CASE STUDIES IN WELLHEAD PROTECTION
Ten Examples of Innovative Wellhead Protection Programs
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER & DRINKING WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DECEMBER 1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
under contract No. 68-CO-0083. Ms. Erin Flanagan and Mr. Stan
Austin of OGWDW served as Task Managers for this project, with
assistance from Mr. Kevin McCormack and Ms. Janette Hansen.
NOTE TO THE READER
The case studies presented in this document are intended as examples
a community might use to design and implement their own wellhead
protection program. Theseexamples do not represent the only possible
options, nor does EPA or the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water endorse these approaches over other approaches a community
might choose.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Carroll County, Maryland
Water Resource Management Program
Descanso, California
Community Water District Wellhead Protection Program
Eastern Shore of Virginia
Wellhead Protection Program
El Paso, Texas
Wellhead Protection Program
Enid, Oklahoma
Aquifer Management and Wellhead Protection Program
Manchester-By-The-Sea, Massachusetts
Wellhead Protection Program
Nantucket, Massachusetts
Water Resources Protection Program
Palm Beach County, Florida
Wellhead Protection Program
Santo Domingo Pueblo, New Mexico
Wellhead Protection Program
Spokane, Washington / Panhandle District, Idaho
Wellhead Protection Program
Glossary
page 2
pageS
page 6
page 9
page 12
page 15
page 18
page 21
page 24
page 27
page 30
page 33
-------
INTRODUCTION
Nearly half of the nation's
total population relies on
ground water as their
primary source of
drinking water. As the
costs of cleaning up
contamination and finding
alternative water supplies
continues to increase, it is
becoming dear that the
prevention of ground
water contamination is an
easier and less expensive
alternative. The Wellhead
Protection Program is a
pollution prevention
program intended to
'protect the ground waters
that supply wells and
wellfields that contribute
drinking water to public
water supply systems.
EPA views wellhead
protection programs as a
key component of efforts
by states to provide
comprehensive protection
of ground water resources.
To date, over half of the
states, several Indian
tribes, and many
communities have
initiated wellhead
protection programs.
Within the framework of
the Wellhead Protection
Program, state, local and
tribal governments have
the flexibility to design a
program that will address
their unique geographic
conditions in order to
protect their ground water
supplies. This flexibility
makes designing and
implementing a wellhead
protection program both
easier and more difficult
because no single
approach will work in all
situations. This technical
assistance document
assists state, local, and
tribal water managers in
developing, refining, and
implementing wellhead
protection programs by
providing examples of
programs already in place.
While each wellhead
protection program
contains the same
elements whether you are
in Massachusetts,
California, Texas, or
Florida, no two state
programs are exactly alike
in their approach to
implementation. The
same is true of local
wellhead programs; each
of the programs described
in this document is unique
in terms of the population,
hydrogeologic setting, and
approach to wellhead
protection. The programs
described may help to
establish a foundation for
another community's
decision-making process
as they develop their
wellhead protection
program. For others, these
case studies may be the
catalyst for yet another
approach to a wellhead
protection program.
In 1991, EPA released its
Ground Water Protection
Strategy for the 1990s
which sets forth the
Agency's goals and
principles, and introduces
the concept of
Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPPs).
These CSGWPPs will be
the focal point for a long-
term joint commitment
between EPA and the
states to achieve a more
coherent and
comprehensive approach
to protecting the nation's
ground water resources.
As a key component of the
CSGWPP, the careful
structuring of a wellhead
protection program at the
state and local level will
provide a firm "building
block" in the foundation of
CSGWPPs.
-------
CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Assess the impacts of
existing and future land
development on quantity
and quality of county-
wide water supplies.
Includes surface and
ground water resources
used as public drinking
water supplies.
Located in north-central
Maryland, Carroll County
is 456 square miles in area.
It is bordered by the State
of Pennsylvania, and by
Baltimore, Howard, and
Frederick Counties of
Maryland. Carroll County
is primarily rural and is
one of the leading
agricultural areas of
Maryland.
The county includes eight
community planning areas
(areas within which
growth is encouraged)
around its major
municipalities: Union
Bridge, Taneytown,
Finksburg-Sykesville, New
Windsor, Mt. Airy,
Westminster, Manchester,
and Hampstead, Most of
the public water systems
are operated by the towns;
one is operated by the
county.
Carroll County has chosen
to direct future growth in
and around its nine
municipalities. By the late
1970s, the demand for
public water had increased
such that new supplies
would have to be
developed. Studies
indicated that water
deficits were likely in six
of the eight community
planning areas by 1995. In
response, the county
commissioned a water
resources study to
evaluate existing water
sources for the major
towns, to project future
demand, to identify
potential new well sites,
and to develop wellfield
management plans for
each town.
Water supplies in the
county include wells
completed in fractured
rock—schist, saprolite,
phyllite, sandstone,
siltstone, and shale
aquifers, with varying
yields—and in carbonate
rock. The county also uses
surface water supplies,
such as springs and
reservoirs. Water supplies
range from somewhat
protected, such as the
Manchester wells with
public land holdings and
open space surrounding
the water supply areas, to
vulnerable, such as the
Hampstead wells, which
are adjacent to a highway.
The carbonate rock areas
represent potential well
locations for those parts of
the county where they
occur.
Carroll County relies on
both surface and ground
water resources.
Carbonate rock
formations in much of the
County offer productive
well sites.
-------
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Carroll County's water
resource management
program is organized
around the community
planning areas (CPAs).
These CPAs typically
include municipal and
adjacent county-controlled
land. Public water supply
wells commonly are
located within the CPAs.
Delineation of Water
Resource Protection
Areas. The county
delineated protection
areas fon 1) existing wells;
2) aquifer recharge areas,
including land available
for future water supply
development; 3) carbonate
rock aquifers, which are
capable of producing large
quantities of water; and 4)
surface water supplies.
The first three types of
protection areas were
combined to form
community ground
water recharge areas. All
the protection areas were
overlayed with county
CPA maps for comparison
with planned
development
Land Use Evaluation.
The county assessed land
use impacts on water
quality. For each CPA,
water supply demand and
water quality were
evaluated along with a
review of the available
literature, field visits, and
land use analyses. Land
uses were assessed for
four classes: agricultural,
residential, industrial/
business, and
conservation. Existing
development was
quantified from county tax
information. Potential
development was
quantified using local
zoning regulations.
Nitrogen loading was
modelled for the projected
saturation development
levels. In six of the eight
CPAs, populations were
projected to increase,
putting more pressure on
existing water supplies.
Contamination
Evaluation.
Contamination problems
have occurred in some
CPAs, and threaten others.
In Hampstead, a series of
small capacity wells are
located along a highway,
in a schist-saprolite aquifer
with low recharge.
Elevated chlorides,
nitrates, and volatile
organic compounds have
been detected in the water
supply. Planned business
and industrial growth also
represent a source of
potential contamination.
The main sources of
potential contamination in
Mt. Airy are high density
residential and commer-
cial development, an oil
Carroll County Water
Resources Management Map
BH Caiboiut* Rock Aru
I •'•'••••'•••'<•• I W«HhMdProUdlon Ana
LxVx< Surface W*ttrsh»d Ar*a
storage tank near one of
the wells, and the
proximity of a sewage
pumping station.
Union Bridge and New
Windsor water supplies
have experienced elevated
nitrate levels and are
threatened by increasing
nitrogen contamination
from the current level of
development allowed
under existing zoning.
In Westminster, current
levels of growth threaten
water supplies and may
require development of
new water supplies in
areas not already slated
for residential, industrial,
and business growth.
Manchester's wells are
currently protected by
public land holdings and
open space, and nitrogen
loading to ground water is
expected to decrease over
time as more of the area is
converted from agriculture
to residential uses.
Taneytown, with wells
located in Triassic
sandstone, siltstone, and
shale, has experienced
water supply
contamination from
volatile organic
compounds and bacteria.
-------
PROGRAM
CONTACT
Nitrogen contamination
from agricultural and
commercial/industrial
land uses also threatens
the water quality in
Taneytown.
For surface water
resources in the county, a
phosphorus loading
analysis was conducted
and the potential impacts
from future land
development were
evaluated. Phosphorus
loading reduction
techniques were recom-
mended to protect public
supply reservoirs in
Carroll County.
Management Approaches.
In 1988, the Maryland
General Assembly
adopted an amendment
empowering Carroll
County Commissioners to
initiate action to protect
their water resources,
including development of
a water resources
commission. The county
developed water
management standards
that effect the following
activities within water
resource management
areas: nutrient application
or release; on-site
wastewater disposal; ,
ground water extraction;
ground water recharge;
erosion and
sedimentation; storm
water runoff; chemical
use, storage, and
application; hazardous
substance storage and
handling; and sinkhole
formation.
Management techniques
combine prohibition of
certain activities, use
restrictions, construction
standards, performance
standards, reporting and
record keeping, and
inspections and testing to
protect identified resource
areas from water quality
contamination.
Compatibility with
County Master Plan.
The county Master Plan is
designed to concentrate
future residential and
business development in
CPAs. Water supplies are
also concentrated in the
CPAs in order to lessen
water distribution system
costs. Consequently, the
land areas where recharge
to county aquifers occurs
are the same land areas
where growth is focused.
Because urbanization
typically leads to water
resource contamination,
the county sought to
identify conflicts between
the master plan and the
water resources
management program.
Additional controls at the
master plan level may be
necessary to ensure
county-wide protection of
water supplies.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
Several public agencies
have participated in water
resource protection,
including representatives
from the Bureau of Water
Resource Management,
the Department of Permits
and Regulations, the
Planning Department, and
the Department of
Economic and Community
Development. The
county's recommen-
dations include
involvement of the public,
for example, through a
household hazardous
waste collection day.
For further information
about the Carroll County
Water Resources
Protection Program,
contact:
Ms. Catherine Rappe
Carroll County Bureau of
Water Resource
Management
225 N. Center St.
Westminster, MD 21157
(301) 857-2150
County planning goals
focus development onto
the land areas needed for
aquifer recharge.
Increases in development
were projected to cause a
demand for additional
water supplies and to
potentially have negative
impacts on water quality
in public water supplies.
-------
DESCANSO, CALIFORNIA, COMMUNITY WATER DISTRICT
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Preliminary wellhead
protection program
formulated as part of
"hands on" training for
three rural communities
in southern California.
Under average hydrologic
conditions, septic systems
return as much as 11
percent of the water
withdrawn by public
supply wells in Descanso.
Under drought
conditions/ this
percentage/ and the
consequent potential for
ground water
contamination, increases.
Descanso is a small, rural
community in
southwestern California,
on the intermittently-
flowing Descanso and
Sweetwater Rivers in San
Diego County. Located in
the Cuyamaca Mountains,
Descanso is approximately
40 miles east of San Diego
and approximately 20
miles north of the Mexican
border.
Descanso is served by the
Descanso Community
Water District, which
maintains seven public
water supply wells with
approximately 300 service
connections, providing
water to approximately
900 residents. The wells
include shallow wells
placed in alluvial sand and
gravel and weathered
granite as well as deep
fractured bedrock wells.
The wells are constructed
in two different aquifer
systems—the Descanso and
Sweetwater River valleys.
There is a strong, on-
going, environmentally-
oriented education
program in Descanso.
Water quality classes are
included in the public
schools, and the Descanso
Community Water District
provides informational
brochures.
EPA Region 9 designed a
program to provide
focused training in
wellhead protection to a
series of rural
communities. The
California Rural Water
Association suggested
locations and assisted with
site visits. In Descanso,
the Descanso Community
Water District was the
implementing agency for
this wellhead protection
pilot program.
Organizational Meeting.
Following a presentation
on wellhead protection to
the Descanso Community
Water District Board, the
Board took formal action
to establish a wellhead
protection program. The
local planning group,
acting as advisors to the
County Board of
Supervisors, and San
Diego County also
participated in the
program.
-------
Delineation of WHPAs.
A regional water table
map was drafted using
water level measurements
from 21 observation wells
in the Descanso area,
measured by the US
Geological Survey (USGS)
in 1990. Transmissivity
and storativiry values for
the aquifers were also
obtained from the USGS.
Future pumping rates
were estimated at 75
gallons per minute.
Using this information>
WHPAs for two of the
three major wells currently
in production were
delineated based on the
Theis distance-drawdown
equation for calculation of
predicted water level
changes. For these
calculations, one- and five-
year no recharge (drought)
conditions were
simulated. Under these
scenarios, the local rivers
were assumed to provide
no induced infiltration to
the aquifers.
Contaminant Source
Identification. In order to
determine potential
sources of contamination
within the delineated
WHPAs, topographic
maps and proposed
zoning changes were
reviewed, the Descanso
Community Water District
Directors were
interviewed, and land use
surveys were conducted
by automobile.
Septic systems! were the
most common potential
contamination source
identified. Descanso has
no public sewage
treatment facility.
Hydrologic Budget
In order to determine the
impacts of septic systems
on ground water, a
hydrologic budget was
developed. During an
average year, precipitation
infiltration to ground
water provides 62-66
percent of the recharge;
infiltration of stream
water provides 27-28
percent; and septic system
effluent provides 6-11
percent. These figures
suggest that sewage-
derived nitrogen will be
adequately diluted by
other sources of recharge
such that drinking water
standards will not be
exceeded.
Nitrogen Loading
Modelling. The impacts
of future growth and
increased density of septic
systems was evaluated for
the WHPAs. Zoning maps
and proposed zoning
changes for Descanso were
examined in order to
estimate the potential
maximum numbers of
houses that might be in the
WHPAs. A nitrogen
loading model was then
applied to predict nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations at
each wellhead. The
modelling found that
under both the proposed
zoning changes and the
maximum development
allowed by existing
zoning, nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations will
approach or exceed the
federal drinking water
standard of 10 milligrams
per liter.
Wellhead Protection Areas
Descanso Community Water District
-------
Management Approaches.
The proposed zoning
changes are predicted to
reduce nitrogen loadings
below the loadings
estimated for existing
zoning. Therefore, zoning
amendments may be an
effective management tool.
However, greater changes
than those under
consideration maybe
required to protect ground
water quality. The pilot
program recommended
that the Descanso
Community Water District
assess zoning changes and
consider additional
changes within the
WHPAs.
A non-regulatory
management measure
implemented by the Water
District is the posting of
"Ground Water Protection
Zone," signs along roads
within the WHPAs. A
household hazardous
waste collection program
was also recommended to
the Water District.
Contingency Planning.
Because the Descanso
public water supply wells
are located in two
geographically separate
aquifers (the Descanso and
Sweetwater River valleys),
it is unlikely that
contamination in one
aquifer would result in
contamination of wells
located in the other.
Nitrate-nitrogen
contamination in either
aquifer may be mitigated
by managing pumping
rates in relation to climatic
conditions. Pumping
during wet seasons will
induce infiltration from
the rivers, and therefore
provides an option for
reducing threats from
septic system nitrogen.
Public Participation.
The posting of signs
marking the WHPAs will
begin an educational
process to complement
efforts already underway
in Descanso.
Project Timing. A key
lesson of the Descanso
case study is that WHPA
delineation and
preliminary protection
programs do not have to
be time consuming. The
Descanso program was
developed along with
programs for two other
rural California
communities over a four
month period.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
Descanso has no known
ground water contam-
ination, but is focusing on
programmed growth and
the potential impacts to
ground water quality in
an effort to prevent
contamination from
occurring. Under drought
conditions, stream flows
are significantly
diminished, reducing
available recharge to the
adjacent aquifers, and
thereby magnifying the
impacts of septic systems
on water quality.
Descanso is a small, rural
community providing
public water to
approximately 900
residents. The wellhead
protection program was
initiated with minimal
time and budget.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Descanso
wellhead protection
program, contact:
Mr. M. Gale Ruffin
Descanso Community
Water District
Post Office Box 610
Descanso, CA 91916
(619) 445-2330
The seven elements of
wellhead protection were
used to rapidly (within
four months) formulate a
preliminary WHP
program, including
delineation of WHPAs to
two of the three main
supply wells in Descanso.
8
-------
EASTERN SHORE OF VIRGINIA
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Ground water quality
and quantity evaluation
and management
program for public and
private water supplies on
the Virginia portion of the
Delmarva peninsula.
The hydrogeology of the
region—an upper, uncon-
fined aquifer, and a
lower, confined aquifer—
results in a primary
recharge zone at abnor-
mally larger distances
from the major wells on
the peninsula.
Accomack and
Northampton Counties
constitute the narrow
peninsula know n as the
Eastern Shore of Virginia.
The peninsula lies
between the Atlantic
Ocean and the Chesapeake
Bay, with a network of
barrier islands on the
Atlantic side.
The region is primarily
agricultural, the home of
two large poultry farming
operations. Use of water
by agricultural operators
for crop irrigation exceeds
water withdrawals for
domestic use. The
majority of residents rely
on private wells because
public water service is
limited.
The Eastern Shore of
Virginia lies in the Coastal
Plain Province. Soils are
primarily sand, clay, and
shell fragments. Most of
the region's soils are
classed as prime farmland
and are very productive.
The peninsula is relatively
flat, with no major fresh-
water streams or lakes.
Numerous creeks drain
the region, becoming tidal
estuaries at their mouths.
Many farm ponds have
been constructed for
irrigation purposes.
The Eastern Shore
includes two aquifers, one
confined, and one
unconfined. The
unconfined Columbia
aquifer is primarily sand
with interfingered layers
of clay and silt. The
confined Yorktown-
Eastover aquifer has three
producing layers, with
confining units of clays
and silts.
Annually, 12 to 26 inches
of water recharge the
unconfined aquifer, with
the majority of this water
discharging to the ocean
or the bay without moving
downward to the lower,
confined aquifer.
Only about 0.10 feet of
water recharge the
confined aquifer annually.
This equates to
approximately 11 million
gallons per day (MGD).
This recharge derives
primarily from the central
spine area of the
peninsula.
Water quality in the lower
aquifer is good. Most of
the ground water
withdrawn on the Eastern
Shore is from this aquifer.
Water in the upper,
unconfined aquifer is of
poorer quality. It is used
primarily for individual
private wells and for
irrigation.
-------
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
The Eastern Shore
hydrogeological
investigation and
wellhead protection
program was
commissioned by the
Eastern Shore of Virginia
Ground Water Study
Committee. This
committee was formed to
assist local government
and residents in the
protection and
'management of water
resources. The committee
serves as an information
and educational resource
and also initiates studies
such as this
hydrogeological
investigation.
Information Review.
The wellhead protection
program on the Eastern
Shore began with a review
of existing information on
the hydrology and
geology of the area. This
review was used to
develop an initial,
conceptual model of flow
patterns and recharge
areas on the peninsula.
Delineation of WHPAs.
Initially, a time of travel
criterion was selected for
use in delineation of
WHPAs. However, this
approach could not be
applied to the three-
dimensional flow patterns
found on the Eastern
Shore and was abandoned.
Instead, a numerical
model (US Geological
Survey's MODFLOW) was
used. This model requires
input parameters such as
aquifer thickness,
permeability, and recharge
rates. Different scenarios
were modelled, including
non-pumping, pumping at
existing rates, and
pumping at permitted
rates.
An immediate protection
zone of 200-foot radius
was delineated for each
well. A second zone was
mapped for the 26 wells
and wellfields that account
for most of the ground
water use on the
peninsula. These 26
Chesapeake Columbia
Bay Aquifer
wellfields were divided
into five regions, based on
location, permitted
pumping, and modelled
contributing areas. The
protection zone for each of
the five areas was
determined on the basis of
recharge: the amount of
land area needed to
balance water withdrawals
under permitted pumping.
Interference effects from
pumping of adjacent large
wells were considered in
the delineations.
Five WHPAs were
delineated. It was
discovered that under
both the existing and
permitted water
withdrawal rates, the
WHPAs include salt water
on both the Atlantic Ocean
and Chesapeake Bay sides
of the peninsula, raising
the possibility of salt water
intrusion to supply wells
in the near future.
Development of Water
Budget Calculation of
the regional water budget
showed that the lower,
confined aquifer receives
limited recharge,
approximately 0.10 foot
per year (a total of 11
MGD). Pumping at the
permitted rate (15 MGD)
could cause a water
deficit. As a result, the
study commission
concluded that requests
for additional water
withdrawal permits for the
lower aquifer must be
carefully evaluated and
perhaps the existing
permits should be re-
evaluated.
Upper Yorktown-Easlover Upper Yorktown-Eastover Atlantic
Aquifer Confining Unit Ocean
Middto Yorklown-Easlover
Aquifer
Middle Yorktown-Eastover
Confining Unit
Lower Yorktown-Easlover
Aquifer
Recharge Pathway Flow to:
I | Columbia Aquifer FT1 Middle Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer
I I Upper Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer £3 Lower Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer
10
-------
Identification of
Contaminant Sources/
Land Use Analysis.
A land use evaluation was
conducted to inventory
potential contamination
sources for the Eastern
Shore. These sources are
primarily non-point
sources, including public
and private sewage
disposal facilities;
underground storage
tanks; landfills; and
agricultural sources
including fertilizers,
pesticides, animal wastes,
and animal carcasses
(poultry);
An area around the central
spine of the peninsula
provides the critical
recharge to sustain the
confined aquifers. An
analysis of developable
lots was conducted in this
area to determine the
impacts of future growth
on water resources of the
Eastern Shore. This
analysis estimated the
number of future units on
the spine area, based on
existing zoning. The
estimate exceeds the
number of existing
housing units on the entire
peninsula.
Nitrogen Loading
Analysis. An analysis of
nitrate-nitrogen inputs to
ground water from
existing and potential land
uses was conducted.
Under Ihe potential
saturation development
conditions, the nitrate-
nitrogen concentration in
ground water was
predicted to exceed the
federal drinking water
limit (10 milligrams/liter)
in all but one of the five
WHPAs. Agricultural
fertilizers are the primary
nitrogen contamination
source.
Management
Recommendations.
Management recom-
mendations focused on the
peninsula spine because
the spine is the primary
recharge area to the
confined aquifer, which is
the principal source of
drinking water on the
Eastern Shore. Recom-
mendations included
development of an overlay
protection district;
required registration of
underground storage
tanks; site plan review to
include consideration of
ground water issues; a
private well setback
ordinance; revision of state
ground water legislation
and regulations; open
space acquisition;
agricultural water and
nutrient management; and
public education.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
The Eastern Shore ground-
water protection program
represents forward-
thinking action in an
environmentally sensitive
area. The program was
enacted by a grass-roots
organization: a committee
including representatives
of two counties, the
Virginia Water Control
Board, the US Geological
Survey, industry and
farmers—technical and lay
people cooperating to
protect a regional
resource.
The program focused on
water quality and quantity
issues, including analysis
of water use by sector
(industrial, agricultural,
residential) and evaluation
of the water withdrawal
permitting process for the
limited recharge water
supply.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Eastern Shore of
Virginia Ground Water
Protection Plan, contact:
Mr. Paul Berge
Accomack-Northampton
Planning District
Commission
P.O. Box 417
Accomac, VA 23301
(804) 787-2936
Funding sources for the
Eastern Shore wellhead
protection program
included an EPA grant,
two state programs, two
counties, and the
planning district.
11
-------
EL PASO, TEXAS
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Wellhead protection
program including
delineation of wellhead
protection areas (WHPAs),
identification of potential
sources of contamination,
water-quality sampling,
public education, and
WHPA best-management
practices.
El Paso successfully
used retired senior
volunteers to identify
sources of potential
contamination. Some of
these volunteers have
continued their involve-
ment through service on a
best-management prac-
tices task force.
Located in the western tip
of Texas, bordered by
New Mexico and Mexico,
El Paso is the 26th largest
city in the United States.
Its population is
approximately 591,000.
The City's 138 public
water supply wells
provide water to its
128,000 residents.
Agriculture, industry,
military installations and
tourism are the main
economic activities in the
region. The climate is arid
to semi-arid, with an
average annual rainfall of
eight inches.
Water for El Paso's public
supply wells is drawn
primarily from aquifers in
the basin and range
geologic province. The
Rio Grande Rift created
down-dropped basins
(bolsons), which serve as
depositional areas for
sands and gravels from
streams. These deposits
hold water that can be
withdrawn for public
supplies. Water quality
varies within these aqui-
fers.
In some areas, weathering
has resulted in calcareous
soil zones, or caliche.
When combined with
water, caliche may form
an impermeable layer that
can provide protection to
the aquifer if no
hydrological connections
to contamination sources
exist and if dry conditions
have not opened large
pores within the caliche.
Approximately 20 percent
of the city's water is drawn
from the Rio Grande
River. River withdrawals
are limited by interna-
tional and interstate water
rights agreements.
The Texas Water
Commission and Texas
Department of Health
assist local governments in
protection of ground
water within designated
WHPAs. The City of El
Paso was selected as a site
for a US EPA wellhead
protection demonstration
project.
Delineation of WHPAs.
In October 1989, the Texas
Water Commission
delineated WHPAs for the
138 public supply wells in
the City of El Paso. The
protection areas were
delineated using the
calculated fixed radius
method and data on well
pumping, construction,
and location. Aground
water travel time of five
years was used in the
calculations. Five years
was judged a sufficient
response time for potential
contamination events
outside the WHPAs.
12
-------
Identification of
Contamination Threats.
Staff and funding for
contamination source
inventories are limited in
many municipalities. The
use of volunteers is one
solution to this constraint.
The City of El Paso
utilized the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program
(RSVP)forits
contamination source
inventory.
RSVP is a national
program with area
coordinators who recruit
volunteers for specific
projects. RSVP
coordinates some 750
programs across the
country, and is partially
federally funded.
In order to recruit source
inventory volunteers,
contacts were made with
retirees from El Paso
Natural Gas Company,
Chevron, Inc.,
Southwestern Bell
Pioneers, El Paso Electric
Company, City Planning
and Engineering, the
County Historical Society,
the Archeological Society,
Ft. Bliss, the El Paso Water
Utilities, the Sierra Club,
the Audubon Society, the
local Gem and Mineral
Society, the Retired
Officers Association, and
the National Association
of Retired Federal
Employees. Through a
networking effort, 23
retired geologists,
planners, engineers, and
others were recruited for
assessment of potential
contamination sources in
El Paso. The volunteers
were trained in
contamination source
inventory methods and
provided with inventory
forms (in both Spanish
and English), maps and
instructions. An inventory
chief was designated to
coordinate each volunteer
group's activities and to
avoid any duplication of
effort.
The media—television,
radio, and newspapers in
both English and Spanish-
were used to inform the
public about the project
and to encourage
cooperation with the
inventory volunteers.
The inventory was
completed in three and a
half days and provided
reliable, comprehensive
information. Maps were
developed based on the
inventory results. Within
WHPAs, contamination
sources are shown by
location and type. These
maps facilitate appropriate
management of threats to
ensure high quality
ground water. Potential
contamination sources in
the City of El Paso
WHPAs include:
abandoned and active
wells; underground and
surface storage tanks;
contaminant spills;
pipelines and municipal
sewage lines; septic tanks;
landfills; fertilizers and
pesticides; injection wells;
stormwater runoff;
feedlots; artificial
recharge; air pollution;
cemeteries; and polluted
surface waters.
SUGGESTED iNVfwrnav FORM
C. PIMM Minnow:
2. Sty;
E. County;
POTENTIM
Wattr Wt*
Abov* Grouna Siongt Tan
AlIBOft
Annul FMOKN
Aretau nvcnti^t
Auia Stfeagt Yara
QUAMTTTV PCTgNTUL SPLfflCg QUA\'T"v
Hottng Ponauijoan '
Oumo
«
Coun
Seme* Stauon diaoui Win
S*mg« Piant Sk*3}» Duaui
Sloragi TKK
13
-------
Management Approaches.
Following the inventory,
several of the volunteers
formed a wellhead
protection task force.
The task force coordinates
with city and county
officials to manage known
contamination sources via
the use of best-
management practices. To
date, the City of El Paso
has passed a hazardous
materials storage
ordinance, has plugged
three abandoned wells,
and is implementing other
best-management
practices.
Contingency Planning.
Water quality testing
conducted by the Texas
Department of Health in
1988 and 1989 found the
city's wells had not been
contaminated. In order to
protect the city's water
quality, a contingency
plan was developed,
including lists of
telephone numbers for
emergency contacts and
short and long-term
responses to water quality
emergencies.
Public Involvement The
City of El Paso provides
information to the public,
in both Spanish and
English, on its water
protection projects. A
"Desert Watch Patrol" is
run by the city sheriffs
department, to apprehend
illegal dumpers in the
county desert and inside
the city limits. Waste oil
collection points are being
established at Chevron
service stations to provide
an alternative to
uncontrolled disposal in
WHPAs.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
Wellhead protection need
not be expensive. Use of
volunteers was inexpen-
sive and facilitated wide-
spread community
support for the project.
The El Paso wellhead
protection program
successfully used retired
volunteers for wellhead
protection tasks including
inventory of potential
contamination sources and
follow-up management
practice implementation.
This project also
represents successful
coordination between the
Texas Water Commission,
the Texas Department of
Health, and City of El Paso
representatives.
Abandoned drinking
water and irrigation wells
and poorly
constructed active wells
are potential
conduits for cross con-
tamination between
aquifers and front the
surface.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the City of El Paso
wellhead protection
program, contact:
Mr. Robert Blodgett
Geologist
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 371-6325
For further information
about the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program,
contact:
Ms. Maureen Mulligan
National Association of
RSVP Directors
703 Main St.
Patterson, NJ 07503
or consult the local
telephone directory under
Retired Senior Volunteer
Program.
14
-------
ENID, OKLAHOMA
AQUIFER MANAGEMENT AND WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
Aquifer management and
wellhead protection
program focusing on the
link between land uses in
WHPAs and ground water
quality. Program includes
public participation in the
review process.
Up-to-date computer
hardware and software
are key components of
Enid's Aquifer
Management Program.
Located 85 miles north
and west of Oklahoma
City, Enid is the largest
city in the northwest
quadrant of the state. Its
population is
approximately 46,000.
Agriculture, the oil and
gas industry, and
manufacturing provide the
basis of Enid's economy,
and the city functions as
the trade, health care and
retirement center for the
surrounding rural areas of
both Oklahoma and
Kansas. Vance Air Force
Base and Phillips
University are located in
Enid. Several railroads
and two principal
highways pass through
the city.
The water production
system in Enid relies on
162 wells drawing from
two aquifers. The
Cimarron River Terrace
Aquifer provides 80
percent of the water
supply, while the Enid
Isolated Terrace Aquifer
provides the remaining 20
percent.
Average daily demand on
the water production
system is 11 million
gallons per day (MGD),
with a peak demand of 18
MGD, and a maximum
production capacity of 27
MGD. The production
wells are located in five
wellfields: Enid, Cleo
Springs, Ringwood, Ames,
and Drummond. The
Cimarron River crosses the
Cleo Springs field. The
wellfields are scattered
through Garfield, Alfalfa,
Woods, and Major
Counties. Numerous oil
and gas fields are also
scattered throughout the
area.
The Enid water
production system serves
over 60,000 people, and
includes nearby
communities and the Air
Force Base. Enid is the
largest ground water user
in the state.
Water quality in the two
aquifers is excellent.
Water treatment includes
preventative chlorinan'on
and fluoridation.
15
-------
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
The Enid City
Commission initiated
development of a total
aquifer management plan
in September of 1989
through the City
Engineering Department.
The program was
developed and ready for
presentation by the
following March.
Information Review.
The aquifer management
program includes a
comprehensive review of
relevant materials such as
water quality test results,
water production records,
lithologic records, geologic
and hydrologic reports,
and potential contaminant
source inventories.
Mapping. The aquifer
management program
calls for mapping of data
as overlays to a digital
base map that has been
developed for the project
area. The City is currently
developing a geographic
information system (GIS)
to process aquifer-related
data.
Field Data. In order to
monitor aquifer conditions
and effects of climate and
pumping, the
management program
includes monthly
measurements of ground
water levels in 175 wells in
the municipal wellfields.
Data are also gathered by
17 continually-recording
electronic water level
meters and three
continually-recording
precipitation gauges. The
data are processed in an
extensive computer
network including five
linked personal computer
work stations.
Modeling of WHPAs.
A US Geological Survey
computer program was
calibrated with the field
data in order to model
aquifer conditions and
WHPAs.
WHPAs were delineated
for each public supply
well using methods,
criteria and thresholds that
comply with state
Wellhead Protection Plan
requirements. One-and
ten-year time of travel
criteria were used.
Contamination Source
Inventory. A database of
potential contamination
sources is being
developed, which will be
part of the GIS aquifer
management system. An
aquifer vulnerability index
will also be prepared, to
determine susceptibility of
ground water to
contamination from
surface and shallow sub-
surface spills or leaks.
This index will incorporate
such parameters as depth
to water, soil type,
recharge rate, topography
and land uses.
The aquifer vulnerability
index will be incorporated
into a larger risk
assessment system. This
system can be integrated
with such programs as
SARA Title III and the
state ground water
standards.
Residential
Potential sources of
contamination to Enid's
wellfields include:
drilling, production,
storage, pipeline and truck
transportation related to
oil and gas production;
livestock and wheat
production, including the
use of herbicides and
fertilizers; the Cimarron
river, which has high
levels of total dissolved
solids; individual septic
systems and municipal
wastewater disposal
lagoons; municipal and
private landfills; an
identified hazardous
waste site; and spills along
transportation routes.
Commercial
Industrial
16
-------
Public Education. The
Enid aquifer management
program calls for public
education on issues and
public participation in
policy and regulation
review. The program
seeks to involve all those
groups that may impact
future water quality.
Transferability. The Enid
aquifer management
program is computer-
based, with the capacity
for data storage and
retrieval. The personal
computer system can be
used by technical and non-
technical personnel, and is
designed so that it can be
adapted for application in
other municipalities.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
The Enid aquifer
management program is a
computer-based approach
to managing ground water
for Oklahoma's largest
ground water user.
Existing data are
supplemented by
extensive monitoring.
Data are compiled into a
user-friendly mapping
and analysis system that
can be adapted for use by
other hydrologically
similar water supply
systems. The Enid
program has been divided
into 11 sequential phases
for implementation over a
period of time making it
affordable and practical
for the City. The program
is designed to meet EPA
Wellhead Protection
Program elements.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Enid aquifer
management and
wellhead protection
program, contact:
Mr. Jim Ferree
City Manager
City of Enid
P.O. Box 1768
Enid, OK 73702-1768
(405) 234-0400
or
Mr. Elaine T. Reely, P.E.
Project Officer
Envirotech Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 6029
Enid, OK 73702
(405) 234-8780
Enid's five wellfields are
surrounded by oil and gas
fields, which represent
major potential
contamination sources.
The management
program maps the
locations of these sources
and assesses their threat
to ground water.
17
-------
MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA, MASSACHUSETTS
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Wellhead protection
program incorporating
wellhead delineation,
contaminant source
identification, and
comprehensive
management strategies.
Manchester's geologic
setting does not offer
the potential for devel-
opment of new water
supplies.
Manchester-by-the-Sea,
Massachusetts, is located
on Cape Ann, 30 miles
north of Boston. The town
is a suburban community
with a year- round
population of
approximately 5,400,
which increases slightly
during the summer.
Most of the town is zoned
residential with a
downtown commercial
area located adjacent to
the town's ocean harbor.
Approximately 50 percent
of the town's drinking
water is obtained from the
Lincoln Street Well, the
only source of drinking
water within the town
boundaries.
The Lincoln Street Well is
located near the
commercial area of town
and is surrounded by the
high school, a cemetery,
and a golf course, as well
as private residences.
The remainder of the
Manchester-by-the-Sea's
water supply is drawn
from a surface reservoir
located in the neighboring
Town of Hamilton. The
well is located in a sand
and gravel aquifer within
a buried river valley. The
walls of the valley are
comprised of granitic
bedrock and glacial till.
As shown in the cross-
section diagram on the
next page, the sand and
gravel aquifer lies on top
of the till and bedrock,
and is overlain by 10 to 40
feet of marine clay. A
stream flows through the
valley and provides
approximately 10 percent
of the well's supply by
induced infiltration
through a gap in the clay
layer.
The rest of the town lies
over granitic bedrock
overlain in some areas
with low permeability
glacial till. Because the
potential for developing a
water supply in these
materials is low, the
importance of the existing
well is magnified.
The community
established a Water
Resource Protection
Committee to guide the
delineation of the
wellhead protection area
(WHPA), source
identification, and
management of the
drinking water supply.
The program was
developed in 1989 and
1990, and the regulatory
component of the program
was formally adopted in
1990.
Delineation of WHPA.
Delineation of the WHPA
was conducted according
to guidelines developed
by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Environmental
Protection. A computer
model was used to
simulate groundwater
flow in the buried valley
aquifer with the
well pumping under
extreme conditions (180
days of pumping at the
safe yield rate with no
recharge to the aquifer
from precipitation).
The model was based on
geologic and hydrologic
conditions observed in the
field. A 48-hour pump test
was conducted, and
measurements from this
test were used to
determine aquifer
properties and to calibrate
18
-------
the computer model to
ensure its accuracy. The
model then was used to
delineate the portion of
the aquifer that
contributes water to the
well. The bedrock/till
areas that contribute
surface water to this
portion of the aquifer
were also identified as
areas of water-quality
concern.
Identification of
Contaminant Threats.
Once the WHPA was
delineated, a survey of the
area identified a variety of
land uses that could pose
a potential threat to the
quality of water pumped
by the well. The majority
of land within the WHPA
is occupied by a golf
course, raising concerns of
contamination from
fertilizers and pesticides.
A number of
underground storage
tanks containing both
gasoline and fuel oil are
also located within the
zone of contribution;
some of them over 20
years old, including one
known leaking
underground storage tank
located on the southeast
WHPA boundary. This
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
LINCOLN STREET AQUIFER
(static conditions)
/ V-Vs'-A.N b.';i> r? 4 • o R A°y E;L;'\ :.;
-50
Unconfined Water Table
Confined Pot e nt lo met rlc Surface
tank, however, is not
within the zone of
contribution to the well
under average pumping
conditions. Nevertheless
the town, in concert with
the state, is actively
pursuing the clean-up of
the gasoline
contamination. Until the
remediation is complete,
the town is limiting the
volume of water
withdrawn from the well
to avoid drawing the
plume into the well.
A developable lot analysis
was conducted to
determine the total
development potential
within the WHPA in both
residential and
commercial areas. This
information was then
coupled with a nitrogen
loading analysis to
predict the impacts from
on-site septic systems,
lawn fertilizers, and road
runoff, all significant
threats to water quality.
Other contamination
threats include a
downtown, commercially-
zoned area where
hazardous materials are
used and where the
potential exists for
accidental spills and the
improper disposal of
these materials.
19
-------
Management Approaches.
The Manchester-by-the-
Sea Town Meeting voted
unanimously to adopt an
overlay zoning bylaw that
established various criteria
and performance
standards for development
within the WHPA. This
bylaw includes a special
permit requirement for the
operation of the existing
golf course and other
businesses using
hazardous materials.
The town's planning board
recently approved a
special permit for the golf
course with conditions
requiring annual reporting
of chemicals used on the
course, and semi-annual
sampling of ground and
surface waters for
pesticides in heavily
managed areas.
In addition, the town
adopted several health
regulations, wetlands
bylaws, and subdivision
control standards to
complement the overlay
bylaw's water resource
protection standards. The
health and subdivision
regulations require
proposed developments to
meet nitrogen loading
performance standards to
ensure that water quality
in the well will not be
degraded.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
The Manchester-by-the-
Sea program represents
an example of a small
community rallying
together to protect the
land area of a highly
developed WHPA.
In addition to regulatory
controls, the town has put
in place a monitoring
program to collect semi-
annual water quality
samples. Samples are
collected by students in
an advanced biology class
at the high school, under
the supervision of the
town's Conservation
Commission.
The monitoring program
supplements the town's
aggressive and on-going
public education efforts.
One such effort was the
town-wide distribution,
prior to a town meeting,
of a brochure describing
the proposed protection
strategy and requesting
the support of residents.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Manchester-
By-The-Sea Wellhead
Protection Program,
contact:
Mr. Thomas Walker
Chairman
Water Resource
Protection Committee
Town Hall
Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA
01944
(508) 526-1712
or
Mr. Robert Moroney, P.E.
Director
Department of Public Works
Town Hall
Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA
01944
(508) 526-1712
Manchester recognized
that its water systems
were unavoidably linked
to land development
patterns and local land
use practices.
20
-------
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM COMMUNITY
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Comprehensive water
resources protection and
management plan,
including ground and
surface waters, and
planning for the future.
Annual recharge
contributes 12.5 billion
gallons per year to the
Nantucket aquifer.
The safe yield, or water
withdrawal that may
occur without
unacceptable drawdown
of the water table,
depletion of the fresh
water lens, or salt water
intrusion, amounts to 6.25
billion gallons per year.
Nantucket is a 14-mile
long island located 30
miles off the coast of
Massachusetts. The local
economy is currently
dependent on tourism and
second home
development. The island
has a year-round
population of 7,000 and a
summer population of
over 30,000.
Nantucket was originally
developed as small
villages, surrounded by
extensive areas of open
space. Island planners
strive to maintain this
design in the face of
increasing development
pressures, coastal erosion,
and potential sea level
rise.
The only source of
drinking water on
Nantucket is ground
water, and the island has
been designated a sole
source aquifer by the US
Environmental Protection
Agency. Ground water is
commonly found within
10 to 20 feet of the land
surface, but depth to water
varies from zero at
streams and ponds to 100
feet at high points. The
lens of fresh water
underlying the island is as
much as 600 feet thick and
floats on sea water.
Intrusion of salty sea
water can occur in wells
near the island shoreline,
where the lens thins.
Nantucket's surficial
geology is glacial in origin,
and includes till, outwash
plain, and ice-contact
deposits. Older sands,
clays, and sedimentary
rocks underlie the glacial
deposits and are in turn
underlain by igneous and
metamorphic bedrock at a
depth of approximately
1,500 feet below sea level.
In response to a variety of
threats to Nantucket's
water supply (e.g., septic
systems, pesticides and
fertilizers, landfills, salt
water intrusion, and
toxic/hazardous
materials), the Nantucket
Land Council
commissioned a water
resources investigation
and development of a
management plan. The
Land Council is a private,
non-profit organization
that conducts land
acquisition and
environmental projects on
the island.
Water Table Mapping.
In order to determine
water resource protection
areas, a 2-foot contour,
island-wide water table
map was prepared. Data
from depth to water
measurements in existing
monitoring wells were
used for the map. These
wells were located with
the assistance of
volunteers from a local
non-profit environmental
advocacy group. Four
new wells and 15 surface
water staff gauges were
installed, and ground
penetrating radar was also
used to obtain water table
elevation data. Perched
water tables were found at
some locations on the
island, supporting ponds
and wetlands.
21
-------
Delineation of Protection
Areas. Using the water
table map, zones of
contribution to the island's
two principal wellfields
were delineated using the
nonequilibrium Theis
analytical model for
unsteady radial flow in a
confined aquifer. This
equation applies to the
unconfined Nantucket
^aquifer since drawdowns
by pumping wells are
small relative to the
saturated thickness of the
aquifer.
Another aquifer
protection area, larger
than the two described
above, was delineated for
potential water supply
areas. Additionally,
surface areas contributing
to ponds and harbors were
mapped, as were
pro lection areas for
private wells. These latter
areas included the entire
island. Overall, 12 water
resource protection areas
were delineated and
assessed further.
Contamination Source
Inventory. Records
review and field
investigation were used to
determine potential
sources of contamination
on the island. These
sources include eight
known hazardous material
release sites; two solid
waste disposal sites (one
active, one abandoned);
sewage infiltration beds;
salt storage areas;
underground storage
tanks; industrial/
commercial land uses; and
non-point sources
including septic systems,
golf course and residential
lawn and garden
fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, and road
runoff.
Buildout and Nitrogen
Loading Analyses.
In order to evaluate the
impacts of both existing
and potential future
development on
Nantucket's water
resources, a buildout
(saturation development)
analysis was conducted.
This analysis documented
existing development
using aerial photographs
and assessor's land use
data, and estimated future
development based on
existing zoning and health
regulations.
The analysis found that
there is considerable
difference in potential
development if the health
regulations are considered
in addition to zoning
requirements. The 12
water resource protection
areas varied from 0 to 52
percent developed under
health and zoning require-
ments, and 0 to 33 percent
developed under zoning
requirements alone.
Using the buildout
analysis results, nitrogen
loading to ground and
surface water was
modelled, based on
standard assumptions for
loading rates from
nitrogen sources including
lawn, farm, and cranberry
bog fertilizers; landfills;
roof and pavement runoff;
sewage; and precipitation.
PROTECT
NANTUCKET'S
WATER RESOURCES
22
-------
Protection and
Management Strategy.
Because the island's
planners seek to maintain
its historic development
pattern of villages
interspersed among open
space, not all parts of the
island require intensive
land use management to
protect ground water
quality (e.g., where
development lies outside
delineated protection
areas).
Ground water protection
options included in the
Nantucket plan are both
regulatory and non-
regulatory in nature.
Regulatory options
include: health regulation
of minimum house lot
size; proposed sewage
service; water resource
overlay zoning districts
that regulate land uses;
private well siting
regulations to ensure
adequate separation from
septic systems (300 feet in
the direction of ground
water flow); hazardous
materials use, storage and
disposal regulations; and
subdivision and wetlands
regulations.
Non-regulatory options
include: water quality
analysis and on-going
monitoring of surface
waters; landfill studies
and better solid waste
management; testing for
future public well sites;
septic system maintenance
for residential systems;
decreased use of lawn
fertilizers and increased
use of alternative
landscaping such as wood
chips instead of grass, and
low-maintenance ground
covers (e.g., ivy, vinca);
use of non-toxic household
products instead of
hazardous ones; and
decreased use of
detergents containing
phosphorus.
Public participation was
encouraged through the
development and
distribution of a multi-
color poster depicting the
island's water resources,
findings of the
hydrogeological
investigation, and the
management and
protection options.
Several of the proposed
regulatory strategies
required approval at a
town meeting, further
involving the public in the
protection and
management process.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
Nantucket's water
resources program is
comprehensive in nature,
including both the island's
ground water—a sole
source aquifer—and
surface waters such as
coastal and freshwater
ponds.
Management options
included both regulatory
and non-regulatory tools,
such as innovative private
well siting regulations
based on setback distances
needed for virus
attenuation.
Nantucket considered
both existing and future
water supply needs and
protection areas.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information,
contact:
Ms. Linda Holland
Nantucket Land Council
P.O. Box 502
51 Main Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
(508) 228-2818
When managed in
accordance with plans,
the island's resources
could sustain a year-
round population of
80,000 to 100,000.
Nitrogen concentrations
in ground and surface
water are projected to
double and triple, and in
some cases, exceed
drinking water quality
standards.
23
-------
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Wellhead protection
program focusing on use,
storage, and handling of
regulated chemicals and
on construction activities
within protection zones.
The Palm Beach County
wellhead protection
ordinance requires the
use of common sense
management practices
that protect both ground
water and the users of
regulated substances.
Palm Beach County is
located in southeastern
Florida, north of the
Everglades. It includes
part of Lake Okeechobee
(14 feet above mean sea
level). The County's
population is approx-
imately 860,000. Land
uses vary from urban to
rural, with development
concentrated along the
Atlantic coastline and the
Lake Okeechobee
shoreline. A significant
portion of the County is
wetlands. Four canals
cross the County, and it
includes the Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge.
Palm Beach County lies
over an unconfined sand
and gravel aquifer.
Approximately 80 percent
of the County's drinking
water is supplied by
ground water. Thirty-
seven of over 400 public
drinking water wells in
the County have been
contaminated by
industrial solvents.
In April 1985, Palm Beach
County was denied
further increases in its
water consumption permit
by the South Florida Water
Management District until
a wellhead protection
ordinance was developed.
In addition, Florida's
growth management
legislation requires that
communities adopt
wellhead protection, and
the State Utilities Council
requested that the County
develop such an
ordinance. In response, a
Water Resources
Management Advisory
Board was created by the
Board of County
Commissioners to address
water issues and to
develop a wellhead
protection ordinance.
Delineation of WHPAs.
Palm Beach County
designates four regulation
zones around each
regulated wellhead or
wellfield permitted for
withdrawal of 100,000
gallons or more per day.
The zones are based on
time of travel criteria and
drawdown. The first zone
is the land area
surrounding the well out
to the 30-day time-of-
travel line.
24
-------
Zone 2 extends from the
30-day line to the 210-day
line, and Zone 3 extends to
the 500-day line. Zone 4
includes the land area
within the 1-foot
drawdown contour.
Prohibition of regulated
chemicals is applied in
Zone 1, secondary
containment is applied in
Zones 2 and 3, and daily
monitoring of regulated
chemicals is applied in
Zone 4.
Wells and wellfields were
plotted on aerial
photographs using field
inspections and utility
data. Zone locations were
determined with computer
modelling that used 1984
pumpage rates. Flow
conditions to the year 2010
were modelled.
Four hundred and forty-
five present and future
wells were located and
modelled within 42
wellfields. Some location
revisions and remodelling
were required because
undocumented wells were
discovered and the
original locations of both
existing and future wells
were inaccurately
modelled.
Contamination Sources.
Many industries in Palm
Beach County have the
potential to contaminate
ground water via use,
storage, or handling of
various hazardous and
toxic chemicals. Three
hundred and sixty-six
drinking water wells were
tested in the course of
developing the wellhead
protection ordinance.
Parameters analyzed
included 126 organic and 8
inorganic contaminants.
The testing results found
contamination only in
wells known previously to
be contaminated.
Management Approaches.
In order to protect ground
water in Palm Beach
County, a wellhead
protection ordinance was
developed and enacted in
1988. The ordinance
applies to wellfields only
after the zones of
regulation have been
mapped and the County
Commission incorporates
the wellfield into the
ordinance. Property
owners in the zones are
notified as part of the
process, and zone maps
are reviewed annually and
updated when necessary.
The ordinance establishes
standards for use,
handling, production, and
storage of regulated
substances in the zones of
regulation surrounding a
wellfield. Included in the
ordinance is a list of the
regulated substances and a
general definition of the
regulation applied to each
zone.
The ordinance also
includes provisions for
general exemptions, for
such chemical uses as
lawn maintenance and
retail sales, and for special
exemptions, which can
only be granted by the
Florida Ground Water and
Natural Resources
Protection Board.
25
-------
Businesses in Zone 1 must
be able to ensure
protection of ground
water with appropriate
technology, or they may
be required to shut down
within one year. The
ordinance also requires
that notification be given
for all spills in all zones,
and that all quantities of
regulated chemicals
^greater than 5 gallons or
25 pounds must be
registered.
Construction operations in
all four zones must use
best-management
practices before and after
construction.
Ordinance Results. The
terms of the ordinance
require that 3,550,000
gallons of regulated
substances and 118
pollutant storage tanks
must be removed from
Zones 1,2, and 3, or be
placed in secondary
containment and
monitored. Eleven wells
have been taken out of
service as public supplies
to avoid meeting the terms
of the ordinances. Nine
wells have been dosed by
the utilities, and two wells
have been purchased by
industries. Money has
been allotted for two wells
to be relocated by the
County. By reducing their
chemical usage below
regulatory thresholds, 65
companies have become
exempt from the
ordinance. Taxes and
permit fees pay for annual
inspection of industries
and inspection of all
construction activities
within zones of regulation.
Sampling, containment,
and relocation costs
required for
implementation of the
ordinance are estimated to
exceed $1,000,000 over a
10-year period.
Public Education.
Seminars, public
announcements,
inspections, and the media
have been used to
publicize the wellhead
protection program in
Palm Beach County.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
Implementation of the
Palm Beach Wellhead
Protection Ordinance
requires coordination
among 30 utilities and 25
county and municipal
government agencies.
Industries, a primary
source of potential ground
water contamination in
Palm Beach County, have
a good record of
compliance with the
ordinance. The public's
enthusiasm for this
ordinance was evidenced
by an 85 percent approval
in a 1987 referendum.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Palm Beach
County wellhead
protection program,
contact:
Mr. Allen Trefry
Palm Beach County Board
of County Commissioners
Department of
Environmental Resource
Management
3111 S. Dixie Highway
Suite 146
West Palm Beach, FL
33405
(407) 355-4011
The County received a
1991 National Association
of Counties Achievement
Award for its success
with the ordinance.
26
-------
SANTO DOMINGO PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Wellhead protection pilot
program for the Pueblo,
including delineation of
wellhead protection areas
(WHPAs), contaminant
source identification, and
management
recommendations.
The Pueblo's water
supply is threatened by
commercial land uses in
the village and by
agricultural land uses
upstream in the Rio
Grande valley.
The Santo Domingo
Pueblo is located south of
Santa Fe, New Mexico. It is
one of eight Pueblos
located between
Albuquerque and Santa
Fe. The tribal reservation
includes stretches of the
Rio Grande River and of
Galisteo Creek, and
portions of highways and
a railroad. The majority of
the Pueblo's population
and commercial
development is located in
the village of Santo
Domingo. The Pueblo
population is
approximately 4,000.
Santo Domingo Pueblo
village relies on two public
water supply wells,
yielding 125 and 410
gallons per minute
respectively. These wells
draw from an alluvial
sand and gravel aquifer
located in the Rio Grande
valley. This aquifer
consists of a mix of clay,
silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality in this
aquifer is generally poor,
although it does not
present a health hazard.
The low quality is caused
by high concentrations of
dissolved salts and is not
thought to be a result of
human activities. There is
a second aquifer in the
area, in the Santa Fe basin
fill, also consisting of a
mix of sand, gravel, silt,
and clay. Depth to water
varies from 50 feet in the
major valleys to over 350
feet in mesa areas. The
regional ground water
flow direction is from the
northeast.
Under Section 1451 of the
1986 Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments, US EPA
is empowered to assist
tribes in wellhead protec-
tion. EPA Region 6
selected the Santo
Domingo Pueblo for a
wellhead protection pilot
program.
Delineation of WHPAs.
The pilot study evaluated
different WHPA mapping
techniques to assess their
appropriateness for the
Pueblo's wells. This
evaluation concluded that
the use of a calculated
fixed radius technique in
this geohydrologic
environment provides a
reasonable level of
protection. In cases where
the hydrogeology is
favorable, and where
financial resources are
unavailable for more
complex and accurate
mapping methods, the
calculated fixed radius is
recommended.
WHPAs were delineated
for two existing wells in
the village area, using the
calculated fixed radius
method with 5- and 50-
year time of travel criteria.
27
-------
WHPAs were also
delineated for two
potential wells. For these
wells, a 900-foot, 5-year
WHPA radius, and a
2,846-foot, 50-year WHPA
radius were used.
Identification of
Contaminant Sources.
Known and suspected
sources of contamination
were identified for the
WHPAs of the two
existing and two potential
wells. Identification
techniques included field
inspections by Pueblo
staff, review of state and
federal permit records,
and interpretation of maps
and aerial photographs.
Non-point sources of
contamination in the
village include family
controlled animal corrals,
ash piles and sewer line
leaks. In the Rio Grande
valley, sources include
irrigation return flows and
other agricultural activities
and on-site wastewater
disposal systems.
Point sources of potential
ground water
contamination include
sewage lagoons, a school,
a commercial center, train
station sewage and solid
waste disposal, active
gypsum and abandoned
uranium mining
operations, underground
storage tanks, a landfill,
and industrial activities.
Transportation corridor
contamination threats
include the Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe
Railroads, Interstate
Highway 25, and State
Highway 22, which are
used to transport
hazardous materials.
Management Approaches.
Management recom-
mendations were
developed to address four
general activity areas. To
control use of hazardous
materials, a ban or
restriction on all
applicable activities within
the WHPAs was
recommended. To
regulate hazardous
materials transport, the
Pueblo could support
regional, state, and federal
initiatives. To control
point source discharges to
ground water, tribal
ordinances could be used.
To control non-point
sources, monitoring,
public education
programs, and wellhead
demonstration programs
were recommended
actions.
In response to the
management options
suggested, the Pueblo took
regulatory action. An
ordinance was developed
to prohibit solid waste
disposal except in the
existing landfill or other
authorized location. The
ordinance also specifies
operating criteria for the
existing landfill and
prohibits future landfills
near the Rio Grande or in
areas with shallow depths
to ground water.
The Pueblo is also
considering adoption of an
ordinance that would
control potentially
harmful activities in
Well!
Criteria: Distance
Threshold: 50 Years
Method : Calculated Fixed Radius
28
-------
WHPAs for both existing
and future wells.
The ordinance includes
control measures for
wastewater disposal,
underground storage
tanks, used oil disposal;
hazardous, toxic, and
radioactive wastes,
agricultural activities,
water supply wells, and
wood processing facilities.
The Pueblo is considering
entering into a joint
powers agreement with
the Health and
Environmental
Department of the State of
New Mexico. The
agreement would make
the Pueblo an investigative
agency, with powers to
investigate and document
cases of illegal septage and
refuse disposal on tribal
lands. The state would be
given the authority to
enforce state environ-
mental regulations on
tribal lands, where
applicable. Through this
agreement, the Pueblo and
the state would work
together to protect water
quality on and off tribal
lands. The Santa Clara
Pueblo has developed a
joint powers agreement
with the New Mexico
Environmental
Improvement Division,
which serves as a model
for other tribe-state
cooperative agreements.
Contingency Planning.
The pilot study reviewed
essential steps in
developing a contingency
plan and recommended
that the tribe develop one
in the future. Since the
study, a contingency plan
has been developed to
provide the Pueblo with
water in the event of
contamination of the main
supply wells.
New Wells. Since
completion of the pilot
program, the Santo
Domingo Pueblo has shut
down an existing well due
to water quality concerns.
The new replacement well
is located in a relatively
undeveloped area
approximately 10 miles
from the Pueblo's village
area.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
The Santo Domingo
Pueblo wellhead
protection program
represents efforts by a
tribe to protect ground
water quality on and off
tribal lands, via
development of a joint
powers agreement with
the State of New Mexico.
The pilot program focused
on delineation of WHPAs
for existing wells as well
as on training Pueblo
officials in delineation and
wellhead protection
measures. The Pueblo has
taken the pilot program
recommendations
seriously and developed
several ground water
protection strategies. The
methodology and
recommendations from
the pilot study may be
transferable to other tribal
lands in the southwestern
United States.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Santo Domingo
Pueblo wellhead
protection program,
contact:
Mr. Del Calabaza
Santo Domingo Tribal
Business Enterprise
P.O. Box 159
Santo Domingo, MM 87052
(505) 465-2838
Major potential
contamination sources
include rail and highway
corridors that cross
Pueblo land. Therefore,
coordination with state
and federal agencies is
required to protect ^
ground water on a
regional basis.
29
-------
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON/PANHANDLE DISTRICT, IDAHO
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
TYPE OF PROGRAM COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Interstate ground water
protection program
through regulatory action
and public education.
The Spokane Valley/
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
spans state and municipal
boundaries. Management
approaches have been
successfully coordinated
across jurisdictions.
Located in eastern
Washington, Spokane lies
approximately 25 miles
from the Washington-
Idaho border. Eastern
Washington is primarily
open, dry land, while the
Idaho Panhandle region
includes forests and
mountains. The Spokane/
Panhandle area is
primarily rural, except for
the metropolitan areas of
Spokane and Coeur
d'Alene. The area includes
several lakes and rivers.
Interstate 90 and several
state highways cross the
region.
Spokane and the Idaho
Panhandle lie over the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer. This
aquifer is a deep sand and
gravel outwash deposit
generated by a
catastrophic outburst of
glacial meltwater during
Pleistocene times. It was
designated a sole source
aquifer in 1978. The
aquifer is unconfined and
has high porosity and
transmissivity.
Over 355,000 people in
Washington and Idaho
rely on this aquifer for
water supply. Depth to
water ranges from 150 to
400 feet, and ground water
flow has been measured at
650 to 1000 cubic feet per
second through the
aquifer. Ground water
flow is generally from
northeast (Spirit and Pend
Oreille Lakes area) to
southwest (discharging to
the Spokane and Little
Spokane Rivers).
Spokane and the Idaho
Panhandle Health District
have been working jointly
since the mid-1970s to
protect regional ground
water quality on the local
level. Although no formal
agreements have been
signed between the two
metropolitan areas, their
cooperation in protecting
shared ground water
resources is a model for
others.
Extent of Recharge Area.
Recharge to the aquifer is
derived from seventeen
watersheds, four adjacent
aquifers, and precipitation.
The Spokane River acts to
both recharge the aquifer
and to receive discharge as
it crosses the region.
30
-------
Management Approaches.
During simultaneous
studies in the City and
County of Spokane and
the Panhandle Health
District in the mid-1970s, it
became clear that the
aquifer was being contam-
inated and degraded by
residential, agricultural,
and commercial activities.
As part of a series of
studies, a 16-month
analysis of 31 wells in the
aquifer revealed wide-
spread nitrate contamina-
tion. The contamination
was linked to an extremely
rapid increase in
population in the area—
new homes relying on on-
site septic systems for
waste disposal.
Spokane and the
Panhandle Health District
developed different
approaches to protecting
the aquifer from further
degradation. In Spokane,
the County Commission-
ers adopted the Aquifer
Sensitive Overlay Zone—
an overlay zoning district
that corresponds with the
physical boundaries of the
aquifer and a portion of
the recharge areas to the
aquifer.
The Overlay Zone
established guidelines for
land use and development
within the area as well as
requirements for the
connection of new
development to either
existing sewers or the
installation of "dry mains"
for future connection to
sewers. If sewers are not
available, new
developments are required
to petition for the
formation of a Utility
Local Improvement
District (ULID). ULIDs
are a version of a special
taxing or utility district
authorized to levy
assessments against
property owners for the
purpose of financing new
sewer line extensions.
The Panhandle Health
District will not grant
permits for on-site waste
disposal on lots less than
five acres in size outside of
RATHDRUM - SPOKANE
AQUIFER
Corporate Boundary
Recharge Area
Surface Water
incorporated cities and
towns. Within
incorporated cities and
towns, the Health District
grants permits for on-site
waste disposal if the
municipality signs a
sewage management
agreement (SMA) with the
District.
The SMA is a key
ingredient in the District's
success in ground water
protection. The SMA is a
civil contract between the
District and the
community. It establishes
a plan—goals and
policies—for septic system
maintenance and
development of
centralized sewage
treatment facilities as
growth and development
increases.
While the above-noted
regulations may be
considered the hallmark of
the Rathdrum/Spokane
case study, both
metropolitan areas have
completed and are
currently developing
many other wellhead and
ground water protection
elements. These include:
coordinating all
individuals involved in
regulating hazardous
materials, managing
31
-------
stormwater (a significant
ground water
contaminant) and solid
waste, educating the
public, and promoting
interagency cooperation
and coordination within
each metropolitan area as
well as between the City
and County of Spokane
and the Panhandle Health
District.
WHAT MAKES
THIS PROGRAM
UNIQUE?
The ground water
protection program
developed by Spokane
County and the Idaho
Panhandle Health District
represents a regional
protection system for a
regional resource.
Implementation of
management measures by
one or the other
jurisdiction alone would
not be effective.
Consequently, the two
jurisdictions have jointly
developed and
implemented regulatory
and non-regulatory
management tools.
PROGRAM
CONTACT
For further information
about the Spokane County
program, contact:
Mr. Stanley Miller
Water Quality Manage-
ment Program
Spokane County Depart-
ment of Public Works
811 N. Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
(509) 456-3600
For further information
about the Idaho Panhandle
Health District program,
contact:
Mr. Ken Lustig or
Mr. Richard Martindale
Panhandle Health
District #1
Environmental Section
2195 Ironwood Court
Coeurd'Alene,ID 83814
(208) 667-9513
Institution of ground
water protection
regulations at the local
level in Idaho was
feasible due to the
existence of a local
regulatory mechanism-
the Panhandle Health
District-established in
1971.
32
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquifer
Aquitard
Best Management Practices
Buildout Analysis
Community Planning Area
Confined Aquifer
Developable Lot Analysis
Down-Dropped Basin/Bolson
Fixed Radius Method
Geographic Information System (GIS)
Overlay Protection District
Perched Water Table
A saturated geologic formation capable of yielding significant quantities of
water to wells or springs.
A saturated but low permeability geologic formation that is not capable of
yielding significant quantities of water to wells or springs.
Operating procedures used in a specific agricultural, commercial or indus-
trial process to reduce the risk of environmental contamination.
An analysis of the total amount of development that could occur in a speci-
fied land area, such as a wellhead protection area, according to present land
use regulations and natural environmental constraints (e.g., steep slopes,
wetlands).
A subset of a county, city, or town that is subject to specific planning pro-
grams and regulations (e.g., wellhead protection ordinances). Many commu-
nity planning areas are also those portions of a county or municipality within
which growth and development is encouraged due to available infrastruc-
ture such as water, roads, and sewer facilities.
An aquifer bounded above and below by aquitards, thus there is no free
ground water surface.
See Buildout Analysis.
A large depression into which water drains, causing the depression to fill
with sediments. Portions of the sediments constitute aquifers.
A method of delineating wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) that establishes
a protection zone that is a uniform distance from the wellhead in all direc-
tions. The distance from the wellhead (i.e., the radius) may be chosen
arbitrarily or calculated based on ground water time of travel.
A computer-based data management system that facilitates the concurrent
overlay and comparison of information from different environmental and
community data bases.
A process whereby specific use regulations are adopted for the purpose of
protecting ground water quality and quantity. The regulations are adopted
as an overlay district, such that uses located on land within this district.must
comply with regulations specified in both the underlying zoning district and
the overlay protection district.
A water table above an impermeable bed, separated from an underlying
main body of ground water by an unsaturated zone.
33
-------
GLOSSARY (continued)
Permeability
Phosphorus Loading Analysis
Porosity
Protection Zone
Recharge Zone
Regional Water Budget
Saturation Development Level
Secondary Containment
Sole Source Aquifer
Spine Area
Storativity
The capacity of a porous medium to transmit water.
A quantification of the total mass of phosphorus resulting from land use
activities in a given area. Phosphorus sources typically include sewage
effluent, lawn fertilizers, agricultural fertilizers, road and roof runoff and
precipitation. A loading analysis involves summing the total mass of phos-
phorus from these sources in order to predict the impact of their discharges
on ground water and surface water quality. Phosphorus is typically consid-
ered a contaminant in surface waters because excess quantities can accelerate
the growth of unwanted algae and aquatic plants.
The ratio of the volume of small openings in soil or rock to its total volume;
usually expressed in a percentage.
The land area determined to provide recharge to a public drinking water
supply well, designated on maps and usually regulated by ordinance as to
allowable land use and activities. Protection zones may comprise all or a
portion of a WHPA.
The area of land above an aquifer that allows infiltration of water to recharge
an aquifer.
A method of accounting for all water inputs and outputs to a regional
aquifer system.
The total number of lots or structures that can be developed in a given area
according to present or proposed land use regulations.
A system or mechanism to prevent the release of a substance (e.g., chemicals,
wastes, or leachate) despite failure of a primary containment system. For
example, a landfill may be constructed with at least two liners; the second
liner acts as a secondary containment mechanism in the event that leachate
escapes the first liner.
An aquifer that is the sole or principal source of drinking water, as estab-
lished under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and that if
contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health.
The center of the peninsula comprising the Eastern Shore of Virginia that
supplies the majority of recharge water to the lower aquifers on the penin-
sula. -Protection of this area is important to maintain a high quality of water
in the wells that pump from the lower aquifers.
The ability of an aquifer to release water from or take water into storage,
expressed per unit of surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head.
34
-------
GLOSSARY (continued)
Theis Analytical Model
Time of Travel (TOT)
Transmissivity
Unconfined Aquifer
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA)
A mathematical model used to calculate the extent of water drawdown
caused by the pumping of a well. The extent of drawdown can be used in
delineating a wellhead protection area for the well.
The time required for a contaminant to move in the saturated zone from a
specific point to a well.
The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of the aquifer
under a given hydraulic gradient.
An aquifer characterized by the absence of an aquitard above it, so that the
water table forms the upper boundary and is free to move with atmospheric
influences such as precipitation.
Areas designated by state or local governments for limited development or
other protection to prevent ground water contamination. WHPAs are often
located around public drinking water wells or recharge areas and may be
35
-------
EPA REGIONAL GROUND WATER OFFICES
Ground Water Management Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(617) 565-3600
Ground Water Management Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5635
Office of Ground Water Protection
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-2786
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 257-3866
-------
EPA REGIONAL GROUND WATER OFFICES
Ptlfcm
RICO
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
? ***
G9»
Ground Water Management Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building (WPG)
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3600
Ground Water Management Section
(Room 842)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5635
Ground Water Protection Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-2786
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3866
-------
EPA REGIONAL GROUND WATER OFFICES (CONTINUED)
Ground Water Protection Branch
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1490
Office of Ground Water Protection
Division
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7033
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-6446
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 Eighteenth Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1600
Water Management Division
Ground Water Protection Section
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1831
Ground Water Section
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1216
Office of Ground and Drinking Water
Ground Water Protection Division (WH-550G)
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
EPA REGIONAL GROUND WATER OFFICES (continued)
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1490
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-6446
Office of Ground Water Protection
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7033
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 Eighteenth Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1703
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1831
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 399-1216
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7077
-------
------- |