CHAPTER 8 

 PROJECT EVALUATION 



The success of the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project must continue 

 to be evaluated in the coming years as the implementation of many of the 

 project's recommendations proceeds. Experience with the methods suggested 

 by CCAMP will shed light on their effectiveness. However, at this point 

 it may be useful to others contemplating cooperative groundwater projects 

 in the future to discuss some observations. 



CCAMP was successful in two major ways: 



1. Specific cooperative projects aimed at demonstrating or investi- 

 gating groundwater protection methodologies (CIS project, land 

 use study, nitrate loading model, etc.). 



2. An institutional examination of groundwater protection which led 

 to the development of detailed recommendations to strengthen 

 groundwater protection at all levels of government. 



CCAMP 's mission was broad - to develop new ways of protecting groundwa- 

 ter based on the characteristics of the resource itself. Such a charge 

 necessarily involves the two aspects discussed above, but integrating 

 these approaches in a single project can be difficult, as is meshing the 

 goals of different agencies. 



CCAMP 's committees each had a long learning curve, first beginning to 

 identify issues for their examination. While it would have been effective 

 and would have improved project integration if a central committee had 

 identified key issues and defined project goals at the outset, the process 

 of education and issue identification was an extremely valuable one. It 

 also would have been helpful to sequence work assignments with the Aquifer 

 Assessment Committee for initiating the project and to identify key issues 

 and information needs for the Data Management Group. The Institutions 

 Committee would then have had the work of these two groups to draw on in 

 its examination of the institutional deficiencies in groundwater 

 protection. 



The project was an extensive one for one full-time person and commit- 

 tee members, all with competing work commitments, to undertake. A core 

 group of full-time staff, one from each agency and an intern, reporting to 

 the committees, would have increased the ability to investigate issues and 

 develop solutions in a shorter time period. A project manager with the 

 responsibility to direct the project and make key decisions would also 

 have helped. The lack of money for research also added uncertainty to the 

 group's agenda but CCAMP was able to find money for special efforts such 

 as the CIS project or the wellhead-protection guide. 



CCAMP still requires a well conceived implementation strategy for its 

 recommendations. Each agency is now handling the implementation of the 

 recommendations dealing with its own policies. CCPEDC is responsible for 



