United States
        Environmental Protection
        Agency
           Office of Water
           4606
EPA816-R-97-007
April, 1997
&EPA
STATE SOURCE WATER
ASSESSMENT AND
PROTECTION PROGRAMS
GUIDANCE
            DRAFT GUIDANCE

-------

-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                       APR  -4  1997
                                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                                           WATER
Dear Colleague,

       I am pleased to transmit a copy of the draft State Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs guidance which EPA has prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections
1453 and 1454 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in August, 1996. I ask that
you provide us any comments you may have on this draft by June 13, 1997.

       The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA establish the Act as an environmental law, better
integrated within itself.  The new law goes beyond a simply regulatory approach to add a new
"prevention" orientation, one that seeks to prevent problems by increasing public water systems'
capacity to provide safe drinking water, and by protecting the source waters frpm which we draw
our drinking water. As the report of the House Commerce Committed on the 1996 Amendments
states, the new law "creates a new program under which States exerting primacy must ponduct an
assessment of source water areas.... to determine the [susceptibility] of sources of drinking water"
to contamination.   In addition to these State source water assessment programs, the amendments
provide many options and substantial funding for States to undertake source water protection
programs and activities.

       What may not be evident on the face of the law, but is vital to how it functions, is the
extent of the linkages among different parts of the law. These linkages,  together, create almost a
tapestry of provisions, integrated across the whole program. For example, the source water
assessments will be critical to implementation of the ground water disinfection rule as well as for
permanent monitoring relief.  Furthermore, these assessments will assist the watershed
approaches now being implemented in the States, as well as programs under the Farm Bill and
other federal statutes, to better focus these programs to protect public health through protecting
the nation's source waters.  In the same way, effective capacity development programs are
necessary to the success of the provisions for small system variances and exemptions, and efforts
for technical and compliance assistance.  Thus, because the amended SDWA now functions in an
integrated way, the prevention programs in general — and source water assessment and protection
in particular — are critical to the effective operation  of many of the regulatory provisions and new
flexibilities in the law.
                                                                 Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
       We plan to continue our consultation process by engaging all stakeholders in many ways
to facilitate a full discussion of this draft guidance. This draft reflects comments on an October,
1996 draft of a discussion guide on this topic, comments on a December 27, 1996 final discussion
guide, results of the January 7/8 national source water protection stakeholders conference, and
the March 13/14,  1997 meeting of the Source Water Protection Working Group of the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council. Each Region will be holding stakeholder meetings in April and
May so as many stakeholders as possible can participate in discussions. We will also meet with a
workgroup of regional office and State representatives, and in early June will meet again with the
Source Water Protection Working Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. We
plan to publish the final guidance on or before the statutory deadline of August 6, 1997.

       I look forward to receiving your comments on the draft guidance. Please send them to
Comment Clerk, Water Docket MC-4101, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C., 20460.
                                               Robert Perciasepe
                                               Assistant Administrator
Enclosure

-------
       Draft Guidance for

   State Source Water Assessment
     and Protection Programs
  PREVENT ON
Draft          2           Draft

-------

-------
                            CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1   Overview of Source Water Protection
           and the Safe Drinking Water Act

Chapter 2   Draft Guidance for State Source Water
           Assessment Programs

Chapter 3   State Source Water Protection Programs
           Including Petition Programs and Drinking Water
           State Revolving Fund

Chapter 4   Relationship Between Source Water Assessments
           and the Public Water Supply Supervision Program

Chapter 5   Coordination of SWP and Other EPA
           and Federal Programs

Appendices
   14
   40
   55
   62
   83
 Draft
                                                                   Draft

-------
                  Chapter 1

     Overview of Source Water Protection
                  and the
          Safe Drinking Water Act
Draft
                                        Draft

-------
                    Overview of Source Water Protection
                        and the Safe Drinking Water Act
Purpose of this Document

The purpose of this document is to publish a
draft of the guidance required by the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of
1996 (P.L. 104-182) for State Source Water
Assessment Programs (Section 1453) and for
Source Water Petition Programs (Section 1454).
The SDWA Amendments require the
Administrator to publish guidance for these
provisions by August 6, 1997. This document
also describes EPA's recommendations for what
should be the elements of a State Source Water
Protection Program. Finally, the document
describes how other EPA and Federal programs
can assist States in developing and
implementing assessment and protection
programs and vice versa.

Background

Public drinking water supplies have always been
key to the location and development of
communities. The public water supply of a
community often defines and directs its growth.
Historically, the location of a good source of
drinking water was a key factor in determining
the location of centers of population.  Indeed,
 safe drinking water was essential to the quality
 of community life because of the link between
 public health and the quality of the public water
 supply.

 We can look at our own history to see how
 important a safe, adequate source of water has
 been to the development of our country. Early
 settlements were charted, in part, according to a
 ready supply of water for drinking, irrigation,
 and farming. Jamestown, Virginia, located on
 the beautiful James River, offers one example of
the importance placed on maintaining a clean
source of water. Indeed, Jamestown's Governor
Gage, in 1610, proclaimed:

    There shall be no man or woman dare
    to wash any unclean linen, wash
    clothes,... nor rinse or make clean any
    kettle, pot or pan, or any suchlike
    vessel within twenty feet of the old
    well or new pump. Nor shall anyone
    aforesaid within less than a quarter
    mile of the fort, dare to do the
    necessities of nature,  since by these
    unmanly, slothful, and loathsome
    immodesties, the whole fort may be
    choked and poisoned.

 Today States, municipalities and water suppliers
 are primarily responsible for protecting the
 drinking water supplies of their citizens.  Most
 use several tools for this activity, including
 wellhead protection, watershed protection, and
 reservoir management. Actions have also been
 taken on the Federal level to protect water
 supplies.  For example, the Clean Water Act
 ensures protection of surface waters designated,
 in part, for use as drinking water. Other
 environmental laws—the  Safe Drinking Water
 Act (which includes the Wellhead Protection
 Program, the Sole Source Aquifer Program, and
 the Underground Injection Control Program),
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental
 Response Compensation and Liability Act
 (CERCLA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
 and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—provide
 authorities, financial support, and technical
 assistance to protect sources of drinking water,
 especially ground waters.
  Draft
                                                                                        Draft

-------
  EPA's Source Water Protection Goal
 Past Accomplishments
  As a result of the 1996 amendments to the
  SDWA, source water protection has become a
  national priority.  Accordingly, a source water
  protection goal is included in EPA's draft
  "Environmental Goals for America With
  Milestones for 2005," which was released on
  January 27, 1997 for a 2-month review by all
  State environmental-related agencies, all tribes,
  and Federal agencies.  It is EPA's draft goal that
  "by the year 2005, 60 percent of the population
  served by community water systems will
  receive their water from systems with source
  water protection programs in place."

  How is the nation going to accomplish this
  goal? First, we will build on past
 accomplishments that resulted from the 1986
 amendments,  such as Wellhead Protection
 Programs and Sole Source Aquifer Programs, as
 well as successes with monitoring waivers and
 treatment exemptions based on the existence of
 source water protection efforts.

 Second, we will build on other key foundations
 such as EPA's Watershed Approach,
 Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
 Programs, the Toxic Release Inventory,
 pollution prevention and community-based
 initiatives as well as those of other Federal
 agencies like the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture's (USDA) Conservation Reserve
 Program.

 Third, we will maximize the use of the new
 tools and resources provided under the 1996
 SDWA amendments, with its emphasis on
 public involvement and new State Source Water
 Assessment Programs, which should lead to
 State Source Water Protection Programs.  Also,
 the amendments provide States an
 unprecedented opportunity for source water
 assessment and protection programs to use new
 funds from the new Drinking Water State
 Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program for eligible
 set-aside activities.
 Prior to the 1996 SDWA, EPA emphasized
 ground water and wellhead programs and the
 Watershed Approach to protect source waters.
 The approval of State Wellhead Protection
 Programs was a core component of this effort as
 well as the formation of multiple partnerships
 with agencies and associations that had an
 interest in source water protection, such as the
 States, the National Rural Water Association,
 the American Water Works Association, the
 National Association of Towns and Townships,
 the National Association of Counties, the
 League of Women Voters, and the Groundwater
 Foundation.  From these partnerships grew
 public information networks and information
 sharing.  The EPA Community Source Water
 Protection Mentor Project, which will provide
 individual mentors to facilitate the
 implementation of protection efforts in
 communities, was established, and the Clean
 Water Act Section 106 and 319 programs were
 put to new uses.   The Sole Source Aquifer
 Program was used to protect major underground
 sources of drinking water, and Comprehensive
 State Ground Water Protection Programs have
 been a vehicle for focusing contaminant source
 control programs on the protection of drinking
 water sources. The Watershed Approach also
 has provided a means to better focus water
 pollution control efforts on the protection of
 drinking water supplies.  Watershed protection
 tools and information have been developed and
 broadly disseminated to communities through
 such vehicles as the Internet and through two
 highly successful national conferences. States,
 such as Massachusetts and Illinois, and large
 systems, such as Portland, Boston, Seattle, and
New York, have developed extensive watershed
protection approaches to protect then- drinking
water supplies from potential contamination as a
way to ensure the highest quality water and to
reduce treatment  costs.
Draft
                                                                                        Draft

-------
SDWA Amendments of 1996—New
Resources and Tools for Source Water
Protection

The SDWA Amendments establish the Act as an
environmental law, integrated within itself. It
goes beyond a simply regulatory approach,
focused on detecting and remediating existing
contamination problems, to add a new
"prevention" approach that seeks to prevent
problems by increasing both public water
systems' capacity to provide safe drinking water,
and the protection of the source waters from
which we draw our drinking water.

There are linkages among different parts of the
law which together, create almost a tapestry of
provisions, in which the prevention programs
are integrated with,  and are in fact essential to
the success of, the new regulatory flexibilities in
the amendments.

The amendments embody the concept that new,
responsible regulatory flexibility (within a
baseline of national protection) is appropriate, if
triggered by sound information on relevant local
conditions.

For instance, in monitoring, States can provide
flexibility to systems, but it must be based on
occurrence data and good science of each
system's hydrogeology. In variances, States can
let small systems achieve less than full
compliance with the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWR), but the variances
must be based on consistent judgments on
affordability and a full analysis of compliance
alternatives.

The new prevention approach in the
Amendments has two key elements:

 •  A clear State lead, with flexibility and
    resources to achieve results. This is
    necessary because prevention is ultimately
    about land use and water management,
    which belong at the State and local levels,
•  A strong ethic of public information and
   involvement within the States' decision-
   making processes.

The SDWA requires States to establish and
implement Source Water Assessment Programs
(SWAP) which includes both of these elements.
EPA, both in Headquarters and in the Regions,
is committed to successful assessments
including providing assistance to the States to:

•  Ensure that, in each State, the State programs
   use the amount of funding from the DWSRF
   set-aside necessary to do a solid job on the
   assessments.

•  Stretch the assessment dollars by working to
   get the strong involvement of all capable
   participants and contributors who can take an
   appropriate part in the assessments.

•  Encourage networks for exchange of
   information about models for assessments
   that have worked for States, communities,
   and water suppliers in other areas.

•  Identify and help use other applicable or
   useful sources of information that can plug
   into or serve for the assessments, as the law
   provides.

In the area of source water protection, the  law
represents a real, national commitment to try the
flexible, state-driven prevention approach.
There is great flexibility for States to shape their
own source water protection programs, with the
funding available under the DWSRF program
set-aside provision, Section 1452(g)(2)(B). This
provision enables States to adopt source water
protection programs that fit the needs and
conditions of each State.

These source water assessment and protection
provisions of the Amendments create powerful
incentives to do many activities, including
voluntary ones—because other parts of the law,
 Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 including regulatory ones, simply won't work as
 well without them.

 The same integrated incentive principle
 applies in the area of capacity. Here, the
 Amendments seek to improve water
 systems' ability to meet the challenging
 tasks of SDWA by requiring States to
 prevent the formation of new systems that
 lack capacity, and to develop a capacity
 development strategy, a plan for a State
 program to boost the technical, financial and
 managerial capability of water systems
 reliably to deliver safe drinking water. The
 law's requirements here for States, though
 important, are limited.

 But the capabilities States can develop in
 their strategies are essential to make other
 parts of the law work. Like source water
 protection, achieving increased capacity
 through improved management of the water
 resources and/or physical infrastructure
 (including ensuring certified operators run
 the systems), can head off compliance
 problems that will cost far more to fix than
 the management improvements did.  Also, to
 give small system variances and exemptions,
 the Amendments require States to make
 complex and demanding decisions on
 whether restructuring and water supply
 alternatives are affordable for the systems
 that apply for variances or exemptions. To
 make these decisions — of great importance
 to many systems - States will need an
 information base and analytic methodologies
 for water and system management, both of
 which they can build in framing their
 capacity development strategies. These are
 equally valuable tools for evaluating the
problems of systems in non-compliance, and
for targeting technical  assistance to systems
most in need of help.
 Source water and capacity have a couple of
 fundamental linkages in common, too. One
 obvious linkage is to the DWSRF, which
 enables States to set aside sufficient funds
 for these prevention activities. The annual
 Intended Use Plan that must be prepared for
 the set-aside funds is the drinking water
 program's opportunity to make the public
 case for these prevention activities. But the
 Amendments only require the States to
 prepare the source water assessment
 program and capacity development strategy
 once, which means this will be the one time
 State programs are assured of getting set-
 aside funds for these purposes.  Thus, States
 need to be sure that  the actions they propose
 are the right ones to equip them to make
 these linkages ~ and the other SDWA areas
 that depend on them ~ work.

 The second common linkage is public
 participation. A consistent theme in the new
 law is that States have both new flexibility
 and resources to tailor programs to State
 needs and conditions, especially in the
 prevention area, and the obligation for
 public information and involvement to
 ensure that States' choices respond to their
 constituents' needs and conditions.

 The Benefits of Public Involvement in
 Developing the Source Water Assessment and
 Protection Programs and in Other Aspects of
 SDWA Implementation.

 The 1996 Amendments include a number of
 provisions for public awareness and
 involvement.  For example, EPA is to develop a
regulation for community water suppliers to
provide an annual consumer confidence report
that includes information on each system's
source waters. States  are required to involve the
public in developing SWAPs (Section 1428(b)),
and the actual source water assessments for
Draft
                                   Draft

-------
PWSs will be made available to the public, in
addition to information on contaminant
occurrence and violations.

Involving the public in source water
assessments and protection programs offers
States and localities the opportunity to channel
the energies of an increasingly informed public
into efforts to protect their water supplies. It is
critical to increase public involvement over the
next several years in the actual development of
the State SWAP programs in order to build a
base of support for using the assessments once
completed.  Stakeholder involvement would
assist States to clearly define goals for and
design of the assessments; that is, the design for
how the inventories and the susceptibility
analyses will be accomplished, within a
comprehensive approach that includes
protection programs. For example, if a Sate will
be taking set-asides from the DWSRF for source
water protection, stakeholders involved in
developing the assessments could also assist the
State to determine the best use of those set-
asides.

Assessment Programs

Chapter 2 of this draft document provides
guidance to States by explaining a new Section
 1453 of the  SDWA for State Source Water
Assessment Programs. States with Public Water
Supply Supervision (PWSS) primacy must
submit source water assessment programs to
EPA for approval. States must submit their
program to EPA no later than 18 months after
EPA publishes final guidance. A State program
 is automatically approved 9 months after
 submittal to EPA unless EPA disapproves the
program.

 A State Source Water Assessment Program
 (SWAP) must: (1) delineate the boundaries of
 the areas providing source waters for public
 water systems, and (2) identify, to the extent
 practical, the  origins of regulated and certain
 unregulated contaminants in the delineated area
to determine the susceptibility of public water
systems to such contaminants. Assessments are
to be completed for all public water systems
within 2 years after EPA approval of the State's
program. EPA may extend this period up to 18
months taking into account funds made
available to the State under the DWSRF.  States
must make the results of the source water
assessments available to the public. To avoid
duplication, assessment programs may make use
of sanitary surveys, State wellhead protection
programs, pesticide State management plans,
State watershed approaches including efforts
under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, and
efforts under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Clean Water Act).

For a State to tailor alternative monitoring
requirements for public water systems under a
new permanent monitoring relief authority
(Section 1418(b)), a State must have an EPA
approved SWAP. Any public water system
seeking alternative monitoring requirements
under a State's permanent monitoring relief
authority must be in a delineated Source Water
Protection Area (SWPA) with a completed
source water assessment.

Each assessment for a SWPA is intended to be
as stated hi the statute, "for the benefit and
protection of the public water systems" (Section
 1453(aXl)), that is for the purpose of
developing a source water protection program to
protect the drinking water for that area. Indeed,
an assessment is essentially the first three steps
of a full prevention program: delineating the
 SWPA, inventorying of the significant potential
 sources of contamination, and understanding the
 susceptibility of the public water system(s) in
 the SWPA to contamination.  The assessment,
 therefore, is a snapshot of the problems and/or
 potential problems for source waters and/or
 public water systems.  The assessment,
 however, should lead to, or be done
 simultaneously with other actions which
 complete a prevention program: forming a team,
 an early warning system for the PWS through
 Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 monitoring for actual contamination in the
 source waters so significant potential sources of
 contamination can be monitored, implementing
 management measures for sources of
 contamination, and contingency planning. The
 assessments should be a strong basis for States
 and localities to move toward a full prevention
 program. Consequently, assessments are a tool
 for further efforts not a complete process in and
 of themselves. Congress explicitly recognized
 this in the numerous statutory references to the
 further application of the Section 1453
 assessments.

 To be effective tools, however, SWAPs do need
 to be measured for success. The basic measure
 of State performance in implementing a SWAP
 is whether a State completes the program as
 described in a State's approved program.  That
 is, SWAP performance will be measured, in
 part, on a State-by-State basis given the State's
 approved program goals, policies, and timetable
 and processes during implementation.  Program
 completion is when all local assessments are
 accomplished.

 However, because EPA's goal  is to implement
 full source water protection programs for 60
 percent of the population served by CWSs (144
 million Americans) by the year 2005, EPA will
 also be measuring whether States and localities
 are implementing prevention programs separate
 from our measurement regarding whether States
 are implementing SWAP.  EPA will be tracking
 progress towards achieving this goal, if finalized
 as a part of the Agency's effort to implement the
 "Environmental Goals for America with
 Milestones for 2005." Efforts to achieve this
 goal will encourage the States to participate and
 afford their public water systems the
 opportunity to get State assistance with source
water protection; but such participation is not
required by the SDWA amendments.  Progress
toward achieving this goal can readily be
measured without additional burden on States or
 localities, as States would need to describe any
      protection programs when seeking protection
      funding under the DWSRF set-asides.

      Source Water Protection and Petition
      Programs

      While these programs are voluntary, EPA
      believes that States should plan for protection
      programs simultaneously as they plan for and
      implement their SWAPs.  This simultaneous
      planning provides both the efficient use of
      taxpayers' SWAP funds and accountability to
      the States' constituents regarding productive use
      of SWAP-generated information. In particular,
      States will likely use current information on the
      hydrology and hydrogeology of different
      regions of the State to determine the degrees of
      detail that will be appropriate in assessments to
      support protection program options that are
      being considered. Protection programs will
      likely be necessary to provide local flexibility
      on monitoring relief, ground water disinfection,
      regulation of Class V Underground Injection
      Control wells,  and filtration.

      Chapter 3 of this document explains that States
      have many options to consider in developing
      source water protection programs that go
     beyond their required assessment program
      including: statewide or localized Source Water
     Protection programs; Wellhead Protection
     Programs; innovative local, partnership
     approaches;  and petition programs of various
     types. There are various ways States can use
     Federal, State,  and possibly private funding
     sources to develop each of these different
     approaches.  Some States may prefer to develop
     statewide Source Water Protection programs
     using one process and structure. Other States
     may decide to allow each locality to create
     approaches that include voluntary incentive-
     based mechanisms using State and Federal
     resources differently depending on the results of
     the assessments.
Draft
10
Draft

-------
The Petition Program is an entirely voluntary
incentive-based approach.  States may establish
the petition program specified in the statute to
receive, approve, and respond to petitions from
a public water system operator/owner or local
government entity to assist in the development
of voluntary local incentive-based partnerships
to (1) reduce the presence of contaminants, (2)
provide financial or technical assistance
requested, and (3) develop recommendations for
voluntary, long-term source water protection
strategies. [Section 1454 of the SDWA]

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) and Other Financing

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund can
be used to finance the variety of source water
assessment and protection activities described
above.  This includes three possible set-asides:
(1) up to 10 percent for a State to administer or
provide technical assistance for source water
protection programs within the State;  (2) up to
15 percent for more than one of several source
water protection activities (i.e., land acquisition/
easements, voluntary protection and petition
activities, source water assessments and
wellhead protection); and (3) up to 2 percent for
additional technical assistance to rural PWSs.
Of special note, DWSRF funds (i.e., part of
the 15 percent set-aside) for source  water
assessments will not be available to States
after the FY 1997 allotment.

States must match, dollar-for-dollar, the  10
percent set-aside noted in number 1 above
though they may be able to substantially apply
certain existing spending to meet the match
requirements. For the latter two set-asides, the
 15 percent and 2 percent, there are no separate
State match requirements. The States are
required to provide a 20 percent match for the
entire DWSRF capitalization grant to a State
(see the final DWSRF Guidelines for a full
description of this 20 percent match
requirement).
     DWSRF funds can also be used for public water
     system activities that may complement source
     water protection, such as operator certification
     and system capacity building.  The new SDWA
     amendments also contain separate provisions
     —not funded through the DWSRF pro-
     vision—with funding authorizations for
     Wellhead Protection Programs (WHP),
     Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
     Programs (CSGWPPs), and the Underground
     Injection Control (UIC) Program. However,
     appropriations for the WHP and CSGWPP
     programs were not provided in FY 1997, and
     UIC funding levels will likely remain at that of
     previous years. Additional financial support for
     local source water protection activities may be
     available under Clean Water Act Section 319
     grants to State nonpoint source programs or
     Section 106 or 604 (b) programs, and there may
     be opportunities for targeting the resources of
     other programs, such as Pesticide State
     Management Plans or USDA Farm Bill
     conservation programs, to support source water
     protection efforts. As they evaluate SWP
     options, States may want to formulate programs
     to access these funding sources.

     SWP and Other Public Water Supply
     Supervision Program Implementation Efforts

     Chapter 4 explains how we plan to continue our
     efforts to incorporate source water assessment
     and protection actions into the basic regulatory
     and programmatic functions of the PWSS
     Program.  These linkages are essential to
     ensuring that prevention efforts lead to better
     quality finished water.  When increasing
     systems' capacities, certifying operators,
     conducting sanitary  surveys, reforming
     monitoring,  improving small system operations,
     or implementing standards, public water system
     managers have an essential opportunity to
     ensure that prevention efforts  are enhanced by
     each of these components of the overall
     drinking water protection program. For
     example, information on significant potential
     contamination sources and on susceptibility of
 Draft
TT
                                                                                          Draft

-------
systems for delineated source water protection
areas derived from the assessment process
should help States target systems for additional
or reduced monitoring.

Source Water Assessment and Protection and
the Watershed Approach

The development of State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs offers a
unique opportunity to integrate not only
drinking water programs so that they operate in
a coordinated fashion, but also to integrate
drinking water, clean water, coastal, solid and
hazardous waste, agricultural and other
environmental management programs so that
they work together to better protect public
health and the environment while reducing
duplication of effort and program costs. The
watershed approach provides a framework in
which to achieve better program integration,
improved identification of the highest priority
problems, and increased stakeholder input.  The
watershed approach focuses Federal, State,
tribal, and local government programs and
citizen efforts for environmental and public
health management within hydrologically
defined geographic areas, taking into
consideration both ground and surface water
flow. While watershed approaches may vary in
terms of specific objectives and resources, they
should emphasize partnerships (with the people
most affected by management decisions); a
geographic focus; and scientific data, tools, and
techniques. Many States are developing
strategies for watershed management. Source
water assessment and protection programs
should be an integral component of these
strategies.

Operating and coordinating programs on a
watershed basis makes good sense for
environmental, financial, social, and
administrative reasons. For example, by jointly
reviewing the results of assessment efforts
undertaken for source water protection, total
maximum daily loads, State water quality
inventories, volunteer monitoring, State
nonpoint source programs, and other aquatic
     resource protection programs, managers from
     all levels of government can better understand
     the cumulative impacts of various human
     activities and determine the most critical
     problems within each watershed. Using this
     information to set priorities for action allows
     public and private managers from all levels to
     allocate limited financial and human resources
     to address the most critical  needs. Establishing
     environmental indicators helps guide activities
     toward solving those high-priority problems and
     measuring success in making real world
     improvements rather than simply fulfilling
     programmatic requirements.  Besides driving
     results towards environmental benefits, the
     approach can result in cost  savings by
     leveraging and building upon the financial
     resources and the willingness of the people with
     interests in the watershed to take action.
     Through improved communication and
     coordination, the watershed approach can
     reduce costly duplication of efforts and
     conflicting actions.

     Finally, the watershed approach strengthens
     teamwork between the public and private
     sectors to achieve the greatest environmental
     improvements with the resources available.
     This emphasis gives those people who depend
     on the aquatic resources for their health,
     livelihood, or quality of life a meaningful role in
     the management of the resources.  Through such
     active and broad involvement, the watershed
     approach can build a sense  of community,
     reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the
     actions necessary to meet societal goals and,
     ultimately, improve the likelihood of sustaining
     long-term environmental improvements.

     SWP and Other Federal/State Agency
     Programs

     In Chapter 5, we explain how delineating source
     water protection areas, inventorying significant
     potential sources of contamination in those
     areas, and doing susceptibility analyses, can
     provide benefits to other EPA programs (e.g.,
     Nonpoint Source Program), and Federal
     programs (e.g., the Department of Agriculture's
Draft
12
Draft

-------
water quality efforts, the Departments of
Energy's and Defense's Federal facilities
operations, and others). For example,
delineating SWPAs will enable these programs
to identify where the high-priority source water
protection areas are located. Also, as
assessments are completed, these other Federal
programs (and in some cases State programs),
will be able to reset priorities for prevention
efforts to reduce or eliminate contaminants
flowing into PWS wells or intakes. For some
PWSs, this could mean significant increases in
efficiency through both reduced monitoring and
reduced need for new or more expensive
treatment technologies. The delineated SWPAs
will also certainly increase the awareness of
Federal and State managers of other programs
that action in these areas should be a high
priority for the protection of human health.

EPA Assistance to States and Localities in
Implementing Source Water Assessments,
Protection Programs and Petition Programs

EPA has many resources to assist these
programs. For example, a comprehensive
listing of all Wellhead Protection Technical
Assistance Documents and how to secure them
is described in a document titled "Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
Publications" (EPA 810-B-96-001). Other
documents and information on source water and
wellhead protection are available at OGWDW's
Internet homepage found at
[http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW]. Another
compendium now available  on the Internet
[http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/tools/] is
titled "Watershed Tools Directory: A
Collection of Watershed Tools" (EPA 841-B-
95-005). These documents are available by
calling the Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-
4791. There are several forthcoming documents
on delineation methods such as "State Source
Water Protection Area Delineation Methods For
Surface Water Drinking Water Supplies,"
"Delineation of Source Water Protection Areas:
An Integrated Approach For Ground and
Surface Waters," "Case Studies For the
Conjunctive Delineation of Ground-
    Water/Surface-Water Source Water Protection
    Areas," and a "Compendium of Wellhead
    Protection Area Delineation Documents."

    In addition, over the next 2 years, EPA will be
    sponsoring with other organizations, source
    water assessment/protection conferences/
    meetings. One meeting in 1997 will be a
    conference with the National Governors'
    Association and five other State Executive
    Branch Organizations. In addition, tentatively
    scheduled for the spring of 1998, there will be a
    conference titled, " Source Water Quality and
    Protection: Delineation, Monitoring and
    Effectiveness."

    Conclusions

    Source water assessment and protection
    programs provided for under the 1996
    amendments to the SDWA offer opportunities
    and tools to protect drinking water at its source.
    The process of producing this guidance includes
    a wide array of stakeholders from other Federal
    agencies, States, local governments, water
    providers, businesses and environmental and
    citizen groups. We are fully engaging these
    groups in many ways and hope this is a model
    for how the Agency will do business in the
    future. (See Appendix A.)
 Draft
13
Draft

-------
                 Chapter 2

    Draft Guidance for State Source Water
            Assessment Programs
Draft
14
Draft

-------
                                Chapter 2 Contents
                                                                                     Page
Introduction

A.    What is an Approvable State Program Submittal — What should be included?

B.    Adequate Public Participation in Developing and Implementing the State
      Source Water Assessment Program

C.    Adequate Delineations Under Approved State Source Water Assessment Programs
       —Delineating Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs)

D.    Adequate Contamination Source Inventories and Susceptibility Analyses Under
      Approved State Source Water Assessment Programs

E.    Adequate Assessments) for Boundary Rivers, Multi-State Rivers and the Great
      Lakes and EPA's role in assisting States Accomplish These Assessments

F.    Adequate Policies for How States Will Make Source Water Assessments Available
      To The Public — Understandable Assessments (Maps, Lists) and Other Procedures

G.    Linking Assessments to Protection Programs

H.    Process for Submitting the State Source Water Assessment Program Submittal
      and for Program Implementation

I.     Tribal Organizations Are Encouraged to Develop and Implement Source
      Water Assessment Programs

J.     The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund — Financing Source Water Assessments
      Through The DWSRF and Other Programs

K.    "Complete" State Source Water Assessment Programs and a "Complete" Local
      Source Water Assessments
             s
L.    Reporting Requirements for State Source Water Assessment Programs

M.    Updating the Assessments

N.    Conclusions
                                           17

                                           17

                                           20


                                           21


                                           25


                                           29


                                           30


                                           32

                                           32


                                           35


                                           35


                                           38


                                           38

                                           39

                                           39
Draft
15
Draft

-------
                                      Appendices
A.    Outreach Process for Notice and Comment by Stakeholders

B.    Process for State Submittal and Implementation of Source Water
      Assessment Programs

C.    Enhancing Topographic Delineations for Source Water Protection Areas

D.    Conjunctive Delineation of the Zone of Ground Water Contribution and
      the Area of Surface Water Contribution to Public Water Systems

E.    Potential Sources of Contamination Found In Wellhead Protection Areas
      and In Watersheds

F.    Factors to Consider When Doing an Adequate Contamination Source
      Inventory and Adequate Susceptibility Analysis

G.    What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local Source Water Assessment?

H.    Timetable for Certain Actions Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments

I.     Glossary of Terms

J.     Requirements and EPA Guidance for Implementing Section 1453 of the
      Act for State Source Water Assessment Programs                    ;

K.    List of Acronyms            .                           •'••;.
                                         Page

                                            83

                                            85


                                            86

                                            88


                                            90


                                            92


                                            94

                                            95

                                           102

                                           104


                                           107
Draft
16
Draft

-------
    Draft Guidance for State Source Water Assessment Programs
Introduction

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1996, P.L. 104-182, includes a
provision adding a new Section 1453 to the Act
requiring States to develop, submit to EPA, and
implement, once approved, Source Water
Assessment Programs (SWAPs). .These
required State SWAPs are to be submitted to
EPA no later than 18 months after EPA
publishes this guidance in final (August 6, 1997
or before). The State SWAPs are then required
to complete source water area delineations and
source inventory/susceptibility analyses for the
public water supplies in the State within 2 years
after EPA approval of the program (unless
extended). Many localities have begun to
delineate Source Water Protection Areas
(SWPAs) (e.g., watershed areas and wellhead
protection areas), but mapped source water
assessments should be done as described here in
Chapter 2.

States are also required to involve the public in
developing their SWAPs and to make the
assessments for public water supplies available
to the public. In doing so, EPA hopes that such
information will encourage the development and
implementation of complete  Source Water
Protection (SWP) Programs which incorporate
the SWAP steps of delineation, source inventory
and susceptibility analyses, but add the.
establishment of local teams, source
management, and contingency planning. (See
Chapter 3 for descriptions and means for
supporting these additional steps of a complete
SWP Program.)

The core purpose of the source water
assessments in any SWPA is to provide a strong
basis for developing, implementing, or
improving source water protection actions in
    that SWPA.  Considering the many other
    programs of the SDWA specifically and hi other
    environmental laws (detailed in the preceding
    section) whose success depends upon the
    assessments, EPA strongly recommends that
    assessments should not be viewed as activities
    done for their own sake, but should be used to
    protect source waters and meet other SDWA
    requirements.
    A. What is an Approvable State Program
    Submittal—What should be included?

    All States with primacy under the Public Water
    Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program are
    required to submit State SWAPs to the EPA for
    approval. The time frames and processes for the
    submittal are described in Section H of this
    chapter and in a schematic at Appendix B.

    An approvable State program is a State
    submittal that meets all the requirements under
    Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
    and includes as necessary for the State's
    stakeholders, other information requested as
    described in this chapter.  States must include
    in their submittal the following information:

    •  Required Delineations. Describe the
       approaches and criteria or benchmarks for
       the delineation of the geographic areas
       (SWPAs) that constitute the source of water
       to each Public Water System in the State.
       (See Section C below for details on what
       must be in a submittal.) The State should
       also describe how maps for all delineated
       areas will be developed and maintained.
Draft
17
Draft

-------
 •  Required Contamination Source
    Inventories and Susceptibility Analyses
    for Public Water Systems.  Describe the
    approaches and criteria or benchmarks for
    completing an inventory, to the extent
    practical, of significant potential sources of
    contamination that lie within each of the
    delineated SWPAs. Also for each SWPA
    delineated, an analysis must be provided in
    the submittal of the relative potential for a
    PWS (the well or the intake) to draw source
    water contaminated by significant potential
    sources inventoried.  Factors to be
    considered include hydrogeologic con-
    ditions, characteristics of the contaminant
    sources, and any mitigation practices in
    place. (See Section D below for details on
    what must be in a submittal.)

 •  Required Public Involvement in
    Developing Assessments and Public
    Availability of Assessments. Describe how
    the State will involve the public in the
    establishment and implementation of its
    SWAP and the process for making
    completed source water assessments for each
    public water supply available to the public
    (See Sections B and F for details).

 •  Required Discussion of Any Linkage to
    Source Water Protection. The overall
    program must also include a description of
    any plans to structure a SWAP  to link to any
    State or local Source Water Protection
    Programs a State is or will be developing,
    and if there are no such plans for a protection
    program, a statement to that affect.

 States may include a:

 •  Description of the Overall Program for
   Undertaking the Above Efforts. This
   should include brief descriptions of goals;
   priorities; targeted completion dates;
   resources to be committed including any set-
   aside funds from the State's Drinking Water
   State Revolving Fund; the roles and
        responsibilities of State government
        agencies, local governments, water
        purveyors, citizen groups, and any other key
        stakeholders; and the use of other Federal,
        State and local programs in completing these
        assessments.  The overall program should
        clearly indicate when the assessments will be
        completed, whether a possible extension
        beyond 2 years after program approval may
        be needed and when a State will update its
        assessment (including more sophisticated
        and complete delineations, source
        inventories and susceptibility analyses based
        on rules EPA will publish during the period
        after the initial assessments are completed).

     (Note: When describing policies in a submittal,
     a State should describe what it will be doing;
     For example, which type of delineation method
     it will be using. When describing processes, the
     State should describe how it will implement the
     policy.)

     1.  Specific Contents of an Approvable State
        Source Water Assessment Program
        Submittal

     To be approved, a State submittal must describe
     the following information, not necessarily in
     this order:

     •  Description of how a State achieved public
        participation in developing its submittal
        (Adequacy Criteria described in Section B).

     •  Policy and processes for delineating SWPAs
        for systems, ground water, surface water, or
        both (Adequacy Criteria described in Section
        C).

     •  Policy and processes for contamination
        source inventories and susceptibility
        analyses (Adequacy Criteria described in
        Section D).

     •  Policy and processes for how the States will
        do assessments for SWPAs (i.e.,
Draft
18
Draft

-------
delineations, inventories, and susceptibility
analyses) for boundary rivers, multi-State rivers
and the Great Lakes (Adequacy Criteria
described in Section E).

•  Policy and processes for how a State will
   make each assessment available to the public
   (Adequacy Criteria described in Section F).

•  Timetable and priorities (phasing plan) for
   completing statewide the delineations,
   contamination source inventories, and
   susceptibility analyses for each SWPA. (See
   Section H.)

•  In addition, a State submittal must be
   consistent with the State's DWSRF Intended
   Use Plan under Section 1452 and provide a
   description of whether the State plans to
   implement a Source Water Protection
   Program (SWP) or local SWPs within
   SWPAs, or if the State is not planning to
   implement such a program, a statement that
   it will not do so. This SWAP submittal must
   also include the more detailed language of its
   workplan for any SWP set-asides.  As 1453
   (a)(l) makes  clear, a major purpose of the
   SWAP  is "for the protection ...of Public
   Water Systems." EPA cannot properly
   evaluate whether a SWAP ultimately will be
   effective unless the State describes the
   linkage to future SWP efforts.  Therefore, to
   be approvable, a SWAP must include such a
   discussion or a statement that the State isn't
   going to do a protection program.

 Furthermore, EPA strongly encourages a State
 to include  in its submittal the following
 information:

 • Goals for the State Source Water Assessment
   Program.

 •  State and Local Roles and Responsibilities
    for the  Source Water Assessments. If a State
    will delegate some of the aspects of
    assessments, the submittal should include a
       description of how, to whom and what
       aspects of SWAP implementation the State
       will delegate, and a definition of delegation.
       States and delegated entities may involve
       any other appropriate groups under State law
       to do the assessments.

     •  Policy and processes for coordinating State
       environmental agencies and offices.

     •  Policy and processes for coordination with
       Tribes and other States in accomplishing
       assessments for surface and ground waters
       that flow across or under political
       boundaries.

     •  Description of future efforts to coordinate
       environmental programs with other Federal
       programs that will be asked to assist the
       State with the assessments, such as
       coordination with the DOI United States
       Geological Survey, U.S. Department of
       Agriculture Farm Bill programs, or
       coordination with Federal land management
       agencies for cross-boundary/cross
       jurisdictional situations. (See Chapter 5.)

     • How the State will finance the Assessment
       Program (See Section J).

     • Description of the process the State will use
       to report the results of the SWAP program
       assessments to EPA (See Section L).

     • Description of the process the State will use
       to update the assessments to take into
        account final Safe Drinking Water Act rules
        (See Section M).

     2. Options for Formatting a State SWAP
        Submittal

     States and EPA Regions should negotiate a
     format for the submittal.  The submittal can be
     in any format so long as it includes the
     information noted in this chapter under
     "Specific Contents of an Approvable State
 Draft
79-
                                                                                           Draft

-------
 Source Water Assessment Program Submittal."
 Formats can range from something similar to a
 Wellhead Protection Program submittal to such
 other options as:

 •  A report to the public; or

 •  A public report to the State legislature,
    Governor, or a State Commissioner/
    Secretary.

 Other formats are also possible.  The key is that
 the format must supply the information that
 EPA needs in order to determine if the submittal
 is complete and adequate.  The format should
 also be useful to the State in attaining public
 participation in developing the program and iii
 implementing the program once EPA approves
 it.

 B. Adequate Public Participation in
    Developing the State Source Water
    Assessment Program.

 The purpose of the public participation process
 is to build public support and responsibility
 among the public for then- local water supplies
 in each SWPA.  Therefore, to achieve this goal,
 EPA will require the States to develop and
 implement a public participation process for
 developing and implementing a SWAP: This is
 consistent with the statute at Section 1428 (b)
 which requires, "To the maximum extent
 possible, each State shall establish procedures,
 including but not limited to the establishment of
 technical and citizens advisory committees, to
 encourage the public to participate in
 developing the protection program for wellhead
 areas and source water assessment programs
 under Section 1453.  Such procedures shall
 include notice and opportunity for public
 hearing on the State program before it is
 submitted to the Administrator."

 Prior to submitting the State's Source Water
Assessment Program submittal to EPA, a State
must:
 •  Conduct public hearings or public
    workshops, focus groups, or meetings around
    the State with prior dissemination of
    invitations and basic infonnation about the
    issue in an understandable format to widely
    representative groups as well as general
    public notice to ensure broad and informed
    participation.                      ;

 •  Convene a technical advisory committee and
    a citizens advisory committee.  An advisory
    committee would include, but not be limited
    to, public interest groups, public health
    groups (e.g., medical associations),
    vulnerable population groups (e.g., elderly,
    transplant patients, dialysis patients,
    chemotherapy patients, people living with
    HIV/AIDs), groups representing business
    (e.g., agricultural businesses and chemical
    manufacturers and small business), local
    governments, tribes, land conservation
    groups, and others.  A State should provide
    opportunities for these groups to participate
    but not be inhibited from program
    development or implementation should any
    group decide not to participate.
    Opportunities should be provided for wide
    and effective advance notice of the
    involvement process; wide distribution/
    availability of decision planning documents
    with adequate tune to review; meaningful
    and substantial opportunities to provide
    detailed comments representative of all
    interested sectors; and provision of direct,
    genuine feedback from State program
    officials.

Other options a State might want to consider
include:

•  Internet conferences; or

•  Series of conference calls for all stakeholders
   to comment on the draft State program
   submittal; or

•  Other outreach actions.
Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
Whichever options it chooses, a State should
include in its submittal a responsiveness
summary showing how the public's comments
and opinions were used in developing the
submittal. These should be full, written
responses on the record to all significant
comments, specifying agreement, disagreement,
and substantive reasons for each.

To the extent that:

    (1) a State has implemented one or both of
   the requirements for public participation
   during development of its Wellhead
   Protection Program and/or Watershed
   Approach, or when developing only the
   ground water or only the surface water
   programs; and

   (2) these programs included delineations,
   source inventories, and susceptibility
   analyses similar to the adequacy criteria in
   this draft guidance;

the State needs to accomplish these participation
requirements again only for those SWAP
functions it has not previously performed with
the required participation.

Once EPA has approved a State's SWAP
submittal and the State begins implementation,
EPA strongly encourages a State to continue to
work with its technical committee and its
citizens committee to provide advice to the State
as the assessments are being accomplished.
These committees will provide valuable
linkages to the stakeholders within the State as
assessments are completed and made available
to the public. In addition, these committees can
advise the State on how to use the assessments
 in implementing prevention programs and
 improving treatment methods.
C. Adequate Delineations Under Approved
   State Source Water Assessment
   Programs—Delineating Source Water
   Protection Areas (SWPAs)

The statute at Section 1453 (a)(2)(A) requires
that States must "delineate the boundaries of the
assessment areas in such State from which one
or more public water systems in the State
receive supplies of drinking water, using all
reasonably available hydrogeologic information
on the sources of the  supply of drinking water in
the State and the water flow, recharge, and
discharge and any other reliable information as
the State deems necessary to adequately
determine such areas."

An approvable State  SWAP submittal must
include descriptions of the policies and methods
that will be pursued in delineating Source Water
Protection Areas (SWPAs) for:

•  Public water systems based solely on
   ground water;

•  Public water systems based solely on
   surface water;

•  Public water systems using both ground
   and surface water, or systems using
   ground water that is connected  to surface
   water, (i.e., under the influence of surface
   water).

EPA encourages States to accomplish these
delineations in a cost-effective manner and to be
realistic in scope to facilitate contamination
source inventories and susceptibility analyses
(as described below) that will lead to effective
source water protection efforts. EPA realizes
that the cost of doing delineations may vary
significantly by the size and hydrogeologic
characteristics  of the area. States have the
option to set different delineation policies, i.e.,
use different delineation methodologies for
different sizes and types of Public Water
 Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 Systems.  Thus, options for State phasing of
 delineations include, but are not limited to:

 •  Starting with large in-state surface water or
    ground water systems and gradually doing
    delineations for smaller systems;

 •  Starting with community water systems and
    then doing delineations for non-transient
    non-community systems, and then doing
    transient non-community systems; or

 •  Conducting more detailed system-specific
    assessments for community water systems,
    and less detailed assessments or a regional
    approach for non-community systems.

 1.  Adequacy Criteria for Ground Water Eased
    Public Water Systems

 EPA defines source water protection areas for
 ground-water based systems as synonymous
 with "Wellhead Protection Area" as defined in
 Section  1428(e).

 States -with Approved Wellhead Protection
 Programs under Section 1428 of the SDWA

 Delineations of Wellhead Protection Areas in
 States with approved programs are adequate for
 ground water-based systems. States are
 encouraged to update their delineations to
 ensure that they will  lead to increased protection
 ofPWSs.

 •  These delineations are based on one or a
   combination of the delineation
   methodologies described in EPA's
   publication titled  "Guidelines for
   Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas"
   published in June 1987.  EPA does not
   mandate any particular method, but States
   must follow the methods in their EPA-
   approved Wellhead Protection  (WHP)
   Programs as required under Section 1428.
   These States should consider modifying,
   where necessary, the WHPA delineations to
         take full advantage of regulatory flexibility
         to be offered by EPA in the future and to
         improve protection of public water supplies.

      States without Approved Wellhead
      Protection Programs Under Section 1428

      These States must also delineate the wellhead
      protection areas for public water systems based
      on ground water. Each State in its Source Water
      Assessment Program submittal must describe its
      policy for conducting these delineations. These
      States may adopt any policy of another EPA-
      approved State Wellhead Protection Program or
      create a new policy consistent with the methods
      in the EPA's "Guidelines for Delineation of
      Wellhead Protection Areas" which is based on
      Section 1428.

      States should recognize that EPA is planning to
      promulgate, over the next several years, a
      number of rules that will provide regulatory
      flexibility based, in part, on specific
      delineations of SWPAs and the absence or
      adequacy of managing relevant sources of
      contamination within those areas.  States should
      consider modifying, where necessary, the
      delineation approaches under their EPA-
      approved WHP Program to ensure increased
      protection of public water supplies and to take
      full advantage of the regulatory flexibility to be
      offered under these emerging rules:

      •  Ground Water Disinfection Rule.  EPA is
        currently developing a proposed rule
        regarding the requirements for disinfection
        by public water systems using ground water
        sources.  The Agency is considering the
        presence of adequate management of any
        potential source of pathogen within a
        specified distance from the drinking water
        well(s) as a factor in determining which
        systems would not have to disinfect.
        Regulatory specificity on this point will
        require further analysis. Thus, it is possible
        that microbial source setbacks adopted by
        approved State WHP Programs may not
Draft
22
                                                                                         Draft

-------
reflect scientific understanding of the long-term
viability of some viruses in ground water when
the new regulation is promulgated.

•  Underground Injection Control Rule for
   Class V Wells. EPA is considering a rule
   that will allow the States flexibility to focus
   their Class V  (i.e., shallow injection wells
   that inject wastes into or above an aquifer)
   regulatory efforts on  those injection wells
   located within WHPAs of community water
   supplies as delineated under a State's EPA-
   approved WHP Program.

•  Chemical Monitoring Reform Rule.  EPA
   plans to release in 1997 a proposed rule to
   replace current requirements for chemical
   monitoring by community water systems.
   Under the proposed approach, how often a
   system needs to take samples can depend, in
   part, on the size of the protection area where
   relevant sources  are absent or adequately
   managed. For example, reducing the
   sampling frequency from once every 3  years
   to once every 5 years may require source
   water area information generated by the
   delineation of a 5 year time-of-travel WHPA.

2. Adequacy Criteria for Surface Water Based
   Public Water Systems

For systems based solely on surface water, a
policy to delineate topographic areas as SWPAs
must be included in the State's SWAP submittal
in order to be approved (except as described in
Section E below). States will have the
flexibility to  decide the size of the geographic
areas for each of these Source Water Protection
Areas.  EPA recognizes that States are in the
best position to decide upon the most
appropriate scale for each SWPA. Thus, States
may use varying hydrologic, hydrogeologic,
and management criteria in determining the
protection area for any Public Water System.
Appendix C lists possible criteria to use when
developing or enhancing SWPAs for surface
water-based systems.  However, when setting a
    delineation policy, a State should consider
    existing or new regulations such as the
    forthcoming Chemical Monitoring Reform
    Rule, Guidelines for Permanent Monitoring
    Relief, the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
    Rule and the Class V UIC Rule.

    A Topographic Boundary Delineation Method

    A State Submittal must define the types of
    topographic boundaries that will be used to
    delineate SWPAs.  These boundaries should fall
    into one of two categories: watersheds, or
    watershed areas.   Topographic boundaries are,
    irrespective of scale, defined by the elevation of
    the land.

    A topographic boundary of a watershed
    (Figure 1, next page) is the perimeter of the
    catchment area of a stream. Analogously, a   ,
    topographic boundary of a subwatershed is the
    perimeter of the catchment'area of a tributary of
    a stream. The distinction between a watershed
    and a subwatershed is purely one of
    nomenclature. That is, the catchment area of a
    tributary is both the watershed of the tributary
    and a subwatershed of the main stream. Thus,
    the occurrence of one watershed (subwatershed)
    within another may be thought of as nested
    watersheds. (Note, however, that the catchment
    area of any stream that drains directly to an
    ocean is always considered a watershed,
    because, by definition, the stream is not a
    tributary of another stream.) The topographic
    boundary of the area contributing to a PWS is
    the perimeter of the catchment area that is
    upslope of the PWS intake, that is, the upslope
    watershed-area.
 Draft
23
Draft

-------
            Figure 1. A Watershed
A topographic boundary of a watershed-area
(Figure 2) is delineated on a topographic map by
the drawing of a line connecting the highest
points uphill of the intake, from which overland
flow drains to the intake. This area is composed
of the land and the surface water (i.e., lake,
reservoir, tributaries and streams) upgradient of
the drinking water intake.
                                                   3. Adequacy Criteria for Systems Using Both
                                                      Ground Water and Surface Water

                                                   For systems using both ground water and
                                                   surface water, or systems using ground water
                                                   that is connected to surface water (i.e., under the
                                                   influence of surface water), a State's SWAP
                                                   submittal must include a policy that will ensure
                                                   that WHPAs are delineated for public water
                                                   wells and topographic areas are delineated for
                                                   the surface water sources.
                                                     Figure 2. Watershed Area
                                                   4.  Consideration of Ground Water
                                                      Hydrogeologic Connections To Surface
                                                      Water When Finalizing Delineations of
                                                      Public Water Systems Based Mostly on
                                                      Surface Water

                                                   EPA strongly encourages States to consider the
                                                   ground water impacts on surface water when
                                                   delineating SWPAs for Public Water Systems
                                                   based mostly on surface water. SWPAs should
                                                   include zones of surface water contribution and
Draft
24
Draft

-------
zones of ground water contribution to public
surface water supplies. The consideration of
both surface water contribution areas and
ground water contribution areas during the
delineation process is termed "conjunctive
delineation". Conjunctive delineation is defined
as the line bounding the combined areas of
surface water contribution and of ground water
contribution to a water-supply intake/well or
other site of interest; the process of defining this
boundary requires the delineation of the zone of
ground water contribution and the area of
surface water contribution to the site of interest.
(For further discussion of conjunctive
delineation, the reader is referred to Appendix D
of this document.)

Protection of public water supplies that are
supplied by surface water "should recognize that
ground water (via base flow to streams) is
generally also a component, possibly a major
one (and during some parts of the year, possibly
the only component), of streamflow" (Ginsberg,
1997, in progress).

D. Adequate Contamination Source
   Inventories and Susceptibility
   Analyses Under Approved State Source
   Water Assessment Programs

The statute at Section 1453 (a)(2XB) requires
that States must "identify for contaminants
regulated under this title for which monitoring is
required under this title (or any unregulated
contaminants selected by the State, hi its
discretion, which the State, for purposes of this
subsection, has determined may present a threat
to public health), to the extent practical, the
origins within each delineated area of such
contaminants to determine the susceptibility of
the public water systems in the delineated area
to such contaminants."

/.  General Policies

In an approvable State SWAP submittal, a State
must include a policy that ensures that once the
    SWPA boundary is established for a public
    water system or systems, an inventory, to the
    extent practical, of significant potential sources
    of contaminants will be completed for the
    delineated area. In addition, a State must
    describe its policy for conducting susceptibility
    analyses to determine the susceptibility of the
    public water system(s) in each SWPA. A State
    must also list in its SWAP program  submittal
    the contaminants for which it will be doing an
    inventory of significant potential sources of
    contamination.

    The purpose of this inventory is to (1) ensure
    that the land uses or activities that could
    potentially degrade water quality are identified,
    and (2) evaluate, to the extent practical,  the
    relative potential for pollution of the Public
    Water System(s) posed by identified
    contamination sources. The inventory, in other
    words, needs to show specifically where the
    significant potential sources of contamination
    are located relative to the well(s) or intake(s) so
    a susceptibility analysis can be conducted.

    The purpose of the susceptibility analysis is to
    determine, with a clear understanding of where
    the significant potential sources of
    contamination are located, how susceptible is
    the Public Water System(s) in the SWPA to
    contamination from these sources. This analysis
    will assist the State in determining which
    potential sources of contamination are
    "significant." This analysis can also be used to
    establish a SWP program and prioritize
    management actions to control sources of
    contamination.

    Indeed, an analysis of the risks from the
    inventoried significant potential sources of
    contamination  is the only way for a State to
    make the inventory useful for reasonable
    decisions regarding source water protection
    programs and other possible uses. By including
    the language in section 1453(a)(2)(B) "to
    determine the susceptibility of the public water
     systems in the  delineated area," to the identified
 Draft
25
Draft

-------
 contaminants, Congress recognized that the
 inventory would not be useful without analyzing
 whether the identified sources of contaminants
 may, in fact, pose threats to the public water
 supply. The legislative history further indicates
 that a SWAP is intended to include an analysis
 of potential threats to public water systems from
 the inventoried sources. In describing the link
 between the information in the assessments and
 source  water protection programs, the House
 Committee report described such programs as
 "designed to protect source waterfront threats
 identified during the assessment" (emphasis
 added). Simply identifying significant potential
 sources of contamination does not in itself
 determine which of them may present threats to
 drinking water, or, which are priorities to
 manage in order to protect drinking water. A
 scientific analysis of the hydrogeology and/or
 hydrology, an understanding of the
 contaminants, and an analysis of the
 effectiveness of existing prevention and
 mitigation measures are essential so States can
 credibly apply the assessment results to source
 water protection and monitoring and other
 regulatory flexibility, as Congress intended.
 An analysis of the risks from these sources,
 described as a "susceptibility" analysis in
 Section 1453 (a)(2)(B), is therefore a required
 part of each SWAP, and thereby for each
 assessment in a SWPA.

 Appendix E is a listing of potential
 contamination sources found in Wellhead
 Protection Areas and a separate list of potential
 sources found in watersheds.  However, for any
 particular Wellhead Protection Area or
 watershed, many of these sources, and their
 contaminants, may not be present.

 Which Contaminants Should be the Focus of An
 Inventory and for the Susceptibility
Analysis ?

 The significant  potential sources of
 contamination to be included in the inventory
 are those that release or could release
      contaminants regulated under the SDWA for
      which a maximum contaminant level has been
      promulgated or for which monitoring is
      otherwise required under the SDWA. In
      addition, States may inventory significant
      potential sources which have at their location,
      contaminants which are Federally unregulated
      under the SDWA, but for which the State, in its
      discretion, has determined may present a threat
      to public health.

      For the purposes of this guidance, determination
      of the threat to public health could be based on
      the extent to which unregulated contaminants)
      are known to cause, or are suspected of causing,
      cancer, birth defects, or any other adverse effect
      on human health according to nationally
      accepted guidelines.  If a State will use nori-
      Federally regulated contaminants in its
      inventory, the State should define in its program
      submittal the methodology used for determining
      that Federally unregulated contaminants are a
      "threat to public health."

      (Note: EPA recognizes the possible
      complexity of these requirements and invites
      comments on ways to implement them
      efficiently.)

      2. Adequate Contamination Source
        Inventories

      The purpose of these inventories is to ensure
     that each PWS and the consumers of the
      drinking water know what sources could be
     releasing contaminants that may end up at the
     treatment plant.  In WHPAs, Federal and State
     program policies usually require an inventory of
     "all current and potential anthropogenic sources
     of contaminants that can effect public health".
     The "Assessment" provision of Section 1453
     requires that the inventory include
     contamination sources "to the extent practical."

     EPA defines "to the extent practical" to mean
     that States must inventory sources of
     contamination to the extent they have the
Draft
26
Draft

-------
technology and resources to complete an
inventory for a Source Water Protection Area
delineated as described in the guidance. All
information sources should be used,
particularly previous Federal and State
inventories of sources.

States should define in their submittal that a
"contamination source inventory" is a listing of
all "significant potential sources" of
contamination of source waters, whether those
source waters are ground waters or surface
waters. Appendix F lists factors to consider
when conducting a contamination source
inventory.

A State should define in its submittal
"significant potential" sources of contamination
in the State. A State should define a
"significant potential source of contamination"
as a facility or .activity that stores, uses, or
produces chemicals or elements, and that has
the potential to release contaminants identified
in a State program (contaminants with MCLs
plus any others a State considers a health threat)
within a SWPA in an amount which could
contribute significantly to the concentration of
the contaminants in the source waters of the
public water supply. This includes existing
sources of contamination in SWPAs such as
Superfund sites,  National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permittees,
RCRA sites, and others.

A State should also describe in its submittal
how assessments will explain why some
potential contamination sources were not
included in the inventory of contamination
sources. That is, when some potential sources
of contamination are determined by the State
not to be "significant," and therefore not in the
inventory, the State should explain why those
potential sources are not a "significant potential
source of contamination" so it is clear to the
public why the State has made the decisions it
made in establishing the inventory for each
Source Water Protection Area.
We encourage States to set up community
volunteer programs that can accomplish low-
cost inventories using credible groups within
each SWPA to do the inventories such as the
elderly through RSVP programs or younger
people such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.
In addition, States and localities are encouraged
to use all current databases to accomplish these
contamination source inventories and
susceptibility analyses and to seek help from
EPA and other Federal agencies in locating
additional existing data sources.

When making.the inventory available to the
public as part of the assessment, States, for
"significant potential sources of contamination,"
should, where appropriate so that the inventory
will enhance protection of sources of drinking
water:

•  For point sources: identify the name of the
   owner and the street address.

•  For nonpoint sources: identify either (1) the
   name of the owner and street address or (2)
   describe the geographic area where the
   nonpoint sources are located.

States may show the  public the sources in the
inventory on a map, or in a listing. This also
applies for nonpoint sources, which could be
described on a map by identifying the areas or
in a narrative description. See Section F for
more specific information on mapping.

Ground Water-Based Public Water Systems

•  States -with Approved Wellhead Protection
   Programs. Source inventories completed
   under a State's EPA-approved Wellhead
   Protection Program (WHP) should be
   considered adequate so long as they are
   consistent with a State's policy for
   inventories in their approved Wellhead
   Protection Program. However, EPA
   encourages States to update local Wellhead
   Protection Program inventories that are now
 Draft
                                                                                           Draft

-------
 incomplete and thereby hinder protection of
 Public Water Systems.

    EPA expects that the 43 States which have
    Wellhead Protection Programs will continue
    to maintain and implement their
    contamination source inventory policies in
    their approved programs.

 •  States Without Approved Wellhead
    Protection Programs. These States must
    also do a source inventory for all delineated
    SWPAs under an approved Source Water
    Assessment Program. These States, in their
    Source Water Assessment Program
    submittal, should describe their policy for
    conducting these source inventories. These
    States may adopt any policy of another State
    that has an EPA-approved program or create
    a new policy consistent with the methods in
    EPA's "Guidelines for Conducting
    Contaminant Source Inventories For Public
    Drinking Water Supplies," published in
    December 1991 and based on Section 1428
    of the SDWA. As noted above, these source
    inventories may need to be modified to
    provide the flexibility intended under
    existing or future public water supply
    regulations (e.g., Enhanced Surface Water
    Treatment Rule, Chemical Monitoring
    Reform, or the final Ground Water
    Disinfection Rule).

Surface Water-Based Public Water Systems

For most of these systems, a contamination
source inventory must be accomplished in the
entire delineated SWPA for significant potential
sources of contamination. There are, however,
certain source waters for which "practical"
contamination source inventories may be
focused on sources in "critical areas." These
areas are defined as areas where there is high
and reasonable potential for impacting intakes
withdrawing water from a major river system
(e.g. the Mississippi River, Illinois River, Ohio
River, etc.) or the Great Lakes.
     Public Water Systems With Ground Water and
     Surface Water Sources
                                  i
     The requirements of both of the sections above
     apply to these systems.
     3. Adequate Susceptibility Analyses

     States are required to conduct a susceptibility
     analysis for each delineated SWPA.  States may
     want to accomplish these analyses for
     Community Water Systems (CWSs) differently
     than non-CWSs. System-specific data and
     analyses are necessary for CWSs;  a more
     generalized level of analysis, covering multiple
     hydrogeologically similar systems, could be
     appropriate for many non-CWSs.

     In an approvable State SWAP submittal, a State
     must include a policy that describes what is a
     susceptibility analysis for each delineated
     SWPA. The susceptibility analyses are
     intended, as the statute says,  "to determine the
     susceptibility of the public water systems in the
     delineated area to such contaminants." The
     contaminants referred to are those described
     above in subsection D. 1,  Thus, these analyses
     measure the susceptibility of wells or intakes to
     contamination from inventoried sources in the
     SWPA.

     Each State program submittal should include a
     description of how it will accomplish a
     susceptibility analysis, which is defined as
     determining the relative potential for the Public
     Water System(s) to draw water contaminated by
     the sources in the inventory or have the
     potential to contaminate the sources for a
     SWPA taking into account hydrogeologic
     factors, characteristics of the contaminant and
     the contaminant sources, and the existence and
     effectiveness of any mitigation measures.

     States should take full advantage of analyses
     done when they delineated wellhead areas or
Draft
28
Draft

-------
assessed surface waters. States may also have
aquifer and other ground water-related
vulnerability maps that should assist in meeting
this requirement.

Thus, States may use already collected data,
rather than collect new data on characterizations
of ground water or surface waters. States,
however, may need to do susceptibility analyses
for new SWPAs or new WHPAs delineated for
Non-CWSs. These areas may be somewhat
large, in which case, a susceptibility analysis
may only require some data manipulation from
current State maps and data bases.

A susceptibility analysis does not necessarily
require modeling or monitoring in the source
waters to determine which potential sources of
contamination are significant. While current
information may be used for these analyses,
EPA strongly encourages States to review the
results of the analyses to determine if PWSs are
being classified susceptible or not in light of the
hydrogeology and hydrology of the SWPAs.
However, EPA encourages States to undertake
such modeling and monitoring (taking
advantage of other resources for monitoring
than those available through the DWSRF),
where necessary to provide the basis for good
source management measures.
E. Adequate Assessments) for Boundary
   Rivers, Multi-State Rivers and the Great
   Lakes and EPA's Role in Assisting States
   Accomplish These Assessments

1. Role of the States

To be approvable, a State SWAP submittal must
include a description of how they will delineate
SWPAs, conduct an inventory of contamination
sources, and conduct a susceptibility analysis
for that portion of a boundary river, the Great
Lakes, or Multi-State river that is within their
State borders.
     To meet this requirement, States can, for these
     water bodies, do these required actions in either
     of the following two ways.

     (1)   For each intake ofacommunityora non-
          transient non-community water supply on
          a river, the State must designate a critical
          area upstream of each intake, and for each
          of these critical areas, conduct the
          delineation, inventory and susceptibility
          analysis and make the resulting
          assessment available to the customers
          relying on that public water supply.

          {A "critical area" is an area where there
          exists a high and reasonable potential for
          significantly impacting intakes
          withdrawing water from a major river
          system (e.g. Mississippi River, Illinois
          River, Ohio River, etc.) or the Great
          Lakes.}

     (2)   For the entire portion of the watershed in
          the State, the State delineates,
          inventories, and conducts a susceptibility
          analysis.

     States may want to do a susceptibility analysis
     first to see which potential sources of
     contamination are in a critical area near the
     water body and whether those sources could
     pose a significant risk to the water system.
     Sources of contamination that pose a significant
     probability of risk would be "significant
     potential sources of contamination" and would
     thereby be in the inventory for that SWPA's
     critical area.

     While not a delineation technique, and therefore
     optional, States should describe in their
     submittal the "contingency planning" policy
     they have for these water bodies in case of spills
     or other emergencies. In addition, States may
     want to describe any multi-state agreements or
     organizations hi which they participate or which
     will be established to create these contingency
     plans. For example, the States of Pennsylvania,
Draft
29
Draft

-------
 Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia could
 describe how they participate with each other
 through Ohio River Valley Water and Sanitation
 Commission (ORSANCO).

 States should consult closely with local
 stakeholders (particularly governments) to get
 their perspectives on the scope, focus and level
 of effort that would lead to the best assessments.

 2. EPA'sRole

 EPA, working through the Regions, will
 strongly encourage cooperation among States to
 accomplish compatible and complementary
 source water assessments in a watershed that
 includes numerous States or countries. Many
 States already participate in multi-State
 organizations for protecting rivers or lakes that
 cross State boundaries. While these efforts are
 voluntary on the part of the States, EPA, based
 on requests from the States, can facilitate
 discussions and provide regional assistance.
F. Adequate Policies for How States will
   Make Source Water Assessments
   Available to the Public—Understandable
   Assessments (Maps, Lists) and Other
   Procedures

The statute at Section 1453(a)(7) requires that
States "make the results of the source water
assessments conducted under this subsection
available to the public."

In an approvable SWAP submittal, a State must
describe how it will ensure that assessments are
made available to the public, either directly or
through a delegated entity. At a minimum,
States should implement a widespread
notification of availability, such as water bill
staffers, and a free means to obtain a hardcopy
such as postage free return mail cards or a free
call-in number, plus Internet posting and
download access.
     1. Understandable Assessments—Mapping
        Assessment Information, Listings of
        Sources and Narrative Assessment Reports
        Made Available to the Public

     A State should present all information and
     analysis developed for that PWS, to the
     maximum extent possible, in an understandable
     format.

     For assessments to be understandable to the
     public, maps should be created as part of the
     assessment, and those maps should include the
     delineated area and the sources of
     contamination listed in the inventory. The
     susceptibility analysis most usable by the public
     could be in a narrative, but should be presented
     on a map if the results of the analysis can be
     presented understandably in that format. If
     more analysis for a SWPA is accomplished
     (e.g., modeling), susceptibility analyses that can
     be presented on a map in a graphic format
     should be done and made available to the public
     in an understandable way. Maps can either be
     topographic or created through a Geographic
     Information System.

     For significant potential sources of
     contamination listed in the inventory for a
     SWPA, a State should include them on the same
     map as the SWPA delineation in a format
     understandable to the public.
     States that have a protection program goal (s)
     for their SWPAs will want to determine the
     appropriate scale of such maps, and therefore,
     the locational detail, based on that goal.  For
     example, a map may need to identify individual
     underground storage tanks to help target
     resources for pulling tanks or taking other
     prevention actions.  If a State has not defined a
     protection program goal for the SWPA or the
     State,  it must clearly state in this part of the
     assessment that they do not anticipate a Source
     Water Protection Program. In such cases, the
     scale should be as detailed as possible under the
     resources made available to the State for the
     assessment, to make the assessment as useful as
Draft
30
Draft

-------
possible for all potential future purposes
(regulatory flexibility and possible future source
water protection by the State or the PWS).

2. Optional Procedures for Making
   Assessments Available to the 'Public

The assessments should be in a form that is
readily accessible and understandable by the
public.  To accomplish this, States, or the
delegated entities, should make the assessments
available in hard copy or in electronic format
over the Internet. In addition, States should
make every effort to make the assessments
available to be displayed through the National
Watershed Assessment Project (NWAP) and in
the STORET database.  (See NWAP description
in Chapter 5.)

EPA also encourages States to have ah active
outreach effort to inforrii and involve customers
in community efforts to protect their drinking
water sources.   While assessments do not need
to be made available in any particular
timeframe, EPA recommends that when a local
assessment is completed, it should be made
available to the public shortly thereafter. A
reasonable timeframe for release of assessments
to the public should be described in the State's
submittal.

"Making the assessments available" to the
public can be achieved hi many ways.
Therefore, in its program submittal, a State
should describe how it will make each local
assessment available to the public. For
example, a State could describe the process for
making the assessments available to include any
of the following methods below. It could
describe and use one or a combination of
methods:

• Send copi&g of the assessment or a summary
   to the public through request to a hotline,
   either a telephone or on-line computer
   system. Perhaps a Statewide hotline system
   could be established. States could use the
       hot lines or information phone numbers of
       community water supplies.

    •  Send a notice or summary report to each
       customer in his or her water bill advising
       consumers annually or in some other
       timeframe about how to attain a copy or
       view completed assessments. Such a
       procedure would advise all customers that
       the report exists and how it can be obtained.

       The notice could be sent to each customer as
       part of a utility's consumer confidence
       report. These reports are required annually
       and may be the most efficient method to
       send either the assessment or a summary of
       the assessment, or announce the availability
       of the assessment. This would have to occur
       in compliance with the regulations that will
       be published under Section 14l4(c)(4)of
       the Safe Drinking Water Act (as added by
       the 1996 amendments).

    •  Establish an active outreach process to make
       sure each household in the delineated area
       knows about the assessment report's
       availability and how to access it easily. This
       effort could include a Public Water System
       newsletter, or flyer to each household.
       Possibly the local communities affected
       could advertise the availability of the
       assessment in a local newspaper.
       Communities encompassing  Public Water
       Systems could advertize its availability on
       radio or on local cable televisions as well as
       on local government Internet home pages.

    •  Develop a Statewide database of assessments
       and have them accessible through a
       homepage with possible links to other
       ground water and watershed databases.
       Such a database could become  part of EPA's
       National Watershed Assessment Project and
       thereby become accessible through the "Surf
       Your Watershed" Internet system.
 Draft
31
Draft

-------
 •  Briefly summarize the assessments from a
    statewide perspective and note their
    availability of the assessments in the State
    Clean Water Act Section 305 (b) reports.
    These reports are available to the public, and
    the availability of the assessments and how
    to obtain them could be easily described in
    one of the sections of the State report.

 G. Linking Assessments to Protection
    Programs

 As 1453 (a)(l) makes clear, a major purpose of
 the SWAP is "for the protection of Public water
 Systems."  The State itself cannot assess, and
 EPA cannot properly evaluate whether a SWAP
 ultimately will be effective, unless the State
 describes the linkage to future SWP efforts.
 Thus, an approvable State SWAP submittal
 must include a description regarding whether it
 plans to implement a Source Water Protection
 Program (SWP) or local SWPs within SWPAs,
 or if the State is not planning to implement such
 a program, a statement that it will not do so.
 This requirement for State submittals will
 prevent the waste or inefficient use of funding
 on the DWSRF set-asides for assessments by
 ensuring their utility for future purposes as
 intended by Congress and will ensure that clear
 goals for the use of those assessments will be
 stated to the public for review during a State's
 process for SWAP  development.  This
 description should also be consistent with—and
 should assist in clarifying—plans for the
 DWSRF set-asides described in the State's
 Intended Use Plan (IUP), and any work plan
 based on the IUP, as required under Section
 1452. (See Chapter 3 for EPA's descriptions of
 Source Water Protection Programs.)

H. Process for Submitting the State Source
   Water Assessment Program Submittal
   and for Program Implementation

Under P.L.  104-182, the States must submit to
EPA and implement the Source Water
Assessment Program (see Appendix B for the
     process described).  The statutory process to
     follow, as envisioned for EPA Headquarters,
     Regions and States, is discussed below.

     The statute at Section 1453(a)(3) requires that
     "a State source water assessment program under
     this subsection shall be submitted to the
     Administrator within 18  months after the
     Administrator's guidance is issued under this
     subsection and shall be deemed approved 9
     months after the date of such submittal unless
     the Administrator disapproves the program as
     provided in section 1428(c).  States shall begin
     implementation of the program immediately
     after its approval. The Administrator's approval
     of a State program under this subsection shall
     include a timetable, established in consultation
     with the State, allowing not more than 2  years
     for  completion after approval of the program."

     the statute at Section 1453 (a) (4) states that
     the  timetable referred to hi paragraph (a)(3)
     must" take into consideration the availability to
     the  State of funds under section 1452 (relating
     to State loan funds) for assessments and other
     relevant factors.  The Administrator may extend
     any timetable included in a Slate program
     approved under paragraph (3) to extend the
     period for completion by an additional 18
     months."

     /. Outline of the Process For Submitting and
       Implementing a Program

     There are four separate and distinct phases for
     establishing State Source Water Assessment
     Programs:

     • Publishing the Guidance,  EPA must
       publish final Guidance by August 6,1997.

     • Submitting the Program. States must
       submit SWPAs to the  appropriate EPA
       Regional Administrator by February 1999.
       The States must develop programs with
       public participation, as defined in Section B.
Draft
32
Draft

-------
•  Approving or Disapproving the Program.
   EPA must approve or disapprove a State
   program within 9-months after submittal. If
   there is no EPA action in the 9-month period,
   a State program will be deemed approved.  If
   EPA disapproves the program in the 9 month
   period, EPA will negotiate with the State in
   an expeditious manner to ensure that the
   State has an opportunity to develop an
   approvable program. When approving a
   program, the Regional Administrator must
   include a timetable, established in
   consultation with each State, for completion
   of the program.

•  Implementing an Approved Program.
   States must begin implementation
   immediately upon approval. A State must
   complete program implementation within 2
   years of approval unless an extension is
   granted. The Administrator may extend the
   implementation timetable for an approved
   State program up to an additional 18 months,
   based on certain conditions noted below.

•  Completion of the State Source Water
   Assessment Program. States must do
   assessments for all SWPAs delineated in the
   State and should report the results to EPA (as
   described in Section L). EPA also is
   encouraging States to include hi their
   submittals a brief description regarding how
   the State will update the assessments to take
   into account new rules published by EPA
   under other sections of the SDWA
   amendments of 1996. (See Section M.)

2. Timetables For State Submittal
   Development and Post Approval
   Implementation and Policy for Gaining An
   Extension of a Timetable For Implementing
   an Approved SWAP

 In an approvable submittal, a State must
 describe a timetable for implementing and
 completing assessments within the State. A
"complete State assessment" and a "complete
local assessment" are defined in Section K.

The timetable in the submittal must be no more
than 2 years after EPA approves a State
program. However, a State may request, and
EPA may approve, an extension of the time for
completion of assessments up to 18 months after
the original 2-year period. Thus, statewide
completion of the assessments could be a
maximum of 3 Vi years from initial EPA
approval of a State's program.  States that are
continuing to implement Wellhead Protection
Programs, and have been accomplishing
assessment-type work in their local watershed
efforts, will, in essence, be implementing
assessments over a 6 % year period from the
date of enactment which was August 6,1996.

To be approvable, extension requests, to
complete the State's Source Water Assessment
Program, must be made based on:

•  Consideration of the availability to the State
   of funds under the DWSRF under Section
   1452 of the Act. For this reason. EPA
   encourages States to determine how much
   it would cost to do complete assessments
   for their source water protection areas.
   and  then take up to the full 10 percent
   allowed from the FY1997 funds.

   That is, based on its approved program, a
   State must show that additional tune is
   needed to complete the assessments based on
   an analysis of how much DWSRF funding it
   is spending to do the assessments.

 •  Consideration of other relevant factors such
   as statewide or sub-state emergencies such as
   natural disasters.

 But, in no case, can the State be provided any
 more than 18 months more than the completion
 date negotiated in the State's EPA approved
 Source Water Assessment Program.
 Draft
                                                                                       Draft

-------
 For EPA to grant an extension of time to
 complete an assessment program, the State must
 provide to EPA, no later than 18 months into
 program implementation, an extension request
 that describes:

 •  The rationale for requesting an extension
    based on one or both of the criteria described
    above.

 •  A description or estimate of the number of
    delineations, source inventories, and
    susceptibility analyses completed, by SWPA,
    by the end of the 18th month.

 •  Information on the nature of the delineations,
    source inventories, and susceptibility
    analyses accomplished.

 •  A description of how and when the State will
    complete the program within the requested
    extension period.
 3. EPA's Approval and Disapproval
   Process for State Submittal

 • EPA must make a decision on whether to
   approve or disapprove a State's program
   submittal within the first 9 months after the
   submittal.

 • If the Regional Administrator determines a
   program should be disapproved, EPA must
   disapprove a program within 9 months of
   receipt of the program or the program is
   "deemed" approved.

 * If the Regional Administrator disapproves a
   program, EPA must send a written statement
   of the reasons for such disapproval to the
   Governor of the State.

 •  Within 6 months of EPA's written statement
   to the Governor, the Governor or Governor's
   designee must submit a modified program to
   EPA. These State modifications to the
    program submittal should, in part, be based
    upon the recommendations of the EPA.

 •  EPA must then make a decision on whether
    to approve or disapprove a State's re-
    submittal.

 4.  State Delegation of Source Water
    Assessment Responsibilities

 To be approvable, the State must include a
 definition of what "delegation" means if it will
 delegate any aspect of the assessments.  A State
 can implement all assessments or aspects of the
 assessments, delegate the assessments, or
 delegate only aspects of the assessments. If a
 State delegates the assessments or aspects of the
 assessments, the State may delegate
 implementation consistent with State law.
 Delegations could be to:

 •  Local governments, separate or regionally
   based.

 •  Public Water Systems.

 •  Entities that operate local wellhead and
   watershed programs/approaches.

 If a State submittal describes that the State will
 "delegate" any part of implementing its Source
 Water Assessment Program, the State's
 submittal should not only define what
 delegation means in the State, but also include a
 description of what will be  delegated and to
 what entity or entities such delegation will be
 made.

 States must ensure that the program is
 completed under whatever delegation authority
 and procedures it uses.

5.  The State's Submittal to EPA

To be approvable, the State must submit to EPA
its SWAP Program with an  official transmittal
Draft
                                                                                        Draft

-------
letter from any official in the State. For
example, States could submit the program from:

•  The Governor.

•  The State Environmental
   Commissioner/Secretary or Health
   Commissioner/Secretary, or jointly by
   several departmental directors.

•  Whoever the Governor designates, but the
   designee must be identified in writing to
   EPA.

I. Tribal Organizations Are Encouraged to
   Develop and Implement Source Water
   Assessment Programs

While the statute does not explicitly require the
Tribes to implement Source Water Assessment
Programs, EPA recommends that each Tribe
implement a Source Water Assessment Program
to the extent appropriate resources are available
to do so. Tribes can benefit from ensuring that
the public water systems on Tribal lands
implement an assessment program.  Some
Tribes have implemented wellhead protection
activities and watershed approaches. If so, a
Tribe has already begun to delineate its source
water protection areas and likely has begun a
contamination source inventory. These Tribes
 should continue to implement these programs.

 If a Tribe decides to establish and implement a
 program, it should submit it to EPA for
 approval. The process and timetable for tribal
 programs, once submitted to EPA, will be the
 same as described here in Chapter 2 for States.
 We fully expect a Tribe will be able to negotiate
 a timetable for implementation based on its
 resources for the program.

 Because the water bodies which Tribes rely
 upon for their drinking water may flow through
 State lands prior to entering Indian country,
 Tribes may want to consider participation in a
 cooperating capacity on state technical and
citizens advisory committees as described in
Section B of this chapter.

Tribes can finance development and
implementation of a Source Water Assessment
Program in various ways.  One possibility is to
receive funding from the States. Tribes can also
apply for EPA to fund part of their programs
using EPA's discretionary funds, or Tribes can
use Clean Water Act funding available to the
Tribes.

J. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
   (DWSRF) and other Financing For Source
   Water Assessments

For complete discussion of the Agency's
Drinking Water State Revolving fund policies,
the reader should refer to EPA's National
Guidelines for the DWSRF released on
February 28,  1997, which is available by calling
the Drinking Water Hotline.

A State may set aside up to 10 percent of its
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
capitalization grant to do assessments for public
water systems hi accordance with Section 1453
of the 1996 SDWA amendments. Unlike other
source water protection activities eligible for
DWSRF assistance, funds for delineations and
assessments under Section 1453 programs is
only available from the FY 1997 capitalization
grant. For this reason. EPA encourages States
to determine how much it would cost to do
complete assessments for their source water
protection areas, and then take the amount
necessary up to the full 10 percent allowed from
the FY 1997 funds. Funds set-aside for this
 purpose must be obligated within four fiscal
 years after a State receives its grant.

The Intended Use Plan: The Key Funding
 Vehicle

 Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for
 implementing the Drinking Water SRF, the
 central component of the capitalization grant
 Draft
                                               35
                                       Draft

-------
  application is the Intended Use Plan (IUP). The
  IUP describes how a State intends to use
  available Drinking Water SRF funds to meet the
  objectives of the SDWA and further the goal of
  protecting public health. A State must prepare
  the IUP, after providing for public review and
  comment, and submit it to the Regional
  Administrator as part of its capitalization grant
  application. The IUP must include specific
  details on how a State will use all funds in its
  capitalization grant, including funds it will
  allocate for the set-asides.

  States have the option of developing the IUP in
 two parts, one part that identifies the
 distribution and uses of the funds among the
 various set-asides and the DWSRF Fund, and
 the other part dealing only with project funding
 in the DWSRF Fund. In other words, a State
 may submit a capitalization grant application for
 only the funds it intends to allocate among the
 set-asides. This option provides States with a
 great opportunity for expediting the process for
 receiving those funds. As with all grant
 applications, the State would have to include a
 detailed description (workplan) of the
 assessment activities to be funded.

 The Importance of Funding the Source Water
Assessments

EPA will ask States that indicate in their IUP
that they do not intend to set aside the full  10
percent for assessments if they have considered
their source water assessment needs in the  light
of the limited time frame for the availability of
funds for that purpose. Assessments are
particularly important as the foundation of
effective source water protection programs;
without them, further progress in protecting
source waters from contamination in an efficient
and effective way is very difficult. Assessments
are necessary components of Wellhead
Protection Programs and pesticide State
Management Plans and will play key roles in
providing regulatory flexibility under a number
of existing and future Federal drinking water
      protection rules. In addition, the information
      obtained through assessments will be critical in
      targeting source water areas for protection under
      numerous programs, including UIC Class V
      programs, USDA's Farm Bill programs,
      nonpoint source programs, and watershed
      protection programs. States should, therefore,
      set aside funds for source water assessments as
      soon as possible and not count on funds
      becoming available in future reauthorizations of
      the SDWA.

      Other Financing Options

      Aside from the DWSRF, other potential sources
      of financial support for source water
      assessments exist. A limited portion of the
      Section 319 grants of the Clean Water Act
      (CWA) may potentially provide support to
      States for protection of source waters from
      nonpoint sources of pollution.  The most recent
      319 grants and program guidance specifies that
      319 grants can be used to support source water
      protection activities, including assessments.
      States will continue to be eligible to use CWA
      Section 106 funds for wellhead protection
      activities, which may include source water
      assessments.  In addition, States may want to
      explore the viability of using the Clean Water
      Act SRF for aspects of the assessments.

      TMDL Policy

      The primary purpose of a source water
      assessment is to determine the susceptibility of
      sources of drinking water supplies to sources of
      contamination so that appropriate preventative
      actions  can be planned and implemented to
      protect those drinking water sources and insure
      protection of public health and compliance with
     National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
     Recognizing the associated costs, Congress
     provided States with flexibility to use a portion
     of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
     (DWSRF) for these required delineations and
     assessments. In the same light, Congress also
     encouraged the use of existing programs and
Draft
36
                                                                                          Draft

-------
efforts that provide information that could be
used for source water assessments, as indicated
in Section 1453(a)(6)(E) of the Amendments:
"to avoid duplication and to encourage
efficiency, the (Source Water Assessment)
program ... may make use of... delineations or
assessments of surface or ground water sources
under programs or plans pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act". This intent is
also reflected clearly on page 64 of the Senate
Committee report on the 1996 amendments:
"States are strongly encouraged to use existing
assessment data gathered under other State and
Federal programs and guidance developed by
EPA under other Federal laws."

One example of an existing program that can
provide useful information for source water
assessments is the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) program under the Clean Water Act.
A TMDL is designed to show how much
pollution needs to be reduced by individual
 sources in a watershed.  A TMDL is a
 quantitative assessment of water quality
 problems and contributing pollutant sources and
 provides the information needed to specify the
 amount of a pollutant that needs to be reduced
 by individual sources so that lakes, rivers,
 streams, or estuaries meet State water quality
 standards and designated water uses. A TMDL
 quantifies the pollution to be controlled from
 permitted point source discharges as well as
 nonpoint sources such as storm water runoff.
 EPA encourages States to use relevant
 information from existing TMDL programs to
 help complete source water delineations and
 assessments.

 A question that arises is whether States can use
 a portion of the DWSRF allocation for source
 water assessments to develop a TMDL. These
 assessments, as described here in Chapter 2,
 include delineations, contamination source
  inventories and susceptibility analyses. In some
 casesi use of a TMDL or other water quality
  monitoring as part of a source water assessment
  may be a useful method to identify the
susceptibility of a drinking water source and
could constitute a necessary part of the State's
effort to accomplish these three assessment
activities for a source water protection area. The
February, 1997 "DWSRF Program Guidelines"
state that:

    "States may use funds from this set-aside
   (note: the 10 percent set-aside for source
   water assessments in accordance with
   Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water
   Act) for the development of TMDL's in
   limited circumstances.  The State must
   establish a policy of allowing use of the set-
   aside funds to develop TMDL's only if a
   clear cause and effect relationship can
   demonstrate that development of the TMDL
   is essential to public health protection and
   continuing compliance with national primary
   drinking water regulations. Funding
   TMDL's through source water set-asides is
    only eligible if it will prevent or reduce
    source water contamination or enhance the
    efficiency of the drinking water treatment
    process. In this context, TMDL activity
    should be weighed against other source
    water assessment and delineation priority
    activities. State source water assessment
    programs submitted to EPA that propose to
    include TMDL activity must ensure that the
    development of TMDLs does not delay the
    completion of the source water assessments."

 Despite these constraints, there are numerous
 scenarios under which TMDL development
 would be eligible to be funded under the 10
 percent set-aside for Fiscal Year 1997 DWSPJF
 appropriations. To promote the continued
 integration of public health goals into Clean
 Water Act programs, and to encourage
 efficiency as envisioned by Congress, EPA
 encourages States to use up to 10 percent of the
 10 percent set-aside to develop TMDLs for
 source water areas as long as the TMDL
 assessment satisfies the following criteria: (1)
 there is a direct linkage between contaminants)
 and/or sources in the TMDL assessment and
  Draft
                                                37
                                                                                           Draft

-------
  public health; (2) a Maximum Contaminant
  Level has been established for the
  contaminants) in the TMDL assessment; (3) the
  TMDL assessment will assist a public water
  system(s) achieve or maintain compliance with
  a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation;
  and (4) the TMDL meets one of the three
  functions required of a State source water
  assessment program discussed here in Chapter 2
  (i.e., delineation, source inventory and/or
  susceptibility analysis).

  In a limited number of cases, States may find
  that a greater portion than 10 percent of the 10
  percent set-aside should be used for TMDL
  development to improve either the quality
  and/or efficiency of their source water
  assessment programs. States have this
  discretion, although they must demonstrate
  reasons consistent with the above criteria for
  allocations greater than the 10 percent threshold
  recommended by this guidance in their bi-
  annual reports to EPA on the DWSRF program.
 Again, any funding for TMDLs should be linked
 to their intended use as platforms for source
 water protection activities directly related to
 public health protection and compliance with
 drinking water regulations.

 K. "Complete" State Source Water
    Assessment Programs and a "Complete"
    Local Source Water Assessment

 A State program is "complete" when a State has
 completed all the actions in its approved Source
 Water Assessment Program and met all the
 requirements under Section 1453 of the Safe
 Drinking Water Act, including the completion
 of source water assessments for each locality
 that includes a Public Water System.

 A "complete" assessment for a locality means
 that a delineation of a SWPA has been
 completed, an adequate contamination source
 inventory has been completed for that SWPA,
 and a determination has been made of each
 public water system's susceptibility to
  contamination by sources inventoried within
  each SWPA. (See Appendix G for the
  components of a complete local assessment.)

  A complete assessment for a locality can be
  accomplished regardless of whether State
  employees actually do the assessment or
  whether a  local entity, either delegated by the
  State or in cooperation with the State,
  accomplishes the assessment.

  L. Reporting Requirements for State
    Programs

  In order for EPA to know whether a State has
  completed the SWAP, a State must report on
  whether the program has been completed if a
  State has used the DWSRF set-aside for source
  water assessments.  (See Final DWSRF
  guidelines for reporting requirements.
  Essentially, States are required to describe how
  funds have been expended using the set-aside
  funds for assessments in the required biennial
 reports.)

 For EPA to  determine whether a State has
 completed its SWAP program, States should,
 upon completion of the program, report to EPA:

 •  The number of delineations, source
    inventories, and susceptibility analyses
    completed, by SWPA area.

 • Assurance that each completed local
   assessment has been made available to the
   public.

 States can use current reports or a separate
 report to EPA as the mechanism for providing
 information to EPA on SWAPs!  For example,
 States can use their Wellhead Protection
 Program biennial reports to report on completed
 programs. That is, a State can wait until the
 next biennial report is due and report on the
completion of its Source Water Assessment
Program in its biennial report.
Draft
                                             38
                                                                                        Draft

-------
M.    Updating the Assessments

In an approvable submittal, a State should
include a brief description of the process it plans
to use to update assessments to incorporate the
following rules promulgated by EPA during the
time period when the State is completing the
assessments under its approved SWAP program:

   •  Ground Water Disinfection Rule

   •  Chemical Monitoring Reform Rule

   •  Underground Injection Class V Rule

   •  Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

States may want to update these assessments for
other reasons, such as location of new potential
contamination sources in any SWPA.

N. Conclusions

States should begin developing their SWAPs
now based on this draft guidance, with
particular emphasis in planning and
implementing a process for ensuring extensive
public participation in program development.
States with Wellhead Protection Programs
and/or Watershed Approaches should continue
to implement them, and thereby get a good jump
on completing their assessment programs once
approved by EPA. However, the State may
desire to modify these programs or approaches
to better address drinking water concerns
including better alignment with the anticipated
flexibilities in future regulations.

As noted before, while the SDWA requires
States to develop and implement complete
SWAPs, the Agency is not requiring that States
develop or implement Source Water Protection
Programs.  However, EPA strongly encourages
 States to do so. In Chapter 3, we describe some
models and functions for potential State and
 local actions to develop and implement the
 SWPs. States with approved Wellhead
    Protection Programs which are being fully
    implemented throughout their States are, in fact,
    implementing what EPA is recommending for
    ground water sources of drinking water. For
    surface waters, States which are implementing
    Source Water Protection Programs and/or
    Watershed Approaches are also beginning to
    accomplish what EPA is recommending for
    Source Water Protection Programs. We applaud
    these States and want to assist them so their
    systems and people can  achieve the substantial
    benefits of source water protection and pollution
    prevention. This will also advance the nation to
    meet EPA's draft national goal that by the year
    2005,60 percent of the population served by
    community water systems will receive their
    water from systems with Source Water
    Protection programs in place.
 Draft
39
                                                                                         Draft

-------
                Chapter 3

   State Source Water Protection Programs
       Including Petition Programs
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
                    40

-------
                  State Source Water Protection Programs
          Including Petition Programs and the Drinking Water
                               State Revolving Fund
A. Introduction

As described in Chapter 2, the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 require States to develop
and submit to EPA for approval Source Water
Assessment Programs (SWAP) and, upon EPA
approval, to implement these programs. States
are required to conduct assessments for PWSs
within two years after approval. This chapter
addresses the question of what should be done
with these assessments once they are completed.

It is EPA's desire that these assessments will
lead to the implementation of efforts to manage
the sources of contamination identified by the
assessments in a manner that will prevent
contamination of the sources of drinking water
supplies. This objective is furthered by the
requirement that these assessments be made
available to the public and, along with other
required consumer awareness activities, will
motivate citizens and communities to put in
place Source Water Protection (SWP) Programs.

The purpose of this chapter is to lay out what a
State should do to facilitate the establishment of
local  SWP efforts. For ground water-based
drinking water supplies, wellhead protection
programs are the key to protection. For surface
water-based systems (as well as mixed systems),
a drinking watershed or source water protection
area approach is appropriate. For either ground
water or surface water systems, source water
protection is becoming an integral part of
existing and new requirements and flexibilities
under SDWA. Chapter 4 will describe how
these SWP efforts can be coordinated with other
programs to be of mutual benefit.
Local SWP efforts hinge on three key elements:
forming a team of local SWP advocates;
reviewing, evaluating, and selecting appropriate
management measures to control or eliminate
potential sources of contamination; and putting
both long and short-range emergency water
supply replacement strategies in place in the
form of contingency planning. Getting local
citizens involved in SWP efforts heightens a
sense of ownership in protecting the resource.
As information generated from Consumer
Confidence reports becomes available to the
public, SWP efforts will become highly visible,
and support for these efforts will grow. At the
same tune, interest and involvement in
exploring SWP financing options for local
activities through the DWSRF will also grow.
There are many financing options available
under the 1996 SDWA amendments in SWP  for
States and local communities to take advantage
of, but citizens need to familiarize themselves
with the mechanisms that are in place and the
processes by which this assistance can be
secured.

B. Local Source Water Protection Program
   Efforts

The essential elements of Source Water
Protection are the same regardless of whether
the activities are conducted at the State or local
level. Source Water protection area delineations,
contaminant source inventories, and
susceptibility analyses are required by law
under SDWA 1996, but these steps basically
only "set the stage" for actual source water
protection efforts. In the strictest sense, Source
Water Assessment Programs are mandatory
under the law, while Source Water Protection
Programs are at the discretion of States and
 Draft
                                                                                       Draft

-------
 local entities. Rather than simply  "shelve" the
 results of source water assessments, it is
 Congress' and EPA's intent that States and local
 communities use these tools in formulating
 drinking water source protection plans.

 Once source water assessments have been
 completed, the follow-up measures that
 galvanize a true local source water protection
 effort start by bringing people in the community
 together. These activities consist of forming
 teams,  selecting management measures, and
 doing contingency planning. The manner in
 which they are accomplished does not matter as
 much as making sure that they are completed
 using sound information at hand. One of the
 basic concepts of EPA's approach to source
 water protection is to give States and local
 communities maximum flexibility in structuring
 and implementing then- activities. Recognizing
 that what is best for one locale may not be at all
 suitable for another, EPA encourages innovative
 and creative structuring of local efforts based on
 availability of resources, level  of technical
 sophistication, and economic feasibility.

 1. Forming a Team

 Before any meaningful approach to SWP can be
 developed, a team  of responsible individuals
 needs to be assembled to guide the process in &
 cohesive, efficient manner. They need to be
 focussed on the primary objective of protection
 of drinking water sources, but they must also
 recognize the constraints of their particular
 locations. Investigating "success stories" from
 similar programs adopted elsewhere to meet
 similar goals (e.g.. case studies) are particularly
 effective and efficient in deciding what options
 make sense. A variety of factors, including
 availability of alternative sources of drinking
 water, public awareness and commitment to the
 program and legal and institutional tools
 available will largely dictate the objectives of
 the effort; either a total and complete SWP
 approach to all drinking water sources,  or a
threat-specific management strategy that deals
 with potential contaminants (e.g., USTs) on a
 case-by-case basis. Although these management
 endpoints can be relatively clearly defined with
 more or less obvious solutions, care should be
 taken to stay focussed on the protection of the
 resource. As these efforts come to fruition, the
 local team can consider expanding the initial
 management program into a broader, more
 comprehensive one.

 Local team planning staff need to have some
 knowledge about their drinking water sources,
 and at least some degree of expertise in
 selecting the appropriate regulatory or non-
 regulatory management tools they are
 considering putting in place to protect them.
 Team members need to understand why certain
 source water areas may be in jeopardy and need
 specific levels of protection, and how to rank or
 prioritize the results of source water
 assessments and contaminant sources identified
 during the assessment inventory process
 discussed in Chapter 2. The team also needs to
 know the extent of existing management
 measures that are already in place, and how they
 may be brought to bear on the problems
 encountered in the local SWP effort. As the
 program matures, they need to know how and be
 able to gauge whether or not their efforts are
 producing results. Team members having
 experience with management tools or regulatory
 controls and enforcement will have a better idea
 of which management and administrative
 techniques are best suited for their local
 program, and for local needs.

 Because the "science" of SWP  is relatively new,
 few team members are likely to have extensive
 experience in implementation, but new SDWA
 resources may allow staff with  such experience
to be engaged in an appropriate capacity.  EPA
urges that other team members seek to improve
their skills through formal courses at local
colleges or universities, or informal
opportunities.  (EPA has produced many
Technical Assistance Documents, or TADs,
dealing with drinking water protection and
Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
related science and issues that are available
from EPA's ten Regional Offices throughout the
country). Some of the more important subject
areas are hydrogeology, environmental law, and
land-use planning. There is also great utility and
benefit to be had from sharing expertise in the
person of a "roving" employee, or "circuit
rider" approach to borrowing resources from
selected State agencies or local colleges or
universities. These often highly-trained
personnel are invaluable in researching specific
technical information, references, case studies,
and comparative program analysis for efficiency
and effectiveness in SWP and other
environmental programs. Teams should also not
overlook the possibility that a neighboring
municipality or jurisdiction may have developed
or may be simultaneously developing SWP
activities and may be willing to share its
expertise and experiences.

Internal communication between and among
team members is crucial to the success of the
local effort.  Transfer of knowledge and
experience is important for maintaining program
continuity and momentum, and avoids wasting
resources rediscovering what has already been
learned in the past. Developing and organizing
information sources, such as source water area
delineations and contaminant source inventory
lists generated during SWP assessments (as
discussed in Chapter 2) provide quick reference
materials for team members. Checklists and
worksheets can be developed from these
materials for use in ranking and selecting
management strategies for use hi dealing with
threats to drinking water supplies, and these
types of standardized tools can be maintained
for use in documenting the decision-making
process as the program matures. This approach
has particular benefit in the event team members
resign, move on, or are reassigned to other
areas. In addition, documentation of this type is
particularly useful in formulating strategies for
land acquisitions such as conservation
easements and land grants, where purchase or
granting may be contingent on verification of
past uses, net worth, and cost to remediate or
replenish (as in the case of wetlands or
contaminated sites). Documented resources of
this type are also very useful in training new
team members as they come on board.

Various types of information to support the
efforts of the team may be secured from a
variety of outside sources, such as Departments
of Health, water control boards or districts,
local colleges, land-grant and private
universities, environmental agencies, soil and
water conservation districts, departments of
agriculture, departments of housing, community
development  and planning, National
Association of Counties, National Association
of Towns and Townships, the League of
Women Voters, regional planning agencies,
regional and district offices of the U.S.
Geological Survey), the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, and the U.S. EPA's Regional offices
throughout the county.

All it takes to get started is a basic
understanding of local hydrogeologic
conditions, a  familiarity with appropriate SWP
management  tools, and the motivation to protect
your sources  of drinking water drawn from
within your SWPA.

2. Selecting Management Measures

Once potential contaminant sources have been
identified and inventoried under SWAP
assessments as outlined in Chapter 2, local
teams need to explore options available to them
for managing these sources. The basic goal is to
reduce or eliminate the potential threat to
drinking water supplies within SWP areas either
through existing regulatory or statutory controls,
or by using non-regulatory (and often voluntary)
measures centered around an involved public.
While land-use controls, regulatory and source
controls, and other methods have traditionally
been used for a variety of purposes hi
controlling land use and municipal growth, only
recently have these tools been employed to
 Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 protect drinking water supplies on a large scale
 nationwide.

 Local teams need to review examples of how
 these tools have been used in the past to protect
 drinking water supplies, how to best apply them
 to their local situation, and be aware of some of
 the considerations they may need to confront in
 adapting and implementing them. Some of the
 more effective and cost-efficient management
 tools used in SWP are outlined below.

 •  Zoning Ordinances.  These are typically
 comprehensive land-use requirements designed
 to direct the development of a specific area.
 Local governments have used zoning to restrict
 or regulate certain land uses within SWPAs,
 such as intensive agriculture requiring heavy
 pesticide use, and high-unit confined livestock
 feeding operations.

 •  Subdivision Ordinances. Subdivision
 ordinances apply to land that is divided into two
 or more subunits for sale, resale, or
 development. This tool is especially useful in
 SWPAs where ongoing development is causing
 contamination or there is inadequate surface or
 ground water recharge, such as in coastal areas,
 many of which have already outgrown their
 current water supplies and can no longer rely on
 shallow coastal aquifers.

 •  Site Plan Review. These are regulations
 requiring developers to submit for approval
 plans for development occurring within a
 specified area. The review ensures compliance
 with regulations or other requirements made
 within the SWPAs.

 •  Design Standards. Design standards
 typically are regulations that apply to the design
 and construction of buildings or other structures
 Use of design standards ensures that new
 construction, including buildings and
 impervious surfaces placed within a SWP area
 are designed so as not to pose a threat to nearby
 drinking water supplies.
 •  Operating Standards. These regulations
 apply to ongoing land-use activities to promote
 safety or environmental protection. These
 standards can minimize the threat to SWPAs
 from ongoing activities such as agricultural
 pesticide or fertilizer application by prescribing
 maximum application rates and frequencies, and
 by restricting the location, storage, and use of
 hazardous substances within the
 SWPA.

 •  Voluntary Management Measures.  These
 measures include efforts to secure cooperation
 of organizations that are potential sources of
 pollution of source waters in efforts to ensure
 that polluting activities are minimized and
 reduced. Such activities can  include  a variety of
 the management measures described above,
 such as public education, but could also include
 use of various government efforts. For example,
 for nonpoint sources of pollution, the 1996 Farm
 Bill includes many conservation related
 programs that could be utilized to enhance or
 initiate local voluntary, incentive-base
 approaches to managing sources of
 contamination. These efforts could include such
 programs as the Conservation Reserve Program,
 the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
 the Wetlands Reserve Program and/or the
 Farmland Protection Program. In addition, a
 newer effort under the State Conservation and
 Technical Committees could also lead to
 increased voluntary efforts.

 •  Source Prohibitions.  Source prohibitions are
 regulations that prohibit the presence or use of
 chemicals or hazardous activities within a
 specific area. For example, restricting the
 storage, handling, and use of large quantities of
 hazardous chemicals within SWPAs can reduce
 or eliminate the threat of a contamination
 incident.

 •  Purchase of Property or Development
Rights.  Outright purchase of property or the
rights to develop a property can be used by local
municipalities to ensure complete control of the
Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
use of specified land areas in and around SWP
areas. The use of loans under the DWSRF set-
aside [1452(k)(l)(A)] for acquiring lands from
willing sellers or conservation easements can be
most cost-effective in providing long-term
community drinking water supply protection,
especially in cases where regulatory restrictions
on land use are not politically feasible and the
purchase price of the property is affordable.

•  Public Education.  In order for citizens to
appreciate the benefits of Source Water
Protection, they must first understand what the
problems are in providing safe drinking water,
and how they can become involved in the
process. Public education most often consists of
brochures, pamphlets, field days, mall displays,
town meetings, and other mass-exposure
opportunities to present SWPA problems and
protection efforts to the public in a
straightforward, understandable fashion. Under
SDWA 1996, a Consumer Awareness
component of the Source Water Protection
Program will extend the scope of this
information to include the results of source
water assessments through a State Drinking
Water Hotline and access to the State's Clean
Water Act Section 305(b) Report. The use of
these tools greatly enhance public buy-in to a
locally-developed, locally-applied SWP plan.
Properly "spun", public education is the greatest
promoter of voluntary action and public support
for a community's SWP program.

•   Ground Water Monitoring.  Monitoring
efforts generally consist of placing test wells
within SWPAs, sampling on a periodic  basis,
and use of the test results to adjust or implement
other management controls in the program to
reduce or eliminate detected elevations in
undesirable substances in the drinking water.
Water supply quality assurance and quantifying
movement of contaminant plumes within the
SWPA are two of the most useful aspects of this
tool.
    3. Contingency Planning

    Contingency planning is simply the
    development and implementation of both long
    and short-term drinking water supply
    replacement strategies for supplying safe
    drinking water to the consumer in the event of
    contamination or physical disruption. The
    State's role in contingency planning is primarily
    to delegate contingency planning responsibility
    to local governments within a framework
    established by the State, and to provide back-up
    support to local responders in drinking water
    supply disruptions.  With most States now
    having EPA-approved Wellhead Protection
    Programs already in place, the contingency
    planning process will have already been
    established as part of that program. Expansion
    from the ground water-based planning process
    to the source water-based process,
    encompassing surface water supplies as well,
    will complete the protective coverage intended
    for all drinking water supply sources under
    SDWA 1996.  These efforts should be derived
    from, or closely coordinated with, existing State
    contingency planning under Section 311 of the
    Clean Water Act and EPCRA Section 303.

    As the State assigns responsibility for source
    water contingency planning to one or more
    agencies or individuals, and establishes a lead
    agency to coordinate the effort, the importance
    of teams will become apparent, as discussed
    above, hi Section 1,  Forming A Team.
    Well-crafted, pre-existing local plans, such as
    those in place under EPA-approved State
    Wellhead Protection Programs, can help State
    planners get a sense of how water supply
    disruption response actions are actually
    managed at the local level. Local plans will also
    give State team members a feel for local
    hydrogeology, contamination threats, and
    response capabilities. These local plans should
    be examined in the  context of adequacy and
    practicality (e.g., have they ever been used in a
    real contamination or disruption incident and, if
    so, were they efficient and effective?).
 Draft
45
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 State water planners should begin their efforts
 by evaluating the current status of water
 supplies in the State. Under SDWA 1996,
 source water assessments are required, and part
 of the assessment process involves identifying
 potential threats to the drinking water supplies
 within delineated source water protection areas.
 Once these threats are identified, existing
 capabilities for responding and dealing with
 them will be much simpler to evaluate. New
 monies available under the DWSRF can be
 targeted for source water contingency planning
 measures, and can greatly facilitate the
 refinement and application of existing source
 water information data bases. (Most States
 should already have on hand an emergency plan
 for water supplies that was prepared in support
 of their State primacy program under Section
 1413 of SDWA). State planners should also
 explore the new financial opportunities
 available from the DWSRF set asides for
 technology assistance under Section
 1452(gX2)(B).

 Some of the factors States will need to consider
 in developing effective source water
 contingency plans for local water supply
 systems are the number of systems hi the State
 and whether they are ground or surface water
 dependent (or both), their locations, size of
 population served, capacity, interdependency on
 common aquifers or distribution systems, and
 how many have locally available alternative
 sources of supply. State planners may wish to
 create a hierarchy of systems based on local
 response capabilities, which will help planners
 determine what type and level of support the
 State will need to provide in the event of an
 emergency, focussing financial support on
 systems with the least capacity to respond.

 In the event the local response capability is
 exceeded or requires specialized expertise, the
 State may be called upon to supplement the
 local effort. State  planners must therefore assess
the adequacy of State resources prior to such an
 emergency. Factors that should be examined are
       the support functions that the State will need to
       provide; the conditions or circumstances under
       which State support will be rendered,
       identifying areas of sufficiency or deficiency in
       the State's support capability, and correcting any
       such deficiencies. In striking a balance between
       the goal of meeting all local public water supply
       system needs and the limitations imposed by its
       budget, the State should examine opportunities
       for supplementary funding from the DWSRF for
       personnel, equipment, laboratory and treatment
       facilities, and other technology
       assistance-oriented requirements in
       implementing source water protection at the
       State and local level.

       For States with EPA-approved Wellhead
       Protection Programs, contingency plans will
       already be in place for most ground water-based
       systems.  State emergency response plans
       developed under Section 1413 of SDWA can
       also be used. Data generated by previous water
       supply emergencies and existing data bases of
       land use and water resources can also be
       incorporated into the contingency plans.
       Monitoring and vulnerability assessments
       required of PWSSs for detecting contamination
       by volatile organic compounds can also be
       useful. Thus, much of the information required
       for contaminant source inventories required as
      part of State source water assessments may
      already be collected and available.

      State contingency planners can benefit from a
      concentrated effort to build support for a
      contingency plan through a variety of methods.
      These typically include expert review (industry,
      academia, etc.); review by local officials for
      "reality checking" the process; soliciting input
      from local communities (workshops, public
      notice and comment, advisory councils, etc.);
      and Federal agency review.
Draft
"4T
                                                                                          Draft

-------
C. Opportunities for State Support of New
   Approaches to Source Water Protection
   Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
   (SDWA) Amendments of 1996

The SDWA amendments of 1986 relied
primarily on voluntary compliance with
programs such as wellhead protection,
principally due to a lack of adequate funding.
Provisions under SDWA 1996, however, put
heavy emphasis on drinking water pollution
prevention using the concept of source water
protection, which combines both ground and
surface water management measures. Thus,
SDWA 1996 provides a preventive approach to
drinking water protection, rather than the
previous "end of the pipe" regulatory
enforcement-type approach taken  under SDWA
1986.  Under the new law, much greater
flexibility for funding exists for States, ensuring
that PWSs have adequate technical, managerial,
and financial resources to maintain compliance
and deliver safe water to the consumer.
Appendix H provides a timetable for actions
under the SDWA  1996 amendments.

1. New Sources of Revenue for
   Prevention - The Drinking Water State
   Revolving Fund

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) and other programs was authorized
under 1452 by Congress to assist public water
systems to finance the costs of infrastructure
needed to achieve or maintain compliance with
SDWA requirements and protect public health.
In addition, States may use a portion of their
capitalization grants to fund source water
protection and enhance water systems
management programs and projects.  States may
elect to use up to 31 percent of the funds
available to them under 1452 for eligible set-
aside activities.

As part of this, a State may use up to 10 percent
of its allotment (with a 1:1 dollar  State match)
to support its State drinking water program, and
develop and implement a source water
protection program, a capacity development
program and operator certification, program.
Examples of how these funds could be used for
source water protection include: development of
contaminant source management and preventive
best management practices, development and
refinement of contingency planning programs,
and in designing and implementing public
information and education programs. Of
particular note, these funds can be used for
activities under EPA's Underground Injection
Control Program to manage Class V shallow
injection wells which can often be found in
wellhead protection areas of public water
supplies.

With few exceptions, most States now have
EPA-approved WHP programs hi place, which
provide the cornerstone of a "head start" hi the
source water assessments required under the
1996 SDWA feauthorization.  Funds from the
DWSRF may be used to enhance the
implementation of these existing WHP
programs or to develop such programs for
submittal to EPA for approval.

Up to 2 percent of the allotment may be set
aside to provide technical assistance to small
communities under 10,000, and up to 4 percent
of the allotment may be set aside for costs
associated with administering the DWSRF
program.

Up to 15 percent of the capitalization grant
(limited to 10 percent of the grant for any one
activity) is available for local assistance and
other eligible activities as described in the law,
which are aimed at on-the-ground
implementation of source water protection,
wellhead protection, capacity development and
operator certification activities. Examples of
activities under this set-aside include:
delineation and assessment, land acquisition or
conservations easements (loans only) for source
water protection, and voluntary source water
projects (loans only).
 Draft
                                      Draft

-------
 Amounts that can be set aside for the
 delineation and assessment of SWPAs, must be
 taken from the amount of the FY1997
 appropriation available to the State under 1452.
 EPA is encouraging States to determine their
 needs with regard to delineation and
 assessments and then take advantage of this
 one-time funding opportunity in their FY 1997
 capitalization grant applications to the extent the
 State needs to use these funds, up to the full 10
 percent. (See Chapter 2 - Section I).

 Funds for land  acquisition and conservation
 easement may only be provided as loans and
 may only be used to acquire lands from persons
 willing to sell the land, or in the case of
 easements, the  grantors of the easements, when
 the land will protect drinking water sources
 from contamination. A State may also make a
 loan to  any community water system in support
 of the implementation of voluntary efforts to
 protect  source water in SWPAs. Both of these
 loan options are intended to foster compliance
 with national primary drinking water regulations
 applicable under Section 1412, and to
 significantly enhance the protection of public
 health.  A State may also make loans to any
 community water system to provide funding for
 activities under a Source Water Petition
 Program in accordance with Section 14S4 of the
 SDWA as described in Section 3 below.

2. Approaches for State Source Water
Protection Activities under SDWA 1996

The following discussions are intended to
outline some major approaches or models that
States considering undertaking Source Water
Protection programs may wish to consider.
Because the choice to undertake source water
protection under the 1996 SDWA Amendments
is voluntary for States, these approaches are
suggestive  of internally coherent means by
which States can pursue source water protection
at various levels of resource commitment and
policy focus, and are not meant as limiting
prescriptions in this important area. EPA does,
      however, strongly endorse Congress' view as
      reflected in the Amendments that the source
      water assessments were intended to be used "for
      the protection... of public water systems," that
      is, in actual protection programs. Thus, EPA
      invites commenters on this draft to offer
      suggestions for any additional approaches or
      models for source water protection, particularly
      ones that have actually been applied
      successfully at the State or local level, and
      believes  that States should closely consider
      undertaking an approach that iis appropriate for
      their situation.  Additional detail will be
      provided on these areas in the final guidance
      and thereafter, as may be useful to States. In the
      areas of the Source Water Petition Program,
      EPA is required by the Amendments to publish
      final guidance by August 6,1997, so the
      language in this draft represents a proposal in
      preparation for the final guidance.

      EPA further points out that, even for States that
      may be hesitant on this subject, there are very
      workable starting points that can achieve several
      important objectives. Approaches  of
      "Protection Through Existing Programs," for
      example, can be done with modest additional
      effort, are a good way pf making drinking water
      a positive means of coordinating and focusing
      existing State and Federal programs, and can be
      of real benefit to water systems that likely
      would not otherwise be able to participate in
     these programs.

      (a).   Source Water Protection Through
           Existing Programs — Proactive or
           Reactive Approaches

      States using this approach will create a
     networking-clearinghouse function to
     coordinate whatever range of existing Federal,
     State and local programs, authorities and efforts
     the State  believes will  contribute to achieving
     source water protection objectives. This
     function would be intended to give a focal point
     and be an assistance facilitator for local
     governments, water systems or others in
Draft
48
Draft

-------
communities on these source water protection-
related programs. Those contacting this State
clearinghouse may want help from these
programs to protect their local source water, but
may lack the resources, expertise or both to
identify the types of program help (which may
be regulatory and/or non-regulatory) that is
available and useful for their situation, and to
pursue the variety of appropriate programmatic
aid effectively through the time-consuming
complexities of different application processes
and levels of government.

States would establish this clearinghouse
function in a State office which would be
responsible for responding to requests for aid of
the type described above, or in the case of a
proactive approach, to use the source water
assessments to work with local communities to
set priorities for source water protection areas
where the clearinghouse would focus on seeing
that appropriate programmatic aid was
provided. In a reactive approach or where
States enabled communities to seek
clearinghouse help, in which communities were
informed about their situation by using the
results of the source water assessments, the
State office would respond to these requests in
its discretion.  In  any case, the clearinghouse
would help to identify programs that might be
able to address a specific local source water
problem, to formulate and then present the
relevant program aid applications to the
appropriate agencies, and to work with the
communities to advance these applications with
those agencies. The State clearinghouse would
also help in an  ongoing way to improve
coordination among the relevant agencies and
programs in general, and on drinking water and
source water protection objectives hi particular.

(b).   Source  Water Protection Through Local
      Partnerships

Under this approach, the State would focus its
protection  efforts on educating, equipping and
funding local communities to lead directly in
    undertaking source water protection-initiatives.
    States could ensure that localities interested in
    getting help in source water protection from
    State or Federal programs would be provided
    with a full list of potentially applicable State
    and Federal programs and resources and be sent
    information regarding these as options to assist
    with local efforts.

    In addition, the SDWA Amendments provide
    for various ways to finance some of these
    efforts. One option is for States to provide
    loans to local water suppliers to acquire land or
    partial interests in land to support source water
    protection priorities, which may be most
    effectively supported by the identification  of
    threats to drinking water sources in the source
    water assessments. Such loans may also be
    provided to support whatever type of voluntary,
    incentive-based efforts the community considers
    useful to address its particular problems. A
    third option in SDWA is the authority to provide
    technical assistance funding through a State
    source water protection program.

    This approach could be an alternative or an
    effective complement to the "Reactive" version
    of the Existing Programs approach described
    above. If used by itself, this approach would
    not fully substitute for an "Existing Programs"
    approach, discussed above, because it would not
    provide for ongoing State help or facilitation in
    gaining access to State or Federal programs or
    resources. Often, this help is likely to be the
    critical factor, especially for smaller systems
    which, as noted above, may lack the expertise or
    resources to do this effectively on their own.
    But this approach may be a useful initial starting
    point, however, at least for some States that may
    not have experience in coordinating program
    efforts for watershed protection, source water
    protection, or other similar, overarching
    objectives.  It would be most desirable for States
    choosing this  approach to adopt it in the near
    term with the expectation and plan to  build up to
    an Existing Programs approach soon thereafter
 Draft
49
Draft

-------
 as a more responsive means to help the water
 systems which most need the effort.

 (c).   Source Water Protection Through a
       Comprehensive Approach

 Existing laws at the Federal level have tended to
 focus on specific sources, pollutants, or water-
 related activities, and have not addressed the
 need for an integrated multi-disciplinary
 approach to environmental management.  In
 fact, historically, successes in controlling
 waterborne pollution have centered around
 controlling point sources and, in the case of
 ground water, preventing contamination from
 hazardous waste sites.

 States implementing a Comprehensive approach
 would develop a Watershed Approach through a
 State structure that would integrate surface
 water protection programs with comprehensive
 ground water protection efforts focusing
 Federal, State and local resources on source
 water protection as a whole. This approach
 should use the source water assessments as a
 starting point to identify which data developed
 by other programs for use in the assessments
 and what those programs' characteristics are to
 incorporate them into the comprehensive
 approach.  The assessment results will then
 present a verified statewide priority-setting
 structure to guide implementation of the
 comprehensive approach. It would closely
 coordinate water-related programs with State
 point and nonpoint source control programs so
 as to integrate administration of Federal
 programs and related State programs, such as
 through the Farm bill and remedial efforts
 through Superfund, UST and RCRA.
 Significant gaps that now exist in our efforts to
 protect drinking water source waters would be
 filled. Thus, the key programs of air, waste,
toxic substances and pesticide management, and
water pollution  control and prevention are in
place, but interested States would integrate them
 into a cohesive State-based resource-oriented
framework to maximize their effectiveness.
      This comprehensive approach to source water
      protection would create an effective "toolbox"
      of existing management options, both voluntary
      and regulatory, for use in framing approaches to
      complete source water protection.

      States are in a unique position to foster
      comprehensive source water protection using
      these tools because they implement most
      existing water and natural resource protection
      programs. Further, this approach would provide
      a unique structure to support and lead State and
      local governmental stakeholders and the private
      sector to implement source water protection.

      3. Guidance for State Source Water Quality
        Protection Partnership Petition Programs

      Description and Purpose

      Section 1454 of the SDWA (Section 133 of
      P.L. 104-741) establishes a new authority
      for a Source Water Petition Program. This
      State-administered program is voluntary for
      States, and is intended to support locally-driven
      efforts designed to address a limited number of
      sources of contamination identified in local
      source water protection assessments. Petitions
      may address only either: (1) pathogenic
      organisms which are regulated (or for which
      regulation is required) by EPA drinking water
      standards, or, (2) contaminants detected in
      source water that are not at levels "reliably and
     consistently" below the MCL. Under the State
     program, an owner or operator of a community
     water system, or a municipal or local
     government or political subdivision within the
     State may submit a source  waiter quality
     protection partnership petition to the State,
     requesting assistance in support of a local,
     voluntary, incentive-based partnership among
     interested parties to protect their drinking water
     supply. The central focus of the petition
     program is to reduce or eliminate contaminants
     in the water supply by addressing their origin;
     obtain financial or technical assistance to
     facilitate efforts to protect source water in order
Draft
50
                                                                                          Draft

-------
to meet national primary drinking water
regulations and standards; and help develop
voluntary and incentive-based strategies for the
long-term protection of source water supplying
a community water system.

(a)   State/Local Program Procedures

Substance of Petitions and Process for
Submission of Petitions To the State

A Petition must: facilitate the local development
of voluntary, incentive-based partnerships
among owners  and operators of community
water systems,  governments, and other persons
in source water protection areas; and obtain
.assistance from the State in identifying
resources which are available to implement the
recommendations of the partnerships to manage
the origins of the contaminants affecting the
drinking water supplies of a community.

Contaminants addressed under a petition are
limited to pathogenic organisms for which a
national primary drinking water regulation has
been established (or is required under Section
 1412), or for which a regulation under Section
 1412 has been  promulgated or proposed, and
that are detected by adequate monitoring
methods at the source water intake structure or
 in collection, treatment, storage, or distribution
 facilities in the community water system when
 they occur above the MCL; or are not at levels
 reliably and consistently below the MCL.

 Petitions submitted under this program must at a
 minimum contain the following information: (1)
 a delineation of the source water area that is the
 area of consideration of the petition; (2) the
 identity of the origins of the drinking water
 contaminants that are to be addressed by the
 petition that are found within the delineated
 source water protection area (including
 descriptions of specific activities contributing to
 the presence of the contaminants); (3) the
 identity of information gaps that would hinder
 the implementation of recommendations made
by the voluntary local partnership for addressing
drinking water contaminants that are to be
addressed by the petition; (4) documentation of
efforts made to establish the voluntary local
partnership, including solicitation of private
individuals living within the delineated source
water protection area who are likely to be
affected by decisions made by the partnership
and whose participation is essential to the
success of the partnership, and members of
municipal or other local governments or
political subdivisions of the State with
jurisdiction over the delineated source water
area; (5) a description of how the voluntary
local partnership has or will identify, recognize,
and take into account any voluntary or other
activities already underway under Federal or
State law in the delineated source water
protection area that are aimed at reducing or
eliminating the likelihood that contaminants
will occur in drinking water at levels of public
health concern, and (6) a description of
technical, financial, or other assistance that the
voluntary local partnership requests of the State
to help develop the partnership, or to implement
the recommendations of the local participants in
the partnership.

Recommended State Procedures for
Approval/Disapproval of Petitions Submitted by
Local Voluntary Partnerships

The State may approve a petition if it meets the
requirements of Section  1454 (a).

 States must provide a notice and an opportunity
 for public comment on petitions submitted
 under Section 1454, and States must approve or
 disapprove the petition in whole or in part
 within 120 days after submission.

 If the State approves a petition, a notice of
 approval must be provided, giving the following
 information: (1) an identification of technical,
 financial, or other assistance the State will
 provide to help address drinking water
 contaminants identified  in the petition based on
  Draft
                                                                                            Draft

-------
  public health concerns relative to other water
  quality needs identified by the State;
  coordination with any other States' programs
  implemented or planned under Section 1454;
  and funds available (including DWSRF monies
  accessed through CWA or SDWA State
  Revolving Funds), and (2) a description of
  technical or financial assistance available from
  State or Federal programs to assist in
  implementing the recommendations of the local
  voluntary partnership in the petition.
  Disapproved petitioners may resubmit at  any
  time if new information becomes available, if
  conditions affecting the source water that is the
  subject of the petition change, or if
  modifications are made in the type of assistance
  being requested.

  Technical and Financial Assistance Available to
 Localities-with Approved Petitions

 Assistance is available to assist in the
 implementation of recommendations made by
 the partnership in the petition, including any
 program established under the Federal Water
 Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
 programs established under Section 6217  of the
 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
 of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b); agricultural water
 quality protection program established under
 Chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XH of the Food
 Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)
 and the Farm Bill of 1996 (P.L. 104-333 ); the
 Sole Source Aquifer Program established under
 Section 1427; the Community Wellhead
 Protection Program established under Section
 1428; any pesticide or ground water
 management plan; any voluntary agricultural
 resource management plan or voluntary whole
 farm or whole ranch management plan
 developed and implemented under a process
 established by the Secretary of Agriculture; and
 any abandoned well closure program.

 Full use of available technical and financial
 assistance will depend upon the extent to which
 States encourage and assist municipalities, local
 governments, and community water systems to
 understand and take advantage of existing
 programs at the State level that are available to
 help them address sources of contamination in
 Source Water Protection Areais. These include
 programs for the management of solid waste,
 underground storage tanks, fertilizer and
 pesticide use, recycling and reclamation,
 underground injection disposal wells, State
 Superfund programs, and others. A large part of
 the public participation component of any
 source water quality protection partnership
 petition program should be focussed on making
 sure that the partnership members know and
 understand about these existing State programs
 and their corresponding funding mechanisms
 and opportunities for integration into a
 comprehensive source water protection
 partnership. This helps conserve resources,
 maximizes both regulatory and non-regulatory
 management mechanisms, and assures equal
 representation of the various members of the
 partnership in helping to bring about consensus
 at various stages of decision making as the
 partnership matures and begin:; to implement its
 recommendations.

Additional Finding for Local Source Water
Petition Programs

 •  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. A
   State may make a loan to assist a community
   water system implement voluntary,
   incentive-based source water protection
   measures resulting from the implementation
   of recommendations specified by a local
   partnership petition submitted to the State.
   Only community (not non-community) water
   systems are eligible for this assistance, and
   only pathogenic organisms, and chemicals
   exceeding MCLs or chemicals not reliably
   and consistently below established MCLs
   can be identified as contaminants hi the
   petition. If a State elects to use the Drinking
   Water State Revolving Fund set-aside, the
   State must develop a list of systems that will
  receive loans, giving priority to projects that
Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
promote compliance and protect public health,
and subsequently seek public review and
comment on this list. States are encouraged to
review EPA's recently released final guidelines
on the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund for
use in prioritizing projects eligible for loans
under the set-aside.

(b)   Sense of the Congress

•  Sense of the Congress and EPA Regarding
   the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund.
   It is the sense of the Congress that each State
   in establishing priorities under Section
   606(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act should give
   special consideration to projects that are
   eligible for funding under that Act, and that
   have been recommended pursuant to a
   petition submitted under Section 1454 of
   SDWA. EPA recognizes that petitions
   submitted to a State program developed
   under Section 1454 of SDWA only address
   either (not both) regulated or required-to-be
   regulated pathogens or contaminants
   detected that are not found reliably and
   consistently below the MCL. While the
   petition program may prove a valuable
    adjunct to total source water protection, the
    required consensus-building at various levels
    of local and State government necessary to
    make the process work may delay the
    resolution of public health issues from
    contaminated drinking water hi a timely
    manner.  Similarly, petition programs that go
    beyond the basic requirements (e.g., looking
    for other pathogens/ contaminants) may
    enhance me detection of additional
    pathogens/substances over the basic required
    ones, but the additional incremental costs
    necessary to achieve this level of detection
    need to be weighed against the net benefit to
    the consumer in terms of increased public
    health protection. For these reasons, States
    and local communities need to carefully
    consider the net benefit of the petition
    program in comparison to a total source
    water protection program in terms of cost
   and efficacy in protecting the public health,
   and evaluate the advantages and trade-offs
   inherent in both programs before deciding
   what is right for them.

c) EPA/State Procedures for Grants

Procedures and Substance of a Submittal of a
State Source Water Quality Protection
Partnership Petition Program for EPA and
Approval of Such Programs

•  Substance of a State Program Submittal. The
   design of the State Source Water Quality
   Protection Partnership Petition Program
   should be to.... ".assist hi the local
   development of a voluntary, incentive-based
   partnership, among the owner, operator, or
   government and other persons likely to be
   affected by the recommendations of the
   partnership	".  Beyond this, statutory
   definition, the State should consider how
   well the structure of its Source Water
   Quality Protection Partnership Petition
   Program satisfies the following underlying
   goals: meeting the spirit and intent of SDWA
    1996 (e.g., affording locals the opportunity
   to develop their own drinking water
   protection program through the use of the
   petition process); recognizing the diversity
   of hydrogeologic settings and sources of
   contamination that may be encountered on
   the local level; allowing local entities
    maximum creativity and flexibility in
    designing and implementing the
    recommendations of the petitioners;
    recognizing State and local primacy in
    matters of land use and water allocation, and
    assisting local entities in achieving
    comprehensive source water protection by
    offering the petition process as a valuable
    tool in an overall array of State-administered
    drinking water protection programs such as
    the State's Wellhead Protection, Sole-Source
    Aquifer, and watershed protection programs.
  Draft
                                                                                            Draft

-------
  •  Procedures for Submitting a State Program
    for Grant Assistance and for EPA Approving
     a Program. State programs developed for
     Source Water Quality Protection Partnership
     Petition Programs may be submitted to EPA
     at any time subsequent to EPA's approval of
     the State's Source Water Assessment
     Program (SWAP) as prescribed under
     Section 1453 (a) of SDWA.  If, after a period
     of 120 days after the date of submission of
    the program, unless EPA determines that the
    program does not meet the statutory
    requirements as specified under Section
     1454(a) of SDWA, the program shall be
    deemed approved. If EPA disapproves a
    petition program (in whole or in part) during
    the 120-day period after submission of the
    program, EPA will immediately notify the
    State, and will work with the State to assist
    in the modification or redevelopment of the
    program to meet the statutory requirements
    necessary for approval. Once EPA approval
    has been obtained, States should
    immediately begin implementing the receipt,
    review, and approval process for petitions
    received from local, voluntary, incentive-
    based partnerships for source water
    protection at the community level.

    Adequacy Criteria for EPA Approval of State
    Program Submittal. EPA approval of State
    Source Water Quality Protection Partnership
    Petition Programs will be based upon how
    adequately the State's program process
    considers and evaluates the objectives of the
    local entity filing the petition. These
    objectives include how well the State's
    program process facilitates the development
    of local, voluntary, incentive-based
    partnerships through coordination of local
    governments, persons living within source
    water protection areas affected by the
    decisions or recommendations of the
    partnership,  and owners and operators of
   community water systems, and how well the
    State program process provides for
   assistance from the State hi identifying
    resources available to the implement the
    recommendations of the partnership in
    addressing the origins of drinking water
    contaminants specified in the petition. (This
    includes the specific activities contributing
    to the presence of the contaminants affecting
    the drinking water supplies of the
    community).  The contaminants for which
    petitions may be submitted are specified
    under Section 1454  (a) (3).

 •  Grants to States.  Grants may be made to
    each State that establishes an EPA-approved
    petition program in an amount not exceeding
    50 percent of the cost of administering the
    program for the year in which the grant is
    made available. In .order to receive this grant
    assistance, States must have approved
    programs that meet the criteria and
    objectives of Section 1454, as described in
    this guidance.  (NOTE: No funds were
    appropriated for grants under Section
    1454 (c) in Fiscal Year 1997.)

(These grant program procedures and submittal
are only required if appropriations are provided
for Section 1454 of the SDWA and a State
chooses to submit a Petition Program which
applies for a grant).
Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
                Chapter 4

     Relationship Between Source Water
  Assessments and the Public Water Supply
           Supervision Program
Draft
55
                                        Draft

-------
              Relationship Between Source Water Assessments
             and the Public Water Supply Supervision Program
 Introduction

 Preventing the contamination of, and
 maintaining good quality drinking water
 supplies is the primary goal of source water
 protection efforts under the Safe Drinking
 Water Act. Reducing or preventing chemical
 and microbiological contamination of source
 waters could ideally allow public water systems
 to avoid costly treatment and minimize
 monitoring requirements. States could also save
 resources that would otherwise have to be
 devoted to compliance assistance, oversight, and
 enforcement.  The purpose of this chapter is to
 identify those programs either already
 established or under development in the Public
 Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program
 that could benefit from source water protection
 efforts, and in turn, discuss how some PWSS
 activities can help States and systems achieve
 objectives of the source water assessment and
 protection programs.

 Interim Monitoring Relief

 How Can Local Source Water Assessments
 Assist an Interim Monitoring Relief Program?

 Under Section 1418(a), States may reduce
 monitoring requirements for most contaminants
 for an interim period for a system(s) serving
 under 10,000 people if: 1) the initial sample
 fails to detect, at the tune of greatest
 vulnerability, the presence of the contaminant;
 and 2) "the State, considering the hydrogeology
 of the area and other relevant factors,
 determines in writing that the contaminant is
 unlikely to be detected by further monitoring
 during such period."
      The interim monitoring relief period would end
      either when permanent monitoring relief is
      adopted and approved for the State, or August
      1999, whichever comes first. Interim, or
      permanent (see below) monitoring relief would
      not apply to microbiological contaminants,
      DBFs, or corrosion byproducts, but would apply
      to all other chemical contaminants. To serve as
      the basis for interim relief, monitoring
      conducted at the beginning of the period must
      occur at the  time determined by the State to be
      the tune of the source water's greatest
      vulnerability to the contaminant, "taking into
      account in the case of pesticides the time of
      application of the pesticide for the source water
      area and the travel time for the pesticide to
      reach such waters and taking into account, in the
      case of other contaminants, seasonality of
      precipitation and contaminant travel tune."
      States could use any timely and relevant
      information gleaned from source water
      assessments  to help determine whether interim
      monitoring relief for given systems and
      contaminants would meet those requirements.
      At a minimum, assessments would help the
      State identify those systems likely to be eligible
      or ineligible  for monitoring relief.  However, it
      must be recognized that, due to the different
     timing of the interim relief and source water
     assessment provisions, few new assessments (as
     opposed to data from existing assessments) are
     likely to be available in time to be useful for
     interim monitoring decisions.
Draft
56
                                                                                       Draft

-------
Permanent Monitoring Relief

How Can Local Source Water Assessments
Assist States Implement a Permanent
Monitoring Relief Program?

Under Section 1418 (b), States with an
approved source water assessment program may
adopt "tailored alternative monitoring
requirements": where the State "concludes that
(based on data available at the time of adoption
concerning susceptibility, use, occurrence, or
wellhead protection, or from the State's
drinking -water source -water assessment
program) such alternative monitoring would
provide assurance that it complies with the
Administrator's guidelines." (emphasis added).
EPA will publish these guidelines under
separate cover, after notice and opportunity for
comment, by August 6, 1997.  Permanent
monitoring relief does not apply to
microbiological contaminants, DBFs, or
corrosion byproducts - it would apply to all
other chemical contaminants.  It applies to all
public water systems, including non-community
water systems, for which a source water
assessment has been completed.

Many States have already reviewed chemical
monitoring waiver applications under the Phase
II/V rules.  For those cases where waivers have
not already been considered, permanent
monitoring relief provides one of the clearest
potential benefits for States and systems to
conduct source water assessments.  Primacy
States that do not have an EPA-approved source
water assessment program will not be eligible to
offer permanent monitoring relief to their public
water systems. Public water systems that do not
have a complete source water assessment are
not eligible for permanent monitoring relief.
Unlike the limited time frame for granting
interim monitoring relief, there is no time
constraint for granting permanent monitoring
relief by the State, nor for the duration of such
relief. This should encourage States to not only
conduct source water assessments so as to
    gather information needed to make permanent
    monitoring relief determinations, but to
    maintain an active and comprehensive
    assessment program.  States that do so will be at
    an advantage in responding to system requests
    for monitoring relief, and in responding to the
    public regarding justifications for such
    decisions.
    Chemical Monitoring Reform (CMR)

    How Can CMR Assist States Implement Local
    Source Water Protection Assessments?

    Depending on timing of the chemical
    monitoring reform (CMR) regulations, States
    could incorporate data from assessments
    conducted under CMR into their source water
    assessment programs. The CMR is scheduled to
    be proposed in 1997 and promulgated by August
    6,1998.  EPA is planning to require States to
    identify systems at risk of contamination and
    establish sampling schedules during the
    period(s) of greatest vulnerability.
    Development of system specific sampling
    schedules will typically involve identifying
    potential contamination source(s) and assessing
    the probable timing of contamination based on
    the management of those sources and
    intervening hydrogeologic or climatic features.
    These analyses would both support and be
    supported by activities that States undertake in
    implementing a source water assessment
    program. The process of targeting at-risk
    systems may help States establish priorities for
    conducting more thorough assessments. For
    many States, the information collected through
    the source water assessments could provide a
    necessary component for meeting the
    requirements of CMR.  CMR is also expected to
    include provisions for systems with source
    waters at low risk of chemical contamination to
    reduce the frequency of monitoring and possibly
    the number of sampling points, based on local
    vulnerability. It may also allow groups of
    systems to consolidate their sampling points
 Draft
57
                                                                                         Draft

-------
 within an aquifer or watershed based on a
 comprehensive assessment of the area.

 Reduced sampling would be permitted in States
 that have established criteria that meet CMR
 requirements for conducting source water
 assessments. These requirements for States will
 be established in the rule and will include
 several components of a source water
 assessment program discussed in this guidance,
 such as delineations, and identification of
 contamination sources and management
 practices in the area.

 How Can Source Water Assessment
 Programs Assist Development and
 Implementation of CMR?

 A State source water assessment program could
 serve, at least in part, as a technical basis under
 the CMR for 1) targeting at risk systems for
 increased monitoring; 2) reduced monitoring
 through waivers;  or 3) establishing "ultra-
 system surrogate sampling" (selected points that
 represent all sampling locations within a
 system) by determining which sampling points
 are the most vulnerable. Time-of-travel
 assumptions used by a State for its SWAP
 would have to be consistent with CMR criteria
 in order to take advantage of reduced
 monitoring options.

 States that meet the CMR criteria may also
 allow the use of "inter-system surrogate
 sampling points" (i.e., geographically targeted
 sampling points), which would serve for all the
 sampling points among two or more systems, by
 determining where the most vulnerable
 sampling points should be located.  Source
 water assessments will be critical to States in
 implementing inter-surrogate sampling
 programs under CMR since information will be
 generated on the susceptibility of source waters
 to contamination and the vulnerability of public
water systems to the contaminants found.
 Several issues would arise if source water
assessment programs were to be used to support
      inter-system surrogate sampling. For example,
      as a condition of approval for inter-system
      surrogate sampling, States would also be
      required to have GIS mapping of ground water
      supplies, delineations of surface water supplies,
      and an inventory of all sources of contamination
      for affected systems within the watershed or
      recharge zone that may contribute to any of the
      source water withdrawal points.

      Surface Water Treatment Rule

      How Can Implementation of the Surface
      Water Treatment Rule Assist States with Local
      Source Water Protection Assessments?

      Under the Surface Water Treatment Rule
      (SWTR), a system is eligible for a waiver from
      filtering their surface water supply only if a
      series of water quality and disinfection criteria
      are met, and the system maintains a watershed
      control program satisfactory to the State that
      minimizes the potential for microbial
      contamination. Most systems that have received
      such waivers have source water delineations and
      some inventory of potential contamination from
      coliform bacteria, Giardia, and other microbials
      in their watersheds. In some cases,  systems
      have worked with local communities and State
      and county agencies to institute additional
      control measures and monitoring programs in
      the watershed to prevent source water
      contamination.  In these cases, States should use
      information already available in conducting
      assessments of these systems. For systems with
      approved filtration waivers where sources of
     regulated microbial contaminants have been
     assessed, States or delegated entities should
     conduct assessments for potential chemical
     contamination as well if they have not been
     previously inventoried.
Draft
58
                                                                                         Draft

-------
How Can Local Source Water Assessments
Assist Implementation of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule?

In overseeing approved filtration avoidance
waivers, States may benefit from additional
information that would otherwise not be
available in the absence of source water
assessments. The SWTR is designed to
minimize risks from only a subset of microbial
contaminants (Giardia, coliform bacteria,
viruses, Legionella) and filtration avoidance
determinations could have missed potential
sources of contamination from
Cryptosporidium, as well as other indices such
as phosphorous loadings or chemical
contamination. In addition, assessments could
provide information on activities in the
watershed with potential for contamination of
source water, and on water quality in
waterbodies upstream from drinking water
reservoirs (e.g., tributaries) that could signal
potential threats.  This type of information could
provide States and systems with important tools
to identify problems and prevent contamination
that could ultimately trigger filtration
requirements. Further, this information could
prove invaluable in efforts by States and
systems (both filtered and unfiltered) to prepare
for future regulatory requirements for Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment and Disinfection
Byproducts.

The Agency encourages States to review
available information on their unfiltered surface
water systems in cases where watershed land is
not protected, to determine whether or not
system vulnerability to microbial contamination
has increased since a filtration avoidance
determination was made. Where States
determine that microbial vulnerability has
significantly increased, States should adjust or
institute additional source water protection
measures as needed, or conduct additional
assessments.
    For surface water systems that have filtration in
    place, the SWTR does not require any source
    water protection measures.  Filtration systems
    require proper operation and maintenance and
    are subject to sub-optimal performance.
    Assessments in conjunction with other
    watershed protection measures could identify
    potential threats and help such systems
    maintain multiple barriers against microbial
    contamination and good source water quality
    and thereby avoid the need for additional
    treatment. It could assist States to prioritize
    oversight, technical assistance efforts, or
    DWSRF funding considerations for those
    systems that are at increased risk of source
    water contamination. As noted above, if
    properly designed, operated and maintained,
    filtration removes most turbidity, and the SWTR
    only covers a subset of microbiological
    contaminants; even systems with successful
    filtration treatment, or States, may not be aware
    of potential sources of contamination from
    Cryptosporidium or chemical contaminants in
    the watershed. States could use information
    already available from assessments conducted
    under wellhead protection programs (for ground
    water systems with filtration) or other programs
    under the Clean Water Act (e.g., Section 303,
    TMDL assessments, non-point source
    monitoring).

    Underground Injection Control: Class V
    Wells

    How Can Implementation of the UIC Class V
    Program Assist States with Local Source Water
    Protection Assessments?

    Class V program staff can identify Class V
    wells that are potential sources of contamination
    in wellhead and source water protection areas,
    particularly those that may  pose an
    endangerment to a community's water supply.
    Class V program staff have targeted shallow
    underground disposal wells in source water
    protection areas to ensure that the wells comply
    with the Safe Drinking Water Act by having
 Draft
59
                                                                                           Draft

-------
 owners and operators close the well or having
 other management measures applied to avoid
 endangerment.

 Class V wells are one of the most important
 sources of contamination to public water
 supplies and should always be a high priority for
 identification when assessments are conducted,
 Unfortunately, these wells are not easily found
 since they may consist of a septic system that a
 commercial facility misused to dispose of its
 wastewater, or floor drains at industrial/
 hazardous material-handling facilities. Further
 some Class V wells, such as appropriately
 operated septic systems, may pose relatively
 low risks to an aquifer compared to other
 contamination sources in the same wellhead
 protection area.  Class V program staff may
 have an inventory of the Class V wells that are
 located in a source water protection area and
 may assist with the search for high risk
 facilities.

 How Can Local Source Water Assessments
 Assist Implementation of the Class V
 Program?

 State source water protection programs can
 support Class V programs by addressing Class
 V wells in source water protection areas. EPA
 will propose regulations by June 18,1998 with
 respect to high risk Class V injection wells, such
 as large capacity cesspools and industrial waste
 wells in source water protection areas.  Once the
 new Class V rules become effective, it will be
 important that source water areas are delineated
 if the final rule targets high risk wells in source
 water protection areas. Source water
 assessments will help State UIC program
 managers save considerable resources by
 allowing these regulations to be targeted to
 delineated source water protection areas in lieu
 of statewide application.

 For Class V well categories other than cesspools
 and industrial disposal wells, such as
 agricultural drainage wells, risk and impact
      information is limited and the wells will not be
      regulated until sufficient information is
      gathered. A source water assessment program
      can assist the  Class V program in the national
      study of Class V wells where EPA will be
      collecting information on those Class V wells
      that have been identified in source water
      protection areas. This information, in turn, can
      be used to support the Class V rulemaking and
      determine whether additional regulation is
      needed.

      Sanitary Surveys

      How Can Sanitary Surveys Assist States
      Implement Local Source Water Protection
      Assessments?

      The purpose of a sanitary survey is to evaluate
      and document the capabilities of a public water
      system to continually provide safe drinking
      water and identify any deficiencies. A system's
      treatment, storage, distribution network,
      operation and  maintenance, as well as the
      system's source(s) are evaluated as part of a
      survey.  Sanitary surveys could provide the
      opportunity for State drinking water officials (or
      approved third party inspectors) to conduct the
      formal source  water delineations and
      assessments.

      If States choose to rely on the samitary survey  ;
      schedule to conduct all of their source water
      assessments, one concern would be whether the
      assessments could be completed within the
      timeframe specified in the Act. Under 40 CFR
      142.10,  States  must establish a systematic
      program for conducting sanitary surveys, with
      priority given to  public water systems not in
      compliance with drinking water regulations.
     The 1995 EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary
      Surveys recommends numerous factors for
      States to consider in establishing a survey plan.
     These plans will  be negotiated with EPA
     Regional Offices. In many cases, the sanitary
     survey plans and the source water assessment
     programs could be integrated by the State to
Draft
60
                                                                                          Draft

-------
insure completion of source water assessments
so that the two can be done concurrently.
Sanitary surveys could provide one means of
providing updates to the source water
assessment program and follow-up on
development of source water protection
activities.

How Can Local Source Water Assessments
Assist States to Conduct Sanitary Surveys?

States could use information collected in source
water assessments, whether done separately or
concurrently, to enhance sanitary survey
information and to identify systems of concern
that should receive priority for surveys.

Ground Water Disinfection Rule (GWDR)

How can the GWDR Assist States Implement
Local Source Water Protection Assessments?

Section 1412(1>X8) of the SDWA directs EPA to
issue a regulation after August 1998 requiring
disinfection for ground water systems, as
necessary, after publishing criteria for States to
determine if ground water systems need
disinfection. In developing the GWDR, EPA is
considering strategies to control risk from
microbial contamination as an alternative to
disinfection. When developing their source
water assessment programs, States may want to
consider the strategies being considered for the
GWDR. EPA encourages States to review the
components of their wellhead protection
programs to insure that the best available
scientific information is fully reflected in the
States program.

How Can Source Water Assessment Programs
Assist Development and Implementation of the
GWDR?

It is possible that the GWDR, once enacted, may
recognize the implementation of specific source
water protection criteria (e.g., delineation of
microbial set back areas, identification and
effective management of potential sources of
microbial contamination) in conjunction with
additional criteria as an alternative to
disinfection. States should recognize that
meeting these criteria through wellhead
protection activities may necessitate an
enhanced focus in the wellhead program on
microbial risks or possibly require
modifications of established setback distances.
 Draft
                                                                                          Draft

-------
                      Chapter 5

               Coordination ofSWP and
           Other EPA and Federal Programs
     Draft
62
                                            Draft
_

-------
     Coordination of SWP and Other EPA and Federal Programs
A. Linkages to Other EPA Programs

Integrating Source Water Protection into the
Watershed Approach

1. What is the Watershed Approach?

EPA and other agencies are encouraging a
watershed approach which is a coordinating
framework for environmental management that
focuses public and private sector efforts to
address the highest priority problems within
hydrologically defined geographic areas, taking
into consideration both ground and surface
water flow. Watershed approaches aim to
prevent pollution, achieve and sustain
environmental improvements and meet other
goals important to the community. Although
watershed approaches may vary in terms of
specific objectives, priorities, elements, timing,
and resources, EPA recommends the following
guiding principles.

Partnerships.  Those people most affected by
management decisions are involved throughout
and shape key decisions. This ensures that the
people who depend upon the natural resources
within the watersheds are well informed of, and
participate in planning and implementation
activities. Watershed stakeholders comprise a
wide variety of interests, including: Federal,
State, and local environment, public health,
agricultural and natural resource agencies,
concerned citizen igroups, Indian tribes, industry
and agricultural sector representatives, and the
academic community.

Geographic Focus.  Activities are directed
within specific geographic areas, typically the
areas that drain to surface water bodies or that
recharge or overlay ground waters or a
combination of both.
Sound Management Techniques based on Strong
Science and Data. Collectively, watershed
stakeholders employ sound scientific data, tools,
and techniques in an iterative decision making
process. This includes:

   •  Assessment and characterization of the
      natural resources and the communities
      that depend upon them;

   •  Goal setting and identification of
      environmental objectives based on the
      condition or vulnerability of resources
      and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem
      and the people within the community;

   •  Identification of priority problems;

   •  Development of specific management
      options and action plans;

   •  Implementation; and

   •  Evaluation of effectiveness and revision
      of plans, as needed.

The iterative nature of the watershed approach
encourages partners to set goals and targets and
to make maximum progress based on available
information while continuing analysis and
verification in areas where information is
incomplete.

2. How Can -a Watershed Approach Assist
   ^States and Localities in Conducting Local
   Source Water Protection Assessments?

Source Water Protection Assessments
undertaken by States and localities can benefit
from integrating their assessments into ongoing
or new watershed efforts, including  integrating
various State and local assessment efforts,
establishing joint priorities for assessments, and
 Draft
                                                                                        Draft

-------
 coordinating actions among programs. Whether
 a jurisdiction starts with a Source Water
 Protection Program, a National Estuary
 Program, a Clean Lakes Project, a total
 maximum daily load assessment, a National
 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 watershed strategy or other place-based
 strategy, moving to a more comprehensive
 approach will foster a more efficient and
 effective collaboration of efforts. By integrating
 these efforts, managers of Source Water
 Assessment programs as well as other program
 managers will better understand the pollutant
 sources causing the most critical problems
 within each watershed.  Using this information
 to set priorities allows public and private
 managers from all levels to allocate limited
 financial and human resources to address the
 most critical needs.

 3. How Can a Watershed Approach Assist
   States and Localities in Implementing Local
   Source Water Protection Programs?

 Integrating Source Water Protection Programs
 into watershed projects will bring to the
 attention of the various stakeholders in the
 watershed the importance of targeting source
 waters as high priority areas for protection by
 various Federal, State, local and volunteer
 programs.  Watershed projects will strengthen
 teamwork between the public and private
 sectors at the Federal, State, tribal and local
 levels. This emphasis gives people who depend
 on the aquatic resources a meaningful role in
 their management, and can build a sense of
 community, reduce conflicts, increase
 commitment to the actions necessary to meet
 societal goals and, ultimately, improve the
 likelihood of sustaining long-term
 improvements.  Building on or initiating new
 local watershed projects can result in cost
 savings by leveraging and building upon the
 financial resources and the willingness of the
 people with interests in the watershed to take
 action. Through improved communication and
 coordination integrating these efforts can reduce
 costly duplication of efforts and conflicting
 actions.

 4.  How can Finished Local Source Water
    Assessments Assist State/Local Watershed
    Protection Programs?

 Watershed protection programs will benefit
 from having finished Source Water Assessments
 which identify source water priorities to be
 integrated into other watershed efforts like point
 and nonpoint source pollution control, wetlands
 protection, waste management, air pollution,
 pesticide management and other programs such
 as agriculture (in any given jurisdiction, these
 might be several different agencies). This
 integration of efforts will allow various
 watershed stakeholders to jointly compare their
 lists of high priority areas, meet with each other,
 and look for opportunities to leverage their
 limited resources to meet common goals.

 5.  Who are the Key Watershed Protection
   Decision Makers at the State and Local
   Levels?

 Various stakeholders including State and local
 public health, environment, and natural
 resources agencies, industry and agricultural
 sector representatives, citizens groups, and
 tribes all contribute to collaborative decision
 making. For more information on watershed
 efforts visit EPA's homepage
 [http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/].

National Watershed Assessment Project

 1. What is the National Watershed Assessment
   Project (NWAP)?

NWAP is EPA's first attempt at a nationwide
watershed characterization and has four
objectives: characterize the condition of the
nation's 2,149 watersheds and identify
watersheds at particular risk; stimulate and
empower citizens to participate in watershed
assessment, protection, and restoration efforts;
Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
inform the dialogue about priorities among
water resource managers; and establish a
baseline for measuring progress towards
achieving healthy watersheds.

2. How can NWAP Assist States and Localities
   in Conducting Local Source Water
   Assessments?

State and Tribal water quality managers will use
the NWAP characterization of watershed
condition and vulnerability as a starting point
for discussing where the most serious water
quality problems are located and where further
assessment and monitoring, education, and
protection programs needs to be focused.

NWAP can also be considered a backbone to
which  additional data layers and information
can be added to meet the needs of specific
program areas such as the Source Water
Assessment program. For example, a group of
EPA, State, and interest group representatives
are working to both refine the NWAP source
water data layer, which currently provides a
partial characterization of the overall condition
of source waters used by public water systems.
This effort may produce a separate, but
associated and more detailed characterization of
the condition for source water quality in
watersheds.

3. How can NWAP Assist States and Localities
   in implementing Local Source Water
   Protection Programs!

NWAP has already helped by stimulating
improvements to the data EPA maintains related
to source water quality.  In particular, for
NWAP, data in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) were geo-located
into 8-digit watersheds.  This geographic
assignment is now being reviewed and refined
by States.  Because these data are now geo-
referenced, Source Water Protection Programs
will be better able to get an initial idea of how
well the protection measures put in place are
affecting the quality of the watershed.

4.  How can Finished Source Water
   Assessments Assist NWAP?

Better and more complete information about
source water quality (both surface and ground
water) will improve the NWAP characterization
of watershed condition in subsequent portrayals.
The source water assessment program is an
essential means to generate the comprehensive
information necessary  to accurately reflect
drinking water sources as a national priority for
protection in watersheds.

J.  Who are the Key Decision Makers for NWAP
   at the State and Local Levels?

EPA Regions, State water quality agencies and
Tribes are reviewing NWAP and will be making
key decisions.

Monitoring and Data Management

1.   What are EPA's Clean Water Act
   Monitoring and Data Management
   Programs?

The core of EPA's monitoring program is the
305(b) report of the Clean Water Act which
requires States to report to EPA on the condition
of their ground and surface waters. States
conduct ambient water monitoring to determine
the quality of their waters, changes in water
quality over tune, the causes of water quality
problems, and if pollution control programs are
working.  Water monitoring data are compared
to State standards to determine the extent to
which waters meet designated uses, including
drinking water supply. States use their 305(b)
water quality reports to communicate findings
to the public and to better manage then* water
programs. The national summary of these State
reports is  presented in a report to Congress.
This  is one of the few national-level water
quality reports; its overall conclusions about
 Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
 sources and causes of pollution are used in
 determining where to focus national water
 pollution control efforts and resources. The
 report also includes information on State and
 Tribal water pollution programs and special
 human health and aquatic life issues.

 EPA produces a variety of monitoring tools
 such as technical methods and protocols, as well
 as guidance recommending baseline State
 monitoring program components to be
 implemented. Monitoring is also conducted
 under the nonpoint source program (Section
 319), the National Estuary Program (Section
 320), the Clean Lakes Program (Section 314),
 and through various special studies and
 programs.

 EPA's data management program for ambient
 water quality is centered on EPA's STOrage and
 RETreival system (STORET).  This database
 contains decades of raw surface and ground
 water data. Much of the raw data analyzed for
 the 305(b) water quality reporting process is
 stored hi STORET. STORET is currently being
 modernized to more effectively handle the
 complex needs of the nation's evolving
 monitoring programs.  EPA is the co-chair of
 the National Water Quality Monitoring Council,
 a consortium of public and private monitoring
 agencies that facilitates implementation of the
 nationwide monitoring strategy designed by the
 Council's predecessor, the Intergovernmental
 Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality.

 EPA's information on water discharges
 permitted by NPDES is included hi its Permit
 Compliance System (PCS) database.

 2.  How can EPA Monitoring and Data
   Management Programs Assist States and
   Localities in Conducting Local Source Water
   Protection Assessments?

Monitoring data collected under the various
programs cited above, using a broad variety of
technical monitoring tools, may provide
      valuable existing data to source water
      assessments which can result in reduced costs
      and efforts. For those source waters that need
      additional pollutant occurrence data, EPA's
      technical monitoring tools (e.g., monitoring
      protocols and guidance documents) should be
      useful.

      In 1994, States were asked to work with EPA to
      prepare multi-year State monitoring strategies
      addressing core program elements, including
      integration with program-specific monitoring
      such as source water or the National Pollutant
      Discharge Elimination System. These multi-
      year monitoring strategies can be used as a base
      for SWAP programs, and at minimum should be
      closely linked with monitoring and assessment
      of specific source waters.

      The modernized STORET data management
      system will be able to handle information
      generated by source water assessments. A vast
      array of information on data owners, project and
      survey types, field activities, sampling stations,
      types of samples, and sampling results will be
      stofable and accessible in the modernized
      STORET, along with quality assurance checks
      to ensure the reliability of the information.

      EPA's Water Body System allows States to
      submit and store their CWA 305(b) data in
      electronic form. One of the water uses States
      assess under 305(b) is source water for drinking
     water.

     EPA is also working to strengthen State
     georeferencing capabilities to better track
     monitoring information for mapping and GIS
     applications. GIS tools, including the Reach
     File 3 system that assigns unique locational
     identifiers to the waters of the U.S., will be
     valuable in source water assessments.

     Source water protection programs should work
     cooperatively with State ambient monitoring
     staff, including the 305(b) and performance
     partnership staff, to ensure that existing data are
Draft
66
                                                                                        Draft

-------
recognized and used. Source water assessments
are not intended to involve substantial amounts
of new, ambient monitoring.  Any monitoring
undertaken for assessments must be economical
and effective; cooperative work with State
monitoring will ensure that duplication of
monitoring effort is not occurring,  and that any
new data that are collected are appropriate and
credible. Coordination with the EPA data
management staff will ensure that all needed
data storage capabilities for source water
protection efforts are accounted for in the
modernized  STORET system, as appropriate.

3. How Can Monitoring and Data Management
   Programs Assist States and Localities in
   Implementing Local Source Water
   Protection Programs?

Monitoring data collected under the various
programs cited above, using  a broad variety of
technical monitoring tools, will allow source
water protection program managers to 1)
characterize waters; 2) identify problems; 3)
design programs; 4) measure the effectiveness
of their efforts; 5) identify resulting trends; and
6) direct resources to areas of greatest need.
Similarly, EPA's data management systems  will
allow analysts and decision makers easy access
to monitoring information, are flexible to
varying data requirements, and ensure that the
data stored are of documented quality. This
should help implement the most effective
controls and management practices in source
water protection areas.

4.  How Can Source Water Protection
    Assessments Assist Monitoring and Data
    Management Programs?

 Information about source water quality is a
 valuable data layer to be added to monitoring
 data collected by State and Federal agencies,
 and thereby improve State and national
 assessments of water quality. The water
 environmental indicators reporting project at the
 national level and at the watershed level
    (through the National Watershed Assessment
    Project) includes source water protection data,
    and the source water assessments will make that
    data more robust.

    5.  Who are the Key Decision Makers for
       Monitoring and Data Management at the
       State and Local Levels?

    State 305(b) water quality assessment
    coordinators, monitoring program managers and
    computer information services providers at the
    State and local levels are key decision makers.
    Staff who design performance partnerships are
    also critical, since it is monitoring that provides
    the information to assess results. For more
    information visit EPA's homepage
    [http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/].

    Nonpoint Source Program (CWA)

    1.  What is the Nonpoint Source (NPS)
       Program?

    The national nonpoint source program was
    established by Congress when it enacted the
    Clean Water Act amendments in 1987 and
    included a new section addressing nonpoint.
    source pollution. Section 319 established a
    three-stage process whereby States could
    receive grant funding to address nonpoint source
    pollution. States were: (1) required to conduct
    statewide assessments of their waters to identify
    those that were either impaired (did not fully
    support State water quality standards) or
    threatened (presently meet water quality
    standards but are likely not to continue to meet
    water quality standards fully) because of
    nonpoint sources; (2) required to develop
    nonpoint source management programs to
    address the impaired or threatened waters
    identified in their nonpoint assessments; and (3)
    entitled to receive annual grants from EPA  to
    assist them in implementing their nonpoint
    source management programs once the
    assessments and programs had been approved
    by EPA.
 Draft
67
                                                                                          Draft

-------
 EPA has now approved the assessments and
 management programs for all States and
 Territories. Many States are in the process of
 revising their management programs. Through
 FY 1997, a total of nearly $571.5 million has
 been awarded to the States and Territories under
 Section 319. A small portion of the annual
 Section 319 appropriation is set aside for Indian
 Tribes. The Tribal allocation is limited by
 statute to one third of one percent of the national
 appropriation. To date, 10 tribes have obtained
 approval of their nonpoint source assessments
 and management programs and are receiving
 319 funding to help implement their NFS
 programs. The current national guidance for this
 program was released in May,  1996.

 In 1990, as part of the Coastal Zone Act
 Reauthorization Amendments, Congress
 required all States (29) with Federally approved
 Coastal Zone Management Act programs to
 develop coastal nonpoint source programs.
 These programs, currently being jointly
 approved by EPA and NOAA (the National
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration),
 provide for implementation within coastal
 watersheds of management measures specified
 by EPA and incorporate policies and
 mechanisms, enforceable at the State level, to
 ensure implementation of the specified
 measures.

 2. Haw Can the Nonpoint Source Program ,
   Assist States and Localities in Conducting
   Local Source Water Protection Assessments?

 Some assessment activities may be eligible for
 Section 319 funding. In addition, the
 assessments developed for the NPS programs
 should serve as valuable sources of information
 and data about land-based pollution sources
 which may now or in the future contribute to the
 contamination of drinking water intakes and
 wells, as well as identify both surface waters
 known or suspected of being contaminated by
NPS pollution. In most States, the NPS
 assessments have been incorporated into the
 National Water Quality Inventory (305(b)
 Report) and are consequently updated
 periodically as part of each State's overall water
 quality assessment effort.

 3.  How Can the Nonpoint Source Program
    Assist States and Localities in Implementing
    Local Source Water Protection Programs?

 The technical guidance document, Guidance
 Specifying Management Measures For Sources
 of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA,
 Office of Water, 840-B-92-002, January 1993)
 developed by EPA for the coastal nonpoint
 source program, constitutes the most
 comprehensive and up-to-date national
 summary of management measures for
 preventing and reducing NPS impacts on
 surface and ground waters, and is applicable to
 inland as well as coastal nonpoint sources
 (agriculture, forestry, urban runoff, marinas,
 hydromodification, wetlands protection). The
 guidance should prove valuable to States and
 localities in developing programs and strategies
 to protect drinking water sources from land-
 based contaminants. Furthermore, the Section
 319 funds awarded to States to assist them in
 implementing their NPS management programs
 can be used, and have been used, to implement
 measures to protect drinking water sources
 where such activities are described or
 referenced in  the State's NPS management
 program. Roughly half of each State's 319
 grant award is passed through to local groups
 and organizations for on-the-ground
 implementation activities. Additionally, the
 enforceable policies and mechanisms
 incorporated in State coastal NPS programs
might well be utilized as an additional tool to
achieve implementation of Source Water
Protection Programs hi coastal areas.
Draft
                                                                                        Draft

-------
4.  How Can Finished Local Source Water
   Assessments Assist State and Local Nonpoint
   Source Programs?

As mentioned above in section (2), NFS
assessments are periodically updated as part of
the National Water Quality Inventory. Federal,
State and local assessment resources are
typically insufficient to address all waters.
Consequently, these updates must make use of
information and data from many different
organizations and agencies. Information and
data from finished source water assessments
would be very helpful for most States in
improving and expanding coverage of State
water quality assessments. Better and more
comprehensive assessment information and data
would then make possible more effective and
efficient use of Federal, State and local
resources to improve and protect both surface
and ground water for all uses.

J.  Who Are the Key Decision Makers for
   Nonpoint Source Programs at the State and
   Local Levels?

Each EPA Region has a NFS Coordinator who
is familiar with the NFS programs for each of
the States, Territories and Tribes in that Region
and the 319 funding process for those States,
Territories and Tribes. In each State, the lead
agency for nonppint source pollution is     ,  .
designated by the Governor. There is a
nonpoint source coordinator in each State lead
NFS agency responsible for managing the
 State's NFS program. In most States, this
 Coordinator is located in the State's water
 quality agency.  In several States the NFS
 Coordinator is located in the State's
 conservation agency and in one State (TN) the
 NFS Coordinator is located hi the State
 agricultural agency.  Increasingly, decisions
 about funding and program priorities are made
 by a broad-based NFS Task Force representing
 State agencies as well as other stakeholders at
 the State and local levels. For more information
    visit EPA's homepage
    [http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/].

    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
    Program

    1.  What is the Total Maximum Daily Load
       (TMDL) Program?

    The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
    Program under section 303(d) of the Clean
    Water Act is the technical backbone of the
    watershed protection approach. Under section
    303(d), States are required to identify waters
    that do not meet water quality standards, even
    after the implementation of nationally required
    levels of pollution control technology, and to
    develop TMDLs for those waters, with
    oversight from EPA. The law also requires
    States to establish a priority ranking for their
    waters needing TMDLs. TMDLs allocate
    pollutant loadings to pollution sources hi a
    watershed, and provide a basis for identifying
    and establishing controls to reduce both point
    and nonpoint source pollutant loadings.

    2. How Can the TMDL Program Assist States
       and Localities in Conducting Local Source
       Water Assessments?

    State lists that identify waters needing TMDLs,
    and TMDLs developed for specific water
    bodies, are a useful source of information for
    the development of source water assessments.
    Section 303(d) lists identify waters not meeting
    water quality standards due to a particular
    pollutant or  stressor; this type of information
    will be helpful for identifying contaminants of
    concern for  source waters. TMDLs for
    particular water bodies generally provide more
    detailed information about the sources of the
    pollution and actually can be used to develop
    allocation scenarios for pollutant loadings
    among pollution sources in a watershed.
 Draft
69
                                                                                          Draft

-------
             3.  How Can the TMDL Program Assist States
                and Localities in Implementing Local Source
                Water Protection Programs?

             The TMDL Program is a planning program mat
             identifies waters still needing attention to meet
             water quality standards. The TMDLs provide a
             basis for allocating pollutant loadings among
             pollution sources in a watershed.  For a source
             water serving as a  public water supply, the data
             developed as part of the TMDL assessment for
             that water provides a basis for implementing
             local Source Water Protection Programs and
             other programs.

             4. How Can Finished Local Source Water
               Assessments Assist State TMDL Programs?

             State TMDL Programs are required to use all
             "existing and readily available" information in
             developing section 303(d) lists and Source water
             assessments may provide additional data upon
             which to base listing decisions and also to
             develop TMDLs for a particular water body.
            For example, since TMDLs are developed for
            specific pollutants or stressors, identification in
            source water assessments of contaminants of
            concern in a particular SWPA would be helpful
            to State TMDL Programs.

            J. Who are the Key Decision Makers in the
               TMDL Program at the State and Local
              Levels?

            State TMDL Programs are generally managed
            by State water quality agencies. At the local
            level, a variety of stakeholders may be involved
            including loqal and regional governing
            agencies, point sources, fanners, foresters, land
            developers, city and State planners, and local
            environmental organizations. For more
            information visit EPA's homepage
            [http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html].
      National Estuary Program

      1. What is the National Estuary Program?

      In 1987, Congress established the National
      Estuary Program (NEP) as part of the Clean
      Water Act. The NEP's mission is to protect and
      restore the health of estuaries while supporting
      economic and recreational activities. To achieve
      this, EPA helps create local estuary programs
      (referred to as "NEPs") by developing
      partnerships between government agencies that
      oversee estuarine resources and the people who
      depend on the estuaries for their livelihood and
      quality of life. These groups plan and
      implement programs according to the needs of
      their own areas. To date, 28 local programs are
      demonstrating practical and innovative ways to
      revitalize and protect their estuaries.

      A major benefit of the NEP is that it brings
      communities together to decide the future of
      their local estuaries. The NEP combines the
      work of many groups. Each local program
      consists of representatives from government
      agencies responsible for the estuary's health and
      productivity, and from the community-citizens,
      business leaders, educators, and researchers.
      The multi-interest working committees and an
      overall management conference address
      characterization (biological, geophysical,
      chemical, and social parameters) of the estuary
      and its watershed, the priority problems for the
      estuary, actions to correct the priority problems,
      and ways to finance the actions. As a result of
     this work, detailed comprehensive management
     plans are produced by all programs. The newest
     source water concerns of many of the 28 NEPs
     fall into four categories:

     •  Community sustainability including
        adequate source water supply and supply
        expansion capacity - growth in many coastal
        communities has already exceeded existing
        supplies, and many others are near capacity.
        Traditional dependence on shallow aquifer
        sources in many coastal areas is ending
           Draft
70
                                                                                                    Draft
_

-------
   because of naturally poor water quality,
   saltwater intrusion, or contamination from
   onsite disposal. The economic and
   environmental impacts associated with
   managing shortages and funding new sources
   are significant. Local and regional
   assessments must be conducted to assist
   coastal communities with planning their
   future growth.

•  Impacts of over-pumping - in addition to
   water quality degradation which can result
   from over pumping, wetlands and other vital
   wet habitats can be adversely affected (e.g.
   the Florida Everglades) by lowering of the
   water table.

•  Activities in recharge areas - coastal
   communities most often do not control the
   water quality of the deep supply aquifers.
   With assessments in hand, local and State
   officials can plan together to protect recharge
   areas.

•  Upstream withdrawals and discharges -when
   coastal communities use surface water for
   supply or to supplement ground sources, they
   must depend upon users throughout the
   watershed to ensure adequate quantity and
   quality.

2. How Can the NEPs Assist States and
   Localities in Conducting Source Water
   Protection Assessments?

The NEPs have local government
representatives on the various committees which
may have identified source water assessment
and protection as a priority issue. Each NEP has
engaged multiple stakeholders interested hi
source water including, governmental agencies,
citizens, land owners and scientists. During
development of their comprehensive
conservation and management plans, most NEPs
have identified priority problems threatening the
estuary.  Many of these problems may  threaten
local source water. States and localities can get
    a head start on their own source water
    assessments by using the information compiled
    by the NEP.

    3. How Can the NEPs Assist States and
       Localities in Implementing Local Source
       Water Protection Programs?

    Most NEPs currently include partners such as
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA).  NOAA's programs
    associated with the Coastal Zone Management
    and Marine Protected Areas Act include
    protection efforts for surface waters. The
    various State and local committees working on
    these programs are existing venues which
    should welcome additional source water
    protection efforts and partners.

    Integrating Source Water Protection Programs
    together with NEPs will bring to the attention of
    the various stakeholders in the estuary's
    watershed the  importance of targeting source
    waters as high priority areas for protection.
    This will strengthen teamwork between the
    public and private sectors at the Federal, State,
    tribal and local levels to achieve the greatest
    environmental improvements with the resources
    available. This integration can result in cost
    savings by leveraging and building upon the
    financial resources and the willingness of the
    people with interests hi the estuary's watershed
    to take action. 'Through improved
    communication and coordination, State and
    local Source Water Protection Programs can
    reduce costly duplication of efforts and
    conflicting actions.

    4. How Can Finished Source Water ,
       Assessments Assist Individual NEPs?

    Most of NEPs are concerned about source water
    protection. The inherent vulnerability of
    drinking water sources in coastal areas to over
    use and contamination has been amplified by
    the rapid growth seen in these areas. The
    finished source water assessments will provide
 Draft
7T
                                                                                         Draft

-------
 valuable information to the NEPs and their
 stakeholders, enabling the evaluation of efforts
 undertaken by the local programs to reduce
 threats to source waters.

 5. Who are the Key Decision Makers for the
    NEP at State and Local Levels ?

 EachNEP establishes a management conference
 which includes a policy committee,
 management committee, scientific/technical
 advisory committee, and a citizens advisory
 committee. Committee representatives include
 individuals from EPA and other Federal
 agencies, State, regional, and local government
 agencies, environmental groups, educational
 institutions, local industries, and the general
 public. To locate contacts for a specific
 program, consult the National Estuary Program
 Homepage
 [http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nep.html],
 or call the State coastal or marine affairs
 agency, or call the main National  Estuary
 Program office at 202/260-1952.

 Clean Lakes Program

 1.  What is the Clean Lakes Program?

 The Clean Lakes Program is one of the earliest
 programs to use the watershed protection
 approach in monitoring and restoration activities
 to control a wide range of pollution sources. The
 program has provided more than $145 million
 over 20 years under Clean Water Act section
 314 to support grants and cooperative
 agreements for priority lake monitoring,
 assessment, and protection projects in all areas
 of the country. This support has included
 statewide assessments of lake conditions, Phase
 I projects for initial identification of water
 quality problems and solutions for specific
 lakes, Phase II projects for implementation of
 lake restoration and protection activities, and
Phase III post-restoration monitoring projects.
EPA has been encouraging States to use section
319 nonpoint source funds to support lakes-
 related work that was previously done under the
 Clean Lakes Program, as there has been no
 appropriation for the program since 1994. For
 more information on the Clean Lakes Program
 and other lakes information, visit its Internet
 homepage at:[ http://www.epa.
 gov/OWOW/lakes/lakes.html].

 2.  How Can the Clean Lakes Program Assist
    States and Localities in Conducting Local
    Source Water Assessments?

 Many lake assessment and restoration activities
 have been conducted under the Clean Lakes
 Program and information from these studies
 could be useful in developing source water
 assessments for specific lakes used as source
 waters. Clean Lakes Program statewide lake
 assessments and Phase I studies for particular
 lakes may be of greatest help in assessing lake
 conditions. Phase II projects support
 implementation efforts and are sometimes
 followed by Phase III post-restoration
 monitoring projects. A particular lake may have
 only a Phase I project completed or in some
 cases may have all three phases completed.

 3. HOMV Can the Clean Lakes Program Assist
   States and Localities  in Implementing Local
   Source Water Assessment Programs?

 The information developed in Clean Lake
 Program projects may assist States and localities
 in implementing source water assessment
 programs. As indicated above, EPA has been
 encouraging States to use section  319 nonpoint
 source funds to support lakes-related work that
 was previously done under the Clean Lakes
 Program.

 4. How Can Finished Local Source Water
   Assessments 'Assist State Clean Lakes
   Programs?

New analyses conducted for lakes under the
 Source Water Assessment Program could better
characterize the vulnerability of important lakes,
Draft
                                                                                         Draft

-------
and thereby reinforce the need for additional
lake restoration and protection activities. The
identification and documentation of these
vulnerabilities will hopefully spur action at the
local and State level. Some of these needs can
be addressed through section 319, CWAState
Revolving Funds, State-funded lake programs
and other sources of funding.

5. Who are Key Decision Makers in the Clean
   Lakes Program at the State and Local
   levels?

State lake programs are generally managed by
State water quality agencies. At the local level,
a variety of stakeholders may be involved
including local and regional government
agencies, lake associations and lakeshore
residents, local environmental and other
organizations, and  many others. For more
information visit EPA's homepage
[http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/].

Wetlands Program

1. What is the Wetlands Program?

The U.S. EPA, in partnership with other Federal
agencies, and State, local, and tribal
governments is responsible for restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters, which
include wetlands.  Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, which is jointly administered by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA,
establishes a program to regulate the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the
U.S. While the Section 404 program commonly
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
material on a case-by-case basis, provisions
found within this authority can allow for the
regulation of aquatic resources in a more
comprehensive manner. Some examples
include watershed  planning, special area
management planning and advanced
identification.
    EPA's Wetlands Program has made efforts to
    integrate wetlands protection into existing EPA
    programs (e.g., Section 401 certification,
    Section 305(b)). In addition, some States have
    developed or are developing State Wetlands
    Conservation Plans (SWCPs) which provide a
    framework for integrating wetland programs
    across many State programs. The EPA
    Wetlands Program has experience in providing
    assistance for the development of
    comprehensive wetlands plans, participating in
    efforts to develop such plans, and reviewing
    plans for other State and local programs.

    2. How can wetlands protection assist States
       and localities in conducting local Source
       Water Assessments?

    Wetland protection programs often need to
    assess the overall health of
    watershed/ecosystems in order to estimate the
    impacts of proposed man-made changes to
    wetlands and other waters.  Assessments
    undertaken by Federal, State, and local
    governments for the purpose of protecting
    wetlands can provide information that may be
    useful for source water assessments.

    3. How can wetlands protection assist States
       and localities in implementing local Source
       Water Protection Programs?

    Wetlands can provide a wide range of different
    functions and benefits to local communities
    including the interception and filtration  of
    pollutants thereby improving source water
    quality. Integrating wetlands protection into
    Source Water Protection Programs can bring to
    the attention of stakeholders the importance of
    targeting wetlands and source waters as high
    priority areas for protection. Through improved
    communication and coordination, State  and
    local Source Water and Wetland Protection
    programs can reduce costly duplication  efforts
    and conflicting actions.
 Draft
73
Draft

-------
 4.  How can finished Source Water Assessments
    assist Wetlands Protection?

 Finished source water assessments can provide
 valuable information as to the need for wetlands
 protection and/or restoration activities. These
 assessments can identify areas where wetlands
 are valuable and should be protected as well as
 areas where the enhancement or restoration of
 wetlands can provide important functions in the
 watershed (e.g., improve water quality).
 Wetlands may be lower cost alternatives to
 water treatment. Protection or restoration of
 wetlands will  likely reduce impacts to source
 water.  Restoring wetlands often reduces the
 potential for impacts to source waters.

 J.  Who are the key decision makers for
    Wetlands Protection at the State and local
    levels?

 Key decision makers include EPA Regions,
 State/Tribal and local natural resources/water
 agencies. For more information visit EPA's
 homepage
 [http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/].

 The NPDES Program and Source Water
 Protection

 1.  What is the National Pollutant Discharge
   Elimination System (NPDES) Program?

 Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, the
NPDES program regulates point source
 discharges to surface waters such as wetlands,
 lakes, rivers, estuaries, bays, and oceans.  Point
 source discharges include wastewater from
 industrial processes, effluent from municipal
wastewater treatment plants, industrial and
municipal stormwater, combined sewer
overflows, and sanitary sewer overflows.  The
NPDES program also regulates biosolids (the
semi-solid residue from wastewater treatment
processes) to ensure that they are handled
properly and manages the national pretreatment
program to reduce the level of pollutants
      discharged by industrial facilities into municipal
      sewage systems.

      Permits regulate discharges with the goal of
      ensuring protection of human health and aquatic
      life. If regulated facilities fail to comply with
      the provisions of their permits, they may be
      subject to enforcement actions. EPA and the
      States use a variety of techniques to monitor
      permittees' compliance status, including on-site
      inspections and review of data submitted by
      permittees.

      2. How can the NPDES program assist States
        and localities in conducting local Source
        Water Assessments?

      A State Source Water Assessment Program is
      required to delineate the boundaries of the areas
      providing source waters for public water
      systems, to identify sources of contaminants that
      could threaten public water systems, and assess
      the susceptibility of the systems to such
      contamination. The NPDES program could
      assist States and localities in a number of ways
      to conduct source water assessments.

      In 1994, the Office of Wastewaiter Management
      developed the "NPDES Watershed Strategy" as
      a first step toward fully integrating the NPDES
     program into a broader watershed management
     approach. This strategy promotes establishment
     of statewide watershed management
     frameworks that delineate watersheds and sub-
     watersheds (including both surface water
     drainage areas and connections to aquifers) and
     coordinate water management program
     activities around these watersheds.
     Approximately 25 States have developed or are
     developing statewide watershed management
     frameworks. To the extent that a SWPA would
     include an entire watershed or sub-watershed,
     the State Source Water Protection Program
     would benefit from participating in the
     framework development and delineation
     processes.
Draft
74
Draft

-------
Recently, the NPDES program has initiated
discussions on development of a single
mechanism (a "watershed permit") that could
address multiple pollutant sources within a
watershed.  A framework for "watershed
permitting" is the next logical step in fully
integrating the NPDES program within an
overall watershed approach. Implementation of
a watershed permit would necessarily involve a
process of local watershed monitoring,
assessment, and planning to determine
appropriate, enforceable, local control actions
(including nonpoint source controls). Source
water assessments can and should be a part of
such an overall watershed assessment and
planning effort. Also, the NPDES program has
convened a Federal Advisory Committee to
advise EPA on strategies to control urban wet
weather point sources (i.e., stormwater,
combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows). EPA, in cooperation with the Urban
Wet Weather Flows Federal Advisory
Committee, is developing a document providing
guidance on local watershed assessment and
planning that may be useful for source water
assessments.

Finally, monitoring requirements associated
with the NPDES program provide a number of
opportunities for obtaining data useful for
source water assessments.  Permits may contain
effluent, ambient, and biosolids monitoring
requirements that would be critical in
identifying the presence and origin of
contaminants in a delineated SWPA. EPA and
the Urban Wet Weather Federal Advisory
Committee are developing  recommendations
and guidance on coordinating watershed
monitoring data within the framework of a
watershed plan. The final document can and
should consider source water assessment needs
when providing guidance on monitoring for
watershed planning and assessment and
recommendations for monitoring requirements
for NPDES permits.
    3. How can the NPDES Program assist States
       and localities in implementing local Source
       Water Protection Programs?

    As noted in the response to question 2, the
    NPDES program, particularly as it operates
    within the context of a watershed management
    framework, can provide valuable information
    for conducting the delineation and assessment
    portions of a Source Water Protection Program.
    NPDES also can partner with a Source Water
    Protection Program to create a forum for
    watershed delineation and assessment.

    As States and localities move beyond the
    assessment phase to implementation of source
    water protection measures, NPDES permits will
    be key measures for ensuring control of
    contaminants that could threaten PWSs. The
    NPDES program provides enforceable
    regulatory requirements that can be designed to
    meet the goals of a Source Water Protection
    Program. Regulation of individual wastewater
    discharges and of the use and disposal of
    biosolids are critical means of ensuring
    attainment of water quality standards applicable
    to public water supplies and other source water
    protection goals. In addition, the concept of a
    "watershed permit" may provide the means for
    aggregating contaminant assessments  and
    requirements for point and nonpoint source
    control measures on a watershed basis in order
    to achieve these goals.

    4. How can finished local Source Water
       Assessments assist the NPDES program?

    Permit writers often must determine where
    water quality-based permit limits are needed
    and then develop limits based upon sparse data.
    Finished source water assessments can provide a
    means to collect information from other existing
    data sources on ambient levels of contaminants,
    and significant potential sources of
    contaminants developed in the assessment itself,
    that could be used to assess the need for permit
    limits  for individual contaminants and to
Draft
75
Draft

-------
            calculate such limits. Also, the conditions in a
            "watershed permit" would be based, in part, on
            the information gathered in  a source water
            assessment and goals identified as a result of the
            source water assessment.

            5. Who are the key decision-makers for the
               NPDESprogram at the State and local
               levels?

            There are 43 States and territories authorized to
            implement the NPDES program. In these
            States, the program generally is implemented by
            the State water quality agency.  Typically, this
            agency also is responsible for water quality
            planning, setting water quality standards, and
            enforcement, all programs with critical links to
            the NPDES program. In States and territories
            that are not authorized to implement the NPDES
            program, EPA is the permit-issuing authority.
            In these States, EPA works closely with State
            agencies that implement related programs.

            In addition to State authority, cities with
            municipal wastewater treatment plants covered
            by the pretreatment program are authorized to
            establish pretreatment requirements to deal with
            local pollution problems. These requirements
            reduce the level of pollutants discharged by
            industry into municipal sewage systems.
            Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

            1.  What is the Sole Source Aquifer Protection
            Program?

            The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program is
            authorized under Section 1424(e) of the Safe
            Drinking Water Act. The provision allows EPA
            to declare that an aquifer is a "sole or principal
            drinking water source" for an area if
            contamination of the aquifer could create a
            significant hazard to public health. A sole
            source aquifer designation can be initiated by a
            petition submitted to EPA from any interested
            party, such as a public water purveyor, local
     health department, or an environmental group.
     Following a designation, federal financially
     assisted projects proposed over the aquifer are
     subject to EPA review. EPA can negotiate
     modifications to improve a project or even deny
     funds to a project which poses a significant risk
     to public health by contamination of the sole
     source aquifer.

     2. How can the Sole Source Aquifer Protection
        Program assist States and localities in
        conducting Source Water Assessments?

     The hydrogeologic and water usage information
     assembled by EPA during the designation
     process can aid in defining protection areas and
     determining the susceptibility of water supplies.
     Project reviews can be a source of information
     on potential  contaminant sources within
     SWPAs.

     3. How can the Sole Source Aquifer Protection
        Program assist States and localities in
        implementing local Source Water Protection
        Programs?                         .

     A designation can increase community
     awareness on the use, value, and vulnerability of
     aquifers which helps build support for
     developing and implementing various ground
     water protection efforts.  Project reviews can
     often lead to direct technical assistance by
     identifying specific activities or practices that
     may lead to ground water contamination. In
     addition,  technical assistance usually involves
     site-specific  coordination of ground water
     protection activities between State and local
     environmental and public health protection
     agencies.  Since the program focuses
     specifically on ground water arid can cover
     many types of activities that may impact ground
     water quality, it offers an added level of
     protection for projects which might not be fully
     addressed through normal federal
     environmental/public health impact evaluations.
            Draft
76
Draft
_

-------
4.  How can finished local Source Water
   Assessments assist Sole Source Aquifer
   Protection Programs?

The information from source water assessments
can be used to help evaluate whether an area
meets SSA designation criteria, and can provide
useful information for project reviews, such as
the location of delineated SWPAs, potential or
existing sources of contamination, and local
variations in aquifer susceptibility.

5.  Who are the key decision makers in the Sole
   Source Aquifer Protection Program at the
   State and local levels?

Although project review authority cannot be
delegated, EPA collaborates with state and local
entities, such as health, environmental and
planning agencies, to help evaluate whether
proposed federally-assisted projects may
endanger drinking water supplies and.to develop
appropriate and cost-effective mitigation
measures. In most cases, the key decision
makers are the state and local agencies or
organizations that petition EPA for an SSA
designation.

Other EPA Programs That Will Be Described
Here in Chapter 5.
   Pesticide State Management Plan (SMP)
   Program
   Pollution Prevention Program
   Radiation Program
   RCRA Subtitle C Program
   RCRA Subtitle D Program
   Superfund Program
   Toxic Substances Control Program
   Underground Storage Tank Program
   Emergency Planning and Community Right-
   To-KnowAct(EPCRA)
     B. Linkages to Other Federal Programs

     Most resource based Federal programs have
     some involvement in water protection issues.
     The key to a successful State and local effort is
     to build partnerships which direct available
     resources towards the  specific task of
     protecting drinking water sources. Some of the
     Agencies with the program level involvement
     include:
       U.S. Department of Agriculture;
       U.S. Department of the Interior;
       U.S. Department of Defense;
       U.S. Department of Energy;
       U.S. Department of Transportation;
     A detailed description of the various program
     level activities and contact information will be
     available through OGWDW homepage.
     (Http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp.html.)
     OGWDW s homepage also provides links to
     available Internet information about Federal
     programs which may be relevant to State
     program development and implementation.

     The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
     several programs and significant resources that
     can be used to advance State and local source
     water efforts.  For example, the Farm Service
     Agency (FSA) administers the Conservation
     Reserve Program which provides for protection
     of environmental sensitive acreage. States can
     use this program to enroll land that impacts
     drinking water supplies. Further, FSA can help
     States identify already enrolled land which falls
     within delineated areas. Designated wellhead
     protection areas already receive special
     consideration. In addition, by designating
     certain  geographic areas as Conservation
     Priority Areas (CPA), States can ensure that all
     cropland within that area is eligible for
     enrollment in the CRP. Another provision of
     the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Enrollment
     Program (CREP), allows States to target CRP
     enrollments to address high priority resources
     such as delineated source water protection areas.
Draft
77
Draft

-------
 The primary contacts for program information
are available through State and County Farm
Service Agency Offices.
(http:.//wwwaix.fsa.usda.gov/areamap.html)

The Department of the Interior has several
organizational units which directly or indirectly
influence the management of surface and
ground water. Activities range from
investigative research to program planning and
data management. Particularly relevant to the
assessment process is the  U.S. Geological
Survey's mission to collect, evaluate and
disseminate water availability, quantity and use
information. U.S.G.S. has offices in every State
and has interdisciplinary teams of scientists and
technicians who can assist States with source
water assessments.  Federal matching .funds are
usually available to match funding from State
and local governments, including State
revolving funds. Several studies involving
source water area delineation and susceptibility
analysis have been completed and fact sheets
are available on request. The list of USGS State
Representatives is on the Internet at
[Http://water.usgs.gov/public/staterep.html].
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a
national wetlands inventory project and can
provide maps and digital wetlands data.  Over
20,000 maps have been digitized and are
available to the public through  the Internet
from the National Wetlands Inventory's web
site [http://www.nwi.fws.gov].   The National
Wetlands Inventory Regional Wetland
Coordinators located in the Fish and Wildlife
Service Regional Offices are the contacts for
wetland mapping or digitizing activities. Other
relevant agencies within DOI include Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), the National Park
Service (NPS), the Regional Aquifer System
Analysis (RASA) program, Bureau of
Reclamation, and  Office of Surface Mining
OSM). For example, many Park Service Units
have extensive surface and ground water data
and operate GIS systems that can facilitate the
interpretation and availability of such data.
     Implementation of Department of Defense
     environmental activities is largely carried out by
     the four military services ~ Army, Navy, Air
     Force and Marines.  States can coordinate their
     source water activities through DOD's
     Environmental Quality Centers. The services
     have extensive data on existing sources of
     contamination associated with defense activities
     and bases and can work with the States to
     identify potential sources. Many bases have
     their own water supplies and have already
     implemented extensive wellhead protection
     activities.

     The Department of Transportation (DOT)
     plans for and implements projects to mitigate
     any adverse effects on public health and the
     environment as a result of air, highway or rail
     travel and infrastructure. The Federal Aviation
     Administration has efforts underway to
     encourage airports to use best management
     practices when using aircraft and de-icing
     agents. Also within DOT, The Federal Highway
     Administration has erosion control guidelines
     and is developing joint FHWA/EPA training in
     erosion control and non-point source pollution.

     The Department of Energy regulates all
     national defense -related uses of radioactive
     materials at its sites. DOE sites prepare Annual
     Site Environmental Reports and annual
     environmental monitoring reports which contain
     detailed environmental information. Each DOE
     site has a program in place for ground water and
     surface water protection from radiological
     contamination.  State agencies seeking
     information on source water ait DOE sites can
     contact the DOE Operations Office or the DOE
     area Office with responsibility for a given site.
     Names and phone numbers are available
     through the DOE Homepage at
     http://www/doe.gov.

     EPA has asked its other Federal partners to
     assist States as they implement the new
     provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
     EPA is also encouraging Federal agencies to use
Draft
78
Draft

-------
the information developed through SWAPs to
target and prioritize their efforts and available
funding to these areas.

EPA is collating information provided by other
Federal Programs for use by States as they
develop and implement their source water
programs. Specifically, agencies have been
asked to identify:

•  The activities and programs that have the
   strongest bearing on source water
   assessments and protection;

•  How the agency can assist States implement
   source water assessment and protection
   programs?

•  How source water assessments can be useful
   to the Agency's efforts and priority setting
   efforts;

•  Who should States contact within the agency
   to coordinate source water activities;

•  Who are other Stakeholder's with a primary
   interest in the agency's activities?

This information will be made available to
States on the OGWDW homepage with links to
other Internet resources. Examples of the kind
of information available are provided for the
National Wetlands Inventory and the U.S.
Geological Service, and the Forest Service.

Resources Available From The U.S. Geological
Survey For Assisting States With Source Water
Assessments

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has offices
in every State and has interdisciplinary teams of
scientists and technicians who can assist States
with source-water assessments. Federal
matching funds are usually available from the
USGS to match funding from State and local
governments, including the State Revolving
Funds. Several studies involving source area
    delineation and susceptibility analysis have been
    completed; and fact sheets are available on
    request,

    1. Activities of USGS With Strongest Bearing
       on Source-Water Assessment:

    The following USGS programs can provide
    useful information for source water
    assessments:

    •  Federal-State Cooperative Program-
       Administered locally, this is a broad-based
       Federal-State partnership, with matched
       funding, that addresses needs for data and
       water studies of interest at both the State and
       the Federal level.

    •  USGS Drinking Water Initiative—
       Coordinated at Headquarters, this program
       seeks to apply USGS data and expertise to
       drinking-water related issues.

    •  National Water Quality Assessment
       (NAWQA)—Federally funded
       comprehensive water-quality studies of 55
       major watersheds nationwide.

    •  National Stream-Quality Accounting
       Network (NASQAN)—Collects water
       quality data at fixed sites on major rivers
       nationwide.

    •  National Water Quality Laboratory-
       Provides analyses of a full range of
       contaminants, with extremely low detection
       limits, for detection of trends invisible when
       normal detection limits are used.

    •  Toxic Substances Program—Specific studies
       on fate and transport of toxic materials.

    •  Data collection, storage, and retrieval—The
       USGS routinely collects and stores a vast
       amount of data on streamflow, aquifers, and
       water quality.
 Draft
79
Draft

-------
 •  Geographic Information Systems (GIS)—
    Most spatial data at USGS are stored in
    digital form, and can be used in a GIS.

 2.  How the USGS Can Assist States in
    Designing and Implementing Source-
    Water Assessment and Protection Programs:

 •  Delineation—USGS can delineate drainage
    areas for surface water and contributing
    areas for wells.  For larger drainage basins,
    delineations are already available in USGS
    hydrologic unit maps.

 •  Identification of significant potential sources
    of contamination—Some USGS GIS layers
    are available showing certain types of
    potential sources of contamination. USGS
    can also work with States to produce the
    required maps.

 •  Susceptibility analysis—USGS can use
    existing and new studies of watersheds,
    aquifers, land use, and contaminant fate and
    transport to determine susceptibility of
    drinking water sources to contamination.
    The USGS can also sample streams and
    wells to determine occurrence patterns and
    trends in contaminant concentrations. Such
    studies in Washington and New Jersey have
    resulted in savings, in the form of monitoring
    waivers, that more than covered the cost of
    the studies.

•  Implementation and protective measures—
   USGS can participate hi scientific review of
    source-water protection plans.

3. How State Assessments can be useful to
    USGS:                      .

 Assessments can help to identify priority areas
with specific water-quality problems that
require additional study.
      4.  USGS contacts:

      For National inquiries related to drinking water,
      contact

                  Glenn Patterson, USGS
                   Drinking Water Coordinator
                   412 National Center
                   Reston,VA 20192
                   Phone 703-648-6876
                   Fax  703-648-5722
                   E-mail gpatteir@usgs.gov

      For inquiries related to a particular State, use
      these contacts, which are kept in an updated list
      at http://water.usgs.gov/public/staterep.html

      5. USGS primary partners at the State and
      local level:
        State and local government agencies dealing
        with water issues
        State Geologists
        Water Resources Research Institutes
        Other Federal agencies (Slate and local
        offices)
        Indian Tribes
        Universities
        Intergovernmental and public partnerships
        on water and environmental issues
     6.  Other stakeholders with an interest in USGS
        activities:
        The public
        Environmental and Industry groups
        Consulting firms
        Congress
        Professional organizations
     National Wetlands Inventory

     U.S. Fish and Wildlife, DOI

     Information on how to order wetland maps and
     digital data would be useful to the States
Draft
80
Draft

-------
because wetlands are important in maintaining
and protecting surface water quality.

1) How can the National Wetlands Inventory
   assist States implement source water
   assessment and protection programs?

Answer:  The National Wetlands Inventory
         Project provides maps and digital
         wetland data that provides the site
         specific classification and locational
         information communities need to
         protect the wetlands that are
         protecting, maintaining, and
         improving their surface water quality.
         Wetland maps are a prerequisite for
         watershed planning. Draft or final
         maps are available for 88 percent of
         the conterminous United States, 30
         percent of Alaska and all of Hawaii.
         Ordering information for paper maps
         is available by calling 1-800-USA-
         Maps.

2) How can State Assessments be useful to the
   National Wetlands Inventory?

Answer:  Assessments would identify key areas
         where there is a need to complete or
         update wetland mapping or digitizing
         of existing maps so they can be made
         available over the Internet.

3) Who should States contact at the National
   Wetlands Inventory with which to coordinate
   source water assessments?

Answer: The National Wetlands Inventory has
         Regional Wetland Coordinators
         located in the Fish and Wildlife
         Service Regional Offices.

4) Who are your primary partners at the local
   level?

Answer: The National Wetlands Inventory's
         primary funding support has been at
         the Federal and State levels.  Some
         funding has been provided by water
         boards such as Denver, cities such as
         Portland and New York, counties in
         Virginia and North Carolina,
         universities, utility companies, and
         Indian Tribes.

State  Contacts

Arizona Game & Fish
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
   Environmental Control
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality
Illinois Natural History Survey
Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
Maine Office of GIS
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources
Nebraska Conservation Survey Division
New Jersey
New York Wildlife Resources Center
North Carolina Center for Geographic

Information & Analysis

North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Oregon Dept. of Energy
South Carolina Land Resources Commission
South Carolina Water Resources Commission
South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Utah
Virginia Dept. of Conservation & Recreation
Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries
Washington Dept. of Ecology
Washington Dept. of Natural Resources
Washington Dept. of Wildlife
West Virginia Dept. of Water Resources
Wyoming Game & Fish
Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality
 Draft
                                      Draft

-------
 5) Who are other Stakeholder's -with a primary
 interest in yaw Agency's activities?

 Answer:
 U.S. Air Force
 U.S. Air National Guard
 U.S. Army
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 U.S. Coast Guard
 U.S. Navy
 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Forest Service
 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Soil Conservation
   Service
 U.S. Dept. of Commerce-National Oceanic and
   Atmospheric Administration
 U.S. Dept. of Energy
 U.S. Dept. of Interior-Bureau of Land
   Management
 U.S. Dept of Interior-Bureau of Reclamation
 U.S. Dept. of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service
 U.S. Dept. of Interior-National Biological
   Service
 U.S. Dept. of Interior-National Park Service
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Draft
82
Draft

-------
                              Appendix A

            Outreach Process for Notice and
                  Comment by Stakeholders
• Final Guidance for State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs (including Source Water
  Petition Programs) will be published on or before August 6,1997.

• Stakeholder Meetings To Assist EPA With the Draft and Final Guidance:


     • Prior to Publishing the Draft Guidance in 1997

          -  National Stakeholders Meeting — National Organizations of States, Water Suppliers and
             Environmentalists, Others (January 7/8,1997)

          -  2 Large System Seminars - (systems serving over 50,000 people) ( December, 1996 in
             Tempe, Arizona, and January, 1997 in Portland, Oregon )

          -  March 13/14 meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's Working
             Group on Source Water Protection.

     • Between Publishing the Draft and Final Guidance in 1997

          -  15-20 EPA Regional Stakeholder Meetings (April and May, 1997)

          -  1 large systems seminar (April, 1997)

          -  Early June meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's Working Group
             on Source Water Protection.

          -  Late June meeting of the NGA, ASIWPCA, GWPC, ASDWA, ECOS, NASDA on
             source water assessment and protection program issues.


 We will post availability of the Draft guidance and announce the meetings on EPA's Internet homepage cited in the
 introduction to this guidance. Below is our tentative schedule for producing the required source water assessment
 and protection guidance.
 Draft
83
                                                                              Draft

-------
         SDWA Assessment and Protection Guidance
        Tentative Schedule for Production in 1996 and 1997
DATE
OCTOBER 11
OCTOBER 14 -16
NOVEMBER 6
NOVEMBER 15
DECEMBER 1
DECEMBER 28
JANUARY7/8
JANUARY 17
April 4, 1997
APRIL -MAY, 1997
JUNE 13, 1997
AUGUST 6, 1997
OR BEFORE
EPA ACTION
Send Draft Discussion Guide to ASDWA, ASIWPCA and GWPC Lead
Committee Chairs Asking For Comments by November 15
ASDWA Meeting Discussion
Regional Branch Chiefs Meeting
State Comments Back
Comments by other Reviewers
Send Discussion Guide to All Stakeholders for the January 7/8,
National Stakeholders Meeting
1997
National Stakeholders Meeting
Deadline for any Additional Written Comments from the Stakeholders
Meeting
Draft Guidance Released
Regional Stakeholders Meetings
Final Comments from Everyone :
- Including Regional Summaries of Stakeholder's Meetings
(1 Summary Per Region)
Final Version Mailed to Stakeholders
Draft
                                                       Draft

-------
Q.
Q,
         C
         o
        4S
             g


        t*
        ^^?"  ^I^J
         <
        U)  g

         q>

         Q)
         O

        I
I
<§
                     LU
                         E
                         oo



                         I
                         UI

                         S
                         0.
V)

•a
c
as
a.
o
                         S
                         V)

-------
                                 Appendix C

      Enhancing Topographic Delineations for
               Source  Water Protection Areas
As States delineate SWPAs for surface-water
based sources of drinking water, they may want
to consider using buffer/setback zones, time-of-
travel zones and/or use modeling techniques.
While these are not delineation techniques, they
can assist States in defining "critical areas" for
management actions. Below is information that
can assist States in using these techniques.

Buffers/Setbacks

A typical buffer/setback zone for source water
protection is a strip of vegetated land generally
SO to 400 feet hi width along the shore of a
stream or reservoir that is upstream of a public
water supply intake. Analogously a
buffer/setback can be delineated for a reservoir.
Determination of the width of buffer zones is
often based on consideration of such factors as:
the topography of the land, the local land uses,
the political and legal feasibility of setting aside
such buffers, slope, size of the stream and land
ownership rights.

Surface water buffer zones and setbacks are
often used as a means of reducing the adverse
impacts of runoff on drinking water sources.
The primary purpose of buffers/setbacks is to
filter sheetflow and, to a lesser extent,
encourage increased ground water infiltration.
Buffer zones ("green areas") may be intended to
serve several functions such as: wildlife habitat,
stream bank integrity, protection of hyporheic
zone for aquatic life, residential or commercial
exclusion or source water protection.
     Time-of-Travel

     States may delineate SWPAs for spill and other
     emergency response activities. The following
     describes the use of time-of-travel studies for
     defining SWPAs for emergency planning. In
     this method, the time of travel (TOT) of flow in
     a stream is calculated between the drinking
     water intake and a poirit(s) upstream. This
     method does not actually result in a SWPA
     delineation; rather, the method is based on the
     length and velocity of a stream between the
     point of interest and an upstream monitoring
     location. It is the stream-flow travel time
     between those two points that provides the
     opportunity for managers to respond to a
     contamination event. Use of this method would
     be of greatest importance for drinking water
     utilities tapping rivers or reservoirs designated
     for commercial transport or other industrial and
     municipal wastewater discharges.  Water quality
     flow models have been used to estimate the
     travel time for a potential spill in a river to reach
     a drinking water intake and to estimate the level
     of contamination at the intake. These models
     provide a means through which specific
     hydrologic, geographic, and water quality
     parameters can be factored into a determination
     of the necessary size of a SWPA upstream from
     a drinking water intake.
Draft
86
Draft

-------
Modeling

Ground water discharge and surface runoff
models may also be used to assess the potential
impact of individual contaminant sources, and
to identify watershed areas with the greatest
potential impact on source water quality.
Modeling can be used in conjunction with
source water assessments to enhance source
water quality protection efforts.

A variety of models have been developed to
assess the impact of changing land use on
surface water quality. Simpler models require
less detailed, site-specific hydrologic
information and provide more generalized and
descriptive output. More complex models
require more extensive input data and provide
output with greater predictive capability and site
specificity.  Site specific output can provide
locations of contamination sources and yield
relatively accurate predictions of variable flows
and water quality at any point in a watershed.

Contaminant source loading models estimate
chemical loading rates to surface water. These
methods are most useful for estimating variation
in loading rates as a function of changing land
uses within the watershed. For example, as
shown in Figure C-l, land may be divided into
residential, commercial-, industrial-, and
agricultural-use parcels. If agricultural land is
subdivided by soil type, crop type, and land
management practice, the nonpoint source
loading rates for runoff, sediment yield, and
ground-water discharge may be estimated for
each parcel type. These parcel estimates are
summed to obtain the total loading rate for the
watershed or watershed areas.
             Figure C-l. Land Use Parcels

     Several States, local governments, water
     suppliers, and watershed management
     authorities have begun modeling to identify
     those land uses that have the greatest potential
     impact on source water quality. Modeling can
     identify areas within die watershed that should
     .be incorporated into the SWPA.  Modeling can
     also be used to assess the impact of differing
     land management strategies within the SWPA to
     foster more effective source water protection.
Draft
87
Draft

-------
                              Appendix D

       Conjunctive Delineation  of the Zone  of
   Ground Water Contribution and the Area of
              Surface Water Contribution to
                      Public  Water Systems
There are numerous hydrogeologic settings
where there is a significant hydraulic connection
between a stream or lake and an underlying
aquifer. Alluvial sand and gravel deposits
•within the floodplains and terraces of river
valleys typically function as high yield aquifers
and are commonly used to produce municipal
supplies. Ground water in these deposits
typically exhibits a strong degree of hydraulic
connection with the stream.  Along many
reaches, stream water routinely moves between
the aquifer and the stream.

Ground water that occurs in fractured rocks in
mountainous areas is also typically strongly
connected to streams. Most of the flow in a
mountain stream results from ground water
discharge. Most of the water that infiltrates into
fractured rocks above the stream valley will
eventually discharge to the stream. To establish
a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) to
protect public water supplies (PWSs) from all
significant potential sources of contamination, it
is important to determine if the PWS is
providing water from both ground water and
surface water sources.

Conjunctive delineation of (SWPAs) is the
integrated delineation of the zone of ground-
water contribution and the area of surface-water
contribution to a public water supply. States
that choose to consider the hydraulic connection
    between ground water and surface water when
    delineating a SWPA, will afford themselves the
    opportunity to reduce contamination from
    ground-water and from surface-water sources.

    1. Considerations for Conjunctive
       Delineation for Systems Primarily
       Supplied By Surface Water

    •  Contaminants in ground water may
       ultimately be discharged into surface water.
       As ground water flows towards discharge
       points, the water is exposed to processes that
       provide some degree of in-situ remediation
       for many contaminants. Thus, the longer the
       ground-water travel time between the site of
       contaminant entry to an aquifer and the site
       of potential discharge to surface-water, the
       more likely that such contaminants will be
       remediated before discharge.

    •  The water supplied by a surface-water intake
       may have a significant ground-water
       component. In some locations, during part
       of the year, a major component of (and
       possibly all) surface water is ground water
       base flow. The USGS has estimated that
       about 40 percent of stream baseflow in the
       United States is ground water.

    •  The region (in the absence of engineered
       surface-water diversions) of surface-water
Draft
88
Draft

-------
   contribution to a drinking-water intake is the
   total watershed area uphill of the surface-
   water intake. The region contributing
   ground water is the entire portion of the
   ground-water basin upgradient of the
   surface-water intake. Complete protection of
   the intake should encompass these two
   regions.  However, sources of contamination
   entering the ground water at a significant
   distance from an intake, may undergo in-situ
   remediation that is sufficient for the ground
   water to meet drinking-water standards at the
   intake.

•  Although the geographic location of a
   surface-water divide may approximately
   coincide with that of a ground-water divide
   in an underlying water-table aquifer,
   colocation frequently does not occur.
   Absence of colocation results naturally,
   reflecting the hydraulic properties of the
   aquifer, distribution of recharge, etc.
   Divides may also fail to coincide as the
   result of discharge from large-capacity wells,
   or the artificial recharge of large volumes of
   water to the aquifer. Additionally, seasonal
   changes in the position of ground-water
   divides is not unusual. States making the
   initial assumption that ground-water and
   surface-water divides approximately
   coincide, may want to consider further
   hydrogeologic investigation to determine if
   this assumption is correct.  This is
   particularly important where wells are
   located near enough to ground-water divides
   to cause displacement of the divide (the
   divide will be moved away from a pumping
   well.)

For further discussion of conjunctive delineation
of SWPAs, the reader is referred to the
document "Delineation of Source Water
Protection Areas for Critical Use Sites In Or
Near Surface Water; A Conjunctive Approach
for Ground Water and Surface Water: A Guide
for Managers" (in progress, 1997).
     2. Considerations for Conjunctive
        Delineation for Systems Primarily
        Supplied By Ground Water

     •  The water supplied by a PWS well often
        includes a surface water component.

     •  During periods of high streamflow, surface
        water will migrate into ground water, the
        higher the stream stage, the further the
        potential migration of stream water. Streams
        that are "perched" (streams above the
        saturated zone) may leak water and
        contaminants through the unsaturated zone to
        an underlying unconfined aquifer.

     •  The pumping of wells in the vicinity of
        surface water may induce infiltration of the
        surface water into the ground-water and
        subsequently into the pumping well.

     •  A component of the water discharged by a
        well whose wellhead protection area
        (WHPA) intersects a stream in good
        hydraulic connection with the aquifer, will
        usually have a  shorter travel time than the
        time-of-travel designated in the State/local
        wellhead protection program.

     •  A conjunctively delineated SWPA for a PWS
        well could include, 1) the WHPA plus the
        entire watershed area upstream  of the
        intersection of the WHPA and the stream, or
        2) the WHPA plus the entire watershed area
        upstream of the intersection of the WHPA
        and the area where there is significant
        surface water discharge to ground water.
Draft
89
Draft

-------
                               Appendix E

 Potential Sources of Contamination Found in
               Wellhead Protection Areas and
                              in  Watersheds
Wellhead Protection Areas
Airports
Animal burial areas and feedlots
Asphalt plants
Auto repair shops
Boat yards
Car washes
Cemeteries
Chemical manufacture, storage, and application
   (pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, etc.)
Construction areas
Dry cleaning establishments
Educational institutions (labs, lawns, and
   chemical storage areas)
Electrical and electronic products and
   manufacturing
Fire training facilities
Foundries
Fuel storage systems
Furniture and wood strippers and refinishers
Gasoline stations
Ground water and surface water interactions
Hazardous waste management units
Household hazardous products
Irrigation
Jewelry and metal plating
Laundromats
Machine and metalworking shops
Manufacturing and distribution sites for
cleaning supplies
Manure spreading and pits
Medical institutions
Mining and mine drainage
Municipal incinerators
    Municipal wastewater and sewer lines
    Municipal landfills
    Natural leaching (uranium and radon gas)
    Paint shops
    Petroleum products production, storage, and
       distribution centers
    Photography establishments and printers
    Pipelines (oil, gas, and coal slurry)
    Railroad tracks and yard maintenance
    Recycling reduction facilities
    Research laboratories
    Road de-icing activities (road salt)
    Road maintenance depots
    Salt-water intrusion and brackish water
       upconing
    Scrap and junkyards
    Septic systems, cesspools, and water softeners
    Septic lagoons and sludge
    Sewer lines
    Stormwater drains and retention facilities
    Swimming pools (chlorine)
    Toxic and hazardous spills
    Transfer stations
    Wells (operating and abandoned)
    Wood preserving facilities

    Watersheds
    Airports
    Agricultural crop land use/pesticide/herbicide
       use
    Concentrated animal facilities of
    chemicals/toxic materials
    De-icers (applications on roadways and parking
       lot
Draft
90
Draft

-------
Watersheds (cont)
Disposal of municipal/industrial refuse in
    conveyance channel
Dumping
Erodible soils
Fires
Geologic hazards such as earthquakes, floods,
   landslides, etc.
Grazing
Ground water which influences surface water
   quality
Hazardous waste disposal facilities
Industrial area runoff
Logging
Military Installations .
Mine runoff
Pipelines (petroleum and chemical)
Reclaimed water for irrigation
Recreational use
Seawater intrusion
Septic tanks, systems
Solid waste disposal facilities
Steep slopes
Storage Facilities (Petroleum and chemical)
Superfund  Sites
Traffic and Transportation accidents/spills
Urjban runoff
Wastewater treatment plants
Wastewater collection systems
Wildlife  (e.g. concentrations of geese)
Draft
91
Draft

-------
                               Appendix F

 Factors to Consider When Doing An Adequate
         Contamination Source Inventory and
             Adequate Susceptibility Analysis
States, or their entities delegated to do
assessments or portions of assessments, will be
accomplishing contamination source inventories
and susceptibility analyses for each delineated
SWPA. States will have to consider many
factors when considering a class of land uses or
a site. Below is a listing of factors that States
should consider.

For Ground Water and Surface Water
Sources of Drinking Water

•  Land-use zoning
•  Existing best management practices or
   controls
•  Surface water/ground water interaction
•  Has any on-site landfilling, land treating, or
   surface impounding of waste, other than
   landscape waste or construction and
   demolition debris taken place, and will such
   circumstances continue?
•  Are there any sand and gravel excavations
   which expose the water table and are used
   for illicit dumping?
•  Are there major transportation corridors
   (roads, railroads, airports) where potential
   spills of hazardous substances or petroleum
   products might contaminate the drinking
   water source?
•  Sludge disposal areas
•  Are there utilities right-of-ways using
   pesticides?
•  Are there permitted wastewater discharges
   (NPDES) which are of concern?
       Are there agricultural, landscaping, or golf
       course activities which might lead to releases
       of nutrients (fertilizers, manure) or pesticides
       to ground water or stormwater runoff?
       Are there concentrated releases of nitrogen
       to ground water from agricultural practices,
       landscaping practices, or dense
       developments relying on cesspools or septic
       systems?
       Are there portions of the SWPA with high
       percentages of impervious surfaces which
       might lead to increased stonnwater runoff
       and decreased ground water recharge?
       Location of stormwater discharges? Are
       there any discharges directly into a surface
       water supply or near a well?
       Are there road salt storage areas?
       Are there activities which involve the use,
       handling, or disposal of hazardous
       substances or petroleum products?
       Are there any on-site piles of special or
       hazardous waste present, will such
       circumstance continue, and is there piling of
       other wastes which could cause
       contamination of ground water?
       Are there any underground storage tanks
       present at the site, and will such
       circumstances continue?
       Is the use and management of above ground
       tanks consistent with best management
       practices?
Draft
92
Draft

-------
   Has any on-site release of any hazardous
   substance or petroleum taken place which
   was of sufficient magnitude to contaminate
   ground waters (known Federal or State
   hazardous waste sites)?
   Has any situation(s) occurred at this site
   which resulted in a "release" of any
   hazardous substances or petroleum?
   Have any hazardous substances or
   petroleum, which were released, come into
   direct contact with the ground surface at this
   site? (Note—do not automatically exclude
   paved or otherwise covered areas that may
   still have allowed chemical substances to
   penetrate into the ground).
   Have any of the following actions/events
   been associated with the release(s) referred
   to above?
      - Hiring of a cleanup contractor to
       remove obviously contaminated
       materials including subsoils
      - Replacement or major repair of
       damaged facilities
      - Assignment of in-house maintenance
       staff to remove obviously contaminated
       materials including subsoils
      - Designation of the release as
       "significant"
      - Reordering or other replenishment of
       inventory due to the amount of
       substance lost
      - Temporary or more long-term
       monitoring of ground water at or neat
       the site
      - Stopped the use on an on-site  or nearby
       water well because of offensive
       characteristics of the water
      - Coping with fumes from subsurface
       storm drains or inside basements, etc.
      - Signs of substances leaching out of the
       ground along the base of slopes at other
       low points on or adjacent to the site
      - On-site release(s) that may have been of
       sufficient magnitude to contaminate
       ground waters.
   Water quality monitoring and use
   assessments (305(b) Report)
     •  Hydrogeologic sensitivity
     •  Probable sources and causes of use
        impairments (305(b) Report)
     •  Well integrity
     •  Natural sources of contamination

     Additional Factors For Surface Water
     Sources of Drinking Water

     •  Steep slopes
     •  Clay content of soils or soils that are highly
        erodible (critical areas)
     •  Endangered ecosystems
     •  Recreational areas (campgrounds/trailer
        parks or greenway trails nearby a reservoir or
        tributaries)
     •  Tributaries or areas of a reservoir with high
        bacterial readings
     •  Land uses (that may not have zoning)
     •  Biological steam or lake assessments (305(b)
        Report)
     •  Modeling
     •  Upstream NPDES discharges
     •  Has any on-site landfilling, land treating, or
        surface impounding of waste, other than
        landscape waste or construction and
        demolition debris taken place, and will such
        circumstances continue?
     •  Is the use and management of containers and
        above ground tanks consistent with best
        management practices?
Draft
93
Draft

-------
O
              "Ifill
          94

-------
            Appendix H

  TIMETABLE FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS
 UNDER THE 1996 SDWA AMENDMENTS
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Guidelines for State Revolving Fund
Approve Grant Agreements with States
Report to Congress — Needs Survey
Conduct a needs survey for Indian Tribes, and evaluate
the public water systems on Tribal lands that pose the
greatest threat to public health
Develop allotment formula for States based on Needs
Survey
Publish guidelines for small system water
conservation programs
Determine if States have met capacity development
requirements for the purpose of withholding SRF
funds
Report to Congress — Transfer of Funds
Determine 'State compliance with 'Operator
Certification requirements for SRF withholding
determinations
Report to Congress -- Evaluation of effectiveness of
State loan funds
Audit all State loan funds
unspecified — EPA
released final guidelines
2/28/97
unspecified
February, 1997, and
every 4 years thereafter
February, 1997 and every
4 years thereafter
For FY'98 and annually
August, 1998
Start in FY'99
August, 2000
February, "2001 \
Submit with FY'2003
budget
"Periodically"
1452(g)(3)
1452(a)(l)(A)
1452(h)
1452(i)(4)
1452(a)(l)
(D)(ii)
1455(a)
1452(a)(l)(G)
302(b)
1419(b)
1452(r)
1452(g)(4)
Draft
95
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Contaminant Selection and Standard Setting Authority
Publish a list of contaminants not subject to any
proposed or final national primary drinking water
regulation (must include sulfate)
Make determinations of whether or not to regulate at
least 5 contaminants from above list
Propose MCLG and national primary drinking water
regulation for any contaminant selected from above
Final MCLG and rule
Publish remaining MCLGs and promulgate national
primary drinking water regulations for contaminants
listed in the 1986 SDWA: aldicarb, atrazine, nickel,
radionuclides
Review and revise national primary drinking water
standards, as appropriate
Review and concur with State determinations on the
use of alternatives to filtration for systems with
undeveloped, uninhabited watersheds '.
Promulgate a regulation for filter backwash recycling
within the treatment process of a PWSS, unless
addressed in SWTR '•
February, 1998, and
every 5 years thereafter
August, 2001, and every
5 years thereafter
August, 2003
February, 2005
unspecified
Every 6 years
unspecified
August, 2000
1412(b)(l)(B)
(0
1412(b)(l)(B)
(ii)(I)
I412(b)(l)(E)
1412(b)(l)(E)
1412(b)(2)
1412(b)(9)
1412(b)(7)
1412(b)(14)
Arsenic, Sulfate, Radon, Disinfection Byproducts
Develop plan for additional research on cancer risks
from exposure to low levels of arsenic (consult with
NAS, other stakeholders)
Propose standard for arsenic
Promulgate final standard for arsenic
Complete sulfate study with CDC to establish a
reliable dose-response relationship
Contract with NAS to conduct peer-reviewed risk
assessment on radon
February, 1997
January 1, 2000
January 1, 2001
February, 1999
unspecified, but timely
completion to allow for
following item
1412(b)(12)
(AXii)
1412(bX12)
(AXiv)
1412(b)(12)
(AXv)
1412(b)(12)(B)
1412(b)(13XB)
Draft
96
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
Publish health risk reduction benefits and cost analysis
for potential radon standards
Propose radon standard
Promulgate final radon standard
Promulgate with final an alternative MCL and publish
guidelines for multi-media mitigation measures if
MCL for radon "is more stringent than necessary to
reduce the contribution to inside air"
Approve/disapprove radon mitigation programs
Review State radon mitigation programs
Promulgate Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
Promulgate Stage I Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
PROMULGATE FINAL ENHANCED SURFACE
WATER TREATMENT RULE
Promulgate Stage II Disinfection Byproducts Rule
GROUND WATER DISINFECTION RULE:
ISSUE REGULATIONS REQUIRING
DISINFECTION FOR ALL PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING SURFACE
WATER SYSTEMS AND "AS NECESSARY"
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS, AND
PROMULGATE CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER TO REQUIRE IN
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
DATE DUE
February, 1999
August, 1999
August, 2000
August, 2000
Within 180 days of
receipt.
Every 5 years
November, 1998
November, 1998
November, 2000
May, 2002
"After August, 1999"
By May, 2002
CITE
1412(b)(13)(C)
1412(bX13)(D)
1412(b)(13)(E)
1412(b)(13)(F)
1412(b)(13)(G)
1412(b)(13)(G)
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)(8)
Draft
97
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Public Notification/Consumer Awareness
Regulation for Public Notification
Annual Report on summarizing and evaluating State
compliance reports
Regulation on Consumer Confidence Reporting
Unspecified
July 1, 1998-first annual
August, 1998
1414(c)(2)(A)
1414(c)(3)(B)
1414(c)(4)(A)
Monitoring
Review and revision of existing requirements for not
fewer than 12 contaminants — CMR
Issue guidelines for alternative monitoring
requirements - PERMANENT (PMR)
Review and may approve alternative monitoring
requirements for a State not exercising primary
enforcement authority
Issue a list of no more than 30 contaminants to be
monitored by PWSs and to be included in national
occurrence data base
Establish National Occurrence Database. Periodically
solicit recommendations for inclusion of additional
contaminants
Issue regulations establishing criteria for a monitoring
program for unregulated contaminants
Review new analytic methods and may approve more
accurate, cost-effective methods
August, 1998
August, 1997
First every 3 years, then
every 5 years
August, 1999, then every
5 years
August, 1999
unspecified
unspecified
1445(a)(l)(D)
1418(b)(2)(A)
1418(b)(4)
1445(a)(2XB)
1445(g)
1445(aX2)(A)
1445(i)
Drinking Water Studies and Research
Develop study plan to support development of the
DBPs/microbial pathogen rules (hi consultation with
the Secretaries of HHS and Agriculture)
Implement M/DBP research consistent with plan
Conduct waterborne disease occurrence studies for at
least 5 major U.S. communities or PWSs
Conduct studies to identify subpopulations at greater
risk and report to Congress
Prepare a report with CDC on findings of waterborne
disease occurrence studies
February, 1997
unspecified
August, 1998
August, 2000, and
periodically
August, 2001
1458(c)
1458
1458(dXD(A)
1458(aX2)
1458(d)(l)
Draft
98
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
Conduct research on the mechanisms by which
chemicals cause adverse effects and on new
approaches for studying the adverse effects on
complex mixtures in drinking water
Establish a national training and public education
campaign to educate professional health care providers
and the general public about waterborne disease and
symptoms (with CDC)
Develop a strategic plan for drinking water research
and transmit this plan to Congress
DATE DUE
unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
CITE
1458(b)
1458(d)
Sec. 202 of Title
2
Capacity Development and Operator Certification
Complete review of existing State capacity
development efforts and publish information to assist
States and PWSs with capacity development efforts
Publish guidance describing legal authorities and other
means to ensure new CWSs and NTNCWSs
demonstrate capacity (developed in consultation with
the States)
Provide initial funding for "1 or more" university-
based environmental finance centers for activities that
provide technical assistance to State and local officials
in developing PWS capacity
Establish a national PWS capacity development
clearinghouse
Initiate partnership with States, PWSs, and the public
to develop information for States on recommended
operator certification requirements
Publish information on recommended operator
certification requirements, resulting from partnership
with States, public water systems, and the public
Publish guidelines specifying minimum standards for
certification and recertification of operators (in
cooperation with States)
Provide Operator Certification reimbursement grants
to States
February, 1997
August, 1998
unspecified
unspecified
February, 1997
February, 1998
February, 1999
unspecified
1420(dX2)(A)
(0
1420(d)(4)
1420(gXi)
1420(g)(2)
1420(d)(2)(A)
(ii)
1420(d)(2)(B)
1419(a)
1419(d)(l)
Draft
99
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Source Water Protection
Guidance to Slates for developing source water
assessment programs
Guidance to States to assist in developing source water
petition programs
Approval of State programs for source Water
assessments
Conduct a demonstration project on the most effective
and protective means of assessing and protecting
source waters serving large metropolitan areas and
located on Federal lands
August, 1997
August, 1997
February, 1999
unspecified
1453(a)
1454(d)
1453(b)
1453(a)(5)
Small System Technology and Technical Assistance
Publish list of technologies that meet the SWTR for
systems serving 10,000-3,300 persons, 3,300-500
persons, and 500-25 persons
Publish information to assist States in developing
affordability criteria. Information to be developed in
consultation with States and Rural Utilities Service of
USDA
Publish list of technologies that achieve compliance
for existing rules (except SWTR) for systems serving
10,000-3,300, 3,300-500, 500-25
Publish guidance on variance technologies for existing
regulations for systems serving 10,000-3,300 persons,
3,300-500 persons, and 500-25 persons
Promulgate regulations for variances (in consultation
with States)
Review and approve State variances for systems 3,300
to 10,000
Review State variance programs to determine if the
variances granted by the State comply with the
requirements of SDWA
Make grants to universities to establish and operate
small public water system technology assistance
centers
August, 1997
February, 1998
August, 1998
August, 1998
August, 1998
unspecified
"periodically"
unspecified
1412(b)(4)(E)
(v)
1415(e)(7)(B)
1412(b)(4)
(E)(iii)
1412(b)(15)
1415(e)(7)(A)
1415(e)(9)
1415(e)(8)(A)
1420(f)(l)
Draft
100
Draft

-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Miscellaneous
Guidance establishing procedures for State application
for ground water protection grants
Evaluate State ground water protection programs.
Report to Congress
Award Wastewater Grants to Colonias
Consult on and Award Rural Alaska and Alaska
Native Grants
Grants to States for water supply systems and source
water quality protection programs for navigable waters
August, 1997
August, 1999
unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
1429(b)
1429(e)
307(b)
303(d)
401(a)
Draft
101
Draft

-------
                                   Appendix T
                             Glossary Of Terms
 Community Water System. A public water
 system that serves at least 15 service
 connections used by year-round residents of the
 area served by the system or regularly serves at
 least 25 year-round residents.

 Class V UIC Rule.  A rule under development
 covering wells not included in Class I, II, III or
 IV in which nonhazardous fluids are injected
 into or above underground sources of drinking
 water.

 Non-Community Water System. A public
 water system that is not a community water
 system. There are two types of NCWSs :
 transient and non-transient

 Comprehensive State Ground Water
 Protection Program.  The program consists of
 a set of six strategic activities which foster more
 efficient and effective ground water protection
 through more cooperative, consistent, and
 coordinated operation of all relevant Federal,
 State and local programs within a State.  The
 activities include establishing goals, setting
 priorities, defining authorities, implementing
 programs, coordinating information collection
 and management, and operating public
 education and participation activities.

 Conservation Easements. Easements are an
 interest in land that entitles a person to use the
 land possessed by another (affirmative
 easement), or to restrict uses of the land subject
to the easement (negative easement).  A
conservation easement restricts the owner to
uses that are compatible with conservation
environmental values.  Easements are  governed
by State laws and thus there are variations
among the States in how they are administered.
      Contamination Source Inventory.  The
      process of identifying and inventorying
      contaminant sources within delineated SWPAs
      through recording existing data, describing
      sources within the SWPA, targeting likely
      sources for further investigation, collecting and
      interpreting new information on existing or
      potential sources through surveys, and verifying
      accuracy and reliability of the information
      gathered.

      Drinking Water State Revolviing Fund. The
      Fund provides capitalization grants to States to
      develop drinking water revolving loan funds to
      help finance drinking water system
      infrastructure improvements, source water
      protection, to enhance operations and
      management of drinking water systems, and
      other activities to encourage public water
      system compliance and protection of public
      health.               j

      Ground Water Disinfection Rule. Under
      Section 107 of the SDWA Amendments of
      1996, the statute reads,"... the Administrator
      shall also promulgate national primary drinking
      water regulations requiring disinfection as a
      treatment technique for all public water systems,
      including surface water systems, and, as
      necessary, ground water systems."

      Maximum Contaminant Level! (MCL). In the
      SDWA, an MCL is defined as "the maximum
      permissible level of a contaminant in water
      which is delivered to any user of a public water
      system."

      Operator Certification. Certification of
      operators of community and nontransient,
      noncommunity water systems as required by a
Draft
102
                                                                                      Draft

-------
State implementing an EPA approved Water
Operator Certification Program.

Primacy State. State that has the responsibility
for ensuring a law is implemented, and has the
authority to enforce the law and related
regulations.

Regional Stakeholder Meetings for Source
Water Protection. EPA's Regional office's
meetings with stakeholders interested and
involved in source water protection.

Sole Source Aquifer Designation. The surface
area above a sole source aquifer and its recharge
area.

Source Water Protection Area. The area
delineated by the State for a PWS or including
numerous PWSs, whether the source is ground
water or surface water or both, as part of the
State Source Water Assessment Program
approved by EPA under Section 1453 of the
SDWA.

Subwatershed. A topographic boundary that is
the perimeter of the catchment area of a
tributary of a stream.

State Source Water Petition Program. A
State program implemented in accordance with
the statutory language at Section 1454 of the
SDWA to establish local voluntary incentive-
based partnerships for source water protection
and remediation.

State Management Plan (SMP) Program. A
State management plan under FIFRA required
by EPA to allow States (e.g. States, tribes and
U.S. territories) the flexibility to design and
implement approaches to manage the use of
certain pesticides to protect ground water.

Surface Water Treatment Rule. The rule
specified maximum contaminant level goals for
Giardia lamblia, viruses and Legionella, and
promulgated filtration and disinfection
requirements for public water systems using
     surface water sources or by ground water
     sources under the direct influence of surface
     water.  The regulations also specified water
     quality, treatment, and watershed protection
     criteria under which filtration may be avoided.

     Transient/Non-Transient Non-Community
     Water Systems. Water systems that are non-
     community systems: transient systems serve 25
     of the same nonresident persons per day for
     more than 6 months per year; nontransient
     systems regularly serve at least 25 nonresident
     persons per day for more than 6 months per
     year. Transient non-community systems
     typically are restaurants, hotels, large stores, etc.
     Non-transient non-community systems typically
     are schools, offices, churches, factories, etc.

     Underground Injection Control Program.
     The program is designed to prevent
     underground injection which endangers drinking
     water sources. The program applies to injection
     well owners  and operators on Federal facilities,
     Native American lands, and on all U.S. land and
     territories.

     Watershed.  A topographic boundary area that
     is the perimeter of the catchment area of a
     stream.

     Watershed Approach. A watershed approach
     is a coordinating framework for environmental
     management that focuses public and private
     sector efforts to address the highest priority
     problems within hydrologically-defined
     geographic areas, taking into consideration both
     ground and surface water flow.

     Watershed Area. A topographic area that is
     within a line drawn connecting the highest
     points uphill of a drinking water intake, from
     which overland flow drains to the intake.

     Wellhead Protection Area. The surface and
     subsurface area surrounding a well or well field,
     supplying a public water system, through which
     contaminants are reasonably likely to move
     toward and reach such water well or well field.
Draft
103
Draft

-------
                            Appendix J




        Requirements and EPA Guidance for

Implementing Section 1453 of the Act for State

         Source  Water Assessment Programs

The statute says the States must:

1. "Submit ( a Source Water Assessment Program) to the Administrator within 18 months after the
   Administrator's guidance is issued..."

   Each State must include in their Submittal the following:

       Description of public participation in development of program plan
       Delineation Policy and Processes
       Inventory and Susceptibility Analysis Policy and Processes
       Big Water Bodies — Delineation, Inventory and Susceptibility
       How assessments will be made available to the public
       Timetable and Phasing plan for assessments to be completed.
       Descriptions of programs for State and local prevention program efforts, i.e., whether and to
       what extent prevention programs will be developed and implemented

   Each State should include:

     •  State Program Goal (s)
     •  State and Local Roles/responsibilities
       - Delegation or No Delegation
       - If Delegation, to whom?
       - What is delegated ?
     •  Policy and processes for coordination of State programs with each other
     •  Description of how Program will be financed.
     •  Process for reporting final assessments to EPA
     •  Process for updating assessments
     •  Policy/processes planned for coordination with Tribes, other States, Federal agencies, and other
       countries (if applicable)
Draft
104
Draft

-------
2. "Delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in such State from which one or more public water
   systems in the State receive supplies of drinking water, using all reasonably available hydrogeologic
   information on the source of the supply of drinking water in the State and the water flow, recharge,
   and discharge and any other reliable information as the State deems necessary to adequately
   determine such areas.."

   Each State should:

      •  Use approved State Wellhead Program for Ground water systems

      •  If without an approved  Wellhead Program, establish delineation policies for Ground Water
         systems

      •  Establish topographic delineation policy for all surface water based systems and for surface
         water/ground water combination systems.

3. "Identify for contaminants regulated under this title for which monitoring is required under this title
   (or any unregulated contaminants selected by the State, in its discretion, which the State, for purposes
   of this subsection, has determined may present a threat to public health), to the extent practical, the
   origins within each delineated area of such contaminants to determine the susceptibility of the public
   water systems n the delineated area to such contaminants..."

   Each State must:

      •  Establish policy for these actions in SWPAs

      •  Define which contaminants will be the focus of inventories and susceptibility analyses

      •  Define what are "significant potential sources" of contaminants

      •  Use approved State Wellhead Protection Program for Ground water systems

      •  If without an approved Wellhead Protection Program, establish inventory and susceptibility
         analysis policies and processes for Ground Water systems

      •  Establish policies and processes for surface water based systems of all sizes

      •  Define Susceptibility analysis: definitions must include hydrogeology and/or hydrology and be
         for the purpose of determining the susceptibility of the State's PWSs to contamination from
         inventoried sources

4. ( a State's program) " be deemed approved 9 months after the date of such submitial unless the
   Administrator disapproves the program as provided for in Section 1428 (c)."

5. "Begin implementation of the program immediately after its approval."
Draft
105
Draft

-------
6. "Make the results of .the source water assessments conducted under this subsection available to the
   public."

   Each State must:

      •  Describe policy and processes for making the assessments available.

   Each State should:

      •  Describe how they will create understandable assessments.

               Map delineations

               Map or list significant potential sources of contamination that are inventoried

      •  Describe the susceptibility analysis in a form understandable to the public

7. "To the maximum extent feasible,... establish procedures, including but not limited to the
   establishment of technical and citizens advisory committees, to encourage the public to participate in
   developing the... source water assessment programs under Section 1453. Such procedures shall
   include notice and opportunity for public hearing on the Sate program before it is submitted to the
   Administrator."

   Each State must:

      •  Conduct adequate public participation including establishing a technical committee, a citizens
         committee and a set of public hearings.

   Each State should:

      •  Consider other methods to increase public participation.

      •  Get consideration in the approval process for having accomplished these actions when
         developing or implementing its Wellhead Protection Program and/or Watershed Approach..

8. "States shall begin implementation of the program immediately after its approval, the
   Administrator's approval of a State program under this subsection shall  include a timetable,
   established in consultation with the State, allowing not more than 2 years for completion after
   approval of the program."

   Each State must:

   •  Complete the assessments in the timetable that is in an approved State Program.
Draft
106
Draft

-------
                                  Appendix K


                             List of Acronyms

ASDWA       Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASIWPCA     Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CMR         Chemical Monitoring Reform
CSGWPP      Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
CWS         Community Water System
CWA         Clean Water Act
DBP          Disinfection By-Products
DWSRF       Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECOS         Environmental Council of the States
EPCRA        Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
FEFRA        Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
GIS           Geographic Information System
GWDR        Ground Water Disinfection Rule
GWPC        Ground Water Protection Council
IUP           Intended Use Plan
MCL         Maximum Contaminant Level
NASDA       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
NGA         National Governors' Association
NEP          National Estuary Program
NOAA        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS          Nonpoint Source Program
NWAP        National Watershed Assessment Project
ORSANCO     Ohio River Valley Water and Sanitation Commission
PWS          Public Water System
PWSS         Public Water Supply Supervision Program
RCRA        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA        Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS        Safe Drinking Water Information System
SRF          State Revolving Fund
SWAP        Source Water Assessment Program
SWPA        Source Water Protection Area
SWP          Source Water Protection
SWQPPP      Source Water Quality Protection Partnership Petitions
SWTR        Surface Water Treatment Rule
TAD          Technical Assistance Document
TMDL        Total Maximum Daily Loading
TOT          Time-of-Travel
UIC          Underground Injection Control
USDA        U.S. Department of Agriculture
UST          Underground Storage Tank
WHP         Wellhead Protection Program
WHPA        Wellhead Protection Area
Draft
107
Draft

-------

-------