 Construction Grants 67
7.2.8 Groundwater Discharge Permits 67
7.2.9 Groundwater Classification 68
7.2.10 Hazardous Materials Use and Storage 68
7.2.11 Pesticides 69
7.2.12 Road Salt 70
7.3 Appropriate Roles for Different Levels of Government 70
7.3.1 Federal Role 70
7.3.2 State Role 76
7.3.3 Regional Role. . 76
7.3.4 Local Role 76
7.4 General Obervations/Conclusions 77
7.4.1 Local Abilities... 77
7.4.2 Lack of Comprehensive Land-Use Planning 77
7.4.3 Dearth of Technical Expertise at the Local Level 78
7.4.4 Importance of Technical Assistance 78
7.4.5 Creation of a Regional Land-Use Regulatory Agency 79
CHAPTER 8 - PROJECT EVALUATION 80
8.1 CCAMP' s Future Directions 81
8.2 CCAMP's Challenge 82
REFERENCES CITED 83
- x -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page Number
Figure 1.1 Major Waste Sources and Zones of Contribution
to Community Supply Wells, Cape Cod, Massachusetts 2
Figure 1.2 CCAMP Committee Organizational Structure 5
Figure 2.1 Hydrogeologic Units of Cape Cod 8
Figure 2.2 Section Through Barnstable-Yarmouth Area 10
Figure 2.3 Six Ground-Water Flow Cells.and Directions of Flow 11
Figure 4.1 Observation Well Inventory Well Description Form 22
Figure 4.2 Two-and Three-Dimension Views of a Glacial Valley Aquifer
Showing the Zones and Stream which Contribute Water to a
Public-Supply Well 24
Figure 4.3 Typical Land Uses in a Zone II Area 25
Figure 4.4 Diagrammatic Representation of those Factors Affecting
Mobility and Attenuation of Contaminants 32
Figure 5.1 A Overview of Maj or Geographic Information
Systems Functions 38
Figure 6.1 Location of Zone of Contribution (ZOC) #1 42
Figure 6.2 Underground Storage Tank Locations in ZOC #1 49
Figure 6.3 Extent and Location of Toxic and Hazardous
Materials in ZOC #1 52
Figure 6.4 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Registration Form 58
Figure 6.5 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Material
Inspection Form 59
- xi -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page Number
Table 6.1 Major Data Sources Utilized 43-46
Table 6.2 Inventory of Potential Contamination Sources of Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Reported within ZOC #1 48
Table 6.3 Inventory of Underground Storage Tanks within ZOC #1 50
Table 6.4 Information Reported to the Barnstable and Yarmouth
Boards of Health as Required by the Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Bylaws during April 1987 51
Table 6.5 Characterization of Toxic and Hazardous Materials
in ZOC #1 by Land-Use Type as Reported by Local
Businesses to the Barnstable and Yarmouth Boards of
Health 53
Table 6.6 Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Manifested within
ZOC #1 during 1985-1986 as Recorded by DEQE's Division of
Hazardous Waste '. 54
Table 6.7 Number of Spills and Leaks Reported to DEQE
in ZOC #1 from ZOC #1 from January 1985 to December
1986 55
Table 7.1 Key CCAMP Recommendations 71-75
- xii -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Participants
and Project Structure
Appendix B: Summary of CCAMP Aquifer Assessment Committee
Recommendations
Appendix C: Water Table Elevations in Eastern Barnstable, Massachusetts
Appendix D: DRASTIC Mapping of Aquifer Vulnerability in Eastern
Barnstable and Western Yarmouth, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Appendix E: Hydrogeologic Considerations of Zone of Contribution
Methods Used by Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission and SEA Consultants, Inc. for Public Supply
Wells in Barnstable, Massachusetts
Appendix F: Evaluation of Approaches to Determine Recharge Areas for
Public Supply Wells
Appendix G: Quality Assurance of Ground Water Models Through
Documentation
Appendix H: CCAMP Recommendations: Water Supply Planning
Appendix I: CCAMP Recommendations: Enhanced Groundwater Protection in
Landfill Programs
Appendix J: CCAMP Recommendations: Private Well Recommendations
Appendix K: CCAMP Recommendations: Underground Storage Tank
Recommendations
Appendix L: CCAMP Recommendations: Septage and Sludge Management
Appendix M: CCAMP Recommendations: Construction Grants, Groundwater
Discharge Permit Program, and Groundwater Classification
Appendix N: CCAMP Recommendations: Hazardous Materials Use and Disposal
Appendix 0: Pesticide Recommendations
Appendix P: Local Groundwater Management Approaches in Barnstable and
Eastham
Appendix Q: CCAMP Documents Available
- xiii -
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Cape Cod's groundwater is the sole source of water for domestic and
for most commercial and industrial uses. In recognition of this and the
need to initiate steps to protect the purity of this fragile resource for
future generations, EPA officially designated the Cape Cod peninsula as a
a Sole Source Aquifer in 1982.
Groundwater on Cape Cod has long been considered a pristine resource
in abundant supply but increasing incidents of contamination of public-
and private-supply wells have been occurring in recent years. The
extraordinary development pressure on Cape Cod has also created additional
cause for concern. Barnstable County, synonymous with Cape Cod, has been
growing at the fastest rate in New England. Between 1970 and 1980, the
population grew 53 percent; another 46 percent increase is expected in the
winter population alone from 1980 to the year 2000. In the year 2000, the
Cape Cod aquifer will be called on to provide 230,000 year-round
inhabitants with 5 billion gallons of water annually and an additional 3
billion gallons during the summer, excluding commercial and other water
uses. With this high level of residential growth, will come significant
commercial and industrial development.
The peninsula's sandy, permeable soil and generally shallow depth to
the water table make its groundwater particularly vulnerable to contami-
nation. Further, as shown in Figure 1.1, there was concern that many of
the groundwater-supply areas (or zones of contribution) which provide
water for the public-supply wells, were threatened from contamination from
the sanitary landfills, hazardous-waste sites, and waste-water treatment
plants located within these zones. The combination of this vulnerable
groundwater resource and extreme growth made the development of a
comprehensive protection program urgent.
1.2 Project Need
To address these concerns and issues regarding the protection of Cape
Cod's groundwater, the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) was
inaugurated in August 1985. CCAMP was initiated with the goal of devel-
oping a comprehensive, resource-based approach to groundwater protection,
coordinated at all levels of government. Control over the groundwater
resource and its many potential contamination threats remains fragmented,
with responsibilities scattered in many programs and across many levels of
government. CCAMP is composed of the following participating agencies:
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE), Cape Cod Planning and
Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC), and the U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS). These agencies were concerned about these perceived
inadequacies. A major concern was that groundwater resource management
focused on an approach which emphasized remediation of contamination
-------
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION .
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 2
Hazardous Waste Storage Sites and
Zones of Contribution, Cape Cod
EXPLANATION
Hazardous Taste Storage
and Transfer Sites
Landfilk and f aste-Tater Plants
Zones of Contribution to
Commonity-Snpply fells
Figure LI - Major waste storage sites and zones of contribution to
community-supply wells, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
-------
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 3
over prevention of contamination at its source. CCAMP attempted to
address these concerns.
Since its inception, CCAMP's basic premise has been that groundwater
protection must be based on the characteristics of the resource. This
approach first required the identification of the resource(s), i.e. the
area(s) that contribute recharge to a public-supply well. The next step
was to determine the appropriate management strategies within that
recharge area that would prevent groundwater contamination. The
implementation of such strategies requires an integrated management
approach, at all levels of government, with a strong scientific basis for
regulatory decision making.
As a result, CCAMP was charged with the responsibility of evaluating
and refining hydrogeological data and scientific methodologies for
defining and protecting groundwater resource areas. These analyses are
incorporated within this report along with an examination of the
institutional (intergovernmental) framework for groundwater protection.
Cape Cod was chosen as the location for this prototype project because
of its strong sense of environmental consciousness and its regional at-
tributes which facilitate resource-based management. Especially important
is Cape Cod's identity as a discrete region of the state, comprised of
towns with common hydrology and geography, and containing a sole-source
aquifer. Relative to many areas, there is an abundance of technical infor-
mation on groundwater occurrence, flow and contaminant transport which has
enabled officials to recognize the need for protection and to target their
responses based on their knowledge of the aquifer.
The Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod spurred interest in
researching Cape Cod's groundwater in the early 1970s, subsequently
leading to cooperative work from 1974-1986 between USGS, DEQE, Department
of Environmental Management (DEM) and CCPEDC. This cooperatively-funded
work resulted in a series of reports describing the hydrogeological
characteristics of the Cape Cod aquifer, a set of groundwater-flow models,
a comparison of housing density and ground-water quality and a description
of ground-water quality near the Falmouth landfill. Extensive work on
groundwater management was also conducted by CCPEDC and EPA under the
Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod (September, 1978), in
conjunction with the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments, Section 208.
Finally, in 1983, Cape Cod's regional planning agency (CCPEDC) mapped the
zones of contribution for the county's public-supply wells. This made
Cape Cod the first area in New England to have zones of contribution
mapped regionwide for public-supply wells. CCAMP was fortunate to have
this excellent information base for building and refining its data during
the course of the project.
All these factors made Cape Cod a choice location for the focus of
this interagency, cooperative groundwater study. The project recommen-
dations and tools that are contained in this report, while based on the
situations encountered on Cape Cod, are intended to be transferable to the
rest of Massachusetts and much of New England.
-------
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 4
1.3 Project Management.
CCAMP was managed by a steering committee composed of individuals from
each of the participating agencies. This committee was charged with pro-
viding overall project direction, transmitting project findings, and pre-
senting institutional recommendations for implementing groundwater protec-
tion strategies for all appropriate levels of government on Cape Cod.
Three working groups reported to the CCAMP Steering Committee on a
regular basis on the following topics:
o Aquifer Assessment
o Data Management
o Institutions
Figure 1.2 summarizes the responsibilities for the steering committee and
working groups and Appendix A provides an overview of the project
organizational structure and lists all project participants. Membership
in these work groups also consisted of individuals from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Management Division of Water Resources, Boston
University and the Barnstable County Health and Environment Department
(BCHED). The project coordinator, the only full-time staff person for
CCAMP, enhanced the communication between each work group, by serving on
all three work groups .
-------
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 5
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Steering Camrittee
provide overall project direction
oversee work groups
transmit findings
ensure inplementation of project recommendations
Aquifer Assessment Group
assess existing method-
ologies for aquifer
protection
refine scientific
concepts upon which
aquifer protection is
based
develop new protection
techniques based on
scientific principles
examined:
- ZOC delineation method
- Nitrate loading
calculations
- water-table mapping
- contaminant sources
- water-supply planning
Data Management Group
- support data needs of
other groups
- catalogue available
information on Cape's
groundwater
- examine databases and
make recommendations
concerning consistency,
accessibility, unmet needs
- explore use of Geographic
Information Systems
technology as a groundwater
management tool
Institutions Group
- assess ability of existing
programs to protect ground-
water
- examine coordination in
groundwater management
between the various levels
of government
- recommend improvements
- examined:
landfills
wastewater treatment
septage/sludge
hazardous materials.
underground storage tanks
groundwater discharges
pesticides
water supply planning
Figure 1.2 CCAMP Committee Organizational Structure
-------
CHAPTER 2
CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
2.1 Background.
Although the CCAMP results are intended to have broad application in
terms of revising institutional approaches to groundwater-resource
management, the project focused on two Cape Cod communities.
These two towns, Eastham and Barnstable, represent the spectrum of
problems facing Cape Cod communities. The two towns are divergent in
terms of urban/rural characteristics, and together they typify the variety
of complex management challenges facing the region. Barnstable contains a
major business and population center, a waste-water treatment facility, an
active industrial park and extensive public water-supply systems. It also
employs a professional administration for managing environmental protec-
tion. Eastham's rural community is removed from population centers and
completely dependent on private wells and on-site-disposal systems. Half
its area is contained within the boundaries of the Cape Cod National Sea-
shore. Unlike Barnstable which relies on its planning board and board of
health for environmental protection, Eastham's part-time Board of Select-
men also serve as the Board of Health and the Building Inspector enforces
many of the town's health regulations. The town has a largely seasonal
economy, with many of the tourist-oriented services closed between Septem-
ber and May. Barnstable has a year-round population of 39,000 that swells
to 68,000 in the peak summer season. Eastham's year-round figure is 4,700
and 17,000 during the summer.
2.2 Groundwater Protection Issues.
2.2.1 Barnstable.
Barnstable exemplifies the challenge facing much of Cape Cod - balanc-
ing land-use decisions of the past which did not emphasize groundwater-
quality protection with existing and future water-supply needs. As the
result of investing $100,000 in a town-wide hydrogeological study (The SEA
Study) in 1985, the town is now more aware of the nature of its water
resources and land-use conflicts. SEA calculated that at saturation
development, the projected peak-day water demand would exceed the
presently existing supply by 33 percent. Fortunately for Barnstable,
options exist for the placement of additional public-supply wells that
would meet the shortfall. However, a relatively slim margin of error
demands that all existing and future wellhead-protection areas in
Barnstable be absolutely protected.
The findings resulted in a turning point for resource management in
Barnstable as the town launched a massive water-protection program. The
Town Department of Planning and Development was given a substantial budget
increase to implement recommendations from the study, land was acquired
for water-supply protection, and the Board of Health adopted several
strict new regulations designed to protect groundwater.
However, due to the extent of past inappropriate land uses such as
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 7
waste-water treatment plants, landfills, and industrial development in key
water-supply areas, groundwater protection in Barnstable must continue to
be an exercise in risk management (one that concurrently controls the
threat of contamination from existing sources and clearly identifies and
prevents the creation of new threats from high-risk sources and activ-
ities) . Because of intricate interrelationships between contamination
sources and groundwater flow, sophisticated methods to predict variations
in zones of contribution and contaminant transport are needed. With that
aim, CCAMP efforts in Barnstable focused on resolution of existing
land-use and water-supply conflicts.
2.2.2 Eastham.
Eastham has several environmental threats that may result in water
quantity and quality problems. These include a sanitary landfill sited in
a potential water-supply area, small-lot zoning in all residential sec-
tions of town, and due to minimal staff resources, limited enforcement of
their toxic and hazardous materials bylaw. The town does not have a
groundwater-protection plan in place that could be used to manage the
resource. However, Eastham by no means approaches the array and magnitude
of groundwater protection issues confronting Barnstable, and hence has
options for different siting decisions no longer available to Barnstable
in terms of controlling and siting detrimental land-use activities.
Eastham still has the opportunity to review zoning and subdivision control
bylaws, revamp health regulations and develop a groundwater protection
plan. With this in mind, CCAMP concentrated on the type of technical
assistance necessary for such a town to better understand its
environmental conditions so that practical groundwater protection goals
can be met.
2.3 Hydrogeologv
The subsurface geology of Barnstable and Eastham, like much of Cape
Cod consists of glacial sediments which were deposited at the end of the
last period of continental glaciation in New England. The predominant
features of the Cape Cod peninsula are glacially derived moraines and
outwash plains (Figure 2.1). Both morainal deposits and outwash deposits
can sustain large quanities of water for public supply. Unconsolidated
beach and dune deposits also contain fresh water, but because of their
proximity to the ocean and small areal extent are not used for
public-water supply. The crystalline bedrock underlying the glacial
sediments is also poorly transmissive and has not been used as a source of
water (LeBlanc et al., 1987).
The glacial outwash deposits provide water for most of the Cape's 118
public-water supplies and 31,100 private wells (Janik, 1987). The Cape's
-------
Chapter 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project
Page 8
S SAS *
* sss.
ssss .
EXPLANATION
Sand and gravel outwash
Sand and gravel outwash with some till
Ice-contact sand and gravel
Lacustrine sand, gravel, silt and clay
Moraine of sandy till
Beach and dune deposits
Marsh and wetland organic sediments
70'00'
-j- «2'00'
?LE.e.T\ ATLANTIC
OCEAN
-BUZZARDS
BAY
BOURNE /SANDWICH ~«
««/
.^tx-' IB
0 5
| .... i
1 i I
0 5 10
" NANTUCKET
SOUND
10 MILES
1
1
IS KILOMETERS
Figure 2.1 Hydrogeologic Units of Cape Cod (adapted by CCAMP from
LeBlanc et. al. 1986, Fig.3)
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 9
aquifer is among the most permeable in New England, yielding large
quantities of naturally high quality water. The term aquifer, therefore,
is used to define those underground formations that contains sufficient
saturated permeable material to yield significant quantitites of water to
wells. Yet the same highly permeable sands and gravels which provide an
excellent medium for withdrawing large quantities of water, create an
aquifer that is extremely susceptible to contamination. Sandy soils are
low in organic content and have a poor capacity for attenuating
contaminants by sorption and ion exchange. In addition, the depth to the
water table for a major portion of the Cape is generally quite shallow so
contaminants do not have far to travel before they reach groundwater.
The aquifers of Barnstable and Eastham are generally unconfined; their
upper boundary is the water table, except in local areas in which clay and
silt confine the sand and gravel. The lower boundary of the aquifer under-
lying Barnstable consists of fine grained lake deposits and bedrock forma-
tions (Figure 2.1, 2.2). The lower boundary of the Eastham fresh-water
aquifer is the fresh-water/salt-water interface, which lies at a depth of
about 460 feet below land surface at the center of the aquifer as revealed
by USGS test drilling in October, 1987. Groundwater in Eastham and
Barnstable is found in two of six fresh-water lenses which together
comprise the Cape Cod aquifer (LeBlanc et al.. 1986) (Figure 2.3).
In Barnstable, glacial lake sediment is thought to underlie most of
the outwash plain, and may have been deposited in a lake which extended
from the retreating edge of the glacier to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket
(Oldale, 1974a). These glacial sediments are underlain by much older
consolidated rocks (Oldale, 1974a, 1974b).
Eastham is underlain by about 200 feet of sand and gravel outwash
deposits that were formed by meltwater streams from the retreating conti-
nental glacier, which was located to the east of Cape Cod. The Eastham
outwash plain deposits are underlain by approximately 300 feet of
fine-grained lake deposits of silt and clay which rest on crystalline
granite as revealed by USGS test drilling completed in October of 1987
(Barlow, 1988 personal communication). The shores of Eastham and
Barnstable are bordered in most locations by beach, dune, salt marsh and
swamp deposits of post-glacial age.
The general direction of groundwater flow in the aquifers of Eastham
and Barnstable, as shown in Figure 2.3, is from the central areas of the
peninsula to bays, marshes, Nantucket Sound, Cape Cod Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean, which surround Cape Cod. Many of Cape Cod's ponds are in hydraulic
contact with the surrounding aquifers, with their water-level elevations
being similar to those of the regional water table. The ponds can be
areas of both groundwater discharge and groundwater recharge, depending
upon the direction of groundwater flow in the area.
Precipitation is the sole source of recharge on Cape Cod. Average
annual precipitation on the peninsula ranges from 40 inches per year on
the Outer Cape to 47 inches per year on the Inner Cape. The amount of
precipitation which does not run off or is not returned to the atmosphere
-------
Chapter 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 10
NORTH
A
FEET
200 -i
Vertical Exaggeration xlO
5.000
I I
10.000 Feel
I
1.000
2.000
3.000 Meiers
Figure 2.2 Section Through Barns table-Yarmouth Area. Representative of Inner
and Mid-Cape Freshwater Lens Truncated by Bedrock and Fine-Grained
Sediments. Silt and Clay Cinfining Beds along Cape Cod Bay Displace
the Freshwater-Saltwater Boundary offshore (taken from LeBlanc et.
al., 1986).
-------
Chapter 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 11
EXPLANATION
-30-f- WATER TABLE CONTOUR-Showi altitude
of water table, in feet. 1963-76. Contour
interval varies. Datum is sea level Arrows
show general direction of ground-water flow.
Pilgrim
"Lake
wear
«'00'
A'
HYOROLOGIC BOUNDARY BETWEEN
FLOW CELLS
WELLS DRILLED TO BEDROCK THAT DID
NOT PENETRATE SALTWATER
WELLS DRILLED INTO OR THROUGH THE
FRESHWATER SALTWATER BOUND-
ARY
SECTION LINE-Line of section shown in
figure 2a
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
lOUlOUEUHS
Figure 2.3 Six Groundwater Flow Cells and General Directions
of Flow (taken from LeBlanc et. al.. 1986).
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 12
by evapotranspiration and is available to recharge the aquifer has been
estimated to range from 11 inches per year in Truro to 21 inches per year
in both Truro and Falmouth (LeBlanc, 1984; Delaney and Cotton, 1972;
Magnusen and Strahler, 1972; and Guswa and LeBlanc, 1985). Recharge to
the groundwater also includes return flow from the septic systems and the
leaching beds of wastewater treatment plants.
2.4 Groundwater Problems Facing Cape Cod: A General Overview.
Barnstable and Eastham served as the specific study areas,
particularly during hydrogeological assessment and land-use inventory
tasks. Cape Cod as a whole, however, served as the generalized focus for
an evaluation of institutional responses to categories of existing sources
of contamination. Thus, it is appropriate to provide the following over-
view of Cape Cod's groundwater problems.
Cape Cod's groundwater quality problems stem from a combination of
rapid growth and land-use planning that did not consider groundwater
protection. As a result, public and private water supplies, ponds, and
wetland and estuarine resources are threatened by a multitude of
contamination sources. These include: sanitary landfills, wastewater
treatment facilities, leaking underground storage tanks, septage pits and
lagoons, on-site wastewater disposal, fertilizers, pesticides, and
toxic and hazardous materials. The Cape has not escaped some of the
adverse situations presented by heavy industrial development, including
disposal of industrial wastewater and the creation of intensive
hazardous-waste dumps.
Prior to 1970, little hydrogeological information was available upon
which land-use decisions emphasizing wellhead protection could be based.
Development thus proceeded in a manner that largely did not consider water
quality protection needs. Across Cape Cod, the delineated zones of
contribution to public-supply wells unfortunately contain many of the
major sources of pollution (See Figure 1.1).
2.5 Sources of Contamination
2.5.1 Sanitary Landfills
Many landfills on Cape Cod, in use or abandoned, have generated a
plume of groundwater contamination. Groundwater quality around two-thirds
of the active landfills on the Cape has been evaluated to some degree.
All the tests have revealed compounds typically associated with landfill
leachate such as volatile organics, phenols, sulfate, iron, manganese, and
other metals. Some towns, such as Falmouth, Orleans and Yarmouth, have
mapped their landfill plumes based on the chemical composition of water
samples collected from monitoring wells over a period of time. To a great
extent, landfills are often located in groundwater recharge areas. As a
result, Cape Cod landfills have contaminated significant portions of the
aquifer that otherwise would be available for water-supply development by
towns. In addition to the threat posed to public-supply wells, private
wells are also vulnerable to contamination from landfill plumes.
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 13
2.5.2 Underground Storage Tanks
Cape Cod, like many other areas with important groundwater resources
is endangered by underground fuel storage tanks. CCPEDC estimates approxi-
mately 4550 USTs Capewide (Janik, 1987). As more and more of these tanks
are tested, for ensuring that releases to the environment do not occur, it
is becoming clear that many have not been pressure tested and thus are or
have the potential to contaminate groundwater. As an example of the high
potential these tanks pose for environmental contamination, 19 of the 40
confirmed hazardous-waste sites on Cape Cod, as listed by DEQE in October
1987, were the result of petroleum-product contamination, usually from
leaking USTs or piping (Commonwealth of Mass. DEQE, 1987).
Numerous leaking USTs have been discovered Capewide largely from the
widespread implementation of the Barnstable County Health and Environment
Department (BCHED) regulations requiring routine testing of aging tanks.
The most publicized UST release on Cape Cod which threatened nearby
public-supply wells occurred in 1977 when 3,000 gallons of gasoline leaked
from a tank at a gas station in Truro. To date, aquifer remediation in
Truro has cost more than $5 million dollars.
2.5.3 Waste-Water Treatment Plants
Plumes of contamination from large secondary waste water treatment
plants at the Massachusetts Military Reservation and in Barnstable have
degraded groundwater quality. These plumes have been documented to
contain concentrations of nitrogen, BOD, synthetic organic compounds,
metals and detergents well in excess of federal and state drinking water
standards and have rendered substantial portions of the aquifer unusable.
These contaminants threaten downgradient public-supply wells, and in one
instance these contaminants caused the closure and abandonment of a
public-supply well in Falmouth.
2.5.4 Septage Pits and Lagoons
Each year, approximately 64 million gallons of septage are generated
on Cape Cod, 22 million gallons from commercial establishments and 42
million gallons from residences. Over 90 percent is disposed in open,
unlined pits or lagoons frequently located at each town's landfill. Only
Chatham, Barnstable and Falmouth have treatment plants that accept septage
from haulers. While other communities such as Orleans and Harwich are
pursuing the lengthy process of planning and constructing waste water and
septage-treatment facilities, human-waste disposal continues to be
concentrated in specific areas, creating plumes of contamination which exa-
cerbate existing plumes from landfilling operations. Because septage is
dewatered waste water, its concentration of contaminants is much greater
than the waste water which flows through sewer lines. These plumes are
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 14
characterized by their high biological- and chemical-oxygen demand, high
concentration of pathogens and chemical contaminants such as metals, nitro-
gen, phosphorus, sodium and volatile organic hydrocarbons. They therefore
have the potential to degrade groundwater quality to both private- and
public-supply wells.
2.5.5 On-Site Wastewater Disposal
Over 90 percent of the homes on Cape Cod use on-site subsurface sys-
tems for disposal of wastewater (CCPEDC, 1978; Gallagher and Nickerson,
1986). Until 1977 when Massachusetts adopted its minimum requirements for
the installation of on-site-disposal systems (Title 5), homes on Cape Cod
were equipped only with cesspools. These systems provide no separation or
treatment of effluent. While septic systems are a technological
improvement, in terms of siting and design, the only significant
improvement with respect to groundwater quality are bacterial and viral
filtration. Additional pollutants of concern that are not removed are
nitrogen species and synthetic organic hydrocarbons. Numerous public
water-supply test results show a distinct correlation between housing
density and nitrogen (nitrate) concentration in the well water.
2.5.6 Fertilizer Use
Nitrogen loading to groundwater from fertilizer application is an
additional significant source of groundwater contamination. While leach-
ing rates vary depending on a host of site-specific environmental factors
and on nitrogen application rates to crops and turf, the average has been
estimated at 1.8 pounds /year/1000 square feet of fertilized area (CCPEDC,
1978). Depending on lawn size, leaching from fertilizer application can
be a significant factor in contributing nitrogen to groundwater. The
recent increase in commercial lawn care services indicates that a
substantial number of Cape Cod residents actively maintain their lawns
with fertilizer.
2.5.7 Pesticides
Pesticide contamination of groundwater resources remains largely un-
characterized on Cape Cod. While limited testing of some public- and
private-supply wells, as well as an EPA/CCPEDC study of groundwater
quality beneath Cape Cod golf courses, have not identified significant
concentrations of pesticides, a data gap exists with respect to this
potential source of groundwater-quality degradation. Geologic and
environmental conditions on Cape Cod indicate the area is conducive to
pesticide leaching. A relatively high rate of recharge, combined with
sandy soils, shallow depths to water table and localized spots of elevated
nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater put the peninsula in a vulnerable
category.
Fortunately, intensive agricultural practices with liberal pesticide
applications do not predominate on Cape Cod. A large number of commercial
applications are prevalent, however, including lawn care,
small-scale-agricultural operations and utility right-of-way maintenance.
-------
CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 15
In order to quantify the threat that pesticide application poses to ground-
water quality on Cape Cod, a program of random sampling of private drink-
ing water wells, and monitoring wells is needed.
2.5.8 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Toxic and hazardous materials contamination of groundwater is one of
the most serious problems confronting Cape Cod. Even minute concentrations
(a few parts per billion) of synthetic organic compounds can render a
water supply non-potable.
New analytical data suggest that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
groundwater pose a much more significant contamination problem than was
previously believed. Recent testing of shallow private wells around
selected Cape Cod landfills and in other areas indicates that VOCs may
present an imminent health hazard to residents. It should be noted that
many of these VOCs as well as other toxic and hazardous materials, which
are known or suspected carcinogens, are frequently used full strength or
as a constitutent in products for a number of land-use activities (refer
to CCAMP Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection) for a
wide variety of commercial and industrial uses and in numerous household
products. Thus, the potential for groundwater contamination from these
materials will continue to increase as Cape Cod's business and residential
populations expand and as long as there are no safe substitutes for these
toxic and hazardous materials. Many businesses that use hazardous
materials in significant quantities do not have the appropriate knowledge
concerning their safe use, storage and disposal. Similarly, homeowners
are also capable of using significant quantities of hazardous materials,
such as septic-tank-cleaning solvents, degreasers, and paint thinners as
part of special work projects that can also threaten groundwater quality
from thier activities.
2.5.9 Road Salt
Application of road-deicing salt during winter months is an identifi-
able cause of groundwater degradation. The Massachusetts Department of
Public Works typically applies 300 pounds of salt per lane mile during
each storm. The salt eventually washes off the road. Certain public
wells and numerous private wells near highways on Cape Cod show elevated
sodium levels and one well has been closed due to sodium contamination
from a nearby highway.
-------
CHAPTER 3
THE RESOURCE-BASED APPROACH
Groundwater is very likely our most threatened resource and yet it is
not receiving adequate protection or the overall management attention it
demands. Programs at the federal, state and local levels of government
designed to protect groundwater tend to focus on individual sources of
potential contamination, rather than on the resource itself. While
controlling pollution at the source is still important, regulatory
programs must never lose sight of the resource that is being protected as
new programs are being designed to meet that goal. Rather than attempting
to control all sources on an equal basis (no matter what contaminants are
involved, or where the land-use activity is located) regulatory programs
need to differentiate among the potential contamination sources and their
relative threat to the protected resource.
Historically, water-quality protection in the United States began with
the "dilution is the solution to pollution" philosophy. This concept,
however, does not work well in its application to groundwater because once
contaminants mix with the groundwater, they are difficult to locate,
monitor, and recover. Until the source of contamination is stopped,
contaminants continue to mix with groundwater and move away from their
point of entry in the direction of groundwater flow.
The "contaminate and remediate" approach to groundwater management
followed. There were few no regulatory activities focusing on prevention
of contamination at the source through land-use controls. Regulatory
efforts were limited to monitoring programs and construction standards for
land-disposal sites and clean-up activities.
In the early to mid-seventies, the relationship between land use and
groundwater quality and the value of prevention as opposed to remediation
began to be recognized. However, the understanding of what prevention
might involve was still undeveloped. Because it was believed that aquifer
material was capable of cleansing groundwater over short distances,
prevention was focused on bacterial contamination and easily protected by
the 400 feet radius around public-supply wells.
As hydrologists tracked contaminants to sources more distant than the
400 foot protection radius to public-supply wells, water management
officials began to investigate the need to protect entire aquifers or
watershed basins. However, where this ambitious approach was attempted,
it soon proved both economically and politically infeasible.
In searching for ways to streamline and reduce the process for identi-
fying areas in need of intensive protection, hydrologists refined
hydrologic concepts for identifying the aquifer areas that directly supply
a public-water-supply well. These concepts led to the identification of
the "zone of contribution" to pumping wells. The approaches used for
defining zones of contributions under various types of hydrogeologic
conditions include both analytical tools and computer models. Today,
-------
CHAPTER 3 - THE RESOURCE-BASED APPROACH
Cape Cod Aquifer Managment Project Final Report Page 17
computer models are also used to simulate complex hydrogeological
conditions. The use of the term "zone of contribution" is synonymous with
the terms "wellhead protection area" (federal term) and "Zone II area"
(the term used by Massachusetts) and all are used alternately throughout
this report.
Though Zone Us are simpler to protect than entire aquifers or
watershed basins, due to their confined area, the protection of ZOCs are
not without hydrogeological complexities, and political and economic
problems. For example, several hydrogeological assumptions must be made
to delineate Zone II boundaries. As an result, Zone II boundaries are not
permanently fixed but vary in size and shape, depending on hydrogeological
conditions and pumping stress. Another concern is that zones may overlap
the political boundaries of one or more towns, thus placing one town's
ZOC at risk from contamination by sources of contamination in another
town.
Planning techniques that focus on the prevention of certain land uses
within Zone Us, are still highly experimental, but they are developing
rapidly. Promising innovative measures are emerging, such as land-
use-planning models that indicate if development will result in an
overload of a certain contaminant. Also, existing land uses within zones
of contribution can be intensively regulated to prevent contamination.
Prevention is premised on determinations of the level of risk that is
acceptable, i.e. the levels of a contaminant that will be tolerated and
those that are considered excessive in relation human health.
Different types of protective measures are appropriate for different
potential sources of contamination. For example, it may be sufficient to
limit the density of certain land uses, while prohibitions may be required
for others. In the same way, certain contaminants are more mobile than
others and the protection zone size must be gauged accordingly.
The resource-based approach, used during CCAMP, is an attempt to both
refine and advance the basic prevention-oriented philosophy. This ap-
proach features the following components:
1. Thorough characterization of the aquifer system so that the zone
of contribution for the public-supply well can be delineated as
accurately as possible.
2. Comprehensive inventory of all potential sources of contamination
located within the zone of contribution.
3. Assessment of the federal, state, and local controls in place for
the regulation of all existing sources.
4. A strategy for protecting the well based upon relative risk from
individual sources, cumulative impacts .from existing sources, and
possible future problems from potential land uses.
-------
CHAPTER 3 - THE RESOURCE-BASED APPROACH
Cape Cod Aquifer Managment Project Final Report Page 18
CCAMP's goal was to facilitate the implementation of the resource-
based approach on Cape Cod through the development of management tools and
the promulgation of scientific and institutional recommendations. These
tools and recommendations were directed at local, state and federal agen-
cies and intended to change the way government, in general, conducts its
groundwater protection programs.
-------
CHAPTER 4
THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
4.1 Introduction
Sound resource-based groundwater management policies must rely on a
firm technical basis. This includes an understanding of the resource to
be protected, and of the many potential sources of contamination that
threaten it. This requires information about the resource, scientific
knowledge for interpreting that information, and a reliable data base
pulling together many different types of information from all levels of
government. These preconditions are seldom fully attained, yet groundwa-
ter management must be undertaken. This chapter presents CCAMP's findings
on these decision-making "preconditions" - the technical basis on which
groundwater management rests. The findings of the Aquifer Assessment
Committee will be presented first, followed by those of the Data Manage-
ment Committee in Chapter 5.
4.2 Aouifer Assessment Committee Findings
CAMP'S Aquifer Assessment Committee, assembled to ensure that groundwa-
ter management programs are based on sound technical information, was a
multidisciplinary group of hydrologists, geologists, chemists, engineers,
and planners from various federal, state, regional and local agencies.
The first step taken by this diverse group was to familiarize all members
with the available knowledge and programs relating to the Cape's groundwa-
ter and potential sources of contamination. The committee evaluated re-
ports and invited guest speakers to describe their research or the pro-
grams they managed.
This examination of the Cape's aquifer and the threats to it led the
Committee to focus its efforts on the characterization and protection of
the groundwater resource. The committee selected the following issues for
examination which are summarized in this chapter:
-water-table mapping
-observation well selection
-wellhead-protection area delineation methodologies
-nitrate-nitrogen loading in wellhead-protection areas
-contaminant sources and the behavior and fate of contaminants in
groundwater
Appendix B summarizes a number of Aquifer Assessment Committee recom-
mendations relating to: (1) methods of data reduction (for wellhead-
protection area delineation); (2) delineation of wellhead-protection
areas; (3) DEQE's technical capabilities; and (4) zone of transition
(fresh water/salt water interface) monitoring.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 20
4.2 Characterization of the Resource
4.2.1 Water-Table Mapping
A good understanding of the water levels in an aquifer is a prerequi-
site for most groundwater studies, including the delineation of the re-
charge area or zone of contribution to a public-supply well. This will
be described in more detail later in this chapter. An accurate
water-table map with appropriate contour intervals is essential for
investigating contaminated sites and in deciding where to locate a variety
of land uses, including public-supply wells, landfills, sewage treatment
plants, industrial zones, even septic systems. Understanding groundwater
flow, which can be inferred from groundwater levels, is the first step in
resource-based groundwater management.
The Aquifer Assessment Committee decided to examine existing water
level observation points and to refine, where possible, the previous
water-table map for Cape Cod produced in 1977 by the USGS. The group's
intent was to demonstrate how a refined water-table map might be developed
without drilling new wells and to develop a methodology for selecting
existing wells that should be measured to refine the existing water-table
map. In some cases, the USGS mapped contour intervals of ten feet in the
Barnstable area did not provide the high degree of resolution needed for
Zone II determinations or site specific contaminant investigations. The
committee explored the possibility of refining this map utilizing
additional existing data available from observation wells.
4.2.2 Observation-Well Inventory
The Data Management Group conducted an extensive inventory of observa-
tion wells that had been drilled by consultants, federal, state, and local
agencies and village water districts for the Town of Barnstable. The
first task was to thoroughly review the available geological and engineer-
ing studies at the local boards of health, conservation commissions, plan-
ning boards, water suppliers, consulting firms, the Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality Engineering, the Department of Environmental
Management's Water Resources Division, the US Geological Survey and the
EPA.
Copies of drilling and soil logs were obtained whenever possible;
reports or other files were also used. Relevant information was copied
onto worksheets (Figure 4.1) to standardize and streamline the information
collection process. Each well was mapped onto a USGS topographic map and
identified by a unique number.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 21
The inventory identified 215 wells in the eastern half of Barnstable.
The Aquifer Assessment Committee then screened these wells for potential
selection for water level measurement. CCAMP criteria for well selection
included location, ownership, access, well construction, elevation rela-
tive to mean sea level, well depth and screened interval (a screen at or
near the water table was desired). The initial 215 were narrowed down to
fewer than 100 wells and these were all field checked to ensure accessibil-
ity. During this initial field check, CCAMP also recommends a slug test
to test each well's responsiveness to actual water-table conditions. An
array of 71 wells and seven ponds was finally selected to create a uniform
geographic distribution of measuring points.
The inventory was then used to prepare a water-table contour map. The
selected measuring points (measured on May 11-13, 1987) provided an exami-
nation of water-table conditions under periods of high-water table, in the
late spring. The water-table map that was developed from this effort is
very detailed, with one-foot-contour intervals in the center of the study
area. A discussion of the results are presented in Appendix C, "Water
Table Elevations in Eastern Barnstable, Massachusetts".
The observation-well inventory and subsequent water-level measurement
and water-table mapping demonstrated that through the use of existing
wells, detailed hydrogeological work can be performed. More observation
wells could have been used in the preparation of the CCAMP water-table map
by Heath (Appendix C) if more survey data were available. After the cost
of well drilling, surveying was identified as the most expensive cost
related to observation well installation.
4.3. CCAMP Recommendations for Observation-Well Inventory
CCAMP recommends the following:
1. Municipalities or Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) should main-
tain observation well data bases that contain all of the informa-
tion from Figure 4.1, the Well Description Form.
2. All new wells drilled should be surveyed to mean sea level and
the owner should submit all the information from Figure 4.1 to
the relevant agency.
3. The observation well data base should be maintained and its use
in developing localized water-table maps should be promoted. All
future entries to the data base and water-table map revisions
should be well documented and maintained.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 22
OBSERVATION WELL INVENTORY
WELL DESCRIPTION FORM
*****************************************************************
Well Identification
Status
_Lat./Long.
Accessibility,
Well Completion Date_
Casing: Outer Diameter
Material ~
Well Ownership,
Inner Diameter
Screen: Diameter
* Width of Openings,
Length
Material
Depths: Depth to top of casing from M.P.
* Depth to bottom of casing from M.P._
Depth to top of screen from M.P. ~
Depth to bottom of screen from M.P.
Depth, total of hole (ft below LSD)"
* Depth, total of well (ft below LSD)"
* Depth to water level (ft below LSD)]
Top of casing segment below LSD ]
Bottom of casing segment below LSD_
Depth to bottom of grout below LSD
Elevations:Elevation of top well casing above MSL,
Elevation of land surface datum above MSL,
Elevation of ground water ref. to MSL ~
Measuring point elevation.
Measuring point height above. LSD
Drilling Method
Method of Development,
Type of Surface Seal_[
Drilling Fluid,
Packing Material,
Well Yield
Available Logs,
Well use
Method of Water-Level Measurement_
Source of Water-Level Data
Sample Type and Frequency
Remarks:
Figure 4.1 Observation Well Inventory Well Description Form
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 23
4.4 DRASTIC Analysis of Aquifer Vulnerability
The DRASTIC methodology is a model for assessing the vulnerability of
contamination to an aquifer (described in Appendix D) and is based on an
approach that addresses regional hydrogeological factors. Appendix D,
"DRASTIC Mapping of Aquifer Vulnerability in Eastern Barnstable and
Western Yarmouth, Cape Cod, Massachusetts," by Heath describes the
methodology and the analysis that was performed in one of Barnstable's
wellhead-protection areas, utilizing the water-table information generated
by CCAMP. This effort assessed the variations in the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination in a 3650 acre zone of contribution in
eastern Barnstable and western Yarmouth.
4.5 Identification of Zone II. the Wellhead-Protection Area
For the protection of public-water supplies, the Aquifer Assessment
Group focused on the delineation and protection of the recharge areas for
public-supply wells. These recharge areas, referred to as the zone of
contribution (ZOC) or wellhead-protection area, are described in Massachu-
setts by Zones I, II and III (Figure 4.2). Zone I is the traditional 400
foot radius that a water supplier must own or control as required by DEQE
Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00) to protect groundwater from
microbiological contamination. The primary recharge area to a well, Zone
II is defined as the area that "recharges a well under the most severe
recharge and pumping conditions that can be realistically anticipated. It
is bounded by the groundwater divides which result from pumping the well
and by the contact of the edge of the aquifer with less permeable
materials such as till and bedrock." Zone III is "that land area beyond
the area of .Zone II from which surface water and groundwater drain into
Zone II" (310 CMR 24.00). Zones I, II and III are two-dimensional map
representations of a three-dimensional subsurface volume. The two- and
three-dimentional areas of these zones in a typical New England Valley
aquifer are depicted in Figures 4.2.
The delineation of a wellhead-protection area forms the basis for a
comprehensive groundwater protection program. As Zone II represents that
land area that provides the primary groundwater recharge to a public sup-
ply well, any contaminants that infiltrate the soil and are not immobi-
lized or attenuated in the soil will move down into the aquifer and travel
through the aquifer towards the well. For this reason, protection of the
well's water quality must involve the proper management of all land uses
in the wellhead-protection area. Figure 4.5 depicts typical land uses in
a wellhead-protection area.
4.6 Approaches to Zone II Determinations in the Project Area
The Aquifer Assessment Committee was charged with the evaluation of
existing methods to delineate wellhead-protection areas and the determina-
tion of alternative delineation approaches that would be appropriate for
the pilot area. The Committee reviewed the methods used by SEA
Consultants and CCPEDC to estimate wellhead-protection areas for the
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 24
T:
ZONE i
4 *'^gr//r>
^
*uNt"te j- <^-
I k-^ VZONE
/ ^r-& ia -
I
/
1
1
HJ
-J
^
DRAINAGE DIVIDE
ZONE I - 400, FOOT RADIUS ABOUT PUBLIC SUPPLY WELL
ZONE II - LAND SURFACE OVERLAYING THE PART OF THE
AOUiFER THAT CONTRIBUTES WATER TO THE WELL
ZONE III - LAND SURFACE THROUGH AND OVER WHICH WATER
DRAINS INTO ZONE II
DRAINAGE DIVIDE
DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW
Figure 4.2 Two and Three-Dimension Views of a Glacial Valley^Aquifer
Showing the Zones and Stream which Contribute Water to a
Public-Supply Well. a. Map view of Glacial Valley Aquifer.
b. Hydrogeologic Cross-Section of Pumping Well. (Source:
Frimpter, Donohue, and Rapacz, 1988)
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 25
Vacant
Commercial
Land
Not to Scale
Figure 4.3 Typical Land Uses in a Zone II Area. (Source: "Guide to
Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Areas by
K. Noake, 1988)
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 26
public-supply wells in Barnstable and concluded that both approaches use
analytical modelling techniques and yield reasonable delineations of the
zones. Please refer to Appendix E, "Hydrogeologic Considerations of Zone
of Contribution Methods Used by Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission and SEA Consultants, Inc. for Public Supply Wells in
Barnstable, Massachusetts," for a discussion of the methods of data
reduction for use in such analytical modelling efforts. Appendix F,
"CCAMP Aquifer Assessment Committee Report on Evaluation of Approaches to
Determine Recharge Areas for Public Supply Wells," provides more
information on the group's examination of wellhead-protection area
determination methodologies as currently used on Cape Cod.
A key issue that faced the Committee was the determination of the
optimum approach to wellhead-protection area delineation. Determining
when the benefits of a more realistic model are outweighed by the expense
of collecting the data necessary to adequately define such a model. In
order to determine this cost/benefit point, the committee recommended that
analytical and numerical modeling techniques be applied and compared in
the project area, allowing a controlled demonstration of the shortcomings
and benefits of each approach.
4.7 Initiation of the Comprehensive Numerical Modeling Project
An important outcome the Aquifer Assessment Committee recommendations
was the initiation of a cooperative project between the DEQE/Division of
Water Pollution Control, DEM/Division of Water Resources, the USGS and
CCPEDC. The project consists of a demonstration of three-dimensional
groundwater modeling to determine wellhead-protection areas. The demon-
stration included conditions where the advantages and disadvantages of the
modeling approaches can be defined and compared with those of the analyti-
cal approaches. Opportunities for model verification with past and future
water-level data will be utilized. The models will be applied to areas
with complex boundary conditions, multiple aquifer systems, multiple with-
drawal points, areally variable recharge, variable aquifer thickness,
partial penetration, and changes in aquifer storage. Additional analyses
may include comparison of the area of influence with area (zone) of contri-
bution and determination of the upgradient boundary of the zone of contri-
bution. Data acquisition requirements and costs will be also be
described. This will allow the determination of the point at which the
benefits of a more realistic model (more accurate wellhead-protection area
delineation) are outweighed by the expense of collecting the necessary
data to adequately define such a model. The results will be published by
the USGS in May, 1990.
4.8 Documentation of Modeling
As an outgrowth of the Committee's examination of models for use in
delineating wellhead-protection areas, the group was concerned that many
models were not adequately documented; making it difficult to evaluate
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 27
their quality. Therefore, it is necessary that quality assurance measures
provide for complete documentation for all hydrogeologic investigations.
Appendix G, "Quality Assurance of Ground Water Models Through Documen-
tation", provides detail on the necessary aspects of model documentation.
These documentation procedures should be followed for all groundwater flow
and contaminant transport models. These procedures have been adopted as
policy by the DEQE Division of Water Supply and are required in all
reports which involve modeling work submitted to the Division.
4.9 Groundwater Protection for Communities on Private Wells
Protection of private wells and protection of areas that may be needed
for future water supplies are the main groundwater management issues in
Eastham. The work previously described focused on delineation and manage-
ment of the wellhead-protection area to a public-supply well. For East-
ham, relevant issues related to the groundwater resource that must be
understood by local officials include: groundwater occurrence and flow
patterns; rate of groundwater flow; contaminant fate and transport; the
potential for salt water intrusion; and the recharge areas of private
wells.
A detailed understanding of groundwater characteristics is essential
in hazardous waste site investigations and in siting potentially contam-
inating land uses. In Eastham, one of the most common problems is the
siting of septic systems near private wells. Without localized ground-
water flow information, it is difficult to site wells and septic systems
appropriately. Private-well contamination from septic systems, landfills,
underground storage tanks, and commercial businesses using hazardous
materials are the major threats to groundwater quality in this town.
The U. S. Geological Survey has completed significant hydrogeological
work throughout the Cape. However, the USGS 1977 water-table map for the
Eastham region was based on nine observation wells and is only repre-
sentative of regional-flow conditions. The observation-well inventory
conducted by the CCAMP Data Management Committee did not discover enough
observation wells in Eastham that had been appropriately surveyed or were
located such that a new water-table map .could be generated. However, with
the assistance of EPA, the Town of Eastham recently installed 14 water-
elevation pond gauges to determine groundwater flow directions in the
vicinity of the town landfill. Wells also will be drilled soon under a
state grant to study Great Pond. It may then be possible to measure water
levels and generate a detailed map.
4.9.1 Private-Well Recommendations
Based on this examination of the water-resource issues facing Eastham,
the Aquifer Assessment Committee recommended that DEQE develop
private-well guidelines and a model bylaw covering well construction,
installation and abandonment. Private wells are particularly susceptible
to contamination from sources such as a homeowner's disposal of household
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 28
and yard chemicals down the drain and into the septic system. The Aquifer
Assessment Committee recommended that an educational brochure targeted to
well owners be developed by CCPEDC and the Barnstable County Health and
Environmental Department (BCHED) which has recently developed a model
bylaw for private wells. (See Appendix J for Aquifer Assessment Committee
recommendations on private wells.)
4.9.2 Protection of Future Public-Supply-Well Resources
The Aquifer Assessment Committee met with Eastham's Water Resources
Advisory Committee and reviewed the existing state of knowledge of the
town's groundwater resources to enable them to proceed with the develop-
ment of a groundwater management strategy. In addition to helping Eastham
understand its groundwater resources, the Aquifer Assessment Committee
also demonstrated the use of a simple map overlay analysis to locate
future public-supply-well sites. With the rapid rate of development on
the Cape, it is important to identify such sites and adopt appropriate
zoning regulations to protect them before the most suitable siting options
are precluded by development.
The Committee conducted a map overlay analysis at a USGS quadrangle
scale to evaluate this issue. The first map was of hydrological data,
including water-table contours and brackish areas. Then, only considering
hydrological characteristics, areas that would be "good, better, best" for
water-supply development were selected. These areas were drawn to: limit
the potential for salt water intrusion; avoid lowering pond levels; and
have the shortest possible groundwater-flow paths (to limit the potential
for contamination from upgradient sources). Areas of conflicting land
uses, landfills, commercial businesses and appropriate buffers were then
overlayed as another limitation for water-supply development. Parcels of
town-owned land were then superimposed, and those that fell in the
remaining "best" areas were considered to be the best sites for public
supply well development. This process was repeated by computer, using the
maps that were digitized for the CCAMP Geographic Information System (CIS)
project. The resulting maps and a discussion of the procedure are
contained in the separately published GIS report.
The map overlay methodology is a relatively straightforward procedure
that can be performed by any town, either by hand or through the use of
sophisticated GIS technology. It is important to begin the analysis by
looking at the groundwater resource itself, and not beginning with the
available parcels. The overlay analysis provides an initial determination
of potential sites that may be suitable for siting water supplies. More
specific on-site data may be evaluated in a subsequent overlay analysis to
refine the number of suitable sites. At this point, considerable effort
and resources will be necessary to evaluate the water-yielding
characteristics of each site.
Once an accurate Zone II (zone of contribution) delineation is
completed the delineated area can then be protected through the creation
of special zoning districts or other means.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 29
4.10 Protection of the Resource
Once the resource area has been defined and mapped, attention must
focus on the management of potential sources of contamination. The
Aquifer Assessment Committee developed technical guidance documents in two
areas: (1) nitrate loading in wellhead-protection areas and (2) management
and understanding of common land uses which may threaten groundwater
quality. These two documents were designed to provide local officials
with the technical basis for managing their groundwater-protection
programs. These documents are clearly written on topics such as contam-
inant mobility.
4.10.1 Nitrate Loading in Municipal Wellhead-Protection Areas
Contamination by nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate) is one of the most
widespread threats to groundwater quality on Cape Cod. Sources of nitrate
include domestic on-site sewage disposal systems, municipal waste water
treatment plants, industrial waste water, and fertilizer. Nitrate was
chosen as the contaminant of concern by the Aquifer Assessment Committee
for several reasons. Nitrate is assumed to act as a conservative chemical
species in groundwater unaffected by sorption materials or by chemical
reaction. The principal mechanism by which nitrate is attenuated is by
dilution. It has been commonly demonstrated that the presence of nitrate
in groundwater, also indicates the presence of other, more toxic,
contaminants associated with waste water discharges. Adverse health
effects associated with nitrate have prompted a federal drinking water
standard of 10 milligrams per liter. However, on Cape Cod a maximum
nitrate concentration of 5 milligrams per liter is widely used as the
planning goal.
The Aquifer Assessment Committee reviewed and found inadequate the
current approach of limiting development to one house per acre or greater
as a protective measure. In an effort to address the potential for
exceeding the recommended concentration of nitrate in municipal
water-supply wells, a subcommittee developed an approach for evaluating
the cumulative impacts of nitrogen-contributing land uses on water
quality. This approach is the subject of a CCAMP Technical Report by
Frimpter, Donohue, and Rapacz, "A Mass Balance Model for Predicting
Groundwater Quality in Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas" which is
available separately from NTIS.
The publication provides an approach for evaluating the cumulative
impacts of nitrogen-contributing land uses to water quality in
public-supply wells. The model, which employs a mass-balance accounting
equation, calculates the resultant steady-state nitrate concentration at
the wellhead. In simplified form, the equation is as follows:
Nitrate Concentration - Nitrate Load: Precipitation + Nitrate Load:
Sources
in Well Water Total Volume of Water
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 30
With a Zone II delineation in hand, land uses within the Zone II must be
identified and the potential nitrate load quantified for each. The total
nitrate load within the Zone II is summed and entered into the mass
balance equation along with other parameters such as nitrate concentration
in areal recharge and the volume of water withdrawn from the well.
Appendices to the nitrate-loading report provide a guide to the nitrogen
loads associated with a variety of land uses and a program for summing
these inputs on a personal computer.
The value that results from this calculation is the concentration of
nitrate that can be expected in the pumping well after the system has
reached equilibrium between the sources of nitrate and the sources of
recharge. This equilibrium is reached when water particles from the
furthest extent of the Zone II have reached the pumping well. This will
require several years and is dependent on the geology, hydrology, recharge
rate, and withdrawal of water.
This methodology was created to allow town planners and land-use mana-
gers to recognize the level of incremental development that will cause
nitrate concentrations in municipal wells to exceed planning goals and/or
health-based, water-quality standards. If used properly, this nitrate
accounting model provides a technical basis for evaluating future develop-
ment strategies and comparing tradeoffs between various land uses and
development proposals in wellhead-protection areas.
4.10.2. Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection
The Aquifer Assessment Committee established the need to provide both
local planning boards, conservation commissions, boards of health, and
state officials with the guidance for scientifically-based,
wellhead-protection strategies. This need was translated into the
development of the CCAMP handbook "Guide to Contamination Sources for
Wellhead Protection". The wellhead-protection strategies discussed
include siting acceptable land uses in recharge areas of public-supply
wells and determining those land uses that should be prohibited or
strictly controlled by an aquifer protection district bylaw. This guide
will be useful for investigating potential sources of groundwater
contamination for each land-use activity.
The guide provides detailed, background information on 32 common
land-use (business activity) categories and the associated 18 contaminant
classes that are commonly used or generated as wastes. A poster-size
matrix, "Land Use/Public-Supply Well Pollution Potential Matrix",
developed for display is also included for use as a handy reference to
quickly determine which one or more of the 16 contaminants or class of
contaminants are commonly associated with each of the 32 land-use
categories and which may render groundwater at a public-supply well
undrinkable. In addition, this chart compares the pollution potential
characteristics of those contaminants, indicating whether they have a low,
medium, or high potential to contaminate groundwater if any are accidently
released to the environment. The guide also contains information on best
management practices that should be encouraged for each land use.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 31
The following land uses and classes of contaminants are covered in the
guide:
Land-Use Categories Covered
Agriculture/Golf Courses
Airports
Asphalt Plants
Boat Yards/Builders
Car Washes
Cemeteries
Chemical Manufacturers
Clandestine Dumping
Furniture Stripping/Painting
Hazardous Materials
Industrial Lagoons and Pits
Jewelry and Metal Plating
Junkyards
Landfills
Laundromats
Machine Shops/Metal Working
Municipal Wastewater
Photography Labs/Printers
Railroad Tracks, Yards/maintenance
Research Labs/University/Hospitals
Road and Maintenance Depots
Sand and Gravel Mining/Washing
Septage Lagoons and Sludge
Septic Systems and Water Softeners
Sewer Lines
Storage/Transfer
Stables/Feedlots/Kennels/Piggeries/Manure Pits
Stormwater Drains, Retention Basins
Stump Dumps
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Vehicular Services
Wood Preserving
Contaminants Covered
Acids
Bases
Chloride
Fluoride
Metals (Except Fe/Mn)
Pesticides/Herbicides
Petroleum Products
Phenols
Radioactivity
Sodium
Iron and Manganese (Fe/Mn) Solvents
Nitrates
Sulfate
Pathogens (Virus/Bacteria) Surfactants (Detergents)
Figure 4.4, taken from the guide, is provided to illustrate the
possible pathways contaminants may take depending on their character-
istics and the hydrogeologic setting.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 32
LOW DENSITY DISSOLVED CONTAMINANT PLUME
FIGURE NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4.4 Diagrammatic Representation of those Factors Affecting
Mobility and Attenuation of Contaminants. (Source:
"Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protec-
tion" by K. Noake, 1988)
-------
CHAPTER 5
GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
5.1 Groundwater-Data Initiatives
Groundwater protection involves a wide variety of specialized manage-
ment programs (and their associated databases) within different offices
and agencies at all levels of government. The Data Management Committee
was charged with the critical task of exploring different issues and needs
associated with groundwater-related databases. The group's primary charg-
es were to: provide data gathering support for the other groups; make re-
commendations for improved data management; and explore the use of Geogra-
phic Information Systems (GIS) as a tool for groundwater management.
However, the group focused most of its efforts on data collection for use
by other CCAMP committees and on the lessons learned from the databases
used. It was unable to spend extensive time in data gathering and
simultaneously examine every groundwater related data system and to make
in-depth recommendations.
The CCAMP Data Management Committee found fragmentation in groundwater
related data systems. Through practical data-gathering efforts, came a
number of recommendations for improved data structure, integration and
accessibility. Many of the recommendations related to spatially referenc-
ing data and readying data for use in a GIS are contained in the CCAMP
report, "CCAMP GIS Demonstration Project Report". Presented in this
section are brief discussions of the group's groundwater-information
inventory, data related recommendations and the GIS study.
5.2 Inventory of Groundwater Related Data Systems
To assist CCAMP in its work, the Data Management Committee extensively
searched agency files and libraries to locate publications, files, maps
and reports relating to groundwater, sources of contamination, land-use,
planning and related topics. These items were computerized into a
database so they could be used interactively by CCAMP members and are
currently maintained by the EPA Region I library. An inventory of these
data sources is available in the CCAMP report "CCAMP Bibliographies:
Publications and Maps" and will be provided to officials working on Cape
Cod groundwater management issues.
This inventory includes the following sources of information:
- Listing of published books, reports, articles, and maps which EPA,
DEQE, CCPEDC, USGS have in their respective collections dealing with
groundwater or sources of contamination.
- Entries relating to Cape Cod, particularly Barnstable and Eastham.
- Title, author, date of publication, publisher, abstract, and up to
six key words or subject terms.
- All land-use, resource, or contaminant-source maps relating to Cape
Cod, particularly Barnstable and Eastham.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 34
- Map-scale and parameter information and a contact person.
5.3 CCAMP Data Recommendations and Observations
5.3.1 Interagency Data-Base Development
During the CCAMP project, the participating agencies expressed substan-
tial interest in evaluating the potential for increased interagency use of
existing databases and maps maintained by a single agency. The possibili-
ty of incorporating such information into a single, integrated database
such as a statewide CIS or a data network with remote access was consid-
ered a potentially viable and attractive approach to better data manage-
ment.
The Committee concluded that the possibility of establishing an inter-
agency data base or data network involving CCAMP participating agencies is
quite promising and deserves further detailed analysis. Uniform overlay
maps, at common scale, of key environmental features such as wetlands and
land use, as well as overlay maps and associated tabular data bases on
regulated facilities and waste sources are of particular interest. Howev-
er, much more work is needed on data standards and data verification proce-
dures to ensure that the data are valid and decisions based on them are
sound.
The development and maintenance of program-specific "data diction-
aries" are necessary for an interagency data exchange. They identify
information on source, dates of data collection, expected accuracy and
other program-specific items.
There is also a need for all mapped data to be georeferenced. This
methodology uses three standard and interrelated reference systems,
latitude and longitude, state-plane, and universe transverse mercator.
Without having map locations referenced to one of these standard systems,
mapped information can not be accurately transferred from one map to
another. Each agency must ensure that its own data is georeferenced
properly to permit interagency sharing of mapped information. This is
necessary within individual agencies before major interagency efforts
proceed.
5.3.2 Interagency Groundwater Data Standards
It is important to continue to develop greater consistency among inter-
agency databases to enhance cooperative information sharing efforts such
as the utilization of geographic information systems. An interagency task
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 35
force of the CCAMP participating agencies and other interested agencies
should be developed to identify key data elements and further define data
standards. Specific data standards are needed immediately for databases
relating to the following:
i
- municipal tax assessment maps
- observation wells
- regulated facilities
- water-quality data
- spill-report information
- land use
These standards should cover data accessibility, key elements, georeferenc-
ing, and quality control. Common data structures should be identified and
utilized to facilitate data exchange.
Existing studies and committees focusing on data integration within
DEQE, and cooperative efforts by the U. G. Geological Survey, Hazardous
Waste Facility Site Safety Council and Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs to establish a Massachusetts GIS have done valuable work for
establishing data standards. Further work which considers and expands
these efforts should be conducted by CCAMP participating agencies.
5.3.3 Need for Information Coordination Function in DEQE and CCPEDC
To encourage consistency across DEQE divisions, existing data coordina-
tion efforts within DEQE should focus intensively on technical issues
associated with data base structure, development and integration. All
Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) should have a data coordinator to encour-
age consistency on data bases among towns and they should serve as the
resource for data availability and data management issues.
5.3.4 Regional Consistency in Georeferenced Data
RPAs should make efforts to achieve regional consistency regarding
georeferenced data. On Cape Cod, CCPEDC should assist towns on technical
mapping issues and host a workshop on this topic with assistance from the
CCAMP participating agencies. CCPEDC should encourage intertown coopera-
tion and participate in establishing mapping standards.
A regional approach to creating and maintaining topographic, road and
assessor's base maps to meet the needs of the region would aid in data
integration efforts as needed for the development of a Geographic Infor-
mation System Project. Various coordinate systems such as longitude and
latitude, universal transverse mercator, and state-plane systems, all have
appropriate applications and can be utilized in a GIS. The choice of a
system for mapping particular features should be consistent regionwide.
Guidance on accurately using and selecting these systems should be provid-
ed by the RPA with assistance from DEQE, EPA, and USGS, where needed.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 36
5.3.5 Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Information at DEOE
The appropriate DEQE divisions should build on recent information
generated through inventory studies and quickly evaluate the automation of
the data generated through programs that have groundwater monitoring compo-
nents. This includes water quality, water level and monitoring, and
observation-well characteristic data. Once automated, this data should be
organized so that it may be usefully retrieved.
5.3.6 Water Supply and Quality Information Issues
To save time and accuracy, private-supply-well data from BCHED should
be automated at the time of first entry in the laboratory. Currently, it
is typed at the BCHED laboratory and then entered into a personal computer
by CCPEDC.
All "request for analysis" forms, that accompany private-well samples
for analysis by BCHED, should have map and parcel information recorded
and/or be located on a specified map.
Public-supply water quality data is currently being computerized as
part of a cooperative study funded by the DEQE Division of Water Supply
(DEQE/DWS). Computerized access to this data base should be made
available to EPA, regional planning agencies and other agencies with water
management and data gathering responsibilites. The database should
utilize appropriate geographic references for ease in locating all
sampling points. Wells should have a common name, a unique DEQE permit
number, and a number to permit cross-referencing databases.
USGS and DEQE/DWS should coordinate their efforts to locate
public-supply wells. This would ensure that each agency would have
identical well coordinates for each well location. In addition, all well
databases should have a code for each well type (public-supply well, non
community well, etc.).
5.3.7 Libraries
A central repository should be maintained for consultants reports and
other studies completed at the local or regional level. Copies of these
reports should then be maintained in the town's public library and the
regional planning agency library and an index of these reports should be
periodically provided by RPAs to EPA and DEQE libraries.
DEQE and CCPEDC should improve their technical library facilities.
Procedures should be established for permanent filing and cataloging of
consultant and engineering reports prepared for DEQE and municipalities at
these libraries or other centralized locations. The EPA Region I library
should play a consulting role (as they are currently doing for the Super-
fund Program) and share its approach to records management.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 37
5.3.8 Water-Table Mapping and Observation-Well Issues
CCAMP participating agencies should set standards for observation-well
data collection and surveying and encourage their adoption at all levels
of government. Observation-well data should be maintained at CCPEDC for
use in a Capewide observation-well network.
A computerized database involving observation-well data should be
developed which includes such key elements as well number, location (coor-
dinate system, town, USGS quadrangle, etc.), elevation and name of proper-
ty owner. Use of CIS technology and existing databases such as GWSI
(Ground Water Site Inventory) and STORET (Storage and Retrieval of Water
Quality Information) should be evaluated for this purpose.
CCPEDC should attempt to coordinate the various consulting efforts to
map and delineate Zone Us so that water-table mapping or Zone II
delineation does not stop at town boundaries.
5.3.9 Facility Index Data System (FINDS)
FINDS was designed to serve as an inventory of sites or facilities
that are subject to federal environmental legislation or regulations. The
system assigns a unique EPA identification numbers to each site and
manages the volume of facility information associated with each numbered
site.
EPA's FINDS facility information should be updated and reviewed on a
scheduled basis. A program for field verification of FINDS sites needs to
be established. Information reviews should include adding new facilities
and updating regulated facility information such as addresses.
5.3.10 CIS Data Standards
Recommendations for a series of CIS data standards have been developed
and are documented in the CCAMP CIS report.
5.4 Geographic Information Systems Technology: General
Groundwater managers at all levels of government must utilize diverse
and varied types of data, including scientific information on complex,
groundwater resource interrelationships and land-use inventory
information on a wide variety of potential sources of contamination.
Traditional databases are fragmented, timeconsuming to access, and
requires extensive work to use data from different sources. Unlike these
systems, Geographic Information System (CIS) technology provides a
powerful tool for groundwater management. As represented in Figure 5.1,
this computerized system for storing, analyzing and displaying spatially-
related information is revolutionizing the approach to environmental
management nationwide.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 38
An Overview of
Major Geographic Information System Functions
DATA INPUT
CIS
DATA STORAGE
AND RETRIEVAL
NEWLY ACQUIRED SPATIAL UATA
S Q
.0 5 II
QKro
MAI'S &
REMOTE SENSING DATA
DISK
DATA MANIPULATION
AND ANALYSIS
TAPES
SPATIAL DATA MASKS
TERMINAL
Figure 5.1 An Overview of Major Geographic Information Systems
Functions.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 39
GIS integrates computer graphics and an automated database manager
into a single interrelated software system that can serve a variety of
functions. It also has the capability for analysis techniques, including
overlaying data layers of different scales and has remarkable
graphic-display capabilities.
The CCAMP GIS effort utilized the ARC/INFO GIS software developed by
Environmental Systems Research Institute (Redlands, CA). ARC has the
capability to maintain the spatial location of map features such as lines,
points, and polygons while INFO stores and processes a virtually unlimited
amount of attribute information which describes these features.
5.4.1 The CCAMP GIS Project
The CCAMP GIS project was a short-term, nine-month effort jointly
funded by DEQE and USGS and was developed under the auspices of CCAMP.
The primary objective was to demonstrate the usefulness of GIS technology
in assessing the risk of contamination to public-supply wells from a
number of contamination sources. An integral component of the
demonstration was an evaluation of the data requirements necessary to
utilize GIS. Although the demonstration was short term, it was designed
to provide insight to others considering a long-term investment in GIS.
The rationale for beginning this project was based on the existing CCAMP
committee structure, the data gathering that had already begun, local
contacts, and the knowledge of groundwater-management issues provided .
The CCAMP GIS project concentrated on groundwater protection at three
different levels of analysis: (1) the zone of contribution to nine
public-supply wells in Barnstable, a highly urbanized area; (2) in the
rural, seasonally populated town of Eastham; and (3) the Cape Cod
peninsula. Each of these provided an example of the types of applications
for which GIS may be used. Management senarios were developed to analyze
some of the major groundwater issues facing decision makers. The
scenarios selected for in-depth analysis included:
1. Selection of potential sites for future public water-supply
development and for a stump dump in Eastham.
2. Examination of risk to public-supply wells from landfills
Capewide in order to set enforcement priorities.
3. Examination of the compatibility of zoning ordinances and land
use within a zone of contribution which includes portions of two
towns.
4. Comparison of contamination risk to public-supply wells from
existing land uses and the land-use pattern when full development
(build out) has occurred according to zoning within a zone of
contribution.
5. Assessment of contamination risk to public-supply wells from
underground storage tanks within a zone of contribution.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - GROUNDWATER DATA ISSUES
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 40
6. Comparison of delineated zones of contribution with a proposed
interim half-mile radius for use by DEQE for those areas where
such zones have not been delineated.
7. Application of CCAMP nitrate loading model in a
wellhead-protection area.
The demonstration project indicated that geographic information
systems can be successfully used for diverse planning and regulatory pur-
poses related to groundwater protection. It is hoped that the lessons
learned from this project on georeferencing data, data integration, issues
involved in setting up such an extensive effort, and CIS applicability
will be helpful to CIS efforts elsewhere. The project report should also
be helpful in encouraging the upgrading and integration of databases for
their eventual use in a CIS or an interagency data base. The existing CIS
overlays that have been digitized for this CCAMP study effort should also
be utilized in future, localized CIS efforts that will follow CCAMP. A
full discussion of the CCAMP CIS project and accompanying maps are con-
tained in a separate CCAMP report, "A Demonstration of Geographic
Information System for Ground Water Protection" and a separate report by
the U. S. Geological Survey.
-------
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
WITHIN A ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION *
6.1 Study Plan
CCAMP undertook an intensive land-use study within one wellhead-pro-
tection area in the town of Barnstable. The goal of this study was to
provide a more thorough understanding of the information necessary for an
effectively designed and implemented resource-based groundwater management
plan. An examination was conducted and evaluated the following parameters:
(1) the adequacy of hydrogeological and contaminant-source data, (2) the
appropriate tools for management of specific contaminant generating activ-
ities, and (3) the institutional arrangements within and among levels of
government required for effective program implementation. By locating and
characterizing existing land uses and potential risks of contamination
from those land uses, CCAMP evaluated the effectiveness of existing land-
use-management programs.
In conference with the Town of Barnstable's Office of Planning and
Development, a wellhead-protection area identified by the Town as Zone of
Contribution #1 (ZOC #1), was chosen for CCAMP's land-use study because of
the complex challenges it posed. This ZOC presents a prototype for
studying groundwater management for many potential types of contamination
sources, large and small, found on the Cape and elsewhere.
6.2 Characteristics of Barnstable Zoc #1
ZOC #1 surrounds nine public-supply wells and six future well sites.
It provides 31 percent of the water to the town (11.7 million gallons/day)
and encompasses 3650 acres within two jurisdictions, Barnstable and
Yarmouth. This area comprises the most highly developed commercial area
on Cape Cod, yet there is still substantial vacant land targeted for
further development.
The commercial area within ZOC #1 is extensive and varied. Specific
activities include the municipal airport (second busiest in Massachu-
setts) , the municipal waste water treatment plant, an industrial park
(largest on Cape Cod), and 140 retail enterprises including the Cape's
largest shopping mall. A junkyard, numerous medical offices, 119
automotive, commercial and service related businesses, and a large number
of residential parcels, 300 of which are unsewered are also located in
this area.
This chapter is largely taken from: Gallagher, T. and L. Steppacher.
Management of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in a Zone of Contribution
on Cape Cod. In: Proceedings for the Conference on Eastern Regional
Groundwater Issues. Burlington, VT, 1987.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 42
6.3 Inventory Approach
6.3.1 Data Gathering and Automation
A detailed inventory of the land-use data within ZOC #1 was gathered
from the data available through existing regulatory programs at all levels
of government (Table 6.1). The evaluation of this data enabled CCAMP to
examine its quality and to determine the effectiveness of these regulatory
programs. This inventory also identified data gaps and thus served as the
basis for gathering additional information for characterizing land use
within the ZOC.
Table 6.1 provides a brief summary of the local, state, and federal
regulatory programs examined in this study, including information that is
not detailed elsewhere in the text. Listed are the regulated facilities
covered by these programs, the types of data available, the data quality
and the level of implementation (i.e. how many of the facilities that
TRUKQ
STABLE
ZOHE OF CONTRIBUTION *1
LMJfyjfJOf
fJTS
CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS
Figure 6.1 Location of Zone of Contribution #1
-------
Table 6.1 Major Data Sources Utilized
Town Bylaw, Implementing Agency
State/Federal
Regulation
Barnstable Board of Health
Bylaw
(Article
XXXIX)
Control of
Toxic and
Hazardous
Materials
Regulated Sites or
Activities
Sites at which toxic
or hazardous materials
are stored in
quantities totalling
more than 50 gallons
(liquid) or 25 pounds
(dry). Exceptions:
fuel oil in
conformance with state
regulations, and mater-
ials stored at private
residence.
Available
Information
- Quantities of
waste types
stored.
- Storage Method
- Materials hauled
- inspection Reports
Data Quality and
and Availability
- Fair
- Paper files
- Data
inconsistently
reported
Level of
Implementa-
tion
- Variable,
based on
inspection
priorities
- Generally
good
Time Requirement
for Gathering/
Screening Data
5 days
Yarmouth
Bylaw
(Chapter 9)
Handling and
Storage of
Hazardous
Materials
Board of Health
Same as above
Quantities of
waste type stored.
Materials hauled.
Spill plan filed.
Location in
relation to ZOC
- Automated
- Good
- Variable 1/4 day
-------
Table 6.1. Major Data Sources Utilized
Town Bylaw. Implementing Agency
State/Federal
Regulation
Department Department of Public
of Public Safety (DPS)
Safety UST
Regulation Local Fire Department
527 CMR 9
Regulated Sites or
Activities
All LUSTS
Exceptions:
- Residential & farm
tanks <1100 gallons
- All heating oil tanks
for consumptive use on
premises must provide
notification to local
fire department and
DPS.
Available
Information
- Capacity
- Construction
material used
- Contents
- Age
- Status
- Location
Data Quality and
and Availability
STATE;
- Automated
- Time backlog
- Tank character-
ization not
available by
location
LOCAL;
- Paper files
- Disorganized
Level of
Implementa-
tion
STATE:
- Fair
LOCAL;
- Good
Time Requirement
for Gathering/
Screening Data
9 days
Oil Burner
Permi ts
527 CMR 4
Local Fire Department
- Storage of oil above
and below ground with
oil-burning equipment
adjacent to buildings
Construction
material used
Age
Size
Location
address
above or below
ground
- Paper files
- Variable by fire
department
- Variable 1 day
Incident
Response -
Spills and
Leaks
MGL C. 21E
MA DEQE Division of
Hazardous Waste (DHU),
Office of Incident
Response
Any owner/operator must
report a release of oil
or hazardous material.
No minimum quantity
specified. No current
regulations.
Spill and leak
initial inspection
form.
Location
Cause
Not automated
Filed by DEOE
Region (not town)
Follow up is
difficult to
obtain
- Good
1 day
-------
Table 6.1 Major Data Sources Utilized
Town Bylaw, Implementing Agency
State/Federal
Regulation
RCRA EPA - Notification
Subtitle C
Hazardous OEQE - Manifest
Waste
Manifest
Program
310 CMR 30
Regulated Sites or
Activities
SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATORS - Facilities
producing >20 kilograms/
month of hazardous waste
or >1 kilogram/month of
"acutely hazardous"
wastes, or storing
wastes totalling these
amounts when the wastes
are removed for
disposal.
LARGE QUANTITY
GENERATORS - Same as
above except quantity is
>1000 kilograms/month.
Available
Information
- Quantities of
waste hauled
annually
- Information by
waste category
- Annual facility
reports (for large
quantity
generators only)
Data Quality and
and Availability
- Good
- Automated
- Time backlog of
approximately 5
months
Level of Time Requirement
Implements- for Gathering/
tion Screening Data
- Improving - No
verification
(For nitro-
gen loading)
Barns table/
Yarmouth
Parcel Maps
(For nitro-
gen loading)
Barns table
Health
Regulation
(For nitro-
gen loading)
MA Department of
Employment Security
Town Tax/Assessor's
Office
Barnstable Board of
Health
Number of employees Fair
for small businesses
Taxable Property - Delineation of Good
parcels
- Square footage of
store and office
space.
Restaurants, motels, and - Number of seats/ Good
hotels restaurant
- Nunber of rooms/
motel or hotel
- 4 weeks Total
(nitrogen
loading)
Good - 4 weeks Total
(nitrogen
loading)
Good - 4 weeks Total
(nitrogen
loading)
-------
Table 6.1 Major Data Sources Utilized
Town Bylaw, Implementing Agency
State/Federal
Regulation
HGL C. Z1E OEQE-DHW
Initiative
H
Right to OEQE - Right to Know
Know Program Program
MGL C.111F
310 CMR 5
Grounduater OEQE - Division of
Discharge Water Pollution Control
Permit
Program
314 CMR 5
Regulated Sites or
Activities
Listing of all confirmed
hazardous waste sites in
state.
Any facilities using or
storing substances on MA
Substances List must
submit Materials Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS) to
DEQE.
All industries
discharging to the
ground in any amount
must be permitted and
must meet effluent
standards.
Domestic flow >1S,000
gallons/day also covered
Available
Information
- Site listing
- Address
- Type of release
- Status
- Materials Safety
Data Sheets
- All information is
confidential
- No quantity
information
- Flow volume
- Effluent
characteristics
- Groundwater
monitoring results
Data Quality and
and Availability
- Automation
proceeding slowly.
- High potential
limited by lack of
quantity
information and
confidentiality
- Good
- Plans to automate
monitoring-well
data
Level of
Implementa-
tion
Poor
(many
businesses
have MSDS
but have
not
submitted
to OEQE)
Poor for
conroercial
facilities
Time Requirement
for Gathering/
Screening Data
- no
verification
- 1 day
- 1/2 day
*a o
PI c!
OP oo
n>
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 47
should be covered by a particular program are actually regulated?). The
column labeled "time requirements" represents the actual time required to
gather and roughly verify the data. Verification efforts focused on the
facility locations so this information could be utilized by the Geographic
Information Systems (CIS) methodology. A discussion of these data for ZOC
#1 is presented elsewhere in two CCAMP CIS reports: "A Demonstration of
Geographic Information System for Groundwater Protection" (1988) and
"Assessing Risk to Water Quality at Public Water Supply Sites, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts", In Preparation by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Several other data sources that should be examined in any wellhead
protection (WHP) inventory but which were not important in ZOC #1 include:
EPA's RCRA Interim Status Files (information on hazardous waste, transfer,
storage and disposal facilities), the NPDES permit program, the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, and the Superfund program.
In order to organize and analyze information from these disparate pro-
gram files, a hierarchical set of dBase III files was utilized. A master
file was developed containing map, parcel, land-use numbers, business name
and address, sewer information and a column listing for each of the regu-
latory programs that were examined for regulating specific land-use activ-
ities on a particular parcel. Separate data bases contained specific pro-
gram information keyed again by map and parcel numbers and business name.
6.3.2 Data Quality
In general, the data in almost all of the programs as listed in Table
6.1 examined was of poor quality, time consuming to retrieve, not current,
and rarely spatially referenced. The reason for this deficiency seems to
be that these program files are seldom used by decision-makers in other
programs. A great deal of very useful information was uncovered
(particularly at the local level) that should be utilized on a routine
basis for decision making. Without a perceived use for the data, there is
little incentive to maintain readily usable files. Unfortunately, data
retrieval was frequently hampered by such problems as indecipherable hand
writing, forms without key information, and difficulty in retrieving
automated data.
There is a critical need for coordinating data gathering requirements
at all levels of government with the goal of obtaining complete infor-
mation as a first step in the protection of any critical area. Where pos-
sible, for ease of access, key data should be standardized, spatially
displayed and automated. There should also be an increase in information
exchange across programs, and among federal, state and local levels of
government. Siting water supplies and other land uses, targeting
enforcement, and checking program compliance will all be facilitated by
easy access to shared information.
6.4 Findings
CCAMP's inventory of potential contamination sources provided an
extensive characterization of the use of hazardous materials and the risk
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 48
posed to the public-water supply within this ZOC. The results of this
inventory, as summarized in Table 6.2, clearly indicates the presence of
toxic and hazardous materials and the need for a strong management
strategy to protect the groundwater resource.
Table 6.2. Inventory of Potential Contamination Sources of Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Reported within ZOOM (1) During April 1987.
Barnstable, Yarmouth, and DEQE Records
(dates within brackets) for Various
Categories
USTS 186 tanks
(1/87) (38 percent >20 years old)
SPILLS/LEAKS 21 releases
(1985-1986 inclusive)
CONFINED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES 6 sites
(4/15/87 - all petroleum releases)
TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STOKERS 141 Storers
(5/87)
TOTAL WASTES MANIFESTED FROM ZOC #1 IN 1986 22,635 gallons
(12/86) 43,955 pounds
NOTIFIERS: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST PROGRAM 45
RIGHT-TO-KNOW MSDS FILED AT DEQE 23 MSOS
TIGHT TANKS (INDUSTRIAL) 1 tanks
GROUNDUATER DISCHARGE PERMITS (INDUSTRIAL) 1
(1) Dates in parentheses indicate the most recent data utilized for this
study.
6.4.1 Underground Storage Tanks (USTS)
The major conclusions of the UST investigation within this ZOC were
twofold: (1) 38 percent of the 186 tanks located were twenty years or
older; (2) 65 percent of all tanks were constructed of steel. These metal
tanks pose a hazard because they are more susceptible to corrosion and
subsequent leakage than fiberglass tanks which are favored today. Spatial
distribution of the tanks is depicted in Figure 6.2. Refer to Table 6.3
for a summary of the tank data.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 49
" Public supply wells
O Tanks under 20 years
Tanks over 20 years and tanks of unknown age
Figure 6.2 Underground Storage Tank Locations in ZOC #1.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 50
Table 6.3 Inventory of Underground Storage Tanks within ZOC #1
Town of Barnstable and
Yarmouth Fire Department
Records for Various UST
Categories of Interest Number Reported
RESIDENTIAL FUEL OIL TANKS 13
TANKS IN USE 116
TANKS OUT OF USE OR STATUS UNKNOWN 70
TOTAL ON 82 SITES 186 tanks
TOTAL V LUME 856,225 gallons
AVERAGE SIZE 4,603
BURIED LONGER THAN 20 YEARS 71
CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL 122
STEEL TANKS BURIED LONGER THAN 20 YEARS 50
CONSTRUCTED OF FIBERGLASS 32
(1) Construction material of all other tanks over 20 years of age is
unknown.
6.4.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
The local toxics bylaws for Barnstable (Article XXXIX "Control of
Toxic and Hazardous Materials") and Yarmouth (Chapter 90 "Hazardous Materi-
als, Handling and Storage of") implemented by each town's Board of Health
(BOH), require all facilities storing substances which are considered
toxic and hazardous, in amounts totalling 50 gallons liquid volume or 25
pounds dry weight, to register the type of materials stored, quantities,
location and method of storage with the Board of Health. These programs
provided the most complete set of data on toxic and hazardous materials
for purposes of this study. Barnstable's BOH provided much useful informa-
tion within ZOC #1, however, complementary information in Yarmouth was not
as complete because enforcement efforts against businesses located in the
Barnstable ZOC were not a priority of the Yarmouth Board of Health. This
data gap is not significant because there are very few commercial activi-
ties or other toxic and hazardous material users in this portion of ZOC
#1.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 51
One hundred and forty one businesses were registered with the Barnsta-
ble and Yarmouth Boards of Health under the local toxics bylaws. Data
derived from the DEQE - Hazardous Waste Manifest Program were assessed in
light of this listing, and each of the 43 facilities covered by that
program were found to also be covered by the local bylaw. In addition,
only 23 companies filed Materials Storage Data Sheets (MSDS) with DEQE's
Right-to-Know Program (Table 6.2).
Tables 6.2 and 6.4, and Figure 6.3 characterize the extent and loca-
tion of toxic and hazardous materials in ZOC #1. Quantity data reported
as part of Barnstable's bylaw are quite variable and do not present an
accurate depiction of activities in the ZOC #1. Generally, a nearly equal
proportion of reporters were storing oil, synthetic organics and miscella-
neous substances (including antifreeze). However, approximately two
thirds of the total quantity stored, approximately 20,000 gallons, was
oil, .generated by auto-related facilities which comprise 40 percent of the
reporters. The records at the local boards of health did not distinguish
the type of oil stored (home-heating oil, diesel, waste oil, or engine
oil).
Table 6.4 Information Reported to the Barnstable and Yarmouth Boards of
Health as Required by the Toxic and Hazardous Materials Bylaws During
April 1987.
Category
Number
Total Number Reporting
Number Storing Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Heavy Oil (not defined)
S/nthetic Organics
Miscellaneous
Number of Hazardous Waste Haulers
Volume of Toxic and Hazardous Materials Stored
Average quantity of waste oil stored (1)
Approximate total quantity stored (2)
141
73
65
69
51
243 gallons
34,000 gallons
(1) Represents 43 of the 141 facilities reporting
(2) Quantity information was not provided by all reporters
Local Board of Health (BOH) inspections confirm that service and re-
pair garages handle more waste than other commercial businesses in the
Zone. Although Table 6.5 indicates that only 44 percent of the total have
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 52
Public supply wells
Business complying with local bylaw
O Business complying with local bylaw and state manilest program
Figure 6.3 Extent and Location of Toxic and Hazardous Materials In ZOC #1.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 53
Table 6.5. Characterization of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in ZOC#1 by
Land-Use Type as Reported by Local Businesses to the Barnstable and
Yarmouth Boards of Health.
Land-Use Type No. Reporting Total Present Percent Reporting
(1)
Automotive Related 55 119 44
Auto Repair (only) 25 33 76
Storage, Warehouse,
and Distribution
Facilities 24 121 20
Manufacturing 12 21 57
Retail 27 140 19
Medical Office
Buildings 1 17 6
Other: Bus Depots,
public buildings,
office buildings 21 37+ ?
(1) These percentages may be misleading. A site visit is necessary to
confirm these land uses actually generate toxic and hazardous
materials. This Table should be used primarily as a guide.
registered with the BOH; many of those not registering were gas stations
without service facilities (included in the underground storage tank
inventory), tire shops and car rentals. When these are omitted, there was
at least a 70 percent compliance rate with the bylaws.
6.4.3 Hazardous Waste Manifested
A summary of the manifested wastes hauled from ZOC #1 by licensed
haulers with totals for both 1985 and 1986 is provided in Table 6.6.
While the total amounts of waste hauled increased somewhat from 1985 to
1986, the most significant increase was in the number of businesses with
EPA notification numbers and in the number manifesting waste. This shows
an increase in program implementation and a significant amount of waste
being hauled from a critical groundwater protection area. Figure 6.3
shows the proximity of toxic and hazardous-materials storers, registered
in accordance with the Barnstable Board of Health's Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Bylaw, to public-supply wells.
6.4.4 Spills and Leaks
Data on spills and leaks from DEQE's Office of Incident Response for
the two year period 1985 through 1986 provide an indication of the proba-
bility and extent of spills generally in the Zone. The results, as pre-
sented in Table 6.7, indicate that approximately one incident per month
occurred within the Zone. Of this number, 43 percent were due to leaking
underground storage tanks. Additionally, the State inventory of confirmed
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 54
Table 6.6 Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Manifested within ZOCfl During
1985-1986 as Recorded by OEQE's Division of Hazardous Waste (1).
1. NUMBER Of FACILITIES MANIFESTING WASTES (2, 3)
Facility Type Number Reporting
1985 1986
Facilities with EPA Notification
Nuibers (All Large- and Small-
Quantity Generators)
Number of Large Quantity
Generators
Nuiber of Facilities
Manifesting Wastes
33
2
18
45
2
27
Umber of Small Quantity
Generators Generating
<100 Kilograms/Month
(Based on Yearly TotalsHD
11
15
2. QUANTITY MANIFESTED ACCORDING TO DEQE MANIFEST WASTE CODE (2. 3)
DEQE Manifest Waste Code Quantity Reported
1985 1986
M001 (Uaste Oil)(2)
M002 (PCB Wastes)
17,972 gallons 8,475 gallons
5,215 pounds 11.790 pounds
130 cubic yards
1,659 gallons
15,100 pounds
7.195 gallons
2,270 pounds
D001 (Ignitable)
0002 (Corrosive)
F001 (Spent Halogenated
Solvents Used in Degreasing)
F002 (Spent Halogenated
Solvents- Primarily from
Dry Cleaning
F003 (Spent Nonhalogenated
Solvents; Xylene, Acetone
F004 (Spent Nonhalogenated
Solvents; Cresols, Cresylic
Acid, Nitrobenzene)
F005 (Spent Nonhatogenated
Solvents; Toluene, Methyl-
Ethyl Ketone, Carbon
Dlsulflde)
1,575 gallons
6,000 pounds
500 gallons
220 gallons
6,730 pounds
515 gallons
3,730 pounds
3,740 gallons
440 gallons
5,055 pounds
1,785 gallons
80 pounds
415 gallons
M099 (Nonhazardous Waste;
antifreeze) (3)
110 gallons
600 pounds
TOTALS 21,917 gallons 22,635 gallons
33,045 pounds 43,955 pounds
130 cubic yards
(1) Collected from the DEQE Division Hazardous Waste Manifest Compliance
Section of.the Licensing and Enforcement Program.
(2) Regulatory authorities for the collection of this data: 40 CFR Part
262.20 of the federal regulatory code which supports EPA's RCRA
program for hazardous-waste management and 310 CMR 30.31 of the state
regulatory code.
(3) Refer to page 60 for a discusssion of manifesting.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 55
hazardous waste sites identified six locations in ZOC #1, all of which
were the result of petroleum-product contamination.
Table 6.7 Number of Spills and Leaks Reported to DEQE in ZOC #1 from
January 1985 to December 1986.
Category Number of Occurences
SOURCE OF SPILL OR LEAK
Underground Storage Tanks 9
UST Pipe Failure . 5
Above Ground Tanks 1
Transformers 5
Drums 2
Miscellaneous (from pipes
hoses.etc.) 4
TOTAL 21
Source: DEQE Southeastern Regional Office, Division of Hazardous Waste,
Office of Incident Response, Lakeville, MA.
6.4.5 Road Salt
In 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, recognizing the
sensitivity of the aquifer on Cape Cod, reduced its application rate of
sand and salt from a 1:1 ratio to a 4:1 ratio on most roads. Only those
highly travelled state roads received the traditional application rate.
Within ZOC #l,only Route 6 in the northern portion of the ZOC is receiving
this higher salt application rate.
6.4.6 Application of the Nitrate Loading Formula
Approximately 70 percent of the Zone is unsewered. The major portion
of the collection system for the waste-water treatment plant is in the
southern portion of the Zone and services some of the larger commercial
activities. However, there is still an assumed threat to the wells from
nitrogen. Utilizing the predictive nitrate-nitrogen loading formula de-
rived by CCAMP participants, an estimated load was calculated within ZOC
#1, (see CCAMP nitrate nitrogen loading report by Frimpter, et al. . 1988)
conclusions point heavily to the impact of the Barnstable Waste-Water
Treatment Plant as a contributor to the total nitrogen load. Conse-
quently, management alternatives must recognize that while review of new
activities within ZOC #1 is important, primary attention must focus on the
operations of the waste-water treatment plant.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 56
"' 6.5 Discussion
6.5.1 Risk to Public-Supply Wells
The potential risk facing public-water supplies may be characterized
in various ways as a result of the inventory undertaken within ZOC #1. The
most overwhelming conclusion is the high potential threat posed by petro-
leum products.
Underground storage tanks are the most pervasive potential contaminant
source in this ZOC. Not only are there 186 within the entire zone, a
large majority of these are clustered in the southern portion around the
Hyannis business district close to three of the public-supply wells. A
1320 foot (1/4 mile) radius from the three public-supply wells in the
southeastern portion of the zone illustrates the degree of risk presented
by these tanks. Within this distance there are 45 tanks. Fourteen of
these are over 20 years old and 11 are of an unknown age but in the ab-
sence of this information the Department of Public Safety regulations
consider these to be older than twenty years. Expanding the radius to
2640 feet (1/2 mile), 83 tanks are within the circle, of which 42 are 20
years or older and 20 are of unknown age. According to an EPA study,
tanks 20 years and older have a 57 percent chance of leaking, so it ap-
pears there is a significant public-health risk to the three public wells
in this area.
Further, the investigation of spills and leaks indicates that 43 per-
cent of all such incidents were due to leaking underground storage tanks
and all six of the confirmed hazardous-waste sites are the result of
petroleum-product contamination. A management strategy of close monitor-
ing and scheduled removal of suspect tanks could greatly reduce the risk
to the water supply in this zone. In addition, the numerous threats to
groundwater quality in ZOC #1 warrant periodic water quality analysis of
monitoring wells in between the public wells and upgradient sources of
contamination. The public wells themselves should be tested regularly for
a wide range of organic compounds.
The data collected for Barnstable's ZOC #1 was incorporated into the
Geographic Information System (CIS) project described previously in Chap-
ter 5. After the data was digitized, it was manipulated to evaluate the
pollution-potential risk to the water quality at the public-supply wells.
The CIS computerized database provided the means to ask many "what if.."
questions - a burdensome task otherwise. While the land-use survey de-
scribed in this chapter was an essential step, the CIS project enabled a
more sophisticated assessment of this information in risk assessment analy-
sis than would have been possible otherwise (see CCAMP CIS Demonstration
Project Report).
6.5.2 Management Issues
Of the several local, state, and federal programs examined, five
emerged as having the strongest potential groundwater protection measures.
These are the local toxic- and hazardous-materials bylaws in Barnstable
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 57
and Yarmouth, DEQE's Groundwater Discharge Permit Program, and the Common-
wealth's Hazardous Waste Manifest and Underground Storage Tank Programs.
Each of these management programs, as described in Table 6.1, provides
incomplete protection to the groundwater resource. However, when all are
well implemented, they may provide a strong framework for a comprehensive
wellhead protection program.
Local and State Coverage of Hazardous Materials (See Appendix N)
Two major programs, the Hazardous Waste Manifest Program and the local
Toxic and Hazardous Materials bylaw regulate hazardous materials and
wastes. The state and federal emphasis is on waste generation, transport,
storage, and disposal. The local emphasis is on storage of both wastes
and virgin materials, business practices, drainage, and on ensuring compli-
ance with applicable state regulations. The health agent's inspections
are a crucial element in bringing commercial businesses into compliance
with all of the relatively new programs that have emerged in recent years
and in working practically to make sure that the costs for small-quantity
generators are not so exorbitant that they fail to comply. The local
bylaw does not duplicate but supplements the state program. It also serves
to fill in certain gaps left by the state program. For example,
antifreeze is only regulated at the local level.
Implementation of Local Hazardous Materials Controls
The toxic- and hazardous-materials bylaw, essentially the same in
Barnstable and Yarmouth, provides an important frontline of defense
against groundwater contamination. Since most of ZOC #1 is within the
town of Barnstable, the following analysis focuses primarily on Barnsta-
ble 's implementation of its bylaw. The bylaw requires all businesses to
register any of the toxic and hazardous materials stored on their premises
above the specified threshold and listed on the Toxic and Hazardous Materi-
als Registration Form. These completed registration forms which list the
various types of toxic and hazardous materials (Figure 6.4), local knowl-
edge, complaints and wellhead-protection area boundaries guided the Barn-
stable inspection program.
Over 250 inspections were conducted by a health agent in Barnstable
during the fall and winter of 1986 and 1987 (Figure 6.5). Without the
Board of Health inspections, a number of these firms would not have been
inspected at all. The inspection program also provides an effective means
of educating area businesses regarding applicable regulations at the state
and local level. The focus of these inspections is on the proper storage
of hazardous materials, a primary enforcement concern for the town. The
town bylaw requires that a containment structure and roofing be provided
for any tank or drum stored outdoors. Its successful implementation has
clearly made a difference in the business practices at a host of facili-
ties. Recent inspections led to the discovery of over 2,000 gallons of
toxic and hazardous materials improperly stored at several businesses
townwide (Leitner, 1987). The inspections have also been crucial in
educating business owners, discouraging improper business practices and
providing referrals to DEQE regarding violations of state regulations.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 58
TOXIC AKl) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM
NAME OF FIRM: .
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON:
Does your firm store any of the toxic or hazardous materials listed below,
either for sale or for your own use, in quantities totalling, at any'time, more
than SO gallons liquid volume or 25 pounds dry weight? yE_ N0
This form must be returned to the Board of Health regardless of a YES or NO
answer. Use the enclosed envelope for your convenience.
If you answered YES above, please indicate if the materials are stored at a
site other than your mailing address:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
LIST OF TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Board of Health has determined that the following products exhibit toxic
or hazardous characteristics and must be registered when stored in quantities
totalling more than 50 gallons liquid volume or 25 pounds dry weight. Please put
a check beside each product that you store:
Antifreeze (for gasline or coolant systems)
Automatic transmission fluid * j
Engine and Radiator flushes
Hydraulic fluid (including brake fluid)
Motor oils/waste oils
Gasoline, Jet fuel ^
Diesel fuel, Kerosene, #2 heating oil
Other petroleum products: grease,
lubricants
Degreasers for engines and metal
Degreasers for driveways & garages
Battery acid (electrolyte)
Rustproofers
_Car wash detergents
_Car waxes and polishes
_Asphalt & roofing tar
"Paints, varnishes, stains, dyes
_ Paint and lacquer thinners
Paint & Varnish removers, deglossers
~ Paint brush cleaners
Floor & Furniture strippers
~ Metal polishes
Laundry soil & stain removers
("including bleach)
Spot removers & cleaning fluids
(dry cleaners)
Other cleaning solvents
Bug and tar removers
Household cleansers, oven cleaners
Drain cleaners
Toilet cleaners
Cesspool cleaners
Disinfectants
" Road Salt (Halite)
Refrigerants
Pesticides (insecticides,
herbicides,rodenticides)
Photochemicals
Printing Ink
Wood preservatives
(creosote)
Swimming Pool chlorine
Lye or caustic soda
Jewelry cleaners
Leather dyes
Fertilizers (if stored
outdoors)
PCB's
Other chlorinated hydro-
carbons, (inc.carbon
tetrachloride)
Any other products with
"Poison" labels (including
chloroform, formaldehyde,
hydrochloric acid, other
acids)
Other products not listed
which you feel may be
toxic or hazardous(please
list):
Figure 6.4 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Registration Form.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 59
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
BOARD OF HEALTH
COMPANY
ADDRESS
COMPLIANCE:
O satisfactory
(see "Orders")
Class:
CLASS: 1. Marine,Gas Stations,Repair
2. Printers
3. Auto Body Shops
4. Manufacturers
5. Retail Stores
6. Fuel Suppliers
7. Miscellaneous
MAJOR MATERIALS
Fuels:
Gasoline, Jet Fuel (A)
Diesel, Kerosene, »2 (B)
Heavy Oils:
waste motor oil (C)
new motor oil (C)
transmission/hydraulic
Synthetic Organics:
degreasers
Miscellaneous:
Case lots
IN
OUT
QUANTITIES AND STORAGE (IN=indoors; OUT=outdoors)
Drums
IN
OUT
AboveTanks
W
OUT
Underground Tanks
» 6 gallons
est?
DISPOSAL/RECLAMATION
1. Sanitary Sewage 2. Water Supply
QTown Sewer Q Public
Q On-site Q Private
3. Indoor Floor Drains: YES NO
Q Holding tank: MDC
Q Catch basin/Dry well
Q On-site system
4. Outdoor Surface drains:YES NO
O Holding tank: MDC
Q Catch basin/Dry well
On-site system
REMARKS:
ORDERS:
5.
Waste Transporter
Name of Hauler Destination,. Wa?t,fi product
1,
2.
Licer
JF.S
sed?
NO
Person(s) Interviewed
Inspector
Date
Figure 6.5 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Inspection Form.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 60
The lack of intertown coordination in WHP management is evident within
this local program. Bamstable focuses the implementation of its bylaw on
its ZOCs and Yarmouth approaches its local program the same way. Thus,
there is very little local information available in the portion of the
study area which lies within Yarmouth. A regional presence which encourag-
es a joint management approach to the shared resource could be extremely
important. The regional planning agency could identify wellhead-protection
areas which cross jurisdictional boundaries and provide a forum for inter-
town cooperation and communication (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of
regionalism).
Unfortunately the local bylaw is not being fully utilized at the state
level. Many of the cases referred by local health boards for enforcement
under state regulations are not responded to in a timely manner and en-
forcement support requested of the state is not always provided. DEQE
should make a strong effort to develop a better working relationship with
local boards of health. The agency should rely to some extent on local
inspections to note violations at facilities which DEQE personnel would
not have had time to visit. In turn, the state should provide local offi-
cials with enforcement and other support.
The Hazardous Waste Manifest Program
The Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Manifest Program (310 CMR 30) at-
tempts to track hazardous wastes generated by businesses in amounts over
twenty kilograms per month from their source of origin to their ultimate
disposal site. These businesses include relatively small establishments
such as dry cleaners and printers. Considering the newness and complexity
of the program, it is evident that a major effort has been made by DEQE to
increase small-quantity generator (SQG) awareness and compliance with the
regulations. EPA's and DEQE's joint administration of the program has
focused on the licensing of all hazardous-waste haulers. This effort has
been particularly effective because it is now virtually impossible to have
hazardous waste hauled from Cape Cod by an unlicensed hauler. In Barnsta-
ble , the health agent has also proved to be an invaluable resource in
educating business owners and in distributing application forms for EPA
notification numbers.
The Management of Waste Transport
The Hazardous Waste Manifest Program and the local toxic and hazardous
materials bylaws place new requirements on businesses to properly store,
and transport toxic wastes to secure disposal facilities. One of the
major issues in trying to implement these bylaws has been that of econom-
ics. Prices for hauling waste oil, the least expensive material, may
range as low as $.30/gal., but are generally between $.50- $1.00/gal.
Other wastes are more difficult to dispose and more expensive to haul.
In Barnstable, the BOH has taken advantage of these costs by encourag-
ing very small quantity generators to pool their wastes for transport.
They have been quite successful in coordinating businesses of the same
type to join together in transporting small quantities of waste to create
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 61
economies of scale. For example, the BOH has organized a battery recy-
cling drop off day with the cooperation of a local automotive business.
Fifteen businesses brought in approximately 500 batteries and were then
required to set up an exchange program to prevent such an accumulation in
the future.
While the BOH's approach has been quite successful, it would not be as
effective in a less developed area where there may only be one printing or
dry cleaning business in town. In this case, the networking of several
neighboring towns should be pursued for the hauling of waste for each type
of business. Regional planning agencies (RPAs) or health departments
should have an important role in setting up these hauling pools by working
through professional business associations and labor unions. DEQE and EPA
should encourage and fund regional planning agencies to inventory these
activities and to develop appropriate programs to respond to these needs.
The Groundwater Discharge Permit Program (See Appendix M)
DEQE has concentrated implementation of the Groundwater Discharge
Permit Program on municipal wastewater treatment and other large-volume
domestic wastewater flows and on those who voluntarily apply for permits.
This program leaves commercial facilities at the low end of the priority
scale. For example, only one industrial and four domestic groundwater
discharge permits have been issued in ZOC #1. Out of 141 businesses meet-
ing the threshold quantity information on the toxic and hazardous materi-
als bylaws, 48 do not have EPA manifest notification numbers, are not
sewered, do not have tight underground storage tanks (USTS) and are not
covered by the groundwater permit program.
This poses the question of how these 48 businesses are disposing of
their wastes. Although some of these firms may not discharge their wastes
because they have unregulated tight tanks and mechanically contain their
waste, a portion probably do discharge wastes directly to septic systems.
These 48 businesses are good candidates for an inspection by DEQE staff
because there is a good potential that a number of these facilities are
discharging wastes illegally.
The groundwater discharge permit program is a very powerful yet under
utilized groundwater protection tool. This program permits the regulators
to provide businesses with the incentives, through permit issuance and
denial, to change improper waste-disposal practices. Currently, DEQE's
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) does not have adequate resourc-
es to aggressively implement this program and pursue the existing backlog,
as well as investigate cases in wellhead-protection areas. Thus, a host
of commercial businesses that may be discharging industrial wastes direct-
ly to septic systems in close proximity to public-supply wells are being
neglected. DWPC staff should utilize existing data, referrals, local BOH
priorities and wellhead-protection area boundaries to target their inspec-
tions and enforcement activities.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 62
Control of Underground Storage Tanks
As highlighted in the "Findings" Section and Tables 6.2, 6.3, and 6.7,
the potential for groundwater pollution from petroleum products in ZOC #1
is a major continuing threat. Strong protective measures are crucial for
preventing future contamination incidents.
The Department of Public Safety regulations provide the overall frame-
work for tank control in Massachusetts. However, these regulations do not
address the problem of tanks in close proximity to public-supply wells,
control of aging tanks, and control of exempted residential fuel oil
tanks. The Barastable County Health and Environment Department recommends
that Cape Cod towns adopt its model bylaw to fill in some of these program
gaps. This model bylaw requires tank registration, tightness testing for
USTS exempt under the state regulations, and mandatory UST removal after
30 years.
State regulations place primary UST responsibility with the local fire
districts. Barnstable has several fire districts which are under the
control of each district as well as a local bylaw which gives some authori-
ty over USTs to the BOH. The appointment of an UST coordinator could
alleviate some of the resulting fragmentation. Such an individual could
provide a leadership role at the local level and encourage data sharing
and utilization in land use decision making.
6.6 Conclusions
Several changes in groundwater management, at all levels of govern-
ment, must take place before a wellhead-protection approach can be fully
institutionalized. Data must be maintained in an easily usable form and
should be utilized by decision makers in all programs affecting groundwa-
ter quality, especially those involved with local zoning and land-use
planning. There must be improved coordination of-information, program
responsibilities, and enforcement between and among levels of government.
The results of such coordination are documented in the success of the
hazardous waste manifest program. These changes will require new commit-
ment and effort from all involved agencies. The results will lead to a
strong and focused groundwater management program.
The results of this study document the high risk posed to groundwater
by existing land uses. Protection of a highly developed zone, such as the
Barnstable ZOC #1, must focus on implementation of programs regulating
existing activities and on increased monitoring of groundwater quality.
Less developed zones may be afforded protection through sound land-use
planning. Even with strong groundwater controls in place, it is possible
that the wells in ZOC #1 might become contaminated in the future. While
the groundwater management goal is to prevent contamination, it is possi-
ble that wellhead treatment of contaminants may have to be considered in
the future.
CCAMP observed that management of the major threats to the resource is
limited by poor program implementation and a lack of communication between
-------
CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS .MAT.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 63
and among different levels of government. The Groundwater Discharge Per-
mit Program was identified as a program requiring improved
implementation. However, none of the regulatory programs examined were in
full compliance with their requirements.
The inventory results indicate that responsibilities for comprehensive
groundwater protection fall primarily on localities. Local bylaws, regu-
lating underground storage tanks and toxic materials storage, were found
to be critical in filling the regulatory gaps of state programs and main-
taining an awareness within the community of the need for groundwater
protection. These new responsibilities will increase the strain on exist-
ing resources. However, regional planning agencies and the state may
relieve this strain by coordinating with local governments, providing
technical assistance and strengthening existing programs. RPAs have the
opportunity to play an active role in coordinating hazardous-waste dispos-
al and in encouraging joint management of wellhead-protection areas which
cross town boundaries.
-------
CHAPTER 7
INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Introduction
The Institutions Committee examined regulatory and non-regulatory
programs that impact groundwater quality. The Committee examined laws,
regulations, and policies and their implementation in the study area.
Officials from a variety of different agencies and boards were interviewed
for essential background information. The Committee also drew on the
results of the land-use study (see Chapter 6) for information on program
implementation. Using these sources and the knowledge and diverse experi-
ence of the committee members, recommendations were made to strengthen the
protection afforded to groundwater within existing programs and to improve
program consistency and coordination among levels of government.
The full text of each set of recommendations is contained within the
Appendix. These cover the following topics:
Water Supply Planning
Landfills
Private Wells
Underground Storage Tanks
Septage and Sludge
Septic Systems
Construction Grants
Groundwater Discharge Permits
Groundwater Classification
Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Pesticides
Refer to each recommendation for a detailed discussion on each of the
above topics. This chapter will present only the main points.
7.2 CCAMP Recommendations for Improved Program Implementation
7.2.1 Water-Supply Planning (See Appendix H)
CCAMP participants identified a critical need to coordinate and better
understand the relationships between water-supply planning and waste water
planning at the local and state levels. In attempting to site a waste wa-
ter treatment plant, it is essential that both the town and the DEQE under-
stand the relationship of the proposed site to both current and future
water supplies, and ensure that actions taken will not interfere with long-
term water supply development. Many municipalities have not adequately
planned for their future water supply needs. This is an absolutely crit-
ical first step in any groundwater management program or in any attempt at
land-use planning.
For the most part, water-supply planning is absent in towns that cur-
rently have no public-water supplies. These towns rely solely on private
wells and therefore do not have the knowledgeable water-supply personnel
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 65
to articulate the need for this kind of planning and initiate action. DEQE
should initiate an aggressive outreach and loan program to promote water
supply planning in towns with no public water through planning grants and
greater technical assistance. DEQE/DWS should also set up a grant program
for assistance to communities for Zone II delineation. Finally, DWS
should utilize the new source approval process to educate local officials
on Zone II protection and to exert some control on inappropriate land uses
in these areas.
7.2.2 Enhanced Groundwater Protection in Landfill Programs
(See Appendix I)
CCAMP reviewed landfills at a time when the DEQE Solid Waste Program
was emerging from four years of limited staffing and low program ranking.
As a result, protecting groundwater from landfill leachate and incorporat-
ing a groundwater protection strategy within the overall solid-waste pro-
gram was woefully lacking at the state level, where primary regulatory
authority lies. Particularly troublesome was the inadequate or nonexist-
ent groundwater monitoring at landfill sites. Key CCAMP recommendations
for landfills include:
o Impacts to public- and private-water supplies should be the first
priority of DEQE's landfill management program. A prioritized
ranking system should be established and implemented to drive all
landfill activities: siting, plan review, monitoring, inspection,
capping, closure and enforcement.
o No landfills should be sited in Zone Us of public water supplies.
Existing landfills in Zone Us should be phased out as soon as
possible.
o DEQE should establish a well-defined, comprehensive landfill
monitoring program. All landfills in the state should be required to
install adequate groundwater-monitoring systems.
o DEQE and local authorities should develop a workable system for
sharing information and data on all groundwater monitoring conducted
at landfills to better assess threats to drinking water supplies.
7.2.3 Private Wells (See Appendix J)
Following an evaluation of the needs to protect private wells in the
towns of Barnstable and Eastham, CCAMP recommended that both county and
state agencies immediately take steps to develop guidance documents for use
by homeowners and local officials for the protection of this resource.
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 66
At a minimum, information should be provided as:
o An information brochure for use by private well owners. This
document should be developed by the Barnstable County Health and
Environment Department and the Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission.
o A guidance document for use by local boards of health and other
appropriate boards. This document should be developed by DEQE and
include such information as model bylaws, a techical appendix of
useful information such as geological and chemical factors
affecting private-well-supply protection.
7.2.4 Underground Storage Tanks (See Appendix K)
CCAMP found that underground storage tanks (USTs) are one of the most
serious, and most prevalent threats to groundwater quality on Cape Cod.
The major problems observed were the large number of aging, leak-prone
tanks and the large number of tanks in close proximity to private- and
public-water supplies. Local communities must utilize land-use controls,
UST bylaws or aquifer protection district zoning to discourage USTs in
sensitive well recharge areas. In addition, towns must adopt bylaws to
protect and inventory all tanks including those exempt from the
registration and testing requirements of the state regulations. To
coordinate the town program and ensure that tank data is shared and
utilized, municipalities should appoint an UST coordinator. The state
must provide guidance on tank cleaning and disposal. All levels of
government have important roles to play in providing sorely needed public
education.
7.2.5 Septage and Sludge Management (See Appendix L)
Cape Cod has a very serious septage management problem that is jeopar-
dizing groundwater quality from one end of the peninsula to the other.
Progress toward establishing long-term septage treatment facilities has
been very limited for over a decade. Currently, 69 percent of the septage
generated on the Cape is disposed of in septage pits or lagoons that do
not afford adequate treatment before the waste is returned to groundwater.
DEQE should continue to bring enforcement action against these illegal
disposal areas. This will encourage towns to plan for their future sep-
tage-disposal needs. EPA, DEQE and regional planning agencies must cooper-
ate to encourage regional solutions to septage disposal problems. Planned
regional facilities should then receive the full attention of the con-
struction grants staff through a "fast track" process which expedites
projects.
A Residuals Unit was recently created within DEQE to work on issues
involving septage and sludge disposal. CCAMP applauds this as recognition
of an area that has been neglected statewide for years. This Unit should
be given the appropriate resources to deal with residuals issues in a
comprehensive way. In particular, the Department must develop, as soon as
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 67
possible, a sludge management program and must examine the issues involv-
ing the composting of septage sludge.
7.2.6 Septic Systems (See Appendix L)
The State should actively pursue amending Title 5 of the State Environ-
mental Code which governs septic systems to enable more effective regula-
tion of contaminants that are not being adequately addressed, particularly
nitrogen and synthetic organic compounds. Special emphasis must be placed
on conducting the necessary research so that adequate guidelines can be
developed for the proper siting of septic systems relative to private
wells, surface water bodies and wetlands. Management of Title 5 at the
local level requires substantial improvement. Health agents and boards of
health must upgrade the level of expertise for program administration, in
addition to adding more staff. DEQE should provide yearly training in the
Title 5 program, and ultimately devote one position in each regional of-
fice to serve as a coordinator and technical assistance liaison.
7.2.7 Construction Grants (See Appendix M)
The Massachusetts DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) has
primary responsibility for granting funds to construct wastewater treat-
ment plants, as well as determining the acceptability of the chosen loca-
tion, and the level of treatment required. This is especially difficult
on Cape Cod because all supply wells are groundwater fed and any land
discharge must consider possible impacts. Furthermore, state law (the
Ocean Sanctuaries Act) prohibits any new discharges to the waters surround-
ing Cape Cod. The construction grants process must respond to the serious
environmental problems on the Cape by putting more effort into the facili-
ties planning phase and working more closely with the towns and the con-
sultants to move the program along. RPAs should become directly involved
in working with towns to promote regional solutions. The local governments
themselves must take more of a leadership role in working to solve their
communities' wastewater-management problems.
7.2.8 Groundwater Discharge Permits (See Appendix M)
DEQE's Groundwater Discharge Permit Program, administered by the DWPC,
regulates ground discharges of domestic wastewater greater than 15,000 gpd
and industrial discharges to the ground in any quantity. It has the poten-
tial to be an extremely powerful groundwater protection program but it has
been underutilized by DEQE and lacks the resources to carry out its mis-
sion. As a result, numerous sources of domestic and industrial groundwa-
ter discharges remain unregulated on Cape Cod. Entire categories of small
businesses may be discharging toxic contaminants to septic systems illegal-
ly. DEQE must considerably increase the resources available to this pro-
gram for regulating these commercial and industrial waste discharges.
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 68
Local boards of health can be very helpful in identifying for the
state the businesses and land-use activities that are discharging toxic
and hazardous materials without a permit. This is especially important if
they are within the recharge area of a public supply well. The towns
should inventory all potential sources of contamination (i.e.. categories
of businesses or land-use activities that use or produce especially harm-
ful chemicals) within wellhead protection areas to assure they are ade-
qately controlled. This will serve as an important complement to the
state program.
7.2.9 Groundwater Classification (See Appendix M)
DEQE's groundwater classification system is incomplete without the
inclusion of a limited anti-degradation provision within vulnerable
groundwater-recharge areas. The Department should actively pursue this
policy change. In addition, CCAMP supports the stringent review process
for the designation of Class III (degraded) areas and would oppose efforts
to weaken the current procedures. Finally, classification and permit
determinations made by the Division of Water Pollution Control should
elicit the comments of the Division of Water Supply to ensure a thorough
review of possible impacts to current and future water supplies.
7.2.10 Hazardous Materials Use and Storage (See Appendix N)
The large and growing number of businesses that generate small quanti-
ties of hazardous waste on Cape Cod, coupled with the vulnerability of the
aquifer system, make aggressive regulation of the use, storage and dispos-
al of hazardous materials a priority. Fully embracing a comprehensive
approach to hazardous-waste management and resource protection will neces-
sitate broad management changes. As a first step towards change, CCAMP
developed recommendations aimed at improving groundwater protection by
increasing the emphasis in hazardous waste regulation and focusing on
prevention, planning, education and coordination among state, regional and
local levels.
To encourage compliance from small-waste generators, DEQE must look
beyond its strictly defined regulatory role and coordinate with Department
of Environmental Managment (DEM) and its Office of Safe Waste Management
(OSWM) to engage in outreach, education and planning. The state should
provide technical assistance to small businesses and should encourage and
fund regional agencies to sponsor outreach programs,
hazardous-waste-collection routes, and household-waste collections. The
state should also ensure that attention is focused on waste exchange,
source reduction and the creation of economic incentives or markets for
hazardous waste.
DEQE should initiate a pilot program in the Southeast Regional Office
to conduct facility inspections jointly across DHW and DWPC programs.
This approach would foster more efficient and environmentally sound busi-
ness practices. An operator would consider the various components of his
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 69
waste stream as a whole and try to reduce the waste generated and then
dispose of it properly in a cost-effective manner.
Many towns do not have available resources or expertise to develop
programs to inspect local businesses using hazardous materials. The Barn-
stable County Health and Environment Department (BCHED) should procure
funding for regional inspectors specializing in hazardous materials to
loan to those towns in need, as is currently practiced with county sanitar-
ians .
All levels of government have a role to play in ensuring that private
wells are tested for synthetic organics in high risk areas where contamin-
ation is suspected. BCHED and CCPEDC should cooperate in identifying high
risk areas on Cape Cod and should design a sampling program to test these
wells on a periodic basis.
7.2.11 Pesticides (See Appendix 0)
At the current time, CCAMP has determined that very little useful
information' is available concerning this class of chemicals related to
specific land-use categories found on Cape Cod.
Despite the absence of data which shows that pesticides pose a
public-health risk from turf management and agricultural use of these
chemicals, it is recommended that more research and information should be
collected by appropriate federal, state and county agencies, including:
o Environmental fate (mobility) studies of commonly used pesticides
o Rank pesticides according to their environmental fate and toxicity
and review all registrations on the basis of this information.
o Determine the toxicity of pesticides alone or in combination to
determine the synergistic effects of two or more chemicals.
o Increase the visibility of the The Department of Food and
Agriculture's Pesticide Bureau, the state's regultory enforcement
agency, through the development of regional offices.
o Implement a program to spot check private wells for pesticides in
common use.
o Continue the interagency task force to coordinate response to
water-supply and public-health issues.
In the absence of this information and the proposed agency activities
to implement changes, it will be important to implement these recommen-
dations as necessary first steps before any local, state, or federal
programs can develop the necessary bylaws, policies, or regulations for
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 70
protecting the environment and public health. The highly permeable
geological conditions which favor the mobility of these potential
contaminants requires that we all exercise due caution and control for
mitigating any environmental- and public-health impacts that may arise
from the use of these chemicals.
7.2.12 Road Salt
Elevated sodium concentrations are a major concern on Cape Cod. One
public-supply well has been closed recently due to contamination from road
salt use on a nearby highway. When CCAMP examined the topic of road salt
in the winter of 1986-1987, the Department of Public Works announced a new
policy for Cape Cod. Out of concern for public-water supplies, the
Department of Public Works reduced the salt content of its road deicing
mixture (4:1 sand to salt ratio instead of a 1:1 ratio) for state highways
on Cape Cod with two heavily traveled exceptions. CCAMP applauds this
policy change but believes that it should also be accompanied"by a sodium
monitoring program to document the impact of salt reduction on public-
-supply wells.
7.3 Appropriate Roles for Different Levels of Government
CCAMP initiated its study of this topic with the concern that all
levels of government must better coordinate their groundwater protection
efforts. At its conclusion, this same belief was even more firmly
entrenched.
Groundwater is a particularly difficult resource to protect because of
the number and variety of sources of potential contamination threats.
Equally varied are the array of groundwater related regulations, laws,
policies, land-use controls, and bylaws in effect to control groundwater
contamination. No single level of government has full control over all of
the sources of groundwater contamination. EPA estimated at the outset of
the CCAMP project, that its programs address only one-third of the possi-
ble sources of groundwater contamination nationwide. The states and local
governments cannot claim full authority over groundwater protection ei-
ther. Clearly, coordinating the efforts at the federal, state, regional
and local levels is the key to a comprehensive protection program. This
must be done so that each level of government is charged with those respon-
sibilities it is .most capable of implementing. Table 7.1 lists and
summarizes the major findings of the most appropriate groundwater
protection responsibilities for each level of government.
7.3.1 Federal Role
The federal role in the protection of environmental resources involves
a variety of activities including regulation, research, standard setting,
technical assistance and funding. Unlike other media EPA regulates, there
is no single statute which provides comprehensive authority over groundwa-
ter. The Wellhead Protection Program established with the passage of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1986 provides EPA with the first
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 71
TABLE 7.1
KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS
SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS
LOCAL LEVEL
1. Utilize - Discourage the
resource- based location of USTS in
approach to wellhead protection
groundwater areas (UHPs);
management replace old
tanks in these
areas.
- Plan for future
water supplies;
adopt zoning bylaws
to protect areas
for future supplies
REGIONAL LEVEL
- RPAs should encour-
age joint manage-
ment of UHPs cross-
ing town boundaries
- RPAs should desig-
nate regional areas
of critical plan-
ning concern (such
as WHPs) and com-
ment on proposed
development in
these areas.
STATE LEVEL
- Provide loans to
conmunities for
delineating wellhead
areas
- Specify stricter
construction standards
for USTS and piping in
UHPs
- No new landfills in
UHPs
UHPs should guide "
enforcement priorities
for DEQE programs
DEQE should provide
technical assistance
and loans for public
water supply planning
FEDERAL LEVEL
- EPA should provide
guidance on manage-
ment of UHPs.
- USGS should con-
tinue its detailed
study of ground-
water resources and
disseminate results
widely
- EPA programs (RCRA,
UIC, Construction
Grants, UST) should
set program prior-
ities within UHPs
- EPA should strength
en protection
conferred by Sole
Source Aquifer
status
2. Inadequate
groundwater
monitoring at
landfills
- Towns should
examine current
monitoring at
landfill for
adequacy.
- Should initiate
landfill monitoring
programs.
- Should test private
wells near
landfills.
Encourage towns to
develop monitoring
programs and pro-
vide technical
information
County lab on Cape
tests water qual-
ity near landfills
if town requests
DEQE should develop
landfill monitoring
protocol and standards
in new regulations.
Should aggressively
enforce.
Tie monitoring
requirements to
expansion requests
EPA initiated
landfill monitoring
program at 4 Cape
landfills-tested
monitoring wells
and private wells
for VOCs, metals
and nitrogen ser-
ies; EPA should
continue with this
type of assistance
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 72
SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS
TABLE 7.1
KEY CCAHP RECOMMENDATIONS
LOCAL LEVEL
REGIONAL LEVEL
STATE LEVEL
FEDERAL LEVEL
3. Inadequate - Towns should have a Technical assist-
plaming for water study ance to coimnunities
future water committee on water supply
supply needs - Towns on public or planning
private water - RPAs should foster
should identify cooperation between
future sites for towns on management
public wells of shared Zone Us
- Towns should have a - Model Aquifer Pro-
master plan tec t ion District
- Towns should do a Bylaw
build-out analysis
and population
projections for
water planning
- Towns should map
wells, Zone Us,
waste sources,
future wells, etc.
- Adopt aquifer pro-
tection bylaw to
protect present and
and future water
needs
- Should charge true
cost of water; use
revenues for water
planning and
protection.
- DEQE should initiate
outreach and loan
program targeted to
towns dependent on
private wells that
will need public
supplies.
- Provide funding to
these towns for water
studies
- Provide adequate
incentives to. towns
for completion of
water resource plans
(i.e. grant
eligibility)
- DEQE should initiate a
grant program to
assist towns in Zone
II delineation
- State should require
planning before zoning
- DEQE should require
appropriate protection
measures for Zone Us
for new source
approvals
- EPA should include
water supply plan-
ning as part of
studies funded by
201 wastewater
planning monies
where necessary
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 73
TABLE 7.1
KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS
SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS
4. Inadequate
expertise at
local level to
carry out
technical
programs
including
Title 5, water
supply plan-
ning, and
inspections of
toxic and
hazardous
materials use,
etc.
5. Private wells
are not
afforded
adequate
protection
(See «)
LOCAL LEVEL
- Towns should hire
adequately trained
staff or share
staff with neigh-
boring towns
- Towns should
collect permit fees
to be used to hire
staff
- Control well con-
struction, instal-
lation, abandonment
- Encourage testing
of private wells
- Review Title 5
setbacks for dis-
tances from septic
tanks and wells
REGIONAL LEVEL
- RPAs should educate
local officials and
provide training
and technical
assistance
- RPAs should conduct
workshops for towns
on technical issues
- BCHED should con-
sider hiring
trained inspectors
to be lent to towns
as needed for
inspections of
businesses using
hazardous materials
- County laboratory
should continue to
provide low-cost
testing of private
wells
- RPA should develop
educational bro-
chure for well
owners
- RPA should identify
private wells in
vulnerable areas
(i.e. near land-
fills) that should
be tested
- CCPEDC and BCHED
should initiate a
testing program for
these wells
STATE LEVEL
- State should increase
technical assistance
provided to towns
- DEQE should cooperate
more with BOHs and
provide locals more
enforcement support
- Develop educational
materials
_- ECCD should expand its
incentive aid program
which pays for one or
more towns to hire
planners
- DEQE should develop
guidelines and a model
bylaw for well
construction,
installation and
abandonment
- Revise Title 5 setback
requi rements
FEDERAL LEVEL
- EPA should continue
to target some
federal monies to
the regional level
for technical
assistance efforts
- EPA and USGS should
develop educational
materials
- EPA and USGS should
research effect of
septic systems on
private wells
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 74
TABLE 7.1
KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS
SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS
6. Large
number of
aging
underground
storage tanks
in close
proximity
to public
water
supplies
7. Rapid growth
rate on Cape
Cod leading
to high
nitrogen
loading and
other
problems
LOCAL LEVEL
- Inventory and map
tanks
- Utilize land use con-
trols to discourage
new tanks in Zone Us
- Appoint UST -
coordinator
- Adopt UST bylaw to
regulate fuel oil
tanks and encourage
removal of tanks at
specified age
- Do build out analysis
- Utilize CCAMP nitrogen
loading formula in
planning reviews to
calculate future
nitrate concentration
at wellhead
- Zone to ensure concen-
trations will not
exceed planning goal
of 5 rog/L.
- Require Title 5 appli-
cants to demonstrate
that goal will not be
exceeded
- If needed, restrict
fertilizer use
- Towns should consider
phasing growth so
infrastructure needs
can be met
REGIONAL LEVEL
- Educate local of-
icials and public
- Transmit research
findings to local
level
- BCHED assistance
program for tank
inventory
- Model UST bylaw
- Technical assist-
ance to communities
on nitrogen loading
formula application
- RPA should develop
regional growth
plan; local plans
should be consist-
ent
STATE LEVEL
- State should clarify
existing policies on
tank cleaning and
disposal
- Require stricter con-
struction standards
for tanks and piping
in Zone Us.
- Develop educational
materials
- State should require
planning for future
water supplies before
zoning
- Require discharge
permit applicants
(>15,000 gpd) to
demonstrate <=5 mg/L
nitrate cone, at well
- Revise Title 5 to
incorporate density
factor in the
calculation
- Encourage/fund
wastewater treatment
facilities with
advanced levels of
treatment
FEDERAL LEVEL
- Provide educational
materials
- Relay info on
successful state
and local programs
- Research new tank
construction and
other technologies
- Research causes of
tank f ai lure or
leakage
- Sponsor research on
denitrification
technologies
- Encourage/fund 201
facilities with
advanced levels of
treatment for
ground discharges
within sole source
aquifers
- USGS should con-
tinue to research
the relationships
between land use
and nitrate loading
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report
Page 75
TABLE 7.1
KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS
SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS
LOCAL LEVEL
8. Small - Ensure proper drain
commercial design and appropriate
businesses DEQE permit before
with potential allowing building
impact on occupancy
water supplies - Conduct an inventory
are not of these businesses
adequately by town; concentrate
controlled. in Zone Us for towns
on public water
- Enforce pretreatment
requirements in
sewered areas.
- Adopt toxics bylaws
- Inspect facilities;
educate owners;
enforce bylaws
- Hire professional
staff
REGIONAL LEVEL
- Technical assist-
ance to Boards of
Health (BOH)
- Model toxics bylaw
- Organize registra-
tion of Small Quan-
tity Generators
- Coordinate hazard-
ous-waste
collections
STATE LEVEL
- DEQE should dras-
tically increase
enforcement of
groundwater discharge
permit program
- Develop joint DHW/DUPC
inspection program to
look at waste stream
as a whole.
- Provide guidance to
BOHs on alternatives
to floor drains
- Utilize Zone II
boundaries to set
inspection priorities
- Develop a strong state
source reduction pro-
gram
- DEQE DHu/DSw and DEM
OSWM should engage in
outreach, education,
and planning
FEDERAL LEVEL
- EPA should research
cumulative risk to
water supplies from
a number of small
sources.
- USGS should enter
into cooperative
programs for hydro-
geological research
on risk associated
with these sources
- EPA should conduct
research on
non- hazardous
product substi-
tution and source
reduction
9. Numerous
septage
pits and
lagoons
contaminating
groundwater
across the
Cape (See *5)
- Towns should have a
waste water study
committee to ensure
future needs are
met
- Should pursue a
long-term solution
(e.g. septage treat-
ment plant)
- Coordinate with
neighboring
communities
RPA should
encourage intertown
cooperation towards
regional solutions
Should transmit new
research results to
towns
DEQE should continue
aggressive enforcement
against illegal pits
and lagoons
Should ensure prompt
consideration of above
town's 201 construct-
ion grant
applications
Improve coordination
with towns throughout
grants process
Promote regional
solutions
Should research
impacts of septage
effluent
EPA should continue
to provide partial
funding for
construction of
septage treatment-
facilities
EPA should ensure
grant ranking
systems to ade-
quately consider
groundwater threats
USGS and EPA should
conduct research on
new technologies
and on groundwater
contamination from
septage
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 76
real opportunity to approach groundwater protection in a comprehensive
manner. The federal role in this program is one of providing a framework
and guidance to states and localities on the comprehensive management of
wellhead areas. Wellhead protection provides a new challenge and opportu-
nity for EPA to look at its own programs as well as to encourage comprehen-
sive resource based management at other levels of government.
7.3.2 State Role
With no comprehensive groundwater protection program at the federal
level, states have historically taken the initiative for developing and
implementing their own groundwater protection programs. The Commonwealth
of Massachusetts has developed a particularly aggressive approach to
groundwater protection; characterized by a combination of regulatory con-
trols and an emphasis on Zone II delineation and protection. Because of
its major responsibilities, the state, particularly DEQE, bore the brunt
of the majority of CCAMP's recommendations. At DEQE, as at EPA, the his-
toric emphasis on surface water over ground water is evident, particularly
in the Division of Water Pollution Control where a number of CCAMP's recom-
mendations took particular aim. Other programs such as that for landfills
also do not have groundwater concerns fully integrated into their program
purpose and scope. It is hoped that through this across-the-board examina-
tion of groundwater issues, DEQE will pursue a comprehensive, agency-wide,
groundwater program.
7.-3.3 Regional Role
In Massachusetts, as in much of New England, county government has
been limited by its lack of authority. On Cape Cod, the CCPEDC and BCHED
fostered a strong local interest in groundwater protection, and managed to
play a particularly important role in filling the gap between programs at
the state and local levels. While lacking any enforcement authority,
these two agencies managed to provide public education, laboratory resourc-
es and a variety of other technical services to towns. CCAMP has identi-
fied this regional role as extremely important and one that should be
strengthened in bridging the state-local gap.
7.3.4 Local Role
The critical land-use decisions, with long-term implications for
groundwater protection are made at the local level. Municipalities in
Massachusetts, with a strong tradition of home rule have virtually com-
plete control over local land use and zoning. Consequently, communities
have particularly effective tools available to them that must be utilized
more aggressively for future planning. Technical assistance, enforcement
support, and educational outreach from other levels of government are
desperately needed by local boards. Most importantly, towns must hire
professional staff. Towns must also develop a master plan with consistent
zoning for the protection of future water supply needs. See Appendix P
for a discussion which outlines a planning process for use by towns to
protect groundwater.
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 77
7.4 General Observations/Conclusions
7.4.1 Local Abilities
During the course of this project, CCAMP members have observed a clear
lack of ability at the local level to adequately manage the intense devel-
opment pressures created by overwhelming Capewide growth. The current
institutional framework that leaves municipalities with the principal res-
ponsibility for making well-informed and effective land-use decisions is
not working. Poorly sited and inappropriate land uses, whether landfills,
septage lagoons, underground storage tanks or local businesses that util-
ize hazardous materials, threaten fragile groundwater supplies in all 15
Cape towns. This is compounded by the fact that groundwater resources and
contamination sources do not respect town boundaries, as sources of contam-
ination in one town are often found in the wellhead protection area of
another town's water supply.
7.4.2 Lack of Comprehensive Land-Use Planning
Most Cape towns have allowed zoning determinations to precede planning
decisions and now are facing the consequences of haphazard growth. By not
first considering and identifying the resources for protection, towns have
allowed zoning to proceed blindly with no master plan for resource protec-
tion. One of the best examples is the Town of Barnstable, where commer-
cial zoning for its industrial park was established over the prime re-
charge area for several of its major public water supplies. Like Barn-
stable, most Cape towns have allowed zoning to proceed independently of
protecting present and future water supplies. Unfortunately, this has put
most Cape towns in the untenable position of being "programmed" for growth
and beyond the capacity of their environmental infrastructure. Although
much work has taken place recently to alter zoning through the establish-
ment of groundwater-protection districts, this often results in a "catch
up" effort that must deal with existing, non-compatible land uses.
Further impediments to comprehensive planning are the Massachusetts
Zoning Act (Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 40A) and the Sub-
division Control Law (MGL Chapter 41) which make it very difficult for
municipalities to change their zoning to reflect the recent environmental
awareness and need to protect groundwater. A two-thirds vote at a Town
Meeting is required to adopt or change a zoning bylaw. This process is
extremely difficult due to the strength that special interests can
generate at a Town Meeting. It has forced several Cape towns into
promulgating public-health regulations (which do not require a town
meeting) that establish specific resource protection measures in
particular areas and situations. This Zoning Act contains many time
clocks that place an undue burden on planning boards as they attempt to
introduce zoning articles at Town Meeting. Most articles are defeated on
a strictly procedural basis.
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 78
The Zoning Act also contains "grandfather" provisions that undermine
attempts to make local zoning consistent with groundwater protection dis-
tricts. The most severe is an eight year "grandfather" period allowed for
subdivision plans. This permits a project up to eight years to be con-
structed under zoning bylaws in effect at the time plans were submitted.
Despite the obvious problems with the Zoning Act, previous attempts to
change it have usually resulted in a lengthening of the "grandfather"
period rather than the reduction planners had sought.
7.4.3 Dear.th of Technical Expertise at the Local Level
Most Cape Cod towns are severely handicapped in their efforts to
implement local regulatory programs to protect groundwater because they
lack the necessary personnel with the requisite technical expertise. Half
the towns do not employ town planners and several do not maintain
full-time health agents. Due to the wide range of disciplines required of
any one town employee, even the towns that retain planners and health
agents are hard-pressed to deal expertly with the many complex
environmental issues. Technical expertise and professional staff are
needed not only for planning and for implementation of Title 5 for on-site
septage disposal but also to control a host of other land-use activities
as briefly described in Chapter 6.
Many land uses are judged inappropriate for federal or state regula-
tion because they are often too small to detect or too numerous to en-
force. These activities must then be-managed by local agencies or go
unregulated. A graphic example are the numerous discharges that require
state groundwater discharge permits, but have gone unregulated by an under-
staffed DEQE (see Appendix M and Chapter 6, section 6.5.2). The towns are
thus on their own in attempting to regulate such things as: small-scale
storage and disposal of hazardous substances; the siting and regulation of
many commercial-land-use activities potentially harmful to groundwater
quality; and high-density development in groundwater recharge areas. In
sum, most land uses on Cape Cod fall outside the regulatory framework
established by the lead state and federal regulatory agencies.
7.4.4 Importance of Technical Assistance
There are a wealth of talented professionals working in state, feder-
al, and regional agencies who should extend their abilities to local gov-
ernment through outreach efforts. It is essential that DEQE, DEM and EPA
develop and enhance programs that serve to educate and assist local
land-use planners and managers. The USGS is also invaluable in its role
of transferring technical information for utilization at the local level.
Regional planning agencies such as CCPEDC are ideally suited to serve as
conduits between state and federal agencies and the local level. Such an
outreach effort would ensure that information is conveyed properly and
delivered to the appropriate agency or board. Many of CCAMP's
recommendations (Appendices H-0) contain specific suggestions concerning
outreach in various areas.
-------
Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 79
7.4.5 Creation of a Regional Land-Use Regulatory Agency
The current institutional framework that leaves municipalities with
the principal responsibility for making well-informed decisions and
effective land-use decisions is not working. Transferring good technical
information to the local level is very important, but it only represents a
partial solution. A truly comprehensive approach that treats groundwater
as a regional resource and goes beyond the planning stage, is also
required.
The creation of a regional land-use agency with the necessary regulato-
ry authority to help manage the ongoing land-use crisis on Cape Cod is a
viable approach. Such a regulatory body would serve to better control
land uses, and hence more fully protect groundwater. The major features
of such an approach include the following: (1) solidly-based comprehensive
planning would be mandated Capewide, treating groundwater as a regional
resource that does not respect town boundaries; (2) the State Zoning Act
and Subdivision Law that heavily favor development interests would be
tempered, primarily through neutralization of "groundwater" provisions;
(3) technical expertise would be centralized at the regional level and
would be utilized more efficiently and consistently to supplement local
technical deficiencies in the development of scientifically-based groundwa-
ter protection rules.
The Cape Cod Commission. Special state legislation has been proposed
for Cape Cod that would create a regional land-use regulatory agency
called the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), under the auspices of CCPEDC. It
evolved through a "grass roots" effort called "Prospect: Cape Cod" that
sought to envision what the Cape should be like five years from now
(CCPEDC, 1987). The CCC is modelled after the Martha's Vineyard
Commission, an existing regional land-use regulatory body. Borrowing from
the Vineyard example, the CCC would retain authority over Districts of
Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) and Developments of Regional Impact
(DRI). DCPCs are designated areas that require special protection because
of their public-health, ecological, recreational, historical, cultural, or
aesthetic value and importance. Using a groundwater example, this would
allow the regional body to regulate projects within zones of contribution
to public supply wells (which would most likely be designated as DCPCs).
DRIs are developments that should be reviewed by the regional authority
due to their greater-than-local impact. An example of this could be a
proposed waste water treatment plant in one town, that would affect
private wells in an adjacent town.
-------
CHAPTER 8
PROJECT EVALUATION
The success of the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project must continue
to be evaluated in the coming years as the implementation of many of the
project's recommendations proceeds. Experience with the methods suggested
by CCAMP will shed light on their effectiveness. However, at this point
it may be useful to others contemplating cooperative groundwater projects
in the future to discuss some observations.
CCAMP was successful in two major ways:
1. Specific cooperative projects aimed at demonstrating or investi-
gating groundwater protection methodologies (CIS project, land
use study, nitrate loading model, etc.).
2. An institutional examination of groundwater protection which led
to the development of detailed recommendations to strengthen
groundwater protection at all levels of government.
CCAMP's mission was broad - to develop new ways of protecting groundwa-
ter based on the characteristics of the resource itself. Such a charge
necessarily involves the two aspects discussed above, but integrating
these approaches in a single project can be difficult, as is meshing the
goals of different agencies.
CCAMP's committees each had a long learning curve, first beginning to
identify issues for their examination. While it would have been effective
and would have improved project integration if a central committee had
identified key issues and defined project goals at the outset, the process
of education and issue identification was an extremely valuable one. It
also would have been helpful to sequence work assignments with the Aquifer
Assessment Committee for initiating the project and to identify key issues
and information needs for the Data Management Group. The Institutions
Committee would then have had the work of these two groups to draw on in
its examination of the institutional deficiencies in groundwater
protection.
The project was an extensive one for one full-time person and commit-
tee members, all with competing work commitments, to undertake. A core
group of full-time staff, one from each agency and an intern, reporting to
the committees, would have increased the ability to investigate issues and
develop solutions in a shorter time period. A project manager with the
responsibility to direct the project and make key decisions would also
have helped. The lack of money for research also added uncertainty to the
group's agenda but CCAMP was able to find money for special efforts such
as the CIS project or the wellhead-protection guide.
CCAMP still requires a well conceived implementation strategy for its
recommendations. Each agency is now handling the implementation of the
recommendations dealing with its own policies. CCPEDC is responsible for
-------
CHAPTER 8: PROJECT EVALUATION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 81
transmitting many of the local recommendations to Cape communities and has
begun to pursue CCAMP findings through work with the towns of Chatham,
Truro and Provincetown. But no standard exists for measuring the success
of implementation efforts and no timetables have been set. Implementation
is an absolutely critical piece of this project; a clear implementation
strategy should have been developed at the project's initiation.
One of CCAMP's most important, least tangible, successes was in initi-
ating a joint, interagency, multi-level approach to groundwater protec-
tion. Each agency enjoyed real benefits from a close working association
between its staff and those of other agencies in terms of information
exchange, technical support, valuable future contacts, and insights into
another side of a particular issue. Because project participants are
in-house staff, not outside consultants, the institutional knowledge
gained can contribute on an ongoing basis in other areas. These associa-
tions with other agency staff also led to a number of cooperative spin-off
efforts.
While stressing that coordination and communication were key benefits
of the project, it must also be noted that input and participation from
the local level was insufficient. There should have been regular partici-
pation of CCAMP committees with local officials in other communities on
particular topics. A greater degree of local involvement throughout the
project would also facilitate local implementation of CCAMP recommenda-
tions .
8.1 CCAMP's Future Directions
At the close of the CCAMP project, the emphasis of the participating
agencies will turn towards the implementation of CCAMP's recommendations
and to transmitting project findings to other areas that might benefit.
Agencies should also upgrade the focus in their groundwater programs on
public-outreach and intergovernmental-cooperative efforts based on CCAMP's
observations. There are also a number of issues that CCAMP identified as
important but was not able to address or could not address thoroughly.
These might become the topics of future projects. These include:
1. More work on the relationship between private-well drinking
water quality and septic systems. A methodology should be devel-
oped to protect private wells through siting or other mecha-
nisms .
2. An analysis of the economics of the issues covered by CCAMP.
The costs associated with the implementation of groundwater-protection
programs should be determined. Cost figures would be helpful in weighing
alternative approaches and in appropriately estimating the resources
needed for implementation. A study should also be initiated investigating
-------
CHAPTER 8: PROJECT EVALUATION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 82
the costs and benefits of protective groundwater controls versus both
remediation of contaminated sites and treatment at the wellhead.
While the goal of the CCAMP effort is to protect groundwater and to
avoid the need for remediation and treatment; there will always be cases
where treatment may be a necessity.
8.2 CCAMP's Challenge
The completion of CCAMP's study phase, as described in this final
report and the technical reports and journal articles published elsewhere,
represents the challenge facing CCAMP: the implementation of CCAMP's recom-
mendations. CCAMP has now assembled the facts and has the basis for imple-
menting change at all levels of government for the protection of the
Cape's sole-source aquifer. CCAMP has succeeded in defining its future
goals and in developing the framework for the cooperative interagency
approach that will be necessary to enact these important changes. The
limited resources available to the project for implementing these
recommendations have not changed. It will therefore be necessary for each
CCAMP agency to implement those recommendations that pertain to it and to
work together in coordinating interagency efforts having the highest
priority.
CCAMP's ambitious goal of changing the way federal, state, regional
and local agencies approach groundwater was extremely successful. The
project succeeded in demonstrating that all levels of government can work
together around a common goal. Changes will come slowly. However, a blue
print is now in place for establishing a sound basis for improving the way
each level of government can protect this vital resource.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod. 1985. "Options for Cape
Cod's Future." APCC. Orleans, MA. 150 pp.
Barnstable County Health and Environmental Department. 1984.
Laboratory Data Sheets. BCHED. Barnstable, MA.
Belfit, G.C. 1987. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Land Use
Risks,Impacts on Water Quality and Methods of Analysis." Presented at
American Water Resources Symposium on Monitoring, Modelling and
Mediating Water Quality in Syracuse, N.Y. 14 pp.
Belfit, G.C. 1984. "Septage/Sewage Disposal Practices on Cape Cod:
An Update on Recommendations Made in the Final Water Quality
Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod, 1978." CCPEDC. Barnstable, MA.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP). 1988. "CCAMP Bibliographies:
Publications and Maps." EPA 901/3-88-002. EPA Region Library.
Boston, Ma. 32 pp.
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project. 1988. "A Demonstration of Geologic
Information System for Ground Water Protection". EPA 901/3-88-005
EPA Region 1 Report, Boston, Ma. In Preparation.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC). 1985.
"Housing Construction Excerpt". CCPEDC. Barnstable, Mass.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission. 1984. "Urban
Cape Cod." CCPEDC. Barnstable, Mass.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission. 1985.
"Construction in Barnstable County." CCPEDC. Barnstable, MA.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission. 1978. "Water
Quality Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod. Volume I." CCPEDC.
Barnstable, MA.
Cape Cod Planning and Development Commission. 1987. "Prospect: Cape
Cod 1987 - 1992." CCPEDC. Barnstable, MA.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Water Supply. 1982. "Water Supply
Protection Atlas Handbook." Boston, MA.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Hazardous Waste. 1987. "List of Confirmed
Disposal Sites and Locations to be Investigated," April 15, 1987.
Boston, MA.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 84
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Hazardous Waste. 1987. "List of Confirmed
Disposal Sites and Locations to be Investigated," October 15, 1987.
Boston, MA.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Revenue, Division of
Local Services. 1985. "Guidelines for Classification and Taxation of
Property According to Use: Property Type Classification Codes."
Bureau of Local Assessment. Boston, MA.
Conservation Law Foundation. 1986. "Underground Petroleum Storage
Tanks: Local Regulation of a Ground Water Hazard: A Massachusetts
Prototype." Boston, MA. 106 pp.
Delaney, D. F. and Cotton, J. E. 1972. "Evaluation of proposed
ground-water withdrawal, Cape Cod National Seashore, North Truro,
Massachusetts". U.S. Geological Survey Openfile Report, 76.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water Protection.
1987. "Preliminary Guidance for State Participation in The Wellhead
Protection Program." Washington, D.C. 14 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. 1986. "Understanding the Small Quantity Generator Hazardous
Waste Rules: A Handbook for Small Business." EPA/530-SW-86-019. 32
PP.17.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
1986. "RCRA Orientation Manual." EPA/530-SW-86-001.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. May, 1986.
"Underground Motor Fuel Storage Tanks; A National Survey." Washington,
D.C.
Frimpter, M., Donohue, J. IV, and M. Rapacz. 1988. "A Mass Balance Nitrate
Model for Prediciting Groundwater Quality in Municipal Wellhead
Protection Areas". CCAMP Technical Report. Available from NTIS.
Gallagher, T. and S. Nickerson. 1986. "The Cape Cod Aquifer
Management Project: A Multi-Agency Approach to Ground Water
Protection." In: Proceedings of the Third Eastern Regional Ground Water
Conference. National Water Well Association. Springfield, MA. pp.
116-135.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 85
Gallagher, T. and L. Steppacher. 1987. "Management of Toxic and
Hazardous Materials in a Zone of Contribution on Cape Cod." In:
Proceedings for the Conference on Eastern Regional Groundwater Issues.
Burlington, VT.
Guswa, J. H. and LeBlanc, D. R. 1985. "Digital models of ground-water
flow in the Cape Cod aquifer system, Massachusetts". U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2209, 112 p.
Hoffer, R. 1987. "The Delineation and Management of Wellhead
Protection Areas," Preprint. Presented to American Society of Civil
Engineers. EPA. Washington, D.C.
Horsley, S.W. 1983. "Delineating Zones of Contribution for Public
Supply Wells to Protect Ground Water." Presented at the National Water
Well Association Eastern Regional Conference on Ground Water
Management. Orlando, FL.
Jaffe, M. and F. DiNovo. 1987. "Local Groundwater Protection".
American Planning Association, Chicago, II.
Janik, D. 1987. "The State of the Aquifer Report". Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commission, Barnstable, MA.
LeBlanc, D. R. 1984. "Sewage plume in a sand and gravel aquifer, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts". U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2218, 28 p.
LeBlanc, D.R., Guswa, J.H., Fimpter, M.H., and Londquist, C. J. 1986.
"Ground-water Resources of Cape Cod, Massachusetts: U. S. Geological
Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-692", 4 plates.
Leitner, N. 1987. "Hazardous and Toxic Material Report of Inspection
Findings: August 15, 1986 - February 28, 1987." Barnstable Board of
Health. Barnstable, MA.
Magnusen, P. L. and Strahler, A. N. 1972. "Considerations on proposed
ground-water withdrawal, North Truro, Massachusetts: Barnstable, Mass."
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, 22 p.
McHarg, Ian. 1971. Design With Nature". Doubleday and Co., Garden City,
NY.
National Research Council. 1986. Ground Water Quality Protection:
State and Local Strategies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp.
296.
Nickerson, S. 1986. Local Participation in Regional Ground Water
Management: A Cape Cod Example. In: Proceedings of a National Symposium
on Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control.
Atlanta, GA. pp. 235-249.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page 86
Noake, K. 1988. "Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection".
CCAMP Report. EPA 901/3-88-004. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Oldale, R.N. 1974a. "Geologic Map of the Hyannis Quadrangle Barnstable
County, Cape Cod Massachusetts". U.S. Geological Survey Geologic
Quadrangle Map GQ-1158, scale 1:24000.
Oldale, R.N. 1974b. "Seismic investigations on Cape Cod, Martha's
Vineyard, and Nantucket, Massachusetts, and a topographic map of the
basement surface from Cape Cod to the Islands", In: Geographical
Survey Research 1969. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
650-B. pp. B122-B127.
Oldale, R.N. 1981. "Geologic history of Cape Cod, Massachusetts". U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 23 p.
Oldale, R.N., Koteff, C. and Hartshorn, J.H. 1971. "Geologic map of
the Orleans quadrangle, Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts".
U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle map GQ-931, scale 1:24000.
Olimpio, J., Flynn,. E., and Tso, S. "Assessing Risk to Water Quality at
Public Water-Supply Sites, Cape Cod, Massachusetts". Water Resources
Investigation Report. In Preparation (see Appendix Q)
Persky, J.H. 1986. "The Relation of Ground-Water Quality to Housing
Density, Cape Cod, Massachusetts". U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 86-4093. Boston, MA.
Redlich, S. 1986. "The Community Tank Census: Managing the Risks of
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks." Nashua Regional Planning
Commission. Nashua, NH.
Robinson, M.H. and J.M. Kelly. 1981. "Report on the Town of Barnstable's
Bylaw for the Local Control of Toxic and Hazardous Materials".
Barnstable Board of Health. Barnstable, MA.
Ryan, J. 1980. Cape Cod Aquifer. Cape Cod Massachusetts. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations 80-571. Boston, MA.
SEA Consultants, Inc. 1985. "Ground Water and Water Resource Protection
Plan, Barnstable, Massachusetts." SEA. Boston, Mass.
Strahler, A.N. 1972. "The Environmental Impact of Ground Water Use on
Cape Cod: Orleans, Massachusetts". Association for the Preservation of
Cape Cod, Impact Study III, 68 p.
Strahler, A.N. 1966. A Geologist's View of Cape Cod. Natural
History Press. Garden City, NY.
-------
APPENDIX A
CAPE COO AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
ANb PROJECT STRUCTURE
Steering Con it tee
Artando Carbonell
Michael Frlipter
Herlel Hardin
Gilbert Joly
Michael MacDougall
Robert Mendoza
Bruce Roainoff
Executive Director, CCPEDC
Chief. Massachusetts Office, USGS
Assistant Coiiissioner for Special Projects, DEOE
Regional Environaental Director, DEOE, Southeast
Chief, Intonation Manageient Branch, EPA
Director, Office of Ground Hater Protection, EPA
Senior Staff Advisor, CCPEDC
Tara Gallagher
Project Coordinator, DEOE
Institutions Coiaittee
Chairperson: Bruce Rosinoff, CCPEDC
Ariando Caibonell CCPEDC
Tara Gallagher DEOE
Neriel Hardin DEOE
Gilbert Joly DEQE/SERO
Robert Mendoza EPA/OGVP
Susan Nickerson CCPEDC
Beatrice Neaaen DEOE/OSV
Nark Pare' DEQE/DVPC
Bruce Rosinoff CCPEDC/EPA
Lee Steppacher EPA/OGVP
David Terry DEOE/DHS
Data Manaqeient Coaiittee
Chairperson: Michael MacDougall, EPA
Gabrielle Belflt CCPEDC
Roy Crystal DEQE/DVS
Robin Fletcher EPA/ 1MB
Tara Gallagher DEOE
Ethan Mascoop EPA/ 1MB
Margaret Nelson EPA/Library
Lee Steppacher EPA/OGVP
Nancy Vrenn EPA/OGVP
Aquifer Aasessaent Comittee
Chairperson: Michael Friipter, USGS
Paul Barlov USGS
Gabrielle Belfit CCPEDC
Bill Bones DEM/DVR
Eric Butler BCHED
Jeffrey Choriann DEQE/DHV
John Donohue DEOE/DVS
Tara Gallagher DEQE
Douglas Heath EPA/OGVP
Kiiberly Noake DEOE
Michael Rapacz DEQE/DVPC
Chi-Ho Shai Boston Univ.
Data Croup Additions for CIS Project
Gile Beye
Deborah Cohen
Elizabeth Flynn
Michael Kanohi
Julio Oliiplo
DEQE/DVS
EPA/INB
USGS
EPA/IMB
USGS
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 24, 1986
I. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF DATA REDUCTION
(Excerpted from: "Hydrogeological Considerations of Zone of Con-
tribution Methods Used by Cape Cod Planning and Economic Develop-
ment Commission and SEA Consultants, Inc. for Public Supply Wells
in Bamstable, Massachusetts", see Appendix E)
II. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE DELINEATION OF ZONE Us
(Excerpted from the Aquifer Assessment Committee's report, "Evalu-
ating Approaches to Determine Recharge Areas for Public Supply
Wells", see Appendix F)
III. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO DEQE'S TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ZONE OF TRANSITION MONITORING
-------
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page B-2
I. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF DATA REDUCTION
1. Municipal planners should make a comprehensive review of all existing
information regarding the occurrence, movement and quality of groundwa-
ter in town (and adjacent areas of neighboring towns). Such a review
will guide the subsequent collection of new data to protect public
water supplies. To assist in this review process, the following table,
using the town of Barnstable as an example, summarizes governmental
sources and types of information available to town planners. Addition-
al information may be available from geotechnical engineering companies
which have performed work in Barnstable under a contractual basis.
(CCPEDC)*
* Agency name in parentheses following each recommendation indicates
agency responsible for implementation of the recommendation.
Level
Federal
State
County
Town
Private
Source
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Government Agency or Firm
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mass. DEQE - Main Office
Mass. DEQE - S.E. Regional Office
Mass. Water Resources Commission
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Dev. Comm.
Barnstable County Health and Env. Dept.
Barnstable Board of Health
Barnstable Dept. of Public Works
Barnstable Fire District
Centerville-Osterville Fire District
Cotuit Fire District
Anderson-Nichols
Barnstable Water Company
Charles A. Maguire & Assoc.
Coffin & Richardson, Inc.
Down Cape Engineering
IEP, Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy Inc.
Schofield Brothers, Inc.
SEA Consultants, Inc.
Whitman & Howard, Inc.
Location
Boston
Boston
Boston
Lakeville
Boston
Barnstable
Barnstable
Hyannis
Hyannis
Hyannis
Osterville
Cotuit
Boston
Hyannis
Waltham
Boston
E. Brews ter
Barnstable
Wakefield
Framingham
Cambridge
Wellesley
Types and Source(s) of Information
a. Daily records of public-supply well discharge over the last five
years (or existing records for wells less than 5 years old).
Sources: 9,10,11,14
-------
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page B-3
b. Aquifer pump-test data of test wells and water-supply wells.
Sources: 1,3,4,6,9,11,12,13,14,22
c. Public-supply and private well construction data
Sources: 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14
d. Surface and groundwater evaluation data.
Sources: 1,6,9,10,11,12,13,14
e. Observations of temperature and precipitation data at Hyannis,
Mass.
Sources: 9
f. Location and nature of sources of pollution in Barnstable.
Sources: all
g. Location and density of septic and sewage outflow.
Sources: 6,7,8,9
h. Water-quality data
Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,67,8,9
2. Aquifer pump-test data should be analyzed to determine the aquifer's
transmissivity and storage coefficient, the specific capacity of the
well and the depth and radius of the pumping well's cone of depres-
sion. This information may be obtained by applying one of the follow-
ing analytical methods. Procedures outlined by these references will
give satisfactory results depending on the completeness of the test
data:
a. "A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation Constants
and Summarizing Well-Field History", by H.F. Cooper, Jr., and C.E.
Jacob, 1946, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol.
27, no. 526-534, Washington, D.C.
b. "Analysis of Pumping Test Data From Anisotropic Unconfined Aqui-
fers Considering Delayed Gravity Response," by S.P. Neuman, 1975,
Water Resources Research, Vol. II, No. 2, pp. 329-342, Washington
D.C.
c. "A Computerized Technique for Estimating the Hydraulic Conductivi-
ty of Aquifers from Specific Capacity Data",
by K.R. Bradbury and E.R. Rothchild, 1985, Groundwater, Vol. 23,
No. 2., pp. 240-254, Worthington, Ohio.
d. "Aquifer-Test Design, Observation and Data Analysis", by R.W.
Stallman, 1971, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of
the United States Geological Survey, Chapter Bl, Book 3, Washing-
ton, D.C.
e. "Ground-Water Hydraulics", by S.W. Lohman, 1979, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 708, Washington, D.C.
-------
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page B-4
3. Water-evelation maps should be drawn from data obtained at both observa-
tion and non-pumping, supply wells. Maps constructed from data taken
at least every three months will reflect the seasonal fluctuations in
water-table elevations, flow directions and hydraulic gradients which
affect the geometry and orientation of a pumping well's zone of contri-
bution. In areas which have very gradual hydraulic gradients, hydrogeo-
logical conditions may require that elevation contours be drawn at
one-foot intervals to accurately reflect local groundwater flow pat-
terns in the vicinity of and upgradient of public-supply wells. (USGS,
CCPEDC, DEQE)
II. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE DELINEATION OF ZONE Us
1. A demonstration of three-dimensional groundwater modeling is recommend-
ed. Ideally, the demonstration would include conditions where the
advantages and disadvantages of the modeling approach could be defined
and compared with those of the analytical approaches. Opportunities
for model verification with past and future water-level data should be
utilized. The models should be applied to areas with complex boundary
conditions, multiple aquifer systems, multiple withdrawal points, and
areally variable recharge, variable aquifer thickness, partial penetra-
tion, and changes in aquifer storage. Additional analyses could in-
clude comparison of the area of influence with area (zone) of contribu-
tion and determination of the upgradient boundary of the zone of contri-
bution. The subject of data acquisition in terms of requirements and
costs should be described. This will allow the determination of the
benefits of a more realistic model (more accurate Zone II delineation)
relative to the expense of collecting the data necessary to adequately
define such a model. Action item - financing is needed for a modeling
effort of this nature. (USGS, DEM/Division of Water Resources, DEQE,
CCPEDC)
2. It is recommended that an evaluation of the existing hydrogeological
data base take place in the pilot area. No action--EPA's Office of
Ground Water Protection generated an interim report entitled "Hydrogeo-
logical Considerations of Zone of Contribution Methods Used by Cape Cod
Planning and Economic Development Commission and SEA Consultants, Inc.
for Public Supply Wells in Barnstable, Massachusetts." (EPA)
3. It is recommended that recharge data developed from Thornthwaite calcu-
lations be utilized in future delineations for Cape Cod. Sources of
this data are Strahler, Palmer, Guswa and LeBlanc. No action -- data
available. (DEQE -- guidelines for Zone II delineation, CCPEDC, USGS)
4. It is recommended that transmissivity data be developed from well pump-
ing test data as outlined in the DEQE Guidelines for Public Supply
Wells. Action item - Guidelines are currently being updated. (DEQE)
-------
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page B-5
5. It is recommended that withdrawal data be based on a standard recommend-
ed percentage of the well capacity as determined in accordance with the
DEQE Guidelines for Public Supply Wells. Action item - DEQE/DWS to
provide Guidelines for percentage.(DEQE)
6. It is recommended that criteria for initializing water-level conditions
be developed and the program for data acquisition be upgraded. Action
item - Local, state and federal governments have the responsibility to
design, create, and monitor an observation will network and publish
water-level data. The Aquifer Assessment Group has accepted responsi-
bility for providing detailed guidance for this action. (CCAMP AQUIFER
ASSESSMENT GROUP, USGS, EPA, DEQE, OEM's Division of Water Resources,
and CCPEDC)
III.RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO DEQE'S TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES
1. DEQE should develop a formal process to set and review the Department's
technical objectives and to establish priority projects for funding.
This process should involve one or more technical representatives from
each DEQE division.
2. DEQE should develop and maintain a technical library. (DEQE)
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ZONE OF TRANSITION MONITORING
1. USGS has installed monitoring wells of various depths around the shore-
line to observe the salt water/fresh water interface. With CCPEDC,
they monitor these wells twice' a year for specific conductance, sodium
and chloride. No major trends have been observed except in one well in
Truro. This well's salinity levels have been decreasing because of the
cessation of pumping from the South Hollow Wellfield. Auction item --
BCHED will monitor the Truro well monthly with equipment provided by
USGS. CCPEDC should monitor the other wells once yearly. (CCPEDC).
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Douglas L. Heath and Ethan Mascoop
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Boston, MA
July 1987
Introduction and Purpose
The town of Barnstable is fortunate to have a good supply of ground
water for its public-water supply, industrial, commercial, recreational
and agricultural needs. As the town continues to develop, more demands
will be made for this resource. To help town planners understand the
groundwater system and to protect it from a variety of pollution sources,
the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) produced a map showing the
shape and elevation of the water table. The mapped area is in the eastern
half of the town and in part of western Yarmouth, a region of Cape Cod
which has experienced high growth over the last thirty years.
The purpose of mapping the water table is to display the occurrence
and movement of groundwater as it moves under the force of gravity from
high to low elevations. The map produced by CCAMP indicates the position
of the water table undisturbed by pumping stresses from public supply
wells. The extent of ground water contamination from underground storage
tanks, chemical spills, road salt and septic system effluent, and other
sources, and the directional velocity of contaminated plumes, can be bet-
ter understood from the configuration of the water table. Another impor-
tant purpose is to help define areas of recharge to pumping wells which
must be protected from contamination to safeguard public health.
Previous investigators have produced local and regional maps of the
water table.In 1977, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a Cape
wide water-table map based on observation well and pond data obtained in
May, 1976. The map identified six major fresh water lenses which supply
potable water to residents of Cape Cod (LeBlanc and Guswa, 1977). Informa-
tion from this study helped to provide a basis for estimating high ground
water levels (Frimpter, 1980) and to refine and calibrate a USGS three
dimensional numerical model of Cape Cod's ground water system (Guswa and
LeBlanc, 1981). In 1982, the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission used the water-table map to delineate zones of contribution to
public supply wells (Horsley, 1983). In 1984, SEA Consultants, Inc. ob-
tained water-table elevations at 17 observation wells to produce computer
simulations of piezometric head. These maps indicated the response of the
water table in Barnstable to various amounts of recharge and wastewater,
especially at the Barnstable Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF). The
maps also provided information to delineate zones of contribution to pub-
lic supply wells in Barnstable (SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985). However,
the study did not define the flow patterns of ground-water in the vicinity
of surface water bodies or the coastline, which affect local hydraulic
gradients and flow directions. Recently, water table-maps for smaller
areas of the town have been made that show groundwater directions related
to suspected sources of contamination. Some of these studies were done in
compliance with MGL Chapter 21E and in response to requests by the town of
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-2
Barnstable at the Barnstable County Fire Training Facility and the WWTF
(GHR, 1986; IEP, Inc., 1986; Whitman and Howard, Inc., 1987).
Acknowledgments
The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project wishes to thank the following
individuals and organizations for their assistance and cooperation in this
project: Daniel Leahy, Barnstable Department of Planning and Development;
David Green and Arthur Marney of the Barnstable Department of Public
Works; Michael Kruse, Town of Yarmouth; Gabrielle Belfit and David Janik,
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission; Peter Doyle, Barn-
stable Waste Water Facility; Normand Nault, Barnstable Water Company;
George Weir, Barnstable Fire District; Donald Rugg, Centerville-Osterville
Fire District; Paul Wilson and Rick Crowley, Yarmouth Water Company;
Thomas Cambareri, IEP, Inc.; Steven Wood, Commonwealth Electric Company;
Kevin Hehir, Barnstable Airport; Al Comeau, Cummaquid Golf Course; Tara
Gallagher, DEQE; and Lee Steppacher and Karen Wilson, EPA. It also wishes
to thank Michael Frimpter for providing information and well data on file
at the U.S. Geological Survey in Boston, Massachusetts, and Alison C.
Simcox for her helpful editorial assistance.
Procedure
Locations and data of observation wells in Barnstable and Yarmouth were
obtained from twelve public and private organizations during the six-month
investigative phase of the project (Summer - Fall, 1986). Of the initial
215 wells identified for potential inclusion for the study, 71 (about
one-third) were eventually selected for use. The final choice was based on
the availability of information including location, ownership, access,
construction data, drillers' logs, survey records, and a field check be-
fore actual readings were taken to ensure that the selected wells were not
lost or damaged. In addition, individual wells were selected within clus-
ters to provide representative data in the area. In total, the elevations
of the water table was measured at 71 wells and 7 ponds (see table).
The most accurate method of water-table measurement at a well is made by
determining the vertical distance from a known elevation such as the top
of a well casing to the water level inside of the well. In this study,
measuring-point elevations were provided by cooperating agencies and mea-
suring tapes graduated in hundredths of a foot were used. While nearly
all of the 71 wells had surveyed elevations, three (Nos. 47, 48, and 71 in
table) did not. Estimates of elevations for these wells were made from
the USGS 7.5 minute Hyannis quadrangle (USGS, 1979) and were assumed to be
accurate within five feet, versus 0.01 feet for other points.
The elevations of seven ponds in the study area were obtained on May 13,
1987 by using local benchmarks and standard levelling techniques. To
mitigate the effects of waves, temporary stilling wells consisting of
perforated PVC casing were driven into shallow pond sediments within three
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-3
feet of the shore. Depths to water were subtracted from well elevations to
obtain the elevation of the pond surface. Because of its large size,
Wequaquet Lake was surveyed at two locations: in the northwest near a
public landing on Shootflying Hill Road and in the south at the herring
run at Phinney's Lane and Melody Pond. On May 13, 1987, the observed
elevations of the lake surface at these locations were 34.45 and 34.44
feet above sea level, respectively.
A map of water-table elevations was superimposed on the 7.5 minute Hyannis
quadrangle. Contours of equal elevations were drawn at five foot intervals
from 10 to 35 feet and one foot intervals from 35 to 38 feet. Contours
were dashed where approximate. In producing the contours, the location,
size and shape of surface-water bodies, including ponds, rivers, wetlands
and tidal estuaries, were considered. For example, kettle hole ponds,
which were originally sites of large blocks of melting glacial ice in
outwash sediments, are surface expressions of the water table. Because of
their essentially level surfaces, contours were drawn around the shore-
lines of these and other surface-water bodies.
Discussion
Elevation of ground water in eastern Barnstable and western Yarmouth
ranged from sea level along Cape Cod Bay and Nantucket Sound to 38.82 feet
at observation well W-7 (No. 27), approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the
waste water treatment facility. Wells located along the shoreline are
subject to tidal effects which range from 3.1 feet in Nantucket Sound to
9.5 feet in Cape Cod Bay (USGS, 1979).
Because of high precipitation during the winter and spring of 1987, the
water table rose to record levels in May at several locations in the study
area. AlW 230 (No. 62), which has been used since 1958 as an observation
well, had a record high water-table elevation of 21.99 feet on May 20th.
Observation wells AlW 247 (No. 63) and YAW 85 (No. 61) were also at record
levels. Past measurements indicate that water-table elevations at these
locations can fluctuate from 5 to nearly 8.5 feet over their periods of
record.
Barnstable has 31 public-supply wells which provide potable water to its
residents. Seventeen of these wells and three in Yarmouth are located in
the study area. Pumping wells create cones of depression in the water
table around their well casings. In eastern Barnstable they may range in
size from about 250 to 2900 feet in diameter. The size and magnitude of
these drawdown cones change in response to pumping rate and duration and
can perturb ground water gradients. To help mitigate the effects of well
pumping, the water table was measured before the onset of the summer
months of peak demand. Only three wells were known to be operating during
the observation period: Mary Dunn No. 2, Simmons Pond and Airport No.l.
During the period of field measurement, only observation wells located
outside of these wells' areas of influence were used.
The configuration of the water table in eastern Barnstable has several
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report . Page C-4
important features. The first is a large "mound" of ground water east of
Wequaquet Lake. During the May, 1987 observation period, its elevation was
over four feet higher than this large surface water body. The mound's
elevation and shape indicate that water flows radially outward near the
intersection of Pitchers Way and Bearses Way. In the area between the
center of the mound and Wequaquet Lake, the direction of ground-water
flow is to the west, while regional flow directions in this part of Cape
Cod are generally eastward. Another noteworthy feature shown by the water
table map is the effect of Wequaquet Lake on local ground water flow direc-
tions. With an area of over one square mile, Wequaquet Lake is the larg-
est surface water body on Cape Cod. The water lost by evaporation and the
herring run outlet on its southern shore is replaced by ground water dis-
charging to the pond along its western, northern and eastern shores. In
addition, lake water recharges the aquifer along its southern shore and
moves in the direction of Nantucket Sound.
The relationship between Wequaquet Lake and the mound of ground water has
important implications for water management strategies and the delineation
of wellhead protection areas in this portion of Barnstable. As the eleva-
tion of the water table fluctuates in response to aquifer storage, the
gradient (or slope) of the water table between the lake and the mound's
center may also change. As the amount of ground water in storage in the
aquifer decreases, the elevation of the water table and of the mound will
decrease as well. The water-table gradient towards the lake will be less
pronounced and less discharge into the lake from the area of the mound
will occur. Because season and climate affect the direction and velocity
of ground-water flow, they must be considered when delineating recharge
zones near pumping wells and when determining contaminant flow direction
and velocity.
All but one of the 71 wells used as observation points are screened in the
shallow sand and gravel aquifer underlying the mapped area. They range in
depth from 6 to 102 feet. Beneath this permeable layer of varying thick-
ness are extensive clay strata which locally are quite thick. For example,
Well A1W 318 (No. 68) in northern Barnstable is screened in 77 feet of
clay to a depth of 87 feet. Because the clay confines the aquifer in this
area, ground water is artesian and tends to flow from wells onto the land
surface. In the Hyannis area, well C-4 (No. 22) penetrated 15 feet of
"blue clay" and gray sandy silt from 50 to 65 feet below the land surface
(Maravell and others, 1983).
Precision and Accuracy
Every attempt was made to reduce potential sources of error. Mistakes may
occur in measuring or recording the depth to water at a well due to water
condensation or pressure variations within the well casing. If a depth
measurement was uncertain at the first attempt, the field observer made
additional measurements until the true depth to water was confirmed. In
all cases, the precision of measurement sought was .01 feet. Errors may
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-5
also occur in surveying the tops of well casing. Elevation data for obser-
vation wells were obtained from existing files and engineering reports. It
was not possible to verify their accuracy. And errors also may result
from incorrect positioning of wells and water-table contours on a base
map. All well locations were checked in the field either before or during
well measurement. Contours were hand drawn using standard techniques of
interpolation. They are dashed where there is insufficient information to
locate them precisely.
Summary and Conclusions
Sufficient information exists to map the water-table aquifer in eastern
Barnstable and western Yarmouth to assist town planners in evaluating and
protecting valuable ground water resources. It is important that both
regional and local ground water flow patterns be understood and described,
particularly with respect to surface water bodies.
The distribution of water-table elevations obtained during this study does
not reflect average conditions. Heavy precipitation during the winter and
spring months of 1987 recharged the aquifer in excess of average amounts,
and water-table elevations at several locations were at record high levels
for their periods of measurement. Average ground-water elevations are
typically two to three feet lower than those shown on the map and the
accompanying table.
The complex relationship between Wequaquet Lake and the surrounding aqui-
fer should be investigated more fully. Surface and water-table elevations
in the vicinity of the lake should be measured seasonally as they may
respond differently to variations in aquifer storage. If the range of
seasonal fluctuation is greater in the water-table mound than for We-
quaquet Lake, then potential changes in groundwater velocity and direction
may occur in this area.
The gathering and compilation of the various pieces of information
regarding possible observation well locations and related data proved to
be a time consuming process. As noted, sufficient wells and information
existed to support a detailed water-table elevation project in
Barnstable. However, a comprehensive program to collect and maintain the
data in a central location is lacking. We suggest that towns,
governmental agencies and private research firms investigate the
establishment of an interagency data base for observation well data, in-
cluding well number (and cross reference), location (map, coordinates,
etc.), elevation, logs and owner. The use of a Geographic Information
System (CIS) and existing data bases such as STORET (EPA) and GWSI (USGS)
should be explored. It is hoped that the establishment of such a system
would assist the towns in their ground water protection programs and avoid
repetitive and costly research in the future.
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-6
References Cited
1. Frimpter, M. H., 1980, Probable high ground-water levels on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-1008, 20 p.
2. GHR Engineering, 1986, Site assessment summary of Old Colony Gas Sta-
tion, lyanough Road, Hyannis, Massachusetts: GHR Engineering Corp.,
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02745, 5p.
3. Guswa, J. H. and LeBlanc, D. R., 1981, Digital models of ground-water
flow in the Cape Cod aquifer system, Massachusetts: U. S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 80-67, 128 p.
4. Horsley, S. W., 1983, Delineating zones of contribution for public
supply wells to protect groundwater: NWWA Eastern Regional Conference
on Groundwater Management, October 20 - November 2, 1983, 28 p.
5. IEP, Inc., 1986, Preliminary site assessment and recommendations for
remedial action at the Barnstable County Fire Training Facility: IEP,
Inc., Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630, 40 p.
6. LeBlanc, D. R. and Guswa, J. H., 1977, Water-table map of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, May 23-27, 1976: U. S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 77-419, 2 plates.
7. Maravell, P. E. and others, 1983, Evaluation of monitoring well data
for the town of Barnstable, Massachusetts Wastewater Treatment
Facility: Town of Barnstable Department of Public Works, Hyannis,
Massachusetts 02601, September 30, 1983, 8 p.
8. SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985, Groundwater and water resource protection
plan, Barnstable, Massachusetts: SEA Consultants, Inc., Boston, Massa-
chusetts .
9. U. S. Geological Survey, 1979, 7.5 minute topographic map of Hyannis,
Massachusetts, 1974 (photorevised 1979): U. S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia 22092.
10. Whitman and Howard, Inc., 1987, Waste water management plan for the
town of Barnstablem Massachusetts: Whitman and Howard, Inc.,
Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181, 107 p.
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-7
Table of Water-Table Elevations, CCAHP 5/11-13/87
TABLE OF OBSERVATION WELLS AND WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS
No. Well Name
1. BFD #1 57-A (AIW-29S)
2. 8FC *1 S2-2B (AIW-290)
3. BFO #1 76-16 (52-2C)
4. BFD #2 84-4
5. BFD #2 86-1
6. BFD #2 64-K-A
7. BFD 02 84-3
8. BFD *2 64-E
9. BFD «3 64 -D (AIW-293)
10. BFD *3 84-1
11. BFD *3 77-1
12. Barnstable Airport HW-1
13. Barnstable Airport HW-3
14. Barnstable Airport OU-1
15. Barnstable Airport OW-5
16. BSTP BA-3
17. BSTP BB-3
18. BSTP BC-1
19. BSTP BE-1
20. BSTP C-1
21. BSTP C-2
22. BSTP C-4
23. BSTP C-5
24. BSTP W-1
25. BSTP W-4
26. BSTP U-5
27. BSTP W-7
28. BSTP W-8
29. BSTP W-9
30. Tom Cambarerl TC-1
31. Tom Carobareri TC-2
32. S-1
33. S-2
34. S-3
35. S-4
Date Well
Measured Death
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
49
56.2
...
24*
17*
67.9*
24*
63.3*
63
...
49
...
...
40
35
26
25
66
50
77
42
57
45
27
20
26
41
43
45
6
.--
58
58
71
76
HP Depth to Water
Elev. Below HP
38.61
48.29
52.80
45.31
37.00
43.14
.44.91
40.28
39.49
61.80
53.43
54.06
52.58
55.79
49.68
47.03
32.19
44.63
50.23
40.83
43.34
40.03
21.89
49.75
36.17
40.43
64.88
62.86
67.37
37.58
38.73
54.53
57.86
73.27
67.44
8.73
16.83
20.44
9.50
3.10
9.65
9.40
5.23
2.40
24.39
19.37
20.51
21.19
21.36
17.25
14.24
12.22
7.35
26.53
12.77
8.64
17.22
5.73
14.71
8.16
16.57
26.06
26.71
29.82
0.30
4.14
18.85
21.60
36.61
30.07
Water-table
Elevation
29.88
31.46
32.36
35.81
33.90
33.49
35.51
35.05
37.09
37.41
34.06
33.55
31.39
34.43
32.43
32.79
19.97
37.28
23.70
26.06
34.70
22.81
16.16
35.04
28.01
23.86
38.82
36.15
37.55
37.28
34.61
35.68
36.26
36.66
37.37
NOTE: All depths and elevations are in feet.
HP = measuring point (top of well casing or PVC, whichever is higher).
* ° well depth below measuring point; all others are depths below land surface.
T * denotes water level affected by local tides.
E = denotes elevations estimated from topographical contours on the USGS 7.5-
minute Hyamis, Massachusetts quadrangle, photo-revised in 1979. Values are
assumed to be within + 5 feet of actual elevations.
USGS " U. S. Geological Survey Observation Well
BFD * Barnstable Fire District .
BSTP « Barnstable Sewage Treatment Plant
BWC « Barnstable Water Company
C/0 > Centerville-Osterville Fire District
BtTF > Barnstable Fire Training Facility
YWC » Yarmouth Water Company
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-8
Table of Water-Table Elevations, CCAMP 5/11-13/87
TABLE OF OBSERVATION WELLS AND WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS
No. Well Name
36. S-6
37. S-7
38. S-8
39. $-9
40. S-11
41. S-12
42. S-14
43. S-15
44. S-16
45. S-17
46. S-18
47. BUG A1W 299
48. BUG Haher Diesel 1 Obs. Well
49. BWC Straightway Obs. ST-1
50. BWC Test Well 1, 150' North
of School House Road
51. BWC Test Well 2, 130' South
of School House Road
52. C/0 Station *7
53. C/0 Station #8 Obs. 8-1
54. C/0 Station *11 Obs. 11-1
55. Cumaquld Coif Course GC-C2
56. Cumaquid Golf Course GC-C3
57. Hyamisport GC AIW-322
SB. Connonwealth Electric OW-6S
59. BFTF IEP OW-2
60. BFTF IEP MW-16S
61. USGS YAW-85
62. USGS AIU-230
63. USGS AIW-247
64. USGS AIW-254
65. USGS AIW-292
66. USGS AIW-294
67. USGS AIW-306
68. USGS AIW-318
69. YUC HW-7A (YAW-123)
70. YWC 300-21 (73-84)
71. YWC 22A-77
Date
Measured
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/12/87
5/12/87
5/12/87
5/12/87
5/12/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/B7
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
5/11/87
Well
Depth
65
75
75
102
63
70
55
63
59
60
70
56
...
57
98.5*
...
63
...
...
54
129
97
14.5
24
35
59.9
35.85
52
40
51
60
31
87
34.2
28.3
25
HP Depth to Water
Elev. Below HP
50.34
61.75
31.45
55.08
60.11
71.23
55.83
49.05
41.99
59.84
55.08
33E
15E
20.70
31.54
25.17
21.44
25.05
26.77
33.72
45.07
8.20
39.34
38.13
54.45
35.03
42.50
46.50
47.45
41.65
30.75
53.60
12.16
18.92
39.29
31E
20.18
26.88
3.25
35.42
21.46
32.73
22.70
19.46
17.96
24.30
17.11
2.71
4.18
3.80
19.86
14.56
6.88
10.30
11.62
9.21
23.86
2.76
9.49
5.82
23.42
8.59
20.53
22.88
7.72
4.58
9.83
21.27
1.23
8.94
10.35
11.04
Water-table
Elevation
30.16
34.87
28.20
19.66
38.65
38.50
33.13
29.59
24.03
35.54
37.97
30.29E
10.82E
16.90
11.68
10.61
14.56
14.75
15.15
24.51
21.21
5.44T
29.85
32.31
31.03
26.44
21.97
23.62
39.73
37.07
20.92
32.33
10.93T
9.98
28.94
19.96E
NOTE: All depths and elevations are in feet.
HP B measuring point (top of well casing or PVC, whichever is higher).
well depth below measuring point; all others are depths below lend surface.
T » denotes water level affected by local tides.
E « denotes elevations estimated from topographical contours on the USGS 7.5-
minute Hyamls, Massachusetts quadrangle, photo-revised in 1979. Values are
assumed to be within + 5 feet of actual elevations.
USGS « U. S. Geological Survey Observation Well
8FD * Bamstable Fire District
BSTP * Bamstable Sewage Treatment Plant
BWC « Bamstable Water Company
-------
APPENDIX C: WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page C-9
Table of Water-Table Elevations, CCAMP 5/11-13/87
TABLE OF OBSERVATION WELLS AND WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
. Ponds and Lakes
Wequaquet Lake
Melody Pond
Long Pond '
Shallow Pond
Mary Dum Pond
Simmons Pond
Dennis Pond
Date
5/13/87
5/13/87
5/13/87
5/13/87
5/13/87
5/13/87
5/13/87
Size in Acres
654
3
SO
67
16
7
...
Town
Bamstable
Barnstable
Bamstable
Bamstable
Bamstable
Barnstable
Yarmouth
Elevation
34.44
34.44
27.05
36.05
28.66
8.56
25. 9E
NOTE: All depths and elevations are in feet.
MP « measuring point (top of well casing or PVC, whichever is higher).
a well depth below measuring point; all others are depths below land surface.
T = denotes water level affected by local tides.
E « denotes elevations estimated from topographical contours on the USGS 7.5-
minute Hyamis, Massachusetts quadrangle, photo-revised in 1979. Values are
assured to be within * 5 feet of actual elevations.
USGS = U. S. Geological Survey Observation Well
BFD = Bamstable Fire District
BSTP.s Barnstable Sewage Treatment Plant
BWC » Bamstable Water Company
C/0 = Centerville-Osterville Fire District
BFTF = Barnstable Fire Training Facility
TUC * Yarmouth Water Company
-------
APPENDIX D
DRASTIC MAPPING OF AQUIFER VULNERABILITY
IN EASTERN BARNSTABLE AND WESTERN YARMOUTH,
CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS
Douglas L. Heath
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Boston, MA
July 1987
The permeable glacial deposits of Cape Cod are highly vulnerable to contam-
ination from improper storage, handling and spillage of hazardous chemi-
cals. The towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth -- like all communities on the
Cape - - rely on ground water to supply the needs of their citizens. The
risk of contamination of ground water resources will increase unless
preventive measures are taken.
In 1986, the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Program began a study of land
uses within Zone I, an area of recharge to nine public supply wells in
eastern Barnstable, which has experienced rapid development over the last
thirty years. With an area of 3,650 acres, Zone I is the largest zone of
contribution in Barnstable. The study included a detailed inventory of
common land uses, such as an airport and industrial park, service sta-
tions, dry cleaners and septic systems that might contain sources of pollu-
tion that threaten the quality of ground water (Gallagher and Steppacher,
1987; SEA Consultants, 1985). The study also included an analysis of the
relative vulnerability of soils and ground water to chemicals generated by
such activities. Using the methods and criteria in DRASTIC (Aller and
others, 1985), the pollution potential for contamination in Zone I was
evaluated, mapped and incorporated into a geographical information system
developed by the U. S. Geological Survey. The purpose of this paper is to
describe how DRASTIC was applied as a mapping tool for ground-water manage-
ment in this hydrogeological setting.
DRASTIC
As a standardized system developed jointly by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the national Water Well Association, DRASTIC is de-
signed to provide numerical rating of relative vulnerability to contamina-
tion in most hydrogeological settings found in the United States. The
name is an acronym for seven factors that influence how quickly chemicals
may move through unsaturated and saturated soils and rock. These are
Depth to water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, S_oil media, general Topogra-
phy, Impact of the vadose zone and the hydraulic Conductivity of the aqui-
fer. These seven factors are assigned numerical weights and ratings that,
when added together, provide a vulnerability in a wide variety of set-
tings, DRASTIC is not designed for use in areas small than 100 acres.
In eastern Barnstable and western Yarmouth, Zone I consists of two hydro-
geologic settings. Two thirds of the area is made up of Barnstable Out-
wash Plain deposits of permeable sand and fine gravel with beds of silt
and clay. The relief of the land surface is moderate, ranging in eleva-
tion from sea level to about 40 feet. Ground water is generally less than
50 feet deep. All nine public supply wells are screened in the outwash
-------
APPENDIX D - DRASTIC MAPPING IN E. BARNSTABLE AND W. YARMOUTH
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page D-2
plain portion of Zone I. The northern third of the study area consists of
Sandwich Moraine deposits of silt, sand and gravel (Oldale, 1974). Elev-
ations range from 40 to 150 feet above sea level and depths to ground
water vary from zero to over 125 feet. Because of changes in aquifer
storage caused by variations in recharge, evapo-transpiration and pumping,
the elevation of the water table in Zone I may fluctuate as much as eight
feet.
Procedure
The successful application of DRASTIC is based on the availability of
accurate information about the hydrogeology, topography and climate of an
area. For Zone I, information was gathered from local water table, topo-
graphic and geologic maps, driller's logs, aquifer test data and climato-
logical records.
The table following this report shows the factors, ranges," ratings and
weights used to calculate total DRASTIC numbers at locations in the out-
wash and moraine settings. Individual factor numbers in the right hand
column for each setting were held constant except for depth to water,
which varied widely over the area (see Heath and Mascoop, 1987, this vol-
ume). Depth to water information was obtained by superimposing contours
of water-table and topographic elevations and calculating their difference"
in feet. Depths to water observed in wells were also used. These methods
produced 648 data points within Zone I for which DRASTIC numbers could be
derived. The final step of contouring these point values resulted in the
DRASTIC map shown in the accompanying figure. Higher values denote areas
of increased vulnerability to contamination.
Results
In a national context, the values of relative vulnerability derived by the
DRASTIC system may range from a low of 23 for a dry, mountainous setting
of shale or clay to a high of 226 for a humid, karst-limestone environ-
ment. The derived values of 140 to 185 for the Sandwich Moraine setting
and 185 to 210 for the Barnstable Outwash Plain setting in Zone I indicate
moderate to high vulnerability to contamination. Other areas of Cape Cod
that have similar hydrogeologic and climatic conditions are also likely to
share these values. The results of this study show that low-lying areas
and areas next to surface water bodies are most at risk where the depth to
water is less than three feet. The areas that are relatively least vulner-
able, with DRASTIC scores of 140 to 159, are the highest portions of the
Sandwich Moraine along State Route 6.
The DRASTIC system of assessing soil and aquifer vulnerability requires
knowledge regarding seven factors which affect contaminant mobility. In
this application at a 5.7 square mile area in Barnstable and Yarmouth, the
factor having the most information to support it was general topography,
-------
APPENDIX D - DRASTIC MAPPING IN E. BARNSTABLE AND W. YARMOUTH
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page D-3
followed (in descending order) by depth to water, soil media, aquifer
media, net recharge, impact of the vadose zone and hydraulic conductiv-
ity. DRASTIC was most successfully applied in the Barnstable Outwash
Plain region of the study area because of the availability of extensive
well information. In contrast, no well information was available for the
Sandwich Moraine portion of Zone I and the ranges for all DRASTIC factors
except for net recharge, soil media and topography had to be estimated
from areas of the moraine outside of Zone I.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Kim Franz of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Beth Flynn of the U.S. Geological Survey for their assistance in producing
the DRASTIC map of Zone I.
References Cited
1. Aller L., Bennett T., Lahr, J.H. and Petty, R.J., 1985, DRASTIC: A
standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential
using hydrogeologic settings; National Water Well Association and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/2-85/018, 163 p.
2. Gallagher, T. and Steppacher, L., 1987, "The management of toxic and
hazardous materials in a zone of contribution of Cape Cod", in
proceedings of the fourth annual eastern regional ground water
conference, July 14-16, 1987, Burlington, Vermont; National Water Well
Association, pp. 13-41.
3. Guswa, J.H. and LeBlanc, D.R., 1981, Digital models of ground water
flow in the Cape Cod aquifer system, Massachusetts; U.S. Geologic
Survey Water Resources Investigations Open File Report 80-67.
4. Heath, D. and Mascoop, E., 1987, Water-table elevations in eastern
Barnstable, Massachusetts; this volume.
5. Oldale, R., 1974, Geologic map of the Hyannis quadrangle, Barnstable
County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts; U.S. Geological Survey Geologic
Quadrangle Map GQ-1158.
6. SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985, Ground water and water resource
protection plan, Barnstable, Massachusetts; SEA Consultants, Inc.,
.Boston, Massachusetts.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Case studies of proposed
ground water classification guidelines, Barnstable Sewage Treatment
Plant, Barnstable, Massachusetts; Office of Ground Water Protection,
Washington, DC, April 17, 1987, 61 p.
8. U.S. Geological Survey, 1979, 7.5-Minute quadrangle of Hyannis,
Massachusetts; U.S. Geologic Survey, Reston, VA, Scale 1:25,000.
-------
APPENDIX D - DRASTIC MAPPING IN E. BARNSTABLE AND W. YARMOUTH
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page D-4
TABLE OF RANGES, RATING AND WEIGHTS FOR DRASTIC STUDY
OF
ZONE I, CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS
Barnstable Outwash Plain Setting
Factor
Range
References Rating Weight Number
Depth to Water
Net Recharge Per Year
Aquifer Media
Soil Media
Topography
Impact of Vadose Zone
Hydraulic Conductivity
0-50+ feet
10+ inches
Sand & Gravel
Sand
2-6%
Sand & Gravel
2000 + gpd/ft2
4,8
6
4,6
4
8
6
3,6
5-10
9
9
9
9
8
10
5
4
3
2
1
5
3
25-50
36
27
18
9
40
30
Total = 185-210
Sandwich Moraine Setting
Factor
Range
References Rating Weight Number
Depth to Water
Net Recharge Per Year
Aquifer Media
soil Media
Topography
Impact of Vadose Zone
Hydraulic Conductivity
0-100+ feet
10+ inches
Sand & Gravel
Sandy Loam
6-12%
Sand & Gravel
700-lOOOgpd/
4,8
6
1,4,6
1
8
1,6
3,6
1-10
9
8
6
5
8
10
5
4
3
2
1
5
3
5-50
36
24
12
5
40
30
Total
140-185
Hote: gpd/ft2 = gallons per day per square foot
* Refer to list of references at the end of this report.
-------
APPENDIX D - DRASTIC MAPPING IN E. BARNSTABLE AND W. YARMOUTH
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page D-5
DRASTIC CONTOURS FOR ZONE I, BARNSTABLE-YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
Sandwich Moraine
Bamstable Outwash Plain
By Doug Heath, USEPH RegLon I
EXPLANATION
DRASTIC VALUES
1: 140-159
2: 155-159
3: 160-169
4: 170-174
5: 170-179
6: 180-184
7: 185-189
8: 190-194
9: 195-199
10: 200-204
11: 205-209
12: 210
W: Water
Moraine/Outwash Contac
-------
APPENDIX E
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
USED BY CAPE COD PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND SEA CONSULTANTS, INC.
FOR PUBLIC-SUPPLY WELLS IN BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Douglas L. Heath
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Boston, MA
December, 1985
Introduction
Successful determination of a public-supply well's zone of contribu-
tion requires accurate information about the following factors: well dis-
charge, aquifer recharge, local hydraulic gradient of the water table,
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, and the saturated thick-
ness of the aquifer from which a well draws its water. Additional factors
such as a well's" proximity to sources of pollution, fresh/salt-water bod-
ies and urban areas are also important considerations in protecting
ground-water quality.
Previous attempts to determine protection areas for public-supply
wells on Cape Cod were made in 1982-1983 by the Cape Cod Planning and
Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC) and for Barnstable in 1985 by SEA
Consultants, Inc. (SEA). Both attempts combined analytical and numerical
methods which differed in both assumptions and data, resulting in limited
agreement about a particular zone's size or orientation.
Refinement of these methods consists in tailoring each zone of contri-
bution to individual site conditions, which entails understanding the
natural flow system and assessing basic assumptions. The purpose of this
paper is to describe the necessary factors, to outline sources of informa-
tion, and to provide a comparison of recent attempts to delineate recharge
areas for public-supply wells in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
Barnstable Public-Supply Well Discharge Records
Barnstable township is currently served by 31 public water supply
wells operated by three municipal fire districts and one private company.
These wells have pumps which operate independently from one another in
response to distribution head changes in their respective water-supply
systems which connect the source of supply to both commercial and private
residents. Each supplier maintains records of daily well pumpage at indi-
vidual wells measured in gallons per day. According to company superinten-
dents, historical accounts of daily discharge extend back at least to 1975
at both the Barnstable Water Company and the Centerville-Osterville Fire
District, to 1972 at the Barnstable Fire District, and at least to 1950 at
the Cotuit Fire District. Pumping records indicate that because of sea-
sonal fluctuations in demand, a public-supply well may operate for 24
hours a day over many weeks during the summer, yet remain idle for several
months during the winter. In addition, wells are occasionally taken
off-line" for pump maintenance, screen cleaning or the installation of
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-2
improved telemetering systems.
Reports of water-department statistics are submitted annually by public
water-supply companies to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE). The following table summarizes the total
volume of groundwater extracted, the length of each system and the number
of services or individual hook-ups in Barnstable at the end of 1984:
Water
Company
No. of
Gallons
Pumped
Well
Sites
Miles
Mains
of
No. of
Services
Barnstable Water Co.
Centerville-Osterville
Fire District
Barnstable Fire District
Cotuit Fire District
1,016,042,000
693,735,000
137,907,000
103,761,800
11
13
3
4
45.32
210.00
41.03
44.98
6,358
8,500
1,378
1,412
Total 1,951,445,800 31 341.33 17,648
The highest annual- well discharge in 1984 was 237,804,000 gallons at Mary
Dunn #2, operated by the Barnstable Water Company. This well, located
north of the Barnstable Municipal Airport, operated during every month of
the year at a mean rate of 651,518 gallons per day (gpd) or 452.4 gallons
per minute (gpm). The lowest well discharge in 1984 was 1,960,000 gallons
at Barnstable Fire District's GP Well #1, located just west of Phinney's
Lane and approximately 900 feet north of U.S. Highway 6. This well
operated every month except during March at a mean rate of 5,370 gpd or
3.7 gpm.
Well Discharge and Safe Yield
The zone of contribution methods used by Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission (1983) and SEA Consultants (1985) rely solely on
the "rated safe yield" of a well for discharge information. The safe
yield (SY) may be defined as the maximum rate of extraction that a well
can safely pump without depleting an aquifer over a specified time
interval. In accordance with General Laws Chapter 111, Section 17, the
DEQE defined the safe yield of a public water well as:
SY - (T) x (available water) x (safety factor)
where SY - safe yield in gallons per day
T - aquifer transmissivity, in gallons per day per foot, determined
by the modified non-equilibrium method of Cooper and Jacob
(1946).
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-3
Available water - (depth of pumping well) - (screen length) - (static
water level) - (5 feet)
Safety factor - 0.75
Safe yields determined by CCPEDC and SEA for the 31 public-supply wells in
Barnstable are available from computation sheets (Table 1) and on Table 2
(SEA, Table 8.10, 1985), respectively. Information on safe yields used by
SEA resulted from interviews with the water companies. The two sets of
well capacity values differ considerably, and agree for only 7 wells, or
23 percent of public-supply wells in Barnstable (Table 3). According to
CCPEDC, safe-yield capacities range from 290 gpm at Centerville Oster-
ville's Craig #11 to 1000 gpm at Barnstable Water Company's Airport well.
Values for safe yields published by SEA range from 275 gpm at Cotuit's
Electric #3 to 1,400 gpm at Barnstable Water Company's MDL 1 and 2. The
use of different sets of values for safe yield for over 75% of the wells
makes it difficult to compare zones of contribution because variations in
pumping capacities strongly influence the size of recharge areas.
Recognizing that Barnstable public-supply wells do not continuously pump
at their full capacity, CCPEDC multiplied the safe yield by a general
reduction factor to more closely approximate average well discharge. A
value of 60 percent was used uniformly for all wells to simulate a
steady-state condition over an extended period of time. In SEA's method,
pumping of public-supply wells within zones 1, 2 and 8 were kept at their
rated safe yields to simulate future average day demand. The discharges
for wells in the remaining zones were simulated at 60% of their rated 'safe
yield.
Recharge
Recharge may be defined as the volume of water which reaches the saturated
zone of an aquifer where it is available for extraction. Several investi-
gators have estimated recharge rates in inches per year for different
areas of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard. Palmer (1977) studied aquifer
recharge while conducting research at a wastewater experimental site at
the Massachusetts Military Reservation, eight miles west of Barnstable
township. He described the water balance at this site by the equation:
Recharge = P - ET - SR
where P - precipitation, ET - evapotranspiration from surface water
bodies and vegetation and SR - surface runoff. Because of the high
permeability of surficial deposits for most of Cape Cod, Palmer assumed
that there is little or no runoff and the last component could be
neglected. Therefore, the above equation reduces to:
Recharge = P - ET
Using mean monthly temperature and precipitation data for several climate-
logical stations on Cape Cod, he estimated annual evapotranspiration lev-
els from 1965 to 1975 using the Thornthwaite calculation, (Thornthwaite
and Mather, 1957). The results of these calculations, which are presented
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-4
in Tables 4 and 5, indicate that average annual ET is relatively constant
for any station over a number of years, varying less than 2 inches over
the observation period. The least amount of ET was found at the Chatham
station (24.7"), while the highest calculated ET was found at the Woods
Hole station (25.93"). Based upon the small difference in calculated ET
between widely-spaced stations on Cape Cod, Palmer concluded that the
amount of precipitation is the principal factor affecting the amount of
natural recharge at any one locality.
Palmer also calculated the potential evapotranspiration from the Long Pond
pumping station in Falmouth from 1960 to 1976 (Table 6) and subtracted
these values from observed precipitation collected at Hatchville to give
estimated recharge values (Table 7). The data indicate a mean loss of
recharge over June, July and August with the greatest deficit occurring in
July (-2.29 inches). The highest recharge estimates occurred from Novem-
ber to March with the highest value in December (4.47 inches). Annual
recharge during the drought year 1965 was nearly nil when ET nearly
equaled precipitation in the Falmouth area. It reached a high level of
nearly 48 inches in 1972, which had a relatively cool summer and wet au-
tumn. While the data presented by Palmer are only estimates at one locali-
ty, they indicate that annual recharge can vary considerably from one year
to the next.
Strahler (1972) also used the Thornthwaite method to determine monthly
potential ET and groundwater recharge based on temperature, and precipita-
tion observed at Hyannis and Provincetown from 1931 to 1952. His calcula-
tions indicate a mean annual recharge to be about 18.3 inches at Hyannis
and about 17 inches at Provincetown (see Table 8 and Figure 1). He esti-
mated that for locations on Cape Cod having a higher mean annual precipita-
tion than Hyannis (42.8 inches/year), the excess precipitation may be
added directly to the ground-water recharge. For example, after superim-
posing the precipitation data observed at Falmouth's Hatchville station
onto potential ET data determined at Hyannis, Hatchville, which had 4 more
inches of precipitation, showed an estimated recharge of 22 inches per
year.
Delaney (1980) estimated ET at Edgartown on Martha's Vineyard to be 23.7
inches annually for the years 1947-1977, yielding an average recharge rate
of approximately 22.2 inches per year. Additive recharge from septic
outflow was not estimated for this study.
Guswa and LeBlanc (1981) recognized that aquifer recharge on Cape Cod is a
combination of natural recharge from precipitation and artificial recharge
from sources such as waste-water treatment plants and septic systems.
Using a digital three dimensional model to simulate ground water flow in
the Cape Cod aquifer they estimated that recharge rates within the study
area range from a low of 6 to a high of 22 inches per year.
SEA Consultants (1985) used values taken from the numerical model devel-
oped by Guswa and LeBlanc and added artificial recharge rates from septic
tanks as 4.3 inches per year for zones 3,4,5,6,7 and 9, and 9 inches per
year for zones 1,2 and 8.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-5
Horsley (1983), using the CCPEDC analytical method to determine the zone
of contribution on Cape Cod, used a recharge estimate of 13 inches per
year based on a study of tritium levels in a glacial drift aquifer (Offer
and Larson, 1982). This value was applied to the Cape as a whole.
Artificial recharge from septic and waste-water treatment systems was not
considered.
The following table summarizes recharge estimates determined from previous
investigations on Cape Cod:
Source
Recharge
Estimates (inches)
Location
Palmer (1977)
Strahler (1972)
Delaney (1980)
Guswa and LeBlanc (1981)
SEA (1985)
CCPEDC (1983)
0
17
6
20.67
- 47.93
- 22
22.2
- 22
- 45.67
13
Falmouth
Cape Cod
Martha's Vineyard
Cape Cod
Barns table
Cape Cod
Hydraulic Gradient
The hydraulic gradient of the water table is defined as the change in
static head per unit of distance in a given direction (Lohman and others,
1972) and can be determined from a map of water-table elevations. It is
an important measurement in calculating a well's zone of contribution.
This dimensionless factor not only governs ground-water flow direction
but, combined with estimates of aquifer transmissivity and well discharge,
helps to define a zone's downgradierit and lateral boundaries.
The most comprehensive attempt at mapping water-table elevations on Cape
Cod to date is that of LeBlanc and Guswa (1977). Drawing 10 foot contours
based on well observations obtained May 23-27, 1976, they identified six
freshwater lenses on the Cape Cod peninsula: inner Cape Cod (Cape Cod
Canal to the Bass River), middle Cape Cod (Bass River to Orleans), and
four smaller lenses on outer Cape Cod (Eastham to Provincetown). Ground
water within these lenses moves from points of higher to lower hydraulic
head near the shoreline which represents a lateral boundary where ground
water is discharged into the sea (Ryan, 1980).
Water-table elevations in Barnstable range from over 60 feet above sea
level at the Sandwich-Barnstable town line and Bottom Road to sea level
along Cape Cod Bay to the north and Nantucket Sound to the south. Natural
groundwater flow directions in the vicinity of public-supply wells are
predominantly toward the southeast, but locally may flow toward the north-
east, south or southwest in eastern Barnstable or Osterville. Groundwater
elevations are particularly affected by the irregular southern coastline
of Barnstable, due to the large number of estuaries and tidal inlets.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-6
Water-level elevations are periodically determined at ten established U.S
Geological Survey observation wells (Table 9) located throughout Barnsta-
ble. These observations, which extend back as early as January, 1958 at
one well (A1W 230), indicate that water-table fluctuations range from a
low of 3.63 feet in Osterville to a high of 7.67 feet in northeast Barnsta-
ble. Changes in water-table elevations occur as a result of several fac-
tors: well discharge, evapotranspiration, precipitation and aquifer re-
charge. Because these factors change over time, multiple water level
measurements are needed to identify typical groundwater levels for a par-
ticular time of year.
Estimates of hydraulic gradient used by CCPEDC in the vicinity of
public-supply wells were determined from the 1976 water-table map of
LeBlanc and Guswa. In general, head variations were measured over two to
three 10 foot contour intervals in the direction of groundwater flow at
the well site. Hydraulic gradients determined by this method range from
.0012 at BFD PS3 to .00638 at C/0 wells #14 and #15. This information was
incorporated along with estimates of well discharge and transmissivity to
calculate the downgradient limit of each zone of contribution.
Hydraulic Properties
Specific yield, transmissivity and vertical hydraulic conductivity are the
principal hydraulic properties that determine an aquifer's capacity to
store, transmit and yield water. The storage term for an unconfined aqui-
fer is specific yield, which is generally defined as "the change that
occurs in the amount of water in storage per unit area of unconfined aqui-
fer as the result of a unit change in head "(Lehman and others 1972).
Specific yield (Sy) is equivalent to the ratio of the volume of water that
saturated rock or soil will yield by gravity drainage to the volume of
rock or soil. The usual range of Sy is 0.01 to 0.30. Several workers
have compiled representative values of Sy for various unconsolidated mate-
rials. Johnson (1967) determined specific yields for common soils which
are found in Barnstable, as well as in other areas of Cape Cod:
Material Diameter, mm. Specific Yield. Percent
Coarse Gravel 16.0-32.0 23
Medium Gravel 8.0-16.0 24
Fine Gravel 4.0-8.0 25
Coarse Sand 0.5-1.0 27
Medium Sand 0.25-0.5 28
Fine Sand 0.125-0.25 23
Silt 0.004- 0.062 8
Clay < 0.004 3
Till, Predominantly Silt Variable 6
Till, Predominantly Sand Variable 16
Till, Predominantly Gravel Variable 16
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-7
The change in storage produced by the filling or draining of aquifer pore
space is dependent upon the rate of change of water-table fluctuations,
particle size, sorting, time and other factors. Therefore, the values
shown in the table above are only an approximate measure of the relation
between storage and head in unconfined aquifers (Lohman and others 1972).
More consistent estimates of Sy at any one location can be determined by
aquifer pump tests and drawdown measurements at observation wells. Most
Sy values determined at wells in Barnstable range from 0.20 to 0.29, which
are consistent with the sand and gravel materials in which they are
screened.
Both CCPEDC and SEA selected uniform values of Sy which were not directly
determined from public-supply-well testing, but from secondary sources.
According to Horsley (1983), an Sy of 0.25 was taken from Todd (1959,
Table 2.2) which summarized data attributed to Poland and others (1949)
from their work in California's Sacramento Valley. SEA chose to use the
uniform value of 0.20 for its modified numerical model of Barnstable. It
is identical to that used by Guswa and LeBlanc (1981) in their digital
model of the Cape Cod aquifer.
The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer
under a unit hydraulic gradient is defined as transmissivity (Lohman and
others, 1972). This property can be visualized as the rate water will
move through a vertical strip of the aquifer one foot wide and extending
through its saturated thickness under a hydraulic gradient of 100 percent.
This rate is commonly measured in terms of square feet per day (ft /d)
or gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft). An aquifer whose transmissivity is
less than about 150 ft /d may supply only enough water for small
diameter domestic wells. At localities where the transmissivity is
greater than about 1000 ft /d, sufficient water for municipal,
industrial or irrigation wells is usually available.
In an unconfined aquifer, such as that which provides water to Barnsta-
ble 's public and private wells, transmissivity is the product of the aqui-
fer's horizontal hydraulic conductivity and its saturated thickness (the
vertical distance between the water table and a relatively impermeable
layer such as thick clay or bedrock). Therefore, an aquifer's ability to
transmit water will change in direct proportion to any change in saturated
thickness due to natural or man-made water-table fluctuations (see table
9). Values of transmissivity determined by aquifer tests (or computer
models) represent estimates based on saturated thicknesses used for a
particular time or observation. They may not represent average values.
Multiplying the hydraulic conductivity (obtained by an aquifer test) by
the minimum known saturated thickness (based on observed water-table eleva-
tions) will yield a conservative value of transmissivity at a well site.
Because transmissivity indicates how much water moves through an aquifer
it is important for predicting the drawdown of a well at various distances
from a pumped well, the drawdown in a well at any time after pumping be-
gins, and the downgradient and lateral boundaries of a well's zone of
contribution. Aquifer tests provide insitu measurements of transmissivity
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-8
hat are averaged over a large and representative volume. Despite their
cost, aquifer tests remain the best method for estimating this important
aquifer property.
Most discussions of hydraulic conductivity (K) assume that the geologic
materials which store and transmit water are homogeneous and isotropic,
implying that the value of K is the same in all directions. However,
anisotropy (the condition in which all significant aquifer properties are
dependent of direction) is generally the rule in undisturbed, unconsolidat-
ed glacial materials. Anisotropy is influenced by the material's environ-
ment of deposition, particle size and shape. For example, Palmer (1977),
while studying the hydrogeology of glacial outwash deposits in Falmouth,
found that hydraulic conductivities in the north south direction of deposi-
tion were higher than those which were perpendicular (or east-west) to the
direction of stream deposition. Combining a flownet analysis with
water-table and saturated thickness maps, he estimated that hydraulic
conductivities parallel to the direction of deposition ranged from 140 to
167 feet per day, and the lower transverse values ranged from 62 to 81
feet per day. Such differences are probably due to the linearity of
coarse-grained channel deposits laid down by braided streams.
Horizontal layers with relatively low hydraulic conductivity will tend
to retard vertical flow (Todd, 1980). In Barnstable, dense, fine-grained
till and deposits of glaciolacustine (lakebed) silt and clay are commonly
present in beds of sand and gravel. These confining layers control the
rate at which ' recharge moves into the aquifer and vertically toward the
well screen during pumping. Extensive deposits of till or glaciolucustine
clay can isolate buried aquifers from zones of near-surface, groundwater
flow (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). At Barnstable Fire District's well number
3, for example, a 7-foot thick layer of firm blue clay at an elevation of
20 feet below sea level separates upper and lower aquifers consisting of
fine to coarse sand and gravel. The well draws water from the lower
aquifer at a rate of over 700 gpm. Available well logs for Barnstable
Water Company wells ST and SI show that clay layers of varying thickness
were penetrated during drilling. These layers, if sufficiently extensive,
would tend to restrict contaminant migration to a relatively shallow flow
path beneath the ground surface.
Conclusions
1. Municipal planners should make a comprehensive review of all existing
information regarding the occurrence, movement and quality of ground
water in Barnstable (and adjacent areas of neighboring towns). Such a
review will guide the subsequent collection of new data to protect
public water supplies. To assist in this review process, the following
table, using the town of Barnstable as an example, table summarizes
governmental sources and types of information available to town plan-
ners. Additional information may be available from geotechnical engi-
neering companies which have performed work in Barnstable under a
contractual basis.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-9
Level Source Number Government Agency or Firm
Federal
State
County
Town
Private
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
U.S. Geological survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mass. DEQE - Main Office
Mass. DEQE- SE Regional Office
Mass. Water Resources Commission
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Dev. Comm.
Barnstable County Health & Env. Dept.
Barnstable Board of Health
Barnstable Dept. of Public Works
Barnstable Fire District
Centerville-Osterville Fire District
Cotuit Fire District
Anderson-Nichols
Barnstable Water Company
Charles A. Maguire & Assoc.
Coffin and Richardson, Inc.
Down Cape Engineering
IEP, Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy Inc.
Schofield Brothers, Inc.
SEA Consultants, Inc.
Whitman & Howard, Inc.
Location
Boston
Boston
Boston
Lakeville
Boston
Barnstable
Barnstable
Hyannis
Hyannis
Hyannis
Osterville
Cotuit
Boston
Hyannis
Waltham
Boston
E. Brews ter
Barnstable
Wakefield
Framingham
Cambridge
Wellesley
Types and Source(s) of Information
A. Daily records of public-supply well discharge over the last five
years (or existing records for wells less than 5 years old) .
. Sources: 10,11,12,14
B. Aquifer pump-test data of test wells and water-supply wells.
Sources: 1,3,4,6,9,10,11,12,14,22
C. public-supply and private-well construction data
Sources: 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14
D. Surface and ground-water elevation data.
Sources: 1,6,9,10,11,12,13,14
E. Observations of temperature and precipitation data at Hyannis,
Mass.
Sources: 9
F. Location and nature of sources of pollution in Barnstable.
Sources: all
G Location and density of septic and sewage outflow.
Sources: 6,7,8,9
H. Water quality data
Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-10
2. Aquifer pump-test data should be analyzed to determine the aquifer's
transmissivity and storage coefficient, the specific capacity of the
well and the depth and radius of the pumping well's cone of
depression. This information may be obtained by applying one of the
following analytical methods. Procedures outlined by these references
will give satisfactory results depending on the completeness of the
test data:
a. "A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation
Constants and Summarizing Well-Field History," by H. H. Cooper,
Jr. and C. E. Jacob, 1946, transactions of the American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, pp. 526-534, Washington, D.C.
b. "Analysis of Pumping Test Data From Anisotropic Unconfined
Aquifers Considering Delayed Gravity Response," by S. P. Neuman,
1975, Water Resources Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 329-342,
Washington, D.C.
c. "A Computerized Technique for Estimating the Hydraulic
Conductivity of Aquifers from Specific Capacity Data", by K. R.
Bradbury and E. R. Rothschild, 1985, Ground Water, Vol. 23, No.
2, pp. 240-254, Worthington, Ohio.
3. Water elevation maps should be drawn from data obtained at both
observation and non-pumping, public-supply wells. .Maps constructed
from data taken at least every three months will reflect the seasonal
fluctuations in water-table elevations, flow directions and hydraulic
gradients which affect the geometry and orientation of a pumping
well's zone of contribution. In areas which have very gradual
hydraulic gradients, hydrogeological conditions may require that
elevation contours be drawn at one foot intervals to accurately
reflect local groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of and
upgradient of public-supply wells.
4. The zone of contribution of the wells should be defined as "Zone II"
in accordance with 310 CMR 24.00, Chapter 286, Acts of 1982. The size
and orientation of each zone should be determined by the use of the
analytical flow model as described by Todd (1980), which requires
information about well discharge, aquifer transmissivity, hydraulic
gradient and hydrogeologic boundary conditions. Until vertical
groundwater gradients in the area between the well and the water-table
divide can be determined, the upgradient boundary of the zone of
contribution should be extended to the divide, as a conservative
protective measure.
5. In localities having hydrogeologic conditions too complex to be
accurately described by an analytical flow model, the use of a finite
difference, three dimensional numerical model is recommended. Such a
model would be capable of simulating aquifer responses to variable
natural and artificial recharge, additional pumping wells and changes
in aquifer storage.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-ll
References Cited
Cooper, H. H., Jr. and Jacob, C. E., 1946, A generalized graphical method
for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well-field history:
American Geophysical Union, Transactions, Vol. 27, No. 4, p. 526-534.
Delaney, D. F., 1980, Ground-water hydrology of Martha's Vineyard, Massa-
chusetts: U. S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-618.
Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A., 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Guswa, J. H., and LeBlanc, D. R., 1981, Digital models of ground-water
flow in the Cape Cod aquifer system, Massachusetts: U. S. Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations Open File Report 80-67, 128 pp.
Horsley, S. W., 1983, Delineating zones of contribution for public-supply
wells to protect groundwater: National Water Well Association Eastern
Regional Conference on Groundwater Management, October 10 - November 2,
1983, 28 pp.
Johnson, A. I., 1967, Specific yield - compilation of specific yields for
various materials: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1662-D, 74
PP-
LeBlanc, D. R. and Guswa, J. H., 1977, Water-table map of Cape Cod, Massa-
chusetts, May 23-27, 1976: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File.Report
77-419.
Lohman, S. W. and others, 1972, Definitions of selected ground-water terms
revisions and conceptual refinements: U. S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1988, 21 pp.
Palmer, C. D., 1977, Hydrogeological implications of various wastewater
management proposals for the Falmouth area of Cape Cod, Massachusetts:
Pennsylvania State University, MS Thesis.
Poland, J. F. and others, 1949, Ground-water storage capacity of the
Sacramento Valley, California, in Water Resources of California: Bulletin
1. Calif. State Water Resources Board, Sacramento, p. 617-632.
Ryan, B. J., 1980, Cape Cod aquifer, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: U. S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 80-571.
SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985, Groundwater and water resource protection
plan for the town of Barnstable, Massachusetts: SEA Consultants, Inc.,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Strahler, A. N., 1972, The environmental impact of groundwater use on Cape
Cod, impact study III: Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, 68
PP-
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-12
Thornthwaite, C. W. and Mather, J. R., 1957, Instruction and tables for
computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance: Drexel
Institute Technical Publications in Climatology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 311 pp.
Todd, D. K., 1980, Groundwater hydrology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 535 pp.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-13
Table 1. Zone of Contribution Data Used by CCPEDC for Public Supply Wells
Barnstable.
Water
Ccropany
CT
CT
CT
TOTAL
CT
CT
BFD
BFD
BED
BFD
BWC
BWC
BWC
BWC
BWC
TOTAL
BWC
BWC
TOTAL
BWC
BWC
TOTAL
BWC
c/o
c/o
c/o
TOTAL
C/O
c/o
TOTAL
C/O
c/o
c/o
TOTAL
C/O
C/O
TOTAL
C/O .
C/O
TOTAL
C/O
NOTE: *
Well
El
E2
E4
MAIN
E3
PS1
PS1,3
PS2
PS3
MD1
MD2
MD3
MD4
AIR
SIM
HXAN
MEL
MDL
ST
10
AR
MC
9
5
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
Well Cap-
acity (Q)
(gon)
525
500
500
1,525
500
300
600
1,250
675
950
500
500
500
700
1,000
3,200
700
500
1,200 '
1,000
1,600
2,600
500
390
700
600
1,690
500
350
850
340
340
290
970
300
300
600
700
300
1,000
750
60% Q
(gpn)
915
300
180
360
750
405
570
1,920
720
1,560
300
1,014
510
582
360
600
450
denotes transmissivity
Aquifer Test
Transmissivity
(qpd/ft)
45,760
19,800
36,080
33,825
85,888
53,120*
106,000*
35,411*
40,920*
33,540*
54,798**
38,280
25,740
17,248
24,000
21,120
27,878
used in zone of
USGS Model
Transmissivity
(qpd/ft)
28,611*
28,611*
16,269*
53,856*
38,148*
59,466*
17,952
52,360*
56,100*
59,840*
54,230*
55,352*
54,230*
61,710*
93,500*
53,856*
Hydraulic
Gradient
(i)
0.003333
0.0032258
0.003333
0.003
0.0016667
0.0012
0.002
0.0019231
0.0026667
0.0024
0.0025641
0.00625
0.0030769
0.0034884
0.006383
0.0016667
Stagnation
Point Dist.
(feet)
2,200
750
750
4,999
1,450
1,850
4,000
1,650
2,400
500
1,650
350
800
400
250
1,150
contribution calculation. Values of
transmissivity for wells in the Mary Dunn wellfield were averaged.
** average transmissivity of Mary Dunn wellfield.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-14
Table 2. Public Supply Wells in Each Zone of Contribution
(from SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985).
Rated or Percent of
Supply Wells Potential,.. Tota(_
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Existing
BFD 2
BW M04
BW MD3
BW MD1
BW M02
BW AIR
BW MEL
BW MOL 1 & 2
BFD 1
BFD 3
C/0 7 & C/0 8
C/O 11
BW ST
BW SI
BW HY
C/0 12
C/0 13
C/0 5
C/0 9
C/0 AR
C/0 MC
C/0 iO
CT E3
CT E2
CT El
CT E4
C/0 14
C/O 15
C/0 16
Proposed
BW MD5
BW MD6
BW MD7
BW MD8
BW AIR 2
BW AIR 3
BFD 4
BW ST2
BW S12
CT E5
C/0 17
C/0 18
C/0 21
C/0 22
C/O 23
C/0 24
C/0 25
C/0 19
C/0 20
Yield torn)'1'
700
500
500
600
700
1,000
900
1,400
300
300
300
300
300
300
Total 8,100
350
800
700
Total 1,850
420
350
500
700
600
800
700
Total 4,070
350
350
Total 700
300
425
Total 725
500
800
32Q
Total 1,620
275
Total 275
485
465
500
700
300
500
400
500
500
700
700
500
500
Total 6,750
700
700
700
Total 2,100
Supply'2'
30.93
7.06
15.54
2.67
2.77
6.19
1.05
25.77
8.02
Notes: (1) gpm - gallons per minute
(2) Total potential supply = 37,713,600 gallons per day
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-15
Table 3. Comparison of Rated Safe Well Yields Used by CCPEDC and
SEA Consultants, Inc. for Public-Supply Wells in Barnstable, MA.
Water Conpany
COTUIT FIRE DIST.
BAR?. FIRE DIST.
BARM. WATER CO.
CEOTERVILLE-
OSTERVILLE FIRE .
DISTRICT
Well
El
E2
E3
E4
MAIN
1
2
3
MD1
MD2
MD3
MD4
AIR
SIM
HYftN
ST
MEL
MDL
MC
AR.
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CCPEDC
(gpn)
525
500
300
500
500
600
675
950
500
500
500
700
1,000
700
500
500
1,000
1,600
600
700
350
340
340
500
390
290
300
300
700
300
750
SEA Consultants, Inc.
(gpm)
465
485
275
500
350
700
700
600
700
500
500
1,000
700
600
500
900
1,400
800
500
300
420
420
425
320
350
350
350
700
300
700
Difference
(gpn)
60
15
25
0
250
25
250
100
200
0
200
0
0
100
0
100
200
200
200
50
80
80
75
70
60
50
50
0
0
50
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-16
Table 4. Evapotranspiration Estimates for Various Climatological Stations
in the Cape Cod Area (from Palmer, 1977).
Station Chatham* East Uarehaa* Byannls* Long Pond-*- Provlncetovn* South Wellfleet* Woods Hole*
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1973
_ _ » ^»
.
.
24.93
24.38
24.74
24.17
24.39
23.19
24.80
24.54
24.93
25.52
25.25
26.18
25.08
25.63
24.30
24.51
.
25.05
'
..
24.83
24.90
24.21
25.64
25.37
25.45
25.71
24.31
25.03
24.70
25.30
24.82
25.06
24.19
-
..
-
-
25.15
25.89
_««
___
24.02
25.22
25.35
25.25
25.54
24.63
26.25
25.08
25.73
24.96
25.59
24.54
26.24
26.54
26.23
26.37
25.31
27.14
26.37
25.07
Calculated from Teaperature Data fro* Rational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S.
Environmental Data Service, Cliaatologlcal Data; New England.
Calculated from Temperature Data from Records at Long Pond Pumping Station, courtesy of Falnouth
Department of Sever and Hater.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-17
Table 5. Annual Precipitation of Various Climatological Stations in the
Cape Cod Vicinity (from Palmer, 1977).
East Warehan* Hafchville+ Hyannls* Long Pond** Provlncecown* South
Well-
fleet*
Woods Hole*
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
i n-fft
1971
1972
1973 54.38
1974 40.50
27.82
36.87
52.52
44.94
53.83
3?! 46
73.84
51.35
36.24
24.86
36.14
48.48
44.34
47.91
A7 0£
1 / . OO
33.12
72.24
53.65
36.64
27.97
38.91
53.44
38.18
53.49
A£ AC
HO. "tw
36.56
61.91
50.87
36.03
25.15
35.84
48.69
41.13
45.08
«oc
OO
33.21
66.40
53.51
32.98
22.73
41.09
49.32
37.64
50.11
34.19
57.52
49.25
33.85
MM
_____
49.50
35.40
47.86
AA A7
ll/. 1 /
30.24
57.15
46.73
34.32
28.75
40.05
53.69
45.10
50.53
en A7
JU.**/
34.32
71.31
57.96
36.27
Mean
45.95
44.52
44.41
42.59
46.85
'Calculated fro- Temperature Data froa National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Environmental Data Service, CllBatological Data; Nev England.
Data courtesy of Falmouth Department of Sewer and Water.
Data courtesy of Audobon Society, Aahumet Holley Reservation.
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-18
Table 6. Calculated Evapotranspiration (in) at Long Pond Pumping Station,
Falmouth, MA (from Palmer, 1977).
Year Jan. Feb. Her. Apr. May June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Mean
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.02
. 0.08
0.44
0.58
0.95
0.47
0.20
0.55
0.07
0.50
0.26
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.71
0.35
0.20
0.54
0.37
1.62
1.37
1.78
1.45
1.25
1.10
1.16
1.08
1.52
1.56
1.39
1.06
0.94
1.49
1.58
0.08
1.84
1.36
3.27
2.85
3.12
2.95
3.25
3.22
2.71
2.26
3.04
2.93
3.14
2.75
2.93
2.65
2.68
3.08
3.11
2.94
4.36
4.36
4.39
4.55
4.37
4.22
4.35
4.17
4.13
4.40
4.08
4.41
4.20
4.67
4.14
4.33
4.48
4.33
5.16
5.30
4.93
5.38
5.09
5.20
5.34
5.38
5.38
4.94
5.56
5.51
5.25
5.36
5.26
5.60
5.24
5.29
4.61
4.83
4.48
4.68
4.31
4.86
4.78
4.73
4.59
4.96
4.74
4.69
4.67
5.11
4.93
4.74
4.57
4.72
3.29
3.87
3.24
2.78
3.16
3.19
3.09
3.25
3.39
3.36
3.28
3.46
3.40
3.10
3.27
3.08
3.19
3.26
2.00
2.23
2.04
2.14
1.92
1.88
1.92
2.18
2.30
1.99
2.01
2.68
1.56
1.91
1.48
2.03
1.61
1.99
1.13
0.94
0.82
1.18
0.96
0.76
0.99
0.71
0.81
0.97
0.99
0.66
6.67
0.72
0.81
1.17
0.43
0.87
0.00
0.20
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.20
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.19
0.35
0.31
0.21
0.05
0.00
0.11
25.77
26.38
25.40
25.56
24.93
24.83
24.90
24.21
25.64
25.37
25.45
25.71
24.31
25.03
24.70
25.30
25.16
25.27
Table 7. Estimated Recharge for Falmouth Area, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
(from Palmer, 1977).
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Mean
Jan.
3.15
2.30
4.98
3.76
3.52
3.11
3.52
2.10
2.71
0.87
1.12
2.96
2.74
2.05
5.07
6.76
5.18
3.29
Feb.
5.31
3.99
4.42
3.91
4.26
2.14
3.47.
2.90
1.76
8.04
6.29
6.18
4.98
2.18
2.66
3.80
1.98
4.02
Mar.
2.47
3.60
0.58
3.66
1.57
1.57
1.03
3.69
9.07
4.08
4.01
3.41
5.89
2.85
2.61
3.72
3.37
3.30
Apr.
2.68
2.88
2.70
0.94
3.98
1.69
0.55
3.81
-0.28
3.30
1.87
2.14
3.98
7.04
1.65
2.23
-0.67
2.38
May
0.48
2.50
-1.95
1.89
-2.63
-1.73
3.23
6.21
0.36
-1.65
-0.45
2.06
4.09
1.69
1.27
-0.34
0.04
0.88
June
-2.33
-2.99
1.29
-2.94
-3.65
-1.93
-2.93
-1.42
2.51
-2.49
0.47
-4.13
6.91
-1.93
-1.05
0.14
-2.25
-1.10
July
-0.66
-0.88
-2.92
-2.81
-1.49
-4.39
-3.99
-1.63
-4.63"
-2.99
-2.87
-4.39
-2.26
2.91
-3.13
-2.25
-0.63
-2.29
Aug.
-3.82
0.32
-1.58
-.209
-2.64
-1.97
.-3.07
0.20
-2.76
-3.88
1.88
-2.97
-2.89
-1.37
-2.56
-0.66
-0.07
-1.76
Sepc.
2.34
0.55
1.19
1.33
0.93
-1.34
2.33
-1.18
-2.50
1.22
-0.64
-2.91
10.53
0.13
0.77
4.61
-1.00
0.96
Oct.
-0.11
6.02
6.24
-0.49
2.82
0.04
1.19
-0.86
-0.31
0.41
1.55
-0.61
2.14
2.81
0.61
3.53
4.62
1.74
Nov.
1.73
3.04
2.85
3.09
6.05
1.36
3.23
4.33
5.75
6.44
4.94
4.26
6.20
2.22
0.94
6.13
1.14
3.39
Dee.
5.39
3.11
2.92
2.76
4.68
1.43
2.69
6.16
7.00
9.15
4.26
2.42
5.62
7.63
3.09
4.48
3.19
4.47
Total
16.64
24.45
20.72
12.63
11.40
0.03
11.24
24.27
18.70
22.54
22.41
7.41
47.93
27.62
11.94
32.16
14.93
19.24
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-19
Table 8. Estimation of Ground-Water Recharge by the Water-Balance Method
(from Strahler, 1972).
Hyannls,
J PM A M J J A 3 0 N
YEAR
Potential evapo-
tranapiratlon,
Inches
Precipitation,
inches
(1931-1952)
Water surplus
Water deficit
0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 2.9 4.1 5.3 4.8 3.4 2.1 0.9 0.1 25.2
4.2 3.5 4.2 3.6 3.1 3.4 2.4 3.7 4.3 3.6 3.3 3.5 42.8
4.2 3.5 3.9 2.3 0.2 - - - 0.9 1.5 2.4 3.4 22.3
- 0.7 2.9 1.1 - - - - 4.7
Recharge ( 22.3 - 4.0) 16.3
JPMAMJJASOND YEAR
0.00 0.00 0.35 1.26 2.87 K.Zi 5.35 4.92 3.U2 2.13 0.9U 0.20 25.69
4.19 3.03 4.10 3.38 2.55 4.45 2.30 2.86 4.48 3.50 2.98 3.46 40.28
4.19 3.03 3.75 2.12 - 1.06 1.37 2.04 3.44 21.oo
. 0.32 0.76 3.05 2.06 ... - 6.19
Recharge ( 21.00 - 4.00) 17.00
9 Data for Hyannls rounded to one decimal place
Reference: C.W.Thornthwalte, 1948, An Approach Toward a Rational Classifies tion of Climate
Geographical Review, vol.37, pp.55-94.
Data of temperature and precipitation from U.S.W.B.Climatic Sunmary of United States,
Supplement 1931-52, New England, pp.11-23.
Provlncetown,Hass.
Potential evapo-
tranaplration.
Inches
Precipitation,
Inches,
(1931-^2)
Water surplus
Vater deficit
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-20
Table 9. Maximum Water-Level Fluctuations at U. S. Geological Survey
Observation Wells in Barnstable, MA from January, 1958 to
July, 1984.
Vfell
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
AlW
230
247
254
292
294
306
307
313
314
315
Date of First
Observation
1-31-58
11-29-62
10-3-75
10-2-75
10-2-75
10-2-75
10-3-75
9-10-75
2-25-76
2-25-76
Elevation of Depth to
Ground Surface Water
(feet) (feet)
42.
44.
47.
41.
30.
53.
31.
72.
91.
91.
5
5
0
4
6
4
2 -
6
2
2
21
20
7
5
9
21
23
.06
.97
.72
.04
.82
.80
.88
43.47
54.92
55.03
Date
5-15-73
5-25-73
4-25-83
6-7-79
5-20-83
4-25-83
7-30-84
5-23-83
7-30-84
7-30-84
Depth to Difference
Water Date
(feet) (feet)
26.22
28.64
14.88
9.70
14.73
28.04
27.51
48.05
60.88
61.38
10-25-66
10-25-66
12-20-80
10-23-81
11-21-81
1-23-81
11-24-80
11-23-81
11-21-81
11-21-81
5
7
7
4
4
6
- 3
4
6
6
.16 '
.67
.16
.66
.91
.24
.63
.58
.26
.35
-------
APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-21
Inches of
woter
. JFMAMJJASON
s
4
3
2
1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
i i i i i i i i i t
. ^,^_
jS^ ^^^
- recharge >.
/ ^\
/ ^^^
/ average water table >v
/ \
_ decline
i i i i i i i i i i
Total precipitation: 40.3 in. s-35
Total evapotranspiration:25.7in. |
5
in.
4
2
1
n
f \ ^«5»fc
D
! ~~
-
_
-
-
.
^
/
-
J
1
4.48 ^precipitation
4'19 4,0 rML °T2IT !" ?
:' : 1.06 :
: i ; -0.76 -3.05 -2.06 i ;
Li 3.50
: ; i J^3; :3.42
: 3.03 :
- : 2.0* ;
2.98
3.46
SURPLUS: 21.0 ; 1-032 i2'-86 ^ SURPLUS
4.19 3J03 375 2.12 2J5 i \ J 1.37 2.04
'2.30 / \
_ t . Soil ^ 2.13
Total water
qround-water recharge:
recharge: i '1 4.0
17.0 ''2S
H
!
i
il
j
i
"*^-evopotranspiration
0 , 0 0.35 I. i I I i I
3.44
"
-
0 20
J FMAMJJASOND
months of year
Figure 1. The Water Budget of Provincetown - Based on a Twelve-Year Record,
1931-1952 (from Strahler, 1972).
-------
APPENDIX F
EVALUATION OF APPROACHES TO DETERMINE RECHARGE AREA
FOR PUBLIC-SUPPLY WELLS
Aquifer Assessment Committee
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project
April 3, 1986
Introduction
The Aquifer Assessment Committee has been charged with the evaluation
of existing Zone II delineations (zones of contribution around public-
supply wells) and the determination of alternative approaches to delineate
the Zone II that would be appropriate for the pilot area. The purpose of
this report is to outline the salient considerations surrounding these
issues, to summarize our evaluation of existing Zone II delineations in
the project area, and to recommend future courses of action to meet our
charge. The Aquifer Assessment Committee has reviewed the methods used by
SEA Consultants and the CCPEDC to estimate Zone II (zone of contribution)
about the public-supply wells in Barnstable. It should be noted that
Eastham has no community public-water-supply wells and accordingly no
existing Zone II delineations.
Background Information
The Zone of Contribution (ZOC) or Zone II as defined in 310 CMR 24.00
is that area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the
most severe recharge and pumping conditions that can be realistically
anticipated. It is bounded by the groundwater divides which result from
pumping the well and by the contact of the edge of the aquifer with less
permeable materials such as till and bedrock. At some locations, streams
and lakes may form recharge boundaries. The delineation of this area is
analogous to the delineation of the watershed to a reservoir and it pro-
vides the foundation for most quality related groundwater resource plan-
ning decisions. It is the area in which the implementation of land-use
restrictions should be applied to prevent the contamination of well wa-
ter. Accordingly the importance of an accurate delineation of Zone II is
apparent.
The Zone II delineations performed to date and the alternative methods
the Committee will be considering both involve groundwater flow modeling.
As described by Walton, 1984: "Modeling is concerned with the dynamic
behavior of groundwater systems. Models simulate and are simplified repre-
sentations of groundwater systems. Modeling is an exercise in systems
analysis whereby data and theories concerning the behavior of groundwater
systems are organized into models."
"An important aspect of modeling is the proper acknowledgment of the
approximate nature of modeling through the clear description of model
assumptions and limitations. Adequate documentation and appreciation of
assumptions greatly assist the modeler and model user in keeping model
result expectations within a realistic perspective."
-------
APPENDIX F: EVALUATION OF APPROACHES TO DETERMINE RECHARGE AREAS
Cape Cod Aqifer Management Project Final Report Page F-2
"Different models require different amounts and types of data. Associ-
ated with each level of model sophistication is a data base requirement.
Generally, as the model becomes more sophisticated in order to more close-
ly conform to reality, the associated data requirements increase. The
modeler is faced with the decision of when the benefits of a more realis-
tic model are outweighed by the difficulty and expense of collecting the
data necessary to adequately define such a model."
Groundwater flow models can be separated into two broad categories:
analytical models and numerical models. Analytical models are appropriate
for the analysis of aquifer test data, simplified aquifer system analysis,
and the design of numerical models. They generally include a greater
number of simplifying assumptions. They represent the less sophisticated
end of the modeling spectrum described above. Numerical models are more
adaptable than analytical models. They allow for a more discrete and
therefore representative description of the aquifer system. They are
appropriate for the analysis of complex aquifer systems. They generally
include a lesser number of simplifying assumptions and represent the more
sophisticated end of the modeling spectrum.
The ability of a modeling effort (Zone II delineation) to optimize the
cost/benefit (model accuracy) relationship, described earlier, is a princi-
pal consideration in the choice of the modeling approach. This decision
is directly dependent upon the complexity of the hydrogeologic system
under consideration (hydrogeologic data availability). The choice of an
analytical modeling approach, and the greater number of simplifying assump-
tions associated with the technique, will generally result in an overesti-
mate of the extent of the Zone II area. This is generally a result of the
modeler utilizing more conservative parameter input to compensate for the
model's inability to account for complex aquifer interrelationships. The
choice of a numerical modeling approach, and the lesser number of simplify-
ing assumptions associated with that technique, will generally result in a
more realistic delineation of the Zone II area. This is a result of the
model's ability to account for complex aquifer interrelationships such as
multiple withdrawal and recharge points, boundary conditions, spatial and
directional variation of aquifer properties and recharge, militarily aqui-
fer systems, and partially penetrating wells. This is significant in the
Cape Cop pilot area, because in most cases these complex conditions are
present.
The importance of a realistic delineation of Zone II becomes apparent
when you consider the ramifications of the land use controls that must be
placed in this area.
The significance of the relationships described above can best be
evaluated by comparing an actual application of both analytical and numeri-
cal modeling techniques in the pilot area.
-------
APPENDIX F: EVALUATION OF APPROACHES TO DETERMINE RECHARGE AREAS
Cape Cod Aqifer Management Project Final Report Page F-3
Review of Existing Zone II Delineations
The Committee has reviewed the methods used by SEA Consultants and
CCPEDC to estimate Zone II (Zone of Contribution) about the public-supply
wells in Barnstable and has concluded that both approaches yield reason-
able delineations of the zones. The methods employed are dependent upon
analytical models which use the groundwater flow equation or some deriva-
tive of it to calculate a groundwater divide (stagnation point). Both
methods then use a mass balance approach to circumscribe an area of ground-
water recharge or capture which would yield, on average, a quantity of
water equal to the assumed withdrawal from the well, and which is bounded
on the downgradient side by the stagnation point. The demonstrated appli-
cations by SEA and CCPEDC result in similar delineations, but are diffi-
cult to compare in detail because different input data were used for re-
charge rate, aquifer transmissivity, withdrawal rate, and initial water
table conditions. It is concluded that either method can yield an approxi-
mate delineation of the zone of contribution, but that they cannot be
precise It is observed that the analytical methods used for these delinea-
tions are based on simplifying assumptions which do not accurately repre-
sent nature with its variations and heterogeneity. Therefore, the delinea-
tions , while approaching average conditions, can not be expected to accu-
rately reflect the effects of the variations in the real world and there-
fore must be imprecise on point by point comparison with the field data.
It is further concluded that the input data are subject to judgemental
variation and perhaps manipulation which can seriously alter the resultant
delineations. The most sensitive of these factors are: recharge rate,
withdrawal rate, and initial water table conditions. There is a definite
need to establish standard criteria for assigning values to these factors
and for assigning aquifer transmissivity as well.
Conclusions
Analytical techniques such as those used by SEA Consultants and CCPEDC
are useful for preparing initial, simplified estimates of impacts of pump-
ing; however, they are incapable of simulating complex aquifer condi-
tions. The analytical techniques do not account for multiple withdrawal
are recharge points, boundary conditions, spatial and directional varia-
tion of aquifer properties and recharge, militarily aquifer systems, and
partially-penetrating wells. Numerical models, however, can integrate
these variables yielding a higher confidence level in model predictions.
Re c ommenda t i ons
1. A demonstration of three-dimensional groundwater modeling is recommend-
ed. Ideally, the demonstration would include conditions where the
advantages and disadvantages of the modeling approach could be defined
and compared with those of the analytical approaches. Opportunities
for model verification with past and future water-level data should be
utilized. The models should be applied to areas with complex boundary
conditions, multiple aquifer systems, multiple withdrawal points, and
areally variable recharge, variable aquifer thickness, partial penetra-
tion, and changes in aquifer storage. Additional analyses could in-
-------
APPENDIX F: EVALUATION OF APPROACHES TO DETERMINE RECHARGE AREAS
Cape Cod Aqifer Management Project Final Report Page F-4
elude comparison of the area of influence with area (zone) of
contribution and determination of the upgradient boundary of the zone
of contribution. The subject of data acquisition in terms of
requirements and costs should be described. This will allow the
determination of the benefits of a more realistic model (more accurate
Zone II delineation) relative to the expense of collecting the data
necessary to adequately define such a model. Action item - financing
is need for a modeling effort of this nature.
2. It is recommended that an evaluation of the existing hydrogeological
data base take place in the pilot area. Action item - U.S. EPA Office
of Ground Water Protection is currently evaluating this situation; a
report to the Aquifer Assessment Committee is being prepared and
should be considered supporting documentation for this report.
3. It is recommended that recharge data developed from Thornthwaite calcu-
lations be utilized in future delineations for Cape Cod. Sources of
this data are Strahler, Palmer, Guswa and Leblanc. No action - data
available.
4. It is recommended that transmissivity data be developed from well
pumping test data as outlined in the DEQE Guidelines for
Public-Supply Wells. Action item - Guidelines are currently being
updated.
5. It is recommended that withdrawal data be based on a standard recom-
mended percentage of the well capacity as determined in accordance
with the DEQE Guidelines for Public-Supply Wells. Action item - DE-
QE/DWS to provide Guidelines for percentage.
6. It is recommended that criteria for initializing water-level condi-
tions be developed and the program for data acquisition be upgraded.
Action item - Local, state and federal governments have the responsi-
bility to design, create, and monitor an observation well network and
publish water-level data. The Aquifer Assessment Group has accepted
responsibility for providing detailed guidance for this action.
7. The Zone of Contribution should be referred to as Zone II and deter-
mined in accordance with 310 CMR 24.00, Chapter 286, Acts of 1982. No
action - regulations exist.
References Cited
Walton, W. C. 1984. Practical Aspects of Ground Water Modelling.
National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio.
-------
APPENDIX G
QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR GROUNDWATER MODELS THROUGH DOCUMENTATION
J. J. Donohue, IV
MA Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Water Supply
Boston, MA
June, 1986
Mathematical groundwater flow and contaminant transport models are tools
frequently applied to the analysis of hydrogeological systems. Due to the
ramifications of decisions based upon modeling results, quality assurance
measures need to be applied to all hydrogeological investigations that
involve modeling. The complete documentation of a modeling project is the
primary mechanism to insure the quality of the effort.
In order to completely describe the application of a mathematical model to
the solution of a hyrogeologic problem, the following outlines the tasks
which require documentation. For a more comprehensive treatment of this
subject see reference by Van der Heijde (1986).
1. Purpose
State the purpose, goals and objectives of the modeling effort.
2. Conceptual Model
Develop and present a conceptual model of the aquifer system and con-
tamination problem of concern (i.e., existing distribution of contami-
nants and source characteristics). This should include cross-sections
and maps at an appropriate scale of the geology and hydrology of the
aquifer. Data set strengths and deficiencies should be presented.
3. Data Collection
Explain how the data were collected, analyzed and interpreted. Explo-
ration methods and data analysis techniques should be presented. The
level of confidence in resulting parameter identification should be
described.
4. Model Description
Document the groundwater flow and contaminant transport model (code)
utilized. The use of well documented, tested and utilized codes is
encouraged. The use of custom or altered codes is discouraged. If an
altered code is utilized, it should be thoroughly tested against known
solutions. The documentation must include the governing equation(s)
being solved.
-------
APPENDIX G: QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR GROUNDWATER MODELS THROUGH DOCUMENTATION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page G-2
Explain why the model being utilized was chosen. All simplifying
asumptions inherent to the application of the model should be stated
and justified, as well as the impact these assumptions may have on
model results. A comparison between these assumptions and actual
conditions should be made. Describe where model assumptions and actu-
al field conditions do not coincide and how this may affect model
results.
5. Assignment of Model Parameters
All initial conditions, boundary conditions, hydraulic and transport
parameter values should be defined and the reasons for selecting these
conditions justified. The values assigned throughout the modeled area
should be presented. The area covered by the model should be present-
ed as an overlay on a topographic base map of appropriate scale, high-
lighting boundary conditions and hydraulic parameter values.
6. Model Calibration
Model calibration goals and procedures should be presented and dis-
cussed. The results of the final calibration run should be presented
and analyzed and departure from the calibration targets analyzed. The
effects of these departures on the model results should also be dis-
cussed. In addition, the overall model water and chemical balance
should be evaluated and the salient features of the model scenario
(pumpage, recharge, leakage, boundary conditions, etc.) highlighted in
this evaluation.
7. Sensitivity Analysis
Model sensitivity analysis should be presented and interpreted. Dis-
cuss how well the model meets the purposes, goals and objectives stat-
ed in (1) above. Determine what parameters of the model have the
greatest influence on the model results. The analysis should focus on
those parameters based on the least certain assumptions.
8. Model Validation
Model validation goals and procedures should be presented and dis-
cussed. Model validation, or field validation, is defined as the
comparison of model results with numerical results, independently
derived from laboratory experiments or observations of the environment
(Reference No. 1). See Reference No. 1 for a more detailed descrip-
tion of validation procedures.
The results of the final validation run should be presented and ana-
lyzed. Important points include departure from the validation targets
and the significance of these departures. Present and discuss the
overall model water and chemical balance, highlighting salient fea-
tures of the model scenario (pumpage, recharge, leakage, boundary
conditions, etc.).
-------
APPENDIX G: QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR GROUNDWATER MODELS THROUGH DOCUMENTATION
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page G-3
9. Data Preprocessing and Postprocessing
All preprocessing of model input data must be thoroughly described.
Special precautions to avoid data input error must be applied and
described. All postprocessing of model output data must be thoroughly
described and any computer codes utilized must be documented. Note
vertical exaggeration in any computer-generated surface plots or
cross-sections.
10. Model Prediction
The model output from all predictive scenarios should be presented and
interpreted. Present and discuss the overall model water balance,
highlighting salient features of the model scenario (pumpage, re-
charge, leakage, etc.). Restate the fundamental assumption in the
presentation of the model predictions.
11. Model Results
The physical reality of the model should be discussed (i.e. how well
does the model represent the physical and chemical processes of the
environment being simulated?). Note if the model results support the
initial assumptions stated in Section 4 (Model Description).
The model results should be presented in non-technical terms. Prefera-
bly, a qualifying answer should be presented: "given conservative
values, withing the range of expected variation, the model results
show...." ...."given less conservative values within the range of
expected variation, the model results show...."
12. Model Records
The modeler should provide/keep on file the following records in digi-
tal form:
a. The version of the source code utilized.
b. The final calibration run.
c. All predictive runs.
References:
Van der Heijde, Paul, K.M., 1986, Quality assurance in computer
simulations of groundwater contamination: International Groundwater
Modeling Center, Holcomb Research Institute, Butler University, India-
napolis, IN 46208.
-------
APPENDIX H
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
December, 1986
Introduction
The importance of water-supply planning is repeatedly made apparent to
the Institutions Committee in our examination of the major groundwater
protection issues facing Cape Cod. For each town, such as Barnstable with
a sophisticated understanding of its water resource and its future water
supply needs, there are other towns, particularly those partially or total-
ly dependent on private wells, which have not examined their future needs,
nor identified the areas they will need to protect for future well sites.
DEQE/DWS needs to conduct an extensive outreach program to provide these
towns with technical assistance in planning for water supply development.
This outreach effort should be geared particularly to those towns on pri-
vate wells that will need to develop public supplies soon. DEQE should
also expand its current outreach efforts to include technical assistance
to towns relating to groundwater protection and the compilation of
water-resource-management plans.
The Zone II delineation process and the restriction of certain activi-
ties to protect that zone, were pioneered in the Aquifer Land Acquisition
Program. The experience gained from this program should be built on and
adapted to other water-supply activities at the state level. DEQE/DWS
should offer incentives to municipalities to delineate the Zone Us to
their wells and offer guidelines on control mechanisms that might be adapt-
ed to protect these areas.
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
(PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*))
Outreach
*1. DEQE/DWS, in conjunction with DEM/DWR, should conduct an analysis of
the towns in the state which rely completely (or largely) on private
wells to determine which towns will most likely need to develop public
water supplies in the future. DWS should design an outreach program
targeted to those towns that will reach that point first to provide
technical assistance to help them undertake the necessary
water-supply-development planning. (See also recommendation 3.)
-------
APPENDIX H - CCAMP WATER SUPPLY PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page H-2
*2. The State should propose legislation to implement a matching grant
program to municipalities identified through the assessment conducted
under recommendation #1, to assist them in planning for their transi-
tion from private to public water supplies. The grant monies should
be used to finance the needed engineering studies to determine what
areas should be protected as future well sites.
Background for Recommendations #1 & #2: In examining the state of
water-supply planning on Cape Cod and particularly in a town such as
Eastham with no public-water supplies, it became clear that much sore-
ly needed water-supply planning is not occurring at the local level.
This is especially true in those towns that rely completely on
private-water supplies, which do not have knowledgeable water-supply
personnel to voice the need for this kind of planning and spur the
town into action. Neither is this kind of planning being encouraged
actively enough at the state level. DEQE's regional water-supply
staff is involved in the new source approval process only after a
potential source has been located by the town. Further, there are no
state or federal grant programs for water-supply planning such as
exist for wastewater planning. State policy stipulates that local
water-supply planning should be funded through the rates charged to
water consumers but this policy makes no mention of those towns on
private wells with no water-related revenues.
If town officials know where they will put a public well, if or when
it is needed, then the necessary area can be protected through
land-use controls or other mechanisms. Water-supply planning is a
crucial base upon which other kinds of planning such as zoning should
build. The Construction Grants Program, for example, has a difficult
time siting treatment plants in towns that have not identified the
areas needed for future water-supply sites. (See CCAMP Recommenda-
tions on Groundwater Discharge Permit Program and Construction
Grants.) Current development pressures, particularly intense on Cape
Cod, are precluding future options as areas with prime water supply
potential are developed for other purposes.
COMMENT: DEQE has responded to recommendation #2 by filing a bill
for $25,000,000 to provide matching grants to municipalities to identi-
fy potential sources of water supply and for $5,000,000 for
water-supply master plans.
*3. DEQE/DWS should increase the technical assistance it provides to towns
regarding water supply planning and protection through the following
means:
a. DEQE/DWS should utilize the new source approval process to edu-
cate local officials as to the variety of mechanisms available
-------
APPENDIX H - CCAMP WATER SUPPLY PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page H-3
to them for protecting the water supply; and to require certain
land-use controls or land use bans to be implemented in Zone II;
to require evidence of some level of coordination with
neighboring communities regarding land uses in Zone Us which
overlap town boundaries; and evidence of coordination between the
town's planning board and the water department.
b. DEQE/DWS should initiate an aggressive water supply planning and
protection outreach program in the Southeast Region as a pilot
program. Having outreach staff in each region is a longer term
goal. This outreach should cover both public and private sup-
plies and would provide assistance to towns in compiling compre-
hensive water resource management plans.
4. DEM should set higher standards for the water resource management
plans it requires towns to submit, as these give the towns a good
framework for focusing their planning efforts. These town-wide plans
also form the basis for the basin wide water resource plans that
DEM/DWR develops. The completion of these plans should be required
for eligibility for DEQE water supply grant programs. Grant programs
included are: the Public Buildings Water Conservation Grants Program,
the Leak Detection and Systems Rehabilitation Program, the Drinking
Water Facility Construction Grants Program, the Aquifer Land Acquisi-
tion Program, the Contamination Correction Program and the Residential
Water Conservation Grants Program. In the past, there were not suffi-
cient incentives for towns to put much effort into the water resource
management plans. Now, with many water supply grant programs, suffi-
cient incentives exist to expect towns to complete these plans.
5. CCPEDC should investigate sources of funding at the federal and state
levels and in the private sector for coordinating a series of work-
shops and training sessions for local officials on state and federal
laws, local powers, water quality monitoring, and land use management
for the purposes of water supply protection. DEQE, DPH, DEM, USGS and
EPA should make appropriate personnel available to serve on panels or
conduct sessions for these workshops.
Public Water Supplies and Zone Us (ZOCs)
*6. The state should continue to fund and expand the Aquifer Land Acquisi-
tion (ALA) program. In addition, the state should provide a matching
grant program for delineating the Zone Us for existing public-supply
wells. In addition to funding the necessary hydrological studies,
DEQE/DWS could utilize the leverage from the grant program to require
that certain land use controls be implemented in the delineated areas
(as currently required by the ALA Program).
7. DEQE/DWS, with the assistance of the other divisions, EPA's Office of
Groundwater and the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commis-
sion (CCPEDC), should provide direct information to municipalities as
to what are acceptable activities within Zone II areas and what activi-
ties present risks.
-------
APPENDIX H - CCAMP WATER SUPPLY PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page H-4
8. CCPEDC should investigate the feasibility of instituting a revolving
fund that could loan money to towns for the purchase of land to pro-
tect water supplies. This would enable towns to step in and tie up
land quickly before the price escalates while waiting for a town meet-
ing vote to appropriate money for that purpose.
Protective measures developed through increased information
9. DEQE/DWS should computerize all public supply well water quality data
and improve its capabilities for conducting trend analyses. Summaries
of these data and any analyses of them should be provided annually to
water suppliers, town departments and regional planning agencies.
This data automation should be tied into other similar efforts within
the Department. This effort could start in the pilot area.
10. DEQE should require more frequent monitoring in public supply wells
that show elevated levels of problem contaminants such as nitrates,
sodium and synthetic organics. DEQE should develop regulations that
specify levels which should trigger additional testing and appropriate
sampling schedules.
11. DEQE/DWS should develop risk analysis capabilities to predict the loss
of public supplies and advise communities on how to plan for these
losses. DEQE should develop a policy that describes appropriate lev-
els of reserve supply and sufficient interconnection to support demand
during contamination emergencies.
Institutional
12. DEQE/DWS should examine its current organizational structure and clear-
ly define the responsibilities of the DWS staff in Boston and the
regions.
Private Wells
13. DEQE/DWS should develop the present informal private wells installa-
tion guidelines into a model bylaw. DWS should undertake an aggres-
sive education campaign to accompany the private well installation
guidelines. This outreach should include workshops for local
officials on well installation and testing issues.
-------
APPENDIX I
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS
December, 1986
Introduction
The following recommendations are the result of the Cape Cod Aquifer
Management Project's examination of the current status of groundwater
protection from contamination from landfills on Cape Cod. The Project's
major emphasis is on improving federal, state and local coordination in
protecting the groundwater resource and ensuring that groundwater concerns
are at the forefront of all relevant policy considerations. The first
issue the Project's Institutions Work Group explored was landfills. We
examined current and proposed DEQE regulations and guidelines and spoke
extensively with people in different DEQE divisions as well as local land-
fill operators and town representatives. Because regulations protecting
groundwater from landfill leachate are largely a state responsibility,
this particular set of recommendations focuses almost exclusively on DEQE
programs.
We began our study of landfills at a time when the DEQE landfill pro-
gram was emerging from a period of several years of dormancy. The lega-
cies of that period, historical siting and operating errors and uncertain-
ty over the outcome of the Norfolk court case involving Proposition 2 1/2
all combine to create a very difficult regulatory situation. Neverthe-
less, the best protection for groundwater is a strong, comprehensive state
landfill program with clearly defined policy goals and regulations and
adequate staff resources.
Unfortunately, the current DEQE landfill program does not adequately
address groundwater protection. Generally, we found that groundwater
considerations were not given sufficient deliberation, in program manage-
ment and decision-making. Further, we observed that basic rules, proce-
dures and definitions relative to groundwater are inconsistent between the
landfill program and other groundwater based programs within DEQE. To
correct this, we believe it is imperative that the landfill program incor-
porate groundwater protection considerations in its operating procedures
and do so in a manner that provides consistency with groundwater policy
and procedures throughout DEQE.
New guidelines are currently being drafted and reviewed by solid waste
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page 1-2
personnel and we urge that these be formally adopted and implemented as
soon as possible. It is important that groundwater policy concerns be
raised at this formative stage of the program rather than addressed when
it is too late, in response to a crisis. We hope that our recommendations
will provide added impetus and guidance in the Departments efforts to
strengthen the groundwater protection afforded by its landfill program.
Several of the following recommendations exceed the capabilities of exist-
ing DSHW staff; adequate resources must be found to remedy this situation
for comprehensive groundwater protection to occur.
We plan to continue to observe the state's landfill programs and moni-
tor the implementation of these recommendations. We will continue to
examine landfill policies as they relate to the groundwater discharge
permit program, groundwater classification and state sludge and septage
policies. As we consider these programs, we will have further recommenda-
tions relating to landfills.
Comments on implementation appear after each recommendation.
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Impact to public water supplies should be the number one priority of
DEQE's landfill management program. Rather than reacting to crises, a
prioritized ranking system should be established in writing and imple-
mented. It would be used to drive all landfill activities: siting,
plan review, monitoring, inspection, capping, closure and
enforcement. The potential impact to groundwater and surface water,
the importance of the area's water supplies, soil type, and the
geology of the area should be included in the ranking criteria.
2. To ensure a forward-looking posture to groundwater resources protec-
tion, the siting sections of the DSHW landfill regulations should
incorporate the DWS definition of Zone II recharge areas and prohibit
landfills from being sited in Zone II areas of public water supply
wells. Existing operating landfills in Zone II areas should be phased
out as soon as possible.
3. DEQE should establish a well-defined, comprehensive landfill monitor-
ing program. The objectives and goals of the monitoring program
should be stated and the requirements of an acceptable local monitor-
ing program established. The program should be consistent with other
DEQE groundwater programs. Established standard procedures should be
adhered to by all affected Divisions and should be required of all
present landfills that are threatening ground water or are
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 -Page 1-3
potential threats, as well as new landfills.
Standard procedures and a minimum acceptable program should be estab-
lished for the following:
a. Well placement and installation.
b. Sampling protocol and chain of custody procedures.
c. Sampling frequency and parameter selections.
d. Format for the management of the collected data.
e. Statistical analysis of the monitoring data.
f. DEQE review of submitted data.
g. Threshold standards which trigger certain action, including
notification of other Divisions and mandatory further monitoring.
h. Oversight/Enforcement of monitoring program.
(More detailed monitoring recommendation are stated on p. 5.)
4. DEQE should assess the potential threat to groundwater from junkyards,
stump dumps and abandoned landfills. DEQE should then re-examine its
own regulation of these activities based on these findings. DEQE
should provide information to the local Boards of Health concerning
the degree of threat from these activities and should provide assis-
tance to communities seeking to upgrade their regulation of these
sources.
5. The definition of Significant Groundwater Aquifer used by DSHW in
their regulations should be consistent with the definition used by DWS
and the other Divisions. Significant should be defined as any actual,
planned or potential public water supply. A "potential" supply is
defined as any aquifer capable of yielding greater than 100 gpm of
water.
6. DEQE landfill siting policy should be consistent with DEQE's groundwa-
ter protection goals.
7. DEQE policy relating to landfills should reflect that, while landfills
may be necessary for certain types of waste (e.g. demolition materi-
als, tree stumps and ash), there are alternative methods of waste
disposal such as resource recovery and source reduction which should
be considered.
8. DEQE, through the auspices of its Groundwater Protection Committee,
should develop an action plan to implement the recommendations made in
this report. Specific tasks with milestone and completion dates
should be included.
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page 1-4
SITE EVALUATION/SITE ASSIGNMENT
9. The site selection stage is crucial for the protection of water sup-
plies; decisions made at this stage usually result in policies and
facilities that are long-term and difficult to reverse. The lack of
alternative waste disposal methods and the tremendous cost involved in
developing any landfill reinforce the continued reliance on land dis-
posal. Thus, long-range planning should be emphasized. Every effort
should be made to integrate the BSWD regional planning work with
DSHW's landfill program. BSWD's move to DEQE provides a unique oppor-
tunity to accomplish this and it should not be wasted.
10. DEQE should establish in writing a clear set of criteria considering
potential and actual groundwater use, geology, and soil type, to char-
acterize appropriate and inappropriate sites for landfill location.
This site characterization should be stated in the regulations and
relayed to local officials and to BSWD staff for use in drafting the
regional solid waste plans.
11. The site evaluation required when a site is proposed for use as a
landfill must consider impacts beyond the landfill site itself. The
DSHW should determine the extent of the study area; it should be large
enough so that the landfill's potential effect on any groundwater or
surface water supplies must be considered and utilized in
decision-making.
12. The DSHW has the responsibility for seeking review and comment from
the other Divisions, particularly DWS, on the importance of a groundwa-
ter resource that might be affected by the siting and operation of a.
landfill.
13. The DWS should be given the responsibility for evaluating the impor-
tance of the drinking-water potential of a groundwater resource which
might be affected by siting and operation of a landfill.
14. When a landfill site is proposed, DEQE should require that the land-
fill owner submit plans detailing proposed funding of the daily land-
fill operation, including purchase of intermediate cover material of a
very fine grade, provisions for an adequate groundwater monitoring
program and for the eventual capping and closure of the landfill.
EXPANSION REQUESTS
15. The BSWD should advise communities when their landfill goes below
three years in life expectancy, that they must initiate action to
develop a new facility of some sort and put them on an implementation
schedule by order, if necessary.
16. Expansion requests need to be considered as fully and seriously as new
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page 1-5
sites since so many of the state's present landfills are located in
unacceptable sites by current standards. A site evaluation, as de-
scribed in recommendation #11, should be required.
MONITORING
17. Existing groundwater monitoring handbooks (DWS and DSHW each have one)
should be recognized and required to be standard operating procedure.
These handbooks are consistent with each other and have already been
reviewed. Comprehensive guidelines for monitoring and sampling proce-
dures are being developed by DEQE and will be utilized department
wide, once completed.
18. DSHW should review the installation plans for existing monitoring
wells on a priority basis using the previously mentioned ranking sys-
tem. Any of the older wells which may have deteriorated should be
closed and replaced, if necessary. Existing landfill monitoring sys-
tems should be revised based on this review.
19. DEQE should establish a standard procedure detailing the following
aspects of a landfill monitoring program: hydrogeological investiga-
tion and field reconnaissance, field verification of flow regime,
monitoring well placement, well drilling development techniques, well
construction, sampling apparatus, frequency of sampling, sampling
protocol, treatment and handling procedures, list of parameters, sta-
tistical analysis of data, where data will be sent, and who will be
notified once standards are exceeded. DEQE should review the above
activities.
20. A detailed protocol for the sampling program and chain of custody
should be established when initiating any monitoring program. Informa-
tion on this protocol should be contained in the DSHW regional files.
Any deviations from the established protocol should be clearly noted
by the person taking the samples.
21. DWS should provide DSHW with a list of the landfills in Zone II of
public-water supplies. DSHW should then request DWS input on groundwa-
ter monitoring requirements in these zones. Copies of monitoring
results in Zone II should be sent to DWS.
22. DWS should review current monitoring parameters to determine if they
are sufficient. DSHW should require monitoring for VOCs on a regular
basis.
23. We support DSHW's policy that all new landfills should be required to
institute an adequate groundwater monitoring program subject to DEQE
approval. DEQE counsel should determine what additional legal authori-
ty is necessary, if any, for DEQE to require the initiation of a
groundwater-monitoring program (or the enhancement of an existing one)
at existing sites other than those applying for expansions.
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page 1-6
INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT
24. The previously mentioned priority ranking system ;should be utilized
in guiding the ;inspection and enforcement programs.
25. DEQE should consider increasing its spot checking of high risk land-
fills on an announcing basis in order to provide a measure of quality
control to the inspection reports submitted by local consulting engi-
neers .
26. During the landfill inspection process, the DSHW inspector should
review the groundwater monitoring data that has been submitted. The
inspector should also make an effort to discover if there has been any
groundwater monitoring done in addition to what is specifically re-
quired by DEQE. This data should be requested, reviewed and retained
in the regional solid waste files.
27. During a landfill inspection, DSHW staff should check that groundwater
monitoring wells are capped and locked. On-site landfill personnel
should be aware of the location of these wells.
LEACHATE CONTROL
28. We support DSHW's efforts to characterize the leachate from municipal
landfills and its effect on groundwater. DEQE should provide the
results of this study to the local Boards of Health and the appropri-
ate divisions.
29. All sanitary landfills should implement measures to control, collect,
treat and dispose of leachate. The minimum acceptable treatment level
and the acceptable disposal methods should be defined.
LANDFILL CAPPING
30. The importance of the threatened groundwater resource should be one of
the highest criteria for ranking landfills for eligibility under the
landfill capping grant program.
31. Because proper capping is the most effective way to reduce leachate
generation after landfill closure, the amount of bonding allowed to a
commercial landfill owner should be raised from $5500 per operating
acre to a higher figure that will more adequately provide for capping
and closure costs.
INTRA-AGENCY COORDINATION
32. The DEQE Groundwater Protection Committee should be given the opportu-
nity to review the criteria for all relevant grant programs in terms
of ^the weight given to groundwater protection.
-------
APPENDIX I
CCAMP ENHANCED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN LANDFILL PROGRAMS RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1986 Page 1-7
33. At the present time, the organizational structure and definition of
roles and responsibilities for the DEQE landfill program are not clear-
ly defined in one document. A clear description of the entire land-
fill program and the responsibilities associated with each operating
unit needs to be written. This should eliminate any duplication of
effort or inconsistencies that might arise as well as catalogue differ-
ent sources of information relating to landfills. DEQE's landfill
program should be consistent with the Governor's solid-waste program
once the legislation implementing this passes.
34. As has been previously mentioned, DSHW and the BSWD should cooperate
closely. Timetables and deadlines should be coordinated and informa-
tion shared. The regional solid-waste plans being developed by the
BSWD should reflect the DSHW staff's current information and concerns
about the environmental sensitivity of certain areas. DSHW and BSWD
should each review the guidelines and regulations drafted by the other
section.
35. The DSHW landfill program affects other DEQE programs including those
of DWS, DWPC and DWWR. New policies and regulations must be reviewed
and commented upon by all other appropriate divisions and regions.
FEDERAL
36. EPA Region I should assist DEQE by providing technical assistance and
research findings whenever possible. Data and information developed
through EPA headquarters should be made available on a regular basis.
37. Landfills on Cape Cod should attempt to establish consistent disposal
fee schedules for commercial haulers in order to remove a major incen-
tive for disposing of one town's trash in another town's landfill.
-------
APPENDIX J
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIVATE WELL PROTECTION
October 20, 1987
Introduction
The community of Eastham was included as one of the two case study
towns in the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) because there was
concern over issues involving groundwater protection in towns dependent on
private wells. As a result of CCAMP's examination of the state of private
well protection on Cape Cod, we believe that at a minimum, the two types
of guidance documents recommended below are crucial in increasing the
protection afforded private wells and in protecting public health. These
documents are greatly needed by local Boards of Health and private well
owners and will require a minimum amount of effort to produce. We strong-
ly urge the implementation of these recommendations in a timely manner.
AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Barnstable County Health and Environment Department and the Cape
Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission should jointly devel-
op an informational brochure for private well owners and local offi-
cials. This brochure should draw on and simplify existing material and
cover the following topics in an easily understood manner, using graph-
ics where appropriate:
A. Describe regional hydrology as well as groundwater flow at the lot
level and discuss well and septic system siting issues.
B. Discuss proper disposal practices for household hazardous waste.
C. Describe how common practices can lead to contamination on one's
own property.
D. Briefly discuss proper well construction; point out common construc-
tion problems.
E. Stress the need for proper well testing. Explain how to interpret
well water quality testing results.
F. Describe proper well abandonment procedures.
-------
APPENDIX J - CCAMP PRIVATE WELL RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page J-2
2. DEQE should develop a guidance document for local officials regarding
private well protection. This could provide the basis for the future
development of private well regulations at the state level. This docu-
ment should include a model bylaw which could be implemented with only
minor modifications by municipalities anywhere in the state and a
technical appendix. There are a number of different ongoing efforts
across the state which address various parts of the private well is-
sue. This guidance document should be comprehensive and should contain
specific examples relating to the variety of geologic conditions which
are found in Massachusetts. At a minimum, the document should address
the following broad categories:
A. Utilizing groundwater flow and other hydrogeological information to
site private wells so as to minimize the potential for groundwater
contamination.
B. Comprehensive initial water quality monitoring and limited ongoing
water quality analysis.
C. Well construction specifications.
D. Procedures for well abandonment.
-------
APPENDIX K
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
October, 1987
Introduction
The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) completed an investi-
gation of the threat to groundwater from underground storage tanks (USTs)
on Cape Cod. Focusing particularly on the towns of Barnstable and Eastham
and involving numerous interviews with officials at all levels of govern-
ment, CCAMP gathered data to document the extent of the threat from under-
ground storage tanks and examine the effectiveness of the regulatory con-
trols that are in place. CCAMP developed the following recommendations to
fill a number of the gaps that were discovered in the existing regulatory
framework and to focus particularly on the most prevalent types of prob-
lems in the study area. The major problems observed were the large number
of aging, leak-prone tanks and the large number of tanks in close prox-
imity to private- and public-water supplies.
Strong interest in protecting groundwater from leaking underground
storage tanks is relatively recent at all levels of government. According-
ly, many of the following recommendations are aimed at effectively meshing
the regulations recently passed at the federal, state and local levels and
at educating the public and providing technical training to officials who
have new responsibilities concerning USTs added to their jobs. The majori-
ty of the recommendations suggest measures that can be implemented locally
to ensure more complete protection than can be provided by the state regu-
lations alone.
Just one gallon of gasoline can contaminate one million gallons of
water. Once a water supply is contaminated, clean up may be prohibitively
expensive. It has cost over three million dollars and taken nine years
for the South Hollow Wellfield in Truro to resume pumping after contamina-
tion by a leaking gas station tank. In a 3,600 acre Zone of Contribution
(ZOC) to nine public supply wells in the town of Barnstable, CCAMP found
186 underground storage tanks -- 38% of them 20 years or older. (See Table
1.) There are already six confirmed hazardous release sites in the zone,
all from fuel storage areas. The probability of further contamination is
high. An EPA contractor has estimated that tanks 20 years and older have a
57% probability of leaking. While this ZOC is more developed than many
areas on Cape Cod, the situation is not uncommon Cape wide.
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-2
Local governments on Cape Cod have recognized the threats imposed by
USTs and most of them have adopted local bylaws or Board of Health regula-
tions to inventory all tanks. When EPA recognized the potential threat
posed by USTs, it proposed regulations in 1987 placing primary program
responsibility with the States (final regulations will be issued in
1988). In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has prima-
ry authority over USTs. Key regulations include 527 CMR 9.00 and 502 CMR
3.00. The DPS regulations in turn accord authority for implementation to
local Fire Departments (FDs).
FINDINGS
The present state regulations, DPS's 527 CMR 9.00 and DEQE's 310 CMR
30.00, do not go far enough in protecting groundwater from contamination.
CCAMP's investigation identified the following shortcomings.
STATE REGULATIONS DO NOT:
Place all state regulations on All tanks.
Directly discourage new household fuel tanks from being installed
underground.
Discourage the location of USTs in sensitive areas.
Encourage the removal of older USTs from the ground.
Provide a financial source for program implementation.
Provide sufficient guidance for installation, construction, testing,
cleaning and removal.
These shortcomings have led CCAMP to identify the following areas where
efforts to improve local control over USTs should be focused.
NEED FOR A LOCAL BYLAW TO PROTECT AND INVENTORY ALL TANKS.
A release of significant size can come from even the smallest tank.
Yet, Massachusetts regulations exempt residential and farm gasoline tanks
less than 1100 gallons and oil tanks of any size used for consumptive use
on premises from notification requirements. The small, lower Cape town of
Eastham has a total of 264 tanks averaging 929 gallons and ranging up to
30,000 gallons of capacity per tank that fall into these exempt catego-
ries. Only 30 tanks in town, or about 10%, are covered by the state's
notification, testing and strict construction standards. Protection must
be across the board; towns must ensure that they have identified and ade-
quately controlled all tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwa-
ter.
NEED FOR INCREASED LOCAL COORDINATION
A number of towns in Barnstable County have more than one fire dis-
trict. There are also towns with local regulations granting UST
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-3
authority to the Board of Health in addition to fire district responsibili-
ties. This has led to fragmentation, confusion and a lack of leadership.
NEED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Because of the DPS's new UST regulations and the responsibilities they
create, there is a strong need for public education as well as training of
local officials, particularly concerning tank removals. The large number
of absentee homeowners on Cape Cod compounds the public education problem.
CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED LOCAL CONTROL OVER USTS
1. All Underground Storage Tanks Within Town Should Be Registered.
An inventory of all tanks including those not covered by the state's
notification requirements, existing residential and farm-motor-fuel
tanks less than 1100 gallons and all existing heating-oil tanks,
should be developed by the town, through a registration process. This
would enable health agents to assess every tank in town and identify
those that pose the greatest risks (e.g., aging, bare steel tanks) in
addition to identifying special problem areas. This information can
then be used to set priorities for enforcement and for further
attention by the town. Tightness testing requirements may then be
placed on tanks of particular concern. On Cape Cod, the Barnstable
County Health and Environment Department (BCHED) has been active in
providing assistance to towns in structuring and enforcing a
tank-tagging program. Under this program, all registered tanks are
tagged and no delivery of product occurs to untagged tanks.
2. Each Municipality Should Appoint an UST Coordinator.
The UST Coordinator should be someone who already works on UST issues
and is willing to assume a leadership role. The Board of Selectmen
should appoint the coordinator and bestow the necessary authority upon
the position to facilitate a cooperative working environment within
the town. The major tasks that should be undertaken by the UST
Coordinator are:
provide a leadership role and spearhead the effort to identify
those issues that should be addressed by a local bylaw or ordi-
nance .
develop a system for sharing tank data among the local depart-
ments who need the information for planning purposes.
implement a public education program concerning the dangers from
leaking underground-storage tanks.
coordinate enforcement of UST program.
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-4
3. Initiate a Public Education Program.
Towns need to inform the public of the need for a. comprehensive manage-
ment program for underground storage tanks. Residents should also be
aware of the relatively new State program and of any additional town
requirements. A special effort to target real estate agents, lending
institutions and property managers (especially seasonal property
managers) should be initiated. On Cape Cod, with so many absentee
homeowners, towns may find it useful to work through property managers
and real estate agents to reach individual homeowners. The BCHED's
offer to test any homeowner's property for a possible tank leak (free
of charge) using a gas chromatograph should be well publicized.
4. Develop a System for UST Data Management.
Towns acting through the Board of Health or Fire Department should
maintain a computerized tank inventory by location and age of all
underground storage tanks. Periodic data sharing among local boards
may be required through a bylaw. The ages of the USTs should be
tracked and notices sent to all tank owners whose tanks must undergo
State tightness testing in a given year. If there is a requirement
for tank removal at a certain age, notices should be sent out for that
as well. The towns should utilize existing files for oil-burning
permits and incorporate relevant information as part of the database.
It should be noted that the BCHED will provide computer management of
tank registration and tightness testing data at the County level.
This program can manage the redirecting resulting from the town
registration and tightness testing requirements.
5. Encourage Additional Permit Review for New Tank Applications.
Current State regulations place primary authority over USTs with the
local Fire Districts. This may result in an emphasis on public safety
issues at the expense of public health concerns. To ensure that
protection of drinking water supplies receives adequate emphasis, the
town should require an additional permit review for new tanks that
focuses on this issue. This review, conducted by the BOH, or
conceivably by the Planning Board, should highlight the proposed
location and have the authority to deny permits and set performance
standards. A joint review could be conducted informally through a
coordinated process initiated by the UST Coordinator or through a
bylaw.
6. Discourage the Location of USTs in Proximity to Drinking Water
Supplies.
A method for controlling land uses so as to discourage USTs in sensi-
tive areas is required to meet this objective. In towns with public
wells, this area corresponds to the Zone of Contribution or a defined
Aquifer Protection District. Towns dependent on private wells should
identify critical areas based upon housing densities. The most
appropriate method of meeting this objective is through zoning.
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-5
Several zoning techniques that are particularly well suited include:
special use zoning, performance zoning, and incentive zoning.
7. Encourage Replacement of Old Tanks.
It is important to encourage the removal of old tanks and others that
may be leak-prone such as bare steel, single-walled tanks. An effort
of this sort should concentrate on Zones of Contribution to public
supply wells or on highly dense private well clusters. A local bylaw
requiring mandatory removal of tanks over 20 years old that do not
meet new construction standards is the most direct means of meeting
this objective. This should be done in conjunction with a system that
tracks tank age and enforces the removal requirement. Another option
is passage of a bylaw that requires tightness testing for residential
tanks on a similar schedule to that required under State regulations -
annually after 20 years. The high cost of annual testing may serve to
encourage the removal of tanks greater than twenty years of age. (See
Table 2 for cost information.)
8. Discourage Placement of Residential Fuel Oil Tanks Underground.
To aid in detecting leaks, home heating oil tanks and other tanks
containing less volatile products should be above ground whenever
possible. New residential tanks should be required above ground as a
condition placed on development or as a performance standard.
9. Provide Financial Resources to Ensure Program Implementation.
State regulations permit towns to charge up to $200 for each permit.
A tank registration fee, permit renewal fee, and tank removal fee are
all examples of fees that may be instituted. Towns have been slow to
take advantage of this due to the administrative burden of fee
collection. However, it is an excellent mechanism for raising money
for program implementation. It could also have the advantage of
discouraging certain types of tanks from being placed or remaining
underground. A permit renewal fee for tanks 20 years old and older,
and a registration fee for residential fuel-oil tanks placed below
ground are examples of revenue raising mechanisms that also discourage
undesirable activities.
CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STATE UST PROGRAM
10. Construction Requirements In Sole Source Aquifers.
DPS should require specified protection for piping (i.e..
double-walled piping or suction pumps) in addition to the strict
construction standards which are specified for tanks in sole source
aquifers. Waste-oil and fuel-oil tanks should NOT be exempt from the
above construction requirements in sole source aquifers. (See 527 CMR
9.16 (1), (3))
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-6
11. Expansion of Sole Source Aquifer Construction Requirements to Well
Recharge Areas (Zone Us).
The strict .construction standards required for tanks and piping
installed in sole-source aquifers should also be required for installa-
tions within the Zone Us of public-supply wells. (See Recommendation
#1.) Where the Zone II of a public-supply well has not yet been
delineated, the area within a one-half mile radius from the well
should be used and the above-mentioned construction requirements
should apply within that area. Existing tanks should be put on a
compliance schedule to meet these performance standards. DEQE and DPS
should jointly initiate this change.
12. Property Transfer Tightness Testing Requirement.
The state should evaluate whether a requirement of UST tightness
testing at or around the time of a property transfer should be added
to Chapter 21 E.
13. Tank Cleaning and Disposal Policy.
DEQE and DPS should clarify their stance on the disposal of cleaned
underground vs. above-ground tanks. There is widespread ignorance on
Cape Cod (and presumably elsewhere) of existing tank disposal
requirements. DEQE and DPS should develop a clear, workable policy
that describes cleaning and removal requirements. These agencies must
ensure that adequate disposal locations exist for all types of tanks.
DEQE and DPS should then initiate an aggressive outreach campaign
targeted at local officials, tank removal and cleaning companies. This
could involve pamphlets, tank removal demonstrations and seminars.
14. Tank Cleaning: Increased Control.
DEQE and DPS should then evaluate the need for greater control over
the tank cleaning, removal, and installation processes. If still
needed after the aggressive education campaign described above, the
state should then set standards for tank cleaning and pursue
certifying cleaners, removers and installers.
15. tank Removal Checklist.
DEQE/Division of Hazardous Waste should develop a checklist (modeled
after the one currently being used in the Southeast Regional Office)
for regional personnel to use during tank removals and inspections.
This checklist should also be made available to local fire department
staff for their use.
16. Financial Responsibility:
EPA's proposed regulations require that tanks owners demonstrate
"financial responsibility". In anticipation of these regulations and
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-7
in light of the high costs of site remediation, DEQE and DPS should
pursue a state requirement that facility owners obtain adequate
insurance (or other guarantee) to cover clean-up costs in case of
leaks.
17. Public Education.
DEQE and DPS should assist towns in their efforts to inform the public
of the UST problem and existing regulations by providing pamphlets,
explanations of state requirements or-other educational materials.
CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BARNSTABLE COUNTY CONCERNING USTS
18. Public Education.
BCHED should inform all private well owners requesting well tests of
the potential threat an underground-storage tank poses to their own
water supply. BCHED should urge them to place their underground
heating oil tanks above ground.
19. Public Education.
Both BCHED and CCPEDC should utilize local newspapers and other media
in a campaign to increase the awareness of Cape Cod residents
concerning USTs and should assist towns in developing or procuring
relevant educational materials.
20. Technical Assistance.
Both BCHED and CCPEDC should continue to provide technical assistance
to communities on UST regulations, management and funding.
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987
Page K-8
Table 1. CCAMP Underground Storage Tank Summary for Barnstable Zone of
Contribution No. 1 Study Area, January 1987.
Total Number of Tanks:
Capacity:
Total
Average Tank Size
Tanks 20 Years or Older:
Steel Tanks:
Fiberglass Tanks:
Steel Tanks Over 20 Years Old:
Tanks in Use:
Tanks Out of Use or Status Unknown:
ZOC Acreage:
186 on 82 sites (13 of these aree
residential tanks)
856,225 gallons
4603 gallons
71 (38 percent)
122 (65 percent)
32 (17 percent)
50 (27 percent) .
116 (62 percent)
70 (38 percent)
3600 acres
Number c
40 -
20 -
10 -
Underground Storage Tanks in a
Zone of Contribution on Cape Cod
3f Contents:
Hi Gasoline
35
flU 31 30 1| Oil
1-4 5-9 10-19 20+
Age in Years
2
70 -
Number 60 -
of
Tanks 50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
l-<
Underground Stor
lone of Contribut
|
22 i
age Tanks in a
ion on Cape Cod
70
! Construction
Material
"
u .
I 5-9 10-19 20+
Age in Years
Steel
Tanks
Fiberglass
-------
APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS
October 1987 Page K-9
Table 2. Cost of a Local UST Program
To Individual:
Tank Installation
10,000 gal. double walled fiberglass tank 11.6-13K
10,000 gal. single walled fiberglass tank 4.5-6.5K
Transport and install 5-10K
Between wall tank/pipe sensor system .3-1.6K
Tank Testing
Volumetric (change of volume and rate of leak) 75 - $500
Generally these are accurate,to .05 gal/hr leak
non-volumetric (may not disclose rate of leak) $500
Removal and Cleanup
Removal - Excavate - Backfill $750-$3500
Liquid pumping and removal $85/hour
+ $.55-.70/gallon
Cost for removal of tank <1500 gal $350-500
To Town:
The direct costs of implementation will depend on the scope of
the program but will probably increase local salary budget needs
by $9000 -25,000 and increase the town's workload by 20-30
percent, approximately one full-time employee.
-------
APPENDIX L
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTAGE AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
December, 1987
Introduction
Cape Cod has a very serious septage management problem that is jeopar-
dizing water supplies from one end of the peninsula to the other.
Progress toward establishing long-term treatment solutions has vacillated
between slow, erratic and nonexistent for over a decade, and with the
growth rate soaring Capewide, time is running out.
Very little of Cape Cod (less than 10%) is sewered, relying instead on
septic systems or cesspools. Approximately 63.8 million gallons of sep-
tage is generated from these on-site systems every year. More important-
ly, only 31% of the volume is treated effectively through co-treatment
processes at publicly-owned wastewater facilities in Barnstable, Chatham
and Falmouth. The remaining 44 million gallons is discharged to pits and
lagoons that provide no treatment prior to returning it to the water table
as a highly contaminated organic waste.
There are four major reasons why so little progress has been made in
septage management on Cape Cod: (1) The State DEQE has historically given
septage management a very low priority resulting in a lack of resources to
conduct an active regulatory program; (2) The towns of Cape Cod have gener-
ally ignored the obvious threats to their water supplies from pits and
lagoons, and have not generated the necessary leadership to confront their
problems directly; (3) The inherent controversies and environmental consid-
erations in siting septage treatment facilities; (4) The facilities plan-
ning process conducted by town officials, DEQE staff and consulting engi-
neers has in several cases not provided acceptable projects that would
result in the construction of public wastewater treatment plants. One
outstanding success is the approval of a regional septage facility to
serve Orleans, Brewster and Eastham that is presently under construction.
The overall situation has improved lately with the DEQE initiating a
stronger enforcement presence geared toward more effective regulation of
septage disposal statewide. On Cape Cod, DEQE has been issuing orders for
the closure of several illegal pits and lagoons. This in turn is having a
salutary effect on town government by forcing increased attention to the
matter, and attitudes appear to be changing. Unfortunately, facilities
-------
APPENDIX L - CCAMP SEPTAGE AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page L-2
planning continues to be a laborious process that requires diligence by
all those involved to ensure the approval of acceptable projects that will
replace the pits and lagoons.
It is understandable that septic treatment projects can get bogged
down during the facilities planning process. Septage is a highly concen-
trated waste, and often the chosen treatment option involves unproven
technology that must be carefully evaluated. Also, complex solutions
generate controversy at all levels of government, resulting in long de-
lays. Staff of DEQE's Municipal Facilities Branch must give continuous
attention to priority septage problems as identified by the Regulatory
Branch. As DEQE is first and foremost a regulatory agency, the construc-
tion of wastewater treatment plants should be driven primarily by major
pollution problems especially those under State cleanup orders. Several
existing septage lagoons on the Cape are under such orders and require a
concerted effort by all state personnel to resolve the problems. Septage
enforcement actions should be at the very top of DEQE's list of enforce-
ment priorities especially if a drinking water supply is threatened.
A Residuals Unit was recently created within DEQE's Regulatory Branch
to work on issues involving septage, sludge, grease, etc. CCAMP applauds
this as recognition of an area that had been basically disregarded by
DEQE. This Unit should be given the appropriate resources to deal with
residuals issues in a comprehensive way. In particular, the Department
must develop, as soon as possible, a sludge management program in conjunc-
tion with septage guidelines.
Local officials on Cape Cod should take more of a leadership role
toward developing long-term septage management solutions for their communi-
ties. A greater awareness of the septage problem town-wide, and a commit-
ment to better management practices--even if they involve increased costs-
must be implemented. Proper regulation of septage haulers, regular septic
system maintenance programs, and solutions to peak season pressures, must
be initiated. We also encourage each Cape town to develop a fully trained
staff to work on Title 5 cases. In addition, an effort toward complement-
ing Title 5 with local supplements, especially those that involve setbacks
from septic systems, should be continued.
An intergovernmental management process can succeed if DEQE, CCPEDC,
the towns and EPA adopt the following roles. DEQE: strong, visible pres-
ence in support of the facilities planning process, and continued consis-
tent enforcement pressure to solve existing septage problems; CCPEDC:
Provide the needed forum for bringing state and local officials together,
and coordinate the facilities planning process to ensure clear communica-
tion. Town: Key officials must establish a leadership role within town
and provide a "good faith" effort toward resolving septage
-------
APPENDIX L - CCAMP SEPTAGE AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page L-3
problems; EPA: The regional office should highlight septage management as
an area for increased attention, and stress this with DEQE through guid-
ance and funding of program grants, particularly 106, 205(g), 205(j) and
wellhead protection.
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT
1. DEQE's Division of Water Pollution Control should continue to imple-
ment a policy in support of regional septage facilities and increase
the visibility of the policy with local communities. Planned regional
systems should receive the full attention of the construction grants
staff through a "fast track" mechanism that moves the project through
the facilities planning process as rapidly as possible. The heart of
° the "fast track" process should involve staff from the Residuals Unit
and staff from the Municipal Facilities Branch working in a complemen-
tary fashion to expedite priority projects. Especially important is
an active approach that requires working closely with towns and con-
sultants and providing input on siting options, suggested treatment
technologies and other critical aspects of the process.
2. Every town on Cape Cod that is not currently involved in planning and
implementing a long-range septage disposal solution, should sanction a
local task force to commence action. CCPEDC should be responsible for
initiating this through the town's Board of Selectmen. An ongoing
process should transpire that brings together the town's task force,
CCPEDC and appropriate DEQE personnel, all geared toward expediting
facilities planning and implementing permanent septage solutions.
CCPEDC should promote local citizen participation and awareness of the
septage disposal problem (and the issues involved in working toward a
solution) by maintaining close contact with local boards, concerned
citizens and interest groups.
3. The Residuals Unit, established within DWPC's Regulatory Branch,
should be given the resources necessary to implement an effective
program. Of particular importance are (1) efforts toward increased
coordination with local governments; (2) coordination and support for
the Municipal Facilities Branch during facilities planning; (3) devel-
opment of a policy for managing grease and; (4) a full examination of
issues involving the composting of septage sludge, especially those
issues involving heavy metals, particularly cadmium.
4. Septage haulers should be licensed by the DEQE on a statewide basis to
remediate many of the abuses that are taking place. Unapproved dispos-
al locations; disfunction equipment that leaks and emits odors during
transport; use of system additives that endanger groundwater; and
other issues must be addressed. In the interim, the towns through
their Water Quality Committees or Septage Task Forces should initiate
meetings with haulers to better comprehend septage problems
-------
APPENDIX L - CCAMP SEPTAGE AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page L-4
town-wide. Procedures and policies should be developed or modified
based on knowledge gained.
TITLE 5
5. The Division of Water Pollution Control should provide on-going techni-
cal assistance to towns dealing with local responsibilities under
Title 5 of the State Sanitary Code. Because of the rapid turnover of
local staff, training in this area must be continuous. The general
lack of knowledge at the local level concerning Title 5 demands such
an effort. A liaison position, devoted to this on a full time basis,
should be established in the Boston office. Each regional office
should eventually have its own fully dedicated position.
6. DEQE should actively pursue amending Title 5 to enable effective regu-
lation of contaminants that are not adequately addressed. Additional
research needs to be conducted relative to nutrient loading from sep-
tic systems and proximity to private wells, wetlands, and surface
water bodies. Especially important because of its public health impli-
cations, is the relationship of nitrate-nitrogen and private wells.
Until this occurs, CCAMP recommends a local Title 5 supplement that is
extremely conservative regarding setback distances in the direction of
groundwater flow between septic systems and private wells. In those
cases where flow cannot be readily determined, the Board of Health
should require a substantial buffer in all directions until site spe-
cific information is provided. Additionally, the Board of Health
should require environmental assessments for all proposed septic sys-
tems that may cause environmental or public health problems.
7. Local Boards of Health must become more diligent in implementing Title
5. Because groundwater is such a valuable and limited resource on the
Cape, the following actions should be undertaken.
o Adoption of an ordinance that requires property owners to have
inspections made of any septic systems on their property prior to
sale. Any danger to the public health presented by a system
should be remediated before title changes hands.
o Boards of Health should ensure that no building permits (issued
by the building inspectors) are given until the issuance of appli-
cable state and local permits under Title 5.
o No construction work permit should be granted for any unsewered
establishment discharging an industrial waste until DEQE grants a
groundwater discharge permit.
o Development of a professional staff paid for through the assess-
ment of fees from permit reviews and inspections.
-------
APPENDIX L - CCAMP SEPTAGE AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page L-5
RESEARCH
8. CCPEDC should assess the feasibility of utilizing alternative
technologies of septage disposal on Cape Cod. The best technolo-
gy should be matched with available resources (land, materials),
and costs and alternative funding should be reviewed and summa-
rized. Comparable successes and failures of other facilities
should also be examined. Thorough analysis of composting, and
all relevant issues involved, is particularly important. Any
analysis of alternative technologies should also consider whether
a Class III designation may be required. Justifying such a desig-
nation is a rigorous exercise and this must be factored into any
recommended treatment options.
9. EPA's Municipal Facilities Branch should make available all tech-
nical information from around the country dealing with
co-treatment and separate septage treatment processes. Especial-
ly important is information dealing with the organic content of
septage, an area that needs increased knowledge so that proper
treatment options are selected for Cape Cod projects. Also impor-
tant is data from locations with similar climatological condi-
tions to Cape Cod relative to land application and composting
processes.
10. DWPC should conduct an analysis of the capacity available at
those treatment plants receiving sludge, and the generation of
sludge from existing and proposed public and private wastewater
treatment plants. Conventional knowledge is that sludge capacity
is severely lacking and that additional capacity must be devel-
oped. DWPC should work with communities to ensure adequate re-
gional capacity for future sludge disposal. New wastewater treat-
ment plants should not be approved until the DEQE is confident
that available sludge capacity exists or can be developed for the
long-term.
-------
APPENDIX M
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT PROGRAM, AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION
December, 1987
The following are recommendations from the Cape Cod Aquifer Management
Group's Institutions Committee concerning the DEQE Groundwater Discharge
Permit Program and Groundwater Classification system and EPA's and DEQE's
involvement in awarding grants for the construction of wastewater treat-
ment plants. This set of recommendations deals with issues that are par-
ticularly crucial for Cape Cod. Domestic wastewater and discharges from
commercial establishments form the most prevalent sources of groundwater
contamination on Cape Cod. Despite the extreme importance of the programs
mentioned above to the protection of the Cape's groundwater resource, the
effectiveness of these programs in preventing contamination is limited by
national policies, resources, and procedural and communication difficul-
ties.
The Construction Grants program is also important to Cape Cod. Only
three of the 15 towns on Cape Cod have proceeded to the construction phase
of the 201 grant process. There is tremendous pressure right now to ad-
dress the sewage disposal needs of the remaining towns before the federal
Construction Grants' funds terminate in 1990. However, the facility sit-
ing efforts of Construction Grants as well as other programs are hampered
in those towns which have not yet designated the areas they will be rely-
ing on for future water supplies. Generally, towns have not planned com-
prehensively for their long-term water supply and wastewater treatment
needs. In addition, the federal and state dollars available to communi-
ties for wastewater disposal have no counterpart for funding local water
supply planning planning that should logically come first. The in-
creasingly short time period remaining to conclude the 201 grant makes it
imperative that the timing and content of Division of Water Supply input
be clarified and formally agreed upon so the grant process can move for-
ward smoothly. CCAMP believes long-term planning and enhanced coordina-
tion are critical. If mistakes of the past, such as the siting years ago
of Barnstable's wastewater treatment plant on a prime recharge area of the
town's aquifer are to be avoided in the future, then an emphasis on both
long-term planning and enhanced coordination are particularly crucial to
the current, more conservative Construction Grants process.
Further constraint on the Construction Grants program's attempts to
locate disposal sites on Cape Cod is the State's Ocean Sanctuaries Act.
This Act prohibits new discharges to designated marine sanctuaries
including those waters surrounding Cape Cod, forcing the use of facilities
that discharge to the ground. CCAMP supports the current examination of
this law by the Ocean Sanctuaries Task Force and urges this group to
address the problems and necessary trade-offs connected with land disposal
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-2
as expeditiously as possible.
Monetary support from the federal government, through the Construction
Grants program, has been crucial in allowing many municipalities to take
steps to deal comprehensively with their wastewater problems. In the past
EPA has been reluctant to support the same advanced levels of treatment for
systems discharging to the ground as for those discharging to surface wa-
ters. That position has been influenced by an imbalance at the federal
level between the incomplete EPA authority over groundwater and the compre-
hensive EPA control over surface water. EPA's classification of land appli-
cation as an alternative technology (entitling the applicant to an in-
creased federal funding match) is a further example of the inconsistency of
EPA's approach to ground and surface waters. EPA's lower standards for
ground discharges, in addition to being inconsistent with EPA's Groundwater
Protection Strategy and Cape Cod's status as a sole source aquifer, result
in a fragmented approach to the jointly administered Construction Grants
program. CCAMP recognizes that this recommendation must be implemented at
the national, not state or EPA regional level.
Both the groundwater discharge permit program and the groundwater clas-
sification system are relatively new programs. Despite the progress that
has been made by the discharge permit program so far, numerous sources of
domestic and industrial groundwater discharges remain unregulated. Resourc-
es have not been adequate to enable DWPC to regulate all categories of
small businesses that may be discharging contaminants directly to septic
systems. Though it is not clear what the cumulative effect of these many
unregulated discharges is on the ground water quality of Cape Cod, CCAMP
believes that a strong groundwater discharge permit program could be a
critical factor in the prevention of contamination. CCAMP is carrying out a
detailed land use study in one Zone II in the most heavily developed area
of Barnstable. This study will enable CCAMP to identify the industries
that pose the greatest threat to ground water and to assess the magnitude
of the work to be done by DWPC.
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
(PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK)
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
1.* EPA should change its policies in response to DEQE's request that it
fund the full federal share of Construction Grants projects that are
designed to meet a stricter state standard for discharge to the
ground. It appears that current EPA operating policies may be suffi-
ciently flexible for EPA to fund at the usual level a project with
higher levels of treatment designed to meet a higher state standard
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-3
for discharge to the ground in a sole source aquifer with ground and
water table conditions such as are found on the Cape.
2. EPA should reconsider its classification by the 201 grants program
of land application as an alternative technology. The extra percent-
age of federal and state funding for plants designed to discharge to
the ground creates an imbalance in weighing discharges to ground or
to surface water. This may encourage the selection of a ground dis-
charge based on economic rather than environmental considerations.
At the present time, this discussion is purely academic for Cape
Cod, as a ground discharge is the only option.
3.* EPA and DEQE should require consideration of the development of a
public water supply as an alternative to sewering in towns where
such a trade-off is relevant in the 201 facilities planning process.
Throughout the Construction Grants process, EPA and DEQE should
encourage coordination between wastewater treatment and water supply
planning.
Background: The majority of Cape towns lack wastewater treatment
plants; many have high density zoning with septic systems and pri-
vate wells resulting in water quality problems. A wastewater treat-
ment plant may be the answer for all or some of these areas. Alterna-
tively, the development of a public water supply may be appropriate
for some areas. The current 201 facility planning process discourag-
es the consideration of the latter option. Water supply planning is
not included in the consultant's scope of work because it is not an
eligible cost. The consultant is merely reimbursed for a summary of
existing water supply plans. This is insufficient.
Note: This recommendation will also appear in CCAMP recommenda-
tions on Water Supply Planning.
4. DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control and the Division of Water
Supply should adopt a formal agreement specifying responsibility for
the water supply review of Construction Grants projects, privately
funded wastewater treatment facilities, groundwater discharge
permits and for DWS input into the groundwater classification
process. All Construction Grants projects with groundwater impacts,
e.g. land application systems, lagoons, etc., should be reviewed by
both DWS and the DWPC groundwater permit program to assess
groundwater impacts and to ensure protection for the most beneficial
present or future use. Documentation of these reviews should be in
writing and maintained as part of the official file. Grant
increases or project modifications potentially affecting groundwater
should also be in writing and maintained as part of the official
file.
Background: The EPA water supply staff review of Construction
Grants projects has been delegated to the state. EPA has requested
that a formalized agreement specifying responsibility for this re-
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-4
view be drafted between the Division of Water Supply and Construc-
tion Grants. There already exists a procedure for regional water
supply input developed by DWPC; this should be formalized.
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION
5. * DEQE should immediately pursue the inclusion of an anti-degradation
provision within the groundwater classification system and/or the
banning of certain categorical discharges in vulnerable areas. DEQE
should consider requiring all discharges in Zone Us of existing and
identified future well sites to meet anti-degradation standards. A
mechanism must then be developed for coordinating anti-degradation
designations for surface and ground waters. DEQE should articulate
a policy encouraging discharges to that resource which is most easi-
ly monitored and observed.
Background: The ambient quality of the water in a Zone II area
may be quite high; the current Class I would allow contamination
above the present levels, without exceeding drinking water stan-
dards. There is always the possibility of a spill or of the failure
of the pollution control system in place resulting in a discharge
exceeding Class I standards. The consequences of such an occurrence
could be particularly severe in a Zone II, especially for an area
with no alternate water supply available. Currently, the only
anti-degradation designations allowed are for surface waters, forc-
ing the use of ground discharges in those areas. The state must be
allowed the flexibility of requiring stricter standards in critical
areas of either surface or ground waters.
6. In designating Class III areas, assurance must be made that future
water supply demands can be met without the designated areas. DWPC
should request specific input, on a case-by case basis, from the
Division of Water Supply as to the future needs of a particular
area. (See recommendation #3.)
Background: This is particularly important because the areas that
are suitable for wastewater treatment plant location also tend to be
suitable for water supply development. It is important to know the
water supply needs of an area before allowing a portion of the aqui-
fer to be contaminated.
7. EPA Region I should work out an agreement with DEQE concerning the
relationship between Case III and Class III designations. A formal
procedure should be established by both parties coordinating these
two procedures and establishing responsibility. Special attention
should be provided by EPA's Office of Ground Water Protection in
reviewing Class III designations in sole source aquifers.
8. CCAMP supports a stringent review process for the designation of
Class III areas and would oppose any efforts to weaken the current
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-5
procedures. DWPC should follow the procedures developed by the
USGS, USEPA, the consultant community, DEQE and the Cape Cod Plan-
ning and Economic Development Commission for working with Class III
applicants on their petitions. These procedures (contained in an
August 1985 document elaborating the requirements for hydrological
studies) describe the timing and content of "scoping sessions" and
public hearings to be held for any Class III petition evaluation.
CCAMP recommends that these procedures be used by DWPC.
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT PROGRAM.
9. * DEQE should consider the adoption of a reduced threshold combined
with a maximum density factor of individual septic systems based on
environmental concerns for DWPC review of wastewater discharges. In
the meantime, the DEQE Southeast Regional Office should develop a
mechanism for assisting local agencies in reviewing large wastewater
treatment discharges under 15,000 gpd, the current cutoff, as a
pilot assistance project on Cape Cod.
Background: On Cape Cod, most large development projects manage
to come in just under the 15,000 gpd limit, thereby avoiding install-
ing a treatment system and monitoring discharges.
10.* DEQE should conduct a thorough review of its policy for holding
tanks for industrial waste dischargers in areas with no sewer hook-
ups. DEQE should examine the feasibility of some kind of manifest
system (which is highly labor intensive) or some other greater state
role in septage hauler licensing as ways of increasing its control
over this situation.
Background: On Cape Cod there are currently a handful of holding
tanks. The potential exists for there to be many more in the future
as the DWPC permit program catches up with different categories of
small businesses that may be required to discharge to holding tanks,
or for smaller quantities of wastes, to 55 gallon drums. These
tanks are pumped out by septage haulers (licensed by the towns) and
the wastes are trucked, possibly across several towns, to disposal
at a wastewater treatment plant. DEQE approves the disposal loca-
tion when it approves each holding tank but has no way of knowing if
the wastes actually arrive at the designated disposal location.
DEQE should think carefully about the implications of this situation
in an area such as Cape Cod where there are numerous unsewered areas
and long trucking distances between the pumped tanks and the treat-
ment facilities.
11.* The DWPC Groundwater Discharge Permit program should increase the
pace of its review of the impacts and need for regulating several
categories of small businesses which may be discharging relatively
small quantities of harmful wastes to septic systems in unsewered
areas. DWPC should develop a systematic policy to prioritize its
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-6
examination of commercial categories that are potentially serious
sources of localized groundwater contamination.
Background: DWPC has been tackling some of these commercial catego-
ries but not all. DWPC has several laundromats under administrative
orders; it has also been pursuing particularly troublesome gas sta-
tions. New gas stations applying for permits (not all do) are re-
quired to use holding tanks. DWPC has not yet been addressing exist-
ing gas stations or photo developers or other small businesses.
12. DWPC should undertake a critical investigation of its resources
division-wide to ensure that they reflect current concerns, knowl-
edge, and emphasis on groundwater. If a redistribution of resources
is warranted, it should be carried out as soon as possible. CCAMP
makes this recommendation fully understanding that some staff desig-
nations are not transferrable to other programs, but urges DWPC to
seek areas of flexibility within those constraints.
13. DWPC should make an aggressive effort to get input from the public
on proposed groundwater discharge permits. Rather than simply rely-
ing on legal notice, DWPC should notify the relevant town agencies
of the proposed permits.
14. DWPC in the regions needs to take a more active role in pursuing
violators. This involves carefully reviewing monitoring reports,
and following up on projects after permitting through a vigorous
inspection effort. Could resources be made available to try out
such an effort in the pilot area?
15. DWPC should automate its permit and classification programs as soon
as possible to facilitate the review of monitoring results and to
improve planning and tracking capabilities as well as to guide
enforcement actions. There should be sufficient resources for DEQE
to review permit monitoring results adequately as this is crucial to
the groundwater discharge permit program.
Comment: DWPC has begun action on this recommendation with a
grant proposal to EPA for computer help.
16. DEQE should require a letter of credit, bond or escrow account for
all entities, such as private developers, that are installing waste-
water treatment systems.
Background: A permanent entity must be responsible for the
long-term maintenance and replacement of a wastewater treatment
facility. The state must be able to ensure the accountability and
financial viability of entities installing such systems. Legal
staff are currently exploring the available options and DEQE should
actively support their efforts.
-------
APPENDIX M - CCAMP CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
December, 1987 Page M-7
17. DWPC and DHW should clarify their joint responsibilities concerning
the relationships between Class III, Alternate Concentration Limits
(ACL's), the Groundwater Discharge Permit program, RCRA licensing,
and 21E sites (uncontrolled hazardous waste sites) which require
groundwater reclamation work.
Background: There is considerable overlap between DWPC's and DHW's
groundwater - related programs which results in confusion and de-
lay. The sooner responsibilities are clarified, the easier it will
be for each Division to work as effectively as possible.
18. EPA should re-examine its definition of regulated wastes under the
UIC program to maximize the opportunity for groundwater protection.
For optimal groundwater protection, EPA should regulate wastes of
concern, not method of disposal.
Background: Currently, the UIC program covers wastes disposed of in
cavities that are deeper than they are wide. The exact same wastes,
disposed of in a different manner, are not covered.
-------
APPENDIX N
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL
December 16, 1987
Introduction
The large and growing number of businesses that generate small quantities
of hazardous waste on Cape Cod, coupled with the vulnerability of the aquifer
system, make aggressive regulation of the use, storage and disposal of hazard-
ous materials a priority. The heavy emphasis on the remediation of contaminated
sites at both the state and federal levels creates concern that efforts geared
towards the prevention of future sites may become secondary.
The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Institutions Committee examined the
hazardous waste issue and gathered data on the implementation of hazardous
materials regulations in a wellhead protection area on Cape Cod. The investiga-
tion has raised more questions than it has answered, particularly concerning
the adequacy of the infrastructure at all levels of government to combat hazard-
ous waste problems. Fully embracing a comprehensive approach to hazardous
waste management and resource protection will necessitate broad management
changes. As a first step towards this type of change, CCAMP developed the fol-
lowing recommendations aimed at improving groundwater protection by increasing
the emphasis in hazardous-waste regulation on prevention, planning, education
and coordination among state, regional and local levels.
The new regulatory program for hazardous-waste management is complex and
far-reaching. It affects even small businesses and very small generators of
hazardous waste. Complying with the regulations is expensive and may necessi-
tate changes in business practices. To encourage compliance, DEQE must look
beyond its strictly defined regulatory role and coordinate with DEM/Office of
Safe Waste Management (OSWM) to engage in outreach, education and planning. The
state should provide technical assistance to small businesses and should encour-
age and fund regional agencies to sponsor outreach programs, milk runs, and
household waste collections. The state should also ensure that attention is
focused on waste exchange, source reduction and the creation of economic incen-
tives for waste reduction.
One of the most important lines of defense against improper hazardous mate-
rials handling is provided by the on-site presence of inspectors from various
local and state programs. The following recommendations highlight the impor-
tance of joint DHW/DWPC inspections and increased coordination between local
and state inspections. .;
-------
APPENDIX N - CCAMP HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page N-2
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Joint Hazardous Waste and Groundwater Discharge Permit Program Inspec-
tions: SERO Pilot.
DEQE should initiate a pilot program in the Southeast Regional Office (SE-
RO) to conduct facility inspections jointly across DHW and DWPC programs.
DEQE should develop a workgroup of regional inspectors and representatives
from the relevant programs in Boston to work out the specifics as soon as
possible. A rough framework and workplan should be developed before large
numbers of new employees are hired and before next year's workplans are
written.
Discussion: The advantages of a joint inspection program are numerous.
They include: more effective and economical use of an inspector's time; a
more comprehensive approach to waste disposal; encouraging better overall
business management practices; and consistent enforcement across all media
of discharge. This approach would foster more efficient and
environmentally sound business practices; an operator would think of the
various components of his waste stream as a whole and try to reduce the
waste generated and then dispose of it properly in a cost-effective manner.
Under the joint inspection program, one enforcement notice would be sent
noting the violations of the relevant regulations. Any necessary follow-up
activity would then be coordinated. CCAMP focused on groundwater related
programs but the cross-program inspections could also be set up to include
air programs.
Between 1984-1986, when a very rough count was kept, approximately 5 DHW
referrals per week were received by DWPC groundwater discharge permit
program staff in the Southeast Region. Each referral means that a facility
will probably be re-inspected many months later by another SERO staff
person. In the meantime, whatever abuses were noted may still be occurring,
resulting in the possible discharge of contaminants directly to the
ground. The facility operator may have initiated a change of procedure in
response to the DHW visit; he may balk at making additional changes at a
later date. Having one inspector, or a team of inspectors trained in both
DWPC and DHW program policies and responsible for specific sites will
result in clearer communication with the facility owner and the local Board
of Health. Further, if one inspector were responsible for all the sites in
a particular area, he or she would become familiar with the area's Zone Us
and other vulnerable areas such as wetlands.
There are a number of different models that could be employed for setting
up a joint inspection program. An individual could be trained to represent
all of the relevant programs or a team approach with an information
gathering inspector reporting to a team of professionals from the various
programs could be utilized. Whatever model is chosen, it should encompass
-------
APPENDIX N - CCAMP HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page N-3
the utilization of local-health-agent data and knowledge and involve good
coordination with local boards on enforcement.
2. Examination of Different Roles in Hazardous Waste Inspections.
In conjunction with the initiation of a joint inspection program in the
southeast region, a work group should be established to examine the roles
of the DEQE inspectors and local and regional health agents who may be
conducting similar inspections under hazardous materials bylaws. This work
group should ensure that health agents are aware of DEQE's policies so that
businesses will hear a consistent message from both state and local
inspectors. Clear communication will permit all levels to present a united
front in working on hazardous waste. The work group should determine a way
for DEQE personnel to utilize local knowledge, data and referrals. In
return, DEQE should provide enforcement assistance to local boards on key
cases. Finally, the work group should note the types of follow-up that
DEQE may not be able to perform but would like to delegate to local
agents. Clarifying the state, local and regional roles in this area will
prevent duplication and encourage coordination and innovation as well as
result in greater protection to groundwater through a more efficient use of
available manpower. The Regional Planning Agencies should assist in
coordinating local participation on such a work group.
3. DEQE Regional Staff Responsiveness to Local Health Agent Concerns.
DEQE Regional staff must improve their responsiveness to local health agent
referrals and concerns. Many towns employ trained agents and, in general,
the sophistication of local boards of health is growing. DEQE must respond
promptly to the referrals of these trained observers. In delaying, DEQE
risks letting serious sources of contamination go unchecked as well as
alienating potential allies and valuable sources of information. To
encourage better communication, the regional DEQE offices should encourage
towns to meet periodically with at least one representative of the regional
office to review priorities and concerns and develop a coordinated
enforcement strategy. At this meeting, DEQE should indicate what
facilities are its lowest priorities so the Board of Health can plan to
cover these. The BOH should then channel further questions and concerns to
this regional staff person who will then be responsible for facilitating
DEQE regional responses to this town.
4. Ensuring Adequate Local Expertise.
Many towns do not have available resources or expertise to develop their
own programs to inspect local businesses using hazardous materials. Such
towns should consider jointly hiring appropriately trained inspectors to do
this work. The Barnstable County Health and Environment Department (BCHED)
should also try to procure funding for regional inspectors specializing in
hazardous materials for loan to those towns in need as is currently done
with county sanitarians.
-------
APPENDIX N - CCAMP HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page N-4
Construction Grants, the Groundwater Discharge Permit Program, and
Groundwater Classification), this program has been underutilized and
understaffed. In examining the regulation of toxic and hazardous materials
on Cape Cod, it became apparent once again to CCAMP how crucial this
program is for the protection of groundwater. Particularly neglected by
this program are discharges from commercial establishments in unsewered
areas on Cape Cod. This program must be given adequate resources and
enforcement support to fulfill its regulatory role and address these
potentially serious sources of contamination.
In an in-depth study of a 3650-acre Zone II for nine public supply wells in
Barnstable, CCAMP found 48 businesses that may be discharging illegally to
the ground. Out of 141 businesses in the Zone meeting a threshold quantity
of toxic or hazardous materials storage requiring compliance with a town
bylaw, these 48 do not have EPA manifest notification numbers, do not have
tight tanks and are not covered by the groundwater discharge permit
program. It is likely that a number of these 48 are discharging industrial
wastes to septic systems and should be regulated by DWPC.
The lack of a strong discharge permit program presence on Cape Cod has also
led to considerable confusion on the part of local Boards of Health over
DEQE policy on floor drains at existing facilities. DEQE/DWPC should
address this in a memo or a workshop or by coordinating with the RPA to
explain the state policy to local agents.
6. Zone Us Should Guide Inspection/Enforcement Priorities.
DHW and DWPC should use delineated Zone Us or proximity to public water-
supply wells (within 1/2 mile of well if Zone II has not yet been
delineated) to guide inspection and enforcement priorities. Last year, DHW
experimented with a number of different approaches to setting these
priorities, including type of business, but location relative to a public
well was not considered. Targeting facilities within wellhead protection
areas should be agency policy and should be practiced by the appropriate
programs. It may be useful to insert this into annual program plans.
EPA's RCRA Office should support this method of setting priorities and
encourage its use in the Region I states.
7. State and Federal Funding of Innovative Outreach Programs at the Regional
Level.
DEQE, DEM and EPA should aggressively encourage innovative outreach pro-
grams at the regional level involving education, organized milk runs,
registration of waste generators, organized waste collections for
households and very small waste generators, waste exchanges and other
efforts. This encouragement should include financial support and technical
assistance. There should be intensive lobbying for the necessary funds and
authority. These agencies should then be responsible for transferring the
methods from successful pilot projects to other areas. The RPAs should
-------
APPENDIX N - CCAMP HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page N-5
actively research and design appropriate outreach programs for their
regions. The hazardous waste regulations at the federal and state levels
are so far-reaching that these innovative approaches and encouragement are
needed to ensure that safe waste management practices are adopted by
businesses and homeowners alike.
8. Apply Lessons From Implementation of Barnstable's Bylaw.
CCAMP intensively examined the implementation of Barnstable's Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Bylaw, based on a model bylaw developed by CCPEDC and
adopted by several towns on Cape Cod. Barnstable's implementation of this
bylaw involved an extremely aggressive inspection and education program.
Inspections last winter corrected violations at over 60 businesses and
found over 2000 gallons of hazardous material improperly stored. The BOH
targets certain categories of businesses as well as those within the town's
delineated zones of contribution to public supply wells for increased
attention. Many of the businesses visited by the health agent are small
enough that inspectors from DEQE have not been able to focus on them, thus
providing the only enforcement or explanation of environmental regulations
these operators may receive. CCAMP has found the implementation of this
bylaw to be outstanding and an extremely important tool for groundwater
protection in the town. CCPEDC and BCHED should assist in transferring the
successful techniques used in Barnstable to other towns.
9. Development of a State Pollution Prevention Program.
DEQE/DHW, DEQE/DSW and DEM/OSWM should increase their commitment to source
reduction as well as other innovative methods of waste management such as
waste exchanges in order to avoid disposal of waste as a permanent
solution. The state should work to make these programs more visible to
industries within the state and should build strong incentives into the
programs. The state should provide source reduction assistance including
education on the potential for environmental damage as a result of improper
use, management and disposal of hazardous wastes; and information on
improving the management of hazardous substances. The state must also
educate homeowners on the proper use and disposal of household products as
well as on alternate products.
10. Incentives for Product Substitution.
The EPA should research and implement methods of providing incentives for
businesses to utilize product substitution to reduce generation of
hazardous wastes. This prevention-oriented approach should be a priority
at the federal level.
11. Testing Private Wells for Synthetic Organics in High Risk Areas.
All levels of government have* a role to play in ensuring that private wells
are tested for synthetic organics in high risk areas where contamination is
suspected. On Cape Cod, both the BCHED laboratory and EPA Region I have
conducted case study analyses of private wells in specific problem areas
-------
APPENDIX N - CCAMP HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
December 1987 Page N-6
such as downgradient of landfills. These efforts should be continued.
CCPEDC and BCHED should cooperate in identifying these high risk areas on
Cape Cod and should design a sampling program to test these wells on a
periodic basis. EPA Region I Office of Groundwater Protection should
investigate providing small-scale funding and technical assistance for such
efforts.
12. Removal of Contaminated Soil.
DEQE/DHW must ensure that soil contaminated with petroleum products is
removed promptly or awaits removal appropriately contained and covered.
CCAMP has heard of instances of contaminated soil that has been dug out of
the ground and placed on a tarp awaiting removal for up to six months,
during which time the soil may wash away. Clearly, this subverts the
intent of any regulation aimed at groundwater protection and the prompt
clean-up of contaminated areas. DEQE should promptly develop an interim
policy on soil removal and take steps to develop a more permanent,
comprehensive solution. Such a solution should involve close coordination
with local health agents on implementation. The lack of proper soil
disposal and recycling alternatives may be encouraging noncompliance making
a continued enforcement presence particularly important.
13. Guide to DEOE Offices.
The DEQE Communications Office should publish a guide to the Boston and
Regional Offices noting the appropriate sections (with phone numbers) to
contact for particular problems. A brief description of each office's
responsibilities should be included. This should be provided to all RPAs,
Regional Health Departments, Boards of Health and be available on request
for all other municipal offices.
-------
APPENDIX 0
CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
PESTICIDES
January, 1988
Pesticide contamination of groundwater resources remains largely un-
characterized on Cape Cod. While limited testing of some public and pri-
vate supply wells, as well as a study of groundwater quality beneath golf
courses, have not turned up significant concentrations of pesticides, a
data gap exists with respect to this potential source of groundwater quali-
ty degradation. Geologic and environmental conditions on Cape Cod indi-
cate the area is conducive to pesticide leaching. A relatively high rate
of recharge, combined with sandy soils, shallow depths to water table and
localized spots of elevated nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater put the penin-
sula in a category of vulnerability. Under this scenario, private wells
are at greatest risk from many sources of contamination, including pesti-
cides, because they are shallower than public supply wells and draw in
less water to provide for dilution.
Fortunately, intensive agricultural practices with liberal pesticide
applications are not widespread on Cape Cod. A large number of other
commercial applications are prevalent however, including lawn care, small
scale agricultural operations and right-of-way maintenance. In order to
quantify the threat that pesticide application poses to groundwater quali-
ty on Cape Cod, a program of random sampling of private drinking water
wells, observation wells and/or monitoring wells is needed. Such a pro-
gram needs to be supplemented by activity on the state and federal levels
to evaluate and restrict those chemicals that could potentially cause
unreasonable adverse effects to man and/or the environment.
INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
FEDERAL
1. Develop MCLs for all pesticides found in groundwater or with likeli-
hood of leaching to groundwater.
2. Develop analytic methods for pesticides which may be capable of leach-
ing to groundwater.
3. Facilitate information flow to lower levels of government on environ-
mental fates and human health effects of pesticides.
4. Develop information on synergistic health effects of multiple
pesticide residues in drinking water.
5. Coordinate environmental fate studies at state and national level.
-------
APPENDIX 0 - CCAMP PESTICIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 0-2
STATE
6. Rank pesticides in terms of environmental fate and toxicity; review
all registrations in terms of this information.
7. Support Massachusetts Dobbin Pesticides Reform Act Bill.
8. Appropriate sufficient funds to conduct environmental fate studies on
priority pesticides.
9. Establish private well testing programs through inner-agency task
force in especially vulnerable areas. DEQE should provide technical
assistance to local boards of health in identifying potential areas of
contamination.
10. Develop a multiagency strategy to protect groundwater from pesticide
contaminat ion.
11. Compile complete inventory of pesticide products used for various
purposes, quantities sold, and the annual use records for various
parts of the state.
12. Increase visibility of Department of Food and Agriculture Pesticide
Bureau as regulatory enforcement agency through development of
regional offices.
13. Research synergistic effects of more than two pesticide compounds in a
water supply.
14. Continue interagency task force on pesticides to coordinate response
to water supply/public health issues.
15. Provide technical assistance to communities to insure compliance with
Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act.
COUNTY
16. Implement program of periodic spot checking of private wells for
pesticide chemicals in common use today.
17. Perform pesticide analyses on public supply wells once every three
years.
18. Facilitate/coordinate communication between state and local level on
pesticide issues.
LOCAL
19. Identify and map all sensitive areas where pesticide use should be
restricted or prohibited, including areas of private drinking water
supply wells and Zone Us for public supply wells.
20. Develop communication method to report pesticide incidents to DFA
Pesticide Bureau.
-------
APPENDIX P
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
The local role in groundwater protection is absolutely critical because
of local control over land-use planning and other important decisions im-
pacting groundwater protection. The following discussion of the ground-
water management approaches in Barnstable and Eastham and the needs and
opportunities open to these communities illustrates the range of 4 options
at the local level.
The land-use study undertaken in a Barnstable wellhead protection area
(See Chapter 6) highlights the need for a groundwater-management strategy
that focuses on the management of diverse existing sources. CCAMP discover-
ed that many land-use activities have only incomplete regulatory coverage,
or completely fall through the "regulatory cracks". Consequently, local
officials must create a comprehensive protection program that controls
those specific activities. The land-use study also accentuated the point
that political boundaries do not coincide with natural-resource boundaries
and that intertown coordination is crutial.
Although an intensive study was not performed in Eastham, an inventory
and "windshield survey" of commercial activities were undertaken, as was an
inventory of state-regulated, underground-storage tanks. The small number
of these sources and the large amount of vacant and developable land sug-
gested that Eastham concentrate its efforts in not siting any threatening
land-use activities in proximity to present or future water supplies. In
order to undertake such an effort, the town must first map its resources
and identify future public-supply wells in order to direct threatening land-
use activities away from these areas.
Proposed Local Planning Process 'in Barnstable and Eastham
The investigation in Eastham and Barnstable led CCAMP to document some
observations and recommendations for general approaches to groundwater man-
agement for any locality. The process, presented in Table 1, is an
analysis of how Barnstable's and Eastham's approaches to groundwater
management fit into the general framework. It is not designed as a
step-by-step map for local planning. It serves primarily as a general
methodology. The approach presented is designed to answer three questions:
what needs to be protected?; from what does it need to be protected?; and
how should it be protected? While the last question generally generates
the most interest, the overall effectiveness of any protection measure is
critically linked to how well the first two questions are answered. Thus,
special attention must focus on developing a strong technical database and
on an assessment of needs which will provide the basis for a strong
protection program.
What needs to be protected? This first question requires an assessment
of the resource in order to identify environmentally sensitive or
-------
APPPENDIX P: GROUNDWATER MGT APPROACHES IN BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page P-2
Table 1. Local Groundwater Protection Approaches
QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3
What to Protect ? Protect from what 7 How to Protect ?
LOCAL
PLANNING
PROCESS
CAPE COO
EXAMPLES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
NEEDS
FORM GROUNDWATER COMMITTEE r-»
IDENTIFY FUTURE NEEDS
UNDERTAKE WATER SUPPLY PLANS
IDENTIFY RESOURCE AREA
HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES AND
DELINEATION
i
BARNSTABLE EASTHAM
Delineated ZOC Preliminary
delineation of
Identified water ZOC
supply water
needs
Examine Undertake form
Influence ZOC delineation
of over- Examine future
lapping supply needs
ZOC's
Build out
Analyze inter town analysis
boundary issues
Identify
Update needs inter town
assessment issues
regularly
INVENTORY Pf
E^CMT AND FUTURE *
THREATS (within delineated
zones of contribution or
town-wide)
UNDERTAKE L
BUILD-OUT A
ANALYZE RES
BARNSTABLE
NO USE INVENTORY
.
IALYSIS
ITS
EASTHAM
CCAMP landuse Home heating tank
inventory
Inventory with
BCHED
Registration of
toxic material
users JBOH)
Registrationof
toxic UST's
(BOH/FD)
Expand inventory Build out
throughout town analysis
Identify
Preliminary
incompatible contaminant
future land
uses.
inventory using
state data
Solicit technical
aid from
CCPEDC/BCHED
ASSESS GOVERNMENT
CAPABILITY
DESIGN LOCAL PROGRAMS TO:
FILL IN GAPS IN STATE PROGRAM
TO FULLY CONTROL EXISTING
THREATS
DIRECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF
THREATENING ACTIVITIES AWAY
FROM ZONES OF CONTRIBUTION
IMPLEMENT AND EDUCATE
BARNSTABLE EASTHAM
Toxic material Increase lot
user size to
inspections protect
private wells
Aadopted UST
bylaw (removal Passed toxic
after 30 yrs) material bylaw
Strong
implementation
effort
Intertoun Hire staff
enforcement
agreement Implement
Title 5
Inter town
coordination Rezone
Solicit
technical aid Implement
from local bylaw
CCPEDC/BCHED
Solicit
technical aid
from
CCPEDC/BCHED
-------
APPPENDIX P: GROUNDWATER MGT APPROACHES IN BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page P-3
vulnerable areas. This should be undertaken in conjunction with an analy-
sis of community-water needs. Especially important is the delineation of
existing and future public well sites and their associated wellhead protec-
tion areas. Water-supply planning should also be performed to consider
community water demand over time and the alternatives available to meet
this demand. A build out analysis as described below could be helpful in
this regard.
From what does it need to be protected? Answering this second ques-
tion requires an assessment of existing and future land-use activities
which present potential threats to groundwater in the town. While this is
a straightforward exercise, it is often overlooked. It is a critical link
in an effective planning process; a process which is not but should be
required under Massachusetts statutory law. The inventory step described
in question 2 of Table 1 is envisioned to be similar as the one performed
in the Barnstable's ZOC #1 (see Chapter 6). It will identify all existing
sources of potential pollution. In the build-out analysis step described
in question 2, the number and type of future activities which would exist
if the town experienced full development under present zoning regulations
are mapped. This step requires some technical guidance and understanding
of the land-use activities in the area and contaminants generated by these
activities. CCAMP's "Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead
Protection" (available separately from NTIS and described in Chapter 2)
can provide this guidance.
How to Protect? When the assessment is complete and results are
analyzed, attention must be placed on how to protect the resource. There
are numerous alternatives to consider when designing a local protection
strategy, including regulatory and nonregulatory measures. With the zones
of contribution delineated, a local community should utilize any of these
measures to protect specific sensitive areas. Regulatory techniques may
include: land-use controls such as zoning and subdivision regulations
generally implemented by planning or zoning boards; health regulations
such as the local bylaw in Barnstable implemented by the board of health;
and police powers such as permitting, standard setting and inspection
requirements. Nonregulatory techniques may include: buying sensitive
lands as is done in the Massachusetts Aquifer Land Acquisition Program,
easement restrictions and public education. An assessment should be made
of the relative merits of any one of these measures within a community
before a particular approach is embraced.
Specific strategies chosen depend in part on the particular strengths
of a town government (i.e. the relative power and influence of the plan-
ning board, board of health and conservation commission), the existence of
a professional staff, the ability to increase staff work load, and the
political ramifications of various protective measures. These factors
would lead Eastham and Barnstable to select different protection strate-
gies. While Barnstable has the staff to implement extensive health regula-
tions, Eastham currently does not have the ability to implement similar
measures. Additionally, while Barnstable should examine the
-------
APPPENDIX P: GROUNDWATER MGT APPROACHES IN BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Page P-4
capacity for development within the town and phase future growth according-
ly, Eastham should probably focus its efforts on utilizing existing
land-use controls before creating new programs. This would include rezon-
ing where needed to reflect groundwater protection concerns.
Overcoming Potential Stumbling Blocks
Any approach to local groundwater protection will require some profes-
sional staff. While this may appear to be a stumbling block for many
communities, there are a variety of innovative alternatives to hiring a
full-time person at a large expense. Cooperative agreements with neighbor-
ing towns to share a person, or hiring a circuit rider through an Office
of Economic and Community Development (EOCD) grant should be investigated.
Obtaining the necessary information to undertake a refined management
scheme is essential but also difficult and expensive. Hydrogeologic stud-
ies, if done well initially, will not need major updates over time. Howev-
er, source inventories and water-quality analyses should be ongoing and
should be correlated. This data should be shared among all local offices
making decisions which could affect groundwater quality.
Finally, public education and implementation of any new protection
scheme are essential to its success. Implementation of a regulation after
passage is frequently overlooked, but cannot be overemphasized. The Barn-
stable health regulations are a perfect example of the potential impact of
a well implemented bylaw and should be heeded by numerous communities.
One means of ensuring implementation of local control measures is to in-
clude citizens in the planning process.
-------
APPENDIX Q
CCAMP DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
October, 1988
(An asterisk indicates documents not included in the final report.)
Except as otherwise noted, all CCAMP documents listed below will be
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) after
October 1, 1988. Contact NTIS directly at the following address:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703) 487-4650
General
*1. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Description". November 1985.
2. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Final Report". 1988.
EPA 901/3-88-006. (Final Report includes the following item numbers
from this CCAMP list of documents: 4-11; 16-19). NTIS No. PB89
106298/AS; $19.95 paper, $6.95 microfiche; Also available from the
State House Bookstore, Statehouse, Room 116, Boston, MA, Cost $9.40,
$1.75 for mailing and handling.
*3. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Executive Summary". 1988.
EPA 901/3-88-003.
*4. "The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: A Multi-Agency Approach to
Groundwater Protection" by T. Gallagher and S. Nickerson. July 1986.
In Proceedings of the Third Annual Eastern Regional Ground Water
Conference. NWWA, Springfield, MA. pp. 116-135. Available from your
technical library or from the National Water Well Association, 6375
Riverside Drive, Dublin, OH 43017.
*5. "A Resource-Based Approach to Groundwater Protection" by Lee
Steppacher and Tara Gallagher. May 1988. Environment. Volume 30(4),
pp.4,45. (Available from your technical library).
Institutional Recommendations (Items 6-13 available from NTIS as a package):
6. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Enhanced
Groundwater Protection in Landfills. August 1986.
7. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Construction
Grants, Groundwater Discharge Permit Program, and Groundwater
Classification. December 1986.
-------
APPENDIX Q - CCAMP Documents Available
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page Q-2
8. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Water Supply
Planning. December 1986.
9. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Proj ect Recommendations, Underground
Storage Tank. October 1987.
10. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Septage
Management. December 1987.
11. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Hazardous
Materials Use and Disposal. December 1987.
12. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Private Well
Protection. October 1987.
13. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Recommendations, Pesticide
Recommendations. January 1988.
Technical Documents
*14. "A Mass-Balance Nitrate Model for Predicting the Effects of Land Use
on Groundwater Quality in Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas" by
M. Frimpter, J. Donohue IV, and M. Rapacz. June 1988. 50 pp.
(Provides managers with an easily understood methodology and the
relevant associated data for application of this formula.).
*15. "Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection" by
K. Noake. 1988. 75 pp. EPA 901/3-88-004. "(This handbook provides
detailed information on common land uses and associated contaminants
and their environmental fate.).
16. Water-Table Elevations: Eastern Barnstable, Massachusetts, May 11-13,
1987" by D. Heath and E. Mascoop. October 1987.
*17. Locating Available Water-Table Observation Wells". October 1987.
Available from Cape Cod Planning and Economic and Development
Commission, First District Court House, Barnstable, MA 02630.
(Describes methodology to follow for developing a water-table map
utilizing existing observation wells.)
*18. "Demonstration of the Use of Three Dimensional Groundwater Flow
Modeling and Particle Tracking to Delineate Zones of Contribution to
Public Supply Wells, Cape Cod, MA" by USGS. Available May 1, 1990.
(Three-year study suggested by CCAMP utilizing numerical modeling in
Barnstable and Eastham.). (Available in 1990 from the Books and
Open-Files Reports Section; Box 25425, Federal Center; Denver,
Colorado 80225.)
-------
APPENDIX Q - CCAMP Documents Available
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page Q-3
Items 19-21 will be available as a package from National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161 after October 1. 1988.
19. "Evaluation of Approaches to Determine Recharge Areas for Public
Supply Wells " CCAMP Aquifer Assessment Committee. April 1986.
(Summarizes the group's evaluation of Zone II delineations in the
study area.)
20. "Hydrogeologic Considerations of Zone of Contribution Methods Used by
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission and SEA
Consultants, Inc. For Public Supply Wells in Barnstable,
Massachusetts". May 1986. (Detailed examination of necessary data for
Zone II delineation and discussion of methods of data reduction.)
21. "Quality Assurance of Groundwater Models Through Documentation" by
John Donohue, IV. June 1986. (Discusses the necessary documentation
which should accompany all groundwater modeling efforts.)
Zone II Inventory
*22. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Land Use Risks, Impacts on
Water Quality, and Methods of Analysis" by Gabrielle Belfit. May
1987. Presented at the American Water Resources Symposium on
Monitoring, Modeling and Mediating Water Quality, in Syracuse, N.Y.,
14 pp. (Available from your technical library)
*23. "The Management of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in a Zone of
Contribution on Cape Cod" by Tara. Gallagher and Lee Steppacher.
July 1987. In Proceedings of the FOCUS on Eastern Regional Ground
Water Issues: A Conference. July 14-16, 1987, Burlington, Vt. pp.
13-41. (Available from your technical library)
Geographic Information Systems (CIS)
*24. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project. 1988. "Demonstration of a Geo-
graphic Information System for Ground Water Protection.
EPA 901/3-88-005.
*25. "Assessing Risk to Water Quality at Public Water Supply Sites, Cape
Cod, Massachusetts" by Julio Olimpio, Elizabeth Flynn, and Saiping
Tso. Water Resources Investigation Report. In Preparation
(Available after January 1, 1989 from the USGS, Books and Open-Files
Reports Section, Box 25425, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.)
Bibliography
*26. "CCAMP Bibliographies: Publications and Maps". May 1988. Compiled by
EPA Region 1 Library. EPA 901/3-88-002.
------- |