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

-------