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.

-------