vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
United States
Geological Survey
EPA 440/6-90-002
Jannuary 1990
Hydrogeologic Mapping
Needs For Ground-Water
Protection And Management
Workshop Report
May 10-12,1988
-------
Hydrogeologic Mapping
Needs For Ground-Water
Protection and Management
Workshop Report
May 10-12,1988
Denver, Colorado
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract 2
Executive summary 3
Preface 5
Introduction 6
Workshop structure 7
Definition of terms 8
Discussion topics 9
Hydrogeologic mapping needs, objectives and priorities 10
Mapping attributes-Needs and priorities 12
Map scale 13
Display and dissemination 15
Achieving greater consistency-technical and administrative
considerations 16
Concluding comments 19
Appendix A--List of Attendees 21
Appendix B-List of Resource People 28
Appendix C-Questions and Issues for Discussion 30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and U.S. Geological Survey
Workshop on Hydrogeologic
Mapping Needs for Ground-Water
Protection and Management
May 10-12, 1988
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey
conducted a joint workshop in May 1988. The workshop's purpose was to better
define the hydrogeologic mapping needs of States and other organizations
responsible for the protection and management of ground-water resources, and to
identify areas in which more consistency in map content and design would be useful.
Approximately 50 participants addressed mapping objectives and priorities, and
discussed mapping attributes, scale, display and dissemination. Major results
included definition of the types of information that are most needed, such as aquifer-
system definition, and specific map attributes that are required such as transmissivity.
Other identified needs included larger scale maps, consistency in the scales used and
data format, and leadership by Federal, State, and professional organizations.
Advantages and disadvantages of geographic information systems were identified.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A 2 1/2 day workshop was held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, in May 1988. The goals of the
workshop were to: 1) define the hydrogeologic mapping needs of the State agencies
and other organizations responsible for the protection and management of ground-
water resources, and 2) identify areas where more consistency in map content and
design might be useful in those protection and management efforts. The conclusions
reached by the workshop participants are summarized in the following paragraphs:
• The most needed types of information for management and protection of aquifers
are: aquifer-system definition, flow-system definition, land use, vulnerability of
aquifers to contamination, better well location information, delineation of wellhead
protection areas, water-quality information, and delineation of ground-water
classification areas.
• The most needed map attribute data for management and protection of aquifers in
no particular order are: transmissivity and/or hydraulic conductivity,
geology/lithology, hydrostratigraphy, aquifer boundaries, recharge/discharge
areas, porosity, and water-quality attributes.
• Large-scale maps are desired to determine aquifer vulnerability and define flow
systems.
• Vulnerability maps are most useful at the scales of 1:24,000 to 1:100,000, and local
maps for site specific protection and management purposes are most desirable at
the 1:24,000 scale or larger. Because of the wide range in the size of States and
-------
complexity of hydrogeology, appropriate scales for maps used by States vary
considerably.
The major advantages of using geographic information systems (GIS) are: the
ease in manipulating data to derive additional interpretive information from the
data, data display, ability to change the scale of maps for analysis and display, and
the ease of data transfer among different users. The major deterrents to use of GIS
are: cost, personnel training, data availability, quality assurance and control
(QA/QC), and the incompatibility of hardware, software and data sets from one type
of installation to another.
Increased consistency is desired for: certain map uses, the scale of certain maps,
types of display and dissemination, and data set format.
Voluntary guidelines for consistency would be helpful.
Leadership in an effort to move towards more voluntary consistency could be taken
by organizations such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the States. Professional groups such as the
American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM), National Water Well Association
(NWWA), and American Water Works Association (AWWA) could assist in this
effort.
Further cooperation among States and among States and Federal agencies is
encouraged.
-------
PREFACE
On May 10-12, 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Geological Survey.(USGS) jointly sponsored a workshop in Denver, Colorado,
on hydrogeologic mapping needs for ground-water protection and management. Both
agencies extend their appreciation to the individuals who attended and to the
organizations represented. A list of the names and addresses of workshop
participants (Appendix A) and workshop resource people (Appendix B) are included.
Personnel primarily responsible for planning the workshop and preparing
workshop materials were Carey Carpenter (EPA), Jerry E. Carr (USGS), Marilyn
Ginsberg (EPA), and David R. Seller (USGS). Todd W. Augenstein (USGS) also
contributed to the initial stage of preparing workshop materials. Oversight was
provided by Ron Hoffer (EPA), Marian Mlay (EPA) and David W. Moody (USGS). Jerry
E. Carr, Marilyn Ginsberg, and David R. Seller prepared this workshop summary. The
individuals listed above were present at the workshop as resource people, but were
not active participants in the discussion groups.
Copies of the Discussion Guide and Workshop Report can be obtained from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground-Water Protection
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-550G)
Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 382-7077
The reports can also be obtained through the National Technical Information
Service.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In mid-1987, the USGS and EPA initiated a joint project to investigate the need
for and availability of hydrogeologic maps. As part of this effort to support local-,
State-, and Federal-agency activities to protect and manage the Nation's ground-water
resources at the State and local level, a 2 1/2 day workshop was held by EPA and
USGS in Denver, Colo., in May 1988. The goals of the workshop were: 1) to define the
hydrogeologic mapping needs of the state agencies and other organizations
responsible for the protection and management of ground-water resources, and 2) to
identify areas where more consistency in map content and design might be useful in
those protection and management efforts. The purpose and content of the workshop
are described in EPA-USGS Workshop on Hydrogeologic Mapping needs for Ground
Water Protection and Management: Discussion Guide (2 volumes), and are quoted
here:
"A goal of this workshop is to identify specific hydrogeologic mapping needs of
states and other organizations that evaluate, protect, and manage ground-water
resources, and to determine if more consistency in content and map scale is desired
among agencies to support ground-water protection and management programs. The
workshop will not focus on water allocation issues, but will address water quantity as it
is related to water-quality issues."
"Attendees will explore the desirability of a consistent approach to
hydrogeologic maps used in the protection and management of ground-water
resources, particularly at the state level. During the workshop, the attendees will
discuss hydrogeologic mapping issues, examine how maps can be used more
effectively for ground-water protection and management, review new approaches to
-------
gathering and interpreting hydrogeologic data, and discuss the desirability of
achieving more consistency among hydrogeologic maps."
"Four major topics are presented for discussion at the workshop: (1) mapping
needs, objectives, and priorities; (2) mapping attributes; (3) map scales, display and
dissemination; and (4) achieving greater consistency."
The ideas and suggestions presented at the workshop are summarized here to
provide input to future cooperative activities among Federal agencies and States.
Forty three participants of the workshop shared their ideas and suggestions
from the perspectives of their organizations and backgrounds. They represented State
governments, 21 participants (49 percent); federal agencies, 15 participants (35
percent); professional and private industry groups, 6 participants (14 percent); and
local-government agencies, 1 participant (2 percent). In all, attendees came from 25
States (Appendix A).
Workshop Structure
The workshop included large-group (plenary) sessions to introduce the main
topics. After each plenary session, participants attended one of four workgroups
where in-depth discussion of the relevant topics ensued. Participants were provided
with a list of questions to help guide the workshop sessions (see Appendix C). The
results of each workgroups' discussion were reported at the next plenary session.
To help attendees visualize the variety of maps available for hydrogeologic
purposes, 72 different maps were on display during the workshop. Brief descriptions
-------
of these maps were included in the Discussion Guide. In addition, several computer-
based GIS presentations demonstrated the capabilities and applications of GIS
technology to ground-water investigations and hydrogeologic mapping.
Definition of Terms
At the workshop the maps and terms defined below were discussed in the
framework of hydrogeologic mapping:
• Hydrogeologic maps -- maps showing information on the physical framework,
hydraulic/hydrologic properties, and geochemistry (natural and human induced)
of hydrogeologic systems. Hydrogeologic maps generally include information
on such features as the elevations of the tops and bottoms, thickness, hydraulic
conductivity, transmissivity, potentiometric surfaces, and/or geochemistry of
aquifers or confining units.
• Supportive-data maps - maps showing location of facilities, land use,
topography, or other cultural or natural features, which support analysis of
hydrogeologic systems for the purpose of aquifer protection and management.
• Geologic maps -- maps showing geologic information, such as the distribution
and nature of rock units and unconsolidated sediments. Geologic maps
generally include information on structural features, such as folds, and faults,
and the geologic framework of an area in the form of cross sections, thickness, or
subsurface structural contours or borehole data. Geologic maps provide a
physical framework for some hydrogeologic maps.
8
-------
• Very large-scale maps -- maps with scale larger that 1:24,000.
• Large-scale maps -- maps with scale from 1:24,0.00 to, but not including
1:100,000.
• Intermediate-scale maps - maps with scale from 1:100,000 to, but not including,
1:250,000.
• Small-scale maps - maps with scale of 1:250,000 and smaller.
• Derivative maps - maps developed or aggregated from geologic, hydrogeologic,
and supportive-data maps and which are used as interpretive and predictive
tools. Derivative maps portray valuable information, such as ground-water
availability, pollution potential, or vulnerability of aquifers to contamination.
• Attributes -- data that are depicted on any of the maps described above. Some
examples of hydrogeologic attributes include depth to water table, water use, soil
chemistry, and transmissivity. Well location, land-surface slope, and land use
and land cover are examples of supportive attributes.
• Geographic Information System (GIS) -- a computer-based system used for
storing, manipulating, and analyzing spatially-oriented data.
DISCUSSION TOPICS
The workshop participants undertook discussion of four topics: (1) mapping
needs, objectives, and priorities; (2) mapping attributes; (3) map scales, and display
-------
and dissemination of map data; and (4) technical and administrative considerations in
achieving greater consistency among hydrogeologic maps. The close interrelation of
these topics was reflected in the workshop discussions. The following summaries
present the main points raised during ihe workgroup sessions, a consensus view if
reached, and an indication of the diversity of opinions expressed within and among
groups.
Hydrogeologic Mapping Needs, Objectives and Priorities
During the first workgroup session, attendees attempted to identify the relative
importance of various hydrogeologic mapping needs. Attendees were provided with a
list of seven example needs (Appendix C) and were asked to consider these and any
others that they thought were important.
The groups identified the following information needs: (1) better definition (or
characterization) of aquifers; (2) better definition of aquifer flow systems for ground-
water protection and management purposes; (3) better land-use information; (4) better
definition of aquifer vulnerability to contamination; (5) more accurate and better
documented well-location information; (6) delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas
(WHPAs); (7) water-quality information; (8) delineation of ground-water classification
zones; and (9) better definition of temporal changes in hydrologic variables such as
water quality.
Each workgroup made a distinction between regional and local aquifer
systems. Although some workgroups 'felt that it was far more important to define either
one or the other, others stressed that there is a great need to study both systems. It
was noted that additional geologic and hydrogeologic data are needed to improve
10
-------
characterization of regional aquifer systems. Mapping was frequently expressed as an
iterative process, with regional mapping serving to focus attention on areas where
more detailed mapping is needed. Detailed mapping then updates the regional map.
The relation between mapping needs and scales was emphasized. Some
participants noted that, for example, maps at larger scales commonly are needed for
site-specific regulatory purposes, particularly for the determination of aquifer
vulnerability and for defining local flow systems. All participants agreed that large-
scale vulnerability maps are useful for site-specific regulatory and environmental
purposes, indeed some believe that small-scale maps were not useful for this purpose.
Several attendees disagreed with this latter view, citing the usefulness of 1:500,000-
scale vulnerability maps in determining areas where aquifers may be more vulnerable
to contamination, and therefore, in need of additional study and environmental
screening. Many participants noted, that in order to understand the local system, a
knowledge of the regional system is desirable. They noted that some data are scale
independent and can meet both local and regional mapping needs. It was concluded
that in most places, the density of data is inadequate for a thorough understanding of
geologic and hydrologic setting. Additional data would enhance the data base for
making vulnerability and other types of assessments.
In summary, although the groups expressed themselves in different ways, there
was a general consensus on priority needs. These needs are logically connected: (1)
the physical and hydrogeologic framework of the regional and local aquifer systems
need to be well mapped and understood; (2) the chemical characteristics of the water
contained in the aquifer systems need to be assessed; and (3) supportive information-
for example, sources of contamination, land use, and well locations, need to be
gathered. Data on the physical framework, water, and supportive information can be
11
-------
used to construct maps that may assist in evaluating the threat of potential sources of
contamination to ground-water systems.
Mapping Attributes -- Needs and Priorities
In the second workgroup session, participants identified the attributes needed
for the maps identified as primary mapping needs in the previous workgroup session.
It was clear that there are many "important" attributes, and that those needed for a
project vary according to the focus or theme of the map. The attributes generally
considered to be of highest priority are shown below. These attributes have not been
ranked, because they varied in priority among the participants; therefore, these
attributes are listed in the approximate order necessary to evaluate a hydrogeologic
system. Many of these attributes meet more than one of the mapping needs specified
in the first workgroup session.
Geologic/lithologic framework
Hydrostratigraphic units
Aquifer boundaries
Recharge/Discharge areas
Water-quality attributes
(especially for synthetic organic compounds and similar indicators of human-
induced contamination)
Porosity/effective porosity
Potentiometric surfaces
Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity
Ground-water velocity
Location of wells and contamination sources
12
-------
Land use
Vulnerability to contamination
Ground-water classification
Participants generally agreed that formal quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures need to be applied to the collection of attribute values, their use
on maps, and their storage in digital data sets. The workgroups also addressed the
question of "neutrality" of derivative maps. Theoretically, a "neutral" derivative map
would display only data, with little suggestion as to the importance of particular
breakpoints or class intervals of the variable being mapped. The groups concluded
that a neutral or purely objective derivative map was neither possible nor necessarily
desirable. Derivative maps represent the map makers weighting of attributes that give
derivative maps their utility and subjectivity. Where map products are used to prioritize
geographic areas for possible actions, the choice of breakpoints, class intervals, or
colors used to display information need to be made in consultation with the
policymakers and planners.
Map Scale
In the third workgroup session, attendees addressed questions about the
choices of appropriate scales for various types of maps and the desirability of having a
specific scale used for a specific type of map. Participants also discussed GIS
applications, benefits, and problems.
Appropriate range of scales for several different types of maps proposed by the
workgroups are listed below:
13
-------
MAPS SUGGESTED SCALE
Definition of Wellhead Protection Areas 1:24,000 or larger
Potential sources of contamination 1:24,000 or larger
Identification of water supply/ground-water 1:24,000 - 1:100,000
withdrawal locations
General vulnerability of aquifers to contamination 1:24,000 - 1:100,000
Definition of aquifer flow systems 1:24,000 - 1:100,000
Definition of regional aquifer system 1:24,000 - 1:2,500,000
During the workgroup discussions, a wide range of scales was proposed for
certain mapping needs. In some workgroups, there was a reluctance to suggest map
scales because the factors that influence selection of appropriate map scales vary
widely. Factors cited as influencing the choice of an appropriate map scale included:
the nature of the geologic and hydrogeologic setting, density and availability of data,
availability of base maps, and the size of area mapped. A particular difficulty for
workgroups was to decide on an appropriate scale for the definition of regional aquifer
systems because of the differing size of aquifer systems nationwide. In addition, some
participants noted that consideration siould be given to scale based on the size or
other characteristics of the regulatory district for which ground-water protection and
management decisions are being made.
However, there was a general consensus within a certain range for consistent
maps scales for many types of map needs. For many local site-specific regulatory
applications, 1:24,000 was selected as an appropriate scale, especially given the
ready availability of this topographic map series from the USGS. Much larger scales
appeared desirable in some cases, perhaps as large as 1:6,000, for such applications
14
-------
as aquifer tests, monitor-well siting, contaminant-plume mapping, and waste-site
investigations. When the need arises for maps with this level of detail, they usually are
constructed as special-purpose products. A wide range of map scales was proposed
for vulnerability maps, for maps defining ground-water flow systems, and especially for
maps defining regional aquifer systems. Differences in the size of aquifer systems
nationwide commonly dictate the appropriate map scale used to depict regional
aquifer systems. In addition, there was general agreement that it is beneficial to allow
the scale of maps of national coverage to range from perhaps 1:100,000 to
1:2,500,000. Maps of these scales are valuable for targeting or screening purposes to
identify local areas where more detailed studies or data collection is needed and also
for educational purposes.
Display and Dissemination
Participants generally agreed that computer-based GIS are useful tools for
manipulation, storage, and exchange of data, especially those data types that are
updated frequently. An informal survey of the workshop participants indicated that 12
of the States represented at the workshop had some type of GIS in place, 3 other
States planned to have one in the next 2 years, and 2 other States planned to have a
GIS at some undetermined date in the future. Interestingly, of the 12 States with GIS,
representatives from only 3 were confident that the manpower would be available to
manage the system for the next 10 years. Easy and rapid display of data, evaluation of
data, particularly if frequent update occurs, and the display of the same data at
different scales, were specified as advantages of using a GIS.
Concerns were expressed regarding the costs of GIS, the need for extensive
training of users, manpower requirements, QA/QC of data, accessibility of data, and
15
-------
incompatibility of hardware, software, arid data sets among GIS installations. Other
concerns included: the lack of an index to the spatial data that is available, the lack of
standards for many aspects of GIS, the need for inter- and intra-agency cooperation,
data security, and the time needed for data entry, particularly at GIS startup.
Achieving Greater Consistency - Technical and Administrative Considerations
During the final workgroup session, attendees examined the feasibility and
desirability of achieving greater consistency among attributes and scales of
hydrogeologic maps. In addition, actions that could be taken by various agencies and
organizations on suggested changes were discussed.
There was general agreement that consistency was desirable in many cases,
although reservations were voiced regarding possible effects of imposing standards
for all mapping needs. Participants noted that the benefits associated with increased
consistency include better communication among State and Federal agencies, more
efficient sharing of information among the states and with other organizations, and the
cost savings that would result from increased consistency.
Technical Considerations
The groups discussed technical hems from the previous sessions for which a
consistent application and approach should be encouraged. The groups believed that
the use of the high priority attributes as well as the scales suggested above should be
encouraged to promote consistency in multiple-purpose hydrogeologic mapping.
Items specifically mentioned in need of more consistency were map attributes or
characteristics, such as map colors, aquifer names, aquifer boundaries and criteria for
16
-------
their definition, symbols, patterns, units, scale, basic data-collection methods, and
especially QA/QC procedures. Consistency of data-collection methods, data bases,
and definitions was strongly encouraged. Considerable discussion ensued especially
with regard to QA/QC aspects of field measurements, data-base management, and
data portrayal on maps. Some workgroups suggested that more consistency is
desirable in defining attributes to be included on derivative maps. Standards or
guidelines to define consistency for digitized data, definitions, data-exchange formats,
accuracy codes, and attribute codes in future GIS applications, were generally cited as
desirable.
Some participants had reservations about overly restrictive Federal guidelines
that could impair scientific flexibility, and lead to increased costs. Others stated that
suggested guidance would be acceptable and that more consistency on the Federal
level might be desirable.
Administrative Considerations
With regard to the overall roles that States, the Federal government, and other
agencies should take to implement a consistent approach, many felt that the Federal
Government should act by example rather than mandate. It was recognized that the
Federal government does play a leadership role in mapping through its own mapping
activities and its support of State and local programs. The groups suggested that
Federal mapping agencies need to take the lead in encouraging more consistency in
mapping and GIS by developing appropriate guidelines for voluntary standards. One
group believed that no further definition of roles was needed and that, in some
respects, consistency already exists for some technical and scientific aspects of
mapping due to the activities of the USGS. Other groups stressed a need for
17
-------
increased joint Federal and State cooperation to prioritize mapping needs and
achieve greater consistency.
There was clear support for increased communication, along the lines of this
workshop, with State or professional groups acting in cooperation with the Federal
agencies to achieve more consistency. Such improved cooperation and
communication could be at various levels: cooperation among States, States
communicating their needs to Federal agencies, cooperation among States and/or
among States and Federal agencies, States taking an active role in developing plans
to increase the level of consistency, creation of an expanded process to further assess
State mapping needs and communicate those needs to Federal agencies-especially
the USGS and EPA-development of better State and interstate coordination methods.
Several actions to implement an approach to consistency of hydrogeologic
maps were generally agreed upon. These actions are: setting of voluntary standards
by suggested organizations or agencies, such as USGS and EPA; or standards being
set in coordination with mapping agencies by a professional group, such as American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); holding additional workshops and
meetings, possibly organized by a professional group; and initiating additional
directives in EPA and USGS dealing with certain consistency issues. Efforts to
develop and implement agreed-upon standards to improve the consistency of
hydrogeologic maps will be undertaken within the authorities of the agencies involved.
Several organizations which were suggested as appropriate to assume roles in
coordination with the USGS, EPA, and State agencies in efforts to increase
consistency were: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American
Water Works Association (AWWA), and National Water Well Association (NWWA). In
18
-------
addition, some attendees thought members of workgroups such as this were in the
best position to help encourage consistency.
Other related actions suggested for implementing increased consistency
included: the creation of joint Federal/State groups to prioritize needs where increased
consistency would be beneficial; environmental agencies developing a formal
mechanism for identifying mapping priorities; the creation and maintenance of a forum
to discuss issues related to consistency; Federal funding and planning for mapping
oriented programs such as Wellhead Protection; DRASTIC1 user-group meetings;
national mapping of hydrostratigraphic units; the defining by EPA of its goals for GIS;
construction of GIS hydrogeologic data bases by the USGS and EPA; more
communications between EPA and USGS on this subject; and, the distribution of
Federal funds to programs which encourage consistency.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Ron Hoffer (EPA) thanked all participants for their contributions, and noted
some of the generally held views expressed by the participants: the gathering of
traditional attribute information needs to be continued; derivative maps (for example, a
map showing vulnerability attributes in a county or multicounty area) are useful, but
traditionally have been produced at too small a scale for regulatory work; the
commonality of certain attributes allows them to be used in a wide variety of
applications and at a variety of scales; and, there is an increased need to represent
temporal changes in attribute values.
1 DRASTIC is a method for assessing ground-water vulnerability to
contamination.
19
-------
David Moody (USGS) recognizec the high priority that needs to be placed on
hydrogeologic and geologic data collection and expressed his enthusiasm for the
future use of GIS technology. In addition, he indicated that hydrogeologic mapping
programs would best be done by sharing resources among agencies. He also
emphasized the need for continued communication among all concerned, with the
lead for establishing GIS standards and encouraging consistency among
hydrogeologic maps being taken by EPA and USGS.
20
-------
Appendix A
USEPA-USGS HYDROGEOLOGIC MAPPING WORKSHOP
MAY 10-12, 1988
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Mr. Richard Berg
Illinois State Geological Survey
Natural Resource Building
615 East Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 62820
217/244-2776
Mr. Jerry Biberstine
Drinking Water Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
303/320-8333
Mr. Alan Burns
U.S. Geological Survey
Denver Federal Center
Building 53, Mailstop 415
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236-4886
Mr. Angus Campbell
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
Groundwater Section
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
303/331-4557
Mr. Armando Carbonell
Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission
First District Courthouse
Barnstable, MA 02630
617/362-2511 X479
Mr. Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
Environmental Protection & Health Services Division
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
808/548-6908
21
-------
Mr. James F. Daniel
Scientific Information Management
U.S. Geological Survey
440 National Center
Reston.VA 22092
703/648-5699
Mr. Rodney DeHan
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
904/488-3601
Mr. Gary Dixon
U.S. Geological Survey
Geologic Division
1500 East Tropicana, Suite 201
Mail Stop 582
Las Vegas, NV 89109
702/295-0368
Mr. David Draney
American Petroleum Institute
c/o Chevron Corporation
575 Market Street, Room 3820
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/894-6739
Mr. Hayes F. Grubb
U.S. Geological Survey
North Shore Plaza Building, Room 104
55 North Interregional Highway
Austin, TX 78702
Mr. Matthew Gubitosa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/442-1216
Mr. Douglas Heath
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building, WGP-2113
Boston, MA 02203
617/565-3598
22
-------
Mr. M. J. Hendry
National Water Well Association
6375 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
614/761-1711
Mr. Donald Hillier
U.S. Geological Survey
Office of the Regional Hydrologist
Denver Federal Center
Mailstop 406, Box 25046
Lakewood, CO 80225
303/236-5941
Mr. Wayne Hood
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Groundwater Hydrology Section
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602/257-6881
Mr. Bernard Hoyer
Iowa Geological Survey
123 North Capital Street
Iowa City, IA 52242
319/339-1571
Mr. Wayne Hutchinson
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Geological Survey (CN-029)
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/984-6587
Mr. Derric lies
South Dakota Geological Survey
Science Center, University of South Dakota
Vermillion, SD 57069
Mr. Ivan Johnson
American Society for Testing & Materials
7474 Upham Court
Arvada, CO 80003
303/425-5610
23
-------
Mr. Lynn A. Johnson
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center
ENR-Building 67, D-440 P.O. Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225
303/236-8066
Mr. James Kenney
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
1580 Logan Street, Suite 380
Denver, CO 80203
Mr. Kevin Kessler
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
c/o Division of Environmental Standards
Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster, Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
608/267-9350
Mr. Ray Knox
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
Groundwater Protection
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/734-5000
Mr. Charles Kreitler
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas University Station, Box X
Austin, TX 78712-7508
512/471-1534
Mr. Donald Kuntz
West Virginia Department of Health
Environmental Engineering Division
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, WV 25305
304/348-2981
Mr. Joseph J. Lee, Jr.
Division of Water Supplies
Department of Environmental Resources
Room 216, Executive House
101 South Second & Chestnut Streets
Harrisburg, PA 17120
717/787/9035
24
-------
Mr. Fred C. Mason III
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
205/271-7831
Mr. Douglas McChesney
Washington Department of Ecology
Baran Hall, St. Martins College
Lacey, WA 98503
206/459-6108
Mr. Marvin Miller
c/o Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology
West Park Street
Butte, MT 59701
406/496-4155
Mr. Vern Myers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Mailcode WH-556E
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/382-4660
Mr. Richard Nagel
American Water Works Association
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
111 North Hope Street
Room 1466
Los Angeles, CA 90051
213/481-6857
Ms. Mary Nowicki
The Nature Conservancy
134 Union Boulevard
Suite 125
Lakewood, CO 80228
303/988-4088
Mr. Randle W. Olsen
National Mapping Division
U.S. Geological Survey
419 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
703/648-4637
25
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Phillips
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Operations
P.O. Box A
Aiken, SC 29802
FTS 239-3970
Mr. John Sanda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HQ USAGE, (CEEC-EG)
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000
202/272-0208
Mr. Nadeem Shaukat
Kansas Geological Survey
1930 Constant Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66046
913/841-9481
Mr. William Steen
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Ground Water Section
608 State Street Office Building
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317/237-4175
Mr. Fred VanAlstyne
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518/457-7458
Mr. W. Martin Williams
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/HED/EAB (TS-769C)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
703/557-2128
26
-------
Mr. Michael Wireman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303/293-1543
Mr. Glenn Wittman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312/886-1503
Mr. Alexander Zaporozec
Geological & Natural History Survey
3817 Mineral Point Road
Madison, Wl 53705
608/262-1705
27
-------
Appendix B
USEPA-USGS HYDROGEOLOGIC MAPPING WORKSHOP
MAY 10-12, 1988
LIST OF RESOURCE PEOPLE
Ms. Carey Carpenter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH550G)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7091
Mr. Jerry Carr
U.S. Geological Survey
417 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 648-6857
Ms. Marilyn Ginsberg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH550G)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-8804
Mr. T. J. Glauthier
Temple, Barker & Sloane
1875 I Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 223-2002
Ms. Francine Gordon
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
4330 East-West Highway, S1110
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 951-4743
Mr. Ron Hoffer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH550G)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7077
28
-------
Ms. Marian Mlay
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH550G)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7077
Mr. Andrew Schwarz
Temple, Barker & Sloane
1875 I Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 223-2002
29
-------
Appendix C
WORKGROUP SESSION I
HYDROGEOLOGIC MAPPING NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITIES
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1. In Table 111-1 and throughout the discussion guide we have identified 7 example
mapping "needs" for discussion purposes. These are not the only possible needs
and others may have greater importance than those listed. These needs are as
follows:
• Better definition of regional aquifer systems
• Better definition of vulnerability of aquifers
• Location of potential sources of contamination in Wellhead Protection Areas
• Location of suitable sites for waste disposal facilities
• Location of ground-water withdrawals which impact ground-water quality
• Delineation of ground-water classification zones
• Better definition of aquifer flow systems for ground-water protection and
management purposes
In your working group meetings, please list additional ground-water protection and
management needs.
Of these needs, which are the most important to you?
2. For your most important needs, indicate whether existing maps are adequate. If
existing maps are inadequate to support a need, indicate why. How may they be
improved?
30
-------
WORKGROUP SESSION II
MAPPING ATTRIBUTES-NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1. For each of your most important needs identified in the last session, list and rank
the map attributes that would have to be determined to make the appropriate maps.
-- Which attributes meet multiple needs?
-- List the attributes which are not currently available but which would be essential
for meeting the needs.
2. Identify a category of derivative maps which is needed to support one of your needs
and is not commonly available. List the attributes required to prepare such a map.
3. How do you design derivative maps that are neutral in their display of such
concepts as ground-water vulnerability and waste-disposal site suitability?
31
-------
WORKGROUP SESSION III
MAP SCALE, DISPLAY AND DISSEMINATION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. What scale, or range of scales, appear to meet the most important hydrogeologic
mapping needs identified by your workgroup?
Use Suggested Scale(s)
scale(s) in-use
Better definition of regional aquifer
systems
Better definition of vulnerability of
aquifers
Location of potential sources of
contamination of WHPA's
Location of suitable sites for waste
disposal facilities
Location of ground-water withdrawals
which impact ground-water quality
Delineation of ground-water classification
zones
Better definition of aquifer flow systems for
protection and management purposes
Others
2. Would it be beneficial to have consistent scales for some needs at the national,
regional, or local level? If so, please identify the needs and suggested scales.
3. For what uses will computer-based GIS techniques be most useful in the near and
longer terms?
4. What are the critical factors for implementing GIS at the State and local levels?
32
-------
WORKGROUP SESSION IV
ACHIEVING GREATER CONSISTENCY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Is greater mapping consistency possible and desirable for some needs? At what
cost? To whom?
2. What major technical changes would lead to improved consistency. For example,
would it be important to:
- define major attributes to be mapped for selected ground-water protection and
management purposes?
- define appropriate map scales for selected needs?
- establish uniform definitions for mappable criteria on derivative maps?
3. What would be the overall roles of the States and other participants in carrying out
a more consistent approach?
4. What administrative actions would support implementation? For example,
- identification of a professional group to develop voluntary standards
- joint Federal and State development of selected consistent maps
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990—720-227/D06406
33
------- |