EPA 901 /3-88-006 986 THE CAPE COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CCAMP) Final Report DOCUMENT LIBRARY Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Eastham Barnstable CCAMP WAS UNDERTAKEN BY: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION | 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 oa A Published by MICHAEL J. CONNOLLY Secretary of State 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 2 ore f eg ly i ‘ icky, y ‘ * KT en an 7%. , he) we 4 7) 4 } " ue a as im = r est3 oS he ane ‘ ) a AV) a 1 _ f ‘ f iy od 4) % rie tiapad. SheTaNy ‘oa io 00 Bins £ ay a } u rt * «pce aaary } iy art ateg ind Day cant ai pdonp yet Selpegh Geant oue ; sulgny Si Pieve 0 ewe clea Ve giwaria: +0 Seis) i. ies 2:3 Agi iT if Poe me 3 9 Maret | p28 42 libel Tsar VRD A Higa tinje® wey eanTiey zt vsolomeyd anicwatsicwe4 Gi rapa’ MOITosTORe ta arn cea pemapanen oa unl ahr ; . ie | . h meat enodses oma a _ arteok aura 6 ollie nt teatn eff 3o frat fy “es i tener ase) mB 3s ‘a -T ie us = ok Aiea a et. > 43 > ay .> 1BV< a> | iF = > 2 10f1 ee mio ARS Siete el Dera Ides * ts de a Sel om bee ee, 4: FPumrsneed- te a é + 2.40 2 NETO D . VRS AV % yeas ra, Bs 7 otc Somemcpeict tagavtguriy Sa vig Sedes al 2 aS — er Sialed > r "i a is DUSINey If See wi av! int sew SMA 43 etniie ‘ce — a , 7 ai, 24490 ayave buG oP Le aa SHwOsIUS Eeene 7.7; ic P ; ia — ae ° em * vr -_ ‘ va Py Be 349 «6SA UK Aas MOULTG sane ' femeniT [ J \ _ ‘ : 7 , a a etnaectwian ™y 4 ; : vo fe Te i. a SAS Jimi. @eew ogu fete ig Tins Heitor | ni 7207 ToT ¥ tioes s7221u0ReT ati? oJ Seleoists Wo fori 123 tt SR ae iene +2) i nihinet 19 ov ivhey 4 ~ . . € es if LOTS’ + r 5 ain é ; : t $y rf) oR : ‘ ¥ mit? +e © hs : t f Jt] Livny iy i ws : wee al ~ te 4 Pr. e % - - : PCIe fa ' Le ! " Ia ris ie 7 “~~ +> , j on [ona 4 , a «it~ c 4 at rw Y 4 . 4 a ’ ‘ 7 c ‘ Jf } ant Tis : S. RUSSELL SYLVA oS, of 61 . tl F. ‘li ao . 7 One Winter Street, Boston 02108 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 govermment, 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: als 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. 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 amd 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. 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 contimed 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 mich from the experience. I am sure we will contime to learm as we put into practice the many worthy recommendations forged by the serious work of this joint venture. 4 aL RU. en 7 ‘ PERE ae a, - ev ib - OwaA Cnet oe i o¢ 5 ; ; iM baw . ' } * ’ : “ ~ ee as _ ~ és “ ~ - wd * we. Ny ISH - we as (thee teeters 2 7a “AY! woh age ove tc oi (te neeeried nites eager ore Meth vis wort on yn fs eck eved ‘ ae eae be }! al _ 4 ia laf J /) _/ 25 ‘eves ~ 82 pruned si all . ‘ ~ TT Om et * +: od d raat ~d — Pr _ wee P at} 4S oe Ts 2 2 sthaeeeor =. + -“ ene Beata ery ) fiw oo Beiow « . ‘ ‘ f nn i et? ot >'C mo ait iit wert spd ¥ , oI ts De ee 4 + 3 u j : : _— a. oo? ae ' Vie ,awit ie. i ne el =A doo at Se | BOC, SMa wy i ast f - > fe i + a er ee a > » ee ees ° ; é ; ’ F< “ 1s © in Lez ~ * - } y » ae me es . vet oF f WOes 8 r tai3 ‘y wf : a * a [ a) ere | i } * MOLIS ' = Wolo « 7 es ; » (iiaes? y : o. 7 3 , . 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. otal -, to eeosiceeh gnizeert 467 tu « , hives : ' hw 23.8%) a Ase tw gobaleaiidse (TMAID ‘wores peeves) af Ye avi (2 iis y. bag oy a ’ ". oe 7 a ioe (ayo ty sa )ipent gi a Vet to waaebrld #25 o ad ape oo r - este oar) are! fontc 7 Iaial PROG! i, a jena oh a . @1g2-1d Seanad teer-ow aris ve ow vite | thd Werving elo Jor yeds $02 il Mops el taey zl ie oud Vaaseeson ad atitvans toe gtfare a 7 7 | ie . ’ / ‘ ' J - tds sitelogo 02 ‘seco Lodge ated? cite ay bobleaay Pipaqua addy poltotossaqe teetg daty be siwanssp ‘cela Re Wo - * 7. x —— : } e act err 44. 02 ria hae rG ak ' Bae ¥ MASS To ss ‘pate 8a F | ; iy + ma =ta tO 49 ; v2 i oi} ettinpes shusingem ests 4 mr) Hat taatxo% 10 au Seblowig yedT ha ; be atl SMAAK 10 3eHAeNessy, bi & great BE ONG is eo a l ta se besealdes yram ett a7 1 b i riroetY B62” aga hrrra fur ] i, De [ C2) i GeLaTqg en bas y re it vie { i 2 i624 qa ma.e t ih 160° this qmes ie ofv ,nelkanad oF rirOyere ‘Oe ryeqetl aris nfs ’ tubes @' IMAQO Sat tt 4 otivas base vo. aeh ¥ idavanwed git Jo. Tinie : : 7 a7! MOS al aiid 7 ; $33 hegre 4A09 @a@ FOS ad 4 , * « f r 3 Res > b] Lt 4 * ; - ” - A 5 - a eT he | ai P 9 P 29 e | tia 1Y¥Oi10mo | t 7 , . “ ’ U “ee in ‘ ning i oy yhae pina 4 iio At” % f ite, ele | * tv ie | ae ’ [ : [ 41 t 7 a » ( ‘ ‘ as $ 4 4 a 1 - w fe ert ) ‘ boat pes lg t armen, awo4 ove wea Bhwow ye ie Ps i de 7 L her ae een Raaehee r ee MEME £ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number CHAPLER Mae =n IN LRODU CEL ON ccox nasser sta s gikre ener tie mec auars Sits sus Waele. somes aimee atone acetone 1 NAR Ba Ch prs OUT Catercicu ke ise repePolipeeeko te soles veoh obs s/t sy ere euctlay ells ,/e\aile) susieeuciave Sin 6) ohaitenieereyaus 1 Ae 2a VBTON |e CERNE © Gin) Mee tole eieoisie) = = fo eile ce) SREP RR) ANSTO Ue herp MEMO NSIey. <'sah Se ae 1 eS uhEOVeCeuManapememtg oxeyeus Moja) -uhoohke) Meehan) ket b ena aayse yet) eee 4 CHAPTER 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM ........... 6 Qple BACK PTOMNG ahaye ric. 3) yeysusi yt edad = +, Oe hel ened 6 Dpidk Le Barnstable sees. tics joiesis codoud oucuan 3) shepehhoccees Ph aneret ek tees inate due Ss, Movseus 6 Qi den QBASCN AM. inp: seuoue oso 5 ete 4 ois, Sis, oe eee aera doe aerace Sasa agg dads os as 7 2h Sy Hy GrOPEO LORY. « ches cfa ths ws Sei ols apd Qerastsfaye ys Mics ed ward ots de Se aks sta 7 2.4 Groundwater Problems Facing Cape Cod: A General Overview........ a2 Zoy SOuULCeES (Of (Contaminacions i. j0 occ sd mrs sole oss eo ecg erate ss Seating 12 2. jplvesanitary, Land iidas,. secs cle Gage wettest atetot. saa ae oe as oe 12 22.32 Underpround. Storapeytanks, occas omens vahertonas tauqgds stats oe 13 2pO\aS Waste-Water Treatment ‘Plants ...\...cetenbosse: 2250+ ree eee: 13 2: Die Septage. hits and, Lagoons: «ennvsres oo Ss oaotescosde nto aoee es 15} 2 OMOn- sates Wastewater Disposal .:...4o0reud <0 oo 9HAe- ont ee aae oe 14 2H Di OR PS Tate Tel OT USE tphoriatra, woes d5/snisereNeR erie ewe mete sere row eroN OMe ye ie. cule One RGD eMEL Syray eke (oles ENGINES 14 2: Jp Pesticidesp msn: cig -steOo- Se show Cad. eae STAM; a oe SEO AE 14 29.6) (Loxics and Hazardous’ Material'smeriys 6 .SGos- Ac heee eee: oc sess ee 15 Ze DO ROAG) Siadse sa: get ysivc pe aiianays ts ye ieucies sw isis S's) 8) ai Sos siiel sees a SS Pa Ooahe ahs 2's Mares 15 GHAPTERS 3) =) THESRESOURGE-BASED APPROAGH sax ccias op emeremie «eC Gree aion cess 16 CHAPTER 4 - THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECTION.............. Uy) Ay A TET OGUCE TOM \efssgs ih coulis eikoeele hte, “Tic oacl's nw eysno olay sieeve mmioe bus S72 + Gado’ 19 4.2 Aquifer Assessment Committee Findings ..........4..s0.02:-0e00:- 19 4. 2s Gharacterizationyor, the Resource: cm. cekspwels sea sw hoot. eae aeae 20 4. 2s Water-Table Mapping....35 5: hese ect) es eek “eck oaeeit= sf ca oe sens 20 4. 2:.2, Observation-Well Inventory... 0.66.0. -eiees bien cet see om: Ss gee6 20 4.3. CCAMP Recommendations for Observation-Well Inventory .......... 2a 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 ..... 26 478 Documentation ofeModelluinies gs m1, tengo osctae-( suet foes -felotes Peis < ele so 26 4.9 Groundwater Protection for Communities on Private Wells......... 27 49'.1, Private-Well Recommendations) ().<% iacepts puke sme es 6 o> ces 3s 27 4.9.2 Protection of Future Public-Supply-Well Resources............. 28 4°10) Protection Of they Resource te, reine Ul 724.3) Dearth or Lfechnical Expertise: at the Local evel es... .--. es 78 (Po oimpoTcance TOtele chit CalwASG Us Caner. ve cmterrene suerte emerene aiersi fi eieieiels 78 7.4.5 Creation of a Regional Land-Use Regulatory Agency............. 79 GHUNEWIR ( s JAXOUASI DN/NO MENON soo ecccdoodncapdanuoo on oenmDoanobounDoKS 80 oll GONMOIE MEAS DEGRA CMSs s4coabadnonosodoungo abo geroKooaDOsooo? 81 35%, Geils, Colleen casuncscvcnvebedeaomoaudbuadhodesmdcasomadsde 82 REFERENCES SGIDED ee cys -ucicie isi s.e cus tolettenenel « ereiore pele cise eis) sieve) herein che ea aiekemel ooia are 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Number Page Number 1.1 Major Waste Sources and Zones of Contribution to Community Supply Wells, Cape Cod, Massachusetts........... 72 22 (CCAMPS Committee Onpandizationall Structures sin. icussiotest-ci-lhereens 5 2 Ss Hydrogeoloric) Units of iGapenGod.y... . . «. «ills ober ee 8 202, section) Through, Barnstabile-Yarmouth Ate ary. a... cpanel i Noa gJ@ 2.3 Six Ground-Water Flow Cells.and Directions of Flow.......... iLL 4.1 Observation Well Inventory Well Description Form............ 22 4.2 Two-and Three-Dimension Views of a Glacial Valley Aquifer Showing the Zones and Stream which Contribute Water to a Public-—Suppliy: Wed]. ioe) os, operas epepe enapeye Oa sisitaisaehe i eo) asieacee re cued eRCeee 24 423 salypicals (Land Uses, invasZonewWiyAGe alas «aici isieneieo icieh ocean Zo) 4.4 Diagrammatic Representation of those Factors Affecting Mobility sandyAttenuation of Contaminants) 1-0) ieee eee 32 5.1 A Overview of Major Geographic Information Sy Stems) BUncit TONS yaya silence tekraeihcr ice ile ete eee ee ene ea 38 6415 Location of Zone of Contributions (Z0G)) 1s. eee 42 642) Underground Storage Tank Locations) im yZOG il roe crore 49 6.3 Extent and Location of Toxic and Hazardous Materials im) ZOG tll 005 cuepoust-a-ps eam mothe pouciome Gee ouc uses aie ke eles BZ 6.4 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Materials Re paisitraltlonghOrm inne cud teicg- bn nae ieceohssoueact-) Ra ieaken cre eee 58 6.5 Barnstable Board of Health Toxic and Hazardous Material Inspection, FORMS <2 sce cnepsqeyeksdouens abitsl € 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 o =~ Hazardous Waste Storage and Transfer Sites x Landfills and Waste-Water Plants Zones of Contribution to Community-Supply Wells Figure 11 - 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: ° Aquifer Assessment ° Data Management ° 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 Committee provide overall project direction - oversee work groups - transmit findings ensure implementation of project recommendations Institutions Group - assess ability of existing programs to protect ground- water Data Management Group - support data needs of other groups Aquifer Assessment Group - assess existing method- ologies for aquifer protection - catalogue available information on Cape's groundwater > examine coordination in groundwater management between the various levels of government - refine scientific concepts upon which aquifer protection is based - examine databases and make recommendations concerning consistency, accessibility, unmet needs - develop new protection recanmend improvements techniques based on scientific principles - examined: - explore use of Geographic landfills - examined: Information Systems wastewater treatment - 20C delineation method technology as a groundwater septage/sludge hazardous materials underground storage tanks groundwater discharges pesticides water supply planning - Nitrate loading Management tool calculations - water-table mapping - contaminant sources 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 Hydrogeology 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 MP IAEE LPROVINCETOWRi,2 CAAA? ge oe EXPLANATION Sand and gravel outwash Sand and gravel outwash with some till Ice-contact sand and gravel ATLANTIC Lacustrine sand, gravel, silt and clay OCEAN Moraine of sandy till 6 Beach and dune deposits Marsh and wetland organic sediments CAPE COD BAY 41°40" BUZZARDS BAY NANTUCKET SOUND LaSE 0 5 10 MILES Sy SS = 0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS 70° 40° 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 (Rilgure 221, 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 NORTH A A FEET FEET 200 200 100 Nantucket Lend Suriace “Ow 5 : ie ial ao TEE MOE ENTREES. : — LEVEL FEEL ine eo ee EOL ODE DELEON EA A COoED ===> LEVEL 100 — SSS ee etcece, = pero) aie Se Ne ELAS eK ABR vs ee me 2 = 300 “%Very line sand, sill, end clay Sere ere res nie : Wao SA mus SSS 2 SOR SES SENTRY ee Ie ORR IRE ; ERMENIN peor 8 Vertical Exaggeration x10 5,000 10,000 Feet 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Meters Figure 2.2 Section Through Barnstable-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, fala JEhI5)) Chapter 2 - CCAMP STUDY AREA: TOWNS OF Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM Page 11 EXPLANATION = 5 WATER TABLE CONTOUR—Shows altitude of water table, in feet, 1963-76. Contour interval vanes. Datum is sea level. Arrows show general direction of ground-water flow. ----- HYDROLOGIC BOUNDARY BETWEEN ATLANTIC FLOW CELLS OCEAN @ —_ WELLS DRILLED TO BEDROCK THAT DID o NOT PENETRATE SALTWATER oe ee © _ WELLS DRILLED INTO OR THROUGH THE FRESHWATER-SALTWATER BOUND- ARY 5: —— SECTION LINE—Line of section shown in figure 2a ve 0° (3 Rae CAPE COD BAY coe ZO oa e 20 — 41°40" A | Uy Soe D 4140 — e Ww Q RE syxue2 -Jaj2euBy9 Yue] - pesn ]e1sajew wie} F JeL{UEepPiseay - Juew,sedeg e414 }820) 40138 )|Nbey 6o)}9eq awit - UO1L3oN43SUOD - 1sn A3a48s J1e4 - pezewojny - 2Su013da9x3 (Sda) Ajajes 211qQNd 40 SABP 6 31V1S 31V1S Ayioede) - $ism1 liv 211QNg 40 JUsW}J1edaqg quew sedaq 838g Bulusasos U0 13 uo13e\nboy /buisayye9 4OY = - BJ UOW ) dy] Aj) 1qe)leay pue uo LJewWsOjUT SAIJPLALOY 1849pe 4/9385 JuawesiNnbay awit }O ]2A0) pue Aj1)enND ejeG 2)qe)18Ay JO S2}1S paze)nboay Asuaby 6uijuawe }dwy] ‘me)Ag uMO] P2eZ1]13N Sedunos e3eQ sofeW b°9 91981 CHAPTER 6 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 45 ee aE Ua EE NU yEEIES SUES ES SnnS SESS (6utpeo) ueb }930y Jo )a}0W -O4J}1U 404) (butpeo) /su004 40 JaQuUINN - 40138 )nNbey ua6os}1uU) queuneyseJ $]2}04 42) 89H 43 189H ]8301 Ssyxaem y - poo9 poo) /syeas 40 JaquUNN - pue ‘S}a}OW ‘sjUBuNe sey $0 pueog 2a)Qe sUuseg 21983 SuUseg *aoeds (6uipso) ueb 991430 pue 310}S -0431U JO4) (6ui peo) $0 268300} auenbs - sdew }22ued ua60331uU) S)e2sed 231430 yynowse A 18301 syaen 4 - poo) poo) $0 UOLJeaUL)}ag - Ajsadoig 2)Qexe1 $,JOSSESSy/xX@] UNO) /2\Qe87SUseg (6ut peo) ue60131uU) Sassauisng }]GwWS 40} Ayisnaes yuawAo);dw3 = =(6uipeo) usb 1830] Sxaen 4 - 4tey — SaaAo)dwa JO JequinN JO JUsWwyJEded WW -0.21U JO4) “Yy UOW/swet60] 1% O00L< st Aytquenb ydaoxa aaocge S@ owes - SYOLVYINID ALILNWNO 398v1 * esods ip JO} Psaowes B18 (A)uo sjojesou[b S2}S8M 34} UsyA sjUNOUR Ay. quenb 2504} 6u1)}]8302 Sejsen O£€ WWD OLE 2648) 404) sjsodes Buisoys so ‘Se]Sen Ayi}19e, jenuuy - nusnopsezey A}23NI8,, weJsBoid sy uow A1063}389 3)S5em $O YyQUOW/Wwes160}1y |< JO 350, 1Ue,W g A)a ew xoudde Aq uoljewsojyuy - 33S6M sMopsezey jo YUOW 23S56A $0 60)49eq owl - A) enuue /swej60) 14 Q2< Butonposd 3Sejy};UeW - 3030 snopsezeyq U013GI14 149A payawojny - peney a3sen $atytys9e4 - SYOIVYINaD 2 2)3439NS ON - BulAosdwy - poog - $O Saiziqueno - ALTANWNO VivKS UO1}3@I1}}30N - Wd3 vuou a ng EE ———eeEeEeeee———EeeEEEEEEEE e3eg buiusesos U01} u0138)Nbay /Buisayze9 404 = - BJUBWa Gu] Aji} 1qQ8)1eAy pue uo LJewsoOjuy SOLQIALIV 1849pe4/9383S Juewesinbey owt $0 )2A07 pue Aj1}enND e3eG 2)qQe)1eAy JO Sajis pajze)nboy Asuaby Gut Uawe )}dw] ‘me)Ag UMOL PezZi}lIN Sedunos e83eg 4sofew 9 91981 - ANALYSIS OF LAND-USE WITHIN ZOC FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MAT. CHAPTER 6 Page 46 Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report nnn nn eee UtEyEdttdtydIEEsEEESSSSsS SSS nSas ejep Solzi)loey 1] 94-6u Jo tuow ]81240umw0> a@}ewojne 0} SuB)d Aep 2/4 - 404 400d - poog (3030 03 Pera wqns A181 3U0p! ,U09 jou pue uolJewsOjUl aaey ng Ay. Uenb SQSW 9AByY =—s_-4JO.-:- 498) AQ paz iwty Sesseuisng }et3Ua30d YybiH Auew) *A)m0)S Buipaed0id Aep | - 400d - uo | yowo Ny UO1L}GI1L4 149A ou - @}eQg buluves95 u01} /Butsayyeg sO} -8) Uowe }dui] Aji} (qe) leAy pue quawes inbay awit jO )9A0) pue A}L)eND e3eG $3)NSes Bulsoy1U0W Ja }empunos9 $I13S}Ja}DeI8y49 3uen} $53 aun}OA MO} 4 UO 1} eWIO,UL Aytquenb on 1@13uUaptj,u0d St uolzewsojul Vv Sjaays #3eg AjajsesS S$) 8149 eW snyeys asea}a4 40 add, sSauppy bulyst) arts Uo lL yewsO,UT 19e | 18AV pez1) 13M Seounos ejeqg JOfeHW peseac2 os)e Aep/suo))e6 000’SL< M0}} 9}3SewWog *spsepue zs quan)}}2 Joow 3snw pus peaziwiad aq ys qunows Aue ul punou6 243 02 BulBseyrsip Sepsasnpuy 11V “3030 01 (SQSW) SJ924S 838d Ajaj@S §)@1Jo }eW JLWQns ysmw 3Si] Sseaoueysqns WW UO saoueysqns 6u1Jo}s Jo Buisn sai3t}1oey Auy *a383s Ul SaJtS @]SeM snopsezey PowutjUu0d }}e@ j4O Burysty S@LJLALOW JO sajis pa e)nbay "9 21981 ]043U0) U0} 3N}}0d J23eh 30 UO}S}AIG - 3030 weJsboid mouy 03 346}y - 3030 MHG- 3030 Aouaby 6utyUueuwe du] S WWD TLE wesiboid 3 {Wed 26484510 Ja ,enMpun0s) S WA OLE 4dbbL°2 19H wes6oug MOUY 0 346Iy v5 PALL RUT 3t2 “9 19W uo! 38 )nbay ]849pe4/938IS ‘ma)Ag umoL 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 (GIS) methodology. A discussion of these data for ZOC #1 is presented elsewhere in two CCAMP GIS 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 Z0C#1 (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 STORERS 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 MSDS TIGHT TANKS (INDUSTRIAL) 1 tanks GROUNDWATER 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 YARMOUTH — — — = oe / BARNSTABLE o ; He : ns MK * 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 Z0C #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 (opal) Vie 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 141 Number Storing Toxic and Hazardous Materials Heavy Oil (not defined) 73 Synthetic Organics 65 Miscel Laneous 69 Number of Hazardous Waste Haulers 51 Volume _of Toxic and Hazardous Materials Stored Average quantity of waste oil stored (1) 243 gallons Approximate total quantity stored (2) 34,000 gallons (1) Represents 43 of the 141 facilities reporting (2) Quantity information was mot 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 BARNSTABLE cs | * Public supply wells @ Business complying with local bylaw O Business complying with local bylaw and state manifest 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 i Table 6.6 Inventory of Hazardous Wastes Manifested within ZOC#1 During 1985-1986 as Recorded by DEQE’s Division of Hazardous Waste (1). 1. NUMBER OF FACILITIES MANIFESTING WASTES (2, 3) Facility Type Number Reporting 1985 1985 Facilities with EPA Notification Numbers (All Large- and Small- Quantity Generators) 33 45 Number of Large Quantity Generators 2 2 Number of Facilities Manifesting Wastes 18 27 Number of Small Quantity Generators Generating <100 Kilograms/Month (Based on Yearly Totals)(1) 11 15 2. QUANTITY MANIFESTED ACCORDING TO DEQE MANIFEST WASTE CODE (2, 3) . DEQE Manifest Waste Code Quantity Reported 1985 1986 MOO! (Waste O11)(2) 17,972 gallons 8,475 gallons 5,215 pounds 11,790 pounds 130 cubic yards mOO2 (PCB Wastes) 1,659 gallons ‘7,195 gallons 15,100 pounds 2,270 pounds D001 (Ignitable) 1,575 gallons 515 gallons 6,000 pounds 3,730 pounds DOO2 (Corrosive) 500 gallons 3,740 gallons FOO! (Spent Halogenated Solvents Used in Degreasing) 220 gallons 440 gallons F002 (Spent Halogenated Solvents- Primarily from Ory Cleaning 6,730 pounds 5,055 pounds F003 (Spent Nonhalogenated Solvents; Xylene, Acetone 0 1,785 gallons F004 (Spent Nonhalogensted Solvents; Cresols, Cresylic Acid, Nitrobenzene) 0 80 pounds FOOS (Spent Nonhalogenated Solvents; Toluene, Methyl- Ethyl Ketone, Carbon Disulfide) 0 415 gallons O99 (Nomhazardous Waste; 0 110 gallons antifreeze) (3) 0 600 pounds TOTALS 21,917 gallons 22,635 gallons 33,045 pounds 43,955 pounds 130 cubic yards ee Eee (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 CHR 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 20C #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 a1:1 ratio to a 4:1 ratio on most roads. Only those highly travelled state roads received the traditional application rate. Within ZOC #1l,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 (GIS) project described previously in Chap- (are 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 GIS 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 GIS project enabled a more sophisticated assessment of this information in risk assessment analy- sis than would have been possible otherwise (see CCAMP GIS 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 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REG] STRATION FORM MENS Se LN I eta i ei ee eee NAME OF FIRM: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON: Does your firm store any of the toxic or hazardous materials listed below, aa! mis sale or for your own use, in quantities totalling, at any ‘time, more than 50 gallons liquid volume or 25 pounds dry weight? YES NO 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) Refrigerants Automatic transmission fluid Pesticides (insecticides, Engine and Radiator flushes herbicides, rodenticides) 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) 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. Fuel Suppliers . Miscellaneous Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 59 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE COMPLIANCE: CLASS: 1. Marine,Gas Stations,Repair : 2. Printers Satisfact BOARD OF HEALTH O yi 3. Auto Body Shops Ounsatisfactory- 4, Manufacturers COMPANY (see"Orders'') 5S. Retail Stores 6. 7 ADDRESS Class: QUANTITIES AND STORAGE (IN=indocrs; OUT=outdoors) MAJOR MATERIALS Case lots Drums AboveTanks Underground Tanks IN DUT In_!0 JT] # pellons jAge Fuels: Gasoline, Jet Fuel (A) 2 Diesel, Kerosene, #2 (B) Heavy Oils: fae peer waste motor oil (C) ad coatae mexmotor oll {| td qe transmission/hydraulic peetliitoyy Se iia Synthetic Organics: degreasers bi sae. ely al calbeae | fal inaontioy DISPOSAL/ RECLAMATION REMARKS: 1. Sanitary Sewage 2. Water Supply O Town Sewer @ Public CO on-site O private 3. Indoor Floor Drains: YES NO O Holding tank: MDC oO Catch basin/Dry well @) On-site system 4. Outdoor Surface drains:YES NC O Holding tank: MDC___ '@) Catch basin/Dry well O On-site system i) ORDERS: S. Waste Transporter Name of Hauler —Destination— Haste Product Licensed? | 1 earner 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. Barnstable 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 mot 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 economn- Jic's)- 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 Barnstable 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- CyLOVe Ee USS e tom thems 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 IIs of public water supplies. Existing landfills in Zone IIs 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- ibys 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 Roadssalet 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 ona 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- ten. 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 REGIONAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL FEDERAL LEVEL —_ . Utilize resource-based epproach to groundwater management 2. Inadequate - groundwater monitoring at landfills Discourage the location of USTS in wellhead protection areas (WHPs); replace old tanks in these areas. Plan for future water supplies; adopt zoning bylaws to protect areas for future supplies Towns should examine current monitoring at landfill for adequacy. Should initiate landfill monitoring programs. Should test private wells near landfills. - RPAs should encour- age joint manage- ment of WHPs 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. Encourage towns to develop monitoring programs and pro- vide technical information - County lab on Cape tests water qual- ity near landfills if town requests ‘ Provide loans to communities for delineating wellhead areas Specify stricter construction standards for USTS and piping in WHPs No new Landfills in WHPs WHPs should guide enforcement priorities for DEQE programs DEQE should provide technical assistance and loans for public water supply planning DEQE should develop landfill monitoring protocol and standards in new regulations. Should aggressively enforce. Tie monitoring requirements to expansion requests EPA should provide guidance on manage- ment of WHPs. 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 WHPs EPA should strength- en protection conferred by Sole Source Aquifer status EPA initiated landfill monitoring program at 4 Cape landfills--tested monitoring wells and private wells for VOCs, metals and nitrogen ser- jes; EPA should continue with this type of assistance Chapter 7 - INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page 72 TABLE 7.1 KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS LOCAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL FEDERAL LEVEL 3. Inadequate plamning for future water supply needs Towns should have a water study committee Towns on public or private water should identify future sites for public wells Towns should have a master plan Towns should do a build-out analysis and population projections for water planning Towns should map wells, Zone Ils, 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. - Technical assist- ance to communities on water supply planning - RPAs should foster cooperation between towns on management of shared Zone IIs - Model Aquifer Pro- tection District Bylaw DEQE should initiate outreach and loan program targeted to towns dependent on private wells that will meed public supplies. Provide funding to these towns for water studies Provide edequate 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 IIs 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 LOCAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL FEDERAL LEVEL 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. . Private wells are not afforded adequate protection (See #3) - 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 ard wells 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 should increase technical assistance provided to towns DEQE should cooperate more with BOHs and provide locals more enforcement support Develop educational materials EOCD 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 requirements - 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 Deen ee eee eee TABLE 7.1 KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS LOCAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL FEDERAL LEVEL 6. N Large number of aging underground storage tanks in close proximity to public water supplies . Rapid growth rate on Cape Cod leading to high nitrogen loading and other problems Inventory and map tanks Utilize land use con- trols to discourage new tanks in Zone Ils 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 mg/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 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 should clarify existing policies on tank cleaning and disposal Require stricter con- struction standards for tanks and piping in Zone IIs. 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 conc. at well Revise Title 5 to incorporate density factor in the calculation Encourage/fund wastewater treatment facilities with advanced levels of treatment Provide educational materials Relay info on successful state and local programs Research new tank construction and other technologies Research causes of tank failure 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 8 eee Eee TABLE 7.1 KEY CCAMP RECOMMENDATIONS SELECTED MAJOR FINDINGS LOCAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL STATE LEVEL FEDERAL LEVEL 8. Small commercial businesses with potential impact on water supplies ere not adequately controlled. 9. Numerous septage pits and lagoons contaminating groundwater ecross the Cape (See #5) Ensure proper drain design and appropriate DEQE permit before allowing building occupancy Conduct an inventory of these businesses by town; concentrate in Zone IIs for towns on public water Enforce pretreatment requirements in sewered areas. Adopt toxics bylaws Inspect facilities; educate owners; enforce bylaws Hire professional staff 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 Technical assist- ance to Boards of Health (BOH) Model toxics bylaw Organize registra- tion of Small Quan- tity Generators Coordinate hazard- ous-waste collections RPA should encourage intertown cooperation towards regional solutions Should transmit new research results to towns DEQE should dras- tically increase enforcement of groundwater discharge permit program Develop joint DHW/DWPC inspection program to look at waste stream es 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 DHW/DSW and DEM OSWM should engage in outreach, education, and planning DEQE should continue aggressive enforcement against illegal pits and lagoons Should ensure prompt consideration of above town’s 201 construct- fon grant applications Improve coordination with towns throughout grants process Promote regional solutions Should research impacts of septage effluent - EPA should research cumulative risk to water supplies from e@ mumber 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 - 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 end EPA should conduct research on mew 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- GyuCiese 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 Dearth 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-0O) 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 (GIS 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 GIS 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, mot 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: il 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 recon- 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 pple 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, DiGe 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, I1. 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. 235-2497. 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 COD AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND PROJECT STRUCTURE ! Steering Committee | Armando Carbonell Executive Director, CCPEDC Michael Friapter Chief, Massachusetts Office, USGS Meriel Hardin Assistant Commissioner for Special Projects, DEQE Gilbert Joly Regional Environmental Director, DEQE, Southeast Michael MacDougall Chief, Inforsation Management Branch, EPA Robert Mendoza Director, Office of Ground Water Protection, EPA Bruce Rosinoff Senior Staff Advisor, CCPEDC Tara Gallagher Project Coordinator, DEQE Institutions Committee Data Management Committee Aquifer Assessment Committee Chairperson: Bruce Rosinoff, CCPEDC Chairperson: Michael MacDougall, EPA Chairperson: Hichael Friapter, USGS Armando Carbonell CCPEDC Tara Gallagher DEQE Gabrielle Belfit CCPEDC Roy Crystal DEQE/D¥S Paul Barlow USGS Gabrielle Belfit CCPEDC Neriel Hardin DEQE Robin Fletcher EPA/IHB Bill Bones DEM/DWR Gilbert Joly DEQE/SERO Tara Gallagher DEQE Eric Butler BCHED Robert Mendoza EPA/OGHP Ethan Hascoop EPA/IMB Jeffrey Choraann DEQE/DHW Susan Nickerson CCPEDC Margaret Nelson EPA/Library John Donohue DEQE/DWS Beatrice Nessen DEQE/DSW Lee Steppacher EPA/OGWP Tara Gallagher DEQE Nark Pare’ DEQE/DWPC Nancy Wrenn EPA/OGHP Douglas Heath EPA/OGHP Bruce Rosinoff CCPEDC/EPA Kimberly Noake DEQE Lee Steppacher EPA/OGUP Michael Rapacz DEQE/DWPC David Terry DEQE/DWS Chi-Ho Shaa Boston Univ. Data Group Additions for GIS Project Gile Beye DEQE/DWS Deborah Cohen EPA/THB Elizabeth Flynn USGS Michael Kanohi EPA/IMB Julio Oliapio USGS nI0S VE APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 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 Barnstable, Massachusetts", see Appendix E) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE DELINEATION OF ZONE IIs (Excerpted from the Aquifer Assessment Committee's report, "Evalu- ating Approaches to Determine Recharge Areas for Public Supply Wells", see Appendix F) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO DEQE'S TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ZONE OF TRANSITION MONITORING | APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report 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 Source Government Agency or Firm Location Number Federal ie U.S. Geological Survey Boston 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Boston State 3. Mass. DEQE - Main Office Boston 4. Mass. DEQE - S.E. Regional Office Lakeville 3) Mass. Water Resources Commission Boston County 6. Cape Cod Planning and Economic Dev. Comm. Barnstable the Barnstable County Health and Env. Dept. Barnstable 8. Barnstable Board of Health Hyannis Town 9. Barnstable Dept. of Public Works Hyannis 10. Barnstable Fire District Hyannis ite Centerville-Osterville Fire District Osterville 2. Cotuit Fire District Cotuit Private 3): Anderson-Nichols Boston 14. Barnstable Water Company Hyannis a5. Charles A. Maguire & Assoc. Waltham 16. Coffin & Richardson, Inc. Boston 17h Down Cape Engineering E. Brewster Se LEP anc Barnstable Sh Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wakefield 20. Schofield Brothers, Inc. Framingham Aue SEA Consultants, Inc. Cambridge 22. Whitman & Howard, Inc. Wellesley Types _and Source(s) of Information 4. Daily records Page B-2 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 Cape Cod B: SUMMARY OF CCAMP AQUIFER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page B-3 Aquifer pump-test data of test wells and water-supply wells. Sources ele seh Oro leon 2emles yl cera Public-supply and private well construction data Sources 1345057) Ono Ome ele ml Died. Surface and groundwater evaluation data. Sources: | On 91 OP 15) 2s lc Observations of temperature and precipitation data at Hyannis, Mass. Sources: 9 Location and nature of sources of pollution in Barnstable. Sources: all Location and density of septic and sewage outflow. Sources: 6,7,8,9 Water-quality data Sources lez 5., 425), oO Ong 2. Aquifer pump-test data should be analyzed to determine the aquifer’s transmissivity and storage coefficient, the specific capacity of the well sion. ing give data: a. and the depth and radius of the pumping well’s cone of depres- This information may be obtained by applying one of the follow- analytical methods. Procedures outlined by these references will satisfactory results depending on the completeness of the test "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. "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 DECE "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. "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. : "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 DT. 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) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE DELINEATION OF ZONE IIs 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) 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) 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) 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, DEM’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 (WWIF). 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 WWIF (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.1. 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 Al1W 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 wwater-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 (GIS) 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, Iyanough 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 UU a aE EE EEEnESEIE SESS Table of Water-Table Elevations, CCAMP 5/11-13/87 TABLE OF OBSERVATION WELLS AND WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS a Date Well MP Depth to Water Water-table No. Well Name Measured Depth Elev. Below MP Elevation 1. BFD #1 57-A (AlW-295) 5/11/87 49 38.61 8.73 29.88 2. BFC #1 52-28 (AlW-290) 5/11/87 56.2 48.29 16.83 31.46 3. BFD #1 76-16 (52-2C) 5/11/87 --- 52.80 20.44 32.36 4. BFD #2 84-4 5/11/87 26* 45.31 9.50 35.81 5. BFD #2 8-1 5/11/87 17* 37.00 3.10 33.90 6. BFD #2 64-K-A 5/11/87 67.9% 43.14 9.65 33.49 7. BFD #2 8-3 5/11/87 24" 44.91 9.40 35.51 8. BFD #2 64-E 5/11/87 63.3* 40.28 5.23 35.05 9. BFD #3 64-D (AIW-293) 5/11/87 6 39.49 2.40 37.09 10. BFD #3 84-1 5/11/87 e-- 61.80 24.39 37.41 11. BFD #3 77-1 5/11/87 49 53.43 19.37 34.06 12. Barnstable Airport Mw-1 5/11/87 --- 54.06 20.51 33.55 13. Barnstable Airport Mw-3 5/11/87 --- 52.58 21.19 31.39 14. Barnstable Airport OwW-1 5/11/87 40 55.79 21.36 % 43 15. Barnstable Airport OW-5 5/11/87 35 49.68 17.25 32.43 16. BSTP BA-3 5/11/87 26 47.03 14.24 32.79 17. BSTP BB-3 5/11/87 25 32.19 12.22 19.97 18. BSTP BC-1 5/11/87 66 44.63 TV.39 37.28 19. BSTP BE-1 5/11/87 50 50.23 26.53 23.70 20. BSTP C-1 5/11/87 7 40.83 12.77 28.06 21. BSTP C-2 5/11/87 42 43.34 8.64 %.70 22. BSTP C-4 5/11/87 57 40.03 17.22 22.81 23. BSTP C-5 5/11/87 45 21.89 5.73 16.16 24. BS™P W-1 5/11/87 27 49.75 14.71 35.04 25. BSTP W-4 5/11/87 20 3.17 8.16 28.01 26. BSTP W-5S 5/11/87 26 40.43 16.57 23.86 27. BSTP W-7 5/11/87 41 6 .B8 26.06 38.82 28. BSTP W-8 5/11/87 43 62.86 26.71 36.15 29. BSTP W-9 5/11/87 45 67.37 29.82 37.55 30. Tom Cambareri TC-1 5/11/87 6 37.58 0.30 37.28 31. Tom Cambareri TC-2 5/11/87 --- = (38.73 4.16 4.61 32. $-1 5/11/87 58 54.53 18.85 35.68 33. S-2 5/11/87 58 57.86 21.60 3.26 34. $-3 5/11/87 71 73.27 36.61 36.66 35. $-4 5/11/87 76 67.44 30.07 37.37 a NOTE: All depths and elevations are in feet. MP = 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 Hyammis, Massachusetts quadrangle, photo-revised in 1979. Values ere essumed 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/O = Centerville-Osterville Fire District BFTF = Barnsteble 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 ee ——————————————— Table of Water-Table Elevations, CCAMP 5/11-13/87 TABLE OF OBSERVATION WELLS AND WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS Date Well MP Depth to Water Water-table No. Well Name Measured Depth Elev. Below MP Elevation 36. $-6 5/11/87 65 50.34 20.18 30.16 37. $-7 5/11/87 le) 61.75 26.88 34.87 38. $-8 5/11/87 ie) 31.45 3.25 28.20 39. $-9 5/11/87 102 55.08 35.42 19.66 40. $-11 5/11/87 63 60.11 21.46 38.65 41. $-12 5/11/87 70 71.23 32.73 38.50 42. $-14 5/11/87 55 55.83 22.70 x er | 43. $-15 5/11/87 63 49.05 19.46 29.59 44. $-16 5/11/87 59 41.99 17.96 24.03 45. $-17 5/11/87 60 59.84 24.30 35.54 46. S-18 5/11/87 70 55.08 172d 37.97 47. BWC AlW 299 5/12/87 56 33E 2.71 30.29€ 48. BWC Maher Diesel 1 Obs. Well 5/12/87 ec- = SE 4.18 10.82E 49. BWC Streightway Obs. ST-1 5/12/87 57 20.70 3.80 16.90 50. BWC Test Well 1, 150’ Worth of School House Road 5/12/87 98.5* 31.54 19.86 11.68 51. BWC Test Well 2, 130’ South of School House Road 5/12/87 e-- 25.17 14.56 10.61 52. C/O Station #7 5/11/87 63 21.44 6.88 14.56 53. C/O Station #8 Obs. 8-1 5/11/87 ee- «25.05 10.30 14.75 54. C/O Station #11 Obs. 11-1 5/11/87 CO 26.77 11.62 15.15 55. Cunmequid Golf Course GC-C2 5/11/87 54 33.72 9.21 24.51 56. Cunmaquid Golf Course GC-C3 5/11/87 129 45.07 23.86 21.21 57. Hyannisport GC AlW-322 5/11/87 97 8.20 2.76 5.447 58. Commorwealth Electric OW-6S 5/11/87 14.5 39.34 9.49 29.85 59. BFIF IEP OwW-2 5/11/87 24 38.13 5.82 32.31 60. BFIF IEP MW-16S 5/11/87 35 54.45 23.42 31.03 61. USGS YAW-85 5/11/87 59.9 35.03 8.59 26.44 62. USGS AlW-230 5/11/87 35.85 42.50 20.53 21.97 63. USGS AlW-247 5/11/87 52 46.50 22.88 23.62 64. USGS AlW-254 5/11/87 40 47.45 7.72 39.73 65. USGS AlW-292 5/11/87 51 41.65 4.58 37.07 66. USGS AlW-294 5/11/87 60 30.75 9.83 20.92 67. USGS AIlW-306 5/11/87 3 53.60 21.27 32.33 60. USGS AlW-318 5/11/87 87 12.16 1.23 10.931 69. YWC MW-7A (YAW- 123) 5/11/87 M.2 18.92 8.96 9.98 70. YWC 300-21 (73-84) 5/11/87 28.3 39.29 10.35 28.94 71. YWO 22A-77 5/11/87 3 SIE 11.04 19.965 NOTE: All depths end elevations are in feet. MP = measuring point (top of well casing or PVC, whichever is higher). * = well depth below measuring point; all others are depths below lend surface. T = denotes water level affected by local tides. E = denotes elevations estimated from topographical contours on the USGS 7.5- minute Hyannis, Massachusetts quadrangle, photo-revised in 1979. Values are essumed to be within + 5 feet of actual elevations. USGS = U. S$. Geological Survey Observation Well BFO = Barnstable Fire District BSTP © Barnstable Sewage Treatment Plant BWC = Barnstable 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 ANO WATER-TABLE ELEVATIONS EEE EES nee Wo. Ponds anc Lakes Date Size in Acres Town Elevation 1. Wequaquet Lake 5/13/87 654 Barnstable 34.46 2. Melody Pond 5/13/87 3 Barnstable 44 3. Long Pond ~ 5/13/87 50 Barnstable 27.05 4. Shallow Pond 5/13/87 67 Barnstable 36.05 5. Mary Dunn Pond 5/13/87 16 Barnstable 28.66 6. Simmons Pond 5/13/87 7 Barnstable 8.56 7. Dennis Pond 5/13/87 oo Yarmouth 25.9E WOTE: All depths and elevations are in feet. MP = measuring point (top of well casing or PVC, whichever is higher). * = well depth below measuring point; all others are depths below land surface. T = derotes water level affected by local tides. E = denotes elevations estimated from topographical contours on the USGS 7.5- mimute Hyannis, 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/O = Centerville-Osterville Fire District BFTF = Barnstable Fire Training Facility YwC = 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 contan- 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 Mame 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, Soil 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, met recharge, impact of the vadose zone and hydraulic conductiv- sea 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 met 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 im Alter ls, Bennett 2. Lahra J1n- and) Petty = R.J., 1985) DRASTIC cas 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. DRASTIC MAPPING OF AQUIFER VULNERABILITY 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 0-50+ feet Net Recharge Per Year |10+ inches Aquifer Media Sand & Gravel Soil Media Sand Topography 2-6% Impact of Vadose Zone |Sand & Gravel Hydraulic Conductivity|2000 + gpd/ ft? Total = 185-210 Sandwich Moraine Setting References | Rating Depth to Water 0-100+ feet Net Recharge Per Year |10+ inches Aquifer Media Sand & Gravel Soil Media Sandy Loam Topography 6-12% Impact of Vadose Zone |Sand & Gravel Hydraulic Conductivity 700-1000gpq/ ft Total 140-185 Note: gpd/ft? = gallons per day per square foot * Refer to list of references at the end of this report. DRASTIC MAPPING OF AQUIFER VULNERABILITY IN E. BARNSTABLE AND W. YARMOUTH Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page D-5 DRASTIC CONTOURS FOR ZONE |, BARNSTABLE-YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS EXPLANATION DRASTIC VALUES : 140-159 : 155-159 : 160-169 : 170-174 : 170-179 : 180-184 : 185-189 : 190-194 : 195-199 10: 200-204 11: 205-209 12: 210 l OON OaA WN = W: Water Barnstable Outwash Plain 5. Souo Heath, USEPA Region i 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: No. of Well Miles of No. of Water Company Gallons Pumped Sites Mains Services Barnstable Water Co. 1,016,042 ,000 Wi BS) 32 6,358 Centerville-Osterville Fire District 693,735,000 13 210.00 8,500 Barnstable Fire District 137,907,000 3 41.03 Less Cotuit Fire District 103,761,800 4 44.98 Ae Total 1,951,445, 800 shal 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 357) 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 climato- 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 Home sittatvon (25.95. 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 superinm- 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 ona 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: Recharge Source Estimates (inches Location Palmer (1977) 0 - 47.93 Falmouth Strahler (1972) V7 t=422 Cape Cod Delaney (1980) 22592: Martha's Vineyard Guswa and LeBlanc (1981) 6 - 22 Cape Cod SEA (1985) ZOMG ==" 4567 Barnstable CCPEDC (1983) 13 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 downgradient 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/O 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 "(Lohman 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 »,or7 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, mn. Specific Yield, Percent Coarse Gravel 162ONe= 32.0 23 Medium Gravel BRO awe 650 24 Fine Gravel (A) £310) 25 Coarse Sand ORS = 150 2 Medium Sand O25 Ono 28 Fine Sand OSN25-=70525 23 Sait 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 = L972). 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 EQoe (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 /de 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 Location a Federal 1b U.S. Geological survey Boston 7M, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Boston State 3h Mass. DEQE - Main Office Boston 4. Mass. DEQE- SE Regional Office Lakeville 5. Mass. Water Resources Commission Boston County Se Cape Cod Planning and Economic Dev. Comm. Barnstable Tie Barnstable County Health & Env. Dept. Barnstable Town 8. Barnstable Board of Health Hyannis oF Barnstable Dept. of Public Works Hyannis 10. Barnstable Fire District Hyannis ibe Centerville-Osterville Fire District Osterville 25 Cotuit Fire District Cotuit Private lye Anderson-Nichols Boston 14. Barnstable Water Company Hyannis 15. Charles A. Maguire & Assoc. Waltham 16. Coffin and Richardson, Inc. Boston es Down Cape Engineering E. Brewster she LEP. Sines Barnstable Ne Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wakefield 20F Schofield Brothers, Inc. Framingham 2X. SEA Consultants, Inc. Cambridge 2s Whitman & Howard, Inc. Wellesley _—_———_____r—rrrn 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, 15, 3,,4)16,.9),10,d4) 2. 14s 22 Cc. public-supply and private-well construction data sources: 1 SiG DOs di Or oi Olde wee 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, Are. 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. ae "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-11 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, L983), 28 ppe 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&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 a 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 Yorks 55 appre 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 Well Cap- Aquifer Test USGS Model Hydraulic Stagnation Cameany Well acity (Q) 60% Q Transmissivity Transmissivity Gradient Point Dist. (gum) (gpm) (cpd/ft ) (gpd/ft) (i) (feet) (ei El 525 45,760 (eau E2 500 19,899 CT EA 500 TOTAL 1,525 915 28 ,611* 0.003333 2,200 CT MAIN 500 300 28,611" 0.0032258 750 GE E3 300 180 16 ,269* 0.003333 750 BFD PSI 600 360 36,080 53,856" 0.003 4,999 BFD PS1,3 1,250 750 BFD PS2 675 405 33,825 38,148" 0.0016667 1,450 BFD PS3 950 570 85,888 59, 466° 0.0012 1,850 Bro MD] 500 53120" Bre MI2 500 106 ,000* Bi MD3 500 35,411* Bc MD4 700 40 ,920* Bro AIR 1,000 33 ,540* TOTAL 3,200 1,920 54, 798"™ 17,952 0.002 4,000 Bite sri 700 Bit EYAN 500 TOTAL 1,200 720 52,360* 0.0019231 1,650 BwC MEL 1,000 Bre -MDL 1,600 TOTAL 2,600 1,560 56,100* 0.0026667 2,400 re Si 500 300 59,840 0.0024 500 C/O 10 390 38,280 C/O AR 700 C/O MC 600 TOTAL 1,699 1,014 54,230* 0.0025641 1,650 C/O 9 500 25,740 c/o 5 350 17,248 TOTAL 850 510 55,352 0.00625 350 c/o 7 340 c/o 8 340 C/O Gl 290 24,000 TOTAL 970 582 54 ,230* 0.0030769 800 C/O 12 300 21,120 c/o 13 300 27,878 TOTAL 600 360 61,710* 0.0034884 400 C/o. 14 700 c/o IS 300 TOTAL 1,000 600 93 ,500* 0.006383 250 C/O 16 750 450 53,856 0.0016667 1,150 NOTE: * denotes transmissivity used in zone of contribution calaulation. Values of transmissivity for wells in the Mary Dumn wellfield were averaged. ** average transnissivity of Mary Dunn wellfield. APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Table 2. Public Supply Wells in Each Zone of Contribution (from SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985). Rated or Percent of Supply Wells Potential Total Zone Existing Proposed Yield (gpm)") Supo!'2) 1 BFD 2 700 Bh MD4 500 Bw MD3 $00 Bw MD) 600 BW MD2 700 Bw AIR 1,000 BW MEL 900 Bw MDL 1 & 2 1,400 Bw MD5 300 BW MD6 300 BW MD7 300 Bw MD8 300 BW AIR 2 300 BW AIR 3 300 Total 8,100 30.93 2 shes) al 350 BED 3 800 BFD 4 _700 Total 1,850 7.06 3 C/O 7 & C/O 8 420 C/O 11 350 Bw ST 500 BW SI 700 Bh HY 600 Bw ST2 800 Bw S12 _ 7200 Total 4,070 15.54 4 C/O 12 350 C/O 13 350 Total 700 2.67 5 C/O 5 300 C/O 9 425 Total 725 2.77 6 C/O AR 500 c/O MC 800 C/O 10 _320 Total 1,620 6.19 7 CiEs 275 Total 275 1.05 8 Gne2 485 GT Ey 465 Giee4 500 C/O 14 700 C/O 15 300 GieeES $00 C/O 17 400 C/O 18 500 C/O 21 $00 C/O 22 700 C/O 23 700 C/O 24 500 C/O 25 500 Total 6,750 25.77 9 C/O 16 700 c/o 19 700 C/O 20 700 Total 2,100 8.02 Notes: (1) gpm = gallons per minute (2) Total potential supply = 37,713,600 gallons per day Page E-14 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 Canpany Well CCPEDC SEA Consultants, Inc. Difference : (gpm) (gam) (gom) COTUIT FIRE DIST. El 525 465 60 E2 500 485 15 E3 300 275 25 E4 500 500 0 MAIN 500 —= —_ BARN. FIRE DIST. 1 600 350 250 2 675 700 25 3 950 700 250 BARI. WATER CO. MDl 500 600 100 'D2 500 700 200 MD3 500 500 0) Mp4 700 500 200 AIR 1,000 1,000 0 sm 700 700 0 HYAY 500 600 100 T 500 500 0 MEL 1,000 900 100 MDL 1,600 1,400 200 CENDERVILLE= MC 600 800 200 OSTERVILLE FIRE AR 700 500 200 DISTRICT 5 350 300 50 q 340 420 80 8 340 420 80 9 500 425 75 10 390 320 70 11 290 350 60 12 300 350 50 13 300 350 50 14 700 700 0 15 300 300 0 16 750 700 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 Chathar* East Wareham* Hyannis* Long Pond+ Provincetown* South Wellfleet* Woods Hole* 1965 == 24.17 24.30 24.83 24.82 asses 24.96 1966 ———— 24.39 24.51 24.90 25.06 Ss 25.59 1967 == 23.19 == 24.21 24.19 24.02 24.54 1968 —— 24.80 _ 25.64 SSS 25.22 26.24 1969 === 24.54 25.05 25.37 —— 25.35 26.54 1970 —— 24.93 == 25.45 —— 25.25 26.23 1971 —— 25.52 ——— 25.71 —— 25.54 26.37 1972 — 25.25 == 24.31 aS 24.63 25.31 1973 24.93 26.18 == 25.03 = 26.25 27.14 1974 24.38 25.08 == 24.70 25.15 25.08 26.37 1975 24.74 25.63 == 25.30 25.89 25.73 —— Normal -———- 25.07 — —— — Sash sanas s Calculated from Temperature Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data; New England. *calculated froma Temperature Data from Records at Long Pond Pumping Station, courtesy of Falmouth Department of Sewer and Water. 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 Wareham* Retchville+ Hyannis* Long Pond** Provincetown* South Woods Hole* Well- fleec* 1965 _-_— 27.82 24.86 27.97 25.15 22.73 _— 28.75 1966 _— 36.87 36.14 38.91 35.84 41.09 40.05 1967 _—— 52.52 48.48 53.44 48.69 49.32 49.50 53.69 1968 _ 44.94 44.34 38.18 41.13 37.64 35.40 45.10 1969 _-—_— 53.83 47.91 53.49 45.08 50.11 47.86 50.53 1970 —_—— 44,49 47.86 46.46 43.86 _— 40.47 50.47 1971 — 37.46 33-12 36.56 33.21 34.19 30.24 34.32 1972 —_—_— 73.84 72.24 61.91 66.40 57.52 S75 71.31 1973 54.38 5L.35 $3.65 50.87 CEyaepe 49.25 46.73 57.96 1974 40.50 36.24 36.64 36.03 32.98 33.85 34.32 "36.27 Mean -—— 45.95 44.52 44.41 42.59 _— _- 46.85 “calculated from Temperature Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data; New England. ae Data courtesy of Falmouth Department of Sewer and Water. oo Data courtesy of Audobon Society, Ashumet 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. Mar Apr May June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1960 0.01 0.25 0.08 1.62 char evs 4.36 5.16 4.61 =h74)] 2.00 hails} 0.00 25.77 1961 0.00 0.00 0.44 elas 2.85 4.36 5.30 4.83 3.87 2.23 0.94 0.20 26.38 1962 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.78 liz 4.39 4.93 4.48 3.24 2.04 0.82 0.02 25.40 1963 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.45 2.95 4.55 5.38 4.68 2.78 2.14 1.18 0.00 25.56 1964 0.00 0.00 0.47 25) 3.25 4.37 5.09 4.31 3.16 1.92 0.96 0.16 24.93 1965 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.10 3.22 4.22 5.20 4.86 3.19 1.88 0.76 0.20 24.83 1966 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.16 gecdili 4.35 $.34 4.78 3.09 1.92 0.99 0.00 24.90 1967 0.16 0.00 0.07 1.08 2.26 4.17 5.38 4.73 3.25 2.18 0.71 0.22 24.21 1968 0.00 0.00 0.50 yas2 3.04 4.13 5.38 4.59 3.39 2.30 0.81 0.00 25.64 1969 0.00 0.00 0.26 1.56 293 4.40 4.94 4.96 3.36 1.99 0.97 0.04 25.37 1970 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.39 3.14 4.08 5.56 4.74 3.28 2.01 0.99 0.00 25.45 1971 0.00 0.00 0.29 1.06 Zone 4.41 LISEDE 4.69 3.46 2.68 0.66 0.19 25.71 1972 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.94 2.93 4.20 S25 4.67 3.40 1.56 6.67 0.35 24.31 1973 0.00 0.00 0.71 1.49 2.65 4.67 5.36 5.11 3.10 1.91 0.72 0.31 25.03 1974 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.58 2.68 4.14 5.26 4.93 3.27 1.48 0.81 0.21 24.70 1975 0.05 0.00 0.20 0.98 3.08 4.33 5.60 4.74 3.08 2.03 Dol7 0.05 25.30 V97om OFOO, (Oats) (0:54) a64 “Sle s 4.68 eese24 4.57 3.19 1.61 0.43 0.00 25.16 Mean 0.01 0.02 0.37 1.36 2.94 4.33 5.29 4.72 3.26 1.99 0.87 0.11 Zee, Table 7. Estimated Recharge for Falmouth Area, Cape Cod, Massachusetts (from Palmer, 1977). Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov Dec. Total 1960 lousy §.31 2.47 2.68 0.48 -2.33 -0.66 +-3.82 2.34 -0.11 1.73 5.39 16.64 1961 2.30 3.99 3.60 2.88 2.50 =-2.99 -0.88 0.32 0.55 6.02 3.04 3.11 24.45 1962 4.98 4.42 0.58 2.70 =-1.95 1.29 =2.92 <-1.58 1.19 6.24 2.85 2.92 20:72 1963 3.76 3291 3.66 0.94 1.89 -2.94 -2.81 =-.209 L323 -0.49 3.09 2.76 12.63 1964 BY bye Get eli y/ 3.98 -2.63 =-3.65 =-1.49 . =-2.64 0.93 2.82 6.05 4.68 11.40 1965 3.11 2.14 Deo 1.69 -1.73 -1.93 3=-4.39 -1.97 -1.34 0.04 1.36 1.43 0.03 1966 Je Eth a balok} 0.55 3.23° -2.93 =-3.99 <=3.07 2.33 1.19 3.23 2.69 11.24 1967 2.10 2.90 3.69 3.81 6.21 =-1.42 -1.63 0.20 <-1.18 -0.86 4.33 6.16 24.27 1968 7ar/)| 1.76 9.07 -0.28 0.36 2.51 =-4.63° =-2.76 <=2.50 <-0.31 5.75 7.00 18.70 1969 0.87 8.04 4.08 3.30 =-1.65 =-2.49 =2.99 -3.88 1.22 0.41 6.44 9.15 ; 22.54 1970 Po2 6.29 4.01 1.87 -0.45 0.47 =2.87 1.88 0.64 159 4.94 4.26 22.41 1971 2.96 6.18 3.41 2.14 2.06 =-4.13 =4.39 =2.97 -2.91 -0.61 4.26 2.42 7.41 1972 2.74 4.98 5.89 3.98 4.09 6.91 =-2.26 <-2.89 10.53 2.14 6.20 5.62 47.93 1973 2.05 2.18 2.85 7.04 1.69 -1.93 2.91 -1.37 0.13 2.81 2.22 7.63 27.62 1974 5.07 2.66 2.61 1.65 1.27 -1.05 =-3.13 -2.56 0.77 0.61 0.94 3.09 11.94 1975 6.76 3.80 Siena. 2.23 -0.34 0.14 =-2.25 -0.66 4.61 3.53 6.13 4.48 32.16 1976 5.18 1.98 3.37 -0.67 0.04 -2.25 -0.63 -0.07 -1.00 4.62 1.14 3.19 14.93 Mean s\or4} 4.02 3.30 2.38 0.88 -1.10 -2.29 -1.76 0.96 1.74 3.39 4.47 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). Ryannis, Mass.” J FP M A M J J A s fe) N D YEAR Batential evapo-7,.450.0 0,0 0.5) 3.3,.2.9 Ul 53, UsB Suh 204, 0.9 0.1 Nabe transpiration, incnes Precipitation, 4.2 3.5 4.2 3.6 3.2 3.4 2.4 Sei 4.3 3.6 3.3 365 42.8 inches (2931-1952) Water surplus eee 3a 8509 ) ee alee’ “= - = ee) lob eh shih 3! Water deficit - - - - = O.7 2.9 Tez) = - - - 4.7 Recharge ( 22.3 = 4.0) .esceoees 16.3 Provincetown ,Mass, ; J P M A M J J A Ss 0 N D YEAR Potential evapo- 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.2% 2,87 4.21 5.35 4.92 3.42 2.13 0.94 0.20 25.69 transpiration, imhes Precipitation, 4.19 3.03 4.10 3.38 2.55 4.45 2.30 2.66 4.48 3.50 2.98 3.46 40.28 inches (1931-52) Water surplus ipAGeS03 Se75 eelewe - - - 1.06 1.37 2.04 3.44 21.00 Water deficit - - - - 0.32 0.76 3.05 2.0 - - - - 6.19 Recharge ( 21.00 = 4.00) 2.2005 17200 * pata for Ityannis rounded to one deCimal place Reference: C.W.Thornthwaite, 1948, An Approach Toward a Rational Classification of Climate Georrephical Review, vol.37, pp.55-9k. Date of tempereture and precipitation from U.S.W.B.Climatic Summary of lnited States, Suprlement 1931-52, New England, pp.1l-23. APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Table 9. well All? 230 AlwW 247 Page E-20 Maximum Water-Level Fluctuations at U. S. Geological Survey Observation Wells in Barnstable, MA from January, 1958 to July, 1984. Date of First Observation J=<31=58 He =29—62 HO=S=7/5 NG=2=75 NOA= 7/5) 10-2-75 10=3=75 9-10-75 2-25-76 2=25-7/6 Elevation of Depth to Ground Surface Water (feet) 42.5 44.5 (feet) 21.06 20.97 7.72 Date =o — 75 525-13 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 Water (feet ) 26.22 28.64 14.88 Difference Date 10-25-66 10-25-66 12-20-80 10-23-81 11-21-81 1-23-81 11-24-80 l=25=61 11-21-81 dt 21=6) (feet) 5.16 7.67 APPENDIX E: HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION METHODS Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Final Report Page E-21 - rrOonana—ee ese Inches of woter -2 decline -6 Total precipitation: 40.3 in. 5.35 Total evapotranspiration:25.7 in ah SURPLUS: 21.0 SURPLUS 419 303 375 2.12, 1.37 2.04 3.44 Tota! Soil 213 woter ground-water recharge: recharge: 4.0 17.0 J F M A M J J A Seyn0 N D months of year Figure 1. The Water Budget of Provincetown - Based on a Twelve-Year Record, 1931-1952 (irom Stranler, 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- tex: 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. Generelly, 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 ina 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. Recommendations 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 clude 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- mMants 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. Mcdel 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 IIs 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 X2e x3" 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. 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 IIs 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 IIs (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 IIs 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 I-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 I-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. £. 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. 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. DEQE landfill siting policy should be consistent with DEQE’s groundwa- ter protection goals. 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. 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 I-4 SITE EVALUATION/SITE ASSIGNMENT De 10. ie We ls} 14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 tS), 16. 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. 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 I-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 I-6 INS PECTION/ENFORCEMENT 24. 25P 26. 2s The previously mentioned priority ranking system ;should be utilized in guiding the ;inspection and enforcement programs. 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. 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. 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. 78) « 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. 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. a1 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. 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 I-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. LOCAL 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 minimun, 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 ae) 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 mew 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- (per t(aie 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- hance. - 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. iscourage the Location of USTs in Proximit 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 10. Several zoning techniques that are particularly well suited include: special use zoning, performance zoning, and incentive zoning. 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.) 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. 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 Construction Requirements In Sole Source Aquifers. DPS should require specified protection for piping (GURG. 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 Pens (Gb)5 CS))))) APPENDIX K - CCAMP UST RECOMMENDATIONS October 1987 Page K-6 11. Expansion of Sole Source Aquifer Construction Requirements to Well 12s 1S} - 14. 15: 16. Recharge Areas (Zone IIs). The strict construction standards required for tanks and piping installed in sole-source aquifers should also be required for installa- tions within the Zone IIs 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 AW. 18. 3) 20. in light of the high costs of site remediation, DEQE and DPS should pursue a state requirement that facility owners obtain adequate imsurance (or other guarantee) to cover clean-up costs in case of leaks. 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 Public Education. BCHED should inform all private well owners requesting well tests of the potential threat an wunderground-storage tank poses to their own water supply. BCHED should urge them to place their underground heating oil tanks above ground. 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. 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” CCAMP Underground Storage Tank Summary for Barnstable Zone of Contribution No. 1 Study Area, January 1987. Total Number of Tanks: 186 on 82 sites (13 of these aree residential tanks) Capacity: Total 856,225 gallons Average Tank Size 4603 gallons Tanks 20 Years or Older: 71 (38 percent) Steel Tanks: 122 (65 percent) Fiberglass Tanks: 32 (17 percent) Steel Tanks Over 20 Years Old: 50 (27 percent) Tanks in Use: 116 (62 percent) Tanks Out of Use or Status Unknown: 70 (38 percent) ZOC Acreage: 3600 acres Underground Storage Tanks in a Zone of Contribution on Cape Cod Number of Contents: Tanks 40 - #2 Gasoline 30 20 5=9) 10-19 Age in Years Underground Storage Tanks in a Zone of Contribution on Cape Cod 70 = Construction Material == Steel Tanks : Fiberglass 5=9 AL@j=ilis) Age in Years 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 i 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. 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. The Residuals Unit, established within DWPC’s Regulatory Branch, should be given the resources necessary to implement an effective progran. 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 cadmiun. 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. TITERS 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. 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. Local Boards of Health must become more diligent in implementing Title S)E Because groundwater is such a valuable and limited resource on the Cape, the following actions should be undertaken. ° 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. ° 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. ° No construction work permit should be granted for any unsewered establishment discharging an industrial waste until DEQE grants a groundwater discharge permit. fo) 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 RESEARCG 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 tthe 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. 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. 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. 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 Se 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 * 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 IIs 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 ina 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. 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. 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. 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 10.* ik oes 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. 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. 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 We 133 14. ILS) llGy. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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 Lic 18. 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. 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 ffoster 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 IIs 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 wetis 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 IIs Should Guide Inspection/Enforcement Priorities. DHW and DWPC should use delineated Zone IIs 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 10. aI: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 lis, iS} 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. 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. Guide to DEQE 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 O 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 O - 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 contamination. 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 IIs 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 in- 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 progran. What needs to be protected? This first question requires an assessment of ey the resource in order to identify environmentally sensitive or APPPENDIX P: GROUNDWATER MGT APPROACHES IN BARNSTABLE AND EASTHAM Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Table 1. Local Ground QUESTION a nd 1 What to Protect ? FORM GeQUMDWATER COMMITTEE IDENTIFY FUTURE WEEDS UNDERTAKE WATER ’ | IDENTIFY RESOURCE SUPPLY PLAKS | APEA IC STUDIES AND BASNSTASLE Delineated 20¢ Identified water | Supoly water | meccs Aralyze intertosn borcary issues Update needs assessment regularly EASTHAM Preliminary Celinestion of zoc Undertake form 200 celinestion Examine future Supply needs Build out aralysis Identify intertoun issues er Protection Approaches QUESTION 2 Protect from shat ? } —> | INVENTORY PRESENT AND FUTURE | THREATS (within delineated | zones of contribution or | | | town-wide) i UNDERTAKE LAKD USE INVENTORY | t | BUILD-OGUT ANALYSIS | ANALYZE RESULTS inventory Registration of | toxic material users (808) Registrationcf toxic UST's (808/FO) EASTHAM ore 3 Home heating tank) Toxic material inventory with SCHED Expand inventory Build out throughout tam analysis identi fy incompatible future land wes. Preliminary contetinant inventory using state cata Solicit technical aid fro COPEDC/BCHED Page P-2 QUESTION 3 How to Protect ? ASSESS GOVERNMENT CAPABILITY FILL Im GAPS IM STATE PROGRAM |TO FULLY CONTROL EXISTING THREATS i jDIRECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF THREATENING ACTIVITIES AWAY FROM ZONES OF CONTRIBUTION IMPLEMENT AND EDUCATE BARNSTABLE Increase lot size to protect private wells user inspections Aadopted UST bylaw (recoval after 30 yrs) Passed toxic material bylaw | Strong | implementation effort Intertow Hire staff enforcesent agreement Implement Title 5 Intertomn coordination Solicit technical sid from CCPEDC/BCHED Rerore Implement local bylaw Solicit * technical sid 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 mumerous 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 xe "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project Description". November 1985. De "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Final Report". 1988. *3. *4. *5. 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. "Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project: Executive Summary". 1988. EPA 901/3-88-003. "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. "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. 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 Project 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., *15. 16: tol 7/ *18. "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.). "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.). Water-Table Elevations: Eastern Barnstable, Massachusetts, May 11-13, 1987" by D. Heath and E. Mascoop. October 1987. 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.) "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; Colorado 80225.) Box 25425, Federal Center; Denver, 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. ily) 20. Zaye "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.) "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. ) "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. *23. "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) "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 (GIS *24. *25. Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project. 1988. "Demonstration of a Geo- graphic Information System for Ground Water Protection. EPA 901/3-88-005. "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. i oe | ’ =