United States
Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 816-R-97-009
Agency 4606 August, 1997
STATE SOURCE WATER
ASSESSMENT AND
PROTECTION PROGRAMS
FINAL GUIDANCE
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Overview of Source Water Assessment and Protection
and the Safe Drinking Water Act 1-1
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Purpose of this Document 1-1
B. Background 1-1
1. EPA's Source Water Protection Goal 1-2
2. Past Accomplishments of EPA and its Partners 1-3
II. SDWA AMENDMENTS OF 1996—NEW RESOURCES AND TOOLS FOR
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION 1-4
A. The Benefits of Public Involvement 1-6
B. Assessment Programs 1-6
C. Source Water Protection and Petition Programs 1-7
D. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Other Financing 1-8
III. COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION 1-10
A. Source Water Assessment and Protection and Other Public Water
Supply Supervision Program Implementation Efforts 1-10
B. Source Water Assessment and Protection and the Watershed Protection
Approach 1-10
C. Source Water Assessment and Protection and Other Federal/State
Agency Programs 1-11
IV. EPA Technical Assistance 1-12
V. Conclusion 1-13
-------
Chapter 2: Final Guidance for State Source Water Assessment Programs2-l
I. INTRODUCTION 2-1
II. CONTENT OF STATE SUBMITTALS 2-3
A. Adequate Public Participation in Developing the State Source Water
Assessment Program 2-3
B. Requirements/Options for State Assessment Approaches 2-7
1. Statutory Requirements 2-7
2. Strategic State Approaches 2-7
3. Requirements/Options for Delineations, Source
Inventories and Susceptibility Determinations 2-12
4. Adequate Assessment(s) for Waters Which Cross State or
Country Borders, Boundary Rivers, Multi-State Rivers and the
Great Lakes and EPA's Role in Assisting States Accomplish
These Assessments 2-19
C. Requirements/Options for Making Assessments Available to the
Public 2-21
1. Content of Understandable Assessments— Mapping Assessment
Information, Listings of Sources and Narrative Assessment
Reports Made Available to the Public 2-21
2. Procedures for Making Assessments Available to the Public 2-22
D. Requirements/Options for State Program Implementation 2-24
1. Timetables 2-24
2. Resources to be Committed to the Effort 2-25
3. Delegations of Efforts 2-26
4. Role and Coordination of State Agencies and with Other
Federal/State/Tribal Programs 2-26
5. Reporting of Program Progress 2-27
6. Updating the Assessments 2-27
11
-------
III. PROGRAM SUBMITTAL PROCESS 2-28
A. Process for Submitting the State Source Water Assessment Program and
for Program Implementation 2-28
1. Statutory Requirements 2-28
B. Outline of the Process For Submitting and Implementing a Program 2-29
IV. THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND AND SOURCE
WATER ASSESSMENTS 2-30
A. The Intended Use Plan: The Key Funding Vehicle 2-30
B. The Importance of Funding Source Water Assessment Programs . 2-30
C. Work Plans, Financing, and Implementing Assessments Prior to EPA
Approval of State Source Water Assessment Programs 2-31
D. DWSRF Funding for Programs Supporting State Source Water
Assessment Programs 2-32
1. Total Maximum Daily Load Program 2-32
2. Monitoring/Modeling Activities 2-33
in
-------
Chapter 3: Tools for State Source Water Protection Implementation
Including Petition Programs and the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund 3-1
I. INTRODUCTION 3-1
A. Local Source Water Protection Programs 3-2
II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT OF STATE AND LOCAL SOURCE
WATER PROTECTION EFFORTS UNDER THE SOW A OF 1996 3-3
A. Funding for State Source Water Protection Programs under SDWA
Section 1452(g)(2)(B) 3-3
B. Funding for State Wellhead Protection Programs Under SDWA Section
1452(k)(l)(D) 3-7
C. Funding for State Petition Programs Under SDWA Section
1452(k)(l)(A)(iii) 3-7
D. Loans for Voluntary Incentive-Based Source Water Quality Protection
Programs 3-7
E. Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements 3-8
III. GUIDANCE FOR STATE SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
PARTNERSHIP PETITION PROGRAMS 3-8
A. State/Local Program Procedures 3-9
1. Substance of Petitions and Process for Submission of
Petitions To the State 3-9
2. Recommended State Procedures for Approval/Disapproval of
Petitions Submitted by Local Voluntary Partnerships 3-10
3. Technical and Financial Assistance Available to
Localities with Approved Petitions 3-10
4. EPA/State Procedures for Grants 3-11
5. Additional Funding for Local Source Water Petition Prograrrfe-13
B. Benefits and Limitations of the Petition Program 3-14
IV
-------
Chapter 4: Relationship Between Source Water Assessments, Source
Water Protection Programs, and the Public Water Supply
Supervision Program 4-1
I. INTRODUCTION 4-1
II. WELLHEAD PROTECTION 4-1
III. INTERIM MONITORING RELIEF 4-1
IV. ALTERNATIVE MONITORING 4-2
V. CHEMICAL MONITORING REFORM 4-3
VI. SURFACE WATER TREATMENT/DISINFECTION
BYPRODUCTS RULES 4-4
VII. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL: CLASS V WELLS 4-6
VIII. SANITARY SURVEYS 4-8
IX. GROUND WATER DISINFECTION RULE 4-9
X. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 4-9
XL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION 4-10
Chapter 5: Coordination of Source Water Assessments, Source Water
Protection Programs, and Other EPA and Federal Programs 5-1
I. INTRODUCTION 5-1
II. INTEGRATING SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS AND PROTECTION
WITH OTHER EPA WATER PROGRAMS 5-2
III. LINKAGES TO OTHER EPA PROGRAMS 5-20
IV. LINKAGES TO OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS 5-21
V. CONCLUSION 5-26
v
-------
Appendices:
A. EPA Outreach Process for Notice and Comment by Stakeholders on National
Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance A-l
B. Process for State Submittal and Implementation of Source Water
Assessment Programs A-3
C. Enhancing Topographic Delineations for Surface Water Based Source
Water Protection Areas A-5
D. Conjunctive Delineation of the Zone of Ground Water Contribution and the
Area of Surface Water Contribution to Public Water Systems A-9
E. Partial List of Potential Sources of Contamination Found In Wellhead
Protection
Areas and In Watersheds A-13
F. Factors to Consider When Doing Adequate Contamination Source Inventories
and Susceptibility Determinations A-17
G. Timetable for Certain Actions Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments . . . A-21
H. Glossary of Terms A-23
I. Requirements for Implementing Sections 1453 and 1428 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act for State Source Water Assessment Programs A-27
J. List of Acronyms A-31
VI
-------
Chapter 1
Overview of Source Water Assessment and
Protection and the Safe Drinking Water Act
Final Final
-------
Overview of Source Water Assessment and Protection
and the Safe Drinking Water Act
i.
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of this Document
The purpose of this document is to provide
guidance required by the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
(P.L. 104-182) for state Source Water
Assessment Programs [sections 1453 and
1428(b)] and for Source Water Petition
Programs (section 1454). This document
describes the elements of an EPA-
approvable state Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP) submittal as well as
EPA's recommendations for what may be
included in a state Source Water Protection
(SWP) Program. The document also
provides an overview of how source water
assessment and protection integrates with
other SDWA programs and efforts and
how other EPA and federal programs can
assist states in developing and
implementing assessment and protection
programs, and vice versa.
B. 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 drink-
ing 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. One
early American example of the importance
placed on maintaining a clean source of
water is Lord Delaware's proclamation for
Jamestown, issued in 1610:
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
Final
1-1
Final
-------
of nature, since by these unmanly,
slothful, and loathsome
immodesties, the whole fort may
be choked and poisoned.
Today, states, municipalities, water
suppliers, and citizens have undertaken
efforts to protect the drinking water
supplies of their communities. From
Anaheim, California to Portland, Oregon to
Tallahassee, Florida to Boston,
Massachusetts and places in between like
Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, people
are using several tools to protect their
sources of drinking water, including well-
head protection (WHP), watershed
protection, and reservoir management.
And this is happening not only in the cities
and large towns; thousands of small and
rural communities are also actively
engaged in protecting their source waters.
Actions have also been taken on the federal
level to protect water supplies. For
example, the Clean Water Act (CWA)
ensures protection of surface waters
designated, in part, for use as drinking
water. Other environmental laws—the
SDWA (which includes the WHP
Program, the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
Program, and the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) 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 water.
1. EPA's Source Water Protection
Goal
Since the 1986 Amendments to the
SDWA, which established the WHP
Program, EPA has supported states and
communities in their efforts to protect their
sources of drinking water. An Agency
SWP goal is that "by the year 2005, 60
percent of the population served by
community water systems will receive their
water from systems with SWP programs in
place under both WHP and watershed
protection programs."
How is EPA going to accomplish this
goal? First, we will build on the solid
foundation in place due to the collective
efforts since the SDWA 1986 amendments,
including WHP Programs, SSA Programs,
and public water system (PWS) monitoring
waivers and treatment exemptions that are
based on the existence of SWP efforts.
Furthermore, the Agency will continue to
build on the successes and efforts of EPA's
Watershed Protection Approach, Nonpoint
Source (NFS) Programs, Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs), the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI), pollution prevention and
community-based initiatives, and other
Final
1-2
Final
-------
federal programs such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USD A)
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). For
example, EPA Headquarters and Regional
SWP representatives will work with their
counterparts in the NFS Program to help
ensure that NFS threats identified through
source water assessments are
acknowledged as concerns by both
programs.
Second, we will make full use of the new
tools and resources provided under the
1996 SOW A amendments, with their
emphasis on public involvement and state
SWAPs, which are logical first steps
toward state SWP Programs. Also, the
amendments provide states an
unprecedented opportunity to set aside
funds from the new Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for eligible
source water assessment and protection
activities.
2. Past Accomplishments of EPA and
its Partners
Prior to the 1996 SOW A, EPA
emphasized ground water and wellhead
programs and the Watershed Protection
Approach to protect source waters. The
approval of state WHP Programs was a
core component of this effort along with
the formation of multiple partnerships with
agencies and associations that had an
interest in SWP, such as the following:
• States
• National Rural Water Association
• American Water Works Association
• National Association of Towns and
Townships
• National Association of Counties
• League of Women Voters
• Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program
• Groundwater Foundation
From these partnerships grew public
information networks and information
sharing. The EPA Community Source
Water Protection Mentor Project, which
provides individual mentors to help
implement protection efforts in
communities, was established, and the
CWA sections 106 and 319 programs were
put to new uses. The SSA Program was
used to protect major underground sources
of drinking water, and CSGWPPs have
been a vehicle for focusing contaminant
source control programs on the protection
of drinking water sources. The Watershed
Protection Approach also has provided the
critical 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 highly successful national
conferences. States, such as Massachusetts
and Illinois, and large systems, such as
Portland, Boston, Seattle, and New York,
Final
1-3
Final
-------
have developed extensive watershed
protection approaches to protect their
drinking water supplies from potential
contamination as a way to ensure the
highest quality water and to reduce
treatment costs.
II. SDWA AMENDMENTS OF
1996—NEW RESOURCES AND
TOOLS FOR SOURCE WATER
PROTECTION
The SDWA Amendments of 1996 provide
an even greater focus on prevention as an
approach to ensuring safe drinking water
that complements the traditional treatment
approach. This approach aims to prevent
problems by increasing both PWSs'
capacity to provide safe drinking water and
protecting the source waters from which
we draw our drinking water.
There are linkages among different parts of
the law which together create a tapestry of
interwoven provisions in which the
prevention programs are integrated with,
and 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, with respect to monitoring,
states can provide flexibility to systems,
but it must be based on a history relatively
free of contamination and a good scientific
grasp of each system's susceptibility to
contamination.
The new prevention provisions 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 quality management,
which generally are exercised 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 SWAPs which include both of
these elements. EPA, both in Headquarters
and in the Regions, is committed to helping
ensure successful assessments. As such,
EPA will provide assistance to the states
to:
• Ensure that each state sets aside and
uses the amount of funding from
the DWSRF necessary to do a solid
job on the assessments.
• Stretch the assessment dollars by
working to get the strong
involvement of all appropriate
participants and contributors.
Final
1-4
Final
-------
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 information that can
contribute to or serve for the
assessments, as the law provides.
In the area of SWP, 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 SWP programs, with the funding
available under the DWSRF program set-
aside provision, section 1452(g)(2)(B).
This provision enables states to adopt SWP
programs that fit the needs and conditions
of each state.
In making linkages between the source
water provisions and other provisions,
including regulatory ones, the
Amendments create a powerful incentive
for fully implementing SWP programs.
Simply put, the law will not work as
effectively and many of the flexibilities it
offers will not be available without a strong
nationwide commitment to SWP.
Chapter 4 details many of these linkages
for source water assessment and protection.
But virtually every new section of the law
contains important examples. For
example, the Section 1420 capacity
development provisions—in which states
must develop a strategy and take several
actions to boost and ensure the technical,
financial and managerial capability of water
systems reliably to deliver safe drinking
water— have many linkages which are
similar to source water. Just as the base of
information and analysis from a source
water assessment is vital for monitoring
flexibility, so the capacity development
strategy can generate such a base to equip
states to make decisions on restructuring
and water supply alternatives necessary to
offer the flexibilities of variances and
exemptions to small systems. The two
programs are directly linked in that the
challenging task of achieving increased
capacity through improved management of
the water resources and/or physical
infrastructure will be easier and cheaper if
SWP can help provide the water system
with cleaner source water.
Some of these linkages are in common.
For both source water and capacity, the
annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) that must
be prepared for the DWSRF set-aside
funds is the opportunity to make the public
case for these prevention activities. And
because the SDWA Amendments only
ensure funding once for source water
assessments and capacity development
strategies alike, states need to be sure the
Final
1-5
Final
-------
programs they propose in these ILJPs are
the right ones to equip them to make these
linkages. Similarly, public participation is
required by the Amendments in developing
both of these programs, and in the ILJPs, to
ensure that states' exercise of their wide
discretion in these programs is responsive
to their constituents' needs, preferences,
and conditions.
A. The Benefits of Public
Involvement
The 1996 Amendments place a strong
emphasis on 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
PWSs must be made available to the
public, in addition to information on
contaminant occurrence and drinking water
standards 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 in the actual
development of the state SWAPs in order
to build a base of support for using the
assessments once they are completed.
Stakeholder involvement can help states
clearly define goals for the assessments,
design the process for completing
inventories and susceptibility
determinations, define the role of
protection measures, and determine the
best use of set-asides from the DWSRF for
these activities.
B. Assessment Programs
Chapter 2 of this document provides
guidance to states by explaining a new
section 1453 and section 1428(b) of the
SDWA for state SWAPs. States with
Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS)
program primacy must submit SWAPs to
EPA for approval. States must submit their
program to EPA no later than 18 months
after EPA publishes this final guidance. A
state program is automatically approved 9
months after submittal to EPA unless EPA
disapproves the program (or portion
thereof).
A state SWAP must: (1) set forth the
state's strategic approach to conducting the
assessments; (2) delineate the boundaries
of the areas providing source waters for
PWSs; and (3) identify, to the extent
practical, the origins of regulated and
certain unregulated contaminants in the
delineated area to determine the
susceptibility of PWSs to such
contaminants. Assessments are to be
completed for all PWSs within 2 years
Final
1-6
Final
-------
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
WHP Programs, pesticide state
management plans, state watershed
approaches including efforts under the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR),
and efforts under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).
For a state to tailor alternative monitoring
requirements for PWSs under a new
alternative monitoring authority [section
1418(b)], a state must have an EPA-
approved SWAP. Any PWS seeking
alternative monitoring requirements under
a state's alternative monitoring authority
must have completed an assessment of its
source water(s).
Each source water assessment needs to be,
as stated in the statute, "for the protection
and benefit of the public water systems"
[section 1453(a)(l)]. In other words,
Congress clearly desired the assessment as
a precursor to the development of a full
SWP program to protect the drinking water
for that area. Indeed, an assessment
provides essentially the first three steps of
a full prevention program: delineating the
source water protection area, inventorying
the significant potential sources of
contamination, and understanding the
susceptibility of the source waters of the
PWS(s) to contamination. However, it
may be done simultaneously with other
actions that complete a prevention
program: forming a team, monitoring
source water quality, implementing
management measures for sources of
contamination, and contingency planning.
In any event, 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, SWAPs need to be
measured for success. The basic measure
of state performance is whether a state
completes the program as described in its
approved program submittal. A program is
complete when all local assessments are
accomplished in accordance with the
state's EPA-approved SWAP.
However, because EPA's goal is to
implement full SWP programs for at least
60 percent of the population served by
CWSs (144 million Americans) by the year
2005, EPA will also encourage states and
localities to implement prevention
programs. EPA will track progress
towards achieving this goal. Agency
efforts to achieve this goal focus on
encouraging the states to actively help their
Final
1-7
Final
-------
PWSs develop full SWP programs,
although such programs are not required
by the SDWA amendments.
C. Source Water Protection and
Petition Programs
While these programs are voluntary, EPA
believes it is wise for states to plan for
protection programs at the same time they
plan for and implement their SWAPs.
Such simultaneous planning would provide
both efficient use of taxpayers' SWAP
funds and accountability to the public
regarding productive use of source water
assessment information. In particular,
states will likely use current information on
the hydrogeology of different regions of
the state to determine the level of detail in
assessments necessary to support
protection program options under
consideration. Finally, opportunities for
flexibility for PWSs under federal
monitoring regulations, ground water
disinfection regulations, Class V UIC
programs, and filtration will likely benefit
from, and in some cases be contingent on,
having protection programs in place.
Chapter 3 of this document describes many
options that states may consider in
developing SWP programs that go beyond
their required assessment program,
including: statewide or local SWP
Programs; WHP Programs; innovative
local, partnership approaches; and petition
programs of various types. States may
approach these options in different ways.
For example, some states may prefer to
develop statewide SWP Programs using
one basic model while allowing PWSs
some discretion to make modifications
based on local conditions. Other states
may allow systems considerably more
discretion to develop and implement
approaches that are based almost entirely
on the results of system-level assessments.
The Petition Program, as described under
section 1454, is an entirely voluntary
incentive-based approach. The intent of
the Petition Program is to receive, approve,
and respond to petitions from a PWS
operator/owner or local government.
Petitions request assistance 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 SWP strategies.
Chapter 3 describes some of the benefits
and limitations of the section 1454
program and some modifications that a
state may consider when adopting such a
program. Further, Chapter 3 describes
how a state-tailored Petition Program could
be eligible for funds set aside from the
DWSRF.
Final
1-8
Final
-------
D. Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund and Other Financing
States may set aside funds from the
DWSRF to finance the source water
assessment and protection activities
described above. This includes three
possible set-asides: (1) up to 10 percent of
a state's allotment for the DWSRF to
administer or provide technical assistance
for SWP programs within the state; (2) up
to 15 percent of the state's capitalization
grant for more than one of several SWP
activities (i.e., land acquisition/easements,
voluntary protection and petition activities,
source water assessments and WHP); and
(3) up to 2 percent of the state's allotment
for additional technical assistance to small
PWSs Funds for source water
assessments are only available from FY
1997 allotments. States can apply for
these funds in FY 1997 and FY 1998.
States must match, dollar-for-dollar, the 10
percent set-aside noted in number (1)
above, though certain existing state
expenditures may substantially meet the
match requirements. For the latter two set-
asides, the 15 percent and 2 percent, there
are no separate state match requirements.
As a separate match, each state is required
to provide a 20 percent match for the entire
DWSRF capitalization grant to the state
(see the final DWSRF Guidelines for a full
description of this 20 percent match
requirement). Funds set aside from the
DWSRF can also be used for PWS
activities that may complement SWP, such
as operator certification and system
capacity building.
In addition, the new SDWA amendments
contain separate provisions —not funded
through the DWSRF provision—with
funding authorizations for WHP Programs,
CSGWPPs, and the UIC Program.
However, appropriations for the WHP and
CSGWPP programs were not provided in
FY 1997, and UIC funding will likely
remain at the level of previous years.
Additional financial support for local SWP
activities may be available under CWA
section 319 grants to state NFS programs
or section 106 programs, and there may be
opportunities for targeting the resources of
other programs, such as pesticide State
Management Plans (SMP) or USDA Farm
Bill conservation programs, to support
source water assessment and protection
efforts.
The Clean Water Act State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) provides a powerful
partnership between EPA and the states,
allowing flexibility to fund projects that
will address states' highest priority water
quality needs. While traditionally used to
build or improve wastewater treatment
plants, loans available under the CWSRF
are being used increasingly for agricultural,
rural, and urban runoff control; estuary
improvement projects; wet weather flow
Final
1-9
Final
-------
control, including stormwater and sewer
overflows; and for alternative technologies.
As they evaluate source water assessment
and protection options, states may consider
how to access the CWSRF and the other
funding sources described above.
III. COORDINATION AND
INTEGRATION
A. Source Water Assessment and
Protection and Other Public
Water Supply Supervision
Program Implementation Efforts
Chapter 4 explains how EPA plans to
continue its efforts to incorporate source
water assessment and protection into the
regulatory and programmatic functions of
the PWSS Program. These linkages are
essential to ensuring that prevention efforts
lead to better-quality drinking water.
When increasing systems' capacities,
certifying operators, conducting sanitary
surveys, reforming monitoring, improving
small system operations, or implementing
standards, PWS managers have an
unprecedented opportunity to ensure that
prevention efforts are enhanced by these
components of the overall drinking water
protection program. For example, source
water assessments will generate
information on significant potential
contamination sources and on the
susceptibility of systems to contamination
by these sources that may help states target
systems for additional or reduced
monitoring, or for actions to help assure
compliance with drinking water standards.
B. Source Water Assessment and
Protection and the Watershed
Protection Approach
The development of state SWAPs and
SWP Programs offers a unique opportunity
to integrate not only drinking water
programs, 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 protection approach
provides a framework in which to achieve
better program integration, improve
identification of the highest priority
problems, and increase stakeholder input.
The watershed approach focuses federal,
state, tribal, and local government
programs and citizen efforts on
environmental and public health
management within hydrologically defined
geographic areas, taking into consideration
both ground and surface water flow.
Watershed protection approaches may vary
in terms of specific objectives and
resources. They emphasize partnerships
(with the people most affected by
management decisions), a geographic
focus, and scientific data, tools, and
Final
1-10
Final
-------
techniques. Many states are developing
strategies for watershed management.
Source water assessment and protection
programs could 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 SWP, total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs), state
water quality inventories, volunteer
monitoring, state NFS programs, and other
aquatic resource protection program
managers at 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 these managers
to allocate limited financial and human
resources to address these problems.
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 protection
approach can reduce costly duplication of
efforts and conflicting actions.
Finally, the watershed protection 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.
C. Source Water Assessment and
Protection and Other
Federal/State Agency Programs
In Chapter 5, we indicate how delineating
source water protection areas, inventorying
significant potential sources of
contamination in those areas, and making
susceptibility determinations can benefit,
and benefit from, other EPA programs and
federal programs. For example,
delineating source water protection areas
will enable other programs to identify
Final
1-11
Final
-------
where these 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 source water
protection areas will also certainly increase
the awareness of federal, state, and local
managers of other programs that action in
these areas may be a high priority for the
protection of human health.
Similarly, the benefits that other EPA and
federal programs can provide to state and
local source water assessment and
protection efforts are potentially very large.
The information, authorities, technical and
financial resources, and communication
networks that these other programs have
can be invaluable in helping the states and
PWSs conduct the assessments and
implement protection measures. See
Chapter 5 for specific examples of benefits
provided to source water assessment and
protection programs by other EPA and
federal programs. In the coming year,
EPA plans to develop a much more
detailed handbook on the opportunities for
integration of SWP efforts with the vast
array of federal and state programs.
IV. EPA Technical Assistance
EPA has many resources to assist these
programs. For example, a comprehensive
listing of all WHP 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
SWP and WHP 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 Water shed Tools (EPA 841-
B-95-005). These documents are available
by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline
at (800) 426-4791, or by e-mailing a
message to: hotline-
sdwa@epamail.epa.gov. 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.
Final
1-12
Final
-------
In addition, over the next 2 years, EPA will
sponsor or cosponsor source water
assessment/protection conferences and
meetings. For instance, a conference with
the National Governors' Association and
five other state executive branch
organizations will be held in 1997. In
addition, a conference entitled, "Source
Water Quality and Protection: Delineation,
Monitoring and Effectiveness" is
tentatively scheduled for the spring of
1998.
inclusive process is a model for how the
Agency will do business in the future. (See
Appendix A.)
V.
Conclusion
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. In so doing, the
President and the Congress have
committed the nation to the building of a
pollution prevention barrier to drinking
water contamination. Each of us is
challenged to do our part in carrying out
this commitment—to make SWP a worthy
complement to the drinking water
treatment process. This guidance is the
product of the efforts of a wide array of
stakeholders from states, other federal
agencies, local governments, water
providers, businesses and environmental
and citizen groups. We are fully engaging
these groups in many ways and appreciate
the contributions made by each
stakeholder. We hope this open and
Final
1-13
Final
-------
Final
1-14
Final
-------
Chapter 2
Final Guidance for State Source Water
Assessment Programs
Final Final
-------
Final Guidance for State Source Water Assessment Programs
i.
INTRODUCTION
The SDWA Amendments of 1996, P.L.
104-182, include amendments to section
1428, and a provision adding a new section
1453 to the Act. Section 1453 requires
states to develop, submit to EPA, and
implement, once approved, SWAPs.
These required state SWAPs are to be
submitted to EPA no later than 18 months
after EPA publishes this guidance in final.
The states must meet all the requirements
under sections 1453 and 1428 (b) and (c)
of the SDWA Amendments of 1996.
Within 2 years after EPA approval of the
program (unless extended), states are
required to complete assessments for all
PWSs which include source water
protection area delineations, inventories of
certain contamination sources, and
determinations of susceptibility that
provide for "the protection and benefit of
public water systems."
This document provides guidance to EPA
personnel and states on how best to
implement the Source Water Assessment
and SWP programs under the SDWA, as
amended. It also provides guidance to the
public and to the regulated community on
how EPA intends to exercise its discretion
in implementing the source water
assessment and protection provisions of the
SDWA. The guidance is designed to
implement the statutory requirements and
national policy on these issues.
States are required to involve the public in
developing their SWAPs and to make the
results of the assessments for public water
supplies available to the public when
completed. In doing so, EPA expects that
such information will encourage the
development and implementation of
complete local SWP Programs, which
incorporate the SWAP assessment
functions, and 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 source water protection
area is to provide a strong basis for
developing, implementing, and improving
SWP actions in that source water
protection area. Furthermore, states need
to consider the many other programs under
the SDWA and other environmental laws
(detailed in Chapters 4 and 5) whose
success for public health protection
depends upon source water assessments,
EPA strongly recommends that these
assessments be viewed not as activities
Final
2-1
Final
-------
done for their own sake, but to protect
source waters, and to establish a "good
science" basis for providing greater
regulatory flexibility to reduce costs and
maintain the delivery of safe water to the
public.
The elements that a submittal will need to
contain in order to be approved by EPA are
described in Part II in this chapter. Many
of these are explicit in sections 1453 and
1428 and must be included as specified;
many other elements, EPA believes, are
crucial for an effective SWAP. For these
latter elements only, where a state can
show it has an equivalent alternative(s),
EPA will approve the alternative
element(s), provided that the state
demonstrates that the alternative meets the
same functional objectives. There are also
several recommendations that EPA will
make for state submittals, but these
recommendations are optional for the
states. In other words, EPA is not seeking
to apply the guidance as a regulation, but
intends, where appropriate, to allow
equivalent alternatives to meet the
functional objectives of the statute.
Tribal Organizations. While the statute
does not explicitly require the tribes to
implement SWAPs, EPA recommends that
each tribe implement such a program to the
extent appropriate resources are available
to do so. Tribes can benefit from ensuring
that the PWSs on tribal lands undertake
assessments. Some tribes have
implemented WHP activities and
watershed approaches. If so, these tribes
have already begun to delineate their
source water protection areas and likely
have begun a contamination source
inventory. These tribes are encouraged to
continue to implement these programs.
If a tribe decides to establish and
implement a program, it may 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.
EPA and an interested tribe will negotiate a
timetable for implementation based on its
resources for the program.
Tribes may also want to consider
participation in a state SWAP as an
alternative to, or in conjunction with, their
own program. This could include
involvement on a state's technical and
citizens advisory committee(s), as
described in section II. A of this chapter.
Tribes can finance development and
implementation of a SWAP 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. Several tribes
have used CWA funding to support source
water assessment-type efforts.
Final
2-2
Final
-------
Organization of this Chapter. The
remainder of this chapter is presented in
three parts:
• Part II includes the requirements
and options for: public
participation in developing the state
submittal; the state's assessment
approach; making assessments
available to the public; and program
implementation.
• Part III includes the specific
requirements for when and how the
states will submit SWAPs to EPA
and when and how EPA will
approve or disapprove them.
• Part IV includes a discussion of the
opportunities for states to use the
DWSRF and other funding sources
for developing and implementing
SWAPs.
II. CONTENT OF STATE
SUBMITTALS
In order to be approved, a state submittal
needs to contain the following four
sections:
• Description of how the state
achieved public participation in
developing its submittal. (See
section II. A.)
• Description of the approach the
state will take to implement a
SWAP, including the goals for the
state SWAP consistent with the
national goals of protecting and
benefiting PWSs. (See section
II.B.)
• Description of how the state will
make the results of assessments
available to the public. (See section
II.C.)
• Description of how the state will
implement its chosen approach to
SWAPs. (See section II.D.)
A. Adequate Public Participation in
Developing the State Source
Water Assessment Program
Section 1428 (b) of the SDWA requires
that, "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
SWAPs under section 1453. Such
procedures shall include notice and
opportunity for public hearing on the state
program before it is submitted to the
Administrator." EPA believes Congress
intended that a state's public participation
process would build public support and
Final
2-3
Final
-------
responsibility for local water supplies.
Therefore, to achieve this goal, for a
SWAP to be approvable, a state needs to
have utilized a public participation process
for developing and implementing a SWAP.
Further, to understand how the state
implemented section 1428(b), a state
submittal needs to contain a description of
how the state ensured broad representation
on advisory groups and wide public
involvement in developing its submittal by
having:
• Convened a statutorily required
statewide technical advisory
committee and a citizens advisory
committee. One committee is
possible if a state demonstrates in
its submittal that the structure,
membership, and process of the
committee provided for viewpoints
for both technical (i.e., technical
feasibility and effectiveness of a
state's SWAP approach) and
citizens (i.e., desirability and
appropriateness of a state's SWAP
approach) considerations. The state
needs to provide adequate
opportunity to participate on the
advisory committee(s) to
representatives of public interest
groups (e.g., river and watershed
organizations), public health groups
(e.g., medical associations),
vulnerable population groups (e.g.,
elderly, transplant patients, dialysis
patients, chemotherapy patients,
people living with HIV/AIDS),
business groups (e.g., agricultural
chemical manufacturers and small
businesses), local governments,
tribes, land conservation groups,
drinking water suppliers of various
type and sizes, wastewater
treatment plant operators, farmers
and developers, and others. While
a state needs to provide
opportunities for these groups to
participate, it may still proceed with
program development or
implementation if any group
decides not to participate.
Because a state's response to the
recommendations of the
committee(s) should be on the
public record, a state needs to
describe in its submittal the advice
of the committee(s) regarding key
program development questions
such as those identified in the
several tables in this chapter. (See
Tables 1 through 6.)
Conducted public hearings or
public workshops, focus groups,
conference calls, or meetings
around the state with prior
dissemination of invitations and
basic information. Opportunities
need to be provided for general
Final
2-4
Final
-------
public involvement by wide and
effective advance notice of the
involvement process; wide
distribution/availability of decision
planning documents with adequate
time to review; meaningful and
substantial opportunities for all
interested parties to provide detailed
comments; and provision of direct,
genuine feedback from state
program officials. In addition, a
state might consider internet
conferences or other outreach
actions.
Furthermore, a state needs to include in its
submittal a responsiveness summary
showing how the significant public
comments and opinions were used in
developing the submittal. These may be
full written responses on the record to all
substantive comments, summarizing
agreement, disagreement, and substantive
reasons for each.
States may use certain DWSRF set-aside
funds to reimburse members of the
committee(s) or others for travel and other
expenses associated with public
participation, based on identified need.
However, EPA recommends that such
expenditures be consistent with the level of
funding afforded for the entire assessment
effort.
To the extent that:
(1) A state has implemented these
required SWAP elements for public
participation during development of
its WHP Program and/or Watershed
Approach, (or when developing the
state's ground water or the state's
surface water programs); and
(2) These programs included
delineations, source inventories,
and susceptibility determinations
similar to the requirements in this
guidance;
the state needs to undertake only those
public participation requirements it has not
previously completed.
EPA strongly encourages the state to
continue to work with its technical and
citizens committee(s) to solicit advice as
the assessments are being done. The
committee(s) will provide valuable
linkages to the stakeholders within the state
as assessments are completed and the
results and assessment information are
made available to the public. In addition,
the committee(s) can advise the state on
how to use the assessments in
implementing prevention programs and
improved treatment methods.
Final
2-5
Final
-------
2.
3.
Table 1
Public Participation:
Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)
Should the state do more to provide adequate
opportunity for stakeholder groups to
participate in development of the program? If
so, how?
Should the state do more to receive
recommendations from both technical and
citizen's perspectives?
What should the state do for ongoing public
participation in implementing assessments
once the state's SWAP is approved?
Final
2-6
Final
-------
STATE TECHNICAL AND CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): Oregon's DEQ developed a WHP
Advisory Committee for policy review and technical advice for their WHP Program. The
committee, 16 people from industry, utility companies, environmental organizations, not-for-
profits, and state and local government, met a total of fourteen times over a period of two
years from 1992 to 1994. DEQ offered to pay travel expenses, but only one member
requested reimbursement, based on need. Meetings were open to the public.
Potential members knew what was expected of them before joining the committee. DEQ
explained the extent and duration of the commitment, the goal of working through issues to
provide substantive input, and the reality that the committee's recommendations would not
necessarily be DEQ's final policy decision. The committee's public concurrence with the final
product was one of many extremely valuable benefits of the process.
A significant part of the success of the committee was due to DEQ's efforts at planning even
before the first meeting. Committee meetings were staffed by two people: one to take notes
or minutes and handle the logistics and administrative tasks, and one to provide technical and
policy guidance and develop the agenda. The committee presented recommendations to
DEQ on all aspects of the WHP Program.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Illinois EPA built on its tradition of
public involvement in forming a Source Water Protection Technical and Citizen's Advisory
Committee. The committee of 21 represents PWSs, environmentalists, business, farmers,
and federal and state government. IEPA provides administrative support and a meeting room
and offers travel expenses. The option of reimbursement ensures that committee
membership is based on qualifications, not geography.
Prior to the first meeting, committee members received copies of lEPA's planning documents
and the U.S. EPA State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Draft Guidance.
The meeting was devoted to discussion of the structure and composition of the committee
itself, background on the new SDWA and lEPA's related programs, and input and
suggestions on lEPA's proposed source water assessment and delineation program. In
future meetings, the committee will continue to provide detailed input to IEPA.
The committee will continue to meet on demand throughout the planning and implementation
of the program. Illinois has many mechanisms for public participation, and indeed many
Technical and Advisory Committee members serve on other committees as well. Therefore,
the group decided to meet on an as-needed basis. One specific focus of the group will be to
provide input on the development of public documents.
In addition to the committee's input, IEPA is holding a public hearing on the CWA and SDWA
revolving loan funds intended use plan. Advance notice of the public hearing was sent out to
over 200 potential watershed and ground water stakeholders. A detailed presentation of
lEPA's proposed source water assessment and delineation program will be presented at this
hearing. Public comment forms, to obtain written input on the program, are also planned.
Final 2-7 Final
-------
Final
2-8
Final
-------
B. Requirements/Options for State
Assessment Approaches
1. Statutory Requirements
The goals for state SWAPs are written in
the statute at section 1453 (a)(l), which
provides that assessments will be
accomplished ". . .for the protection and
benefit of public water systems and for the
support of monitoring flexibility. . . ."
Section 1453 (a)(2)(A) requires that states
"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."
Section 1453 (a)(2)(B) also requires that
states "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 in the delineated area to
such contaminants."
Section 1453 (a)(3) requires, in part, that
"the Administrator's approval of a state
program under this subsection shall include
a timetable . . . allowing for not more than
2 years for completion after approval of the
program." "The Administrator may extend
any timetable. . . to extend the period for
completion by an additional 18 months."
2. Strategic State Approaches
(a) Initial State A ctions
One of the first steps in any SWAP needs
to be a review of relevant, available
sources of existing data (including
susceptibility determinations) at the
federal, state, and local levels. This would
include gathering and analyzing the data to
determine what additional information may
need to be collected and analyzed to
complete individual assessments and the
state's assessment program. Many states
have already gathered considerable data on
contamination sources, performed
vulnerability assessments, and analyzed
monitoring data on contaminants in
implementing the Phase II and V rules and
in developing approved waiver programs
under those rules. Many states have also
performed similar work in developing
WHP programs. EPA strongly encourages
states systematically to assemble, review,
Final
2-9
Final
-------
and as appropriate utilize information and
analyses from these and other existing
sources including those specified in section
1453 (b)(6), early in their SWAP
implementation. Such information sources
could include delineations and assessments
done under a WHP program or state
watershed approach; vulnerability
assessments, sanitary surveys, monitoring
programs, delineations and assessments
done under a state management plan for
pesticides; and any other delineations and
assessments done under the CWA
(including state 305 (b) reporting
particularly for waters designated to be
used for drinking water sources under state
water quality standards), or under state or
local statutes. Moreover, any water system
with an existing waiver may already have a
substantial amount of information needed
for a source water assessment, meaning
these systems are among the likeliest
candidates for expeditious completion of
assessments.
(b) Completeness
Section 1453 requires states to complete
their SWAPs no later than 2 years after
program approval, or, with an approved
time extension, up to no more than 3 !/2
years after program approval. EPA defines
that a state program is"complete" only
when a state has completed all the actions
in its EPA-approved SWAP and met all the
requirements under sections 1453 and
1428(b) of the SDWA Amendments of
1996 (including the completion of source
water assessments for all PWSs, and the
release of the results of the assessments to
the public). To gain EPA approval of its
program, the state needs to include in its
program submittal:
• A description of the level of
exactness and detail that each
assessment (or category of
assessments) will achieve once it is
considered by the state to have been
"completed." A "completed"
assessment for a PWS(s) must
include:
A delineation of the source
water protection area,
A contamination source
inventory for that source
water protection area, and
A determination of the
PWS's susceptibility to
contamination by sources
inventoried within the
source water protection area.
• A description of how each
assessment will be "for the
protection and benefit of the public
water systems" in the state so that
EPA can determine whether it does
meet the goals of section 1453.
Final
2-10
Final
-------
In regard to the latter requirement, EPA
cannot properly evaluate whether a SWAP
provides for the protection and benefit of
PWSs unless the state describes the linkage
of these assessments to ongoing or future
SWP efforts. Thus, an approvable state
SWAP submittal needs to describe such
linkages, including whether the state plans
to implement a SWP Program and how a
SWAP will link with existing protection
programs such as WHP programs under
section 1428 (b). Several options for the
SWP approaches are described in Chapter
3. EPA hopes to ensure the information
gained through SWAPs will be directly
used for protection actions. EPA,
therefore, intends that this requirement for
state submittals will prevent the waste or
inefficient use of the DWSRF set-asides
for source water assessments by ensuring
their utility as intended by Congress and
will ensure that clear goals for the use of
the assessments will be described to the
public for review during a state's process
for SWAP development. This description
may also be consistent with—and may
assist in clarifying—plans for the DWSRF
set-asides described in the state's IUP, and
any work plan based on the IUP, as
required under section 1452. SWAPs are
intended to be supplemental and used to
support existing and future SWP efforts,
including WHP programs, which remain in
force (under the SDWA Amendments of
1996).
(c) Differential Approaches
Significant funds have been made available
through the DWSRF set-aside for the
SWAPs. Many states have already
undertaken considerable efforts through
their WHP and watershed protection
programs and through their state 305(b)
reports to assess the quality of their source
waters and the nature of the threats. Thus,
EPA realizes that achieving the same level
of exactness and detail in assessments for
all PWSs is a significant undertaking that
may not be possible with the funding
provided and that may not be appropriate
for the purposes of this assessment.
Therefore, EPA recommends that a state
establish a strategic approach to its SWAP
that will result in different levels of
assessments (i.e., with different degrees of
exactness for delineations and detail in
inventories and susceptibility
determinations) for individual or categories
ofPWSs.
Factors for Determining Approaches.
There are several alternative approaches or
factors that a state could employ separately
or in combination:
• Previous Assessment Efforts for
PWSs. Under WHP and Watershed
Protection approaches, formal
assessment efforts may have
already been completed for many
Final
2-11
Final
-------
PWSs. The state needs to
determine which of these may have
already met the goals of the SWAP
and, therefore, would need little or
no additional effort within the
timeframe of their section 1453
SWAP.
Type and Extent of Threats.
States often have a good sense of
the potential threats to many of the
systems operating within their
borders, even in the absence of
formal assessments. For example,
based on general information about
the hydrology or hydrogeology and
land use patterns influencing the
source waters of a PWS, (e.g.,
information gathered for existing
monitoring waiver programs, as
well as available monitoring data), a
state can make some preliminary
decisions about which systems are
threatened and which are not.
Type and Size of PWS. Some
states may target larger systems for
more extensive assessments due to
the greater population risks and
desire to reduce these risks,
whereas other states may target
smaller systems for more extensive
assessments due to these systems'
lack of economies of scale and need
for assistance in assessing and
understanding the condition of their
source waters.
• Objectives for a Source Water
Assessment. Some states may
desire to vary assessment efforts by
the objectives they set for those
systems. For example, a state may
target some systems for
comprehensive protection activities
while other systems may be
targeted for more focused
protection from certain
contaminants (e.g., microbial) or
situations (e.g., spills). Further,
some states may target certain
systems for alternative monitoring
or for maintaining filtration
avoidances and conduct different
levels of assessments for these
systems than for others.
Examples of Approaches . There are many
combinations of approaches that are
approvable. The following are several
illustrative examples of how states could
differentiate assessments:
• For transient non-community
systems, a state may decide to
conduct assessments that identify
sources of microbial and nitrate
contamination only within a
specified distance from the drinking
water well, leaving more detailed
assessment efforts for all
Final
2-12
Final
-------
community water systems (CWSs)
and the majority of non-transient
non-community water systems
(NCWSs).
• The state may know, based on
information from, for example, a
monitoring waiver program, of
systems that are drawing from
confined aquifers that produce
water which is hundreds if not
thousands of years old. A state
could decide that assessments for
these PWSs be very limited because
the types of sources of
contamination that could threaten
these waters are very specific and
few.
• For systems which are seeking
benefits for their PWSs through
regulatory flexibility (e.g., filtration
avoidances), or that want to be
equipped to do SWP, states may
want to perform more detailed
assessments that require an
understanding of their complex
hydrologic patterns and identify and
analyze the nature of the threats
from many sources of
contamination.
While EPA recommends that states choose
a differential approach, each state must
have a coherent rationale for the approach
it chooses (i.e., it must make sense for the
state's specific situation). Also, to be
approvable, the state submittal needs to
explain that the approach to complete the
assessments provides "for the protection
and benefit of PWSs" in that state.
Process for Approaches. States may
undertake differential approaches to
assessments in many different ways. EPA
recommends states consider one or both of
the following processes:
• An iterative process whereby a state
initially uses readily available data
to do assessments for all systems.
Then based on the results of these
initial assessments, more detailed
assessments are undertaken for
those systems the state determines
need more exactness, specificity,
and thereby additional effort; and/or
• Similar to the iterative process,
where one level of assessment is
completed but then a more detailed
effort follows, an interim
assessment provides some initial
information. The interim
assessment is undertaken to provide
a basis for some immediate benefit
to a system(s) (e.g., a less costly
monitoring or treatment
alternative). However, a more
comprehensive assessment would
then be undertaken to meet the
Final
2-13
Final
-------
requirements, including timeframes,
of section 1453.
Conversely, the process that states
use for collecting and analyzing
data to guide decisions on
monitoring or treatment alternatives
may be equivalent to an interim
Section 1453 assessment; or it is
possible to consider these as
complete Section 1453 assessments,
but only for those contaminants
that have been adequately
addressed by the state's analysis
and in accordance with this
guidance.
Coordination Using the Approaches. A
state's differential approach to assessments
can provide the blueprint for making the
state's efforts for coordination the most
cost-effective possible. The state can align
specific federal/state programs to specific
elements of its differential approach. For
example, the state may know that the
majority of transient NCWSs are operated
by state and federal land stewardship
agencies such as forest and park land
agencies; the state SWAP could enter into
a memorandum of understanding with
these other agencies and programs to
accomplish the type of assessments
targeted for these systems.
Similarly, an iterative process could point
to a particular strategy for coordination. In
fact, EPA recommends that, for an initial
assessment, a state coordinate with federal
agencies, other states, other countries, and
tribes to gather and review all existing data
available at the state level. With a
completion of this initial assessment, the
state's coordination efforts would focus on
supporting and/or working closely with
local stakeholders.
Table 2
State's Strategic Approach:
Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)
Has the state done an initial review of all data
sources available and determined the scope
of the need for additional information?
What level of exactness/detail should be
achieved by each assessment to be
considered "complete?"
Should the level of assessment provide for the
protection and/or benefit of the public water
supply(s)?
What should be the basis for differential levels
of assessments to be completed for different
public water supplies or categories of public
water supplies? System type or size?
Preliminary information about the existence of
threats? Other?
How will the state SWAP be coordinated
among various environmental and other state
programs (e.g., PWSS, water quality, water
resources, agriculture, land use, information
management, geologic)?
How would the state's assessment program
lead to state watershed approaches and link
to wellhead and other protection programs?
3. Requirements/Options for
Delineations, Source Inventories
and Susceptibility Determinations
Final
2-14
Final
-------
Each source water assessment for a public
water supply(s) must include three
elements: a delineation of the source water
protection area; an inventory of significant
potential sources of contamination within
that area; and a determination of the
susceptibility of the public water supply(s)
to the sources inventoried. These
assessments can be done on an "area-wide"
basis involving more than one PWS. The
following describes what EPA believes
these efforts require and what the state
needs to include in its program submittal to
meet the intent and requirements of section
1453 and thereby gain Agency approval.
A state may put forth an alternative to what
EPA believes these efforts require,
provided the state demonstrates that the
alternative meets the same functional
objectives.
(a) Delineation of Source Water
Protection Areas
Ground Water Systems. F or PW S s
relying on ground water, the state program
submittal needs to indicate that the
delineation of source water protection
areas will be in accordance with accepted
methods under the WHP Program of
section 1428 of the SDWA as described in
EPA's publication titled Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas,
published in June, 1987. Where a state has
an EPA-approved WHP Program, a state
may continue with the delineation
approach established by that program.
However, whether the state has an
approved WHP Program or not, it may
adopt the delineation approach employed
by another state's EPA-approved WHP
Program for the hydrogeologic settings
common to both states. EPA recommends
that, in either case, a state consider
modifying the WHP Program approach,
where necessary, to take advantage of the
regulatory flexibility to be offered to states
and PWSs in the future under rules such as
the Ground Water Disinfection Rule
(GWDR). (See Chapter 4.)
There are situations for ground water
systems where states need to delineate
assessment areas outside of, and in
addition to, the typical wellhead protection
areas (WHPAs). In cases where a
protection area contiguous to the well or
wellfield would alone be inadequate to
provide for the protection and benefit of
the PWS, states need to delineate recharge
areas that are not adjacent to or
surrounding the well.
Surface Water Systems. For PWSs
relying on surface waters, the state
program submittal needs to adopt a policy
that sets the delineation of the source water
protection area to include the entire
watershed area upstream of the PWS's
intake structure (see Figure 1), up to the
boundary of the state borders. In other
words, the delineation of the source water
Final
2-15
Final
-------
protection area for these public water
supplies would be the topographic
boundary, up to the state's border, that is
the perimeter of the catchment basin that
provides water to the intake structure.
EPA recommends that states use the
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
hydrologic unit codes (HUC) to the extent
appropriate. Where water is diverted into
this area from another watershed(s), the
watershed area(s) upstream of each
diversion structure would also need to be
delineated in a similar manner. EPA
strongly encourages states to include in the
delineated area those parts of a watershed
that are outside its boundaries and will
assist the states with any of this work if
requested.
Figure 2 A Watershed Area
As described below, for the purposes of
undertaking an inventory of significant
potential contamination sources and
determining susceptibility of the public
water supply, the state can choose to
segment the delineated watershed area(s)
(see Figure 2) into units (e.g., stream
segments, buffer zones, sub-watershed
areas) for more cost-effective analysis.
EPA strongly recommends that states work
with upstream neighboring states or
nations to gain assessment information on
watershed areas that would normally be
part of a source water protection area for a
PWS except for its location outside of the
state's borders. EPA also recommends that
states coordinate assessments so they are
consistent within a watershed area that
crosses borders. (See section II.B.4 of this
chapter.)
Ground Water/Surface Water Interface.
EPA recommends that states consider the
impacts of ground water on surface water
when delineating source water protection
areas for PWSs based mostly on surface
water. The source water protection areas
may include surface water contribution
areas and zones of ground water
contribution to public surface water
supplies. The consideration of surface
water contribution areas and zones of
ground water contribution during the
delineation process is termed "conjunctive
delineation." (See Appendix D for further
discussion.)
Final
2-16
Final
-------
EPA also recommends that States consider
the impacts of surface water on public
water wells when delineating certain PWSs
based mostly on ground water but in the
vicinity of a body of surface water. These
source water protection areas may include
surface water contribution areas in addition
to the zones of ground water contribution
to the PWS. This is important because 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. (See
Appendix D for further discussion.)
(b) Source Inventories within
Delineated Source Water
Protection Areas
The state program submittal needs to
indicate what "contaminants of concern"
its SWAP will address and what
"significant potential sources" of these
contaminants the program will inventory in
assessment efforts.
Contaminants of Concern. The
contaminants of concern must include
those raw water contaminants regulated
under the SDWA (contaminants with a
maximum contaminant level (MCL),
contaminants regulated under the SWTR,
and the microorganism Cryptosporidium.)
This includes Cryptosporidium because
EPA is in the process of regulating this
microorganism. EPA published a
proposed Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule, which included adding
Cryptosporidium as a regulated
contaminant, on July 29, 1994 (54 Fed.
Reg. 38832), and is required to promulgate
the final rule by November 1998, pursuant
to SDWA section 1412(b)(2)(C). EPA
agrees with the recommendation the
Agency received through a Federal
Advisory Committee Act process that the
final rule should contain a removal
requirement for Cryptosporidium.
Therefore, by the deadline for state SWAP
submittals, Cryptosporidium will be a
regulated contaminant.
In addition, states may include those
contaminants that are not federally-
regulated under SDWA but which the state
has determined may present a threat to
public health. In particular, in light of the
expectation that other microbiological
contaminants (e.g., pathogenic viruses and
bacteria) will be addressed under the
GWDR, EPA recommends that states
inventory the sources of these
microorganisms in the context of their
assessment approach.
Significant Potential Sources. A state
program submittal also needs to indicate
what types of potential sources of the
contaminants of concern will be considered
"significant" and, therefore, inventoried in
the assessments. The inventory needs to
include a clear description of the sources of
Final
2-17
Final
-------
contamination (or categories of sources) by
location either specific or by area (this
could be locational coordinates to assist in
mapping). As a starting point, Appendix E
lists the types of potential contamination
sources for both ground and surface
waters. Potential sources include
Superfund sites, TRI sites, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permittees, underground storage
tanks (USTs), RCRA sites, and others
included in public databases, as well as
anticipated future sources and NPSs.
To gain Agency approval, a state needs to
choose and describe in its submittal one or
both of the following two approaches for
determining which types of potential
sources of contamination are significant:
• Define a significant potential source
of contamination as any facility or
activity that stores, uses, or
produces, as a product or by-
product, the contaminants of
concern and has a sufficient
likelihood of releasing such
contaminants to the environment at
levels that could contribute
significantly to the concentration of
these contaminants in the source
waters of the public water
supply(s); or
• Describe how an initial
susceptibility determination for the
PWS(s) will result in identifying the
types of significant potential
sources that will be inventoried.
The first approach relies on the inherent
characteristics of the potential
contamination sources (i.e., the amounts
produced, stored or used, the likelihood of
release including existence of mitigation
efforts, etc.). All sources of contamination
in the source water protection area that
meet the thresholds for these factors are
identified as significant potential sources
once the presence of these significant
potential sources in the source water
protection area is identified. The state
makes a determination as to the
susceptibility of the water system(s) to
these sources. This stepwise approach
could be rather burdensome, except for
small source water protection areas (i.e.,
WHPAs). For these, this approach may, in
some cases, actually provide an
"automatic" susceptibility determination,
for the exact location of the significant
potential contamination sources within
small WHPAs would be irrelevant,
assuming there is constant hydrogeology,
(i.e., given the small size of the source
water protection area, the PWS would be
susceptible to any significant source
located in the area).
The second approach utilizes existing
information and initial determinations of
the susceptibility of a PWS(s) to identify
Final
2-18
Final
-------
what potential sources would be significant
if located in the source water protection
area. This approach is likely to be more
useful for assessments for PWSs in large
source water protection areas. In
particular, EPA recommends that a state
segment large surface water source water
protection areas into smaller areas and
determine what types of potential sources
would be significant, given the
susceptibility of PWSs for each such
segmented area. (See Figure 2.) For
segments close to the intake structure, most
types of contamination sources may be
found to be significant. Whereas for
remote segments, most, and in some cases
perhaps all, types of potential sources may
be determined insignificant. This approach
allows the state to focus the actual source
inventory effort on those types of
contamination sources that are considered
to be significant in each segment.
Segment 4
Segment 1
titake
Figure 3 Watershed Area—Segmented for
Assessments
The approach EPA recommends assumes
broad initial inventories, with a narrowing
and iterative focus based on protection
goals and better information. As the
analysis for any source water protection
area becomes more detailed, a state may
want the inventory to be very specific so
that protection actions can focus on
specific facilities or areas within a source
water protection area. Thus, if a state
determines it will enhance SWP actions yet
not discourage voluntary implementation
of protection measures, a state may:
• For point sources: identify the
names and addresses of these
sources of contamination.
• For NPSs: identify the geographic
area where the NPSs are located.
Compliance with federal, state, or local
statutes by a facility or activity that is a
potential source of contamination does not
necessarily mean that a PWS is not
susceptible to that source. Existing
controls and management measures that
are determined by states to be effective
may be an appropriate screen for
susceptibility for some potential sources.
EPA recognizes that completion of these
inventories can be resource intensive. The
Agency recommends that states set up
community volunteer programs under state
or other appropriate quality supervision,
Final
2-19
Final
-------
which can adopt lower-cost methods to
locate potential sources of contamination
(e.g., using hand-held global positioning
units). EPA recommends credible groups
within each source water protection area do
some of the work for the inventories, such
as the elderly through RSVP programs or
younger people such as the Boy Scouts or
Girl Scouts or 4H Club members.
(c) Determination of Public Water
Supply(s) Susceptibility
The state program submittal needs to
describe the state's definition of a
"susceptibility determination" and how it
will be achieved through the SWAP effort.
A state may define "susceptibility
determination" as the potential for a
PWS(s) to draw water contaminated by
inventoried sources at concentrations that
would pose concern. Such a
determination, therefore, would likely take
into account hydrologic and hydrogeologic
factors, inherent characteristics of the
contaminants (e.g., toxicity, environmental
fate and transport); and characteristics of
the potential source of the contaminant
(location, likelihood of release,
effectiveness of mitigation measures).
States should note that in small source
water protection areas, where differences
in distances between sources and the intake
are small, and hydrologic and
hydrogeologic factors are relatively
constant, susceptibility of a water supply is
related to the likelihood of a significant
release and to the inherent characteristics
of the source (e.g., toxicity, fate and
transport, etc.). (Appendix F provides
more detail on possible factors to be
considered.)
The state submittal also needs to describe
how the results of the susceptibility
analysis will either be: an absolute measure
of the potential for contamination of the
public water supply; a relative comparison
between sources within the source water
protection area; a relative comparison to
findings by other assessments; or some
other result that would provide for the
protection and benefit of the PWSs.
A susceptibility determination does not
necessarily require modeling or monitoring
in the source waters to determine which
potential sources of contamination are
significant. Nonetheless, EPA encourages
states to undertake such modeling and
monitoring, taking advantage of other
resources for these activities than those
available through the DWSRF, where
necessary to provide a basis for good
source management measures.
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
contaminants, Congress decided that an
analysis of a PWS's susceptibility to
Final
2-20
Final
-------
potential sources of contamination will be
the means for a state to make the inventory
useful for decisions regarding source water
protection programs and other possible
uses. The legislative history further
indicates that a SWAP is intended to
include an analysis of potential threats to
PWSs from the inventoried sources. In
describing the link between the
information in the assessments and source
water protection programs, the House
Committee on Commerce report described
such programs as "designed to protect
source waterfront threats identified
during the assessment" (emphasis added).
Simply identifying the numerous
significant potential sources of
contamination does not in itself determine
which of them may or may not 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 SWP and monitoring
and other regulatory flexibility, as
Congress intended. An analysis of the
risks from these sources, described as a
determination of "susceptibility" in section
1453 (a)(2)(B), is therefore a required part
of each SWAP, and thereby for each
assessment in a source water protection
area. The level of detail, however, from
any assessment, will depend upon the
state's SWAP program approach.
Table 3
Delineation, Source Inventory, and Susceptibility:
Key Questions for the Advisory Committee(s)
1. What delineation method and criteria will be
used for systems using ground waters?
Where shall recharge areas not be included
and why?
2. What contaminants that are not currently
regulated by EPA should be part of the state's
SWAP program?
3. Should the state segment source water
protection areas for more focused source
inventories? What should be the basis for
such segmentation?
4. How should the state define and identify
significant potential contamination sources
and how should the state undertake their
inventory within source water protection
areas?
5. How will the results of the susceptibility
analysis be characterized?
4. Adequate Assessment(s) for Waters
Which Cross State or Country
Borders, Boundary Rivers,
Multi-State Rivers and the Great
Lakes and EPA's Role in Assisting
States Accomplish These
Assessments
(a) Role of the State
Unless a state can demonstrate that an
alternative meets the same functional
objectives, a state SWAP submittal needs
to contain the following:
Final
2-21
Final
-------
• A description of how the state will
delineate source water protection
areas, conduct an inventory of
contamination sources, and conduct
a susceptibility determination for
that portion of a boundary river, the
Great Lakes, or multi-state river
that is within its borders (using the
segmented approach in section
II.B.S.a).
• A description of how the state will
make the maximum practical effort
to coordinate with other states,
tribes, or nations to do assessments,
particularly for categories of
significant potential sources of
contamination in upstream states.
While not an assessment technique, and
therefore optional, states may describe in
their submittal the contingency planning
policy they have for these water bodies in
case of spills or other emergencies.
States may want to describe any multi-state
agreements or organizations in which they
participate or which may be established to
create protection and contingency plans.
States should encourage consortiums
across state lines of water suppliers,
dischargers, and other affected parties to
develop contingency plans and
communication networks in the case of
spills and other emergencies. For example,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West
Virginia could describe how they
cooperate with each other through the Ohio
River Valley Water and Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO).
States should also consult closely with
local stakeholders across state borders
(particularly water suppliers, watershed
associations, ground water protection
teams, and governments) to get their
perspective on the scope, focus, and level
of effort that would be necessary to
achieve the best assessments.
(b) Role of EPA
EPA, working through the Regions, will
strongly encourage cooperation among
states to accomplish compatible and
complementary source water assessments
in a watershed that includes several 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, when
requested by the states, EPA will facilitate
discussions and provide regional
assistance.
Final
2-22
Final
-------
Table 4
Boundary Waters, Multi-State Rivers, and the Great
Lakes: Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)
1. What agreement should the state maintain or
initiate with other states, tribes, or nations to
gain more complete and consistent source
water assessments?
2. What contingency plans should be pursued?
3. What coordination/facilitation activities should
the state request of EPA?
4. Are compatible and complimentary
assessments being done in watersheds
shared with other states and countries?
C. Requirements/Options for
Making Assessments Available to
the Public
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."
The following describes what EPA
believes this statute requires and what a
state needs to include in its program
submittal to meet the intent and
requirements of section 1453 and thereby
gain Agency approval. A state may put
forth an alternative to what EPA believes
these efforts require, provided the state
demonstrates the alternative meets the
same functional objectives.
1. Content of Understandable
Assessments— Mapping
Assessment Information, Listings
of Sources and Narrative
Assessment Reports Made
Available to the Public
The results of the assessment reflect the
state's analysis of the susceptibility of the
PWS(s) in a source water protection area to
the inventoried sources of contamination.
For a program to be approvable, a state
needs to make these results available in an
understandable manner and in an
expeditious way after they are complete.
In addition, as a matter of proper
accountability for the results of a process
reached using DWSRF funds, a state needs
to make available all information collected
during each assessment, when requested.
Further, a state needs to create maps as part
of the results, and those maps need to
include the delineated area and the sources
of contamination described in the
inventory.
The susceptibility determinations most
usable by the public could be in a narrative
form, but may be presented on a map if the
results of the analysis would be more
understandable in that format.
Furthermore, EPA recommends that maps
be created through a Geographic
Information System (GIS), but topographic
formats may also be used.
Final
2-23
Final
-------
EPA recommends that states determine the
appropriate scale of such maps, and
therefore, the locational detail. For
example, a map may need to identify
individual USTs to help target resources
for pulling tanks or taking other prevention
actions. The scale needs to be as detailed
as necessary to make the assessment
provide for the protection and benefit of
the public water supplies.
USGS can supply GIS coverages of waters
within and across state boundaries and
EPA can supply coverages of Reach File 3,
that show the location and "address" of
surface waters in the country to a
1:100,000 scale. (Reach File 3 is described
in chapter 5.)
2. Procedures for Making
Assessments Available to the
Public
The public is defined as all consumers in a
source water protection area as well as all
other members of the public, including
federal, state and local government
agencies. To the extent that a watershed
area or recharge area crosses state
boundaries, EPA recommends that the
contiguous (or other) states make the
maximum practicable effort to provide
consistent information to all members of
the public in such a source water protection
area.
To demonstrate that it has met the
requirements for making the results of each
assessment available, EPA recommends
that a state:
• Create a brief report,
understandable to the public, in an
expeditious manner after the
assessment is finished.
For an approvable SWAP submittal, a state
must describe how it will ensure that the
results of the assessments are made
available to the public, either directly or
through a delegated entity, in an
expeditious manner after the results are
done. A state's description may include
approaches from below, but must include
some reasonable and effective array of
means to ensure results will be made
widely available.
Make the report widely available
via the internet and other means.
Provide widespread notification of
availability (such as through bill
staffers) describing in detail how
the public can obtain a hard copy
(using state rules for charging for
copies).
Permit the public to request a copy
through postage free return mail
Final
2-24
Final
-------
cards, a free call-in number, and
internet posting.
EPA encourages states to make the
assessments widely available by linking
the results to the Agency's "Surf Your
Watershed" internet effort, the Index of
Watershed Indicators (IWI), state 305(b)
waterbody delineation and assessment
efforts, and with the Reach File 3 System.
(See further description in Chapter 5.) Of
key importance for such data integration is
the accurate identification of locational
coordinates for public water supply wells
and intakes, and inventoried significant
potential sources of contamination. Other
options include:
• Send copies of the assessment or a
summary to the public through
access to either a telephone or
on-line computer system. States
could use existing or new
information lines or information
phone numbers of community water
supplies.
• Send a notice or results of each
assessment 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 the
results of the assessment, or
announce the availability of the
assessment. This often could
extend beyond, but will, at a
minimum, have to comply with the
regulations that will be published
under section 1414 (c)(4) of the
SOW A (as amended in 1996).
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 PWS newsletter, or
flyer to each household. The local
communities affected could
advertise the availability of the
assessment in a local newspaper.
Communities encompassing PWSs
could advertize its availability on
radio or on local cable televisions
as well as on local government
internet home pages.
Final
2-25
Final
-------
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 IWI through the "Surf Your
Watershed" internet system. EPA
will provide technical assistance if a
state wishes to use "Surf Your
Watershed" and thereby avoid
creating its own internet program.
Briefly summarize the assessments
from a statewide perspective and
note the availability of the
assessments in the state CWA
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.
Table 5
Making the Results of Assessments
Available to the Public:
Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)
1. What should be included in the results of the
assessments, what should be the format of an
understandable report on results, and when
should the results be made available?
2. How and when should the state make
available all the information collected during
each assessment when someone requests it?
3. What type of maps should be developed to
display the results of the assessments?
4. How and when should the state make public
all information collected during each
assessment for a PWS(s)?
5. How should the state or delegated entities
provide wide notification of the availability of
the results and other information collected?
D. Requirements/Options for State
Program Implementation
Section 1453 requires EPA to approve or
disapprove a state SWAP submittal.
Therefore, EPA needs to assess not only
the policies and approach proposed by the
state but also the likelihood that such an
approach will be successfully carried out
(i.e., whether the proposed program is
feasible and viable). The following
describes what states will need to include
in their program submittal regarding
implementation to meet the goals and
explicit requirements of section 1453. A
state can put forth a different determination
as to what is required to gain EPA
approval, but the state needs to
Final
2-26
Final
-------
demonstrate that the alternative meets the
same functional objectives.
1.
Timetables
In an approvable submittal, a state needs to
propose a timetable for implementing and
completing assessments within the state. A
"completed state SWAP" and a "complete
local assessment" are defined in section
The proposed timetable in the submittal
must be no more than 2 years after EPA
approves a state program. However, the
statute at 1453(b) allows EPA to grant a
state's request for an extension of the time
available for completion of assessments up
to 1 8 months after the original 2-year
period. Thus, statewide completion of the
assessments could be a maximum of 3 !/2
years from initial EPA approval of a state's
program. States that are continuing to
implement WHP Programs and have been
accomplishing assessment-type work in
local watershed efforts, will, in effect, be
implementing assessments over a 6 3/4
year period from the date of enactment
which was August 6, 1996.
To be approvable, requests for an
extension to complete a state SWAP must
be made based on:
• Consideration of the availability to
the state of funds under the
DWSRF under section 1452 of the
Act. That is, based on its approved
program, a state must show that
additional time is needed to
complete the assessments based on
an analysis of how much DWSRF
funding it is spending to do the
assessments. For this reason. EPA
encourages states to determine how
much it would cost to complete the
assessments for their source water
protection areas, and then take up to
the full 10 percent allowed from the
FY 1997 allotment. States can
apply for these funds in FY 1997 or
FY 1998.
• Consideration of other relevant
factors, for example, statewide or
sub-state emergencies such as
natural disasters.
For the initial program submittal, a state
can provide a rationale for the eventual
extension of the timeframe and base its
submitted timeframes and priorities on the
extended deadline. If a state requests an
extension as part of its initial submittal,
EPA will make a determination of the
timeframe extension as part of the approval
of the state's program.
Final
2-27
Final
-------
2. Resources to be Committed to the
Effort
To be approvable, a state needs to explain
how it will complete assessments as
described in its SWAP using resources the
state proposes to allocate.
(a) Funding from Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund
For complete discussion of the Agency's
DWSRF policies, the reader may refer to
EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program Guidelines released on
February 28, 1997, which is available by
calling the Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-
426-4791).
A state may set aside up to 10 percent of its
allotment under section 1452 for
assessments for PWSs in accordance with
section 1453 of the 1996 SDWA
amendments. Unlike other SWP activities
eligible for DWSRF assistance, funds for
delineations and assessments under section
1453 programs are 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 allotment.
States can apply for these funds in F Y
1997 or FY 1998. Funds set-aside for this
purpose must be obligated within four
fiscal years after a state receives its grant.
Part IV of this chapter provides more
discussion of the DWSRF policies for
SWAP.
(b) 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 and of the
CWSRF may potentially provide support
to states for assessment and protection of
source waters from NPSs of pollution. The
most recent section 319 grants and
program guidance specifies that 319 grants
can be used to support SWP activities,
including assessments. States will
continue to be eligible to use CWA section
106 funds for WHP activities, which may
include source water assessments.
3. Delegations of Efforts
If a state will delegate some of the aspects
of assessments, the submittal needs to
include a description of how, to whom, and
what aspects of assessments the state will
delegate, and a formal definition of
delegation used in regulations, guidance, in
another formal state policy, or created for
this program. The state submittal also
needs to include a description of the
financial capacity of the entity or entities
who will be performing delegated aspects
Final
2-28
Final
-------
of the assessments to undertake such
aspects successfully. States and delegated
entities may involve any other appropriate
groups allowable under state law to do the
assessments. EPA recommends that if
local entities will, in fact, conduct some
aspects of assessments, that appropriate
stakeholders participate in the assessments.
States have discretion to decide if funding
under section 1452(k)(l)(C) will
accompany state delegation. However,
EPA encourages states to do so because
providing funding where necessary for
delegated assessment activities can ensure
effective completion of the state's
approved SWAP. EPA believes that
Congress expected the assessment set-aside
funds would be sufficient for assessment
functions.
4. Role and Coordination of State
Agencies and with Other
Federal/State/Tribal Programs
In order for EPA to evaluate whether a
state will be able to meet the timetable for
completing assessments set forth in a
SWAP submittal, a state needs to explain
in the submittal how it will coordinate
with:
• State environmental programs;
• Tribes;
• Local stakeholders;
• Other states (as described in section
II.B.4);
• Federal agencies.
State drinking water programs do not have
the resources nor the databases necessarily
to adequately accomplish the assessments
alone. The assessments will have to be a
team effort at the state level assisted by
local stakeholders and federal agencies.
EPA recommends that states briefly
describe coordination in their submittals to
ensure this coordination will take place.
5. Reporting of Program Progress
For EPA to know whether a state will be
meeting the goals of section 1453 and
accomplishing the state's program
objectives and approach, a state submittal
needs to describe how it will periodically
report to EPA on progress of the effort.
(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
using funds under section 1452(k)(l)(C) is
moving towards completion of its SWAP
program, these states need to report to
EPA:
Final
2-29
Final
-------
• The total numb er of PW S s,
categorized as ground water,
surface water, or combined (this
should be consistent with Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) reporting).
• The number PWSs by category
with "completed" delineations,
source inventories, and
susceptibility determinations.
• The population served by the PWSs
in source water protection areas.
• How completed local assessments
have been made available to the
public.
States can use current reports or a separate
report to EPA as the mechanism for
providing information on SWAPs. For
example, states can use their WHP
Program biennial reports to report on
completed programs for ground water,
surface water, and combined systems.
6. Updating the Assessments
Some of the key benefits possibly available
to PWSs with adequate assessments will be
regulatory flexibility under existing as well
as future rules such as the CMR,
alternative monitoring, and GWDR. For
EPA to understand how the state program
will continue to provide benefit to PWSs,
EPA recommends the state present as part
of its submittal a plan to update the
assessments, particularly if the state
decides not to modify the scope of its
previous ground water delineation
approach in anticipation of its systems'
needs under forthcoming rules providing
for flexibility. (See section II.B.3.(a) of
this chapter.) This could include a brief
description of the process it plans to use to
update the assessments to incorporate the
newly regulated contaminants and rules
expected to be promulgated by EPA
(described in Chapter 4) during the time
period when the state is completing the
assessments under its approved SWAP
program. These rules include:
• Ground Water Disinfection Rule
• Chemical Monitoring Reform Rule
and Alternative Monitoring Rule
• Underground Injection Class V
Rule
• Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule
EPA notes that states will need to have
periodically updated assessment-type
information in order to make adequately
informed decisions in the future on such
matters as monitoring flexibility. EPA
further recommends that states update
assessments to include new active and
Final
2-30
Final
-------
current PWSs, and new wells/intakes III.
identified by the state in its reporting to
EPA under the previous regulations. Also
states should update the assessments for A.
other purposes such as new changes in
land use that could, if not identified, hinder
protection of PWSs.
PROGRAM SUBMITTAL
PROCESS
Process for Submitting the State
Source Water Assessment
Program and for Program
Implementation
Table 6
State Program Implementation:
Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)
What should be the timetable for state SWAP
program implementation?
How much should the state spend on SWAP
program development and implementation,
and should the resources come from the
DWSRF and/or other resources?
Should the state delegate aspects of the
assessments? If so, to whom? Should
funding be provided to delegated entities?
How should state agencies coordinate with
each other and with other state, federal, and
local stakeholders when implementing
SWAPs?
How and what should the state report to EPA
regarding SWAP implementation?
When and how should the state update
assessments?
1. Statutory Requirements
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 in 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
Final
2-31
Final
-------
timetable included in a state program
approved under paragraph (3) to extend the
period for completion by an additional 18
months."
B. Outline of the Process For
Submitting and Implementing a
Program (See Appendix B)
Based on the statutory requirements at
sections 1453 (a)(3) and 1428 (c)(l), there
are three separate and distinct phases for
establishing state SWAPs:
Requirements for Program Submittal.
States must submit SWAPs to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
by February 1999. The states must
develop programs with public
participation, as defined in section II. A.
Approval Process for Submittals. 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. When approving a program, the
Regional Administrator must include a
timetable, established in consultation with
each state, for completion of the program.
States must begin implementation
immediately upon approval. A state must
complete program implementation within 2
years of approval unless an extension is
granted. Requirements for extensions are
described in section II.D.I.
Disapproval Process for Submittals. If the
Regional Administrator determines a
program (or portion thereof) is to be
disapproved, 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 must be
based upon the recommendations of
the EPA. If EPA disapproves the
program (or portion thereof) 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.
• EPA must then make a decision on
whether to approve or disapprove a
state's re-submittal.
IV. THE DRINKING WATER
STATE REVOLVING FUND
AND SOURCE WATER
ASSESSMENTS
A. The Intended Use Plan: The Key
Funding Vehicle
Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for
implementing the DWSRF, the central
Final
2-32
Final
-------
component of the capitalization grant
application is the IUP. The IUP describes
how a state intends to use available
DWSRF funds to meet the objectives of
the SDWA and further the goal of
protecting public health. A state must
prepare the IUP, and after providing for
public review and comment, 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, and the other part dealing only
with project funding in the DWSRF. 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 under the set-aside.
B. The Importance of Funding
Source Water Assessment
Programs
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
SWP 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 WHP Programs
and SMPs for pesticides and they 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 by other
federal and state programs, including UIC
Class V programs, USDA's Farm Bill
programs, NFS programs, and watershed
protection programs.
C. Work Plans, Financing, and
Implementing Assessments Prior
to EPA Approval of State Source
Water Assessment Programs
States may use the DWSRF 10 percent
set-aside funds for assessments prior to
receiving EPA approval for a SWAP
Program submittal under the following
conditions:
Final
2-33
Final
-------
• The state must have an
EPA-approved WHP Program
under section 1428 of the SOW A
before using the funds to conduct
assessments for systems dependent
on ground water; or if the state does
not have an approved wellhead
program, the delineations and
assessments for systems dependent
on ground water must be conducted
in accordance with any approved
state program's delineation policy
and process or the EPA's June 1987
guidance, Guidelines for
Delineations of Wellhead
Protection Areas, and the state's
approach for assessments must
receive interim approval by EPA as
part of the Agency's review of the
state's DWSRF set-aside work
plans; and
• For systems dependent on surface
water, the state's approach for
assessments must be described, and
receive interim approval by EPA,
consistent with this guidance, as
part of the DWSRF set-aside work
plans.
In those states where DWSRF set-aside
funds are used for assessments prior to
having an approved SWAP program
submittal, EPA will review on an annual
basis these expenditures, as well as the
approach used by the state to conduct the
assessments.
In order for EPA to provide an interim
approval of a state's approach for
assessments as part of the Agency's review
of the state's DWSRF workplan, the
workplan must include:
• A description of the state's approach
to assessment consistent with the
language of Chapter 2, section II.B
in this document.
• A description of exactly what
aspects of the assessments the
set-aside funds will be used for
prior to approval of a state's SWAP.
• A timeframe for when the state will
submit the SWAP to EPA for
approval.
If EPA finds any of these descriptions
substantially inconsistent with this
guidance, EPA will disapprove the state's
approach to assessments and the state will
not be permitted to use the set-aside funds
until such time as the state makes
necessary changes to the workplan to meet
EPA's objections or receives approval of its
SWAP.
Final
2-34
Final
-------
D. DWSRF Funding for Programs
Supporting State Source Water
Assessment Programs
Congress encouraged the use of other
existing programs and 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
Environment and Public Works Committee
report (S. Report 104-169) 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."
1. Total Maximum Daily Load
Program
One example of an existing program that
can provide useful information for source
water assessments is the TMDL program
under the CWA. 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 NPSs
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. EPA's 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 SDWA) for the
development of TMDLs in limited
circumstances. The state must establish a
policy of allowing use of the set-aside
funds to develop TMDLs 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 TMDLs through
source water set-asides is only eligible if it
Final
2-35
Final
-------
will prevent or reduce source water
contamination or enhance the efficiency of
the drinking water treatment process. In
this context, TMDL activity may be
weighed against other source water
assessment and delineation priority
activities. State SWAPs 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."
Consistent with 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 DWSRF appropriations.
To promote the continued integration of
public health goals into CWA 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 contaminant(s) and/or
sources in the TMDL assessment and
public health; (2) the contaminant(s) in the
TMDL assessment are those that are
regulated under the SOW A; (3) the TMDL
assessment will assist a PWS(s) achieve or
maintain compliance with a National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation; and
(4) the TMDL performs one or more of the
three functions required of a state SWAP
(i.e., delineation, source inventory and/or
susceptibility determinations).
In a limited number of cases, states may
find that a greater portion than 10 percent
of the 10 percent set-aside may be used for
TMDL development to improve either the
quality and/or efficiency of their SWAPs.
States have this discretion, although they
must demonstrate clear 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
may be linked to their intended use as
platforms for SWP activities directly
related to public health protection and
compliance with drinking water
regulations.
2. Monitoring/Modeling Activities
As described in section II.B.3.(c), a source
water assessment should not ordinarily
require modeling or monitoring in the
source waters to determine which potential
sources of contamination are significant or
the susceptibility of the public water
supply. Given the expense of modeling
and monitoring, EPA believes that, in most
cases, it would not be cost-effective to
pursue such activities under a SWAP, since
it must complete some level of assessment
for all public water supplies. Rather, a
state should derive as much information as
Final
2-36
Final
-------
possible from existing monitoring and
modeling efforts or results to support its
assessment. Once completed, an
assessment can, among other functions,
assist the state in determining where
additional monitoring and modeling
activities are needed and pursue these
efforts under appropriate federal and state
programs. Therefore EPA discourages the
use of the funds from the SWAP set-aside
of the DWSRF for these activities unless
the state can show that it provides a cost-
effective means that are necessary for
achieving the program's objective of
completing assessments for all PWSs
within the required timeframe.
Final 2-37 Final
-------
Final
2-38
Final
-------
Chapter 3
Tools for State Source Water Protection
Program Implementation
Including Petition Programs
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Final Final
-------
Tools for State Source Water Protection Implementation
Including Petition Programs and the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund
i.
INTRODUCTION
As described in Chapter 2, the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 require states to
develop and submit to EPA for approval
SWAPs. Upon EPA approval, these
programs are to complete assessments for
all Public Water Supply Systems within
two years after approval if not extended as
provided in the Amendments. This chapter
addresses the principal potential application
of these assessments after they are
completed; i.e., development of SWP
Programs.
In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA,
Congress included a number of important
provisions related to SWP beyond the
SWAPs, including: (1) continuation of the
WHP program (section 1428) and new
authority for states to support their WHP
efforts through use of DWSRF funds
[section 1452(k)(l)(D)]; (2) anew,
optional petition program (section 1454)
that states may use to help overcome cross-
program coordination barriers and facilitate
voluntary, incentive-based SWP efforts
based on locally driven partnerships, and
authorization to use DWSRF funds to carry
out such programs [sections
1454(a)(l)(B)(i) and 1452 (k)(l)(A)(iii)];
(3) authority for states to use DWSRF
funds to administer or provide technical
assistance through SWP programs, except
for enforcement actions [sections
1452(g)(2)(B) and (D)]; (4) new authority
to provide localities with DWSRF loans
that may be used to purchase land or
easements from willing sellers or grantors,
if the purpose is to protect source water
and ensure drinking water standards
compliance [section 1452 (k)(l)(A)(i)], and
(5) new authority to provide loans to
communities to implement local, voluntary,
incentive-based SWP measures [section
While the 1996 Amendments do not confer
any new regulatory or enforcement
authorities for drinking water source
protection upon the states, many of the
provisions require EPA to further
incorporate SWP into drinking water
regulations, particularly as a basis for
increased regulatory flexibility. (Chapter 4
describes how these SWP efforts can be
coordinated with other drinking water
programs to be of mutual benefit.)
Final
3-1
Final
-------
These provisions of the SDWA 1996
Amendments are clearly intended to
encourage states and localities to go beyond
source water assessments and implement
efforts to manage identified sources of
contamination in a manner that will protect
drinking water supplies. This objective is
furthered by the requirement that these
assessments be made available to the public
because, along with other new required
consumer awareness activities, such
information will motivate citizens and
communities to put in place local SWP
Programs.
For example, in the report of the House
Commerce Committee (whose bill,
H.R.3604, contained the SWAP provision
as enacted), states that, "the Committee
recognizes that SWP can be a cost-effective
strategy for ensuring safe drinking water
supplies. . .To address SWP, the bill
creates a new program in which states with
primacy will conduct an assessment,
coordinated with existing information and
programs, to determine the vulnerability of
a source of drinking water within state
boundaries. . .A separate provision in the
DWSRF section provides that DWSRF
funds may be used. . .to administer state
SWP programs, except for enforcement
actions. . . designed to protect source water
from threats identified during the
assessment."
Furthermore, the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee report provides
that, "the only options typically available to
community water supply systems finding
contaminants in their water supply have
been treatment or the development of new
water supplies. . .To remedy this problem,
the bill adds a new section to the SDWA
that provides a means other than treatment
for CWSs to address problems or emerging
problems of contamination," that is, SWP
efforts including the petition program.
A. Local Source Water Protection
Programs
In addition to the three steps of a source
water assessment (delineation; source
inventory; and susceptibility
determination), a local SWP effort hinges
on three key steps:
Local Teams
Before any meaningful approach to SWP
can be developed, a team of responsible
individuals needs to be assembled to guide
the process in a 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 from other ongoing activities in
the watershed, and the opportunities to
support other watershed objectives for
conservation and habitat restoration.
Ideally, a team will always have at least
Final
3-2
Final
-------
one representative who is actually
employed by a PWS. Getting local citizens
involved in SWP efforts heightens a sense
of ownership in protecting the resource.
The participation of citizen groups such as
retired volunteers has proven very effective
in drinking water protection activities in the
past.
Management Measures
Once potential contaminant sources to
which a PWS may be susceptible have been
identified and inventoried under SWAP
assessments as outlined in Chapter 2,
options for managing these sources need to
be determined. The basic goal is to reduce
or eliminate the potential threat to drinking
water supplies within source water
protection areas either through federal,
state, or local regulatory or statutory
controls, or by using non-regulatory
(voluntary) measures centered around an
involved public, while supporting
conservation and other benefits from
watershed protection and avoiding
unnecessary adverse effects on other
activities in the watershed. While land-use
controls, regulatory and pollutant source
management measures, and other methods
have traditionally been used for a variety of
purposes in controlling impacts of land use
and municipal growth, only recently have
these tools been employed to protect
drinking water supplies on a large scale.
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.
II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SUPPORT OF STATE AND
LOCAL SOURCE WATER
PROTECTION EFFORTS
UNDER THE SDWA OF 1996
The DWSRF was authorized under section
1452 by Congress to assist PWSs 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
various state and local water systems
management programs and projects
including SWP activities. States may elect
to use up to 31 percent of the funds
available to them under section 1452 for
eligible set-aside activities.
The following are descriptions of various
set-asides directly relevant to SWP. (Please
note that the set-asides described in
subsections B through F are subject to an
overall cap of 15 percent of the DWSRF
capitalization grant, and that cap includes
capacity development activities as well
Final
3-3
Final
-------
SWP activities. Please see EPA's Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Program
Guidelines [February 1997] for details.)
A. Funding for State Source Water
Protection Programs under
SDWA Section 1452(g)(2)(B)
A state may use up to 10 percent of its
allotment to administer a SWP program (as
well as a public water supply supervision
program, capacity development program
and operator certification program). While
this set-aside has additional matching fund
requirements, this section provides the
state with the greatest flexibility in using
the DWSRF to establish SWP programs.
State programs could take virtually any
form that represents a coherent, articulated
basis for the appropriate use of taxpayers'
funds for SWP.
Accordingly, the following is intended as a
general discussion to suggest some of the
wide scope of this flexibility. Each of the
categories discussed in the following
provide for a stronger focus of local, state
or federal programs and activities on
drinking water protection. Of course, a
state program could use in conjunction
parts or concepts from any or each of these
categories, or other ideas, according to
resources, opportunities or local
appropriateness.
While this area of activity is optional,
Congress' repeated, strong encouragement
to states to translate their source water
assessment results into protection indicates
the need to consider, and to the extent
possible, decide at the assessment stage on
undertaking protection efforts. As noted
previously, timely decisions on protection
approaches can enable the most efficient
use of data and analyses generated by
assessments, and most fully capitalize on
the one-time national investment in
assessments. Possible state programs and
activities could fall into any of several
categories, particularly and most likely the
following:
Source Water Protection Through Local
Management
Under this approach, the state would focus
its protection efforts on educating,
equipping and funding local communities
and conservation districts to undertake
directly local SWP initiatives. Such an
approach emphasizes local land use
controls, ordinances, and management
measures.
State technical assistance could help local
entities put together a SWP strategy or
specific management measures to carry out
a local strategy; many of these local
management measures could then be
supported by the state using DWSRF set-
Final
3-4
Final
-------
asides under section 1452(k)(l)(A) (see
headings B through E below).
Even if a state decides to put its SWP focus
elsewhere, some elements of this approach
are likely to be helpful in any situation.
Local leadership, cooperation and
coordination are vital components of most
successful SWP initiatives, and the SDWA
Amendments provide a variety of resources
that can be tailored to realize the potential
of many local opportunities.
Source Water Protection Through
Enhancement or Broader Integration of
Existing State Management Programs
Many states currently have active programs
to protect water resources from particular
sources of contamination (e.g. the UIC
Program, the Non-Point Source Program),
or to protect waters or lands in a certain
region(s) of the state, certain types of lands
(e.g., agricultural lands), or land
management generally on a statewide basis.
The SDWA Amendments offer an
opportunity to highlight or better integrate
protection of drinking water sources into
those states' proven, ongoing programs
with a wide range of resource management
and water quality protection objectives.
Often, drinking water protection may
already be recognized as an objective of the
state program, but perhaps not for both
surface and groundwater, or for all
relevant aspects of the program. Source
water assessments may generate the
information and analyses to meet the
criteria or triggers in such programs, or to
draw appropriate attention to the potential
susceptibility of certain drinking water
sources. These susceptible sources, once
recognized, can be elevated within the
existing program's framework of
protection priorities. Finally, the
additional resources made available under
the DWSRF for source protection can
make it possible to address the more
vulnerable drinking water sources under
the activities or authorities of the existing
program, without disrupting the existing
program's continuing priorities, or
necessarily diverting its resources from
those priorities.
Source Water Protection As A "Lens" to
Focus Other Federal/State Programs
A wide range of programs at the state and
particularly the federal level (see, e.g.,
Chapters 4 and 5 of this Guidance) offers
relevant authorities and resources that can
achieve SWP objectives. States may
choose to use this approach to create or
enhance a function to coordinate whatever
programs in this range the state believes
will contribute to reaching those objectives.
For example, a network or clearinghouse
function could give a focal point and
facilitate assistance for local governments,
Final
3-5
Final
-------
water systems, and others in communities
to gain access to these relevant programs
and resources. The state office in which
this assistance function was placed could
provide a pathway through the complex and
time-consuming job of identifying the
various types of program help (regulatory
and/or non-regulatory) that may be
appropriate to a particular local situation,
and pursuing them through different
application processes and levels of
government. After identifying appropriate
state and/or federal programs, the state
office could if necessary help to formulate
and then present the relevant program
applications or petitions and documentation
to the appropriate agencies, and then work
with the communities to advance these
applications in the agencies' consideration
processes.
States could adjust the level of effort of this
function as appropriate to its resources and
priorities. For example, a state
clearinghouse office for SWP could
respond to requests for aid of the type
discussed above, or might use the source
water assessments to identify high priority
areas to work proactively with local
communities to see that appropriate
programmatic aid and attention was
provided. Where communities that had
been informed about their situations
through the source water assessments
sought help, the state clearinghouse could
respond to these requests in its discretion
by applying criteria or priorities selected
by the state. This function would also help
to improve coordination among the relevant
agencies on SWP objectives at different
levels of government as the applications
and supporting information moved in
tandem through the respective processes.
Comprehensive Approaches to Source
Water Protection
Existing federal laws have tended to focus
on specific source, pollutants, or water-
related activities, and have not addressed
the need for an integrated, multi-
disciplinary approach to environmental
management. Historically, successes in
controlling water pollution have been most
widespread in surface water through
control of point sources and in ground
water by preventing contamination from
hazardous waste sites. Use of a watershed
approach by states could integrate surface
water protection programs with
comprehensive ground water protection
efforts, in order to focus resources of
local, state and federal governments on
protecting source water as a whole. States
are uniquely positioned and qualified to
foster comprehensive SWP because they
implement most existing water and natural
resource programs.
States desiring to move towards or adopt
this approach can use the source water
assessments as a starting point, to identify
Final
3-6
Final
-------
which data developed by other programs
can be used in the assessments.
Assessment results that incorporate such
data from multiple programs can provide a
statewide priority-setting structure, by
ensuring that the assessments include data
appropriate and applicable to all relevant
programs. This could provide a means to
advance the coordination discussed in the
approaches above, by seeking to coordinate
drinking water and pollution control
programs with state and federal
administration of related programs, such as
through the Farm bill, remedial efforts
through Superfund, the UST program,
RCRA, and management programs for air,
toxic substances and pesticides, as well as
appropriate state and local programs and
initiatives. The more comprehensive the
approach, the bigger the "toolbox" of
existing management options for SWP.
B. Funding for State Wellhead
Protection Programs Under
SDWA Section 1452(k)(l)(D)
With few exceptions, most states now have
EPA-approved WHP programs in place,
which provide the cornerstone or a "head
start" in undertaking the source water
assessments required under the 1996
SDWA Amendments. State WHP
Programs remain a requirement under
section 1428 of the SDWA Amendments of
1996. Under section 1452(k)(l)(D), 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.
C.
Funding for State Petition
Programs Under SDWA Section
Section 1 452 (k) (1) (A) (iii) of SDWA
provides opportunities for loans to CWSs
by funding State Source Water Quality
Protection Partnership Petition Programs,
which are detailed under section 1454 of
SDWA. EPA is required under the
legislative mandate of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 to issue guidance for
this program, which is provided in Part III
of this Chapter. There are particular
benefits as well as limitations to the SDWA
1452 program that states need to consider
before deciding on an approach to drinking
water source protection. A state could
establish a modified petition program to
address those limitations, and such a
program could be supported by the
1452(g)(2)(B) set-aside described above as
well as 1452(k)(l)(A)(ii) described below.
D. Loans for Voluntary Incentive-
Based Source Water Quality
Protection Programs
Section 1452(k)(l)(A)(ii) provides for set-
asides up to 10 percent of the total amount
received in any particular year as part of a
capitalization grant to the state for loans to
Final
3-7
Final
-------
CWSs for voluntary, incentive-based
source water quality protection measures.
These funds are earmarked for the
protection of source waters within areas
delineated in assessments performed under
section 1453 (or as performed, in advance
of an EPA-approved SWAP, under an
approved DWSRF workplan; see Chapter
2); to help achieve compliance with
national drinking water regulations under
section 1412, or otherwise enhance public
drinking water source protection. These
funds would be used under any state SWP
approach, including those under section
1452(g)(2)(B) or 1454, as long as the
activity assisted was voluntary and
incentive-based.
Where assessment and delineation activities
indicate agriculture is a potential source of
contamination, states and local entities
should consider applying set-aside funds
towards voluntary agricultural resource
management planning and implementation
programs. These funds, in turn, could be
made available to soil and water
conservation districts, other local entities,
and agricultural producers within a source
water watershed to plan and implement
improved management practices under an
Resource Management Plans (RMPs)
designed to protect the source water
resource.
E. Land Acquisition and
Conservation Easements
Funds for land acquisition and conservation
easements are available under section
1452(k)(l)(A)(i) of SDWA 1996. These
funds are to be provided as loans to acquire
lands from persons willing to sell the land,
or in the case of easements, the willing
grantors of the easements, when the
interest acquired will protect drinking
water sources from contamination. Similar
to loans for voluntary, incentive-based
SWP efforts, loans under this subsection
must also be intended to foster compliance
with national primary drinking water
regulations applicable under section 1412,
and to significantly enhance the protection
of public health.
III. GUIDANCE FOR STATE
SOURCE WATER QUALITY
PROTECTION PARTNERSHIP
PETITION PROGRAMS
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 contaminants identified
in local SWP assessments. Petitions may
address: (1) pathogenic organisms which
are regulated (or for which regulation is
required) by EPA drinking water
Final
3-8
Final
-------
standards, or (2) contaminants detected in
source water that are not at levels "reliably
and consistently" below the MCL in the
source water at the intake structure or in
any collection, treatment, storage, or
distribution facility. Under the state
program, an owner or operator of a CWS,
or a municipal or local government or
political subdivision within the state may
submit a source water 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 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
CWS. A state may submit a Petition
Program for approval at any time; it is not
necessary to wait until source water
assessments are completed.
A. State/Local Program Procedures
1. 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 CWSs, 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
contaminants 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
CWS 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
Final
3-9
Final
-------
water protection area that is the area of
consideration of the petition; (2) the
identity of the origins to the maximum
extent practical 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
to the maximum extent practical
contributing to the presence of the
contaminants); (3) the identity of
information gaps that would hinder the
development 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
participants in the partnership.
2. 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 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
Final
3-10
Final
-------
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.
3. Technical and Financial Assistance
Available to Localities with
Approved Petitions
Assistance is available to help implement
the 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 (CZARA) of
1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b); agricultural water
quality protection program established
under Chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3838 et seq.) and the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-127); the SSA Program
established under section 1427; the
Community WHP 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
CWSs 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
areas. These include programs for the
management of solid waste, USTs,
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 may 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 SWP
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 begins to
implement its recommendations.
Final
3-11
Final
-------
4. 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
(a) Substance of a State Program
Submittal
The design of the State Source Water
Quality Protection Partnership Petition
Program may be to ". . . assist in 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
may 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 the SDWA Amendments
of 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 SWP by offering the
petition process as a balancing tool in an
overall array of state-administered drinking
water protection programs such as the
state's WHP, Sole Source Aquifer, and
watershed protection programs.
(b) 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. 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 may immediately begin
implementing the receipt, review, and
approval process for petitions received
from local, voluntary, incentive-based
partnerships for SWP at the community
level.
Final
3-12
Final
-------
(c) 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
CWSs, and how well the state program
process provides for assistance from the
state in 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 to the maximum extent practical
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).
(d) 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. As of this
writing, neither House nor Senate
appropriations bills for FY 1998 contain
a section 1454(c) grants provision.
However, states can use DWSRF funds
under section 1452(k)(l)(A)(iii) for loans
to implement petitions.
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 and apply for a grant.
5. Additional Funding for Local
Source Water Petition Programs
(a) Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund
A state may make a loan to assist a CWS
implement voluntary, incentive-based SWP
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
Final
3-13
Final
-------
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 in the
petition. If a state elects to use the
DWSRF set-aside, the state must develop a
list of systems that will receive loans,
giving priority to projects that 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 DWSRF
for use in prioritizing projects eligible for
loans under the set-aside.
(b) Sense of the Congress Regarding
the CWSRF
Section 606(c)(l) of the CWA provides for
a listing of state activities for water
pollution control eligible for funding
assistance under sections 319 (Non-Point
Source Program) and 320 (National
Estuary Program) as well as under the
state's CWSRF IUP. It is the sense of the
Congress that each state in establishing
priorities under this section of the CWA
may 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 (section 133(b) of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996).
B. Benefits and Limitations of the
Petition Program
The petition program can support efforts to
focus other relevant state and federal
programs towards SWP activities. It is
intended to provide a process by which
states may encourage and facilitate
voluntary, incentive-based local
partnerships as another tool in the drinking
water compliance toolbox to address
existing and emerging problems at the local
level. The process is also intended to gain
access to various forms of financial and
technical assistance critical to successful
local SWP partnerships. For local
entities, the formation of a local
partnership will be the crucial part of the
petition process; for the state, a designated
liaison person could screen applications,
and if the petition is deemed valid, serve as
the "lens" to focus various forms of
technical and financial assistance available
under both the drinking water and other
state and federal programs. It would then
be up to the respective program
administrators to decide whether to provide
assistance to the community and selected
source water entities.
A short public comment period is provided
in the process to ensure that both drinking
water and source water stakeholders are
made aware of the request and have an
opportunity to provide input.
Final
3-14
Final
-------
A great majority of resources that could be
brought to bear in supporting the petition
process fall under the jurisdiction of
programs beyond the scope of SDWA or
the drinking water community (e.g., CWA,
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996). The petition
program attempts to focus these scarce
resources on drinking water protection by
encouraging the formation of local
partnerships and by seeking the
presentation of basic information such as
the nature of the problem to be addressed;
identification of information gaps; efforts
to establish a local partnership; recognition
of ongoing efforts; and the type of
assistance required. The intent of such a
petition is to provide a strong link between
the requested assistance and achieving
public health protection. Without
establishing this link, it may be difficult to
obtain resources from federal/state
programs that are important to SWP at the
local level, but not part of the SDWA.
While the petition program may provide a
valuable adjunct to total SWP, it does have
some key limitations. Although local
petitions can be developed to prevent
microbial contamination, such petitions can
only be developed after chemical
contamination has already occurred, thus
not a preventive approach. Thus, the
program is not totally a prevention
program approach in the traditional sense.
Specifically, under section 1454, local
systems may only use the petition program
if they have a contaminant exceeding the
MCL (e.g., a violation of the MCL), or
for contaminants which do not appear
consistently and reliably at or under the
MCL at the system intake structure. States
may want to instead have a more
prevention-oriented program approach than
that afforded by the petition program. For
example, the state may want to consider
establishing detection levels for some
contaminants in the source water upstream
of the intake structure as the basis for a
petition, or a petition could be in regard to
potential sources that may not yet have
released pollutants to the environment
(e.g.,USTs).
The procedures and prerequisites required
of local and state government by the 1454
program may delay the resolution of
violations or near-violations of MCLs or
the prevention of near violations of MCLs
by a PWS. Also, limiting a state to
voluntary, incentive-based programs could
result in a fragmentation of regulatory from
non-regulatory programs, whereas a more
integrated program could be more efficient.
For these reasons, states and local
communities need to consider the net
benefit of the section 1454 petition
program in comparison to other
approaches—including a modified petition
approach, or a more comprehensive SWP
program (e.g., WHP or watershed
Final
3-15
Final
-------
protection) in terms of cost and efficacy in
protecting the public health. The state
should evaluate the advantages and trade-
offs inherent in those programs before
deciding what is right for them.
If a state chooses to establish a 1454
petition program or a modified version of
the program tailored to meet the state's
needs, both are eligible for DWSRF
support under section 14 5 2 (g) (2) (B). In
addition, a 1454 petition program or some
other voluntary program could be the basis
for providing DWSRF loans to CWSs
under subsection (ii) of section
1452(k)(l)(A), though loans under
subsection (iii) may only be made within a
section 1454 program.
EPA is required to issue this guidance on
the petition program, but a state program is
subject to approval by EPA under section
1454 only if the state is to receive funds to
administer the program from funds
specifically authorized under section
1454(e). To date, EPA has not requested
such funds, and no funds have been
appropriated. Nevertheless, a state may
find guidance on the petition program to be
helpful in evaluating the usefulness of the
petition program option and various
alternatives. This evaluation can lead to a
state's tailoring a workable vehicle for
encouraging local partnerships and
facilitating coordination across federal and
state programs necessary for successful
source water protection.
-------
Final
3-17
Final
-------
Chapter 4
Relationship Between Source Water
Assessments and Source Water Protection
Programs, and the Public Water Supply
Supervision Program
Final Final
-------
-------
Relationship Between Source Water Assessments, Source Water
Protection Programs, and the Public Water Supply Supervision
Program
i.
INTRODUCTION
Preventing the contamination of and
maintaining good quality drinking water
supplies are the primary goals of SWP
efforts under the SDWA. Reducing or
preventing chemical and microbiological
contamination of source waters could allow
PWSs to avoid costly treatment or
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 PWSS
Program that could benefit from SWP
efforts, and in turn, discuss how some
PWSS activities can help states and systems
achieve objectives of the source water
assessment and protection programs.
II. WELLHEAD PROTECTION
As discussed throughout this document, the
WHP program is a pollution prevention
program designed to protect ground water-
based sources of drinking water, and offers
important linkages for state source water
assessment and SWP programs. The 1996
SDWA Amendments continue the
requirement under section 1428 for WHP
program implementation, as defined by the
1986 SDWA.
III. INTERIM MONITORING
RELIEF
How can source water assessments assist
an interim monitoring relief program?
Under section 1418(a),states may reduce
monitoring relief requirements for most
contaminants for an interim period for
systems serving under 10,000 people if: (1)
the initial sample fails to detect, at the time
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 alternative monitoring is
Final
4-1
Final
-------
adopted and approved for the state, or
August 1999, whichever comes first.
Interim monitoring relief would not apply
to microbiological contaminants,
disinfection byproducts, or corrosion
byproducts, but would apply to all other
chemical contaminants. To serve as the
basis for interim monitoring relief,
monitoring conducted at the beginning of
the period must occur at the time
determined by the state to be the time 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 time."
States could use any 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. However,
EPA recognizes that, due to the different
timing of the interim monitoring relief and
source water assessment provisions, few
new assessments (as opposed to data from
existing sources) are likely to be available
in time to be useful for interim monitoring
relief decisions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE MONITORING
How can source water assessments assist
states in implementing an alternative
monitoring program?
Under section 1418 (b), states with an
approved SWAP 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 WHP,
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 has
published guidelines for alternative
monitoring under separate cover.
Alternative monitoring does not apply to
microbiological contaminants, disinfection
byproducts, or corrosion byproducts - it
would apply to all other chemical
contaminants.
Under alternative monitoring, states may
allow reductions in monitoring frequency
for most chemical contaminants in
accordance with the provisions of the
Alternative Monitoring Guidelines released
simultaneously with this guidance.
Alternative monitoring provides one of the
clearest potential benefits for states and
systems to conduct source water
assessments. Primacy states that do not
Final
4-2
Final
-------
have an EPA-approved SWAP will not be
eligible to offer alternative monitoring to
their PWSs. For a PWS to be eligible for
alternative monitoring, the assessment for
the delineated area or areas from which the
PWS derives its source water must be
completed.
Unlike the limited time frame for granting
interim monitoring relief, there is no time
constraint for granting alternative
monitoring by the state. This should
encourage states not only to conduct source
water assessments so as to gather
information needed to make alternative
monitoring 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, and in responding to the
public regarding good science justifications
for such decisions. Source water
assessments will provide states with greater
knowledge about their PWSs which will
translate into increased flexibility not only
for granting alternative monitoring, but for
using other regulatory options as discussed
below.
V. CHEMICAL MONITORING
REFORM
How can CMR assist states and localities
in conducting source water assessments?
An Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for CMR was issued on July
3, 1997. The rule is projected to be
promulgated by August 6, 1998. EPA is
considering requiring states to screen their
systems to identify those systems at risk of
contamination and establish sampling
during the period(s) of greatest
vulnerability. This screening and the
development of system specific sampling
schedules will typically involve identifying
potential contamination source (s) and
determining the probable timing of greatest
contamination based on the management of
those sources and intervening
hydrogeologic or climatic features. These
analyses would support, and be supported
by, activities that states undertake in
implementing a SWAP. Depending on the
timing of the CMR regulations, states
could incorporate data from screening
analyses conducted under CMR into their
SWAPs or vice-versa. The process of
targeting at-risk systems may help states
establish priorities for conducting more
thorough assessments.
Final
4-3
Final
-------
How can source water assessments assist
in the development and implementation of
CMR?
A state SWAP could serve, at least in part,
as a technical basis under the CMR for
screening systems to determine which are
at risk. For many states, the information
collected through the source water
assessments could provide a necessary
component for meeting the requirements of
CMR.
VI. SURFACE WATER
TREATMENT/DISINFECTION
BYPRODUCTS RULES
How can implementation of the Surface
Water Treatment Rule assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments?
Under the 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. Systems that have received
such waivers have source water
delineations and an inventory of potential
sources of pathogens in the watershed, in
particular Giardia and viruses. They also
have a source water monitoring program
for coliform bacteria and turbidity, and are
subject to annual inspections that include a
review of the effectiveness of the
watershed program. In these cases, states
are encouraged to use information already
available with respect to SWTR
contaminants 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 must
conduct assessments for potential chemical
contamination as well if they have not been
previously inventoried and analyzed to
determine susceptibility.
How can source water assessments assist
implementation of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule and future Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment rules?
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, viruses,
Legionella) and filtration avoidance
determinations could have missed potential
sources of contamination from
Cryptosporidium, a pathogen which will be
regulated under the Enhanced SWTR, as
well as other indices such as phosphorous
loadings or chemical contamination. In
addition, assessments could provide
information on activities in the watershed
Final
4-4
Final
-------
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 may find that
additional SWP measures or assessments
are needed, or ultimately, that filtration
cannot continue to be avoided.
For surface water systems that have
filtration in place, the SWTR does not
require any SWP measures. Filtration
systems require proper operation and
maintenance and are generally expected to
remove only 99% (2 log) of Giardia and a
lesser percentage of viruses from source
water. In addition, unless attention is paid
to the effluent quality of each individual
filter, the treatment plant may be subject to
suboptimal 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, as
recommended in the SWTR Guidance
Manual. Since additional treatment can
only be provided in the form of increased
disinfection, this would have the adverse
effect of increasing the level of disinfection
byproducts. Assessments could also 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 will remove 99% of Giardia in
the source water; it also removes a similar
percentage of Cryptosporidium. Because of
Cryptosporidium's extreme resistance to
most disinfectants, in particular to
chlorine, utilities with poor source water
quality might be required, under a future
enhanced SWTR, to modify disinfection or
add treatment. Any of these options would
require major expense that could be
avoided if source water contamination by
Cryptosporidium is adequately controlled.
Final
4-5
Final
-------
How can source water assessments assist
in the implementation of future
Disinfection Byproduct Rules?
Source water microbial quality and the
levels of disinfection byproduct precursors
(naturally occurring organic matter that
reacts with disinfectants to form
disinfection byproducts), will be key
factors in determining the level of
treatment that will be required under the
future Enhanced SWTR, as well as the
Stage 1 and 2 Disinfection Byproduct rules.
Predicted costs to comply with more
stringent standards for disinfection
byproducts increase rapidly if a change in
treatment becomes necessary. Knowledge
of watershed characteristics, sources of
contamination, and variability of source
water quality will be important in
evaluating the feasibility of reducing
(organic) disinfection byproduct
precursors, e.g., by reducing nutrient
levels from fertilizer overuse or from
sewage treatment plant discharges.
Sources of disinfection byproduct
precursors are often also sources of
pathogen contamination. Controlling
sources may be the most economical long-
term solution for some utilities to meeting
more stringent disinfection byproduct
standards as well as avoiding expensive
treatment technology changes to meet
future microbial standards.
Final 4-6 Final
-------
VII. UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL: CLASS V WELLS
How can implementation of the UIC
program assist states in conducting source
water assessments?
The UIC program addresses various types
of wells where fluid wastes from industrial,
commercial, or municipal operations are
injected into the ground to various depths.
Different types of wells are regulated under
different regulatory programs. For
example, Class I and Class II wells inject
wastes from industrial and municipal, and
from oil and gas operations, respectively,
to depths typically to thousands of feet.
While Class I and II wells can be numerous
in some areas, they are not considered a
significant risk to drinking water supplies.
Not only are their depths generally below
aquifers used for drinking water, Class I
and II deep wells are strictly regulated by
state or EPA UIC permitting programs.
The controls for these deep wells focus on
well siting, construction, operation, and
closure. Because these safeguards are
sufficient in protecting even special sources
of drinking water, source water programs
should not emphasize further risk
assessment for Class I and II wells in
source water protection areas.
In contrast, Class V wells usually inject
wastes to relatively shallow depths that can
lie above drinking water sources
underground. Further, Class V wells do
not have prescriptive operating and
construction requirements and are not
completely inventoried. Given these
factors, Class V wells can pose risks to
drinking water sources and should be
included in SWAPs.
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 a risk to a community's water
supply. Class V program staff, as a
priority, have targeted shallow
underground disposal wells in source water
protection areas to ensure that the wells
comply with the SDWA by having 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 may 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
Final
4-7
Final
-------
sources in the same source water 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.
EPA has transferred primary enforcement
authority for the Class V UIC program to
34 states. Programs in the remaining 16
states are implemented by EPA at the
Regional level. EPA Regions also
implement Class V programs for Indian
tribes and territories.
How can source water assessments assist
implementation of the Class V Program?
State SWP programs can support Class V
programs by addressing Class V wells in
source water protection areas. EPA is
developing proposed regulations to be
published by June 18, 1998 that are
anticipated to target high risk Class V
injection wells, such as large capacity
cesspools and industrial waste wells in
source water protection areas. Once new
Class V rules become effective, it will be
important that source water protection
areas are delineated if the final rule targets
high risk wells in these areas. Source
water assessments will help state UIC
program managers save considerable
resources by allowing these regulations to
be targeted, as a program priority, to
delineated source water protection areas.
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 SWAP 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.
VIII. SANITARY SURVEYS
How can sanitary surveys assist states in
conducting source water assessments?
The purpose of a sanitary survey is to
evaluate and document the capabilities of a
PWS to continually provide safe drinking
water and identify any deficiencies. A
system's treatment, storage, distribution
network, operation and maintenance are
evaluated as part of a survey. In addition,
a sanitary survey could include analysis of
the source waters for the system. Sanitary
surveys provide a fundamental
understanding of current and potential
threats to water quality and system
reliability. Sanitary surveys could provide
the opportunity for state drinking water
officials (or approved third party
Final
4-8
Final
-------
inspectors) to conduct the formal source
water delineations and assessments.
If states choose to rely on the sanitary
survey schedule to conduct all of their
source water assessments, one concern
would be whether the assessments could be
completed within the time frame specified
in the Act. Under 40 CFR 142.10, states
must establish a systematic program for
conducting sanitary surveys, with priority
given to PWSs 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 SWAPs could
be integrated by the state to 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 SWAP and
follow-up on development of SWP
activities.
How can source water assessments assist
states in conducting 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 may receive
priority for surveys.
IX. GROUND WATER
DISINFECTION RULE
How may source water assessments and
protection measures help prepare states
and PWSs for the GWDR?
Section 1412(b)(8) of the SDWA directs
EPA to issue a regulation after August
1999 requiring disinfection for ground
water systems, as necessary, after
publishing criteria for states to use to
determine if ground water systems need to
disinfect. In developing the GWDR, EPA
is considering strategies to control risk
from microbial contamination as an
alternative to disinfection. These
strategies are likely to include a well
vulnerability determination that evaluates,
among other things, the following WHP-
related activities:
• Delineation of a microbial
protection area (e.g., is it based on
scientifically defensible microbial
inactivation rates, or an equally
protective method?)
• A thorough inventory of significant
potential microbial sources of
contamination within the delineated
area (e.g., are sources present and
what is the relative risk they
represent?)
Final
4-9
Final
-------
• An assessment of the hydrogeologic
conditions that apply to a PWS's
source waters (e.g., is the system in
an area of intrinsic groundwater
sensitivity?), and
• The relative effectiveness of
microbial source management
controls (e.g., do established
microbial setback distances for
sources provide protection
equivalent to the delineated
microbial protection area? Has the
effectiveness of specific best
management practices for
minimizing microbial contamination
been demonstrated in the field?)
When developing their SWAPs, states
should review the strategies being
considered for the GWDR. EPA also
encourages states to review the components
of their WHP Programs and establish
setback distances for potential microbial
sources to ensure that they adequately
address microbial contamination risks.
X. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
How can source water assessments assist
in the development of an effective capacity
development strategy?
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA limit
the availability of assistance from the
DWSRF to systems which possess or can
develop technical, financial, and
managerial capacity to comply with SDWA
requirements. States wishing to receive the
full DWSRF allotment will need to prepare
a capacity development strategy to assist
PWSs in acquiring and maintaining
technical, financial, and managerial
capacity.
Technical capacity may be generally
understood in terms of three issues: source
water adequacy, infrastructure adequacy
and technical knowledge. Source water
adequacy can be defined as reliable water
sources, awareness of source water issues,
and may include a SWP plan. Source
water assessments can provide information
directly relevant to determining source
water adequacy, and, in turn, building of
technical capacity and a capacity
development strategy.
How can the capacity development
strategy assist states in conducting source
water assessments?
The capacity development requirements of
the SDWA are extremely flexible, and
allow states to develop creative ways to
help systems build capacity. This guidance
emphasizes the importance of source water
assessment in the bigger picture of public
health protection. If technical capacity of a
system is lacking and source water
represents a significant weakness, the
capacity development strategy should direct
Final
4-10
Final
-------
attention onto that element. Because the
capacity development strategy also includes
managerial and financial capacity as well as
technical, states can use this opportunity to
develop a comprehensive approach to
strengthening their drinking water systems.
The holistic approach embodied in capacity
development leads naturally to an
integrated view of source water
assessment/protection. Capacity
development is compatible with source
water assessment and protection since both
focus on the foundations of safe drinking
water.
XI. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
The 1996 SDWA Amendments require
states by February 2001 to implement an
operator certification program based on
guidelines, established by EPA, setting
minimum standards for operators of PWSs.
Both operator certification and SWP focus
on prevention. Operator certification will
help to ensure that PWSs have the technical
and managerial capacity and training to
provide safe water on a continuing basis.
Successful state SWAPs will require active
involvement by PWS operators. In this
regard, training for certified operators
should include an understanding of SWP as
a prevention technique to protect public
health.
How can an operator certification
program assist states and localities in
conducting source water assessments?
The presence of certified operators can
assist the state in conducting source water
assessments, particularly if operator
certification includes knowledge of ground
water and watershed protection problems
and techniques to solve these problems.
A fully trained operator, as the on-site
professional, should understand the
benefits of multiple barriers to prevent
contamination of drinking water supplies
and should be able to provide important
insights into the risks to water supplies
from different, potential sources of
contamination.
Final
4-11
Final
-------
4-12
-------
Chapter 5
Coordination of Source Water Assessments
and Source Water Protection Programs, and
Other EPA and Federal Programs
Final Final
-------
-------
Coordination of Source Water Assessments, Source Water
Protection Programs, and Other EPA and Federal Programs
i.
INTRODUCTION
Protecting ground and surface sources of
drinking water supplies requires a wide
array of actions ranging from establishing
partnerships, assessing the vulnerability of
critical water and biological resources,
identifying and controlling sources of
pollution, land use planning and
management, monitoring for contaminants,
nutrients, and other water quality
parameters, and enforcement of various
local, state, and federal laws. Any of these
efforts benefit from coordination and
communication across different levels of
public and private interests, and reliance on
a range of funding sources,
regulatory/permit requirements, and
voluntary agreements.
The 1996 SDWA amendments provide
states with new opportunities to protect
drinking water by engaging the public, the
private sector, and governmental agencies
to take advantage of functions outside the
traditional drinking water programs
discussed in Chapter 4. Several states have
already taken steps in this direction by
adopting, for example, a statewide
watershed management framework. The
basic framework is to consolidate and
synchronize planning and implementation
efforts for individual watersheds or river
basins. Such an approach pools expertise
and funds to solve common concerns
among partners, tailored to geographically-
focused areas that cross jurisdictional or
programmatic boundaries.
As many states have discovered, water
quality programs can be significantly more
effective by collaborating with other
agencies and integrating other program
elements such as transportation,
agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries and
wildlife, housing, tribal affairs, parks and
public lands, land use and infrastructure
planning, energy utilities, hazardous and
solid waste, and toxic substance control.
Source water assessments can provide
better, locally-focused data that tie into a
comprehensive state water quality
management program that includes ambient
water quality standards and monitoring,
wastewater permitting, water withdrawal
permitting, non-point source controls,
pollutant load allocation, pollutant trading,
watershed planning and other elements of
water quality protection. In this way, SWP
can become more than a programmatic end
in itself; it can become a "lens" by which
states look at their priorities in other
Final
5-1
Final
-------
programs, and focus on drinking water as a
central element in overall water quality
management.
This chapter summarizes some of the
existing programs outside the SDWA,
administered by EPA or other federal
agencies, that states can build on in
developing and coordinating their source
water programs. The linkages described
here can be important for building a strong
base of information for source water
assessments, as well for initiating and
evaluating mitigation, protection and
restoration strategies, contingency
planning, and emergency response. How
these various programs will be blended
together will depend on priorities in
different states or regional areas across
neighboring states, as well as the unique
characteristics and needs for localized
aquifers, or individual watersheds, basins,
reservoir systems, rivers, or streams. A
more detailed guide to linkages with other
programs will be provided in a subsequent
guidance.
II. INTEGRATING SOURCE
WATER ASSESSMENTS AND
PROTECTION WITH OTHER
EPA WATER PROGRAMS
Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards are a fundamental
component of watershed management; they
are adopted by states and tribes to protect
public health, restore chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of waters, and
provide water quality for the protection and
propagation of fish and wildlife, and
recreation ("fishable/swimmable").
Standards consider the use and value of
state and tribal waters for public water
supplies, agricultural and industrial
purposes, and navigation. Water quality
standards depend on the designated uses of
the waterbody, and are based on water
quality criteria established by EPA.
Water quality criteria set levels on
individual pollutants or parameters, or
describe conditions of a waterbody that, if
met, will generally protect the designated
use of the water. EPA has developed to
date, 103 recommended aquatic life or
wildlife criteria and 181 recommended
human health criteria.
How can the water quality standard
program assist states and localities in
implementing source water protection
programs?
State or tribal water quality standards could
be the core framework on which to base
SWP, planning and management. Where
a particular water is designated as domestic
water supply, human health criteria are
benchmarks to determine if the water is
meeting its drinking water use, and for
establishing the basis for controls on
Final
5-2
Final
-------
pollutant discharges or for management
actions to ensure that the drinking water
use will be attained. Where criteria have
not yet been established for pollutants
considered to be at elevated levels in
particular waterbodies, states or tribes
typically use MCLs or maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) as levels
that should not be exceeded in ambient
water.
For water bodies that already meet
designated uses, water quality standards
contain antidegradation provisions to
ensure that water quality is maintained
(unless, through a public process, some
lowering of water quality is deemed to be
necessary to allow social and economic
development to occur), and to identify
water bodies of extraordinary ecological or
recreational significance or rarity and
safeguard water quality in such water
bodies.
The antidegradation policies of states and
tribes ensure that water quality is
conserved where possible and lowered only
when necessary, and that those affected by
the lowering of water quality have a say in
the final decision. As a result,
antidegradation policies are well-suited to
assist states, tribes and local communities
in watershed protection programs.
Sensitive or highly valued waterbodies used
as drinking water supplies can be identified
and protected from degradation. For
drinking water supplies that exceed
minimum standards necessary to support
fish and aquatic life and recreation, water
quality can be maintained unless there is a
demonstrated need to lower water quality.
State and tribal antidegradation policies and
procedures can create a systematic and
accessible planning process that protects
against haphazard development having
negative impacts on water quality in source
waters. Additional authorities exist at the
local level beyond state and federal
authorities which may allow additional
protections to be put in place in accordance
with a watershed management plan.
The Watershed Approach: Key Elements
Partnerships. The wide variety of
individuals, water suppliers, industry and
agricultural representatives, Native
American tribes, government agencies,
citizen groups, conservation districts, the
academic community, etc., who depend
upon the natural resources within the
watershed, as well as downstream users,
should be involved in planning and
implementation.
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.
Final
5-3
Final
-------
Sound management techniques based on
strong science and data in a decision
making process that includes:
• Assessment of natural resources;
• Goal setting based on the condition
or vulnerability of natural resources
and ecosystems, and the needs of
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 where
information is incomplete.
How can a Watershed Approach assist
states and localities in conducting source
water assessments and implement SWP
programs?
Information needed for source water
assessments may be available from other
watershed assessments among different
programs (e.g., TMDL assessment, see
below for others). Integrating SWP
programs into watershed protection efforts,
and targeting source waters as high priority
areas for protection by various federal,
state, local and volunteer programs, will
result in better understanding of the most
critical pollutant sources, lead to more
efficient use of resources, and improve the
likelihood of sustaining long-term
improvements.
How can source water assessments assist
state and local watershed protection
programs?
Assessments that identify source water
priorities can be integrated into other
watershed protection efforts like point and
nonpoint source pollution control, wetlands
protection, waste management, air
pollution, and pesticide management. This
integration of efforts will allow various
watershed stakeholders to look for
opportunities to leverage limited resources
to meet common goals.
CSGWPPs, as part of the Watershed
Approach, will use the assessments for
WHPAs and certain recharge areas to
better target federal and state ground water
protection programs to these high priority
areas. Maps for these areas will be
prepared by the states so that all programs
will know their exact locations.
Final
5-4
Final
-------
Key watershed protection decision makers
at the state and local levels: State and
local public health, environment, and
natural resources agencies, PWSs, 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/].
Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund
How can the CWSRF assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
As discussed previously, the CWSRF
provides a powerful partnership between
EPA and the states, providing states with
flexibility to fund projects that will address
the highest priority water quality needs.
While traditionally used to build or
improve wastewater treatment plants, loans
available under the CWSRF are
increasingly being used for agricultural,
rural, and urban runoff control, estuary
improvement projects, and wet weather
flow control (including stormwater and
sewer overflows). As they evaluate source
water assessment and protection options,
states may consider how to access the
CWSRF and to make more specific
drinking water protection objectives
including, as appropriate, the states'
CWSRF priorities.
Index of Watershed Indicators
The IWI is the first national effort to
organize aquatic resource information and
present it at the watershed level. The
Index is built on 15 different water
resource indicators using information from
a variety of public and private partners.
Drawing on these indicators, the Index
provides a description of the condition and
vulnerability of each of the 2,111
watersheds in the coterminous U.S.
(Alaska and Hawaii will be added later.)
IWI is designed so that national databases
and the descriptions of each watershed are
available on EPA's internet homepage
under the "Surf Your Watershed" web site
[http: //www. epa. gov/surf/iwi. prev. html].
Using the Index, EPA hopes that citizens
will better understand conditions in the
watersheds where they live and be part of
preserving or restoring healthy aquatic
systems. This first effort to characterize
watershed condition and vulnerability is a
"work in progress" based on current data.
EPA will periodically update IWI to
reflect more current and complete data
from other EPA offices, states, tribes, and
others that have more detailed information,
and to reflect development of new
indicators not yet adequately covered, such
as ground water.
Final
5-5
Final
-------
The EPA drinking water program is
actively involved in this initiative. One of
the fifteen data layers is an index of several
drinking water data sets to characterize
source water condition. CWS inventory
and violation data have been extracted from
the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) and is a key component
of the watershed index being developed.
How can IWI and the Surf Your
Watershed web site assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
The IWI and Surf web site provide state
and tribal water quality managers access to
information not readily available anywhere
else. First, IWI watershed profiles co-
locate the CWSs at the watershed level
with the other EPA data bases identifying
point and non-point sources of
contamination of ambient ground and
surface waters. This gives states and
others ready access to data on potential
source water pollution on a geographic
basis. Second, IWI includes a separate
source water assessment data layer which
combines three data sets into a single index
to characterize source water condition.
The initial IWI release shows that 60% of
the watersheds rated show some degree of
impairment for public water supply use.
IWI and the analytical tools (including CIS)
available on the Surf web site provides a
starting point to identify locations of the
most serious water quality problems and
where further assessment, monitoring,
education, and protection programs need to
be focused.
Because data will be geo-referenced and
accessible through the use of the Surf data
management tools, states and localities will
be better able to display the condition and
vulnerability of drinking water intakes/
wellheads and focus on the need for
protection measures. IWI and Surf may in
the future be expanded to include
protection measures that are in place in the
watershed.
How can the source water assessments
improve the utility of IWI and the Surf
Your Watershed web site?
The initial release of IWI provides only a
watershed-level assessment of the condition
and vulnerability of the water resources.
The initial IWI also uses surrogate
measures of source water condition that are
of limited utility on a watershed-by-
watershed basis. The source water
delineations and assessments will
supplement existing data sources and
provide for the first time a comprehensive
characterization of the risk to drinking
water sources in the watershed. This will
allow EPA and states to better target CWA
Final
5-6
Final
-------
program resources to improve watersheds
at risk.
Clean Water Act Monitoring and Data
Management Programs
Section 30 5 (b) of the CWA requires states
to report to EPA on the condition of their
waters. States conduct ambient water
monitoring to determine the quality of their
waters, changes in water quality over time,
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 their water programs. The
national summary of these state reports is
presented in a report to Congress and its
conclusions about sources and causes of
pollution help determine where to focus
national water pollution control efforts and
resources. The report also includes
information on state and tribal water
pollution and drinking water 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 CWA's NPS Program
(section 319), the National Estuary
Program (NEP) (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 RETrieval 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 in STORET.STORET, which is
available at EPA's website at
[http://www.epa.gov/owow/storet/].
STORET is currently being modernized to
more effectively handle the complex needs
of the nation's evolving monitoring
programs with the help of the National
Water Quality Monitoring Council, a
consortium of public and private
monitoring agencies. EPA and the USGS
are co-chairs of the council.
EPA's information on water discharges
permitted by NPDES is included in its
Permit Compliance System (PCS) database.
How can EPA monitoring and data
management programs assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments?
Source water assessments are not intended
to involve substantial amounts of new,
Final
5-7
Final
-------
ambient monitoring. Any monitoring
undertaken for assessments must be
economical and effective; cooperative work
with existing state monitoring programs
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 SWP
efforts can be included in the modernized
STORET system.
For those source waters that need
additional pollutant occurrence data, EPA's
technical monitoring tools (e.g.,
monitoring protocols and guidance
documents) may be useful.
In 1994, EPA asked states to prepare
multi-year state water monitoring strategies
addressing core program elements,
including integration with program-specific
monitoring such as source water or
NPDES. EPA will continue to work with
the states to produce comprehensive, multi-
year monitoring strategies that can serve as
a base for SWAPs, and at minimum may
be closely linked with monitoring and
assessment of specific source waters.
Guidelines for the 1998 30 5 (b) report calls
for states to include plans of how they will
achieve comprehensive monitoring
coverage of their waters, including
assessment for drinking water designated
use where applicable.
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
storable 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 30 5 (b) data in
electronic form, including information on
whether waters designated for drinking
water can meet that use.
EPA is also working to strengthen state
georeferencing capabilities to better track
monitoring information for mapping and
CIS applications. CIS tools, including the
USGS HUC codes and EPA's hydrological
Reach File 3 system that assigns unique
locational identifiers to the waters of the
U.S., will be valuable in source water
assessments. For Reach File 3 coverage,
call the STORET hotline at 1-800-424-
9067.
How can monitoring and data
management programs assist states and
localities in implementing source water
protection programs?
Final
5-8
Final
-------
Monitoring data collected under the various
programs cited above, using a broad
variety of technical monitoring tools, will
allow SWP 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 may help implement the most
effective controls and management
practices in source water protection areas.
How can source water 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 IWI)
includes SWP data, and the source water
assessments will make that data more
robust.
Key decision makers for monitoring and
data management at the state and local
levels: State 30 5 (b) water quality
assessment coordinators, monitoring
program managers and computer
information services providers. 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 (NFS)
Under section 319 of the 1987 CWA
amendments, 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 NPSs; (2)
required to develop NPS 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 NPS
management programs once EPA had
approved the assessments and programs.
EPA has approved the assessments and
management programs for all states and
Territories. Many states are in the process
of revising their management programs.
Final
5-9
Final
-------
Through FY 1997, a total of $571.5
million has been awarded to the states,
Territories, and some Indian tribes to help
implement their NFS programs. The
current national guidance for this program
was released in May, 1996.
In 1990, as part of the CZARA, Congress
required all states (29) with federally
approved Coastal Zone Management Act
programs to develop coastal NFS
programs. These programs, currently
being jointly approved by EPA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), 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.
How can the nonpoint source program
assist states and localities in conducting
source water assessments?
Some assessment activities may be eligible
for section 319 funding. In addition, the
assessments developed for the NPS
programs may 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, and
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.
How can the NPS program assist states
and localities in implementing source
water protection programs?
Guidance Specifying Management
Measures For Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, Office
of Water, 840-B-92-002, January 1993)
[http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/coastnps.html]
summarizes management measures for
preventing and reducing NPS impacts on
surface and ground waters, and is
applicable to inland as well as coastal NPSs
(agriculture, forestry, urban runoff,
marinas, hydromodification, wetlands
protection). The guidance may 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 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
Final
5-10
Final
-------
activities. Additionally, the enforceable
policies and mechanisms incorporated in
state coastal NFS programs could be used
for SWP programs in coastal areas.
How can Source Water Assessments assist
state and local Nonpoint Source
Programs?
As mentioned above, 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 source water
assessments would help most states expand
coverage of state water quality
assessments, and would result in more
effective use of federal, state and local
resources to improve and protect surface
and ground waters for all uses.
Key Decision Makers for Nonpoint Source
Programs at the state and local Levels:
There is a NFS coordinator in each EPA
region, and one in each state. This
coordinator is usually part of the state's
water quality agency, although in some
cases they may be in the state's
conservation or 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. For
more information visit EPA's homepage
[http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/].
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
The TMDL Program is a planning program
that identifies waters still needing attention
to meet water quality standards. Under the
CWA's 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 among pollution
sources in a watershed, and provide a basis
for identifying and establishing controls to
reduce both point and NFS pollutant
loadings.
How can the TMDL program assist states
and localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
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
Final
5-11
Final
-------
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 can be used to develop
allocation scenarios for pollutant loadings
among pollution sources in a watershed.
For source water serving as a public water
supply, the data developed as part of the
TMDL assessment can provide a basis for
implementing local SWP programs.
How can 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
source water protection area would be
helpful to state TMDL programs.
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 local and regional governing
agencies, point sources, farmers, 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
The NEP was established under the 1987
CWA amendments to protect and restore
the health of estuaries while supporting
economic and recreational activities. EPA
helps create local estuary programs
(referred to as "NEPs") by developing
partnerships between government agencies,
who 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.
For each local NEP program, 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
Final
5-12
Final
-------
are produced by all programs. Regional
assessments must be conducted to assist
coastal communities with planning their
future growth.
How can the NEPs assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
During development of their
comprehensive conservation and
management plans, most NEPs have
identified priority problems threatening the
estuary (e.g., contamination from onsite
disposal, excessive population growth,
overpumping of the aquifer, saltwater
intrusion). 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.
Most NEPs currently include partners such
as NOAA whose programs under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act include protection efforts
for surface waters. Integrating SWP
programs into state and local NEP
committees will raise awareness among
various stakeholders in the estuary and can
result in cost savings by building upon the
financial resources and willingness of the
people with interests in the estuary's
watershed to take action.
How can source water assessments assist
individual NEPs?
Although most NEPs focus priority
attention in other areas, SWP is also of
concern. 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 valuable
information to the NEPs and their
stakeholders, enabling the evaluation of
efforts undertaken by the local programs to
reduce threats to source waters. For
example, 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.
Key decision makers for the NEP at state
and local levels: During the planning
phase, each NEP establishes a management
conference which typically 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 NEP Homepage
Final
5-13
Final
-------
[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
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 CWA section 314 to
support grants and cooperative agreements
for priority lake monitoring, assessment,
and protection projects in all areas of the
country. For more information on the
Clean Lakes Program and other lakes
information, visit its internet homepage at:
[http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/lakes].
How can the Clean Lakes Program assist
states and localities in conducting source
water assessments and implementing
source water protection programs?
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.
How can source water assessments assist
state Clean Lakes Programs?
New analyses conducted for lakes under
the SWAP could better characterize the
vulnerability of important lakes, and
thereby reinforce the need for additional
lake restoration and protection activities.
Documentation of these vulnerabilities
would hopefully spur action at the local and
state level. Some of these needs can be
addressed through section 319, CWSRFs,
as well as state-funded lake programs.
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, and local
environmental organizations.
Final
5-14
Final
-------
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 CWA, 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., CWA). 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.
How can wetlands protection assist states
and localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
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.
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 and possibly reducing
treatment costs. Constructed wetlands can
improve source water quality for
downstream rivers. Integrating wetlands
protection and restoration into source water
programs can highlight the importance of
targeting wetlands and source waters as
high priority areas for protection and can
reduce duplication of efforts and conflicting
actions.
How can source water assessments assist
wetlands protection?
Source water assessments can identify
critical wetlands where the enhancement or
Final
5-15
Final
-------
restoration of wetlands can improve water
quality in the watershed.
Key decision makers for wetlands
protection at the state and local levels:
EPA Regions, and state/tribal/local natural
resources/water agencies. For more
information visit EPA's homepage
[http: //www. epa. gov/owow/wetlands/].
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Under the authority of the CWA, 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.
How can the NPDES program assist
states and localities in conducting source
water assessments and implementing
source water protection programs?
In the approximately 25 states that have
developed or are developing statewide
watershed management frameworks, where
water management program activities are
coordinated around delineated watersheds
and sub-watersheds consistent with the
Watershed approach discussed earlier in
this chapter (including both surface water
drainage areas and connections to
aquifers), information useful for source
water assessments should be available.
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 include local watershed
monitoring, assessment, and planning to
determine appropriate, enforceable, local
Final
5-16
Final
-------
control actions (including NFS controls).
Source water assessments can 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 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 source water
area. 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 may consider source
water assessment needs when providing
guidance on monitoring for watershed
planning and assessment and
recommendations for monitoring
requirements for NPDES permits.
The requirements of EPA storm water
general permits typically require industries
to conduct an inventory of all sources of
storm water contamination on the industrial
property for determining pollution
prevention opportunities. These
inventories may be a useful source of
information if requested by the NPDES
permitting authority and assembled and
analyzed on a watershed basis. In cases
where industries have spills of hazardous
substances, EPA storm water general
permits require that these spills be reported
which may be an additional source of
useful information.
EPA storm water general permits also
require certain industries to monitor their
storm water runoff for pollutants of
concern that may be generated by the
industrial operations. Typically, the
industries that are required to monitor are
those with a high level of exposure of
sources of industrial pollutant to rainfall or
runoff.
In the cities and counties regulated under
the NPDES storm water permitting
program, storm water management
programs are developed to minimize storm
water contamination in the runoff being
discharged from the municipal storm sewer
systems. All regulated municipalities are
required to implement a storm water
monitoring program during the five year
Final
5-17
Final
-------
term of their permit. These monitoring
programs may generate significant amounts
of useful surface water quality data,
especially in those watersheds where
surface water runoff is the primary source
for drinking water reservoirs, or where
drinking water aquifers are recharged by
storm water runoff. Where this is the
case, some municipalities have designed
their entire storm water management
program around the effort to protect the
drinking water resource (Austin, Texas;
Fairfax County, Virginia).
As states and localities move beyond the
assessment phase to implementation of
SWP 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 SWP
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 SWP goals. In addition,
the concept of a "watershed permit" may
provide the means for aggregating
contaminant assessments and requirements
for point and NPS control measures on a
watershed basis in order to achieve these
goals.
How can 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. 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 calculate such limits.
Also, the conditions in a "watershed
permit" could be based, in part, on the
information gathered in a source water
assessment and goals identified as a result
of the source water assessment.
Key decision-makers for the NPDES
program 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
Final
5-18
Final
-------
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 reduce the level of
pollutants discharged by local industries
into municipal sewage systems.
Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program
The SSA Protection Program is authorized
under section 1424(e) of the SDWA. 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.
How can the Sole Source Aquifer
Protection Program assist states and
localities in conducting source water
assessments and implementing source
water protection programs?
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 source
water protection areas.
A sole source aquifer designation can
increase community awareness on the use,
value, and vulnerability of aquifers and
build support for implementing various
ground water protection efforts. Project
reviews can often lead to direct technical
assistance by identifying specific activities
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 and 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.
Final
5-19
Final
-------
How can 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 source water protection areas,
potential or existing sources of
contamination, and local variations in
aquifer susceptibility.
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 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 Water Programs
Other CWA programs may be useful for
states in developing source water
assessment/protection programs. For
example, under section 312(f)(4)(B) of the
CWA, states may apply to EPA to establish
drinking water intake zones in surface
waters and prohibit the discharge of sewage
from boats or other watercraft within those
zones. Other programs will be addressed
in more detail in subsequent guidance.
III. LINKAGES TO OTHER EPA
PROGRAMS
Numerous laws in addition to SDWA and
the CWA provide EPA and states with
authority to establish programs related to
preventing or remediating contamination of
ground water or surface water supplies.
These programs, listed below, may
represent additional sources of information
and expertise for states and localities to use
in conducting source water assessments.
For example, regulations under the RCRA
Correction Action Program require
remediation for releases of hazardous waste
and hazardous constituents at facilities
seeking permits to treat, store, or dispose
hazardous waste. These regulations contain
an aquifer assessment component that could
help identify wells at risk of contamination
from landfill leachate, for example. In
some cases, collaboration with federal or
state agencies responsible for these
programs could also save costs associated
with SWP programs. These programs, and
the linkages with SWP, will be addressed
in detail in subsequent guidance.
• Pesticide SMP Program
• Pollution Prevention Program
• Radiation Program
Final
5-20
Final
-------
• RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D
Programs
• Superfund Program
• Toxic Substances Control Program
• TRI Program
• UST Program
• Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act
(EPCRA)
• FIFRA
• Coastal Zone Act (CZARA)
• Great Lakes Program
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), and public participation in
its review, prior to approval of any project
involving federal funding. Most states also
require EISs for state-funded projects.
Important information useful for source
water programs may be contained in EISs
on local drinking water supplies, and their
susceptibility to point and non-point
sources.
IV. LINKAGES TO OTHER
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Most federal programs based on
development or conservation of natural
resources have some connection to water
quality protection. A key element of a
successful state or local source water
program is to build partnerships which
direct available resources towards the
specific task of protecting drinking water
sources. Unfortunately, the variety of
federal laws intended to protect water
quality and public health in some cases can
appear to create a maze of overlapping, and
sometimes conflicting, programs. Briefly
described below are some of the federal
programs that have resources, information,
and expertise that states should consider in
advancing their source water assessment
and protection programs.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive
compilation of all relevant linkages. EPA,
with participation by a wide range of
stakeholders, will be writing a more
detailed description of the various program
level activities and contact information will
be available in a subsequent guidance.
Prior to writing this next guidance, EPA
has been collating information provided by
other federal Programs. EPA has,
informally at the staff level, asked agencies
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;
Final
5-21
Final
-------
• Who may 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 part of the next
guidance which, when completed, will be
widely distributed, including making it
available on the OGWDW homepage with
links to other internet resources.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Established by the 1985 Farm bill, "State
Technical Committees" are a potentially
important forum for coordination between
USDA conservation programs and state and
local SWP effort.
State Technical Committees provide advice
to USDA's Natural Resource Conservation
Service on conservation measures. The
Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 P.L. 104-127 ("Farm
Bill") authorizes these committees to make
recommendations to state conservationists
(the lead NRCS officials in the states) on
several source water-related activities
under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), including the following:
• Selecting and ranking of priority
areas
• Selecting significant statewide
natural resource concerns
• Guidance on eligible conservation
practices
• Technical guidance on conservation
practices, including new, innovative
practices
• Coordinating with other federal,
state, tribal, local public and private
activities as they relate to EQIP.
State water agencies may serve as members
of the State Technical Committees and the
local work groups convened by local
conservation districts to advise NRCS
regarding the implementation of EQIP.
Local work group membership may include
federal, state, tribe, county, or local
government representatives. These work
groups may provide advice on source
water-related activities similar to those
listed above, including identifying priority
areas, developing priority area proposals,
describing the conditions of the natural
resources and the environment, identifying
eligible conservation practices, detailing
the need for new, innovative conservation
practices, and recommending
representatives to serve on multi-state
committees. Aside from serving as
members, any federal, state, or local
government agency, Indian tribe, or private
group or entity may identify geographic
areas to the local work groups for priority
Final
5-22
Final
-------
area consideration. Through both the state
and local committee meetings, state water
program officials will have great
opportunities to integrate source water
assessment and protection objectives with
USD A conservation program concerns.
For the phone numbers of state NRCS
Offices on the internet, enter the specific
NRCS address, as follows:
[http: //www. nhq. nrcs. usda. gov/ITD/fax/fax-stat .html]
A number of USDA programs enhance
SWP including state groundwater
management plans, voluntary agricultural
RMPs—also known as whole farm or ranch
management plans—and the following
programs administered by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the
Farm Service Agency (FSA):
• The CRP temporarily retires
environmentally sensitive crop land
(based on erosion potential,
threatened wildlife habitat, risk to
water quality) and assists farmers
with conservation practices (e.g.,
filter strips, windbreaks, riparian
buffers, grazing restrictions);
• The Wetlands Reserve Program
provides financial assistance to
landowners to restore and protect
wetlands in exchange for retiring
marginal agricultural land.
EQIP, discussed previously,
provides long-term technical,
financial, and educational assistance
to ranchers and farmers for
conservation practices (e.g.,
integrated pest management,
grassed waterways, filter strips,
management of nutrients, manure,
grazing, and irrigation water,
capping abandoned wells) where
there are critical water quality and
other environmental problems.
Swampbuster Program to
discourage conversion of wetlands
to croplands.
Sodbuster Program to conserve
highly erodible land brought into
crop production.
Conservation Plans require
producers to describe conservation
practices for highly erodible
cropland.
Other programs including
Conservation Farm Options, Flood
Risk Reduction, Farmland
Protection Program, Everglades
Ecosystem Restoration, Wildlife
Habitat Incentives, Conservation of
Private Grazing Land, Commodity
Credit Corporation, and purchase of
floodplain easements under the
Final
5-23
Final
-------
Emergency Watershed Protection
Program.
States can use these programs to enroll and
protect environmentally-sensitive land that
impacts drinking water supplies and to find
cost-effective solutions to source water
problems attributable to agriculture.
Further, FSA can help states identify
already enrolled land which falls within
delineated areas. Designated WHPAs
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. The primary contacts for
program information are available through
state and county FSA offices.
[http: .//wwwaix. fsa.usda.gov/areamap. html].
U.S. Department of the Interior
The U.S. Geological Survey 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 water
protection area delineation and
susceptibility analysis have been
completed, and fact sheets are available on
request. The following USGS programs
can provide useful information for source
water assessments:
• Federal-State Cooperative Program
addresses data needs for water
studies of interest at state and
federal level.
• USGS Drinking Water Initiative
applies USGS data and expertise to
drinking water related issues.
• National Water Quality Assessment
is a federally funded comprehensive
water-quality studies of 55 major
watersheds nationwide.
• National Stream-Quality Accounting
Network collects water quality data
at fixed sites on major rivers
nationwide.
• National Water Quality Laboratory
analyzes full range of contaminants,
with extremely low detection limits,
for detection of trends invisible
when normal detection limits are
used.
• Toxic Substances Program studies
fate and transport of toxic materials.
Final
5-24
Final
-------
• Data collection, storage, and
retrieval—The USGS routinely
collects and stores a vast amount of
data on streamflow, aquifers, and
water quality.
• CIS— Most spatial data at USGS
are stored in digital form, and can
be used in a CIS.
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. (See Chapter 2 for
details.) Some CIS layers are available to
identify certain types of potential sources
of contamination. USGS can also work
with states to produce the required maps.
The internet address to download the HUG
boundaries is
[http: //nsdi/usgs. gov/wsdi/wais/water/huc2 50. htm/#section6. ]
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. Finally, USGS can participate
in scientific review of source water
protection. 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 gpatter@usgs.gov
For inquiries related to a particular state,
use the list of USGS state representatives at
[http: //water. usgs. gov/public/staterep. html
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a
National Wetlands Inventory Project that
provides maps and digital wetland data
with 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.
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], or by phone
(800-USA-MAPS).
Other relevant agencies within DOI include
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
National Park Service, the Regional
Final
5-25
Final
-------
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
CIS systems that can facilitate the
interpretation and availability of such data.
Also, the Bureau of reclamation has
developed projects and manages large
volumes of water through storage
reservoirs in the 17 western states for
irrigation and domestic water supplies.
The Bureau can be an important partner in
coordinating source water assessments on
interstate streams and in watershed
management where these facilities have
been constructed.
Department of Defense (DOD)
Implementation of DOD 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
Regional 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 WHP activities.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
DOT and its agencies support the
development of transportation
infrastructure and implements programs
relevant to SWP. For example, the
Federal Aviation Administration is
working with airports to use best
management practices when using aircraft
deicing agents and other chemicals. The
Federal Highway Administration in
cooperation with the states, administer the
Federal-Aid Highway Construction
Program which includes erosion control
guidelines and, with EPA, is developing
training in erosion control and non-point
source pollution. The U.S. Coast Guard
issues and enforces regulations for the safe
transportation of oil and hazardous
materials in bulk by water. The Research
and Special Programs Administration is
responsible for hazardous materials
transportation (other than in bulk by water)
and pipeline safety, transportation
emergency preparedness, safety training,
and multimodal transportation research and
development.
Department of Energy (DOE)
DOE regulates all Atomic Energy Act
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.
Final
5-26
Final
-------
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 at 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].
V. CONCLUSION
EPA has asked its other federal partners to
assist states as they implement the new
provisions of the new SDWA. EPA is
encouraging federal agencies to use the
information developed through SWAPs to
target and prioritize their efforts and
available funding to these areas. The
Agency is also undertaking internal efforts
to coordinate the SWAP provisions of the
new SDWA with all relevant Agency
programs.
In 1998, EPA will sponsor a federal round
table to seek these objectives. The Agency
plans to work with all federal partners to
develop a more detailed guide on the useful
linkages among programs to support source
water assessment and protection efforts
across the nation.
Final 5-27 Final
-------
Appendices
Final Final
-------
-------
Appendix A
EPA Outreach Process for Notice and
Comment by Stakeholders on National Source
Water Assessment and Protection Programs
Guidance
EPA's planned effort to encourage stakeholder involvement and input in implementing policy
is evidenced by the following list of meetings. Over a period of 9 months, EPA sponsored a
variety of meetings, attended by over 2,000 people representing state agencies (drinking
water, wellhead, agriculture and forestry), Federal Agencies (EPA, USDA/FS, NRCS,
CREES, DOI/USGS), large and small water systems, environmental and public health
advocates, "up stream" interests such as agriculture and chemical manufacturers as well as
local, county and tribal officials. EPA Regional offices spearheaded 22 stakeholder meetings
around the country to get input on the Guidance and to encourage stakeholder involvement in
state program development. The discussions continued through all stages of the Guidance,
beginning with a discussion guide and progressing through the draft Guidance to the final
Guidance.
Stakeholder Meetings To Assist EPA With the Draft and Final Guidance:
• National Stakeholders Meeting—Approximately 150 people, representing National
Organizations of States, Water Suppliers, and Environmentalists, Others (January
7/8, 1997 in Washington D.C.)
• 22 EPA Regional Stakeholders Meetings (April and May 1997)
Final A-l Final
-------
• 3 Large Systems Seminars—AMWA representatives from PWSs serving over
50,000 people throughout the U.S. (December 1996 in Tempe, AZ; January 1997
in Portland, OR; April 1997 in New York, NY)
• 2 meetings of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's Working Group on
Source Water Protection—Approximately 25 members representing state agencies
(drinking water, wellhead, agriculture and forestry), Federal Agencies (EPA,
USDA/FS, NRCS, CREES, DOI/USGS), large and small water systems,
environmental and public health advocates, "up stream" interests such as
agriculture and chemical companies as well as local, county and tribal officials.
(March 13/14 1997 and June 2/3 1997, both in Washington D.C.)
• Meeting of ASWIPCA, GWPC, and ASDWA on source water assessment and
protection programs issues—Approximately 100 people representing 36 states.
(June 24-25, 1997 in San Antonio, TX)
• NGA, ECOS, and ASDWA Meeting—Approximately 40 people representing 20
states to discuss implementation of Source Water Assessments and Protection
Programs vis a vis CWA Programs. (Fall 1997)
Additional meetings will be held as States develop their programs. Check homepages for
schedules and topic areas.
Final A-2 Final
-------
Appendix B
Process for State Submittal and Implementation of
Source Water Assessment Programs
Public Participation Continues Throughout the Process
\1/? EPA Guidance to States (8/6/1997)
^y
States Develop and Submit SWAP to EPA (18 mos.)
Public Participation
Through Technical
and Citizens
Committees
and Through
Public Hearings
EPA Review (9 mos.)
8/6/1997
2/6/1999
After EPA Approval State Implementation
(24 mos. or less depending on EPA consultation with State)
Delineate f tjontam,
Pafilic , soujje'Vyatef Source
State Gaaljs)
'•• -Information ''
iSobrdjnale .,
'
ocal Roles- • .,,-•-State, -, •
•"iSoordJrjation:' \.
federal -
Possible EPA-G ranted 18-Month Extention
11/6/1999
&
5/6/2003
...State
,ResdEimits
''
11/6/2001 Continual
Improvement
During
Implementation Period
ft
-------
Final
A-4
Final
-------
Appendix C
Enhancing Topographic Delineations for
Source Water Protection Areas
As states delineate source water protection
areas 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 to
enhance the delineation. These
enhancements can assist states in defining
"segments" for management actions.
Below is information that can assist states
in using these techniques.
Buffers/Setbacks
A typical buffer/setback zone for SWP is a
strip of vegetated land generally 50 to 200
feet in width along the shore of a stream or
reservoir that is upstream of a public water
supply intake. Analogously a
buffer/setback can be used 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 SWP.
Time-of-Travel
The streamflow time-of-travel (TOT)
approach facilitates heightened
management of those stream reaches most
critical to protecting drinking water intakes
from upstream significant potential sources
of contamination. This method also
enhances delineations of source water
protection areas by facilitating spill- and
other emergency-response activities. This
method does not delineate protection
zones; rather, it calculates the TOT of flow
in a stream between a drinking water
Final
A-5
Final
-------
intake and a point(s) upstream. It is the
streamflow TOT between the intake and
the upstream point of interest that provides
the opportunity for managers to enhance
protection management of long-term
potential contaminant sources and 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 and municipal and
industrial wastewater discharges. Water
quality flow models provide a means
through which specific hydrologic,
geographic, and water quality parameters
can be used to estimate the travel time for a
contaminant introduced into a river to
reach a drinking-water intake and to
estimate the level of contamination at that
intake.
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. Models should be validated for the
settings in which they are used.
A variety of models has 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
Drinking Wtrteftntake
Figure C-l. Land Use Parcels
Final
A-6
Final
-------
land is subdivided by soil type, crop type,
and land management practice, the NFS
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.
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 the watershed that may be
incorporated into the source water
protection area. Modeling can also be
used to assess the impact of differing land
management strategies within the source
water protection area to foster more
effective SWP.
Final A-7 Final
-------
Final
A-8
Final
-------
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 and ground water
routinely move 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 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 source water
protection areas 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 source
water protection area, will afford
themselves the opportunity to reduce
contamination from ground-water and from
surface-water sources.
Final
A-9
Final
-------
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. The longer the ground-
water travel time and the greater the
distance 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 undergo some
remediation before discharge.
Persistence of contaminants in the
subsurface and creation of toxic
daughter products increase the need for
source reduction and long travel-time
and/or distance setbacks.
• 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 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 may encompass
these two regions. However, sources
of contamination entering the ground
water at a significant distance from an
intake, may undergo in-situ
remediation of many constituents 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
Final
A-10
Final
-------
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 source water protection
areas, the reader is referred to the
document Delineation of Source Water
Protection Areas, a Discussion for
Managers; Part 1: A Conjunctive
Approach for Ground Water and Surface
Water (expected August 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.
• This fact is recognized in the term
"ground water closely connected to
surface water," which is used in some
water protection programs. (The reader
may note a similarity between this term
and "ground water under the influence
of surface water," which is a
performance standard indicating that
water withdrawn from a well contains a
specific indicator or indicators, for
example, giardia, of the presence of 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 underlain by an
unsaturated 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 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
WHP program.
A conjunctively delineated source
water protection area 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.
Final
A-ll
Final
-------
Final
A-12
Final
-------
Appendix E
Partial List of Potential Sources of
Contamination Found in
Wellhead Protection Areas and
in Watersheds
Introduction
Appendix E gives specific examples of potential sources of contamination. Under section
1453 states may, but are not required to, inventory all of these potential sources of
contamination. Depending on the local situation, the following potential sources may or may
not be significant potential sources. Appendix E should be used in conjunction with
Appendix F. The stars (*) indicate sources of microbial contaminants.
Agriculture
Crop-related sources
Irrigated crop production
Non-irrigated crop production
Specialty crop production (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits)
Grazing-related sources*
Pasture grazing - riparian and/or upland*
Pasture grazing - riparian*
Pasture grazing - upland*
Range grazing - riparian and/or upland*
Range grazing - riparian*
Range grazing - upland*
Final A-13 Final
-------
Intensive animal feeding operations*
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs; permitted; PS)*
Confined animal feeding operations (NFS)*
Aquaculture*
Atmospheric deposition
Collection system failure
Combined sewer overflow*
Construction
Highway/road/bridge construction
Land development
Contaminated sediments
Debris and bottom deposits
Domestic wastewater lagoon*
Erosion from derelict land
Groundwater loadings
Groundwater withdrawal
Habitat modification (other than hydromodification)
Removal of riparian vegetation
Bank or shoreline modification/destabilization
Drainage/filling of wetlands
Highway maintenance and runoff
Hydromodification
Channelization
Dredging
Dam construction
Upstream impoundment
Flow regulations/modification
Industrial Point Sources
Major industrial point sources
Minor industrial point sources
Internal nutrient cycling (primarily lakes)
Land disposal
Sludge*
Wastewater*
Landfills*
Inappropriate waste disposal/wildcat dumping*
Final A-14 Final
-------
Industrial land treatment
Onsite wastewater systems (septic tanks)*
Hazardous waste
Septage disposal*
Leaking underground storage tanks
Marinas and recreational boating
In-water releases*
On-land releases*
Municipal point sources*
Major Municipal Point Sources - dry and/or wet weather discharges*
Major Municipal Point Sources - dry weather discharges*
Major Municipal Point Sources - wet weather discharges*
Minor Municipal Point Sources - dry and/or wet weather discharges*
Minor Municipal Point Sources - dry weather discharges*
Minor Municipal Point Sources - wet weather discharges*
Package plants (small flows)*
Natural sources (e.g., arsenic, radon, wildlife)*
Other
Recreation and tourism activities (other than boating)
Golf courses
Resource extraction
Surface mining
Subsurface mining
Placer mining
Dredge mining
Petroleum activities
Mill tailings
Mine tailings
Acid mine drainage
Abandoned mining
Inactive mining
Salt storage sites
Sediment resuspension
Sewer lines (leaking)*
Silviculture
Harvesting, restoration, residue management
Final A-15 Final
-------
Forest management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application)
Logging road construction/maintenance
Silvicultural point sources
Sources outside state jurisdiction or borders*
Spills (accidental)*
Unknown source*
Urban runoff/storm sewers*
Nonindustrial permitted*
Industrial permitted*
Other urban runoff*
Illicit connections/illegal hookups/dry weather flows*
Highway/road/bridge runoff
Erosion and sedimentation
Waste storage/storage tank leaks (above ground)*
NOTE: EPA's 305(b) guidance also asks states to identify major sources of contamination of
waters designated for drinking water supply use. States are urged to coordinate their source
water and 305(b) information and programs.
Final A-16 Final
-------
Appendix F
Factors to Consider When Doing An Adequate
Contamination Source Inventory and
Adequate Susceptibility Analysis
Under section 1453, states, or their entities delegated to do assessments or portions of
assessments, will be accomplishing contamination source inventories and susceptibility
analyses for each delineated source water protection area. States will have to consider many
factors when considering a class of land uses or a site. Below is a list of factors that states
might consider. The factors utilized in each analysis should be selected on a site-specific
basis and may include the following factors.
Factors 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 any industrial wastewater
discharges into on-site drainage
systems (e.g., septic systems, dry wells,
etc.)?
Are there agricultural, landscaping, or
golf course activities which might lead
to releases of nutrients (fertilizers,
Final
A-17
Final
-------
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 source water
protection area with high percentages
of impervious sources which can
themselves contribute heavy metals or
organics, or which might lead to
increased stormwater 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 USTs present at the site,
and will such circumstances continue?
Is the use and management of above
ground tanks consistent with best
management practices?
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
Final
A-18
Final
-------
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)
Depth to the water table
Confinedness of the aquifer
Nature and thickness of the soil
sequence
Hydrogeologic parameter values
Physical and chemical characteristics
of potential contaminants
Other hydrogeologic/soil/chemical/
physical factors that determine the
likelihood of ground-water
contamination and the fate and
transport of contaminants to and
through the aquifer
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)
• 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?
• Residential, commercial, or industrial
construction activities.
Final
A-19
Final
-------
Final
A-20
Final
-------
Appendix G
TIMETABLE FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS
UNDER THE 1996 SDWA AMENDMENTS
MANDATES FOR EPA FROM SDWA AMENDMENTS
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts
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
November, 1998
November, 1998
November, 2000
May, 2002
"After August, 1999"
By May, 2002
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)
1412(b)(8)
Public Notification/Consumer Awareness
Regulation for Public Notification
Regulation on Consumer Confidence Reporting
Unspecified
August, 1998
1414(c)(2)(A)
1414(c)(4)(A)
Final
A-21
Final
-------
EPA ACTION ITEM
DATE DUE
CITE
Capacity Development and Operator Certification
Publish guidance describing legal authorities and
other means to ensure new CWSs and
NTNCWSs demonstrate capacity (developed in
consultation with the states)
Publish information on recommended operator
certification requirements, resulting from
partnership with states, PWSs, and the public
Publish guidelines specifying minimum
standards for certification and recertification of
operators (in cooperation with states)
August, 1998
February, 1998
February, 1999
1420(d)(4)
1420(d)(2)(B)
1419(a)
Source Water Protection
Guidance to states for developing SWAPs
Guidance to states to assist in developing source
water petition programs
Approval of state programs for source water
assessments
August, 1997
August, 1997
February, 1999
1453(a)
1454(d)
1453(b)
Miscellaneous
Guidance establishing procedures for state
application for ground water protection grants
Publishing document related to modifying 12
standards
Alternative monitoring guidelines
August, 1997
August, 1998
August, 1997
1429(b)
1445(a)(l)(D)
1418(b)
Final
A-22
Final
-------
Appendix H
Glossary Of Terms
Community Water System (CWS). 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 Underground Injection Control
(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
(NCWS). 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 (CSGWPP). 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
source water protection areas through
recording existing data, describing sources
within the source water protection area,
targeting likely sources for further
investigation, collecting and interpreting
new information on existing or potential
sources through surveys, and verifying
Final
A-23
Final
-------
accuracy and reliability of the information
gathered.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF). Under section 1452 of the
SDWA, EPA awards capitalization grants
to states to develop drinking water
revolving loan funds to help finance
drinking water system infrastructure
improvements, SWP, to enhance
operations and management of drinking
water systems, and other activities to
encourage PWS compliance and protection
of public health.
Farm Bill. The Farm Bill of 1996 is
technically titled the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-127).
Ground Water Disinfection Rule
(GWDR). 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 PWSs,
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 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.
State has adopted rules at least as stringent
as federal regulations and has been granted
primary enforcement responsibility.
Regional Stakeholder Meetings for
Source Water Assessment and
Protection. EPA's Regional office's
meetings with stakeholders interested and
involved in source water assessment and
protection.
Significant Potential Source of
Contamination. 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 source water protection area in an
amount which could contribute
significantly to the concentration of the
contaminants in the source waters of the
public water supply.
Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Designation.
The surface area above a sole source
aquifer and its recharge area.
Final
A-24
Final
-------
Source Water Protection Area (SWPA).
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 SWAP 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 SWP 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 (SWTR).
The rule specified maximum contaminant
level goals for Giardia lamblia, viruses
and Legionella, and promulgated filtration
and disinfection requirements for PWSs
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.
Susceptibility Analysis An analysis to
determine, with a clear understanding of
where the significant potential sources of
contamination are located, the
susceptibility of the PWS(s) in the source
water protection area to contamination
from these sources. This analysis will
assist the state in determining which
potential sources of contamination are
"significant."
To the Extent Practical. States must
inventory sources of contamination to the
extent they have the technology and
resources to complete an inventory for a
Source Water Protection Area delineated
as described in the guidance. All
information sources may be used,
particularly previous Federal and state
inventories of sources.
Transient/Non-Transient Non-
Community Water Systems
(T/NTNCW S). Water sy stem s that are
non-community systems: transient systems
serve 25 non-resident persons per day for 6
months or less per year; non-transient
systems regularly serve at least 25 of the
same non-resident 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.
Final
A-25
Final
-------
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
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 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 (WHPA). The
surface and subsurface area surrounding a
well or well field, supplying a PWS,
through which contaminants are
reasonably likely to move toward and
reach such water well or well field.
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.
Final
A-26
Final
-------
Appendix I
Brief Summary of Requirements for Sections
1453 and 1428(b) State Submittals of the Act
for State Source Water Assessment Programs
Requirements and EPA Guidance for the State Submittal Under Section 1453 of SDWA
The elements that a submittal will need to contain in order to be approved by EPA are
described in Chapter 2, Part II. Many of these are explicit in sections 1453 and 1428 and
must be included; many other elements EPA believes to be crucial for an effective SWAP.
For these latter elements only, where a state can show it has an equivalent alternative to what
EPA expects of a submittal, EPA will approve the alternative element(s), provided that the
state demonstrates that the alternative meets the same functional objectives. (For more
detailed language on each requirement, refer to Chapter 2.)
In order to be approved, a state submittal needs to contain the following four sections:
• Description of how the state achieved public participation in developing its submittal
• Description of the approach the state will take to implement a SWAP and the
requirements/options for assessments
• Description of how the state will make the results of the assessments available to the
public
• Description of how the state will implement its chosen SWAP
Final A-27 Final
-------
Each state is statutorily required to:
Each state needs to:
Public Participation
Convene a technical advisory committee and
a citizens advisory committee (or one
committee)
Ensure broad representation on its advisory
group(s)
Provide adequate opportunity to various
groups to participate on the advisory
committee(s)
Describe the committee's advice regarding
program development questions
Conduct public hearings workshops, or focus
groups, etc.
Provide opportunities for general public
involvement, by various means
Provide a summary of how the state
responded to all substantive public
comments
Final
A-28
Final
-------
Each state is statutorily required to:
Each state needs to:
SWAP Approach
Conduct SWAPs for the "protection and
benefit of PWSs"
Submit SWAPs to the appropriate Regional
Administrator by February 1999 (within 18
months after EPA publishes final guidance)
Describe the approach the state will take to
implement a SWAP
Describe whether the state plans to
implement a source water protection
program
Describe how a SWAP will link with
existing protection program
Delineate boundaries of the assessment areas
using all reasonably available hydrogeologic
and other information
For ground water systems, use delineation
methods in accordance with EPA accepted
guidelines for WHP
Include recharge areas that are not adjacent
to or surrounding the well
For surface water, delineate the entire
watershed area upstream of any intakes or
diversion structures, up to the state's borders
Conduct a contamination source inventory
Conduct an inventory for raw water
contaminants regulated under SDWA, and
Cryptosporidium
Indicate what "contaminants of concern" its
SWAP will address
Include a clear description of the sources of
contamination (or categories of sources)
Choose an approach for determining which
types of potential sources are significant
Indicate what types of potential sources of
the contaminants of concern will be
considered "significant"
Conduct a susceptibility determination
Define "susceptibility determination"
Describe how the results of susceptibility
determination will contribute to the
protection and benefit of the PWSs
Conduct SWAPs for the "protection and
benefit of PWSs"
Describe how it will delineate source water
protection areas, conduct an inventory of
contamination sources, and conduct a
susceptibility determination for that part of a
boundary river, the Great Lakes, or multi-
state rivers that are within the state's borders
Exert the maximum practical effort to ensure
interstate coordination for assessments
Final
A-29
Final
-------
Each state is statutorily required to:
Making the Results of Assessments Available to
• Ensure the results of the assessments are
made available to the public in an
understandable manner
Implementing the Chosen SWAP
• Implement the SWAP immediately upon
approval
• Complete the assessments in the approved
timetable
Each state needs to:
the Public
• Make the results of the assessments available
in an expeditious manner
• Make available all the information collected
during each assessment, when requested
• Create maps which include the delineated
area and sources of contamination described
in the inventory
• Describe how, to whom, and what aspects of
SWAP implementation the state will
delegate
• Indicate the state's definition of delegation
• State the financial capacities of the entity or
entities to whom aspects of the assessments
are delegated
• Explain how it will complete the
assessments, using the resources allocated by
the state
• Explain how it will coordinate with other
state environmental programs, Tribes, local
stakeholders, other states, and federal
agencies
• Describe how it will periodically report to
EPA on the progress of the SWAPs
• Describe the timetable for implementing and
completing the assessments within the state
• Indicate whether the state wants an extension
(of up to 18 months)
Final
A-30
Final
-------
Appendix J
List of Acronyms
305(b)
AMWA
ASDWA
BLM
CERCLA
CMR
CPA
CREP
CRP
CSGWPP
CWS
CWA
CWSRF
CZARA
DBF
DOD
DOE
DOI
DOT
DWSRF
ECOS
EPCRA
EIS
FIFRA
FSA
GIS
GWDR
GWPC
IUP
IWI
MCL
MCLG
NASDA
NCWS
NGA
NEP
The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress mandated by section 305(b) of
the CWA
American Metropolitan Water Association
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Bureau of Land Management
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Chemical Monitoring Reform
Conservation Priority Area
Conservation Reserve Enrollment Program
Conservation Reserve Program
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
Community Water System
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
Disinfection By-Products
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
Department of Transportation
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Environmental Council of the States
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Farm Service Agency
Geographic Information System
Ground Water Disinfection Rule
Ground Water Protection Council
Intended Use Plan
Index of Watershed Indicators
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
Non-Community Water System
National Governors' Association
National Estuary Program
Final
A-31
Final
-------
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NFS Nonpoint Source
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OSM Office of Surface Mining
ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water and Sanitation Commission
PWS Public Water System
PWSS Public Water Supply Supervision Program
RASA Regional Aquifer System Analysis
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMP Resource Management Plan
RSVP Retired and Senior Volunteer Program
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SMP State Management Plan
SSA Sole Source Aquifer
STORET STOrage and RETrieval U.S. Waterways data system
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWCP State Wetlands Conservation Plan
SWP Source Water Protection
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOT Time-of-Travel
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
UIC Underground Injection Control
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
WHP Wellhead Protection Program
WHPA Wellhead Protection Area
Final
A-32
Final
------- |