Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMartha's Vineyard-Public Water 1985PUBLIC DRINKING WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ON 5~ARTHA'S VINEYARD JUNE, 1985 Prepared by: Russell H. Smith, E.I.T. ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I - GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Introduction Background Groundwater Hydrology Quantity vs. Quality of Groundwater Cone of Influence and Zone of Contribution Contours Saltwater Intrusion Page 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 ! ! ! 11 ! il Part II - DETERMINING THE ZONES OF CONTRIBUTION Determining Transmissivity Summary of Data Analyzed Methods to Determine Transmissivity 1 Thiem 2 Drawdown vs. Distance 3 Drawdown vs. Time 4 Chow Solution 5 Cooper-Jacob Solution 6 Thies Curve Matching 7 Boulton Curve Matching 8 Streltsova Discussion of Methods Calculated values of Transmissivity Summary of Transmissivities Calculate the Zone of Contribution Part III - LOCAL PROTECTION METHODS Local Protection Methods Model Water Resource Protection By-Law Model Toxic & Hazardous Materials Regulations Part IV Attachments References 11 16 17 18 19 2O 20 23 24 25 26 28 3O 33 34 49 5O 55 62 Figure Figure F~gure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Pumping from a Sand Aquifer 3 2 Cone of Influence and Zone of Contribution 6 3 Contours of a Hill 7 4 Groundwater Contours 8 5 Coastal Elevation View 9 6 The Occurrence of Saltwater Intrusion 10 7 Pump Test Variables 11 8 Profile of a Confihed Aquifer 12 9 Profile of a Unconfined Aquifer 12 10 The Farm Neck Well 13 11 Theoretical Drawdown vs. Time 14 12 Actual Drawdown from Pump Test 14 13 Zones of Contribution 35 14 Farm Neck Well 41 15 Mashacket& Lily Pond Wells 42 16 Tisbury Proposed & West Spring St. Wells 43 17 Shurtleff Well 44 18 Sanborn Well 45 19 Oak Bluffs Proposed Well 46 20 Lagoon Pond Well 47 21 Wintucket Well 48 22 Composite Map of the Zones of Contribution 49 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table LIST OF TABLES 1 Time and Drawdown from Pump Test 2 Summary of Data Analyzed 3 Farm Neck Well (~VC) 4 Farm Neck Well (D.H.) 5 Mashacket Well 6 Tisbury Proposed Well 7 Lily Pond Well 8 Shurtleff Well 9 Summary of Transmissivities 10 Farm Neck Well 11 Mashacket Well 12 Tisbury Proposed Well 13 Lily Pond Well 14 Shurtleff Well 15 Sanborn Well 16 West Spring Street Well 17 Oak Bluffs Proposed Page 15 16 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 PART I GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Introducticn Some of the activities that might pollute our water supply can be totally abated. For instance, if waste oil was not disposed of on the land then it would be of little concern regarding ground- water pollution. On the other hand, some activities cannot be discontinued and must be performed in a manner to minimize their environmental impact. For example, septage disposal will continue to be a necessary practice however, the location and the manner in which it is done can be regulated to minimize the impact on our water supply. Since some of our (necessary) activities are by nature polluting, it is important to perform these activities outside the areas from which the town wells draw their drinking water. The purpose of this report is to define the areas from which the town wells draw their water and list the activities that if performed within these areas might adversely impact the quality of our drinking water. There are three basic parts to this report. The first part describes the basic concepts of pumping water from a sand aquifer and will be of interest to most readers. The second section describes the methodology used in analyzing pump test data to determine the characteristics of the aquifers surrounding the muni- cipal wells. Once the characteristics are estimated they can be used to calculate the areas from which water is being drawn. The second section will not be of interest to everyone but is included to show the technical basis for regulating the calculated areas. At the end of the second section are the maps showing these areas for each well. The last part of this report (Section 3) consists of model regulations which may be used to regulate activities within the delineated areas, that could contaminate the drinking water. The proposed regulations are in draft form and will need some revisions. The revisions will depend on the existing uses within the area. ~ackground Martha's Vineyard is fortunate to h~ve a large quantity of good quality drinking water. In 1977, the Martha's Vineyard Commission along with the Island's Boards of Health and other interested parties completed the 208 Water Quality Plan whicb was funded by federal, State and local agencies. The 208 Water Quality Report inventoried the sources of pollution that could threaten our water supply. These sources of pollution include: landfills, on-site septic systems, septage disposal facilities, underground fuel storage tanks, roadsalts and disposal of hazardous chemicals. The 208 report attempted to quantify the activities that might threaten the water supply and recommends procedures that would help minimize the nega- tive impacts of these activties. Some of the recommendations from the 208 report were that: " .... public supply wells be carefully located, sufficiently sized and buffered from waste producing areas." " .... the Martha's Vineyard Commission work with local Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards as information regarding critical recharge zones becomes known, in order to develop a program to protect these fragile resources from contamination." This report attempts to fulfill these recommendations and supply the technical data which justifies regulating discrete areas. Finally, the 208 report made clear that the aquifer on Martha's Vineyard is the only available water supply, and that protection of this aquifer was very important. Groundwater Hydrolo.~y Ail drinking water on Martha's Vineyard is supplied by ground- water. The towns of Oak Bluffs, Edgartown and Tisbury are served by town water systems, which utilize wells developed in the aquifer. An aquifer by definition is, water bearing soils, but can be better' described by the following analogy: If one was to fill a bucket to the rim with beach sand and then pour water into the same bucket so that it occupied the bottom half of the bucket, the sand and water in the bottom half of the bucket would repre- sent an aquifer. The sand in the bottom half of the bucket would be 'saturated' with water. The water actually occupies the void spaces between the sand particles, which would otherwise contain air (see Figure 1). Now imagine if you inserted a straw down through the dry sand, in the top half of the bucket,and down into the wet (saturated) sand in the bottom half of the bucket. If you were to suck on the straw you would remove water from the bucket and the water level would drop. The sand is releasing the water stored in the voids. This is the way that wells work in sandy aquifers, like we have here on Martha's Vineyard. In other parts of the country you might find underground caverns of water in limestone or fractured rock formations. However, because of the g~ology of this island our drinking water is pumped from saturated sand and not from open underground streams that might be found elsewhere in the country. subsequent change well PUMP ON Figure I Pumping Water From a Sand Aquifer Note the change in the water table during pumping and the in the direction of flow. In view of the above mentiened analogy, another point can be made with regard to hydrologic terminology. The interface between dry and wet sand in the bucket could be considered the groundwater table (G.W.T.). The groundwater table is the sur- face of the groundwater. Unlike the water table in the bucket, the actual water table is not exactly flat, but is tilted or sloped. The direction of this slope determines which way the groundwater travels. (Naturally downhill.) Quantity vs Quality of Groundwater The goundwater that is removed from the aquifer by pumping is replaced by rainwater. On the average we receive around 46 inches per year of precipitation. Of this, approximately 24 inches evaporates or is used by plants. The remaining 22 inches is left for recharging the aquifer. Because of the sandy soils, runoff from the surface is not a large factor.2 The area of the island's prima~y aquifer is approximately 32,413 acres. This area excludes the north shore, which geologically is a terminal moraine and is not ~onsidered part of the primary aquifer. The 22 inches of recharge over the 32,413 acre area re- presents 53-mil!ion gallons per day as a water budget (see Appendix 1). To put this into perspective, consider that each down-island to%~n uses about 1-million gallons during a peak day in the summer. Add to that another 2-million for private wells outside of the towns for a total use of about 5-million gallons per day. Quantity on an island wide basis is not a concern because we utilize only 5-million of the 53-million gallons available on a daily basis. However, it is very important that the existing and future well sites are protected for quality. Although the island has an ample amount of groundwater it would be expensive to deliver it to homes if the quality of our aquifer was degraded in the area~ of the wells, by accidental pollution. The intent here is to show the need to protect our existing and future well sites which will assure good drinking water for future generations. Although quantity is not an i~iand wide problem, water conservation is still needed because of the size of the exist- ing pumping equipment, and distribution pipes. Although there is ample ~¢ater in the ground the existing wells could not supply an unlimited demand. To summarize, accidental pollution pf the aquifer in sensitive areas is far more likely than an isla6d wide shortage of water. 5 Cone of Influence and Zone of Contribution Withdrawing water from an aquifer'by pumping a well causes the water table to be depressed. The area that is depressed by pumping is termed the 'cone of influence'. After pumping is stopped the water table returns to its original shape. The "zone of contribution"is that section that is up-gradient (up stream) of the well and from which the water flows toward the well. These two areas are better described by Figure 2. PUMP OFF PUhIP ON Figure 2 ~ Cone of Influence and Zone of Contribution Once again, it is the intent of this report to determine these areas that surround the municipal wells so that polluting activi- ties within these areas may be regulated as to protect the wells. 6 Contours A map showing the water table elevations for Martha's Vine- yard aquifer is given as Appendix 2. Contours are lines connecting points of equal elevations. The following example shows contours for a hill, but the same applies for water table contours. ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW N Figure 3 Contours of a H~ll The plan view shows the hill from a birds-eye point-of-view. Again, the contours connect points of equal elevations. It can be seen that the east side of the hill is steeper than the west side, because of this the contour lines are closer together on the east side of the hill, showing a steeper slope. Water table contours show the elevation of the groundwater. For an explanation of--ground- water contours we will show the plan and elevation views of the Town of Oak Bluffs. (See Figure 4) . The groundwater table (G.W.T) rises to an elevation, that is 5 feet above sea level at its highest point, about half-way between the two ponds. This ' can be shown by either the elevation view or the plan view by the groundwater con- tours. It can also be seen that the direotion of the ground2 water flow is from the center to the east and from the center to the west. This flow to both ponds, from the center out, can be noted from the plan view. Notice that on either side of the 5 foot contour are contours of lesser elevation (ie, 4,3,2,1). Naturally, water flows do%~hill. The line from which the groundwater table slopes towards the east on one side and slopes towards the west on the other side is termed the groundwater divide. Figure 4 Groundwater Contours One other point may be noted by the elevation view. Near the coast the freshwater is thinner than in the middle. The aquifer in this case can be called a freshwater lens, because of its shape. By the'coast the saltwater comes in underneath the freshwater lens like a wedge. The saltwater saturating the sand goes beneath the freshwater. More 6n that subject on the next page regarding saltwater intrusion. 8 Saltwater Intrusion Wells that are pumped close to the shoreline may risk saltwater intrusion. This is when the well starts pumping saltwater instead of freshwater. We will again refer to an elevation view to explcre the reasons for this occurrence. The elevation view of a coastal section shows the land surface,, the groundwater table (G.W.T.), the ocean surface, the ocean bottom, the area saturated by salt- water and the salt-fresh water interface or brackish zone. (See Figure 5) P~MP OFF Figure 5 Coastal Elevation View The elevation view shows the s&ltwater saturating the sand beneath the land surface. It also shows the fresh groundwater lens "floating" on top of the saltwater wedge. The reason for this is the fresh- water is lighter than saltwater. This "floating" is the same phenomena which occurs when oil floats on water because of the different densities. (weights) The'~ell on Figure 5 is drilled into the aquifer and~will preduce a certain amount of freshwater. If the well was put deeper, pump- ing would produce brackish or saltwater. Using the same basic figure we can show what happens when a well pumps too much fresh- water and allows saltwater to reach the well (saltwater intrusion). 9 Figure 6 The Occurrence of Saltwater Intrusion Figure 6 shows that saltwater intrusion has occurred and this well is no longer viable for drinking water. In the above example, removing freshwater from above the saltwater wedge allows the salt- water to move into the well. This situation is very hard to correct once it has occurred. The problem of saltwater intrusion is limited to wells along the shore and is not a general concern but a site specific one. 10 P~T II DETERMINING THE "ZONES OF CONTRIBUTION" Determining Transmissivit¥ The second section of this manual details the engineering com- putations involved in determining the cone of influence and zone of contribution for each municipal well. These calculations are based on results of pump tests obtained from the water supply personnel in each town. (Oak Bluffs, Edgartown, Tisbury) A pump test consists measuring the change observation wells. of pumping one well at a constant rate and in elevatio~ of the water table in adjacent O=flow GWT II' (aquifer) H bedrock -' Figure 7 'Pump Test Variables Figure 7 shows the variables that must be defined or assumed to determine a value for the transmissivity of the underlying aquifer. After the data is obtained from the pump test the characteristics of the aquifer-are calculated and the~'~he impact- of pumping the well under various conditions (ie, 10 days, 100 days) can be estimated. .We will use the data from the Farm Neck Pump Test as an example. There are numerous ways to calculate the characteristic of the aquifer based on data obtained from a pump test. We will utilize a number of methods to try and obtain reasonable values, that are substantiated by a couple of independent methods. A detailed explanation of the methods used are given later in this Section. 11 For our purposes, two general types of 3quifers will be con- sidered. They are confined and unconfined aquifers. Figures 8 and 9 show the profiles for each of these conditions. " well , ~ ~J~ ~,r '! " ..-...,~.~.., ,: ..... ~<:::~?,:._..._...~.,,~:~ , . ~ clay I I screen . .. ~ ~ .(aq.,fer) ..,~... ~ --Z ...... Figure 8 Profile of a Confined Aquifer · .......:.. I{I' :..:......-o..-..'.".' . .... · . :..: ..:, % ;:*.':.................-...... · · -..... · *.....°..**-.:*...-..-..'.~WT ·: .. · o..:.,, p.- .°.......-._o- ...... screen bedrock Figure 9 Profile of an Unconfined Aquifer The municipal wells on the island are generally unconfined. However, if the observation wells are far enough away from the pumping well and the drawdowns are'small compared to the thick- ness of the aquifer (H) and the vertical flow components are neg- ligible, then the formulas for confined conditions should yield reasonable results.3 The following diagram shows the configura- tion of wells used in the pump test performed by the Martha's Vineyard Commission on the Oak Bluffs Farm Neck Well. observation wells ~~--X~r pumping well - ~ PLAN VIEW (1"=100') WELL NAME; FARM NECK 1 ~ b?om.,., '~- = 3 £ _ //I iF & N Y ~ './////, '///~ '////////~///'/~,. ~, vi~////////'/'//////'/ > '~ ~////'////,//F~ ELEVATION VIEW (no scale) NOTE: There are two wells at this location. However, only one well was pumped during the test. Figure 10 Plan and Elevation Views of the Farm Neck Well The following table shows the elevations of the water table at the observation wells as they changed during pumping. The main well was pumped at a continual rate of 375 GPM (gallons per minute). The second observation well was broken, so draw- downs were obtained for observation wells 1 and 3 only. 13 'i transient state ' ~ transient or steady state methods methods TIME Figure 11 Theoretical Drawdown vs. Time WELLS-/~ ,6o TIME (minule$) Actual Figure 12 Drawdowm from Pump Test Table I Time and Drawdown from Pump Test Formulas that have been developed for analyzing the data given by Table I can be further divided into two types. The first is the "steady state" condition, which is reached when the aquifer supplies water to the pumping well without further drawdown in the observation wells. In actuality, this condition is very seldom obtained; however, for practical purposes when the differences in drawdown between the observation wells remain constant then steady state conditions a~ply.4 The second condition is termed the "transient state" condi- tion. In this case, the drawdown in each well is analyzed as a function of time. The following graph shows the drawdown in the two observation wells as a function of time and also where the steady state condition is applicable. For transient state condi- tions all the points on the graph are utilized. Some additional assumptions in the derivation Of these formu- la's are that the pumping well is fully penetrating so that the aquifer is screened throughout it's length. Because the pump tests we will analyze are mostly from existing municipal wells, this assumption is not being met. Also, the aquifers are not homogeneous, isotropic soils. The pump tests that are analyzed have partially penetrating wells and the results obtained for transmissivity will be low. This is because the partially penetrating wells will have a larger drawdown than if they were fully penetrating ~ 15 The following is the summary of the data used to calculate transmissivities, This data consists of six pump test at f.ive different municiple wells, These records were obtained from the Water Superintentants of each Town, SUMMARY OF DATA USED TO CALCULATE TRANSMISSIVITIE8 1) FARM NECK WELL (M.V.C.) 2) FARM NECK WELL (D. & H.) 3) MASHAOKET WELL (R.E.C) 4) TIS. PROPOSED WELL (W. & H.) 5) LILY POND WELL (C. & R.) 6) SHURTLEFF WELL (R.E.C.) Q(gpm) H(ft) L(ft) t(days) R1 S1 R2 S2 R3 S3 1) 375 75 20 0.48 2) 250 75 6 6 3) 735 100 15 0.50 4) 610 145 40 5 5) 703 51 10 5 6) 250 100 10 3 40.5 3 ' 50 ~ 50 -.77 : .... 1.16 ~ 10 1.0 -- ~ 54 2.67 3.47 I 200 1.45 4.73 ~ 250 2.17 0.33 ~ .... 160 ,14 50 ,67 200 ,67 400 ,93 465 1,79 TABLE 2 Summary of Data Analyzed I I I I 1 ! I I METHODS USED TO DETERMINE THE TRANSMISSIVITY The following solutions are for homogeneous, isotropic aquifers with radial flow (Dupuit) and the drawdown is small compared to the thickness. Most of the solutions are for confined conditions but can produce reasonable values of transmissivity given unconfined conditions. Ref.(4) ANALYSIS OF FARM NECK WELL PUMP TEST PARAMETERS Q = flow = 375 R1 = radius = 40.5 ft = 12.35 m R2 = radius = 160 ft = 48.75 m SI = dr~wdown ~ .77 ft = .235 m S2 = draw~own = .14 ft = .043 m H = thickness = I00 ft = 30.49 m t = time = 690 min. = .48 days ~ S = specific yield ~ .25 (assumed) L = length of screen = 20 ft. T = transmissivity gpm = 2044 m'~3/day 17 7 METHOD #1 THIEM SOLUTION Steady State (Confined) Q*ln(R~/RI) T= 2-PI*($1-$2) 2044-1 n(48.78/I 2.35) T= 2-3.14-(.235-.043) = 2327.4 m^2/day OR ( 187,359 gpd/ft) To &djust for the unconfined condition, T(h) = ~hen ~ T = Q*l n (R2/R1) 2-PI*(S1-S2) 2*H*T(h) 2.H-SI-S2 (same as &hove) 2-(30.49)*(2327.4) 2-(30.49)-.235-.043 = 2,338.1 m^2/day OR ( 188,213 gpd?ft) Fop METHOD #1 to be valid the 1.5*H.. In this case the first this requirement. £Ref. (4)] radius(R) must be observation well greater than does not meet 4 METHOD #2 DRAWDOWN VS. DISTANCE Steady State (Confi~ed) ' The graph of distance vs. drawdown 528*9 [delta] s [delta] s = the change in drawdown graph, Attachment 3) [delta] s = 1.08 is shown through one as Attachment 3. log cycle,(see 528'375 T = 1 .08 = 183,000 gpd/ft This method should have at least 3 observation wells. METH00 ~3 DRAWDE'0WN (Th i es-Jacob) 4 TIME ..................... Transient ~tate (Confined) This method is essentially the s.~me as METHOD #5, but allows us to obtain [delta] s in units that cmn be compared ~ith the [delta] s found in METHOD ~. The [delta] s calculated here' should be 1/2 the value of [delta] s obtained by METHOD [~ef. (4)] Using the graph shown as Attachment 4, ~e see that the values of [delta] s for I~ELL ~! an0 WE~L #~ a-e .~75 and respectively. Hc.,~euen, the value of the well function (u) must Oe gneeter th~n 0.05 for th~s method to Oe valid· In th~s c~se only WELL ~1 meets this requirement. Therefore, using the [delta] s of .3~ ~,e can calculate the transmiss;vity. The [delta] s. obtained by this method is a~,proximately I."2 the value obtain, ed ~¥ METHOD ~2. ~,_4 _. 2.-/,4(375) T -- -- [.delta] s .675 = !4~6.56 g~.d..."ft METHOD #4 CHOt, I $OLUTI ON ................................... Trensient State (Confined) 'Ii The graph used in this solution is shown as Attachment 5. Using 08$ERVATION IdELL #1 d~ta, f~nd [~elta] s for- a line tangent to the curve at s (drswdo, vn)-= 0.15. [del~a] s = .205 ~ .15 F(u) = = ___ = .731 [,del fa] s .'"'05 2O The well function~ c~n no~ be found frem the ~ttachment ~. u = .175 W(u) = 1.4 graph Q~I.,j ( u ) T = 4*PI*s 2044-(1,4) T= 4*(3.14)*(1.5) = 1518 m"2,"day OR ( 122,200 gpdx"ft) Using 0BSEPVATION WELL #3 data, find [del tm] tangent to the curve ~.t s(drawdrown) =.025 [del ta] s = .08 .025 '" F(u) = ..... = = 0.31 [del The well funct;c, ns can now be found from the At t.$¢hmen t &. u = .75 I.t~'u) = .32 s for. graph line 21 0 *bi ( u ) T = 4*PI*s 2044*(.32) T= 4-(3.14)*(.025) = 2082 m^2/day OR (167,600 gpd/ft) The result obtained from OBSERVATION WELL #3 is probably more reliable because it max have a ~maller uertical flow component than OBSERVATION WELL #1 which i~ closer to the well that uJ~s pumped. To correct for an unconfined condition we use the same formula ~ in METHOD #1, 2*H*T(h) T= 2'H-$1 -$2 2.< 100>*(167,&00) 2-(100)-.235-.043 = 167,833 gpd.'"ft 3 METHOD #5 C00PER-~IACOB ~q0LUTION Transient State (Confined) The graph used in this solution i~ shown as Attachment 7. For this method to be valid the well functin (u) must be le~ than 0.01, Thi~ requirement is only met by WELL #1. Using OBSERVATION WELL #I Oata find [delta] s for. a line tangent to the curve At s(drawdown) = 0.15. (Same as previous method.) [delta] s = .205 2.3-Q T= 4*PI*(delta]s 2.3-(2044~ T = 4*(3.14)*(.205) = 1825 m'~2?day OR (146,S~12 gpd,~f t) 25 ! i i I 4 METHOD #6 THIE$ CUR~E MATCHING Transient State ¢Confined) The proceedure is to graph the dr~wdown vs. (r"2/t) on log-log paper for each observation well. This curve is then matched with the Thies Curve t&ken from Ref.(4). The Thies Curve graphs the ~ell functions ~(u) vs. (u)~ Once the curves ~re alined, corresponding values of s, W(u) and (r^2/t), (u) are obtained. s=O .053 t%[(u)=O.~9 (r^2,/t >=7x (10^-7) (u)=0.84 O*W ( u ) T = 4*PI*s (2044)*(0.84) 4-(3.14)*(0.033) 1430 m^2/day OR (115,067 gpd/f t) 4 METHOD #? 80ULTON CURVE MATCHING ......................... Transient State (Unconfined) The Boulton curve matching proceedure is very similar to the Thies curve matching in METHOD #~. The important difference is Boulton's curves are to used for unconfined aquifers with delayed yield. Boulton's curves were obtained from Ref.(4). A graph of s vs. t was. drawn for each observation well on log-log paper. These curves were matched with the 8oulton curves of W(u) vs. (I/u), also on log-log paper. Corresponding values of s, W(u) and t, (I/u) were obtained, s=O · 12,> W(u)=0.52 t=0.1055 ( lx~u >=2.45 T= 4*PI*s (2044)*(0.52) T = 4*(3.14)*(0. 122) '~ = .593 m"2/day OR (.55,S0'~ gpd/ft) These curve matching proceedures did not yield very reliable results, but are presented as an explaination of the methods used. 25 l t I i I i 1 t METHOD #8 STRELT$OVA (Partial Penetration) ................... Tran~.ient State (confined) This method is for partially penetrating wells with no storage c~pacity. Two well functions must be calculated, from which the value of W(u) can be o~ta~ned fro~ the table shown as Attachment 8. The transmissivity was first assumed and the drawdown at the observation well was calculated. By trial and error a transmissivity was found that predicted the drawdown that was measured in the field. First try T = 275~000. For this method the permeal~il aries must 0.5. ratio between the vertical an~ horizontal be a~sumed. PV?PH was taken to be equal to This analysis accounts for vertical flow components that are developed close to the well. Because of this, the observation well must be within a certain distance to be valid. (1.5) * H * SQR(PH?PV> (I.5)*(IO0)*SQR(2) 212 ft. The observation well In this case the fraction of should be closer, than 212 ft. the aquifer that is screened that must be calculated is 1/u<b~. 1' = L/H = 20/100 = 0.2 Attachment 8 is for l' = 0.1 The first well function 1/u<b) 4*T*t 1/u<b) = 4-<275~000>*<.48> (40.5)^2-(.25) = 1287.6 The second well function B is also calculated. B = (R^2?H^2)*(PV/PH> B = ((40.5'~2)/(100^2))*(0.5) Using these v~.tues~ W(u) is taken fPom the Attachment 8. 1/u(b) = 1287 B = 0.1 W(u) = 1.4 Next the drawdown is calculated: table given as ~*W(u) 4*PI*T*(I') ~ (375-1440)*¢1.4) 4.PI*(275~000)*(.2) = 1.0 ft. Using a transmissi'Vit'~"value of 275,000 gpd/ft and this method' yields an estima, ted drawdown of 1.0 ft. This approximates the actual drawdown of .77 ft., measured in the field. 27 Discussion of Methc~s Most of the Methods used to determine transmissivity values are for confined conditions. Using co~fined condition methods and adjusting them for unconfined conditions as in Method l(b) did not change the answers appreciably and were not tabulated. l) Thiem - This method is only valid when the drawdowns are observed at distances greater than 1.5H. Generally, low values for the transmissivity were obtained. Wells that were at a distance just greater than 1.5H seemed to yield the most ~eliable results. Observation well close to the pumping well produced low transmissi- vities and distant wells produced very high values for T. 2) Drawdown vs. Distance - Low values were obtained using this method and it should be noted that the newer references did not discuss this method as a way to analyze pump test data. 3) Drawdown vs. Time - The values for transmissivity obtained using this method were taken to be slightly high. For this method to be valid, the well function (u) must be less than 0.05 (English Units). For this condition to be met, (r) should be relatively small and (t) relatively large. Using wells that were close to the pumping well and that met this condition seemed to yield the most reliable results. However, observation wells that were too close to the pumping well, produced very low results by all methods. This is probably due to large vertical flow components. Comparing the (delta(s)) values obtained here with those obtained by Method ~2 did not prove to be~very useful. 4) Chow Solution - The transmissivities obtained were taken to be slightly low, which was also indicated by the example of this solution in Reference 3. 5) Cooper~J~cob - As with Method %3 the well function (u) must be less than 0.01 (metric units), and again the wells that were close to the pumping well and met this condition seemed to work best. Thiem Curve Match-=-~t no point was I able to obtain a match that I felt sufficient to calculate transmissivities with this method. 28 i I ! 7) 8) Boulton Curve Match - Three curve matches appea~ed to be adequate to calculate valves of transmissivities. All of these curve matches were on the B side of the curve after delayed yield had taken place. It appeared that the delayed yield that occurred was during the first few minutes of pumping. Both curve matching procedures seemed highly subjective and transmissivities through a large range could be calculated. Streltsove - (Partial Penetration) To utilize this method, assumptions for the Specific Yield (0.25) and the vertical/horizontals permeabilities (0.5) must be made. This meth6d is very sensitive to the assumed saturated thickness H. Also Table 5.3 given as Reference 8 is for situations where L/H = 0,1 which has not always the case. I I I I I I 29 I I, TABLE 3 FARM NECK WELL METHOD NAME STATE 1) THIEM S C 2)DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 4) 'CHOW T - C 5) COOPER-JACOB T - C 6) THIES CURVE T - C 7> BOULTON CURVE T U 8)PART,-PENET. T - U TABLE 4 FARM NECK WELL METHOD NAME STATE 1> THIEM S C 2)DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 4) CHOW T C 5) COOPER-JACOB T - C 6) THIE8 CURVE T - C 7) BOULTON CURVE T - U 8)PART.-PENET. T - U WELL # T -Transient State C - Confined Conditions U - Unconfined Conditions M.V, COHMISSION 1~83 T=(6PD/FT) COMMENT S 1 & $ 187,359 Ri < (1.5*H> 1 ~: 3 183,000 ONLY TWO ~ELLS 1 146,666 GOOD 3 167,600 GOOD I 146,~12 GOOD ................ NO MATCH 3 225,385 O. K. 3 275,000 L/H =0.25 T = 200,O00(est) DUFRESNE & HENRY 1970 (8) WELL # T=(GPD/FT) COMMENTS I & 3 279,587 RI & R2 < (1.5*H) 1 & 2 & 3 280,851 0. K. ................ NO DATA ................ NO DATA ................ NO DATA ................ NO DATA ................ NO DATA 3 275,000 L/H =0.12 T = 200,O00<est) 30 MASHACKET WELL METHOD NAME STATE 1) THIEM S - C 2>DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 4) CHOW T - C 5) COOPER-JACOB T - C 6) THIES CURVE T - C 7) BOULTON CURVE t - U 8)PART.-PENET. T - U TABLE 6 TI SBURY WELL WELL # 2& 3 2~ 3 2 2 2 2 T=(GPD/FT) 113,750 117,600 373,000 341,201 347,197 250~000 F~. E. CHAPMAN 1~Y59 (9') C 0MM ENT 8 (1.5-H) O. K. GOOD GOOD GOOD NO MATCH NO MATCH L/H =0.15 350,O00(est) WHITMAN ~ H01/JARD 1983 (10) METHOD NAME STATE WELL # T=(GPD/FT) COMMENTS 1) THIEM 8 - C 2)DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 4) CHOW T - C 5) COOPER-JACOB T - C 6) THIES CURVE T - C 7) BOULTON CURVE T - U 8)PART.-PENET. T - U 3& 4 1 ~:2 I & 2& 3 3 3 1 187,842 119,000 322,080 322,506 340,206 252,419 150,000 0o 0. K. GOOD GOOD GOOD NO MATCH O.K. L?H =0.27 T = 325,000(est) 31 TABLE 7 LILY POND WELL COFFIN & RICHARDSON 7B (11. METHOD NAHE STATE WELL # T=(SPD?FT) COMMENTS 1) THIEM S - C 2)DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 4') CHOW T - C 5) COOPER-JACOB T - C &) THIES CURVE T - C 7) BOULTON CURVE T - U 8)PART.-PENET. T - U TABLE 8 SHURTLEFF WELL 2 & 3 2&3,259 O. K. 2 & 3 ' 123,778 u > 0.5 1 299,341 GOOD I & 2 289,574 GOOD 1 & 2 289,574 GOOD ................ NO MATCH 2 277~000 GOOD ................ OFF TABLE T = 275,O00(est) R. E. CHAPMAN 1953 (12) METHOD NAME STATE WELL # T=(GPD?FT) COMMENTS I 1) THIEM S - C ................ 2)DRAWDOWN-DIST. S - C ................ I 3)DRAWDOWN-TIME T - C 1 220~000 4) CHOW T - C I 174,&27 .I 5) COOPER-JACOB' T - C I 225,~03 I 6) THIE~ c~RvE T - C ................ 7) SOULTON CURVE T - U ................ iI 8)PART.-PENET. T - U ................ I ONLY ONE WELL ONLY ONE WELL GOOD GOOD GOOD NO MATCH NO MATCH OFF TAE. LE T = 200,O00(e~t) Summary of Transmissivities For the Farm Neck Well, the transmissivity is calculated to be 200,000 GPD/Ft. The pump test data for this well was not as complete as some of the others. Generally, the pump test data from Mashacket, Tisbury Proposed, and Lily Pond wells were complete and clear. While, the data from the pump tests at Farm Neck and Shurtleff were not as complete. Tables 3,4,5,6,7,&8 show the transmissivities calculated for each well using the pump test data and the eight methods used. Lastly, Table 9 is a summary of the transmissivities calculated and also the values assumed at other sites when there was no pump test data available. Well Transmissivity IGPD/Ft) Slope (Ft/Ft) Farm Neck Mashacket Tisbury Proposed Lily Pond Shurtleff *Sanborn *West Spring Street *Oak Bluffs Proposed 200,000 350,000 325,000 275,000 200,000 300,000 300,000 250,000 (Est.) (Est.) (Est.) 00125 001 002 00125 00167 002 0O2 001 ! ! There were no pump tests for these we~ls and the transmissivities are estimated using data from the closed well and soil logs. Table 9 Summary of Transmissivities Calculate Storativity Values Storativity vaiues for unconfined aquifers are taken to be equal to the specific yield. Generally, the values calcualted were on the order of 10-1 or 10-~. The specific yields for sand should be approximately 0.2 which would suggest even higher transmissivities values. ' - ' .... ! Calculate the Zone of Contribution This method is outlined in Reference 8 and calculates the zone of contribution when equilibrium has been reached. In other words, pumping at a constant rate for a long period of time will eventually create an ultimate zone of contribution. Water within this zone will enter the well and water outside of this zone will by-pass the well. For our purposes we have calculated the zone of contribution for the well pumping at full capacity for a long period of time (180 days). This allows us to denote Zones I,II and III as defined by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering's Land Aqui- sition Program. Zone I is the area within 400 feet of the well. Zone II is the zone of contribution when pumping for 180 days at full capacity of the well. All water upgradient that will eventu- ally enter the well is Zone III. To calculate the zone of contribution a number of parameters must be defined. Again, we will use Farm Neck as an example. The parameters are: Transmissivity (T) = 200,000 GPD/Ft Slope (i) = .00125 Ft/Ft Maximum Yield (Q) = 1,080,000 GPD The down-gradient stagnation point is calculated as: (See Figure 13) L = Q/2(PI) (T) (i) L = 1,080,000/2(3.14) (200,000) (.00125) = 687 Ft. ~ The (See Figure 13 ) W = 2(PI)L W = 2(3.14) (687) = 4,320 Ft. The (x,y) coordinates of this as_:__ (_Us_e _r. a4ians ).= ..... ~ - X = Y/TAN[ (2) (PI) (T) {i) (Y)/Q] width of the zone of contribution is calculated as: parabola can further defined The tables generated by this equation is shown below. i t ' ! 1 q 11 !I I I l I I i i i ! ! I The location of the down-gradient stagnation point was checked by using the graphical solution called superposition. This method is detailed in Reference. 3. The results of super- position verified the calculated results. The above methods yielded the approximate locations of three sides of the zone of contribution. To determine the fourth side (up-gradient) a mass balance approach was utilized.. It was assumed that each well needed enough recharge to equal the amount withdrawn on an annual basis. For example, if the Shurtleff Well in Edgartown was to pump 75,000,000 gallons per year it will require enough land area to suppl~ that much volume of recharge. It was assumed that the annual recharge is 22 inches/year. Once the area requirement for each well is estimated, the equa- tion for the area of an elipse can be utilized to calculate the end points of the major axis (a). a = A/(PI)b A = area of elipse b = (minor axis/2) a = (major axis/2) The theory is that any water entering the aquifer on the up-gradient side of this elipse would migrate downward on its way to the well, because of the overlying recharge and would pass beneath the well. The zones of contribution for each well are given as Figures 14-21. NECK TreBLE 10 CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRZBUTiON FOR FARM Q~ lOB0000 TTM 200000 I-- 1.25E-03 STAGNATION POINT = 687.549343 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA 4320 FT X Y -687.54886 1 -561.323063 501 -116.883214 1000 32.0067579 1100 211.59241 1200 430.773128 1300 703.106482 1400 1050.31138 1500 1509.52226 1600 2150.00069 1700 3117.69176 1800 3117.69176 1800 3444.40234 1825 3821.23421 1850 4261.26213 1875 4782.58698 1900 CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR MASHACKET 1008000 T= 350000 I= 1E-03 STAGNATION POINT ~ 458.366229 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA ~ 2880 FT Y -458.365502 1 -411.607751 251 -259.416448 501 50,8688634 751 700.207587 1000 920.82535 1050 !200.43944 1100 1568.40223 1150 2078.46117 1200 2840.84142 1250 4123.07386 1300 4123.07386 1300 5169.89909 1325 6786.90994 1350 9631.12935 1375 16002.0819 1400 TABLE 11 37 · iS3URY PROPOSED TABLE 22 CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION Q= 5000000 T= 325000 I= 2E-03 STAGNATION POINT ~ 489.70751 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA 3076.92308 FT X y -489.706829 1 -446.053735 251 -305.607697 501 -27.9710375 751 509.52549 1000 677.976462 1050 881.26624 1100 1132.07633 1150 1450.55093 1200 I870.75737 1250 2455.27299 1300 3332.99056 1350 3332.99056 1350 4818.83242 1400 7939.44642 1450 19059.3186 1500 CALCULATE TRE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR Q~ 936000 T~ 275000 I' 1.25E-03 STAGNATION POINT ~ 433.364435 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA - 2722.90909 FT X Y -433.363666 1 -383.786045 251 -220.570723 501 122.858048 751 907.111722 1000 1200.33995 1050 1596.48903 i100 2166.78161 1~50 3070.53057 1200 4752.69232 1250 4752.69232 1250 6306.08997 1275 9105.79498 1300 15714.1768 1325 51063.2908 1350 38 LILY POND TABLE 13 GALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR SHURTLEFF TABLE 14 Q= 792000 T= 200000 I= 1.67E-03 STAGNATION POINT ~ 377.397344 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA ~ 2371.25748 FT X Y -377.396461 1 -320.038949 251 -124.347765 501 334.609524 751 331.784968 750 489.368092 800 689.433718 850 952.934136 900 1318.53001 950 1866.41422 1000 1866.41422 1000 2794.82645 1050 4764.62441 1100 12145.167 1150 CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR SANBORN Q= 2160000 T' 300000 EST I- 2E-03 EST STAGNATION POINT ' 572.957786 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA 3600 FT Y -572.957205 1 -535.827614 251 -418.90101 501 -199.825633 751 176.327008 1000 400.367294 1100 692.820376 1200 1090.8296 1300 1668.45516 1400 2598.07646 1500 2598.07646 1500 3323.98608 1550 4395.96446 1600 6157.88492 '1650 9641.18161 1700 TABLE 15 39 & CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR WEST SPRING ST. TABLE 16 1440000 Tm 300000 EST I' 2E-03 EST STAGNATION POINT 381.971858 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA = 2&O0 FT X Y -381.970985 -325.342426 251 -132.837732 501 313.380363 751 1732.05097 1000 2078.4946 1025 2534.92456 1050 3166.84833 1075 4105.25662 1100 4105.25662 i100 5655.75828 1125 8735.12032 1150 17927.0485 1175 -2.48569187E+10 1200 CALCULATE THE ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION FOR OAK Q= 1500000 EST T' 250000 EST I= 1E-03 STAGNATION POINT 954.929644 FT WIDTH OF PARABOLA = 6000 FT X Y -954.929297 1 -882.850565 451 -653.174315 901 -212.527334 1351 587.266256 1801 845.934572 1900 1741.0358 2120 3303.31687 2400 6903.48691 2650 8309.74681. 2700 10263.1415 2750 13172.9673 2800 17994.1972 2850 27591.6694 2900 BLUFFS PROPOSED TABLE 17 40 '~ Contributi FAR24 NECK WELL 000 OOd · QO0 O · · 0 · · · · 0 0 OOe oOooO:°oo OO0 0 O0000~ % oo \ o \ / Well (O.B.) 1"= 500' ~:~~ ' I I FIGURE 15 Zones of Contributi MASHACKET WELL LILY POND WEI~ \ \ o ooo o · · °°°oOo°o~O°°°o°O o,~it ~ . ~ oOo ooo_°oo°°_°oOo ooo · o°° ooo , FIGURE 16 Zones of I ...o.o..o. o. o.o. ooO.::oo...Ooy:'., ~ o°O oo~ o.O · oOO_Oo.oo~-oOo ooo/o.O ~ ?o ooo o o o ooo ooo .J o°OYo~ ' WEST SPRING ST~ET WE~ ooo ooooo ooo oooo ooo ooo '"":! "" ~°o ooo o ~3°°o°O°ooo o 0% ooo ~3°` )°oOO'~o · o ~oo OoO_~"oO~ooo o o · ~o oO o/'o~O~oO ~o%oo o.o o ooo_ooO..~ ooo ooo o o oo oo ~o oo o · · ~%o~o~° ~ o o ooo · ~.Oo°~o ~o oo 0 · o o o o_oo ~ ~ · ~ · o · · ~o°~ ~Oo ~o oo o ooo. o o ooo o.o _ .o ~oOoo~. o o oo ~ooo ~%oo ooo o o~ ooo OoO-:~oo%-~oo oo Ooo~o ~oo ooo oooo~ ooooo°oo~o°o°o ooo o° o . o~oo~%~ 0%00o ~ 00%00° oo ~ o o ooo ooo :;oo~o · oo oo o o ffO%Oo-ooo ~ o-O ooo ooo ~o~jooo~ ~- .',,' ~ ~ ~:Ooooo ~ · ~cale 1 =500 %0 . .. ~.~.. 0...: ...0 ~;E~ ::. 4~. oo o..o Oo-.~ ~_6~0o-oo FIGURE 17 Zone of Contribution I SHURTLEFF WELL ,I / , I \ I I ~o° ~ FIGURE 18 Zone of Contribut 0 O, 00 ~ oo "~' SANBORN WELL I ,~ ~ ,, ~~o~:::..~o:.~.:o~ .;~o 'oo°ooOooO~ o .... - . oOoo 0000%000 ,.ooo. oo..j. o o ,, :o°;o°oo°oooooo'~ . I : °o oJoo°oo°obOo o~'.'.' . % .... L~''., it -~ ,, ,,., ,, .-oo ·;00:::2:;4 ';---'" IJ , ', ? ' .-"~ ,~ 'o' Oo° ~! _ · o- · 'eO..ee°.oo ore · cie e.j~ II °~e=eeoe ~°e .. eeo · o_e es~..~'~lt~v-~ lo 0O°o.° O~ Coo · odo oeo_oosel~f ~l~'~- I~ )Oe *'e # eoo °°°ooo°O°o~'o oeo; I! o°oe~° ~ ooo · ooo ooO~ · o eo eoe · · ooo OoO - Il II II O0 0 s J~ NOF , / FIGURE 20 Zone of Contribution ,' LAGOON POND WELL I FIGU[~E 21 Zone of Contribution WINTUCKET WELL NORTH ', / / ;, Welt (.Ed Sca1 i i i ! t I I MUNICIPAL WELLS 1 - FARM NECK WELL 2 - MASHACKET WELL 3 - PROPOSED TISBURY W5 ~ 4 - LILY POND WELL 5 - SHURTLEFF WELL 6 - SANBORN WELL 7 - OAK BLUFFS PROPOSED 8 - W. SPRING ST. WELL 9 LAGOON POND WELL 10- WINTUCKET COVE WELL FIGURE 22 COMPOSITE ZONES OF CONTRIBUTIO~ I I-- PART III LOCAL PROTECTION METHODS LOCAL PROTECTION METHOD~ Other communities ha~e taken action to safeguard against accidential pollution of the municipal water supplies. In par- ticular, many of the towns on Cape Cod have adopted by-laws and regulations with the aid of the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (CCP&EDC) Model By-laws and Regu!a~ions. Following are two such model by-laws which have been drafted using the CCP&EDC's Models and other by-laws that have been adopted by the towns. The first by-law is for protecting the area within the zone of contribution for each well and is called a Model Water Resource Protection By-law. The second Model is for Toxic and Hazardous ..Materials and applies throughout the town. In some communities this have been adopted as a regulation by the Board of Health while in others it was adopted as a by-law requiring a two-thirds vote at a town meeting. A by-law generally has larger fines for non-compliance and more readily notifies the pubic as to what action has been taken. 49 Model Water Resource Protection Bylaw The Town of · finds that: A. 1) The groundwater underlying this town is the only source of its existing and future drinking water supply; 2) The groundwater aquifer'is integrally connected with, and flows into, the surface waters, lakes, streams, and coastal estuaries which constitute significant recreational and economic-resources of the town used for bathing and other water-related recreation, shellfishing and fishing; 3) Accidental spills and discharges of petroleum products and other toxic and hazardous materials have repeatedly threatened the quality of such groundwater supplies and related water resources on Martha's Vineyard and in other Massachusetts towns, posing potential public health and safety hazards and threatening economic losses to the affected communities; 4) Unless preventive measures are adopted to prohibit discharge of toxic and hazardous ~terials and to control their storage within the town, further spills and discharges of such materials will predictably occur, and with greater frequency and degree of hazard by reason of increasing construction, commercial and industrial development, population, and vehicular traffic in the Town of and on Martha's Vineyard. 5) The foregoing conclusions are q.onfirmed by findings set forth in the "Water Quality Management Plan for Martha's Vineyard", April, 1978, prepared by the Martha's Vineyard Co~mission pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Clean Waters Act; by the report entitled "Edgartown Water Resource Protection Plan", February, 1983, prepared for the Edgartown Board of Health by Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc., and "Public Drinking Water Resource Protection on Martha's Vineyard", May, 1985, by the Martha's Vineyard Commission. B. Supplementary Regulations: Overlay Districts are districts with supplementary regula- tions to those of the underlying zoning districts and to other town regulations. WPmre there is a conflict between any other regulations and the overlay district regulations, the more limiting requirement shall prevail. 50 C. Water Resource District: 1) The objective of the water resource district is to protect the public health by preventing contamination of the groundwater resources providing water supply for the Town. 2) The Water Resource Protection Districts are skown on the Water Resource Protection Map. This overlay map is an offical part of the town zoning map and is on file for public inspection with the Town Clerk and the Planning Board. The area delineated shows the zone of contribution for each municipal well. D. Use Regulations l) /a) Jo) Prohibited Uses: underground fuel tanks the use of fertilizers and pesticides chemical treatment of septic systems J d) outside storage of road salt. e) any establishment involving the generation, use or storage of toxic or hazardous materials (as defined by M.G.L. 21C) in greater quantities than that associated with normal household use. (See Definitions Section F) /f) guest houses 2) Permitted Uses: -=/ a) single family residences on existing lots ~ b) single family residences in new subdivisions · that generate 110 gallons of wastewater (or less) per 10~000sq. ft. of lot area. Wastewater genera- tion per the State Environmental Code (Title 5) 3) Uses by Special Permit: a) Commercial developments that are dry goods or - offices provided that wastewater generation not exceed 110 gallons per 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area. b) Multi-family dwelling provided that wastewater generation not exceed 110 gallons per 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area. 51 Special Permits 1) The Special Permit Grantin~ Authority (SPGA) for the Water Resource Protection District shall be the Planning Board. Such Special Permits shall be granted if the SPGA determines, in conjunction with other town agencies as specified in Section E.2 below, that the intent of this bylaw as well as its specific criteria are met. In making such deter- mination, the SPGA shall give consideration to the simplicity, reliability, and feasiblity of the control measures proposed and the degree of threat to water quality which would result if the control measures failed. The SPGA shall explain any depar- tures from the recommendations of the other town agencies in its decision. 2) 4) Review by Other Town Agencies. Upon receipt of the special permit application, the SPGA shall transmit one copy each to for their written recommendations. Failure to respond in writing within 30 days shall indicate approval by said agencies. The necessary number of copies in the application shall be furnished by the applicant. Special Permit Criteria. Special permits under Section D.3 shall be granted only if the SPGA determines, in conjunction with other town agencies as specified above, that groundwater quality resulting from on-site waste disposal and other on-site operations will not fall below federal or state standards for drinking water, or, if existing groundwater qualityI q~ is already below those standards, on site disposal [ will result in no further ~eterioration. Submittals. In applying for a special permit under this section, the information listed below shall be submitted as specified in Section a) A complete list of all chemicals, pesticides, fuels, and other potentially toxic or hazar- dous materials to be used or stored on the premises in quantities greater than those associated with normal household use, accom- panied by a description of measures proposed to protect all storage container~/facilities from vandalism, corrosion, and leakage, and to provide for control of spills. b) A description of potentially toxic or hazar- dous wastes to be generated, indicating storage and disposal methods. c) Evidence of approval by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality 52 ! i d ! ! I I I l I I t I I Engineering (DEQE) of any industrial waste treatment or disposal system or any wastewater treatment system over 15,000 gallons per day capacity. d) For underground storage of toxic or hazardous materials, evidenceof qualified professional supervision of system design and installation.. e) Analysie certifying compliance with Subsection D.3. of Section such analysis to be done by a technically qualified, expert. F. Definition: The following defines toxic or hazardous materials and list activities that are presumed to utilize, generate or store them. Also included are activities that do not present a toxic concern but are otherwise not consistent with protection of the well. Toxic or Hazardous Materials Any substance or mixture of such physical, chemical or infectious characteristics as to pose a significant actual or potential hazard to water supplies, or other hazard to human health, if such substance or mixture were discharged to land or waters or this zone of contribution. Toxic or hazardous materials include, without limitation, organic chemicals, petroleum products, heavy metals, radio-active or infectious wastes, acids and alkalies and include products such as pesticides, herbicides, solvents and thinners. Wastes generated by toxic or hazardous, unless and expect to the extent that anyone engaging in such an activity can demonstrate the contrary to the satisfaction of .t.he Board of Health: - airplane, boat and motor vehicle service and repair or storage, - chemical and bacteriological laboratory operation, - cabinet making, - dry cleaning, - electronic circuit assembly, - motor and machinery service and assembly, - painting, wood preserving and furniture stripping, - photographic processing, - printing, --- dying, ....... - car washes, - landfills, - mining land, - animal feedlots G. Prior Non-Conforming Uses Any lawful use of land or a building, or part thereof at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be continued, with normal repairs and maintenance permitted, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance, provided however that: 1) A non-conforming use shall not be changed to another non-conforming use. 2) A non-conforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged. 3) A non-conferming use which has been discontinued for one (1) year shall not be resumed. 4) Any non-conforming use destroyed by fire or other natural disaster may be repaired or replaced if the extent of damage is less than ( ) percent of its fair market value prior to damage. H. Violations Written notice of any violation of Section D & E shall be provided by the Building Inspector to the owner of the premises, specifying the nature of the violations and a schedule of compliance, including cleanup of any spilled materials. Thsi compliance schedule must be reasonable in realtion ot the public health hazard involved and thc. difficulty of compliance. In no event shall more than 30 days be allowed for either compliance or finalization of a plan for longer-term compliance. MODEL TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS ~J%TERIALS B~-LAW/REGULATION Section 1. Findings The Town of finds that: The groundwater underlying this town is the only source of its existing and future drinking water supply; 2) The groundwater aquifer is integrally connected with, and flows into, the surface waters, lakes, streams and coastal estuaries which constitute significant recreational and ecomomic resources of the to~n used for bathing and other water related recreation, shellfising and fishing. 3) Accidential spills and discharges of petroleum products and other toxic and hazardous materials have repeatedly threatened the quality of such groundwater supplies and related water resources on Cape Cod and in other Massa- chusetts towns, posing potential public health and safety hazards and threatening economic losses to the affected communities; 4) Unless preventive measures are adopted to prohibit dis- charge of toxic and hazarous materials and to control their storage within the town, further spills and discharges of such materials will predictably occur, and with greater frequency and degree of hazard by reason of increasing construction, commercial and industrial development, popu- lation, and vehicular traffic in the Town of and on Martha's Vineyard. 5) The foregoing conclusions are confirmed by findings set forth in the "Water Quality Management Plan for Martha's Vineyard" (September, 1978), prepared by the Martha's Vineyard Commission pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Clean Waters Act; by the report entitled "Chemical Contami- nation" (September, 1979), Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Section 2. Authority The Town of adopts the following By-law under its home rule powers; its police powers to protect the public health and welfare, and its authorization under Chapter 40, M.G.L.A., Section 21. (For HEkLTH/REGULATION: under its authorization Chapter 111, Section 31.). Section 3. Definitions (a) The term, "discharge", means the accidential or intentional spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of toxic or hazardous material upon or into any land or water of the Town of . Discharge includes (b) without limitation, leakage of such materials from failed or discarded containers or storage systems, and disposal of such materials into any on-site sewage disposal system, drywell, catch basin or unapproved landfill. The term "discharge" as used and applied in this health by-law/ regulation, does not include the following: 1) proper disposal of any material in a sanitary or industrial landfill that has received and maintained all necessary legal approvals for that purpose; 2) application of fertilizers and pesticides in accordance with label recommendations and with regulations of the Masschusetts Pesticide Control Board; 3) application of road salts in conformance with the Snow and Ice Control Program of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works; and 4) disposal of "sanitary sewage" to subsurface sewage disposal systems as defined and permitted by Title of the Massachusetts Environmental Code. The term, "toxic or hazardous material", means any substance or mixture of such physical, chemical or infectious charac- teristics as to pose a significant actual or potential hazard to water supplies, or other hazard to human health, if such substance or mixture were discharged in this town. "Toxic or hazardous materials" include, without limitation, organic chemicals, petroleum products, heavy metals, radioactive or infectious wastes, acids and alkalies, and include products such as pesticides, herbicides, solvents and thinners. The following activities, without limitation, are presumed to involve the use of toxic or hazardous materials, unless and except to the extent that anyone .engaging in such an activity can demonstrate the contrary to the satisfaction of the Board of Health: - Airplane, boat & motor vehicle service and repair - Chemical and bacteriological laboratory operation Motor & machinery service & assembly Painting, wood preserving and furniture stripping - Cabinet making - Dry cleaning Pesticide & herbicide application Photographic processing - Electronic circuit assembly Printing - Metal plating, finishing & polishing - Dyeing - Waste motor oil £ ! I ! The Board of Health may, consistent with this definition, and by the authority of Chapter 111, Section 31, issue regulations further identifying specific materials and activities involving the use of materials which are toxic or hazardous. Section 4. Prohibitions (a) The discharge of toxic or hazardous materials within the Town of is prohibited. (b) Outdoor storage of toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited, except in product-tight containers which are protected from the elements, leakage, accidential damage and vandalism, and which are stored in accordance with all applicable requirements of Section 5 of this By-la%~/Regulation. For purposes of this subsection, road salts and fertilizer skall be considered as hazardous materials. Section 5. Storage Controls, Registration & Inventory (a) Except as exempted below, every owner, and every operator other than an owner, of a site at which toxic or hazardous materials are stored in quantities totalling at any time more than gallons liquid volume or pounds dry weight, shall register with the Board of Health the types and quantities of materials stored, location and method of storage. Registration forms may be obtained from the Board of Health at the Town Hall. The Board of Health may require that an inventory of such materials be maintained on the premises and be reconciled with purchase, use, sales and disposal records on a monthly basis, in order to detect any product loss. Registration required by this subsection shall be submitted within 60 days of the effective date of th~s By-law/Regulation, and annually thereafter. Maintenance and reconciliation'of inventories shall begin within the same 60 day period. Exemptions: Registration and inventory requirements shall not apply to the following: (1) Fuel oil stored in conformance with Massachusetts Fire PreVention Regulations and regulations of the Board of Health for the purposa of heating buildings located on the site; or (2) The storage of toxic and.hazardous materials at a single family or two-family dwelling, except where such materials are stored for use associated with a professional or home occupation use as defined by Section of the Zoning By-laws of the Town of (b) Toxic or hazardous wastes shall be held on the premises in product-tight containers and shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act, Ch. 2!C, M.G.L.A. 57 I I ! I I I I I '1 1 (C') The Board of Health may require that containers or toxic or hazardous materials be stored on an impervious, chemical resistant surface'compatible with the materials being stored, and that provisions be made to contain the product in the case of accidential spillage. Section 6. Report of Spills and Leaks Every person having knowledge of a spill, leak or other loss of toxic or hazardous materials believed to be in excess of gallons shall immediately report the spill or loss of same to the Board of Health or other public safety official. Section 7. Enforcement (a) The provisions of this By-law/Regulation shall be enforced by the Board of Health. The agent of the Board of Health may, according to law, enter upon any premises at any reasonable time to inspect for compliance. (b) Upon request of an agent of the Board of Health, the owner or operator of any premises at which toxic or hazardous materials are used or stored shall furnish all information required to enforce and monitor compliance with the By-law/ Regulation, including a complete list of all chemicals, pesticides, fuels and other toxic or hazardous materials used or stored on the premises, a description of measures taken to protect storage containers from vandalism, corro- sion and spillage, and the means of disposal of all toxic or hazardous wastes produced on the site. A sample of wastewater disposed to on-site septic systems, drywells,or sewage treatment systems may be required by the agent of the Board of Health. (c) Ail records pertaining to storage~ removal and disposal of toxic or hazardous materials shall be retained by the owner or operator for no less than three years, and shall be made available for review upon the request of the agent of the Board of Health. (d) Certification of conformance with the requirements of this By-law/Regulation by the Board of Health shall be required prior to issuance of construction and occupancy permits for any non-residential uses. Section 8. Violation Written notice of any violation of this By-law/Regulation shall be given to the owner and operator by the agent of the Board of Health, specifying the nature of the violation; any corrective measures that must be undertaken, including containment and cleanup of dis- charged materials; any preventive measures required for avoiding future violations; and a schedule of compliance. Requirements specified in such a notice shall be reasonable in relation to the public health hazard involved and the difficulty of compliance. The cost of containment and cleanup shall be borne by the owner and operator of the premises. Section 9. Penalty Penalty for failure to comply with any provisions of this By-law shall be $200.00 per day' of violaticn, after notice thereof under Section 8 above. (FOR HEALTH REGULATION: shall be $20.00). Section 10. Severability Each provision of this By-law/Regulation shall be construed as separate, to the end that if any part of it shall be held invalid for any reason, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect. TOXIC & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION Name of Company: Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Contact Person: I. Please check the items listed below that are either stored or used itemn~ your company. Item # ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- 27 -- 30 -- 31 . 32 -- 33-- Antifreeze 34 Automatic Transmission Fluid 35 __ Engine & Radiator Flushes 36 __Hydraulic Fluid (Brake Fluid) Motor Oils/Waste Oils 37 Gasoline, Jet Fuel 38 -- Diesel Fuel, Kerosene, 39 -- #2 Heating Oil 40 Other Petroleum Products: 41 Grease, Lubricants __ Degreasers for Engines & Metal 42 __ Degreasers for Driveways & Garage 43 __ Battery Acid (Electrolyte) -- Rustproofers -- Car Wash Detergents 44 __ Car Waxes & Polishes __ Asphalt & Roofing Tar __ Paints, Varnishes, Stains, Dyes __ Paint & Lacquer Thinners __ Paint Varnish Removers, Deglossers 45 Paid'Brush Cleaners __ Floor & Furniture Strippers Metal Polishes __ Laundry Soil & Stain Removers (including bleach) __ Spot Removers & Cleaning Fluids (Dry Cleaners) Other Cleaning Solvents Bug & Tar Removers Household Cleansers & Oven Cleaners Drain Cleaners Toilet Cleaners Cesspool Cleaners Disinfectants · Road Salt (~alits) Refrigerants Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides) Photochemicals __Printing Ink Wood Preservatives (Creosote) Swimming Pool Chlorine Lye or Caustic Soda Je.welry Cleaners Leather Dyes Fertilizers (if stored outdoors) PCB's Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, (Inc. carbon tetrachloride) Any other product with "Poison" labels (includi~ chloroform, formaldehyde. hydrochloric acids, other acids) Other products not liste~' which you feel may be to:' or hazardous (Please List 1 I I 1 I 1 I ! ! ! I ,-.4 · --q © ©.~ ~J 0 4..I ~ ! ! PART IV ATTACHMENTS I I t I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ATTACHMENTS Calculate the Area of the Primary Aquifer Groundwater Contours of Martha's Vineyard and Wells Graph of Drawdown vs. Distance (Semi-Log) Graph of Drawdown vs. Time ~Semi-Log) Graph of Chow & Cooper-Jacob Solutions Chow Solution - F(u), W(u) and (u) Streltsovs Solution - Well Function Table AT T,'..C HiiE:.~T I CALCULATE AREA OF M_~RT~%'S VINEYARD PRI}~RY AOUIFER Area of Martha's Vineyard (planimetered) - 36,673 acres not including: Wes:em Morain~ Chappa~ulddick Subtract major ponds (acres) Lake Tashmoo 259 Lagoon Pond 535 Crystal Lake 12 Oak Bluffs Harbor 30 Brush Pond 5 Farm Pond 33 Sengenkontacket 7!6 Trapps Pond 45 Eel Pond 115 Edgartow~ Great Pond 955 Jobs Neck Ponds 91 Oyster Pond 207 Watcha Pond 68 Homer Pond 38 Long Pond 83 Tisbury Great Pond 772 Blaek Point Pond 68 Chilmark Pond 228 Total 4,260 acres Recharge Area (36,673-4,260) - 32,413 acres Recharge from rain (46-24) - 22 inches Annual Volume of Recharge 22 32,413 x 43,560 x 1~ ~ 2,588 x 109 FT3/year 2,588 x 109 x (7.48)/365.~ 53,046,565 Gallons/Day This volume of 53 million gallons represents the average daily recharge co the aquifer. Nut all of thie water is available because some water is dis- charged at the salt/freshwater interface. Im[ I I I l ! MUNICIPAL WELLS i - FARM NECK 2'- MASHACKET WELL 3 ~ PROPOSED TISBURY WELL 4 - LILY POND WELL 5 - SHURTLF, FF WELL 6 - SANBORN WELL 8 - W. SPRING ST. WELL ~ ¢05) :',~.{~'-'.'- ' 9 LAGOON POND WELL ].0- WINTUCKET COVE WELL ~ -' ~--.,'~'" . --. 'W'~.~; "'". ' Ma~) - U,B.G.S. F,A-61B ."-,- · .~.?~): :' (Delaney 1980) ' /'' ~ "'" ~GU~ I TEST SI ~ibuUon '..9o ._ _~ ........ ~._.: !:;_'.< :~::-,-.-';:: ,-:~?;~-,~': · / I...,. .... t,.~ · ,..:. ~ ,:... t ...... .oF.'..-:.; · ; ........ r ......... · -" ; .-. ', ' '. ..... : ........... ",J~ I '!~ L:: , ,.l'.f. rt~T- . ..... :-:.!~.;.. rl-,.~ .... ' ,~ '"l'- l'i ''""~..~-I~.,,, ~'Tt~-;'" . · ~ · , ~ L ............... . . ,~ , . .~ ~ ,-.,.- ~ ..... .~q:': ..... · ' ' ,., '' ' ~' -'~~~ '~' -~ ~' ~ T~ 'Ur-/~ ..... ,... ~ . . . :t._ ..... ~.~-~. ~___, ...... ~ .. : ~- · ,.,,-.t ~-1...,t"~',~/ ,.--,., .~ ..... , ...... ~-I:NJ'L, ' ~ ' · ~ ~ ' ~'J' ' '--! ' , '~1 ' ' ~ ' ' ' i ' .............. ' _* .,.-t-n+'~-'!' -~.4..t- _.' ..... ;- ..;.L'...'.. '' ?" !:'~ ~' ~"~t~''~ '~'-'*:";~"' :.:... ~_~ .-_j..i,=-'.-:  ...... ";'-~'"' *"-'-' '- '[.:C-"-:LW;---~-. '- · . I. .. ,,. _,.,_,_..r. :-4-;: ;T--':..:-~-=:.:::.~:~.,. ~ ,-1.-~ --- ~. ~ .:~.-- ..... ..,.._,-,- '5 " ' ......... .......... ? ~' ,'--,., ,_ ~_i.. ~.. _~ ~ ,~' ~..~: · -~., .J % ! ' : : i ' · : i · : , . · - ~. ' .. ...... ..,' ! !.:_:..:._ ~ "' J;" ' ':' "!:'"~:" 'i " ~' ' :. ; ....... ; '":!~. ~ . "i" ¢:' '~: ........ ':";" ..... : ........... : I '~'r." ·: .... ~ ..... +-;.-- i~ .............. ... ............. : ............ :. . ~ .-.-.'..'.,-. .. . , . .t .. ~...,~. · ". ..... .~- :-:'¢;...-; ..... L_':.~ ..... ~ ~' ' ':' ' : ': ' :i!' : :""'; ~': ' ' ' ' ' ' :' ' '' · . ;-';; :;;;I. '~.: ' .. ' : ,: : ~ '! : '! ' .~. "!- . ' ~ ~ i 'r-. .. ~ --'~' 7!' ~ ...... ~---, .......... ~ .... '-..~. -"-2~ .~-~-~---~4 ....... ~ .....~Z" . . _: · ,. . ~ .. , .~.. =, , ...... _ .. 4 ~- ~ , ' . · = · .~l.~ '¢/ y~' · '¢'..~/~~ .. ~ ·· ' ' :: ..... . .I · ._ ~ l,~ ,.Y~/.~ "~ ~1~ .t .. ~1 .t,: a' % ~ '~¢'.~(¢~ / ~ '~'l~TM~ ~ : , ~ ~."~' ....... ~l- d~--. -.; .... ~ ~- ,:-~ -~-t.~--: ~.,I- - ~ ----,~ ~ - ~. ¢ -.,~ -- .~ ......... =. ~ ; . ~1 1% r'..~ ' ~1 ~:1~ ~1 ~ ' : ~1~ ~/ . ' ' ~ ' ' : · ' : · ! I: .. ut"}'"'~','lV.'~" ~ -:--~1.,..~/ u"¢l~ .... , ..... ~ ........ '~/ - ¢* ~ ~1~ ' , ~ .. ~ · i ~/ ;:: ¢1~ · . ' .... ~, . '. : · · -~ ..... z~J_l : ...... ~.~]~.__~z. t .. ;~l R · . .~, : , · ,.:,: % ~1 ~ ~ ~, · · ~ ~ · ~ --J~%-'T~' ~I'"','T%T~--T~[I ' ''; .' .... ;~ ' ' · ~t ~ ~ .¢,, ........ ~. ~- .. , , : '~ t ¢ -. ~ ' , - .~ .,.~ · t./. ~- .~J/ N; . ~t ~/~ ........ ~l~ . : .... I i gl-I.~ ,, :~::kl~.~,~ ~/;~. ~1~ .~1i .. :' ~,~:~ .;:::. ..d .d-.. ,, ..t ... x ..... · ' · -' ' : . ~-'~ .............. =". t "~ ..... ~" %'~---I ' -T~.'( '~ ! i i i ii i i 4 I00 2¢ 0.1 w(u) Figure 5.4 Relation bclwc~n F(.), If(u). and u. (From Chow. 1952.) 0.6 0.~ 0.4 O.3 0.2 0 .18 AT :-EXTENSION OF STRAIGHT-LINE PORTION OF CURVE t IN DAYS Figure 5.5 Plol of z versus log t i'or dala in Table 5.1, r = .~(X) m. Table 5,3. Values of W(UA.Uu,8,1',y')~(afte:- Stre!tsova, o.1 0.2 0.3 o.s 0.75 0.1 0,2 0.3 0,5 0.75 1.0 2) 3) 4) 5.) 8) REFERENCES Water Quality Plan for Martha's Vineyard. W. Wilcox, Martha's Vineyard Cc~mission, 1977. Groundwater Hydrology of Martha's Vineyard. D. Delaney, U.S. Geological Survey, 1980. Bouwer, H., 1978, Groundwater Hydrelogy. Johnson Division, UOP !nc., 1982, Groundwater and Wells Linsley and Franzini, 1979, Water Resource Engineering Freeze and Cherry, 1979, Groundwater Clark, Viessman, and Ham~er, 1977, Water Supply and Pollution Control Bear, 1979, Hydraulics of Groundwater