EPA/625/R-94/001
September 1994
Handbook
Ground Water and Wellhead Protection
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory Evaluation
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Office of Water
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Ground Water Protection Division
Washington, DC 20460
^$y Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the U S Environmental Protection Agency and approved for
publication Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation of their use
-------
Acknowledgments
Many people contributed their expertise to the preparation and review of this handbook James E
Smith, Jr, EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, managed the development of the
document Eastern Research Group, Inc prepared the document J Russell Bouldmg was the
handbook author The following people provided overall technical guidance
Tom Belk, U S EPA Ground Water Protection Division
Sue Schock, U S EPA Center for Environmental Research Information
James E Smith, Jr, U S EPA Center for Environmental Research Information
John Trax, U S EPA Ground Water Protection Division
The following people also provided substantial guidance and review
Randy Anderson, National Rural Water Association
T Neil Blandford, HydroGeoLogic
Robert Blodgett, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Marilyn Ginsberg, U S EPA Ground Water Protection Division
Kevin McCormack, U S EPA Ground Water Protection Division
James Quinlan, Qumlan & Associates
John Shafer, University of South Carolina
in
-------
Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Contaminant Hydrogeology „ 1
1.1 General Mechanisms of Ground Water Contamination 1
1.1 1 Infiltration 1
1.1.2 Recharge From Surface Water 1
1.1.3 Direct Migration 1
1 1.4 Interaquifer Exchange 2
1.2 Contaminant Transport Processes 3
1.21 Advection 3
122 Hydrodynamic Dispersion 3
123 Density/Viscosity Differences (NAPLs) 4
1.24 Facilitated Transport 4
1 3 Contaminant Retardation Processes 6
1.3.1 Filtration 6
132 Partitioning 7
133 Transformation 8
1.4 Contaminant Plume Behavior 8
1.41 Geologic Material Properties 8
1.4.2 pH (Hydrogen Ion Activity) and Eh (Redox Potential) 8
143 Leachate Composition 8
1.4.4 Source Characteristics 10
1.45 Interactions of Various Factors on Contaminant Plumes 10
1 5 Guide to Major References on Contaminant Chemical Characteristics and Behavior
in the Subsurface 12
1.6 References 13
Chapter 2 Potentiometric Maps 21
2.1 Fundamental Hydrogeologic Concepts 21
2 1.1 Hydraulic Head and Gradients 21
IV
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
2 1 2 Unconfmeci and Confined Aquifers 21
213 Heterogeneity and Anisotropy 22
2 1 4 Porous Media Versus Fracture/Conduit Flow 23
215 Ground Water Fluctuations 25
216 Ground Water Divides and Other Aquifer Boundaries 26
217 Gaming and Losing Streams 28
2 2 Preparing and Using Potentiometric Maps 30
221 Plotting Equipotential Contours 30
222 Flow Nets 34
2 3 Common Errors in Preparation and Interpretation of Potentiometric Maps 36
231 Contouring Errors 38
232 Errors in Interpretation of Flow Direction 39
233 Reverse Flow of Contaminants 40
2 4 References 41
Chapter 3 Measurement and Estimation of Aquifer Parameters for Flow Equations ... .45
3 1 Hydrogeologic Parameters of Interest 45
311 Aquifer Storage Properties Porosity and Specific Yield/Storativity 45
312 Water-Transmitting Properties Hydraulic Conductivity and
Transmissivily 48
313 Darcy's Law 52
3 2 Estimation of Aquifer Parameters 53
321 Estimation From Soil Survey Data 53
322 Estimation From Aquifer Matrix Type 54
323 A Simple Well Test for Estimating Hydraulic Conductivity 55
3 3 Field Measurement of Aquifer Parameters 55
3 31 Shallow Water Table Tests 55
332 Well Tests 57
333 Tracer Tesis 57
334 Other Techniques 57
335 Measurement of Anisotropy 59
3 4 Laboratory Measurements of Aquifer Parameters 60
3 5 References 60
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter 4 Simple Methods for Mapping Wellhead Protection Areas 65
4 1 Criteria for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas 65
41.1 Distance 65
412 Drawdown 65
4 1 3 Time of Travel (TOT) 65
41.4 Flow Boundaries (Zone of Contribution) . 66
4.1 5 Assimilative Capacity 66
4.2 Overview of Wellhead Protection Delineation Methods 67
421 Classification of Delineation Methods 67
422 Relationship of Protection Areas Based on Different Criteria 69
4 3 Wellhead Delineation Using Geometric Methods 69
431 Arbitrary Fixed Radius 70
432 Cylinder Method (Calculated Fixed Radius) 70
433 Simplified Variable Shapes 70
4.4 WHPA Delineation Using Simple Analytical Methods Time of Travel (TOT) 73
441 TOT Using Darcy's Law and Flow Net 74
4.4 2 Cone of Depression/TOT (Flat Regional Hydraulic Gradient) 76
443 TOT With Sloping Regional Potentiometric Surface 76
444 Interaquifer Flow and Time of Travel 78
4 5 WHPA Delineation Using Simple Analytical Methods Drawdown 79
4.5 1 Uniform Flow Equation (Sloping Gradient) 79
452 Thiem Equilibrium Equation 80
453 Nonequilibrium Equations 80
454 Vermont Leakage and Infiltration Methods for Bedrock Wells Receiving Recharge
From Unconsolidated Overburden 81
455 Equations for Special Situations 82
4 6 References 87
Chapter 5 Hydrogeologic Mapping for Wellhead Protection. . 89
5 1 Elements of Hydrogeologic Mapping 90
511 Soils and Geomorphology 90
512 Geology 90
513 Hydrology 90
VI
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
514 Hydrochemistry 90
5 2 Existing Data Collection and Interpretation 90
5 2 1 Soil and Geomorphic Data 91
522 Geologic and Hydrologic Data 91
523 Airphoto Interpretation . 93
5 3 Field Data Collection ... 93
5 31 Soil Survey . . 94
532 Surface Geophysical Measurements 94
533 Geologic and Geophysical Well Logs 98
534 Measurement of Aquifer Parameters 99
535 Ground Water Chemistry 99
5 4 Special Considerations for Wellhead Protection . 99
541 Delineation of Aquifer Boundaries 101
542 Characterization of Aquifer Heterogeneity and Anisotropy 101
543 Presence and Degree of Confinement 102
544 Characterization of Fractured Rock and Karst Aquifers 102
55 Vulnerability Mapping ... 109
5 5 1 DRASTIC 109
552 Other Vulnerability Mapping Methods 111
5 6 Use of Geographic Information Systems for Wellhead Protection 111
5 6 1 Full-Scale GIS 115
562 Mini- and Desktop-GIS 115
563 Special Considerations in the Handling of Spatial Data 116
57 References 116
Chapter 6 Use of Computer Models for Wellhead Protection 121
6 1 Mathematical Approaches to Modeling 121
611 Deterministic vs Stochastic Models . 122
6 1 2 System Spatial Charactenstics 122
613 Analytical vs Numerical Models 122
614 Grid Design 123
6 2 Classification of Ground Water Computer Codes 124
621 Porous Media Flow Codes 125
VII
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
6.2 2 Porous Media Solute Transport Codes . 125
6.23 Hydrogeochemical Codes 126
62.4 Specialized Codes . 126
6.3 General Code Selection Considerations 126
631 Ground Water Flow Parameters . 126
6.3.2 Contaminant Transport Parameters 127
6.3.3 Computer Hardware and Software , 127
634 Usability and Reliability 128
6.3.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 129
6 4 Computer Modeling for WHPA Delineation 129
64.1 Spreadsheet Models 130
6.4 2 Overview of PC Models and WHPA Applications 130
64.3 Numerical Flow, Capture Zone, and Pathlme Tracing Models . 130
644 Solute Transport Models 132
645 Code Selection Process for Wellhead Delineation 133
6.46 Potential Pitfalls 135
6 5 Sources of Additional Information on Ground Water Modeling 136
66 References 137
Chapter 7 Developing a Wellhead Protection Program * .... 145
7.1 Overview of the Process . 145
7.11 Establishing a Community Planning Team 145
7.1 2 Obtaining Technical Assistance 146
72 Selection of Methods for Wellhead Protection Delineation , 147
73 Contaminant Identification and Risk Assessment 149
7.4 Selection of Wellhead Protection Management Methods 149
7.5 Special Implementation Issues 149
751 Small Community Drinking Water Systems 150
752 Multiple Jurisdictions 150
753 Systems in Highly Vulnerable Areas 150
76 References 151
VIII
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Chapter 8 Contaminant Identification and Risk Assessment 153
8 1 Overview of Ground Water Contamination in the United States 153
8 1 1 Extent of Contamination 153
812 Types of Contaminants 153
813 Sources ot Ground Water Contamination 154
8 2 Contaminant Identification Process for Wellhead Protection 156
8 3 Inventory of Potential Sources of Contamination 158
8 3 1 Cross-Cutlmg Sources Wells, Storage Tanks and Waste Disposal 174
832 Nonindustual Sources . 174
833 Commercial and Industrial Sources 174
8 4 Evaluating the Risk From Potential Contaminants 174
8 41 Risk Ranking Methods 174
842 Other Risk Evaluation Methods 176
85 References 180
Chapter 9 Wellhead Protection Area Management 185
9 1 General Regulatory and Nonregulatory Approaches 185
92 General Technical Approaches 185
921 Design Standards and Best Management Practices 185
922 Performance and Operating Standards 191
923 Ground Water Monitoring 191
93 Specific Regulatory and Technical Approaches " 192
94 Contingency Planning 192
95 References 198
Chapter 10 Wellhead Protection Case Studies 205
10 1 Overview of Case Studies . 205
102 Case Studies 205
1021 Cabot Well, Pennsylvania The Cost of Not Protecting Ground Water
Supplies, 205
IX
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
102 2 Rockford, Illinois Wellhead Management in a Contaminated Aquifer 206
10.2.3 Palm Beach County, Florida Wellfield Protection Ordinance 207
1024 Clinton Township, New Jersey A Limestone Aquifer Protection
Ordinance , 208
102 5 Nantucket Island, Massachusetts Implementation of a Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan , 208
1026 Tucson Basin, Arizona Regional Wellhead Protection in an Urbanized
And Environment 210
103 Sources of Additional Information on Case Studies 211
104 References 212
Appendix A Additional Reference Sources 215
Appendix B DRASTIC Mapping Using an SCS Soil Survey 231
Appendix C Worksheets for Potential Contaminant Source Inventories and Wellhead
Protection Area Management 239
-------
Figures
Figure
1-1 Plume of leachate migrating from a sanitary landfill 2
1-2 Ground water contamination from surface water recharge 2
1-3 Vertical movement of contaminants along an old, abandoned, or improperly constructed well 3
1-4 Movement of a concentration front by advection only 3
1-5 Advance of a contaminant influenced by hydrodynamic dispersion 5
1-6 Movement of contaminants from a septic tank through secondary openings in limestone or dolomite 5
1-7 Effect of dispersion and retardation on movement of a concentration front from a continuous source 6
1-8 Effect of dispersion and retardation on movement of a dissolved constituent slug 6
1-9 Effects of density on migration of contaminants 7
1-10 The three filtration mechanisms that limit particle migration through porous media 7
1-11 Effect of differences in geology on shapes of contaminant plumes , 9
1-12 Benzene and chloride appearance in a monitoring well 9
1-13 Constant release but variable constituent source 9
1-14 Changes in plumes, and factors causing the changes 10
1-15 Various types of contaminated plumes in the upper part of the zone of saturation 11
2-1 Cross-sectional diagram showing the water level as measured by piezometers located at various
depths . 22
2-2 Generalized plot of well depth versus depth to static water level 23
2-3 Confined, unconfmed, and perched water in a simple stratigraphic section of sandstone and shale 23
2-4 Heterogeneity and anisotropy 24
2-5 Examples of primary and secondary porosity 25
2-6 Diagram of karst aquifer showing seasonal artesian conditions 26
2-7 Types of aquifer boundary conditions 29
2-8 Relationship between water table and stream type 30
2-9 The generalized direction of ground water movement 31
2-10 Alternative procedure for determination of equipotential contour and direction of ground water flow in
homogeneous, isotropic aquifer 31
2-11 Flow nets for gaming and losing sti earns 35
2-12 Effect of fracture anisotropy on the orientation of the zone of contribution to a pumping well 36
2-13 Illustration of slow net analysis for anisotropic hydraulic conductivity in an earth dam 36
2-14 Steps in the determination of ground water flow direction in an anisotropic aquifer 37
2-15 Effect of anisotropy on the direction of flow , 37
2-16 Effect of well level measurements in recharge and discharge areas 38
2-17 Common errors in contouring watei table maps 39
2-18 Error in mapping potentiometnc surface due to mixing of two confined aquifers with different pres-
sures 40
2-19 Divergence from predicted direction of ground water resulting from aquifer heterogeneity 40
2-20 Movement of water into and out of bank stoiage along a stream in Indiana 41
3-1 Porosity, specific yield, and specific retention 46
3-2 Textural classification triangle for unconsolidated materials showing the relation between particle size
and specific yield 46
3-3 Porosity, permeability, and well yields of major rock types 48
3-4 Hydraulic conductivity of selected rocks 50
3-5 Range of values of hydraulic conductivity 50
XI
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
3-6 Representative ranges of saturated hydraulic conductivity values for geologic materials 51
3-7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity of unconsohdated materials 51
3-8 Range of permeability of glacial tills 52
3-9 Relationship between porosity and permeability for sandstone in various gram-size categories 52
3-10 Using Darcy's Law to estimate underflow in an aquifer 52
3-11 Ground water flow and equipotential lines as a function of different hydraulic conductivity 53
3-12 Decision tree for selection of aquifer test methods 58
4-1 Cones of depression in unconfmed and confined aquifers 66
4-2 Relationship between zone of influence (ZOI), zone of transport (ZOT), and zone of contribution
(ZOC) in an unconfmed porous-media aquifer with a sloping regional water table 66
4-3 Conceptual illustration of WHPA delineation based on zone of attenuation 67
4-4 WHPA delineation using geometric methods 71
4-5 Fixed radius for wellhead protection in Massachusetts based on pumping rate 72
4-6 Radius of outer management zone based on pumping rate for crystalline rock aquifers 73
4-7 Initial setback distance for level B mapping of stratified drift aquifers based on pumping rate and
transmissivity . 73
4-8 Interim wellhead protection areas in New Jersey using simplified variable shapes 75
4-9 Using Darcy's Law to calculate the quantity of leakage from one aquifer to another 78
4-10 Flow to a well penetrating a confined aquifer having a sloping potentiometnc surface 81
4-11 Delineation of wellhead protection areas for bedrock wells receiving recharge from overburden 83
5-1 Wellhead protection delineation using hydrogeologic boundaries 89
5-2 Symbols and conventions for preparation of hydrogeologic maps 95
5-3 Major and significant minor confined aquifers of the United States 102
5-4 Areas of unconfined fractured rock aquifers 104
5-5 Distribution of karst areas in relation to carbonate and sulphate rocks in the United States 105
5-6 Directions of ground water flow in a karst aquifer, Monroe County, Indiana 106
5-7 Mapping of subsurface conduit using self-potential method 107
5-8 Azimuthal seismic survey to characterize direction of subsurface rock fractures 107
5-9 Pumping-test response indicators of fracture/conduit flow 108
5-10 Scale dependence of ground water flow in karst systems 110
5-11 WHPAs at Sevastopol site, Door County, Wisconsin, based on fixed radius, simplified shape, and
vulnerability mapping m
5-12 Overview of major Geographic Information System functions 115
6-1 (a) Three-dimensional grid to model ground water flow in (b) complex geologic setting with pumping
wells downgradient from potential contaminant source 123
6-2 Comparison of (a) finite-difference and (b) finite-element grid configurations for modeling the same
well-field 124
6-3 Generalized model development by finite-difference and finite-element methods 124
6-4 Definition of the source boundary condition under a leaking landfill 128
6-5 Time of travel contours in a dolomite aquifer based on (a) potentiometric surface map, (b) numerical
modeling ... 133
7-1 Radius of outer management zone based on pumping rate for crystalline rock aquifers 147
7-2 Flow chart for selection of wellhead protection area delineation methods 148
8-1 Major contaminants at Superfund sites 154
8-2 Sources of ground water contamination 156
8-3 Land use/public-supply well pollution potential matrix 175
8-4 Illustration of wellhead protection contaminant source evaluation of potential hazards, Pekm, Illinois 179
8-5 Risk matrix for selected contaminant sources within wellhead protection area 180
9-1 Land use/local regulatory techniques matrix 193
10-1 Development around Cabot well 206
XII
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
10-2 Five-, 10-, and 20-year time-related captures zones under pre-VOC discovery pumping conditions,
Rockford, Illinois 206
10-3 Twenty-year capture zones overlain on locations of potential hazardous waste sources 207
10-4 Water resource protection districts, southeastern Nantucket Island, Massachusetts . 209
B-1 SCS soil association map for Monroe County, Indiana, with DRASTIC ratings 232
B-2 Sample Drastic Worksheet for soil association overlying karst limestone ir{ Monroe County, Indiana 233
B-3 Major ground water regions in the United States 234
XIII
-------
Tables
Table _
Page
1-1 Explanation of Contaminant Plumes Shown in Figure 1-15 n
1-2 Index to Major References on Contaminant Chemical Characteristics and Behavior in the Subsurface 13
2-1 Summary of Mechanisms That Lead to Fluctuations in Ground Water Levels 27
2-2 Index to References on Water Level Data Interpretation and Flow Net Analysis 27
2-3 Factors and Natural Conditions Affecting Natural Ground Water Fluctuations 28
3-1 Aquifer and Other Parameters Required for Different WHPA Delineation Methods 45
3-2 Porosity (% of Volume) of Different Aquifer Materials 47
3-3 Specific Yield (%) for Different Aquifer Materials 49
3-4 Representative Values for Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconsolidated and Consolidated Sediments 50
3-5 Types of Data Available on SCS Soil Series Description and Interpretation Sheets 54
3-6 Aquifer Characteristics Affecting Porosity, Specific Yield, and Hydraulic Conductivity 55
3-7 Summary Information on Aquifer Test Methods 56
3-8 Index to References on Analytical Solutions for Pumping Test Data 58
3-9 List of Major Ground Water Tracers 59
3-10 Index to References on Characterizing Hydraulic Properties of Anisotropic and Fractured Rock Aqui-
fers .... 60
4-1 Comparison of Major Methods for Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas 68
4-2 Relationships of WHPAs Based on Zone of Influence, Time of Travel, Zone of Travel Zone of Contri-
bution, and Zone of Attenuation 69
4-3 Calculated Fixed Radii for Major Aquifers in Idaho 74
4-4 Drawdown and Capture-Zone Geometry Equations 77
4-5 Values of the Function W(u) for Various Values of u for Theis Nonequihbrium Equation 82
4-6 Commonly Used Pump Test Analytical Equations R4
4-6.1 Values of W(u) or W(Uxy) °T
4-6 2 Values of W(u, r/m, y) °5
4-6 3 Values of W(u, r/B) or W(u", r/B) fic
4-6 5 Values of W(uay, r/DO °°
4-6.4 Values of Ko(r/B) °°
5-1 SCS Index Surface Runoff Classes g-j*
5-2 SCS Criteria for Hydraulic Conductivity and Permeability Classes 91
5-3 Representative Types of Observations and Inferences of Geologic and Ground-Water Conditions from
the Study of Aerial Photographs 94
5-4 Summary Information on Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods 97
5-5 Summary of Methods for Characterizing Aquifer Heterogeneity 98
5-6 Indicators of Presence and Degree of Confinement 103
5-7 Summary of Major Ground-Water Vulnerability Mapping Methods 113
5-8 Index to Major References on Hydrogeologic Mapping 114
5-9 Index to Major References on Ground Water Vulnerability Mapping 114
6-1 Definitions of Terms Used in Ground Water Flow Modeling 121
6-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Analytical and Numerical Methods 123
6-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of FDM and FEM Numerical Methods 124
6-4 Classification of Ground Water Flow and Transport Computer Codes 125
6-5 Examples of Use of Computer Models for Wellhead Protection 131
6-6 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations of BTX Using the Same Inputs for Twelve Different Models 135
XIV
-------
Tables (continued)
Table Page
6-7 Index to Major References on Ground Water Flow and Contaminant Transport Modeling 136
7-1 Generic Wellhead Protection Areas Proposed for Georgia 147
7-2 Zones for Wellhead Protection Areas in Idaho 147
8-1 Sources of Ground Water Contamination 155
8-2 Source of Contamination for Four Commonly Reported Pollutants 157
8-3 Principal Sources of Ground Water Contamination and Their Relative Regional Importance 157
8-4 Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources 167
8-5 Index to Development Documents for Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Selected Categories 171
8-6 Index to Major References on Types and Sources of Contamination in Ground Water . 173
9-1 Summary of Wellhead Protection Tools 188
9-2 Potential Management Tools for Wellhead Protection 192
9-3 General Best Management Practices 194
9-4 Index to Major References on Ground Water Protection Management 204
10-1 Regulated Land Uses, Water Resource Protection Zones, Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 210
10-2 Summary Information on Case Studies in Other Sources on Ground Water and Wellhead
Protection 211
10-3 Index to Case Study References on Ground Water and Wellhead Protection 212
A-1 Index to Major References on Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Hydraulics 216
A-2 Index to Major References on Karst Geology, Geomorphology and Hydrology . 221
A-3 Index to Major References on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 223
A-4 Periodicals, Conferences, and Symposia with Papers Relevant to GIS . 224
A-5 Index to Major References on Chemical Hazard and Risk Assessment . 228
XV
-------
Introduction
This handbook is divided into two parts (I) Wellhead
Protection Area (WHPA) Delineation, and (II) Implemen-
tation of Wellhead Protection Areas Figure 1-1 shows
how Part I is organized Chapter 1 provides a general
introduction to fundamentals of contaminant hydrogeol-
ogy, followed by Chapters 2 (Potentiometric Maps) and
3 (Measurements and Estimation of Aquifer Parameters
for Row Equations) which cover essential hydrogeologic
concepts for WHPA delineation The last three chapters
in Part I cover specific WHPA delineation methods sim-
ple geometric and analytical methods (Chapter 4), hy-
drogeologic mapping (Chapter 5) and computer
modeling (Chapter 6).
Figure I-2 shows how Part II is organized Chapter 7
provides an overview of the major steps in developing a
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) Delineation
CHAPTER 1
FUndanwntifeof
Contuninvit HydrogKfegy
Essential Hydrogeologic Concepts for WHPA Delineation
I 1
CHAPTERS
PotontiamttrleMtp*
CHAPTERS
d Estimation
of Aquifer Panimten
for Row Equations
.WHPA Delineation Methods
CHAPTER4
Soph M*0Kid« For
MtpptngWiitiMd
Protection Arus
Tkn*e(Tnv*l
4JAmJyUeat
Dtvdown
CHAPTERS
Hydros sotoslc
Mapping For
VMtwod Protection
S.5Vu(n«r«bIlty
Mapping
S.8KantAqu!hra
57U«50)G!S
wellhead protection program Chapters 8 (Contaminant
Identification and Risk Assessment) and 9 (Wellhead
Protection Area Management) contain numerous tables,
checklists and worksheets for the steps that follow de-
lineation of wellhead protection areas (Part I) Chapter
10 includes six case studies that illustrate delineation
methods and implementation approaches for a variety
of hydrogeologic settings
WHO SHOULD USE THIS HANDBOOK
Anyone responsible for delineating the boundaries of a
wellhead protection area, identifying and evaluating po-
tential contaminants, and identifying wellhead manage-
ment options will find the handbook useful
Users Without Specialized Training in
Hydrogeology
Most of this handbook does not require specialized
training in hydrogeology Basic math skills, including
high school-level algebra, is required for understanding
CHAPTER/
Developing A Wellhead
Protection Program
Overview of Major Steps in Implementing
a Wellhead Protection Program
I I
Figure 1-1. Quids to Part I of this publication
Figure 1-2 Guide to Part II of this publication
XVI
-------
and using the equations in the handbook Chapter 1
(Fundamentals of Contaminant Hydrogeofogy), Section
2 1 (Fundamental Hydrogeologic Concepts) and Sec-
tion 31 (Hydrogeologic Parameters of Interest) provide
the necessary background in hydrogeology for interpret-
ing and using potentiometnc maps (Chapter 2), estimat-
ing important aquifer parameters (Chapter 3), and using
simple methods for mapping wellhead protection areas
(Chapter 4)
Methods described in Chapters 5 (Hydrogeologic Map-
ping for Wellhead Protection) and 6 (Use of Computer
Models for Wellhead Protection) generally require some
special training in hydrogeology and should be used
with great caution, if at all, by anyone without this train-
ing
Users With Training in Hydrogeology
Users who have some training in hydrogeology but who
are less familiar with hydrochemistry may find that
Chapter 1 gives a useful introduction to chemical as-
pects of ground water contamination and transport Sec-
tions 4.1 (Criteria for Delineation of Wellhead Protection
Areas) and 4 2 (Overview of Wellhead Protection De-
lineation Methods) are required reading for under-
standing the WHPA delineation process The purpose of
Chapters 5 (Hydrogeologic Mapping for Wellhead Pro-
tection) and 6 (Use of Computer Models for Wellhead
Protection) is to provide a comprehensive identification
of available methods and some guidance on selection
of methods A detailed discussion of specific methods is
beyond the scope of this handbook, but major refer-
ences containing more detailed information are cited in
the text or identified at the end of each chapter in
reference index tables
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENTS
In the United States, methods for protection of ground
water and wellhead areas are in a creative period of
development both in the technical and policy arenas
There is no single "best" approach for all hydrogeologic
or socio-political settings
During the preparation of this handbook, all state ground
water and wellhead protection programs were contacted
with a request for copies of any forms, worksheets, and
guidance documents that had been developed as of late
1992 for wellhead protection Most states responded
with materials that were very helpful for the development
of this document This handbook represents a catalog
and synthesis of guidance documents developed by
U S EPA and approaches developed at the state level
However, procedures established by state wellhead pro-
tection programs should be the primary guide in estab-
lishing wellhead protection areas Departures from
state-established procedures based on information in
this handbook should first be approved by the appropri-
ate state authority
HOW TO OBTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS
CITED IN THIS HANDBOOK
This handbook contains numerous references in which
additional or more detailed information can be obtained
about a topic Most chapters have a table just before the
reference section which provides an index of references
by topic Wherever possible, NTIS acquisition numbers
or other sources of government documents are provided
(National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA22161,800/624-8301) EPA
documents available from other sources are indicated
by the following abbreviations
CERI U S EPA, Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI), 26 W Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268, 513/569-7562
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Act (EPCRA) Information Hotline 800/535-0202
s
ODW U S EPA, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550), 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Safe Drinking
Water Hotline 800/426-4791
RIC RCRA Information Center, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-305), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,
RCRA/Superfund Hotline 800/424-9346
XVII
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Fundamentals of Contaminant Hydrogeology
This chapter provides a brief review of fundamental
concepts in contaminant hydrogeology Most methods
for delineation of wellhead protection areas (WHPAs)
use physical principles of ground water flow (Chapters
2 through 5) The purpose of wellhead protection, how-
ever, is to prevent or mitigate ground water contamina-
tion This requires an understanding of (1) how ground
water becomes contaminated (Section 1 1), (2) basic
processes that affect the transport of contaminants in
ground water (Section 1 2), and (3) how the interaction
of physical and chemical processes determine the
shape of contaminant plumes (Section 1 3) Section 1 4
discusses how contaminant plume behavior is affected
by geologic material properties, pH and Eh, leachate
composition, and source characteristics
1.1 General Mechanisms of Ground
Water Contamination
Contaminant releases to ground water can occur by
design, by accident, or through neglect Most ground
water contamination incidents involve substances re-
leased at or only slightly below the land surface Conse-
quently, most contaminant releases affect shallow
ground water initially Certain activities, however, such
as oil and gas exploration, deep-well waste injection,
and pumping of ground water underlain by saltwater,
initially tend to affect deeper ground water
Ground water contamination can occur by infiltration,
recharge from surface water, direct migration, and
mteraquifer exchange The first and second mecha-
nisms primarily affect surface aquifers, the third and
fourth may affect either surface or deep aquifers
1.1.1 Infiltration
Infiltration is probably the most common ground water
contamination mechanism A portion of the water that
falls to the earth as precipitation slowly infiltrates the soil
through pore spaces in the soil matrix As the water
moves downward under the influence of gravity, it dis-
solves materials with which it comes into contact Water
percolating downward through a contaminated zone can
dissolve contaminants, forming leachate that may con-
tain inorganic and organic constituents The leachate
will continue to migrate downward under the influence
of gravity until it reaches the saturated zone In the
saturated zone, contaminants in the leachate will spread
horizontally in the direction of ground water flow, and
vertically due to gravity (Figure 1-1) This process can
occur beneath any surface or near-surface contaminant
source exposed to the weather and the effects of infil-
trating water
1.1.2 Recharge From Surface Water
Normally, ground water moves toward or "discharges" to
surface water bodies However, movement of contami-
nants from surface water to ground water can occur in
losing streams (where normal elevation of the water
table lies below the stream channel) and during flooding
Flood stages may cause a temporary reversal in the
hydraulic gradient, with a flow of contaminants into bank
storage, or contaminant entry through improperly cased
wells (Figure 1-2a) Schwarzenbach et al (1983) docu-
mented movement of organic contaminants in river
water into glacial sand and gravel aquifers in the Aare
and Glatt valleys in Switzerland Contaminated surface
water can enter an aquifer if the ground water level
adjacent to a surface water body is lowered by pumping
(Figure 1-2b)
1.1.3 Direct Migration
Contaminants can migrate directly into ground water
from below-ground sources (e g, storage tanks, pipe-
lines) that lie within the saturated zone Much greater
concentrations of contaminants may occur from these
sources because of the continually saturated conditions
Storage sites and landfills excavated to a depth near the
water table may also permit direct contact of contami-
nants with ground water In addition, contaminants can
enter the ground water system from the surface by
vertical leakage through the seals around well casings,
through wells abandoned without proper procedures, or
as a result of contaminant disposal through deteriorated
or improperly constructed wells
-------
100
200 (maters)
200 400 600 (feet)
Horizontal Scale
•— ' Chloride concentration
* Standpipe op
o Piezometer tip
— Muto-teve) sampfng point
T Water table
mg/l
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
I a
I
Row direction
Figure. 1-1. Plume of leachate migrating from a sanitary landfill on a sandy aquifer using contours of chloride concentration (from
Freeze and Cherry, 1979)
Rlv«r In flood
Contaminated
:_\ £~L?"-Z~-^-i Aqulcluda -T^rrjrir-
Figure 1-2. Ground water contamination from surface water re-
charge (a) contaminated floodwater entering an Im-
properly cased well (from Deutsch, 1963), (b)
contaminated water Induced to flow from surface
water to ground water by pumping (from Deutsch,
1965).
1.1.4 Interaquifer Exchange
Contaminated ground water can mix with uncontami-
nated ground water through a process known as
mteraquifer exchange, in which one water-bearing u nt
communicates hydraulically with another This occurs
most commonly in bedrock aquifers where a well pene-
trates more than one water-bearing formation to in-
crease its yield Each water-bearing unit has its own
head potential, some potentials being greater than oth-
ers When the well is not being pumped, water moves
from the formations with the greatest potential to forma-
tions of lesser potential If the formation with the greater
potential contains contaminated or poorer quality water,
it may degrade the quality of water in another formation
In a process similar to direct migration, old and improp-
erly abandoned wells with deteriorated casings or seals
may contribute to mteraquifer exchange Vertical move-
ment may be induced by pumping, or may occur under
natural gradients For example, Figure 1-3 depicts an
improperly abandoned well with a corroded casing that
formerly tapped only a lower uncontammated aquifer
The corroded casing allows water from an overlying
contaminated zone to communicate directly with the
lower aquifer The pumping of a nearby well tapping the
lower aquifer creates a downward gradient between the
two water-bearing zones As pumping continues, con-
taminated water migrates through the lower aquifer to
the pumping well Downward migration of the contami-
nant may also occur through the aquitard (confining
layer) that separates the upper and lower aquifers The
rate of contaminant movement through an aquitard,
however, is often much slower than the rate of move-
ment through the direct connection of'an abandoned
well
-------
Abandoned Well
Disposal Pond (Coiroded Casing)
To Municipal
Supply
Figure 1-3 Vertical movement of contaminants- along an old,
abandoned, or improperly constructed well (adapted
by Miller, 1980, from Deutsch, 1961)
1.2 Contaminant Transport Processes
The extent to which a contaminant moves in ground
water depends on its behavior in relation to various
processes that encourage transport (Sections 1 2 1
through 124) and other processes that serve to retard
movement (Section 1 3) The shape and speed of con-
taminant plumes are determined by these processes
and by factors relating to the aquifer materials and
characteristics of the contaminants (Section 1 4) EPA's
Seminar Publication on Transport and Fate of Contami-
nants in the Subsurface (U S EPA, 1989) and Part II
(Physical and Chemical Processes in the Subsurface)
of EPA's Seminar Publication on Site Characterization
for Subsurface Remediation (U S EPA, 1991) provide
more detailed treatment of contaminant transport and
retardation processes
In broad terms, three processes govern (he extent to
which chemical constituents migrate in ground water (1)
advection, movement caused by the flow of ground
water, (2) dispersion, movement caused by the irregular
mixing of waters during advection, and (3) retardation,
principally chemical mechanisms that occur during ad-
vection
1.2.1 Advection
Ground water in its natural state is constantly in motion,
although in most cases it is moving very slowly, typically
at a rate of inches or feet per day Ground water flow, or
advection, is calculated using Darcy's Law (Section
313) and is governed by the hydraulic principles dis-
cussed in Chapter 2 Time-of-travel calculations based
on advective flow may underestimate the rate of migra-
tion of dissolved constituents, such as chlorides and
nitrates, that experience minimal retardation by aquifer
solids due to hydrodynamic dispersion (Section 1 2 2)
On the other hand, time-of-travel estimates tend to over-
estimate the rate of migration for contaminants subject
to retardation processes
Figure 1-4a shows the relative concentration of a dis-
solved constituent emanating from a constant source of
contamination versus distance along the flow path Fig-
ure 1-4b shows a similar plot for a discontinuous con-
taminant source that produced a single slug of dissolved
contaminant Considering advective flow only, no dimi-
nution of concentration appears as a straight line moving
at the rate of ground water flow
Several mechanisms influence the spread of a contami-
nant in the flow field Dispersion and density/viscosity
differences may accelerate contaminant movement,
while various retardation processes slow the rate of
movement compared to that predicted by simple advec-
tive transport
D
iOoiotvad Constituent
Average Row
Dtttanc*-
"<#f * f
%«
IV- ^
>dl'' ti-
^f
AvorageFtow
"*"
(b)
Figure 1-4 Movement of a concentration front by advection
only (a) continuous source, (b) slug
1.2.2 Hydrodynamic Dispersion
Hydrodynamic dispersion is the net effect of a variety of
microscopic, macroscopic, and regional conditions that
influence the spread of a solute concentration front
through an aquifer (Mills et al, 1985, Schwartz, 1977)
Quantifying dispersion may be important in fate assess-
ment, because contaminants can move more rapidly
through an aquifer by this process than by simple plug
flow (i e , uniform movement of water through an aquifer
with a vertical front) In other words, physical conditions
(such as the presence of more permeable zones where
water can move more quickly) and chemical processes
(such as the movement by molecular diffusion of dis-
-------
solved species at greater velocities than the water) re-
sult in more rapid contaminant movement than would be
predicted by ground water equations for physical flow,
which assume average values for permeability
Dispersion on the microscopic scale is caused by (1)
external forces acting on the ground water fluid, (2)
variations in pore geometry, (3) molecular diffusion
along concentration gradients, and (4) variations in fluid
properties such as density and viscosity Dispersion at
this scale, also called mechanical dispersion, is gener-
ally less accurate than estimated advective flow, and for
this reason is often ignored Lehr (1988) warns against
efforts to quantify dispersion at this scale
Dispersion on the macroscopic scale is caused by vari-
ations in hydraulic conductivity and porosity, which cre-
ate irregularities in the seepage velocity and consequent
additional mixing of the solute Over large distances,
regional variations in hydrogeologic units can affect the
amount of dispersion that occurs Macroscopic disper-
sion may result in substantially faster travel times of
contaminants than predicted by equations for mechani-
cal dispersion Therefore, it should be the focus of efforts
to characterize dispersion (Wheatcraft, 1989) Anderson
(1984) reviews various approaches to quantifying dis-
persion.
Dispersion can occur both in the direction of flow and
transverse (perpendicular) to it Figure 1-5a depicts dis-
persion caused by microscopic changes in flow direction
due to pore space onentation Macroscopic features,
such as lenses of higher conductivity, are shown in
Figures 1-5b and 1-5c Solution channeling and fractur-
ing are other macroscopic features that may contribute
to contaminant dispersion (Figure 1-6) Wells must be
carefully placed when monitoring in complicated geo-
logic systems such as those shown in Figures 1-5 (b and
c) and 1-6 Figure 1-7a shows the effect of dispersion
as a plot of relative constituent concentration versus
distance along a flow path In the figure, the front of the
dissolved constituent distribution is no longer straight,
but instead appears "smeared" Some of the dissolved
constituent actually moves ahead of what would have
been predicted if only advection were considered Fig-
ure 1-7b gives an aerial view of dispersion of a contami-
nant plume from a continuous source
In a similar manner, the concentration of a slug of ma-
terial introduced to a flow field appears as shown in
Figure 1-8a, with the peak concentration declining over
time and distance In such a situation, the total mass of
dissolved constituent remains the same, however, it
occupies a larger volume, effectively reducing the con-
centration found at any distance along the flow path An
aerial view of intermittent sources affected by dispersion
is shown in Rgure 1-8b
Dispersion dilutes the concentration of a contaminant,
thus reducing peak concentrations encountered in the
ground water system Dilution alone may be sufficient to
place a contaminated aquifer outside the area of regu-
latory concern
1.2.3 Density/Viscosity Differences (NAPLs)
Contaminants having a density lower than ground water
tend to concentrate in the upper portions of an aquifer,
while those having a higher density concentrate in the
lower portions The viscosity (tendency to resist internal
flow) of specific contaminants affects their rate of migra-
tion from different portions of the aquifer Contaminants
with these properties may be nonaqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs), or ground water with different salinities (fresh
and salt water) Figure 1-9 shows the effects of density
on migration of NAPLs In the figure, the denser NAPL
actually flows in the opposite direction of ground water
flow, due to the negative slope of the confining bed
Density variations in ground water in deep boreholes
may result in significant errors in estimating flow direc-
tions (Oberlander, 1989) Density differences are also
important in modeling interactions between fresh- and
seawater (Frmd, 1982)
Palmer and Johnson (1989) review the physical proc-
esses controlling the transport of NAPLs in the subsur-
face, Schwille (1988) and Tyler et al (1987) provide
more comprehensive treatments of this topic The char-
acterization and modeling of multi- and immiscible-
phase flow (water-NAPLs, water-air, air-volatilized
organic compounds) is the subject of much current re-
search
The viscosity of water decreases as temperature in-
creases Sniegocki (1963) found that viscosity differ-
ences resulting from surface water at 66°F injected into
ground water at 43°F reduced the specific capacity (gal-
lons per minute per foot of drawdown) of an artificial
recharge well in the Grand Prairie Region of Arkansas
by 30 percent Kaufman and McKenzie (1975) observed
that the apparent hydraulic conductivity of an injection
zone in the Flondan aquifer receiving hot organic wastes
increased about 2 5 times because of temperature dif-
ferences alone
1.2.4 Facilitated Transport
Facilitated transport, in which the mobility of a contami-
nant is increased relative to "expected" retardation by
adsorption to subsurface solids, is a relatively new area
of study in the field of contaminant transport Processes
such as chelation (the formation of complex ions with
organic hgands) have long been known to increase the
mobility of metal ions More recently, attention has been
focused on increased mobility of organic compounds by
(1) cosolvation (increased solubility of hydrophobic or-
ganic contaminants when water-miscible organic sol-
-------
Tracer
Injection Points
d> Po0^
'•-°"F^3^oo
i
-------
A Advection
0 Dispersion
Sorption
Biotransformation
Time P«nod A
Distance from Continuous Contaminant Source
(a)
Sourc*
(b)
Figure 1-7. Effect of dispersion and retardation on movement
of a concentration front from a continuous source
(a) relative concentrations compared to advection
only, (b) development of a contamination plume
from a continuous point source
vents, such as ethanoi, methanol, and acetone, are
present in ground water), and (2) attachment to colloidal
particles that are often mobile in the unsaturated and
saturated zones of the subsurface (Hulmg, 1989) Sta-
ples and Geiselman (1988) and Woodburn et al (1986)
describe methods for factoring cosolvation effects into
estimates of retardation on subsurface solids
1.3 Contaminant Retardation Processes
In ground water contaminant transport, a number of
chemical and physical mechanisms retard or slow the
movement of constituents in ground water The three
general mechanisms of retardation are (1) filtration, (2)
partitioning, and (3) transformation or degradation
Figures 1-7a and 1-8c illustrate the movement of a
concentration front by advection only (A), advection plus
dispersion (A+D), and with the addition of sorption, a
partitioning process (A+D+S) The greatest retardation,
however, results from the combined effects of advection,
dispersion, sorption, and biotransformation (A+D+S+B)
The amount of retardation resulting from sorption and
other partition processes and from biotransformation
depends on physical and chemical properties of the
aquifer and chemical properties of the contaminant
1.3.1 Filtration
Filtration is the entrapment of solid particles and large
dissolved molecules in the pore spaces of the soil and
KZ Advection
i Component
1 Only
(a)
r o CD
(b)
•A+D
Distance from Slug Release Contaminant Source
(C)
Figure 1-8 Effect of dispersion and retardation on movement
of a dissolved constituent slug (a) relative concen-
trations of a one-time slug compared to advection
only as It moves from time period A to B, (b) travel
on a contaminant slug from a point Intermittent
source, (c) Influence of sorption and blodegrada-
tion on concentrations downgradient at a given
point in time
aquifer media Figure 1-10 shows three major mecha-
nisms of filtration surface filtration, straining, and
physical-chemical interactions Surface filtration results
when particles are larger than the pore spaces and form
a cake on the surface, at which the pore size becomes
too small Caking may also result from biological activity,
as in the clogging mat that develops in septic tank
-------
Source of Product
(Greater Density Than Water)
Source of Product
(Lesser Density Than Water)
Direction of
Ground-Water Row
Figure 1-9 Effects of density on migration of contaminants (from Miller, 1985)
..t
I.'
SURFACE (CAKE)
STRAINING
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL
Figure 1-10 The three filtration mechanisms that limit particle
migration through porous media (from McDowell-
Boyer et al, 1986)
absorption trenches Straining happens when the parti-
cles are about the same size as the pore spaces In this
process, particles move through pores until they be-
come lodged at the entrance to a pore that is too small
Filtration resulting from physical-chemical interactions
with solid surfaces is discussed under partitioning pioc-
ess in the next section
Filtration limits flow by clogging pore spaces and reduc-
ing the hydraulic conductivity of the material Most dis-
solved species are retarded by partitioning or
transformation, but if the molecular size of a chemicai
reaction product exceeds the pore size of the soil or
aquifer, mechanical filtration occurs Flocculation of col-
loidal material resulting from the precipitation of iron and
manganese oxides, as well as clogging resulting from
microbial activity, may hinder the movement of dissolved
constituents Gas bubble formation may also eventually
clog pore spaces, resulting in a filtering effect For ex-
ample, a 10 percent increase in the air content of media
voids can cause a 15 percent decrease in effective
porosity, a 35 percent decrease in permeability, and
about a 50 percent reduction in dispersion (Orlob and
Radhaknshna, 1958)
Filtration may also result in residual contamination that
is highly resistant to both mobilization by desorption into
air and water and microbial degradation For example,
the soil fumigant 1,2-dibromomethane, which is readily
biodegraded under aerobic conditions, has been found
in agricultural soils up to 19 years after its last known
application, due to entrapment in soil micropores (Stein-
berg etal , 1987)
1.3.2 Partitioning
Retardation of dissolved contaminants in an aquifer can
result from two major processes that change the form,
but not necessarily the toxicity, of the contaminant (1)
sorption, including both ion exchange and physical ad-
sorption, and (2) precipitation
Ion exchange involves the replacement of a cation at-
tached to a negatively charged site on a mineral surface
by another cation The mineralogy and cation exchange
-------
capacity of an aquifer gives a general indication of
its effectiveness in retarding cationic contaminants As
long as the ionic contaminant has a greater affinity for
the solid surface than for existing adsorbed ions, retar-
dation will occur Once the exchangeable sites are filled,
the contaminant will travel unretarded (see A+D+S
curve in Figures 1-7a and 1-8c) Precise predictions of
retardation by ion exchange are not possible because
of interactions among multiple ions Furthermore,
changes in environmental conditions such as pH and Eh
(Section 142) or ground water solution composition
may remobilize contaminants formerly bound to geo-
logic materials
In fact, the release of ions by exchange processes may
aggravate a contamination problem Hughes et al
(1971) documented increases in water hardness as a
result of the displacement of calcium and magnesium
ions from geologic materials by sodium or potassium in
landfill leachate Rovers etal (1976) observed release
of aluminum to solution from soil contaminated by indus-
trial waste
Most organic contaminants are nonionic and, conse-
quently, partitioning to aquifer solids usually occurs by
physical adsorption processes such as Van der Waals
and hydrophobic bonding
The adsorption isotherm is a measure of changes in the
amount of a substance adsorbed at different concentra-
tions at a constant temperature It is the simplest and
most widely used method for predicting physical adsorp-
tion. Empirical constants can be calculated from adsorp-
tion isotherms, and these constants then can be used to
predict the amount of adsorption at concentrations other
than those measured This method assumes, however,
that temperature and other environmental conditions are
the same as those under which the isotherms were
measured originally
Precipitation reactions, in which geochemical reactions
in the aquifer result in a contaminant moving from a
dissolved form to an insoluble form, may be an important
retardation process for inorganic contaminants As with
adsorption, precipitation reactions are reversible, so it
is possible for a contaminant to remobilize if environ-
mental conditions change in the aquifer Precipitation-
dissolution reactions are largely determined by
acid-base equilibria and redox conditions (Section
1.4 2). Geochemical distnbution-of-species and reaction
progress codes (Chapter 6) may help identify important
inorganic precipitation reactions
1.3.3 Transformation
All processes that transform a contaminant retard trans-
port in that the original contaminant is no longer present
Unless the contaminant's reaction products are nontoxic
inorganic elements, however, contamination may still
persist Complexation reactions involving heavy metals
may even increase toxicity and mobility Some organic
contaminants may be transformed by hydrolysis in
ground water, but they often produce intermediate or-
ganic compounds of varying toxicity Microbiological ac-
tivity is probably the most important means by which
contaminants are transformed in the subsurface
1.4 Contaminant Plume Behavior
The physical mechanisms of advection and dispersion,
as well as a variety of chemical and microbial reactions,
interact to influence the movement of contaminants in
ground water The degree to which these mechanisms
influence contaminant movement depends on a number
of factors, including geologic material properties, pH and
Eh, leachate composition, and source characteristics
1.4.1 Geologic Material Properties
The rate of ground water movement is largely depend-
ent on the type of geologic material through which it is
moving More rapid movement can be expected through
coarse-textured materials such as sand or gravel than
through fine-textured materials such as silt and clay The
physical and chemical composition of the geologic ma-
terial is equally important Fine-textured materials with
a high clay content favor retardation through ion ex-
change and physical adsorption Figure 1-11 illustrates
the influence of differing geology on the shape of con-
taminant plumes
1.4.2 pH (Hydrogen Ion Activity) and Eh
(Redox Potential)
The pH and Eh of the geologic materials and the waste
stream strongly influence contaminant mobility The pH
affects the speciation of many dissolved chemical con-
stituents, which in turn determines solubility and reactiv-
ity Ion exchange and hydrolysis reactions are also
particularly sensitive to pH Eh influences many precipi-
tation and dissolution reactions, particularly those in-
volving iron and manganese, and determines in large
measure the type of biodegradation that occurs
1.4.3 Leachate Composition
The influence of all other factors on contaminant migra-
tion ultimately depends on the composition of the
leachate or contaminants entering the ground water
system Similar contaminants may behave differently in
the same environment due to the influence of other
constituents in a complex leachate Solubility (which
affects the mobile concentration), density, chemical
structure, and many other properties can affect net con-
taminant migration For example, Figure 1-12 illustrates
the appearance of two chemicals, benzene and chlo-
ride, in a monitoring well Even though both contami-
8
-------
Flow
/
«•
\
/Disposal \
X
Initial
5 miles
• 6 miles-
(a) Chloride plume, Inel, Idaho
Aquifer basalt
Time 16 years
Well
Chloride
and
Benzene
Distance —«•
Some Time Later
Flow
/M
/'
/?'
f
t.
1
j[
/,
I
*l 1000
f •
f
\
\ " .
\>
V \
V ^
1 •* »
1
- J
- 1
1 40C
J
" t
«*r-
/
/
/
f
Oft
Well
Chloride
\J
Figure 1-11
(b) Chromium plume. Long IsUind
Aquifer sand and gravel
Time 13 years
Effect of differences in geology on shapes of con-
taminant plumes (from Miller, 1985)
nants may have entered the ground water system at the
same time and in the same concentration, their detec-
tion in the monitoring well reveals significantly different
migration rates Chloride has migrated essentially unaf-
fected, while benzene has been retarded significantly
Table 1-2 identifies references with addilional informa-
tion on contaminant chemical behavior in soil and
ground water
Sources releasing a variety of contaminants create com-
plex plumes composed of different constituents at down-
gradient positions An idealized plume configuration
composed of five different contaminants (A-E) moving
at different rates through the ground water system is
shown in Figure 1-13 Consequently, the onset of con-
tamination at a supply well may mark the first of a set of
Distance —*•
Figure 1-12 Benzene and chloride appearance in a monitoring
well (from Geraghty and Miller, 1985)
• Waits Srta
• Downstream Limit
of Contaminants
Figure 1-13 Constant release but variable constituent source
(from LeGrand, 1965)
-------
overlapping plumes of different compounds advancing
at different rates These plumes may affect the well in
sequence for decades, even if the original contaminant
source is removed (Mackay et al, 1985)
The effect of contaminant density on contaminant trans-
port in ground water systems is presented in Figure 1-9
Substances with densities lower than water may "float"
on the surface of the saturated zone Similarly, sub-
stances with densities higher than that of water can sink
through the saturated zone until they encounter an im-
permeable layer In the situation shown in Figure 1-9,
the surface of an underlying impermeable layer slopes
opposite to the direction of ground water flow in the
overlying formation Dense contaminant movement fol-
lows the slope of the impermeable boundary, while
some dissolved product moves with the ground water
1.4.4 Source Characteristics
Source characteristics include the source mechanism
(i.e., Infiltration, direct migration, mteraquifer exchange,
ground water/surface water interaction), the type of
source (particularly point or nonpomt origination), and
temporal features Source mechanisms were discussed
In Section 1.1. Source types are covered in more detail
in Chapter 7. Temporal characteristics include the man-
ner in which a contaminant is released overtime and the
time elapsed since the contaminant's release
Rgure 1-14 presents the effects caused by changes in
the rate of waste discharge on plume size and shape
Plume enlargement results from an increase in the rate
of waste discharge to the ground water system Similar
effects can be produced if the retardation capacity of the
geologic materials is exceeded, or if the water table rises
closer to the source, causing an increase in dissolved
constituent concentration Decreases in waste dis-
charge, lowering of the water table, retardation through
sorption, and reductions in ground water flow rate can
diminish the size of the plume Stable plume configura-
tions suggest that the rate of waste discharge is at a
steady state with respect to retardation and transforma-
tion processes Aplume will shnnkm size when contami-
nants are no longer released to the ground water system
and a mechanism to reduce contaminant concentrations
is present Unfortunately, many contaminants, particu-
larly complex chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy met-
als, may persist in ground water for extremely long time
periods without appreciable transformation Lastly, an
intermittent or seasonal source can produce a series of
plumes that are separated by the advection of ground
water during periods of no contaminant discharge
1.4.5 Interactions of Various Factors on
Contaminant Plumes
The various factors discussed above can result in widely
varying sizes and shapes of contaminant plumes Figure
1-15 shows 18 different types of contaminated zones
Table 1-1 explains the relative importance of dilution,
degradation, and sorption in each plume and lists exam-
ples of the types of contaminants typically involved
U'J
w
"•>!•*,>,
Enlarging
Plume
1. Increase in rate of
discharged wastes
2 Sorption activity
used up
3 Effects of changes in
water table
Reducing
Plume
1 Reduction in wastes
2 Effects of changes in
water table
3 More effective
sorption
4 More effective
dilution
5. Slower movement
and more time for
decay
Contaminated zone
Former boundary
Present boundary
• Waste site
Nearly Stable
Plume
1 Essentially same
waste input
2 Sorption capacity
not fully utilized
3 Dilution effect fairly
stable
4 Slight water-table
fluctuation or effects
of water-table
fluctuation not
important
.'0!
Shrunken
Plume
Waste no longer
disposed and no
longer leached at
abandoned waste
site
/ i
l «
0
Series of
Plumes
Intermittent or
seasonal source
Rgure 1-14. Changes In plumes, and factors causing the changes (modified from U S EPA, 1977, and LeGrand, 1965)
10
-------
TJ
C
3
O
O
fV
; v._,-w«ii
u°
Figure 1-15 Various types of contaminated plumes in the upper part of the zone of saturation, X marks the core of contamination
beneath a waste site, and Z marks the point downstream at which some zones terminate See Table 1-1 for Interpre-
tations (from LeGrand, 1965)
Table 1-1 Explanation of Contaminant Plumes Shown In Figure 1-15 (adapted from LeGrand, 1965)
Liquid
Waste
Recharge
Contaminant Plume Governed by f!?rmirl9 Composil
' Ufator-Tatita U/aota
Site
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Dilution
Not appreciable
in ground,
some in stream
Not appreciable
Improbable
No plume
formed (see
remarks)
Slight near
waste site,
some at greater
distance
Yes, suggestive
of nearly
homogeneous
porous materials
Not appreciable
in ground,
some near and
in stream
Decay
No
Either decay
or both
Perhaps
Sorption Mound Sites
No No No
or sorption No No
Perhaps No No
Either decay or sorption No No
or both
Possibly
Improbable
Not
appreciable
Possibly No No
Improbable No No
Not No No
appreciable
le Examples of
Type of
Contaminant
Chlorides,
nitrates
—
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Chlorides,
nitrates
Chlorides,
nitrates
Remarks
Probably small waste release or
good attenuation in zone of
aeration
Contaminant is completely
attenuated in zone of aeration
and does not reach zone of
saturation
Lack of dispersion near waste
site typical of linear openings in
rock, contaminated water
downgradient disperses into
different type of material
Irregularities in permeability
cause deviation in plume
11
-------
Table 1-1 Explanation
of Contaminant Plumes Shown In Figure 1-15 (adapted from LeGrand, 1965) (Continued)
Liquid
Waste
Recharge
Contaminant Plume Governed by
Site
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
Dilution
Yes, suggestive
of nearly
homogeneous
porous material
Yes
Slight
Yes, suggestive
of nearly
homogeneous
porous materials
Yes, suggestive
of nearly
homogeneous
materials
Some In ground
and stream
Yes
Yes
Some
Some
Yes
Decay Sorption
Probably either decay or
sorption or both
Perhaps Perhaps
Not Probably
appreciable not
appreciable
Either decay or sorp«nn
or both
Either decay or sorption
or both
Not Not
appreciable appreciable
Either decay or sorption
or both
Either decay or sorption
or both
Either decay or sorption
or both
Either decay or sorption
or both
Either decay or sorption
or both
Forming
Watar.Tahlo
vvdlcf Iclulo
Mound
No
No
No
Yes,
forming a
water-table
mound
Yes,
forming a
water-table
mound
Yes,
forming a
water-table
mound
Yes,
forming a
water-table
mound
No
No
No
No
Composite Examples of
W3SI6 •-— .— — *
Sites
No
No
No
No
No
—
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
lyfJt? ui
Contaminant
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
—
Chlorides,
nitrates
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Chlorides,
nitrates
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Sewage,
radioactive
wastes
Remarks
Downgradient split in plume
may be due to dense
impermeable rock or great
increase in sorptive materials
Downgradient plume is due to
shunting of contaminant to land
surface at tail of upper plume
and reinfiltratlon of contaminant
Irregularies in plume caused by
changes in permeability and/or
sorption
Deviation in plume due to
impermeable zone
Contaminated water from three
waste sites at right angles to
ground water flow, merging to
form a composite plume
Contaminated water from two
waste sites parallel to ground
water flow, forming a
compostive plume
Contaminated water from two
waste sites at an angle with
ground water flow, forming a
composite plume
Large composite plume formed
by several waste sites
Pumping well draws plume
toward it, contaminated water is
greatly diluted at well
1.5 Guide to Major References on
Contaminant Chemical
Characteristics and Behavior in the
Subsurface
As discussed in Chapter 8 (Section 8 1), the number of
potential ground water contaminants is far too large to
provide any detailed discussion of the chemical charac-
teristics of specific contaminants Table 1-2 provides an
index to major references containing more detailed in-
formation about specific chemical processes and chemi-
cal characteristics and behavior of contaminants in the
subsurface Generally, only texts, edited volumes, and
conference proceedings are indexed in Table 1-2, but
some important review papers published in scientific
journals are also included The references include (1)
general chemical references, (2) compilations of degra-
dation and other chemical constants for collections of
chemicals, (3) references on ground water and vadose
zone/soil chemistry, (4) references on trace elements
and heavy metals, (5) references on toxic and other
organic chemicals, and (6) references on microbial ecol-
ogy and biodegradation
12
-------
Table 1-2 Index to Major References on Contaminant Chemical Characteristics and Behavior in the Subsurface
Topic References
General Chemical
References
Chemical Fate Data
Natural Baseline
Chemistry
Chemical/Contaminant
Hydrogeology
Vadose Zone/Soil
Chemistry
Contaminant Sources
Trace Elements/Heavy
Metals
Toxic and Other Organic
Chemicals
Biodegradation/
Contaminant
Microbiology
ACS (annual), Budavan (1989), Dean (1992), Howard and Neal (1992), Lewis (1992a), Lide (1993), Perry
and Chiltm (1973), Verschaueren (1983), Hazardous Chemicals ACGIH (1992), Armour (1991), Government
Institutes (annual), Keith (1993), Lewis (1990,1991,1992b, 1993), NIOSH (1990), Occupational Safety
Health Services (1990), Patnalk (1992), Shafer-(1993), Shmeldecker (1992), U S Coast Guard (1985), U S
DOT (1990), U S EPA (1985,1992a), Agrochemicals Fisher (1991), James and Kidd (1992), Kidd and
James (1991), Montgomery (1993), Walker and Keith (1992)
Callahan et al (1979), Gherini et al (1988, 1989), Howard (1989, 1990a, 1990b, 1992,1993), Howard et al
(1991), Kolhg et al (1991), Lyman et al (1990,1992), Mabey et al (1982), Montgomery (1991),
Montgomery and Welkom (1989), Ney (1990), Rai and Zachara (1984), U S EPA (1990), Sorption/Partition
Coefficients Ellington et al (1991), Leo et al (1971), Sabli (1988), Henry's Law Constants Yaws et al
(1991), Hydrolysis Rate Constants Ellington et al (1991)
See Table 7-4
^Texts Devmny et al (1990), Domencio and Schwartz (1991), Fetter (1992), Matthess (1982), Mazor (1990),
Palmer (1992), Tinsley (1979), Papers Back and Baedecker (1989), Back and Freeze (1983), Mackay et al
(1985), Subsurface Transport Processes Gelhar et al (1985), Guarmaccia et al (1992-multiphase), Guven
et al (1992a, 1992b), Knox et al (1993), Luckner and Schestakow (1991), U S EPA (1992b)
Environmental Science and Engineering (1985), Yaron et al (1984), Inorganic Chemicals Bar-Yosef et al
(1989), Toxic Organic Chemicals Dragun (1988), Gerstl et al (1989), Goring and Hamaker (1972),
TNO/BMFT(1985, 1989)
See Table 8-6
Bowen (1966), Hem (1964), National Research Council Canada (1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1979a, 1979b, 1981,
1982), Purves (1978), Thibodeaux (1979), Thornton (1983), Shaw (1989), Soil Alloway (1991), Aubert and
Pmta (1978), Copenhaver and Wilkinson (1979a), Dotson (1991), Fuller (1977), Gibb and Cartwright (1987),
Jacob (1989-selenium), Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1984), Kotaby-Amacher and Gambrell (1988), Lsk
(1972), McBride (1989), Page (1974), Rai and Zachara (1988), Zachara et al (1992), Ground-Water Allen
et al (1990, 1993), Forstner and Wrttman (1979), Kramer and Duinker (1984), Moore and Ramamoorthy
(1984a), Rai and Zachara (1986), Singer (1973)
Lyman et al (1992), NAS (1972), Thibodeaux (1979), Soil Meikle (1972), Mornl et al (1982), Nelson et al
(1983), Overcash (1981), Sawhney and Brown (1989), Ground Water Borchardt et al (1977), Faust and
Hunter (1971), Gerstl et al (1989), Moore and Ramamoorthy (1984b), Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Britton (1984), Moore and Ramamoorthy (1984b), Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Halides
Chapman (1972), Gibson and Subramian (1984), Moore and Ramamoorthy (1984b), Remike (1984), Phalate
Esters Ribbons (1984), Pierce et al (1980), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Moore and Ramamoorthy
(1984b), Safe (1984), Pesticides Cheng (1990), Copenhaver and Wilkinson (1979b), Crosby (1973), Guenzi
(1974), Hamaker (1972), Hamker and Thompson (1972), Haque and Freek (1975), Kearney and Kaufman
(1972), Moore and Ramamoorthy (1984b), NAS (1972), Ou et al (1980), Rao and Davidson (1980),
Somasundarum and Coats (1991), Explosives Environmental Science and Engineering (1985)
Borchardt et al (1977), Gibson (1984), Kobayashi and Rittman (1982), Mitchell (1971), Rogers (1986), Scow
(1982), Zehnder (1988), Soil Huang and Schnrtzer (1986), Nelson et al (1983), Ramsey et al (1972),
Ground Water Bitton and Gerba (1984), Bouwer and McCarty (1984), Ghiorse and Wilson (1988), Maki et
al (1980), Tabak et al (1981), Wilson and McNabb (1983)
1.6 References*
Allen, EM Perdue, and D Brown (eds) 1990 Metal Speciation in
Groundwater Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Allen, H E , E M Perdue, and D Brown 1993 Metals in Groundwa-
ter Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 300 pp
Alloway, B 1991
York, 339 pp
Heavy Metals in Soils John Wiley & Sons, New
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) 1992 1992-1993 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices
ACGIH, Technical Information Office, 6500 Glenway Ave, Bldg
D-7, Cincinnati, OH 45211-4438
American Chemical Society (ACS) Annual Cherncyclopedia The
Manual of Commercially Available Chemicals ACS, Washington,
DC
Anderson, M P 1984 Movement of Contaminants in Groundwater
Groundwater Transport—Advection and Dispersion In Ground-
water Contamination, National Academy Press, Washington DC,
pp 37-45
Armour, MA 1991 Hazardous Laboratory Chemicals Disposal
Guide CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 464 pp
Aubert, H andM Pmta 1978 Trace Elements in Soils Elsevier, New
York, 396 pp [Includes chapters on Bo, Cr, Co, Cu, I, Pb, Mn, Mo,
Ni, Se, Ti, V, and Zn, and a chapter on 10 other minor elements
(Li, Rb, Cs, Ba, Sr, Bi, Ga, Ge, Ag, and Sn)]
Back, W andM J Baedecker 1989 Chemical Hydrogeology in Natu-
ral and Contaminated Environments J Hydrology 106 1-28
Back, W and RA Freeze 1983 Chemical Hydrogeology Bench-
mark Papers in Geology, No 73, Hutchmson Ross, Stroudsburg,
PA, 416 pp
Bar-Yosef, B, N J Barrow, and J Goldschmid (eds) 1989 Inorganic
Chemicals in the Vadose Zone Sprmger-Verlag, New York
13
-------
Bitton, Q and C P Gerba (eds) 1984 Groundwater Pollution Micro-
biology Wlley-lntersclence, New York [14 papers covering health
and environmental aspects]
Borchardt, JA., JK Cleland, WJ Redman, and G Olivier (eds)
1977 Viruses and Trace Contaminants in Water and Wastewater
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml [19 seminar papers focusing
and health and treatment aspects]
Bouwar, E J and PL McCarty 1984 Modeling of Trace Organios
Biotransformation fn the Subsurface Ground Water 22 433-440
Bowon, HJM 1966 Trace Elements In Biochemistry Academic
Press, London, 241 pp
Brltton, I_N 1984 Mteroblal Degradation of Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
In MteroWal Degradation of Organic Compounds, Gibson, DT,
ed Marcel Dakker, Inc, New York, pp 89-130
Budavarl, S (ed) 1989 The Merck Index An Encyclopedia of
Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologteals, 11th ed Merck and Co,
Rahway, NJ 07065 [Around 10.000 listings with extensive index
and cross index]
Callahan, M.A etal 1979 Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129
Priority Pollutants, 2 Volumes EPA440/4-79/029a-b (NTIS PB80-
204373 and PB80-204381)
Chapman, PJ 1972 An Outline of Reaction Sequences Used for the
Bacterial Degradation of Phenolic Compounds In Degradation of
Synthetic Organic Molecules In the Biosphere National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, D C, pp 17-53
Chang, H H (ed) 1990 Pesticides in the Soil Environment Proc-
esses, Impacts and Modeling Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI, 554 pp
Coperthaver, ED and B K. Wilkinson 1979a Movement of Hazard-
ous Substances In Soil A Bibliography, Vol 1 Selected Metals
EPA 600/9-79-024a (NTIS PB80-113103, 152 pp [Bibliography
With abstracts of articles from 1970 to 1974 on mobility of As,
asbestos, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, cyanide, Pb, Hg, Se, and Zn in soil]
Copanhaver, E D and B K. Wilkinson 1979b Movement of Hazard-
ous Substances In Soil A Bibliography, Vol 2 Pesticides EPA
600/9-79-024b (NTIS PB80-113111)
Crosby, DG 1973 The Fate of Pesticides in the Environment Ann
Rev Plant Physio! 24467-492
Dean, JA. (ed) 1992 Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 14th ed
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1472 pp [Data on chemical and physical
properties of elements, minerals, Inorganic compounds, organic
compounds, and miscellaneous tables of specific properties, 13th
edition published in 1985]
Dautsch, M 1961 Incidents of Chromium Contamination of Ground
Water fci Michigan In Proceedings of the 1961 Symposium,
Ground Water Contamination, U S Public Health Service Tech
Rept W61-5, pp 98-103
Deutsch, M 1963 Ground-Water Contamination and Legal Controls
In Michigan US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1691
DDUtsch, M 1965 Natural Controls Involved In Shallow Aquifer Con-
tamination. Ground Water 3(3) 37-40
Devhiny, J S, L R Everett, JCS Lu, and R L Stollar 1990 Sub-
surface Migration of Hazardous Wastes Van Nostrand Remhold,
New York
Domonfco, P and F Schwartz 1991 Physical and Chemical Hydro-
goology John Wiley & Sons, New York, 824 pp
Dotson, G K 1991 Migration of Hazardous Substances through
Soils Part II—Determination of the Leachability of Metals from
Five Industrial Wastes and their Movement within Soil, Part III—
Flue-Gas Desulfurization and Fly-Ash Wastes, Part IV—Develop-
ment of a Serial Batch Extraction Method and Application to the
Accelerated Testing of Seven Industrial Wastes
EPA/600/2091/017 (Part II, incorporating unpublished portions of
Part I interim report NTIS AD-A 158990, Part III AD-A 182108,
Part IV AD-A 191856) [Waste from electroplating, secondary zinc
refining, inorganic pigment, zinc-carbon battery, titanium dioxide
pigment, nickel-cadmium battery, hydrofluoric acid, water-based
paint, white phosphorus, chlorine production, oil re-refining, flue-
gas desulfurization, and coal fly ash]
Dragun, J 1988 The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials Haz-
ardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD,
458 pp
Ellington, J J, C T Jafvert, H P Kollig, E J Weber, and N L Wolfe
1991 Chemical-Specific Parameters for Toxicity Characteristic
Contaminants EPA/600/3-91/004 (NTIS PB91-148361) [Acid,
base, and neutral hydrolysis rate constants and partition coeffi-
cients for 44 "toxicrty characteristic" contaminants]
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc 1985 Evaluation of
Critical Parameters Affecting Contaminant Migration Through
Soils Report No AMXTH-TE-CR-85030 U S Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD [Fo-
cus on explosive and propellant (PEP) contaminants]
Faust, SD andJV Hunter (eds) 1971 Organic Compounds in
Aquatic Environments Marcel Dekker, New York [24 papers on
the origin, occurrence, and behavior of organic compounds in
aquatic environments]
Fisher, N (ed) 1991 Farm Chemicals Handbook'91 Meister Pub-
lishing Co, Willoughby, OH, 216/942-2000 [Pesticides and Fertil-
izers]
Fetter, CW 1992 Contaminant Hydrogeology Macmillan, New York,
457 pp
Fdrstner, U and GTW Wittmann 1979 Metal Pollution in the
Aquatic Environment Springer-Verlag, New York
Freeze, RA and JA Cherry 1979 Groundwater Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Fnnd, EO 1982 Simulation of Long-Term Transient Density-De-
pendent Transport in Groundwater Adv Water Resources
5(June) 73-88
Fuller, WH 1977 Movement of Selected Metals, Asbestos and Cya-
nide in Soils Applications to Waste Disposal Problems EPA
600/2-77-020 (NTIS PB 266905) [Review containing over 200
references on the movement of metals in soil]
Gelhar, LW, A Mantaglou, C Welty, and KR Rohfelt 1985 A
Review of Field Scale Physical Solute Transport Processes in
Saturated and Unsaturated Porous Media EPRI RP-2485-05
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Geraghty.JJ andDW Miller 1985 Fundamentals of Ground-Water
Contamination, Short Course Notes Geraghty and Miller, Inc,
Syosset, NY
Gerstl, Z, Y Chen, U Mmgelgrin, and B Yaron (eds) 1989 Toxic
Organic Chemicals in Porous Media Springer-Verlag, New York
Ghermi, SA, KV Summers, RK Munson, and WB Mills 1988
Chemical Data for Predicting the Fate of Organic Compounds in
Water, Vol 2 Database EPRI EA-5818 Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA [Data relevant to predicting the release,
transport, transformation, and fate of more than 50 organic com-
pounds]
14
-------
Ghenm, SA, KV Summers, RK Munson, and WB Mills 1989
Chemical Data for Predicting the Fate of Organic Compounds in
Water, Vol 1 Technical Basis EPR1 EA-5818 Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Ghiorse, WC and JT Wilson 1988 Microbial Ecology of the Ter-
restrial Subsurface Adv Appl Microbiol 33 107-J 72 EPA600/D-
88/196 (NTIS PB88-252374) [Literature review with more than
160 citations]
Gibb, J P and K Cartwright 1987 Retention of Zinc, Cadmium,
Copper and Lead by Geologic Materials EPA/600/2-86/108 (NTIS
PB88-232819)
Gibson, DT (ed) 1984 Microbial Degradation of Organic Com-
pounds Marcel Dekker, New York [16 papers on aerobic and
anaerobic degradation of major groups of contaminants]
Gibson, DT and V Subramanian 1984 Microbial Degradation of
Aromatic Hydrocarbons In Microbial Degradation of Organic Com-
pounds, Gibson, DT, ed Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp
181-252
Goring, CAI and JW Hamaker 1972 Organic Chemicals in the
Soil Environment, 2 Volumes Marcel Dekker, New York [13 chap-
ters]
Government Institutes, Inc Annual Book of Lists for Regulated Haz-
ardous Substances, 1993 ed Government Institutes, Inc, 4 Re-
search Place, Suite 200, Rockville, MD, 20850,301/921-2355,345
pp [Contains 70 regulatory lists of hazardous substances, updated
annually]
Guarmaccia, J F, et al 1992 Multiphase Chemical Transport in Po-
rous Media EPA-600/S-92-002, 19 pp
Guenzi, WD (ed) 1974 Pesticides in Soil and Water Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, Wl
Guven, O,JH Dane, WE Hill, and JG Melville 1992a Mixing and
Plume Penetration Depth at the Groundwater Table EPRI TR-
100576 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo, Alto, CA
Guven, O,JH Dane, M Oostrom, and J S Hayworth 1992b Physi-
cal Model Studies of Dense Solute Plumes in Porous Media EPRI
TR-101387 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo, Alto, CA
Hamaker, J W 1972 Decomposition Quantitative Aspects In Or-
ganic Chemicals in the Soil Environment, VI, Goring, C AI and
JW Hamaker, eds Marcel Dekker, Inc, NewYoik, pp 253-340
Hamaker, JW and J M Thompson 1972 Adsorption In Organic
Chemicals in the Soil Environment, VI, Goring, C AI and J W
Hamaker, eds Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 49-143
Haque, R andWH Freek(eds) 1975 Environmental Dynamics of
Pesticides Plenum Press, New York
Hem, JD 1964 Deposition and Solution of Manganese Oxides US
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1667-B, 42 pp
Howard, PH (ed) 1989 Handbook of Environmental Fate and Ex-
posure Data for Organic Chemicals Vol I, Large Production and
Priority Pollutants Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 600 pp
Howard, PH (ed) 1990a. Handbook of Environmental Fate and
Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals Vol II, Solvents Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 536 pp
Howard, PH (ed) 1990b Handbook of Environmental Fate and
Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals Vol III, Pesticides Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 712 pp
Howard, PH 1992 PC Environmental Fate Databases Datalog,
Chemfate, Biolog, and Biodeg Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
[Each database comes with a manual and diskettes Datalog
contains 180,00 records for 13,000 chemicals, Chemfate contains
actual physical property values and rate constants for 1700 chemi-
cals, Biolog contains 40,000 records on microbial toxicity and
biodegradation data on about 6,000 chemicals, Biodeg contains
data on biodegradation studies for about 700 chemicals]
Howard, PH (ed) 1993 Handbook of Environmental Fate and Ex-
posure Data for Organic Chemicals Vol IV, Solvents 2 Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 608 pp
Howard, PH and M W Neal 1992 Dictionary of Chemical Names
and Synonyms Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 2544 pp [Basic
information on more than 20,000 chemicals]
Howard, PH, WF Jarvis, WM Meylan, and EM Mikalenko 1991
Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml, 700+ pp [Provides rate constants and half-life ranges
for different media for more than 430 organic chemicals, processes
include aerobic and anaerobic degradation, direct photolysis, hy-
drolysis and reaction with various oxidants or free radicals]
Huang, PM and M Schnitzer (eds) 1986 Interactions of Soil Min-
erals with Natural Organics and Microbes SSSA Sp Pub No 17
Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wl, 606 pp [15 con-
tributed chapters]
Hughes, G M , R A Landon, and R N Farvolden 1971 Hydrogeol-
ogy of Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Northeastern Illinois EPA
SW-124
Hulmg, SG 1989 Facilitated Transport Superfund Ground Water
Issue Paper EPA/540/4-89/003 (NTIS PB91-133256)
Jacobs, L W (ed) 1989 Selenium in Agriculture and the Environ-
ment SSSA Sp Pub No 23 Soil Science Society of American,
Madison, Wl, 233 pp [11 contnbuted chapters]
James, D R and H Kidd 1992 Pesticide Index, 2nd ed Lewis
Publishers/Royal Society of Chemistry, Chelsea, Ml, 288 pp [List-
ing of about 800 active ingredients and 25,000 trades of pesticides
containing the ingredients]
Kabata-Pendias, A and H Pendias 1984 Trace Elements in Soils
and Plants CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 336 pp
Kaufman, MI and D J McKenzie 1975 Upward Migration of Deep-
Well Waste Injection Fluids in Flondan Aquifer, South Florida J
Res US Geol Survey 3261-271
Kearney, PC and D D Kaufman 1972 Microbial Degradation of
Some Chlorinated Pesticides In Degradation of Synthetic Organic
Molecules in the Biosphere National Academy of Sciences, Wash-
ington, DC, pp 166-188
Keith, LH (ed) 1992 IRIS EPA's Chemical Information Database
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml [Manual and annual subscription
product updated on a quarterly basis, information on acute hazard
information and physical and chemical properties on about 500
regulated and unregulated hazardous substances]
Kidd, H andDR James (eds) 1991 The Agrochemicals Handbook,
3rd ed Lewis Publishers/Royal Society of Chemistry, Chelsea, Ml,
1500 pp
Kobayashi, H and B E Rittmann 1982 Microbial Removal of Haz-
ardous Organic Compounds Environ Sci Technol 16170A-
183A [Literature review summarizing about 90 examples of
biodegradation of hazardous organic compounds, more than 150
citations]
Kotaby-Amacher, J and R P Gambrell 1988 Factors Affecting Trace
Metal Mobility in Subsurface Soils EPA/600/2-88-036 (NTIS
PB88-224829)
15
-------
Knox, R C, D A Sabatini, and L W Canter 1993 Subsurface Trans-
port and Fate Processes Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Ml, 430 pp
Kolllg, H P, K J Hamrick, and B E Kitchens 1991 FATE, The En-
vironmental Fate Constants Information System Database
EPA/600/3-91/045 (NTIS PB91-216192)
Kramer, CJM andJC Duinker(eds) 1984 Complexation of Trace
Metals In Natural Waters Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W Junk Publishers,
Boston [42 papers]
LeQrand, H E 1965 Patterns of Contaminated Zones of Water in
the Ground Water Resources Research 1(1) 83-95
Lehr, JH. 1988 An Irreverent View of Contaminant Dispersion
Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(4) 4-6
Leo, A,C Hanson, and D Elkins 1971 Partition Coefficients and
Their Uses Chemical Reviews 71(6) 525-616 [Rrst major litera-
ture review on partition coefficients and their uses, compilation of
coefficients from more than 500 references]
Lewis, RJ, Sr 1990 Carcinogenically Active Chemicals A Refer-
ence Guide Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1184 pp [Infor-
mation on more than 3,400 chemicals]
Lewis, R.J, Sr 1991 Reproductively Active Chemicals Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, New York, 1184 pp [Information on about 3,500
chemicals]
Lewis, Sr, RJ 1992a Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary,
12th ed Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1288 pp [More than
19,000 entries on chemicals, reactions and processes, state of
matter, compounds NI Sax and R J Lewis were authors of 11th
edition, published In 1987]
Lewis, Sr, R J 1992b Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Ma-
terials, 8th ed (3 Volumes) Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 4300 pp
[Contains some 20,000 chemical entries covenng physical and
carcinogenic properties, clinical aspects, exposure standards, and
regulations N I Sax and R J Lewis were authors of 7th edition,
published in 1989 Earlier editions 1963 (2nd), 1968 (3rd), 1975
(4th), 1976 (5th), 1984 (6th)]
Lewis, Sr, R J 1993 Hazardous Chemicals Desk Reference, 3rd ed
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1752 pp [Covers more than
6,000 of the most hazardous chemicals, each entry provides the
chemical's hazard rating, a toxic and hazard review paragraph,
CAS, NIOSH and DOT numbers, description of physical proper-
Cos, synonyms, and current standards for exposure limits Lewis
was author of 2nd edition, published in 1990, N I Sax and R J
Lewis were authors of 1st edition, published in 1987]
Uda, DR 1993 CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 74th ed
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl, 2472 pp [New edition published
annually]
Usk, DJ 1972 Trace Metals in Soils, Plants and Animals Advances
In Agronomy 24 267-325
Luokner, L and WM Schestakow 1991 Migration Processes in the
SoM and Groundwater Zone Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 485
PP
Lyman, WJ, WF Reehl, and D H Rosenblatt (eds) 1990 Hand-
book of Chemical Property Estimation Methods Environmental
Behavior of Organic Compounds, 2nd ed American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC, 960 pp [First edition published by
McGraw-Hill In 1982]
Lyman. WJ.PJ Reidy.andB Levy 1992 Mobility and Degradation
of Organic Contaminants in Subsurface Environments Lewis Pub-
lishers, Chelsea, Ml, 416 pp
Mabey, WR, et a! 1982 Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic
Priority Pollutants EPA 440/4-81-014 (NTIS PB87-169090)
McBnde, M A 1989 Reactions Controlling Heavy Metal Solubility in
Soils In Advances in Soil Science, B A Stewart (ed), Springer-
Verlag, New York, Vol 10
Mackay, DM, PV Roberts, and JA Cherry 1985 Transport of
Organic Contaminants in Groundwater Environ Set Technol
19(5)384-392
McDoweil-Boyer, L M, J R Hunt, and N Sitar 1986 Particle Trans-
port Through Porous Media Water Resources Research 22 1901-
1921
Maki, AW.KL Dickson,andJ Cairns, Jr (eds) 1980 Biotransfor-
mation and Fate of Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment Ameri-
can Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC [19 workshop
papers]
Matthess, G 1982 The Properties of Groundwater John Wiley &
Sons, New York
Mazor, E 1990 Applied Chemical and Isotopic Ground Water Hy-
drology John Wiley & Sons, New York, 256 pp
Meikie, R W 1972 Decomposition Qualitative Relationships In Or-
ganic Chemicals in the Soil Environment, VI, Goring, C AI and
J W Hamaker, eds Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 145-251
[Reviews qualitative relationships in the biodegradation of 21
groups of organic compounds]
Miller, DW (ed) 1980 Waste Disposal Effects on Ground Water
Premier Press, Berkeley, CA [Note this report is the same as
US EPA (1977)]
Miller, DW 1985 Chemical Contamination of Ground Water In
Ground Water Quality, CH Ward, W Giger, and PL McCarty,
(eds), Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 39-52
Mills, WB etal 1985 Water Quality Assessment A Screening Pro-
cedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants (Revised 1985), 2
Volumes EPA 600/6-85/002a-b (NTIS PB86-122504)
Mitchell, R (ed ) 1971 Water Pollution Microbiology, 2 Vols Wiley-
Interscience, New York [Volume 1 contains 17 contributed chap-
ters and Volume 2 has 16 chapters focussing primarily on surface
water microbiology]
Montgomery, J H 1991 Ground Water Chemical Desk Reference,
Vol 2 Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 944 pp [Data on 267 ad-
ditional compounds not included in Montgomery and Welkom
(1989)]
Montgomery, J H 1993 Agrochemicals Desk Reference Environ-
mental Data Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 672 pp [Physi-
cal/chemical data on 200 compounds including pesticide,
herbicides and fungicides, partition coefficients, transformation
products, etc ]
Montgomery, J H and L M Welkom 1989 Ground Water Chemicals
Desk Reference Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 640 pp [Data on
137 organic compounds commonly found in ground water and the
unsaturated zone, include appearance, odor, boiling point, disso-
ciation constant, Henry's law constant, log Koc, Log Kow, melting
point, solubility in water and organics, specific density, transforma-
tion products, vapor pressure, fire hazard data (lower and upper
explosive limits), and health hazards (IDLH, PEL) See also
Montgomery (1991)]
Moore, J W and S Ramamoorthy 1984a Heavy Metals in Natural
Waters Applied Monitoring and Impact Assessment Sprmger-Ver-
lag, New York [Covers As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, and Zn]
Moore, JW and S Ramamoorthy 1984b Organic Chemicals in
Natural Waters Applied Monitoring and Impact Assessment Sprm-
ger-Verlag, New York [Covers aliphatic hydrocarbons, mono- and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, petro-
leum hydrocarbons, phenols, PCBs, and PCDD]
16
-------
Morril, L G , B Mahalum, and S H Mohiuddin 1982 Organic Com-
pounds in Soils Sorption, Degradation and Persistence Ann Arbor
Science/The Butterworth Group, Woburn, MA, 326 pp
National Academy of Science (NAS) 1972 Degradation of Synthetic
Organic Molecules in the Biosphere National Academy of Science,
Washington, DC [16 papers focussing mostly on pesticides]
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 1990
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards DHHS (NIOSH) Pub-
lication No 90-117, 245 pp [Summarizes information from the
three-volume NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health Guidelines for
Chemical Hazards, data are presented in tables, and the source
includes chemical names and synonyms, permissible exposure
limits, chemical and physical properties, and other lexicological
information]
National Research Council Canada, 1976 Effects oi Chromium in
the Canadian Environment NRCC Report No 15018 Ottawa,
Ontario
National Research Council Canada, 1978a Effects of Arsenic in the
Canadian Environment NRCC Report No 15391 Ottawa, On-
tario
National Research Council Canada, 1978b Effects of Lead in the
Environment - 1978 Quantitative Aspects NRCC Report No
16736 Ottawa, Ontario
National Research Council Canada, 1979a Effects of Mercury in the
Canadian Environment NRCC Report No 16739 Ottawa, On-
tario
National Research Council Canada, 1979b Effects of Cadmium in
the Canadian Environment NRCC Report No 16743 Ottawa,
Ontario
National Research Council Canada, 1981 Effects of Nickel in the
Canadian Environment NRCC Report No 18568 (Reprint)
Ottawa, Ontario
National Research Council Canada 1982 Data Sheets on Selected
Toxic Elements NRCC Report No 19252 Ottawa, Ontario [In-
cludes Sb, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cs, Ga, Ge, In, Mo, Ag, Te, Tl, Sn
(inorganic and organic), U, Zr]
Nelson, DW, DE Elnck, and KK Tanji 1983 Chemical Mobility
and Reactivity in Soil Systems SSSA Sp Pub No 11 Soil Sci-
ence Society of America, Madison, Wl, 262 pp [17 contributed
chapters with sections on principles of chemical mobility and re-
activity, biological activity and chemical mobility, and environmental
impacts of toxic chemical transport]
Ney, Jr.RE 1990 Where Did That Chemical Go' A Practical Guide
to Chemical Fate and Transport in the Environment Van Nostrand
Remhold, New York, 200 pp [Information on more than 100 or-
ganic and inorganic chemicals]
Oberlander, PL 1989 Fluid Density and Gravitational Variations in
Deep Boreholes and their Effect on Fluid Potential Ground Water
27(3) 341-350
Occupational Safety Health Services 1990 PESTLINE Material
Safety Data Sheets for Pesticides and Related Chemicals, 2 Vote
Van Nostrand Remhold, New York, 2100 pp [Information on about
1,200 pesticides]
Orlob, G T and G N Radhaknshna 1958 The Effect's of Entrapped
Gases on the Hydraulic Characteristics of Porous Media Trans
Am Geophysical Union 39(4) 648-659
Ou LT, J M Davidson, and PS C Rao 1980 Rate Constants for
Transformation of Pesticides in Soil-Water System's A Review of
the Available Data Base
Overcash, M R (ed) 1981 Decomposition of Toxic and Nontoxic
Organic Compounds in Soil Ann Arbor Science/The Butterworth
Group, Wobum, MA, 375 pp [43 papers on decomposition of
chlorinated organics, agricultural chemical, phenols, aromatic and
polynuclear aromatics, urea resins, and surfactants in soil]
Page, AL. 1974 Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage
Sludge When Applied to Agricultural Lands A Literature Review
Study EPA/670/2-74-005 (NTIS PB231-171), 107 pp
Palmer, C M 1992 Principles of Contaminant Hydrogeology Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 211 pp
Palmer, CD andRL Johnson 1989 Physical Processes Controlling
the Transport of Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids in the Subsurface
In Transport and Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface, Chapter
3 EPA 625/4-89/019 (NTIS PB90-184748)
Patnalk, P 1992 A Comprehensive Guide to the Hazardous Proper-
ties of Chemical Substances Van Nostrand Remhold, New York,
800 pp [Information on the 1,000 most commonly encountered
hazardous chemicals]
Perry, H P and C H Chiltm (eds) 1973 Chemical Engineers Hand-
book McGraw-Hill, New York
Pierce, R C , S P Mathur, D T Williams, and M J Boddmgton 1980
Phthalate Esters in the Aquatic Environment NRCC Report No
17583 National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa
Purves, D 1978 Trace-Element Contamination of the Environment
Elsevier, New York
Rai, D and J M Zachara 1984 Chemical Attenuation Rates, Coef-
ficients and Constants in Leachate Migration Vol 1 A Cntical
Review EPRI EA-3356 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA [Data on 21 elements related to leachate migration Al,
Sb, As, Ba, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Na,
S, V, and Zn, see Rai et al (1984) for annotated bibliography]
Rai, D andJM Zachara 1986 Geochemical Behavior of Chromium
Species EPRI EA-4544 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA
Rai, D and JM Zachara 1988 Chromium Reactions in Geologic
Materials EPRI EA-5741 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA [Contains laboratory data and equilibrium constants for
key reactions needed to predict the geochemical behavior of chro-
mium in soil and ground water]
Rai, D, J M Zachara, R A Schmidt, and A P Schwab 1984 Chemi-
cal Attenuation Rates, Coefficients, and Constants in Leachate
Migration, Volume 2 An Annotated Bibliography EPRI EA-3356
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA [See Rai and
Zachara (1984) for elements covered]
Ramsey, R H , C R Wethenll, and H C Duffer 1972 Soil Systems
for Municipal Effluents-A Workshop and Selected References
EPA-16080-6WF-02172 (NTIS PB217-853), 60 pp
Rao, PS C andJM Davidson 1980 Estimation of Pesticide Reten-
tion and Transformation Parameters Required in Nonpomt Source
Pollution Models In Environmental Impact of Nonpomt Source
Pollution, Overcash, M R and J M Davidson, eds Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml, pp 23-67
Remke, W 1984 Microbial Degradation of Halogenated Aromatic
Compounds In Microbial Degradation of Organic Compounds,
Gibson, D T, ed Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 319-360
Ribbons, D W, P Keyser, R W Eaton, B N Anderson, D A Kunz,
and B F Taylor 1984 Microbial Degradation of Phthalates In
Microbial Degradation of Organic Compounds, Gibson, DT, ed
Marcel Dekker, Inc , New York, pp 371-398
17
-------
Rogers, JE 1986 Anaerobic Transformation Processes A Review
of the Microbiological Literature EPA/600/3-86/042, NTIS PB86-
230042 [Review of the microbiological literature on anaerobic
transformation processes with more than 200 references]
Rovers, RA,H Moofl, andGJ Farquhar 1976 Contaminant Attenu-
ation - Dispersed Soil Studies In Residual Management by Land
Disposal, WH Fuller (ed), EPA 60079-76/015 (NTIS PB256 768),
pp 224-234
Soblic, A. 1988 On the Prediction of Soil Sorption Coefficients of
Organic Pollutants by Molecular Topology Environ Sci Technol
21(4) 358-366 [Sorption coefficient data for 72 nonpolar and 159
polar and Ionic organic compounds]
Safe.SH 1984 Mteroblal Degradation of Polychlorlnated Biphenyls
In Mterobial Degradation of Organic Compounds, Gibson, DT,
ed Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 261-370
Sawhnay, B L and K. Brown (eds) 1989 Reactions and Movement
of Organic Chemicals In Soils SSSA Special Publ No 22 Ameri-
can Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl [18 contributed chapters]
Schwartz, FW 1977 Macroscopic Dispersion in Porous Media The
Controlling Factors Water Resources Research 13(4)743-752
Sohwarzenbach, R, W GIger, E Hoehn, and J Schneider 1983
Behavior of Organic Compounds During Infiltration of River Water
to Ground Water—Reid Studies Environ Sci Technol 17(8)472-
479.
Scow, K.M 1982 Rate of Biodegradation In Handbook of Chemical
Property Estimation Methods Environmental Behavior of Organic
Compounds, W J Lyman, W F Reehl, and D H Rosenblatt (eds),
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 9-1 to 9-85 [Literature review with
more than 170 citations]
Scwhffle, F 1988 Dense Chlorinated Solvents in Porous and Frac-
tured Media Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Shafer, D (ed) 1993 The Book of Chemical Lists Business & Legal
Reports, Inc, Madison, CT, 800/727-5257 [Two loose-leaf vol-
umes Section I (Master Chemical Cross-Reference), Section II
(Environmental Planning and Reporting), Section III (Health and
Safety Guidelines), Section IV (State chemical lists), updated an-
nually, supplements available for earlier edibons]
Shaw, A J (ed) 1989 Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants Evolutionary
Aspects CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 355 pp
Shirteldockor, C L 1992 Handbook of Environmental Contaminants
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 371 pp [Key to contaminants that
are likely to be associated with specific types of facilities, proc-
esses, and products]
Singer, PC 1973 Trace Metals and Metal Organic Interactions in
Natural Waters Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml [13 contributed
chapters]
Skibitzka, H E and G M Robinson 1963 Dispersion in Ground
Water Rowing Through Heterogeneous Matenals U S Geological
Survey Professional Paper 386-B
SnlogocW, RT 1963 Problems in Artificial Recharge through Wells
En the Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas U S Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1615-F
Somasundarum, L and J R Coats (eds) 1991 Pesticide Transfor-
mation Products Fate and Significance in the Environment ACS
Symp Series No 459, American Chemical Society, Washington
DC, 320 pp
Staples, CA and S J Geiselmann 1988 Cosolvent Influences on
Organic Solute Retardation Factors Ground Water 26(2) 192-198
Steinberg, S M , J J Pignatello, and B L Sawhney 1987 Persistence
of 1,2-Dibromomethane in Soils Entrapment in Intraparticle Micro-
pores Environ Sci Technol 21 1201-1213
Tabak, H H etal 1981 Biodegradability Studies with Organic Priority
Pollutant Compounds J Water Pollution Control Federation
53(10) 1503-1518 [Results of biodegradability studies for 114 or-
ganic priority pollutants]
Thibodeaux, LJ 1979 Chemodynamics Environmental Movement
of Chemicals in Air, Water and Soil John Wiley & Sons, New York,
501 pp
Thornton, I (ed) 1983 Applied Environmental Geochemistry Aca-
demic Press, New York [16 contributed chapters with emphasis
on heavy metals]
Tinsley, I J 1979 Chemical Concepts in Pollutant Behavior John
Wiley & Sons, New York
TNO/BMFT 1985 First International Conference on Contaminated
Soil Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hmgham, MA
TNO/BMFT 1989 Second International Conference on Contami-
nated Soil Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hmgham, MA
Tyler, SW etal 1987 Processes Affecting Subsurface Transport of
Leaking Underground Tank Fluids EPA/600/6-87/005 (NTIS PB87-
201521)
US Coast Guard 1985 CHRIS Chemical Hazard Response Infor-
mation System Vol 1, Condense Guide to Chemical Hazards
(CG-446-1), Vol 2, Hazardous Substance Data Manual (CG-446-
2—3 binders, GPO Stock No 050-012-00147-2), Vol 3, Hazard
Assessment Handbook (CG-446-3), Vol 4, Response Methods
Handbook (CG-446-4)
U S Department of Transportation (DOT) 1990 Emergency Re-
sponse Guidebook DOT P5600 5, U S DOT, Office of Hazardous
Materials Transportation, Washington, DC [Information on poten-
tial hazards of DOT regulated hazardous chemicals, updated every
three years]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1977 The Report to
Congress, Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground
Water EPA/570/9-77/001 (NTIS PB265-081) [Note this report is
the same as Miller (1980) ]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985 Chemical, Physi-
cal and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous
Waste Sites EPA/530/SW-89-010 (NTIS PB88-224829)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989 Transport and
Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface Seminar Publication 148
pp EPA/625/4-89/019 (NTIS PB90-184748)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990 Assessing the
Geochemical Fate of Deep-Well-lnjected Hazardous Waste A Ref-
erence Guide EPA 625/6-89-025a (NTIS PB91-145706) Avail-
able from CERI* [Appendix B provides an index of more than 90
references that provide data on sorption and/or biodegradation of
more than 150 organic compounds]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 Site Charac-
terization for Subsurface Remediation Seminar Publication
EPA/625/4-91/026, 259 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992a Handbook of
RCRA Ground-Water Monitonng Constituents Chemical and
Physical Properties (Appendix IX to 40 CFR part 264) EPA/530-
R-92-022, 267 pp Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992b Dense
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids—A Workshop Summary EPA/600/R-
92/030 (NTIS PB92-178938)
18
-------
Verschueren, K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals, 2nd ed Van Nostrand Remhold, NY, 1310 pp [Data
on more than 1,300 organic chemicals]
Walker, MM and LW Keith 1992 EPA's Pesticide Fact Sheet Da-
tabase Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml [Manual and two 35-
mch/four 5 25-inch diskettes containing comprehensive source of
information on several hundred pesticides and foimulations]
Wheatcraft, S W 1989 An Alternate View of Contaminant Dispersion
Ground Water Monitoring Review 9(3) 11-12
Wilson, JT and JF McNabb 1983 Biological Transformation of
Organic Pollutants in Groundwater Eos (Trans Am Geophysical
Union) 20 997-1002
Woodbum, KB, PSC Rao, M Fukui, and P Nkedi-Kizza 1986
Solvophobic Approach for Predicting Sorption of Hydrophobia Or-
ganic Chemicals on Synthetic Sorbents and Soils J Contaminant
Hydrology 1 227-241
Yaron, B.G Dagan, and J Goldschmid (eds) 1984 Pollutants in
Porous Media The Unsaturated Zone Between Soil Surface and
Groundwater Spnnger-Vertag, New York
Yaws, C, H-C Yang, and X Pan 1991 Henry's Law Constants for
363 Organic Compounds in Water Chemical Engineering
98(11) 179-185
Zachara, J M et al 1992 Aqueous Complexation, Precipitation, and
Adsorption Reactions of Cadmium in the Geologic Environment
EPATR-100751 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Zehnder, AJB (ed) 1988 Biology of Anaerobic Microorganisms
Wiley-lnterscience, New York [14 papers on the biology of an-
aerobic microorganisms, including biodegradaton of contami-
nants]
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
19
-------
-------
Chapter 2
Potentiometric Maps
A water table or potentiometric map is one of the most
basic and useful tools available for delineation of well-
head protection areas (WHPAs) This chapter covers
basic concepts required for compilation and interpreta-
tion of ground water maps, and provides examples of
common errors that result when these concepts or the
characteristics of the site are not understood Chapter 5
discusses the actual process of hydrogeologic mapping
for wellhead protection
2.1 Fundamental Hydrogeologic
Concepts
2.1.1 Hydraulic Head and Gradients
The water level in a well, usually expressed as feet
above sea level, is the total head (ht), which consists of
elevation head (z) and pressure head (hp)
ht = z + hp
(2-D
In an unconfmed aquifer, pressure head (hp) equals
zero at the water table surface because it marks the
transition from negative pressure head in the vadose
zone to a pressure head that may be either negative or
positive in the saturated zone Serious msiccuracies in
defining ground water flow paths may result from meas-
uring water levels in monitoring wells without consider-
ing the pressure potential component
In a ground water recharge zone, the pressure head
decreases with increasing depth (i e, hp in equation 2-1
is negative), in a discharge zone, the pressure head
increases with depth This is illustrated in Figure 2-1 In
the figure, the water level in well b is lower than the water
table surface This is because the well is cased to a
depth where it is actually measuring the pressure poten-
tial of the water table at well c Conversely, wells d and
e in the discharge area are measuring the pressure
potential of the water table upslope from the actual
discharge area Wells d and e will flow like artesian wells
even though there is no confining layer
Typically, wells are not installed at different depths in the
same location to allow determination of whether the aiea
is in a recharge or discharge zone Topography is a
simple indicator, with discharge in topographically low
areas and recharge in topographically high areas Plot-
ting of depth-to-water table versus well depth for a num-
ber of wells in an area can also serve as an indicator of
whether ground water is recharging or discharging Fig-
ure 2-2 defines the areas of such a plot where the scatter
of points would be expected to fall in recharge areas and
discharge areas
The hydraulic gradient (I or i) is measured as the change
in water level per unit of distance along the direction of
maximum head decrease It is determined by measuring
the water level in several wells that measure the true
unconfined water table or the same confined aquifer
The hydraulic gradient is the driving force that causes
ground water to move in the direction of decreasing total
head, and is generally expressed in consistent units
such as feet per foot For example, if the difference in
water level in two wells 1,000 feet apart is 8 feet, the
gradient is 8/1,000 or 0 008 The direction of ground
water movement and the hydraulic gradient can be de-
termined with information from three wells (Section
221)
2.1.2 Unconfined and Confined Aquifers
Aquifers are broadly classified as unconfined, where the
top of the saturated zone is at atmospheric pressure,
and confined, where a slowly permeable geologic layer
prevents upward flow when the hydraulic head is above
the level of the confining layer, causing pressure head
at the top of the aquifer to exceed atmospheric pressure
Confining layers are also called aquitards Confined
aquifers are classified as either semiconfmed (leaky) or
highly confined, depending on how permeable the con-
fining layer is Aquifer classification is especially impor-
tant in selecting methods for interpreting pump test data
and serves as an indicator of the vulnerability to ground
water contamination
In humid and semiand regions, in particular, the water
table in an unconfined aquifer generally conforms to the
surface topography, although it usually has greater
depth under hills than under valleys (Figure 2-1) The
hydraulic gradient (Section 211) slopes away from di-
vides and topographically high areas toward adjacent
21
-------
RECHARGE AREA
a
' b
SCREENED
INTERVAL
DISCHARGE AREA
d e
X-EQUIPOTENTIAL
LINES
Flgur* 2-1. Cross-sectional diagram showing the water level as measured by piezometers located at various depths The water
level In piezometer c Is the same as well b since it lies along the same equipotential line (from Mills et al, 1985).
low areas, such as streams and rivers The high areas
serve as ground water recharge areas, while the low
areas are ground water discharge zones In general, the
water table lies at depths ranging from 0 to about 20 feet
In humid and semiand regions, but often lies hundreds
to thousands of feet deep in some desert environments
Generally, surface streams and waterbodies such as
swamps, ponds, lakes, and flooded excavations (aban-
doned gravel pits, highway borrow pits, etc) can be
considered surface expressions of the water table
Unconfined water tables may be either perched or re-
gional Perched water tables rest on impermeable
strata, below which unsaturated flow occurs (see Figure
2-3, upper right comer) In regional aquifers, all water
moves by saturated flow until it reaches a point of sur-
face discharge (Figure 2-3, Aquifer C) Aquifers A and B
in Rgure 2-3 exhibit characteristics of both perched and
regional water tables Most of their water is part of the
regional water, although it may travel part-way by un-
saturated flow before reaching Aquifer C Some water,
however, reaches the surface as springs, a common
situation with perched aquifers
2.7.3 Heterogeneity and Anisotropy
Aquifers in which the hydraulic conductivity or other
properties are nearly uniform are called homogeneous,
those in which properties are variable are heterogene-
ous or nonhomogeneous If hydraulic conductivity at a
given point in an aquifer differs in the vertical or horizon-
tal directions, it is amsotropic If hydraulic conductivity is
uniform in all directions, which is rare, the aquifer is
isotropic Figure 2-4a illustrates four possible combina-
tions of these characteristics The distinctions between
these terms may not seem obvious at first, but a careful
examination of this figure should provide a clearer un-
derstanding
22
-------
-100 r
CU
>
-------
Homogeneous, Isotropic
z
h
1 t
KZ (X2, Z2)
UK
(X1,Z1)X
k-V
Homogeneous, Anisotropic
Heterogeneous, Isotropic
t
Heterogeneous, Anisotropic
(a)
K,
Figure 2-4 Heterogeneity and anlsotropy (a) four possible combinations (from Freeze and Cherry, 1979), (b) three types of aquifer
heterogenelty-(A) varying thickness, (B) layers with differing hydraulic conductivity, and (C) lateral changes in hydraulic
conductivity (from Fetter, 1980)
24
-------
PRIMARY OPENINGS
WELL-SORTED SAND
POORLY-SORTED SAND
SECONDARY OPENINGS
FRACTURES IN
GRANITE
CAVERNS IN
LIMESTONE
Figure 2-5 Examples of primary and secondary porosity (from
Heath, 1983)
Flow in fractures is most significant in crystalline rocks
(granites, various metamorphic rocks) because primary
porosity of these rocks is very low Many consolidated
sedimentary aquifers are fractured to varying degrees
Aquifers where fracture flow is significant tend to be
anisotropic Ground water flow directions in these aqui-
fers may depart significantly from the directions indi-
cated by potentiometric surface maps Analysis of pump
test data in fractured rocks requires special care be-
cause most analytical solutions assume porous-media
flow Fractures are typically narrow enough to prevent
turbulent flow, however, making adaptation of giound
water flow equations possible Fracture flow is a major
contributor to macro-scale hydrodynarnic dispersion,
causing contaminants to move much more quickly in an
aquifer than would be predicted by flow calculations
based on primary porosity
Flow in cavernous limestones and dolomites is called
conduit flow The subsurface channels can be large and
continuous enough that the system is more like a series
of interconnected pipes than a porous material As with
crystalline rocks, primary porosity of limestones tends to
be very low, so that most ground water flow is concen-
trated in fractures and solution channels Aquifers where
conduit flow dominates are called karst eiquifers Unlike
fracture-rock aquifers, however, ground water flow in
karst aquifers is often rapid enough that Darcy's Law
(Section 3 1 3) is not valid The irregular shape of solu-
tion channels in these aquifers makes the use of con-
ventional methods for analyzing pump test data and
modeling ground water flow essentially useless Figure
2-6 illustrates the wide fluctuation in ground water levels
that can occur in a karst aquifer Table B-2 in Appendix
B identifies major references where more informa-
tion can be obtained about karst geomorphology and
hydrology
2.1.5 Ground Water Fluctuations
Ground water levels fluctuate throughout the year in
response to natural changes in recharge and discharge
(or storage), changes in pressure, and artificial stresses
Fluctuations brought about by changes in pressure are
limited to confined aquifers Most of these changes are
short-term and are caused by loading, such as by a
passing tram compressing the aquifer, or by an increase
in discharge from an overlying stream Others are re-
lated to changes in barometric pressure, tides, and
earthquakes Languth and Treskatis (1989) describe an
unusual situation where a pumping test in a semicon-
fmed aquifer system temporarily increased water levels
in observation wells tapping the overlying confining bed
instead of resulting in the usual immediate lowering
None of these fluctuations reflect a change in the vol-
ume of water in storage Table 2-1 summarizes 13
mechanisms that lead to fluctuations in ground water
levels
Water level fluctuations in confined aquifers can be
characterized by the barometric efficiency, the ratio of
change in head to change in atmospheric pressure This
ratio usually falls in the range of 0 20 to 0 75 (Freeze
and Cherry, 1979) The possibility of using barometric
efficiency to estimate the storage properties of confined
aquifers was first suggested by Jacob (1940) Use of
barometric efficiency to estimate a range of aquifer prop-
erties, including storage coefficient, transmissivity, and
bulk elastic properties, has been reported in a number
of relatively recent papers (see Table 2-2)
Fluctuations that involve changes in storage are gener-
ally more long lived Most ground water recharge takes
place during the spring and causes the water level to
rise Following this period of a month or two, the water
level declines in response to natural discharge, largely
to streams Although the major period of recharge oc-
curs in the spring, minor events can happen any time it
rams A number of human activities cause long-term
fluctuations in ground water levels Ground water pum-
page reduces ground water levels, activities such as
agricultural irrigation, artificial recharge, leakages from
ponds, lagoons and landfills tend to cause localized
increases in ground water levels Deep well injection
into confined aquifers causes elevation in the poten-
tiometric surface
25
-------
Ground Water
Sink
Unsuccessful
well
Soil and clay
Summer, crevices filled
to this level
Local artesian
pressure raises
water above
surface
\2
Winter, crevices filled
to this level
Figure 2-6. Diagram of karat aquifer showing seasonal artesian conditions (from Walker, 1956)
Evapotranspiration effects on a surficial or shallow aqui-
fer are both seasonal and daily Plants, serving as min-
ute pumps, remove water from the capillary fringe or
even from beneath the water table during hours of day-
light In the growing season This results in a diurnal
fluctuation in the water table and stream flow
Table 2-3 summarizes typical natural conditions affect-
ing ground water fluctuations in response to (1) freezing,
(2) moisture regime, (3) surface drainage and degree of
slope, and (4) thickness of the zone of aeration All these
factors need to be considered in compiling data on water
levels in wells when prepanng potentiometnc surface
maps Table 2-2 provides an index to references that
provide more detailed information on mechanisms that
cause water level fluctuations
2.1.6 Ground Water Divides and Other
Aquifer Boundaries
In surface hydrology, a drainage divide forms the bound-
ary between two watersheds Ground water drainage
basins are similar to surface watersheds, except that
they are defined by contour of equal hydraulic head
(equipotential lines) rather than topographic contours In
unconfmed, homogenous, isotropic aquifers, these con-
tours generally follow the surface topography, albeit with
a more subdued gradient (see Figure 2-1) However,
topography is only one of many factors that influence the
location of ground water divides and the flow of water
within a basin Defining a well's zone of contribution
(Section 4 1 4) is a major focus of the wellhead protec-
tion process Consequently, an understanding of the
boundary conditions in an aquifer is essential, both in
26
-------
Table 2-1 Summary of Mechanisms That Lead to Fluctuations in Ground Water Levels
Unconfmed Confined
Ground water recharge
Air entrapment during
recharge
Evapotranspiration
Stream bank storage effects
Tidal effects near ocean
Atmospheric pressure effects
Confined aquifer external
loading
Earthquakes
Ground water pumpage
Deep-well Injection
Artificial recharge/leakage
Agriculture irrigation/drainage
Geotechnical drainage
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
Man-
Natural Induced
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Short- Long-
lived Diurnal Seasonal term
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Climatic
Influence
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source Adapted from Freeze and Cherry (1979)
Table 2-2 Index to References on Water Level Data Interpretation and Flow Net Analysis
Topic References
Potentiometnc Maps
Water Level Fluctuations
Data Interpretation
Confined Aquifer Barometric
Efficiency
Flow Net Analysis
General
Case Studies
Andreason and Brookhart (1963—reverse fluctuations), Freeze and Cherry (1979), Kohout
(1960—effects of salt water), Languid and Treskatis (1989), Moench (1971), Rockaway (1970), Sayko
et al (1990), Walton (1963), Weiss-Jennemann (1991—offsite effects), Wmograd (1970), Barometric
Effects Peck (1960), Todd (1980), Turk (1975), Weeks (1979)
Blanchard and Bradbury (1987), Chapus (1988), Crouch (1986), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Fetter
(1981), Hennmg (1990), Hoeksma et al (1989), Rockaway (1970), Saines (1981), Stallman (1956),
Struckmeier et al (1986)
Determination Clark (1967), Davis and Rasmussen (1993), Aquifer Transmisstvity/Storage Coefficient
Evans et al (1991), Furbish (1991), Jacob (1940), Ritzi et al (1991), Rojstaczer (1988), Aquifer Bulk
Elastic Properties Domenico (1983), Evans et al (1991), Rojstaczer and Agnew (1989)
Nelson (1960, 1961), Scott (1992)
Hollet (1985), Hunt and Wilson (1974), Rice and Gorelick (1985)
hydrogeologic mapping (Chapter 5) and the use of mod-
els (Chapter 6) for delineating WHPAs
As noted above, a ground water divide is one of the most
important boundaries for delineating a well's zone of
contribution Figure 2-3 illustrates several ground water
divides Infiltrating water entering the aquifer flows to a
discharge point determined by where the water enters
the aquifer (which side of the divide) Note that the
topographic divide for Aquifer A does not quite coincide
with the ground water divide due to the dip of the sedi-
ments
Figure 2-7 illustrates more than 40 boundary conditions
that may define the edges of a ground water drainage
area These boundary conditions are classified as (1)
barrier boundaries, created by geologic or other materi-
als of contrasting (lower) permeability compared to the
aquifer, (2) permeable recharge boundaries, and (3)
permeable discharge boundaries Figure 2-7 further
classifies boundary conditions according to whether
they represent head conditions or flow conditions It also
shows the number of dimensions required to represent
the condition (1) points (one-dimensional), (2) lines
(two-dimensional), and (3) areas (three-dimensional)
These distinctions become important when analytical
and numerical ground water models are selected and
used (Chapter 6)
27
-------
Table 2-3 Factors and Natural Conditions Affecting Natural Ground Water Fluctuations
Factor/Zone Ground Water Conditions and General Characteristics of Water Level Fluctuations
So// Freezing
1 Permafrost areas
2. Uniform freezing in the soil zone at
the land surface
3 Sporadic freezing of the zone of
aeration
4 Complete absence of soil freezing
SoS Moisture Regime
1. Region of high moisture
2 Region of moderate moisture
3. Region of small moisture
Surface Drainage and Degree of Slope
1 WeN developed drainage (generally
mountainous topography)
2 Moderately developed drainage
(generally uplands)
3 Poorly developed drainage
(generally plains and valley
bottoms)
Thickness of Zone of Aeration (d)
1. dls less than 05m
2. d is between 0 5 and 4 m thick.
3 d Is greater than 4 m
Two summer water level rises
Marked water level rise in the spring, followed by water level recession until autumn A
second smaller water level rise in autumn, followed by gradual decline until spring
Water level rises mainly in the winter
Water level rises during rainy season
The amount of precipitation is higher than evapotranspiration Water levels affected rapidly by
small rains and small temperature variations Small amplitude of water fluctuations
As water table is at greater depth than in zone 1, amplitudes of water level fluctuations are
more distinct and greater than in zones 1 and 3
Evapotranspiration is a dominant factor in water level fluctuations
High runoff and low infiltration to ground water Water level fluctuation amplitude may be high
Moderate runoff and infiltration to ground water Water level fluctuation amplitudes are lower
than in zone 1 but higher than in zone 3
Low runoff and high infiltration to groundwater Water table at shallow depth High
evapotranspiration
Water level fluctuations of small amplitude Evapotranspiration from the water table prevails
over spring discharge
Water level fluctuations of larger amplitude than in zone 1 Spring discharge prevails over
evapotranspiration
Water level fluctuations of small amplitude and evapotranspiration might be of limited
importance
Source Adapted from Brown et al (1983)
2.1.7 Gaining and Losing Streams
From a hydrogeologic point of view, there are three
major stream types—ephemeral, intermittent, and per-
ennial. Stream type is determined by the relation be-
tween the water table and the stream channel
Consequently, observation of the character of water flow
in a stream provides useful information about ground
water in the area
An ephemeral stream owes its entire flow to surface
runoff. It may have no well-defined channel and the
water table consistently remains below the bottom of the
channel (Rgure 2-8, A-A') Water leaks through the
channel into the ground, recharging the underlying
strata
Intermittent streams flow only part of the year, generally
from spring to midsummer, as well as during wet peri-
ods Dunng dry weather, these streams flow only be-
cause ground water discharges into them when the
water table nses above the base of the channel (Figure
2-8, B-B1). Eventually, sufficient ground water dis-
charges throughout the basin to lower the water table
below the channel, which then becomes dry This re-
flects a decrease in the quantity of ground water in
storage During late summer or fall, a wet period may
temporarily raise the water table enough for ground
water to discharge into the stream Thus, during part of
the year the floodplain materials are full to overflowing,
causing the discharge to increase in a downstream
direction At other times, water will leak into the ground,
reducing the discharge
Perennial streams flow year-round Typically, the water
table is always above the stream bottom Hence, ground
water is discharged to the surface and streamflow in-
creases downstream (Figure 2-8, C-C') A stream in
which the discharge increases downstream is called a
gaming stream A stream in which the discharge de-
creases downstream due to leakage is called a losing
stream In a losing stream, the water table is below the
bottom of the stream, but the amount discharged from
the stream to the subsurface is not enough to eliminate
surface flow during dry periods During wet periods,
28
-------
a
1
o
•<
£•
1
o
§p
a"
1
J
}
I?
i!
s
If
il
e|
^ O
i!
,
OCfl
saiavaNnoa noavnoaa
SBIMVdNnOB BSbVHOSIQ
29
-------
Losing Stream
(A A')
Gaming Stream in Spring
Losing Stream in Fall
(B-B'I
Gaming Stream
(C-C'J
A
r Z.
Perennial
C
Land Surface
Water Table
in Spring (S)
in Fall (F)
Figure 2-8 Relationship between water table and stream type (from U S EPA, 1990)
surface flow in perennial streams comes from a mixture
of surface runoff and ground water inflow During dry
periods, the flow of perennial streams comes primarily
from ground water discharge and is called the base flow
2.2 Preparing and Using Potentiometric
Maps
2.2.1 Plotting Equipotential Contours
The hydraulic gradient can be graphically shown by
plotting either unconfined water table levels or pressure
potentials (if the pressure head of a confined aquifer is
high enough to raise the total head above the ground
surface) on a map A water table map usually refers to
the hydraulic gradient of an unconfined aquifer, and a
plezometrfc (pressure) surface map usually refers to the
pressure potentials of confined aquifers Either type of
map is called a potentiometnc map In practice, the
terms "water table," "potentiometric," and "piezometric"
are often used interchangeably Struckmeier et al
(1986) provide a good review of other types of hydro-
geological maps and graphical representation of ground
water systems.
The contours on a potentiometric map are called equipo-
tentlal lines, indicating that the water has the "potential"
to rise to that elevation In the case of a confined aqui-
fer, however, it cannot reach that elevation unless the
confining unit is perforated by a well Potentiometric
surface maps are essential to any ground water inves-
tigation, because they indicate the direction in which
ground water is moving, and provide an estimate of the
gradient, which controls ground water velocity As dis-
cussed in Section 232, interpretations of flow directions
in aquifers must take into account anisotropy and
heterogeneity
Potentiometric maps provide some information on aqui-
fer homogeneity, provided that well data points are close
enough to allow reasonably accurate contouring A map
of a uniform, homogeneous aquifer will have equally
spaced equipotential lines and no dramatic changes in
hydraulic gradient, because ground water is moving at
about the same speed at all points in the aquifer Irregu-
larly spaced contours and differing hydraulic gradients
in different areas of the aquifer indicate lateral changes
in aquifer properties
Preparing a potentiometric map involves plotting water
level measurements on a base map and then drawing
contours In isotropic, porous-media aquifers, the direc-
tion of ground water flow is perpendicular to the ground
water contour lines The next section on flow nets de-
scribes in more detail how contour maps can be used to
infer the direction of ground water flow A minimum of
three points is required to determine the general direc-
tion of ground water flow Figure 2-9 shows a manual
graphical depiction of ground water contours, drawn
based on water elevations in three wells The difference
in elevation between each well was calculated and di-
vided into the distance between the wells This distance
was scaled on each line as tick marks that represent a
change in elevation of one-tenth of a foot The lines
connecting the points of equal elevation (27 0 and 27 5
feet in Figure 2-9) are potentiometric contours Ground
30
-------
Direction of Ground-
Water Movement
276
Water Table Altitude
275 w /- — ->yr
Segments of
Water Table Contours
27.2
270 X-l L.>^-
268
Figure 2-9 The generalized direction of ground water move-
ment can be determined by means of Ihe water level
in three wells of similar depth (from Heath and
Trainer, 1981)
water flow direction is on the path line perpendicular to
the contours
Figure 2-10 illustrates a slightly different approach to
determining the direction of ground water flow from three
well points Steps in this solution involve
1 Identifying the well that has the intermediate water
level
2 Calculating the position between the well having the
highest head and the well having the lowest head at
which the head is the same as that in the intermedi-
ate well
3 Drawing a straight line between the intermediate well
and the point identified in step 2 This line represents
a segment of the water level contour along which the
total head is the same as that in the intermediate
well
4 Drawing a line perpendicular to the water level con-
tour and through the well with the lowest (or highest)
head This indicates the direction of ground water
movement in an isotropic aquifer
5 Dividing the difference between the head of the well
and that of the contour by the distance between
the well and the contour This gives the hydraulic
gradient
A large number of well measurements is needed to
develop an accurate potentiometric surface map Geo-
statistical methods allow the estimation of water table
elevations in unsampled locations where the water table
is approximately parallel to the ground surface (Hoek-
smaetal, 1989)
The most important consideration in preparing a poten-
tiometric map is that the water level measurements
should describe a single flow system in an aquifer
Section 231 describes in detail some common pitfalls
in preparing potentiometric maps Worksheet 2-1 pro-
vides a form for compiling well information used to de-
Wlll I
(head, 26 26m)
Wtll 2
(head, 26 20m)
Wtll ,5
(head, 26 07m)
0 25 50
100 METERS
(b) (26 26-26 20) (2626-2607)
26 26m
(o)Wtll 2
W L =26.20 ffl
(t) 26 2-26 07
Direction of
ground-water
movement
26 07 n
Figure 2-10 Alternative procedure for determination of equlpotentlal contour and direction of ground water flow in homogeneous,
isotropic aquifer (from Heath, 1983)
31
-------
Worksheet 2-1. Water Well Data
Well Data (Attach drillers log):
Location- Screen Interval Depth .
Water level data
Date
Level (ft)
Pumping Characteristics-
Current non-purnplng water level (feet below ground surface)
Current pumping rate (gpm)
Typical pumping duration (hours/day)
Current pumping water level (feet below ground surface)
Typical nonpumping duration (hours/day)
Estimated annual pumpage (pumping rate x hours/day x 365 x 60) =
Specific capacity (pumping rate/(non-pumpmg water level minus pumping water level) = gpm/ft drawdown*
Estimated transmissivity (specific capacity x 2000) = gpd/ft*
Estimated hydraulic conductivity (transmissivity/aquifer thickness) = gpd/ft2*
Porosity (%) Ksat** Specific
Aquifer Material: ( } Yield (%)
Unconsolidated Sediments Low
Gravel
__ Coarse sand Average
Medium to fine sand
Silt High
Clay, till
Consolidated Sediments Sources
Limestone, Dolomite Table(s)
Coarse, medium sandstone
Rne sandstone Figure(s)
Shale, sittstone
Volcanic rocks
Basalt
Acid volcanic rooks
Crystalline Rocks
Granite/gabbro
Metamorphic
Aquifer Classification:
Unconffned Confined Number of Aquifers
Perched Semiconfmed One
Regional Highly confined Two
>Two(# )
32
-------
Worksheet 2-1 (Continued)
Aquifer Boundaries
Recharge Boundaries
Interfluv
Losing stream
Lake, pond
Sinkholes (karst)
Injection well
Ground Water Divide
Discharge Boundaries
Artesian/pumping well
Gaming stream
Drainage ditch
Tile drains
Springs
Lakes, ponds
Samiconfined aquifer leakage
Expected water level fluctuations (see Table 2-2)
Moisture regime
High moisture (H)***
Moderate moisture (M)
Low moisture (L)
Zone of Aeration (d)
dm (H)***
d = 05to4m(M)
d4m(L)
Diurnal/Intermittent Fluctuations
Evapotranspiration
Tidal effects near ocean
Atmospheric pressure effects
Seasonal Fluctuations
Ground water recharge area
Stream bank storage effects
Well developed/steep (H)**
Moderate/upland (M)
Poor/flat, bottoms (L)
Long-Term Fluctuations
Ground water pumpage
Deep-well injection
Artificial recharge
Pond, lagoon, landfill leakage
Agricultural irrigation
Agricultural drainage
Geotechnical drainage (open pit mines)
* See Section 3 2 3 for additional discussion of this simple well test for estimating hydraulic conductivity
** Saturated hydraulic conductivity (specify units)
*** Rating for expected degree of fluctuation H = high, M = moderate, L = low
33
-------
Sidebar 2-1. Distribution of
Transmissivity From Flow Nets
Horizontal flow within a segment in a flow net can
be calculated as (refer to figure above):
where
qA s flow in segment A (m3/day)
TA st transmJssivity in segment A (m2/day)
WA = average width of segment
LA = average length of segment
AHA = drop on ground water level across
segment
The flow in the next segment B is similarly calcu-
lated as:
qB = TBAHBWB/LB
I llll|ll H 1 „.**<•>
>f
Assuming that there is no flow added between
segments by recharge (or that recharge is insignift- "
cant), qA = qB, allowing combination of the two
above equations and solving to TB as follows
TB =
which allows calculation of TB from TA.
Measurement or estimation of transmissivity for
one segment (Section 3.2) allows calculation of
variations in T upgradient and downgradient tf
variations in aquifer thickness are known, or can
be estimated, for different segments, variations in
hydraulic conductivity can also be calculated as
follows:
f *
K = T/b
where
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/day)
b = aquifer thickness (m)
velop an potentiometric map This information may
prove helpful in evaluating individual well elevations that
appear to be anomalous This worksheet also includes
(1) a section for recording information on pumping char-
acteristics of the well, which can be used to estimate
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity from specific
capacity (Section 3 2 3), (2) a section for recording es-
timated aquifer properties (porosity, saturated conduc-
tivity, and specific yield) from the aquifer matrix type
(Section 3 2 2), (3) a section on aquifer classification
and boundaries for guidance in the selection of simple
analytical methods (Section 4 4 and 4 5) or computer
models (Section 6 4) for delineation of WHPAs, and (4)
a section for recording information characterizing the
expected degree of water level fluctuation in a well
2.2.2 Flow Nets
A potentiometric surface map can be developed into a
flow net by constructing flow lines that intersect the
equipotential lines or contour lines at right angles Flow
lines are imaginary paths that trace the flow of water
particles through the aquifer Although there are an infi-
nite number of both equipotential and flow lines, the
former are constructed with uniform differences in elr
vation between them, while the latter are constructed so
that they form, in combination with equipotential lines, a
series of squares A flow net carefully prepared in con-
junction with Darcy's Law allows estimation of the quan-
tity of water flowing through an area, and of the
variability of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity
(Sidebar 2-1) Figure 2-11 illustrates plan and cross-sec-
tion views of flow nets drawn for a gaming stream (2-
11[1]&[2]) and a losing stream (2-11[3]&[4]) Plan view
flow nets are a valuable tool in delineating the zone of
contribution to a well Table 2-3 identifies references that
provide additional information on flow net analysis and
case studies that use this method
A standard flow net assumes that the aquifer is isotropic
When an aquifer is anisotropic, commonly the case in
unconsolidated and sedimentary aquifers, the actual
direction of ground water flow will not be perpendicular
to the equipotential contours Instead, the direction of
flow will deviate from the perpendicular at an angle that
depends on the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical
hydraulic conductivity1 Figure 2-12 illustrates how an-
isotropy in a fractured rock aquifer alters the direction of
ground water flow compared to that expected in an
isotropic aquifer
The discussion here assumes that the aquifer is anisotropic in only
two directions, with the horizontal conductivity greater than the vertical
conductivity This situation is typical of horizontally layered sediments
(Fetter, 1981) Anisotropy in three directions is possible, but not ame-
nable to simple graphical solutions for determining flow direction
Section 335 discusses methods for determining anisotropy in three
dimensions
34
-------
Oil O
3A09V Sa3i3W
to f evi o_
WniVO 3A08V SH313H
*~2coo>o>o>0>
i t i
O> U)
CO CD
o
8-
10
§
O
Z. o ew
** IA
sauif
wniva
3AOSV Sd3i3lM
~ o _
o
CL
O
§'
o
o
•o
i
i
£
c
£
£
3.
35
-------
ISOTROPIC AQUIFER
zone of
contribution
water-table
contours
water-table
contours
ANISOTROPIC AQUIFER
zone of
contribution
Figure 2-12. Effect of fracture anlsotropy on the orientation of the zone of contribution to a pumping well (from Bradbury et al,
Several methods are available for determining the direc-
tion of flow lines where the degree of anisotropy is
known Figure 2-13 illustrates a procedure for transform-
ing a vertical anisotropic flow net to an isotropic section
For potentiometnc surface maps, Llakapoulos (1965)
developed a graphical technique for determining this
deviation This technique uses a "permeability tensor
ellipse," which has semi-axes equal to the inverse
square root of the principal permeability values Figure
2-14 illustrates the five-step sequence for using this
method Fetter (1981) provides some additional guid-
ance on using this technique Section 335 provides
Flow not element
farms a parallelogram
Figure 2-13. Illustration of slow net analysis for anisotropic hy-
draulic conductivity in an earth dam (a) true an-
isotropic section with Kx = 9KZ, (b) transformed
isotropic section with Kx = Kz (from Todd, 1980)
some guidance on how to determine directional compo-
nents of hydraulic conductivity in an aquifer
Figure 2-15a shows the effect of increasing anisotropy
on the direction of ground water flow using permeability
ellipses for kh/kv ratios up to 9 6 Note that when the ratio
is one (isotropic), a circle results, so that the flow direc-
tion is perpendicular to the equipotential line When the
ratio is around 10 to 1 (not uncommon in sedimentary
formations), the flow line diverges almost 45 degrees
from the "expected" direction when the axis of the
equipotential line is at a 45 degree angle to the axis of
maximum permeability Flow direction in an anisotropic
aquifer can be perpendicular to an equipotential line if
the axis of greater permeability in a permeability ellipse
and the equipotential line are parallel Figure 2-15b
illustrates the effect of changes in the angle of the
equipotential line with the axis of greater permeability
2.3 Common Errors in Preparation and
Interpretation of Potentiometric Maps
Developing a potentiometnc map is not as straight-
forward as preparing a topographic map An accurate
potentiometric map requires enough well observations
to develop water table contours that do not miss impor-
tant features of the flow system Considerable interpre-
tation and judgment may be required in developing
contours when well data points do not seem to fit into a
coherent pattern For example, if water level data from
36
-------
Permeability ellipse when K Is
greater than Kfc
1 Construct a permeability ellipse
Permeability ellipse when Kh Is
greater than K,
/T\
2 Draw the equipotential line as it is
oriented to the permeability axes
3 Draw the hydraulic gradient vector
perpendicular to the equipotential line
4 Draw a tangent to the ellipse at the
point where the hydraulic gradient
vector intersects the ellipse
5 Draw the flowlme so that it
passes through the origin of the
ellipse and is perpendicular to the
tangent
Figure 2-14 Steps in the determination of ground water flow
direction in an anisotropic aquifei (from Fetter,
1981)
wells are drawn from multiple sources, measurements
in nearby wells may have been taken at different times
of the year and may not be directly comparable On the
other hand, if all the data have been collected so as to
minimize effects of short-term or seasonal fluctuations,
examination of individual well characteristics may yield
explanations for anomalous data points For example, a
single well data point that is far out of line with nearby
wells may be tapping a different aquifer If an anomalous
well data point cannot be readily explained as being
unrepresentative for any reason, then further field inves-
tigation may be required to determine whether any lo-
calized hydrogeologic conditions are causing the
anomaly
(a)
Figure 2-15 Effect of anisotropy on the direction of flow (a)
changes in ratio of horizontal to vertical conduc-
tivity, (b) change in angle of equipotential line with
axis of greater permeability (from Fetter, 1981)
The rest of this chapter identifies common errors in
contouring water level data and in interpreting the direc-
tion of ground water flow using a potentiometnc map
Filling out Worksheet 2-1 for each well in the area of
hydrogeologic interest may help identify problematic
wells that should not be used for contouring The infor-
mation may also be useful in developing hydrogeologic
interpretations of the resulting potentiometnc map
37
-------
820 830 MO 850 MO 870
'
// / I I
\ >
1.2 P-2 KT-3
•
160
HO 110 120 830 HO 8! 0
VT-4
•
B90
KT-5 08-3 P-3
912
870 880 MO MO 910
KT-6
•
925
920 930
Figure 2-16, Effect of well level measurements In recharge and discharge areas (a) Incorrect contours using well measurements
that do not reflect water table surface, (b) correct contours after elimination of nonrepresentative well level measure-
ments (from Salrtes, 1981)
2.3.1 Contouring Errors
The starting point for a potentiometnc map is a base
map. The base map identifies well locations and water
level elevations in the well and other surface hydrologic
features, such as streams, rivers, and water bodies
Drawing equipotential contours requires some skill and
judgment Errors in contounng fall into two general cate-
gories' (1) failure to exclude data points that are not
representative; and (2) failure to take into account sub-
surface features that change the distribution of poten-
tiometric head as a result of aquifer heterogeneity or
boundary conditions. The following are six situations in
which contouring errors might occur
1. Failure to exclude well measurements from wells
cased below the water table surface in recharge and
discharge areas For example, only well c in Figure
2-1 gives an accurate reading of the water table
surface Figure 2-16a illustrates distortions in con-
touring that result from this effect, and Figure 2-16b
shows the correct interpretation
Failure to adjust contour lines in areas of topographic
depressions occupied by lakes Figure 2-17a illus-
trates the incorrect and correct interpretations in this
situation
Failure to recognize locally steep gradients caused
by fault zones Figure 2-17b illustrates how conven-
tional contouring methods erroneously portray the
ground water flow systems on the two sides of a fault
Failure to consider localized mounding or depression
of the potentiometnc surface from anthropogenic re-
charge or pumping Pumping wells create a cone of
depression around the well (Section 442) with
steepened hydraulic gradients Agricultural irrigation,
artificial recharge using municipally treated waste-
water, and artificial ponds and lagoons usually cause
a mounding of water tables When the source of
recharge is confined to a relatively small area, a
localized mound develops with elevations increasing
toward the center, rather than decreasing as in a
pumped well Area-wide recharge will reduce hydrau-
38
-------
Lake
water surfac
elevatio
2391
Incorrect
Incorrect
ro to ro
Lake
-water surface
elevation
2391
0375
Ground-water
cascade in
fault zone
290-"
0294
Correct
Correct
b
Figure 2-17 Common errors In contouring water table maps (a) topographic depression occupied by lakes and (b) fault zones
(from Davis and DeWiest, 1966)
lie gradients compared to natural aquiier conditions
These features are especially significant when they
are located near a ground water divide, because
small shifts in the location of a divide may have a
major impact on the direction in which contaminants
flow
Failure to consider seasonal and other short-term
fluctuations in well levels If an aquifer experiences
seasonal high and low water tables, well measure-
ments are not comparable unless they are taken at
the same time of year Other factors, such as dra-
matic changes in atmospheric pressure and precipi-
tation events, might reduce the comparability of well
measurements even if the measurements are taken
at the same time of year
Use of measurements from wells tapping multiple
aquifers Wells in which the screened interval in-
cludes multiple aquifers generally yield inaccurate
water level or piezometric measurements, because
the measured head reflects the interaction between
heads of the intersected aquifers Figure 2-18 illus-
trates how the failure to differentiate measurements
from wells completed in two aquifers, combined with
a well that connects the two, results in a apparent
depression in the potentiometric surface
2.3.2 Errors in Interpretation of Flow
Direction
As noted earlier, ground water flow is perpendicular to
contours on a potentiometric map if the aquifer is iso-
tropic Failure to account for anisotropy and heteroge-
neities in an aquifer, however, can result in significant
errors in the interpretation of ground water flow direction
Following are three situations in which flow direction will
39
-------
Incorrect interpretation -v
Upper
aquifer^
,.. •-,-;- 1"
Lower
aquifer"\
"-"*" Hr
,^r.
9 _«__«•*'
•^
:: :'1<
.jtetuajjiezprri
"
»••"
i i —
etnc surface
__
•
•-"-•«-
-oj Jowe_r_a_quifer
Actual piezometric'surface
\ Well connected " ' ~~> '
\ with both aquifers \
Wells connected with only the lower aquifer^
Figure 2-18. Error In mapping potentlometric surface due to mixing of two confined aquifers with different pressures (from Davis
and DeWIest, 1966)
Land Surface
Buried
Channel
Actual Movemtnt Almost at Right
Angtet to Direction Predicted by
Regional Water Laval*
Figure 2-19. Divergence from predicted direction of ground
water resulting from aquifer heterogeneity (from
Davis etal, 1985)
differ from that indicated by conventional flow net con-
struction using an accurate potentiometnc map
1. Homogeneous, amsotropic aquifers Figure 2-12 il-
lustrates how flow direction can diverge from flow in
an isotropic aquifer. Section 222 discusses how to
determine the direction of flow in this situation
2 Heterogenous aquifers with contrasting hydraulic
conductivity Figure 2-19 illustrates an example of
divergence of flow from the direction predicted by
ground water contours as a result of a buried channel
of higher permeability oriented across the direction
of the potentlometric surface This kind of divergence
is difficult to predict accurately Careful examination
of well logs for the areal distribution of materials with
contrasting hydraulic conductivity and the use of
tracer tests may help modify flow direction interpre-
tations when this situation occurs
3 Backwater effects in discharge areas Short-term re-
verses in the direction of ground water occur when
streams or rivers are at high stage (Figure 2-20)
These effects can extend for hundreds of feet from
the stream edge Wells that may be subject to bank
storage can be identified by monitoring changes in
water levels in response to stream flood events
2.3 3 Reverse Flow of Contaminants
Several situations can cause contaminants to flow in a
different direction from that indicated by flow net con-
struction using a potentlometric map Dissolved con-
taminants follow the direction of ground water flow
Attention should be paid, however, to the possibility of
localized flow patterns that run against the general di-
rection of ground water flow (mounding of ground water
caused by ponds and lagoons and backwater effects in
discharge areas) Dense leachates and non-aqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs), on the other hand, can flow in
an entirely different direction from that of ground water
flow if the slope of the geologic material forming the
base of the aquifer does not follow the potentlometric
surface Figure 1-9 illustrates a dense NAPL flowing in
the opposite direction of ground water flow as a result
of geologic controls
40
-------
Land Surface
13
11
•§, 9
ABC D E
I I I I I '
Peak 3
200
400 600 800
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Land Surface
1000
1200
0 150
Began 1700 Hours
200
400 600 800
Horizontal Distance (foot)
1000
1200
Figure 2-20 Movement of water into and out of bank storage along a stream in Indiana (from Daniels et al, 1970)
2.4 References*
Andreason, G E and J W Brookhart 1963 Reverse Water Level
Fluctuations US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1544-H,
pp H30-H35
Blanchard, MC andKR Bradbury 1987 A Companson of Office-
Derived Versus Field-Checked Water Table Maps in a Sandy Un-
confined Aquifer Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(2) 74-78
Bradbury, KR, MA Muldoon, A Zaporozec, and J Levy 1991
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured Rocks
EPA/570/9-91-009, 144 pp Available from ODW* [May also be
cited with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey as
author]
Brown, RH, A A Konoplyantsev, J Ineson, and VS Kovalensky
1983 Ground Water Studies An International Guide for Research
and Practice Studies and Reports in Hydrology No 7 UNESCO,
Pans
Castany, G andJ Margat 1977 Dictionnaire Franpais D'Hydrog6ol-
gie BRGM, Orleans
Chapus, R P 1988 Determining Whether Wells and Piezometers
Give Water Levels or Piezometric Levels In Ground Water Con-
tamination Field Methods, A G Collins and AI Johnson (eds),
ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, PA, pp 162-171
Clark, WE 1967 Computing the Barometric Efficiency of a Well J
Hydraulics Div ASCE 93(HY4) 93-98
Crouch, MS 1986 Tidally Induced Water Level Fluctuations as a
Measure of Diffusivity in A Confined Aquifer—A Graphical Method
In Proc FOCUS Conf on Southeastern Ground Water Issues,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 231-286
Daniels, J F, LW Cable, and R J Wolf 1970 Ground Water—Sur-
face Water Relation during Periods of Overland Flow U S Geo-
logical Survey Professional Paper 700-B
Davis, SN and RJM DeWiest 1966 Hydrogeology John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 463 pp
Davis, D R and TC Rasmussen 1993 A Comparison of Linear
Regression With Clark's Method for Estimating Barometric Effi-
ciency of Confined Aquifers Water Resources Research
29(6) 1849-1854
41
-------
Davis, SN.DJ Campbell, HW Bentley, and TJ Flynn 1985 In-
troduction to Ground-Water Tracers EPA 600/2-85/022, NTIS
PB86-100591 Also published under the title Ground Water Tracers
hi EPA/NWWA Series, National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH, 200 pp [See also 1986 "Discussion of 'Ground Water Tracers'
by Davis et al (1985) with Emphasis on Dye Tracing, Especially
hi Karst Ten-arms" In Ground Water 24(2) 253-259 and 24(3) 396-
397, and reply by Davis in Ground Water 24(3) 398-399]
Davis, S N. and R J M DeWiest 1966 Hydrogeology John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 463 pp
Domonteo, PA. Determination of Bulk Rock Properties from Ground
Water Level Fluctuations Bull Ass Eng Geol 20(3) 283-287
Evans, K.. J Beavan, and D Simpson 1991 Estimating Aquifer
Parameters from Analysis of Forced Fluctuations in Well Level An
Example from the Nubian Formation near Aswan, Egypt J Geo-
phys Res. 96(B9) 12,127-12,137
Fatter, Jr.CW 1981 Determination of the Direction of Groundwater
Flow Ground Water Monitoring Review 1(3) 28-31
Potter, Jr.CW 1980 Applied Hydrogeology Charles E Merrill Pub-
Kshing Co, Columbus. OH, 488 pp
Freeze, R A and J A Cherry 1979 Groundwater Prentice-Hall Pub-
Bshing Co, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 pp
Furbish, DJ 1991 The Response of Water Level in a Well to a Time
Series of Atmospheric Loading Under Confined Conditions Water
Resources Research 27(4) 557-568
Haath, R C 1983 Basic Ground Water Hydrology U S Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220 Republished in a 1984 edition
by National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH
Heath, RC and FW Trainer 1981 Introduction to Ground Water
Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley & Sons, New York, 284 pp
Honning, RJ 1990 Presentation of Water Level Data In Ground
Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D M Nielsen and AI
Johnson (eds), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 193-209
Hooksma, R J, Clapp, R B, A L Thomas, A E Hunley, N D Farrow,
and K.C Dearstone 1989 Cokrigmg Model for Estimation of
Water Table Elevation Water Resources Research 25(3) 429-438
HoHet, K.J 1985 Geohydrology and Water Resource of the Papago
Farms-Great Plain Areas, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona and
the Upper Rio Sonoyta Area, Sonora, Mexico U S Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 2258, 44 pp [Flow net analysis case
study]
Hunt, BW and DD Wilson 1974 Graphical Calculation of Aquifer
Transmisslvities in Northern Canterbury, New Zealand J Hydrol-
ogy (N.Z) 13(2) 66-80 [Row net analysis case study]
Jacob, CE 1940 On the Flow of Water in an Elastic Artesian Aquifer
Trans. Am Geophys Union 21 574-586 [Use of barometric effi-
ciency to estimate storage coefficient]
Kohout, FA 1960 Cyclic Flow of Salt Water in Biscayne Aquifer of
South Eastern Rorida J Geophys Research 652133-2141 [Ef-
fects on water level measurements]
Languth, HR andC Treskatis 1989 Reverse Water Level Fluctua-
tions In Semiconfined Aquifer Systems—"Rhade Effect" J Hydrol-
ogy 109 79-93
Uakopoutos, A C 1965 Variation of the Permeability Tensor Elipsoid
hi Homogenous Anisotropic Soils Water Resources Research
1(1) 135-142
Long, J C S , J S Remer, C R Wilson, and PA Witherspoon 1982
Porous Media Equivalents for Networks of Discontinuous Frac-
tures Water Resources Research 18(3) 645-658
Mills, WB etal 1985 Water Quality Assessment A Screening Pro-
cedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants, Part II EPA 600/6-
85/002b (NTIS PB86-122504)
Moench, A 1971 Ground Water Fluctuations in Response to Arbitrary
Pumpage Ground Water 9(2) 4-8
Nelson, RW 1961 In-Place Measurement of Permeability in Hetero-
geneous Media, 2 Experimental and Computational Considera-
tions J Geophys Research 66(8) 2467-2477 [Flow net analysis]
Nelson, RW 1960 In-Place Measurement of Permeability in Hetero-
geneous Media, 1 Theory of Proposed Method J Geophys Re-
search 65(6) 1753-1758 [Flow net analysis]
Peck, A J 1960 The Water Table as Affected by Atmospheric Pres-
sure J Geophys Res 652383-2388
Poeter, E P and WR Belcher 1991 Assessment of Porous Media
Heterogeneity by Inverse Plume Analysis Ground Water 29(1) 56-
62
Rice, W A andSM Gorelick 1985 Geological Inference From "Flow
Net" Transmissivity Determination Three Case Studies Water Re-
sources Bulletin 21(6) 919-930
Ritzi, RW,S Sorooshian, and PA Hsieh 1991 The Estimation of
Fluid Flow Properties from the Response of Water Levels in Wells
to the Combined Atmospheric and Earth Tide Forces Water Re-
sources Research 27(5) 883-893
Rockaway, J D 1970 Trend-Surface Analysis of Ground Water Fluc-
tuations Ground Water 8(3) 29-36
Rojstaczer, S 1988 Determination of Fluid Flow Properties from the
Response of Water Levels in Wells to Atmospheric Loading Water
Resources Research 24(11) 1927-1938
Rojstaczer, S and DC Agnew 1989 The Influence of Formation
Material Properties on the Response of Water Levels in Wells to
Earth Tides and Atmospheric Loading J Geophys Res
94(B9) 12,403-12,411
Saines, M 1981 Errors in Interpretation of Ground Water Level Data
Ground Water Monitoring Review 2(1) 56-61
Sayko, SP, KL Ekstrom, and RM Schuller 1990 Methods for
Evaluating Short-Term Fluctuations in Ground Water Levels In
Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D M Nielsen and AI
Johnson (eds), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 165-177
Scott, DM 1992 An Evaluation of Flow Net Analysis for Aquifer
Identification Ground Water 30(5) 755-764
Stallman, RW 1956 Numerical Analysis of Regional Water Levels
to Define Aquifer Hydrology Trans Am Geophys Union
37(4)451-460
Struckmeier, W, G B Engelen, MS Galitzm, and R K Shakchnova
1986 Methods of Representation of Water Data In Develop-
ments in the Analysis of Groundwater Flow Systems, G B Engelen
and G P Jones (eds), Int Assoc of Hydrological Sciences Pub
No 163, pp 45-63
Todd, D K 1980 Groundwater Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 535 pp
Turk, LJ 1975 Diurnal Fluctuations of Water Tables Induced by
Atmospheric Pressure Changes J Hydrology 261-16
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990 Ground Water
Handbook, Vol I Ground Water and Contamination EPA/625/6-
90/016a Available from CERI*
42
-------
Walker, EH 1956 Groundwater Resources of the Hopkmsville Tn- Weiss-Jennemann, LN 1991 The Affect of Off-Site Influences on
angle, Kentucky U S Geological Survey Water Supply Paper Water Levels at Hazardous Waste Sites Ground Water Manage-
1328 98 pp merit 5 221-237 (5th NOAC)
... . ..... .. .. . ,_ .... . _. Winograd, IH 1970 Nonmstrumental Factors Affecting Measure-
Walton, WC 1963 MicroUme Measurements of Ground Water Flue- ^ o'f Water Leve|s |n De Buned » and
tuatons Ground Water 1(2) 18-19 tards> Nevada Test ^ Qround ^ 8(2) 1Mfl
Weeks, EP 1979 Barometric Fluctuations in Wells Tapping Deep
Unconfined Aquifers Water Resources Research 19 1167-1176 * See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
43
-------
-------
Chapters
Measurement and Estimation of Aquifer Parameters for Flow Equations
All methods for delineation of wellhead protection areas
(WHPAs) require measurement or estimation of aquifer
properties or parameters that affect ground water flow
Specific delineation methods are discussed in more
detail in the next three chapters This chapter discusses
major aquifer parameters and how they aie measured
or estimated Table 3-1 identifies parameters used in
equations for methods covered in Chapter 4 and meth-
ods for measuring or estimating each parameter
3.1 Hydrogeologic Parameters of Interest
Measurement or quantification of parameters, such as
pumping rate, hydraulic gradient, saturated thickness,
and well specifications listed in Table 3-1, is relatively
straightforward Other parameters such as transmissiv-
ity, travel time, and velocity are readily calculated once
values for the parameters from which they are derived
are known This chapter focuses on three critical aquifer
parameters that require relatively sophisticated field or
laboratory procedures for accurate measurement (1)
porosity, (2) specific yield (or storativity for confined
aquifers), and (3) hydraulic conductivity (including an-
isotropy) Another important aquifer characteristic, het-
erogeneity, involves delineation of spatial variations in
these properties Heterogeneity is discussed further in
Chapter 5 (Hydrogeologic Mapping)
3.1.1 Aquifer Storage Properties: Porosity
and Specific Yield/Storativity
Porosity, expressed as a percentage or decimal fraction,
is the ratio between the openings in the rock and the
total rock volume It defines the amount of water a
saturated rock volume can contain If a unit volume of
saturated rock drains by gravity, not all of the water it
contains will be released The volume drained is the
specific yield, a percentage, and the volume retained is
the specific retention Therefore, porosity is equal to
Table 3-1 Aquifer and Other Parameters Required for Different WHPA Delineation Methods
Parameter Symbol WHPA Delineation Methods* Measurement Methods
Pumping rate of well Q
Aquifer porosity n
Open interval or length H
of well screen
Travel time t
Hydraulic conductivity K
Saturated thickness b
Hydraulic gradient i
Velocity v
Specific yield or storativity S
Cylinder method, analytical solutions for pump Estimated or measured at wellhead
tests
Drawdown
Transmissivity
s
T
Cylinder method, time of travel equations
Cylinder method
Calculated fixed radius, tme of travel
equations
Time of travel and drawdown equations
Some time of travel equations, most
drawdown equations
Time of travel equations, some drawdown
equations
Time of travel equations
Some time of travel equations, most
drawdown equations
Selected for drawdown equations
Some time of travel equations, most
drawdown equations
Estimated from tables, measured from
aquifer samples
Well log
Chosen or calculated for the specified
distance
Estimated from tables, pumping test
Potentiometric and geologic logs
Potentiometric map
Calcuated from other parameters, tracer
tests
Estimated from tables, pumping test
Chosen or calculated from pump test data
Hydraulic conductivity (K) times the aquifer
thickness (b)
* Cylinder method is discussed in Section 432, time of travel methods are covered in Section 44 and drawdown methods in Section 45
45
-------
specific yield plus specific retention Knowing any two of
these terms allows calculation of the third1
Figure 3-1 shows graphs of the relationship between
porosity, specific yield and specific retention for uncon-
solidated materials with texture ranging from clay and
silt to gravel. Porosity and specific yield of alluvial, un-
consolidated aquifers can be estimated from these fig-
ures if particle size data are available Figure 3-1 a
requires knowing the grain size at which the cumulative
total, beginning with the coarsest material, reaches 10
percent of the total sample Figure 3-1 b is based on the
median gram size Both of these particle size parame-
ters can be determined from conventional particle-size
distribution analysis Figure 3-2 can be used to estimate
specific yield in unconsohdated materials if only the
sand, silt, and clay percentages are known
eu,
Urxf)
Fin. | UMfcm
Cora
MAXIMUM 10S GRAIN SIZE. MM
vn u« v* m i a 4 a » a; M 12« 259
(a)
100
Cobbtes
i0
I Sand
Median grain size
(b)
Rgure 3-1. Porosity, specific yield, and specific retention (a)
mean curves for South Coastal Basin in the Los
Angeles area of California (adapted from Todd,
1959, by Devlnny et al , 1990), (b) alluvium from
large valleys (from Davis and DeWiest, 1966, using
various sources)
1 ThJs Includes only interconnected pores through which water can
flow. Isolated pores, whether air- or water-filled, can be considered
part of the solid volume of a rock for purposes of ground water flow
analysis
2 0 0001 to 0 00001 may also be cited in the literature as a typical
range
Line of equal specific yield
Interval 1 and 5 percent
Particle size (mm)
Sand 2-0 062 5
Sill 00625-0004
70 day <0 004
Silt size (percent)
Figure 3-2 Textural classification triangle for unconsolidated
materials showing the relation between particle size
and specific yield (from Morris and Johnson, 1967)
As discussed in Section 21 4, the presence of secon-
dary porosity complicates ground water flow analysis,
and the relative proportions in relation to total porosity
must be measured or estimated where secondary po-
rosity contributes significantly to ground water flow Ta-
ble 3-2 identifies measured or "typical" values/ranges of
porosity for a variety of aquifer materials The data from
Heath (1983) and Brown et al (1983) provide some
information about the relationship between primary and
secondary porosity, which rarely exceeds 10 percent
However, this percentage may account for most of the
actual flow of ground water Figure 3-3 provides some
additional information on the characteristics of secon-
dary porosity in different types of rocks
Another important term is stomtivity (S), which de-
scribes the quantity of water that an aquifer will release
from storage or take into storage per unit of its surface
area per unit change in head In unconfined aquifers, the
storativity is, for all practical purposes, equal to the
specific yield Table 3-3 identifies measured or "typical"
values/ranges of specific yield for a variety of aquifer
materials The storativity of confined aquifers is substan-
tially smaller, because the water released from storage
when the head declines comes from the expansion of
water and compression of the aquifer, both of which are
very small For confined aquifers, storativity generally
ranges between 0 005 and 0 00005, with leaky confined
aquifers falling in the high end of this range 2 The small
storativity of confined aquifers means that a large pres-
sure change throughout a wide area is needed to obtain
a sufficient supply from a well This is not the case with
unconfined aquifers, because the water derived is not
46
-------
Table 3-2 Porosity (% of Volume) of Different Aquifer Materials
Soil/Rock Types (1) PIS* (2) PIS* (3)*** (4) (5) (6) (7)****
Unconsolidated Sediments
Gravel 20/- 30-4Q/- 237-441 25-40 25-40
Coarse 20-35
Medium 20-35
Fine 20-40
Sand and gravel 20-35
Sand 25/- 260-533 25-50 15-48
Gravelly 20-35
Coarse 30-407- 25-45
Medium 25-45
Medium to fine 30-35/-
Fme 25.55
Dune sand 35.45
Silt 40-50/yes** 33 9-61 1 35-50 35-50 35-60
Clay 501- 45-55/yes** 342-569 40-70 40-70 35-55
Sandy 30-60
Till 45-55/yes** 25-45
Unstratified drift 22 1-40 6
Stratified drift 34 6-59 3
Loess 44 o-57 2 60-80
Peat 60-80
Soil 55/-
Alluvium 10-40(30)
Basin fill 5-30(20)
Ogalla formation ~ 15-45(35)
Consolidated Sediments
Limestone 10/10 1-50/yes** 66-557 0-20 0-20 5-55 1-20(4)
Karst 5.50 5.50
Chalk 5.40
Dolomite 1-50/yes" 191-327 0-20 0-20
Sandstone 137-493 5-30 5-40 1-20(10)
Semiconsolidated 10/1 1-50
Coarse, medium <20/yes**
Fine, argilhte <1 o/yes**
Siltstone -/yes** 212-41 0 20-40
Shale -/yes** 14-97 0-10 0-10
Crystalline Rocks
Granite (unaltered) -101 0-2
Crystalline (fractured) 0-10
Crystalline (dense) 0-5 0-5
Igneous/Metamorphic -/yes**
Weathered 40-50
Unaltered gneiss 0-2
Quartzite 0-1
Slates/mica schists 0-10
Volcanic Rocks
Basalt 10/1 -/yes**
Fractured 5.50 5-50 5-50
Volcanic tuff 30-40 10-40
Acid volcanic rocks
* P = primary porosity, S = secondary porosity
** Rarely exceeds 10 percent '
*** Compiled by Barton et al (1985)
**** Number in parentheses is typical value
Sources (1) Heath (1983), (2) Brown et al (1983), (3) Morris and Johnson (compiled by Barton et al, 1985), (4) Freeze and Cherry (1979)
(5) Sevee (1991), (6) Devinny et al (1990), (7) Wilson (1981)
. 47
-------
Poroilty
Permeability rante (cm/iec)
Well yield!
Rodctypw
fnmwy Secondly 10» 10« 10 ' 10-< 10< I
-------
Table 3-3 Specific Yield (%) for Different Aquifer Materials
Soil/Rock Types (1)
Unconsolidated Sediments
Gravel 19
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sand and gravel
Sand 22
Gravelly
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Dune sand
Silt
Loess
Clay 2
Sandy
Till
Peat
Soil 40
Alluvium
Basin fill
Ogalla formation
Consolidated Sediments
Limestone/Carbonate 18
Sandstone
Semiconsolidated 6
Medium
Fine
Siltstone
Shale
Volcanic Rocks
Basalt 8
Fractured
Tuff
Crystalline Rocks
Granite 0 09
Schist
Crystalline (dense)
Igneous/Metamorphic
Weathered
(2) Mean
21
24
18
30
32
33
38
20
18
6
— • — .
14
27
21
12
21
26
(2) Range
13-25
17-44
13-28
18-43
16-46
1-46
32-47
1-39
14-22
1-18
" * — -—
0-36
12-41
2-40
1-33
2-47
22-33
(3) (4)
15-30
10-25
15-25
15-35
15-25 15-30
10-30
20-35
20-35
15-30
10-30
30-40
1-30
30-50
1-10 1-20
1-30
5-20
30-50
_
0 5-5 1-24
5-15
1-48
1-35
05-5
1-30
2-35
0-2
20-30
(5)
1-25(15)
1-30(15)
1-30(20)
1-5(2)
0 1-5(1)
Sources (1) Heath (1983), (2) Morris and Johnson (1967), as complied by McWhorter and Sunada (1977), (3) Sevee (1991), (4) Devmny et
al (1990), (5) Wilson (1981) Y
A large number of empirical equations have been devel-
oped to estimate hydraulic conductivity based on texture
(particle size distribution) of unconsolidated materials
Alyamani and Sen (1993), Bedmger (1961), Cosby etal
(1984), Hazen (1893), Hendry and Paterson (1982),
Horn (1971), Krumbem and Monk (1942), Puckett et al
(1985), Uma et al (1989), Vukovic and Soro (1992),
Wiebengaetal (1970) Figure 3-7d illustrates a particle
size distribution plot and five of these empirical equa-
tions Such equations can be a useful supplement to
other measurements or estimates of hydiaulic conduc-
tivity, but should be used with care Bradbury and Mul-
doon (1990) found that application of the five equations
to unlithified glacial and fluvial materials provided esti-
mates of hydraulic conductivity that spanned three or
four orders of magnitude for any given hthostratigraphic
unit Each method is most applicable for the type of
unconsolidated material used to derive it and should not
be extended to other types of material without field tests
to verify the results
Figure 3-8 shows the range of measured permeabilities
of glacial tills in various locations McKay et al (1993)
49
-------
Table 3-4 Representative Values for Hydraulic Conductivity
of Unconsolldated and Consolidated Sediments
Hydraulic Conductivity of Selected Rocks
Hydraulic
Rock/Sol) Conductivity
Type (cm/s)
Unconsoffdated Materials*
f^ffk\foi\ Q i trt ^ 4vi n ^
vliciVcii O 1 IV O *rA l u
(repacked)
Sand 9 0x1 0* to 4 7x1 0*
Silt 7 1x10* to 9 4x1 0"9
Clay 1 4x10* to 1 4x1 0-9
Unstrabfied drift 1 0x1 0"2 to 3 8x1 0"9
Stratified drift 6 6x1 0 1 to 4 7x1 0 5
Loess 18x1 0-^04 7x10*
Sadimentary Rocks*
Sandstone 1 0x1 0* to 3 7x1 0 7
Sittstona 1 4x1 0* to 9 4x1 0 10
Shale
Limestone 2 6x10 2 to 1 0x10*
DolomHe 3 3x1 0* to 3 8x1 0-9
Unmd Soil Classification*'
IGNEOUS AND HETAMORPNIC ROCKS
UnfroetHred Fractured
BASALT
Uefractvred Fractured1 Leva flow
SANDSTONE
Fractured Semicansolldated
SHALE '
Unfractvred Fractured
CARBONATE ROCKS
Fractured Cavernous
CLAY SILT, LOESS
SILTY SAND
CLEAN SAND
Fine Coarse
GLACIAL TILL GRAVEL
i • t i i i i i i i i i i
10"' 10 * 10 ' 10 ' 10"' I0"s 10 ' 10 ' 1 10 10 ' IOS IO4
md
10 ' 10"' 10"' IO"4 10"s 10"* 10"' 1 10 10 * 10 ' 10 4 10 '
ftd>
f 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1
10-' 10 ' 10 * 10"" 10 " 10 ' 10"' 1 10 10 * 10 ' 10 4 10
g.l d ' ft-'
QW Well graded gravels, 10*
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
flnes Figure 3-4 Hydraulic conductivity of selected rocks (fro
QP Poorly graded gravels, 10* Heath, 1983)
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
QM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt 10* to 10*
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay 10* to 10* R k unconsoi.doted k k K K K
mixtures x deposits ^ (darcy) (cmZ) (cm/s) (rn/y (gai/doy/ft2
SW Well graded sands, gravelly 10* _tr,5 _1fl3
sand, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly 10* _
sands, little or no fines I
SM Sllty sands, sand-silt mixtures 10* to 10*
&
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay 10* to 10* Jji -n
mixtures |i §
ML Inorganic silts and fine sands, 10* to 10* al^L 1
silty or clayey fine sands or ill* 1?"
clayey silts with slight plasticity b
CL Inorganic clays of low to 10* to 10*
• •- 3 C O
Q. S O M
^S"S\ ^
medium plasticity, gravelly 1 1 °s »"'
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, |f| l| §
lean clays s,Eii§ =
' u.1 E-OTI -
OL Organic silts and organic silty 10-* to 10* \S _ i
clays of low plasticity | f '
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or 10"* to 10* |g-g
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty I f £°
soils, elastic silts „!„ ||
CH Inorgante clays of high plasticity, 10* to 10* Ijl =i
fat clays ||||
OH Organic clays of medium to 1 0* to 1 0* 1 1 |M
high plasticity, organic silts I ~
-IO4
•IO3
•IOZ
•10
„ \
•to-'
• io-2
• to:3
•io-4
-io-5
-io-6
-io-7
-ID"8
-io-4
-io-s
-IO"8
-10 7
-lO""
-ID'9
-10'°
-ID-"
-ID'12
-IO"3
-io-'4
-to"15
-io-'6
rlOZ
-10
-1
-10-'
• 10"^
. |0"'
-io-4
-ID"5
•10"6
-to-7
-io-8
•IO"9
-,o-°
-io-"
.)
-ID"1
-ID'2
-ID'3
-ID'4
•IO'5
-io-s
-ID'7
•to8
•to-9
•IO"0
-10-"
-O"2
-ID'13
rIO6
-to5
"
•IO3
•10Z
-10
• 1
-10"
•IO"2
•io-3
•IO"4
-io-=
-io-6
-irv-7
Pt Peat and other highly organic Not classified '
soils
from Morris and Johnson (1967) by Barton et al (1985)
Complied by Brown et al (1991) from SCS (1990)
Figure 3-5 Range of values of hydraulic conductivity (from
Freeze and Cherry, 1979)
50
-------
Figure 3-6 Representative ranges of saturated hydraulic-
conductivity values for geologic materials (adapted
from Freeze and Cherry, 1979, by Thompson et al,
1989)
found that field measurements of hydraulic conductivity
in glacial till were generally two to three orders of mag-
nitude higher than laboratory measurements on cores
This study also found that field values measured in
conventional augered piezometers were typically one to
two orders of magnitude lower than those measured in
piezometers designed to reduce smearing
If the porosity and texture of a consolidated sandstone
aquifer is known, Figure 3-9 allows estimation of perme-
ability in millidarcys (see Figure 3-5 for nomograph to
convert darcys to hydraulic conductivity values) Section
3 3 describes the use of these tables for estimating
hydraulic conductivity from geologic data
Transmissivity (T), a term derived from hydraulic con-
ductivity, describes the capacity of an aquifer to transmit
water Transmissivity is equal to the product of the aqui-
fer's saturated thickness (b) and the hydraulic conduc-
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CM/S
WCC
101 10° 101 10-2 Itf* If* 1** I*9 1
«
2
£
s"
OT
I
o
02:
0125
1 1
Very Coarse
Sand
Medium
Sand
Fine
Sand
Very Fine
0
--«'
100
SfiS*
Wr
_—,
: :
— ?i
^
100
2
1
1 Wt
$M
II*1
P = i
10 0
;: sis
tyt¥
' $$&
' w
'., 2jL—
T g"
/
10 00
.: :
•
|
010 10 10.0 100 1000 100QO
Hydraulic Conductivity (K) in feet per day (ft/day)
(c)
100
so
I-
\
I t 01
Gram Diameter (mm)
Bedinger Kfgoi/doy/ft2) - MOO « D502
Hozen K(cro/sec>- 0102
Krumbein * Uonk- ^o^l,,). 760 « Dm2 • e(~' 31 '
Cosby et ol log.K(,n/hr) - ( 0153 . Xsa)- 884
Puekettetol «(„/.„)-'
Figure 3-7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity of unconsolidated materials (a) various materials (from Klute and Dirksen, 1986), (b)
determination from grain-size gradation curves for sands (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, after Masch and Denny, 1966), (c)
relationship between grain size and hydraulic conductivity in stratified drift aquifers (Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, 1991, (d) sample particle-size distribution curve and five empirical equations used to estimate
hydraulic conductivity of unconsolidated materials D50 = median diameter, in millimeters, D10 = diameter, in millimeters,
at which 10% of the sample is finer, Dm = mean diameter, In millimeters, 0$ = phi standard deviation, %sa = percentage
of the sample coarser than 0 05 mm, %cl = percentage of the total sample finer than 0 002 mm (Bradbury and Muldoon,
1990)
51
-------
0 1
£""
meabilily (gal/day/
o
o
Coefficient of per
o
o
o
nnrtni
— •—
ffi
•
*
^
i
1
tivity (K) It is commonly measured in units of gpd/ft of
aquifer thickness
*- Montgomery
County, Ohio
Figure 3-8. Range of permeability of glacial tills • = laboratory
measurements (Norrls, 1963), circled clusters of
dots based on pumping tests (Norrls, 1963), Ontario
data from McKay et al (1993) with solid line indi-
cating range of laboratory measurements and
dashed line Indicating the range of mean values
using four different types of piezometer construc-
tion for field measurements
= Kb
(3-1)
Krasny (1993) has recently described a standard clas-
sification scheme for transmissivity of local and regional
aquifers based on magnitude and variation
3.1.3 Darcy's Law
Darcy's Law, expressed in many different forms, allows
calculation of the quantity of water flowing through a
defined area of an aquifer, provided that the hydraulic
conductivity and the hydraulic gradient are known One
means of expressing Darcy's Law is
Q = KiA (3-2)
where
Q = quantity of flow per unit of time, in gpd
K = hydraulic conductivity, in gpd/ft2
i = hydraulic gradient, in ft/ft
A = cross-sectional area through which the flow
occurs, in ft2
Darcy's Law assumes that flow is laminar, which means
that the water will follow distinct flow lines rather than
mix with other flow lines Most ground water flow in
porous media is laminar The equation does not work for
turbulent flow, as in the case of the unusually high
velocity that might be found in fractures or solution
openings or adjacent to some pumping wells
Figure 3-10 shows an example of the use of Darcy's
Law In this case, a sand aquifer about 30 feet thick lies
within the flood plain of a river about 1 mile wide The
aquifer is covered by a confining unit of glacial till, the
bottom of which is about 45 feet below the land surface
to ooo
6000
4000
2000
1000
•, 600
I 400
I 200
i too
[ 60
• 40
: 20
10
6
4
f
r ?•
: /* *i
X
/•
:/ •
•
•s'^^ ,,^:
*** • a^*' B a°&P^ °
jS «^
-------
The difference in water level in two wells 1 mile apart is
10 feet, and the hydraulic conductivity of the sand is 500
gpd/ft2 Therefore, the quantity of underflow moving
through the cross-section in Figure 3-10 is
Q = KiA = 500 gpd/ft2 x (10 ft/5280 ft) x (5280 x 30) =
150,000 gpd
Ground water moves through both aquifers and confin-
ing units Because hydraulic conductivity commonly dif-
fers between aquifers and confining units by several
orders of magnitude, the head loss per unit of distance
in an aquifer is far less than in a confining unit Conse-
quently, lateral flow in confining units is small compared
to that in aquifers, but vertical leakage through them can
be significant Because of the large differences in hy-
draulic conductivity, flow lines in aquifers tend to parallel
the boundaries, but in confining units they are much less
dense (Figure 3-11) The flow lines are refracted at the
boundaries to produce the shortest flow path in the
confining unit, with the angles of refraction proportional
to the differences in hydraulic conductivity
3.2 Estimation of Aquifer Parameters
The cntical aquifer parameters of porosity, specific yield,
and hydraulic conductivity are typically not measured for
most water wells Therefore, the initial stages of the
wellhead protection delineation process often require
estimation for one or more of these parameters Estima-
tion requires some knowledge of the geologic character
of the aquifer and data on the ranges or typical values
that have been measured in similar settings elsewhere
When used cautiously, such estimates can increase the
effectiveness and reduce the cost of any required field
measurements and additional data collection
3.2.1 Estimation From Soil Survey Data
When aquifers are in unconsolidated deposits and the
water table is relatively near the surface, soil surveys
published by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the
U S Department of Agriculture are an excellent source
of information about the character of subsurface mate-
rials and soil hydrologic properties A two-page soil se-
ries description sheet and a two-page soil survey
interpretation sheet are available for every established
soil series in the United States Table 3-5 summarizes
the information that is available from these records The
table highlights in bold-face type the information that
may be useful for geologic and hydrogeologic interpre-
tations
SCS soils surveys typically do not provide any detailed
information deeper than 5 feet below the ground sur-
Water Tabto
„ _/Equipotential Unettl - ~._
;- - Head above - 4~ «_-__-- -/_
~L~I the Datum _~JT - - ~""-T«.~J"'
(2)
Figure 3-11 Ground water flow and equipotential lines as a function of different hydraulic conductivity (from Heath, 1983)
53
-------
Table 3-5. Types of Data Available on SCS Soil Series
Description and Interpretation Sheets
Soil Series Description Sheet
Taxonomte class
Typical soN profile description
Hangs of characteristics
Geographic setting
Geographically associated soils
Drainage and permeability
Use and vegetation
Distribution and extent
Location and year series was established
Remarks
Availability of additional data
Soff Survey Interpretations Sheet'
Estimated sotl properties (major horizons)
Texture class (USDA, Unified, and AASHTO)
Particle size distribution
Liquid limit
Plasticity Index
Moist bulk density (g/cm3)
Permeability (In/hr)
Available water capacity (In/In)
Soil reaction (pH)
Salinity (mmhos/cm)
Sodium absorbtion ratio
Cation exchange capacity (Mo/100g)
Calcium carbonate (%)
Gypsum (%)
Organic matter (%)
Shrink-swell potential
Cocrosivity (steel and concrete)
Erosion factors (K,T)
Wind erodability group
Flooding (frequency, duration, months)
High water table (depth, kind, months)
Cemented pan (depth, hardness)
Bedrock (depth, hardness)
Subsidence (Initial, total)
Kydrologlc group
Potential frost action
Use/Suitability ratings
Sanitary facilities
Source material
Community development
Water management
Recreation
Crop/pasture capability and predicted yields
Woodland suitability
Windbreaks (recommended species for planting)
Wildlife habitat suitability
Potential native plant community (rangeland or forest)
Note Boldface entries are particularly useful for evaluating contami-
nant transport
* Units Indicated are those used by SCS
face, but they do provide a general indication of the type
of deeper geologic materials In the absence of, or in
combination with, other geologic data about the area of
interest, this information provides a basis for estimating
porosity, specific yield, and hydraulic conductivity, as
discussed in the next section
If a published SCS soil survey is available for a site of
interest, the information in Table 3-5 will be contained in
the report, but scattered in different locations It is prob-
ably useful to obtain the single soil series descriptions
and interpretations (usually available from the SCS
State Office as a four-page handout) as a convenient
consolidated reference for the soil series of interest This
sheet should be checked against data in the published
soil survey, however, since the soil survey often will have
additional data specific to the county in question
3.2.2 Estimation From Aquifer Matrix Type
Porosity, specific yield, and hydraulic conductivity fall
within reasonably well-defined ranges for most aquifer
materials, although some rocks, such as basalt, encom-
pass the entire natural range of hydraulic conductivity
(see Figure 3-3) The following tables and figures pro-
vide information compiled from a variety of sources
Porosity Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1
Specific Yield Table 3-3 and Figures 3-1 and 3-2
Hydraulic Conductivity Table 3-4, Figures 3-2 through
3-9
Sources may differ somewhat in the ranges given for a
specific aquifer material These differences probably
exist because of slight differences in the way the mate-
rial has been defined, or because different sets of data
measurements were examined Worksheet 2-1 (water
well data) provides space for compiling information on
aquifer characteristics Below are some guidelines for
estimating porosity, specific yield and hydraulic conduc-
tivity for a specific WHPA
1 Define the nature of the aquifer material as thor-
oughly as possible, using available well logs, soil
surveys, geologic maps, and hydrogeologic maps
2 On the well data worksheet, enter values (or ranges)
for porosity, specific yield, and hydraulic conductivity
from all sources in the tables and figures identified
above that provide data on similar or related aquifer
materials
3 If the sources provide different ranges for the same
material, review the tables and/or figures again to
see if any subtle distinctions in the way the materials
are described might make one more appropriate for
the aquifer in question
4 Select a range of values that seems reasonable
based on the information available, and enter the
range in the well data worksheet For aquifer materi-
54
-------
als with a wide possible range, the range should be
narrowed based on the presence or absence of char-
acteristics that tend to increase or decrease the pa-
rameter in question (Table 3-6)
Table 3-6 Aquifer Characteristics Affecting Porosity, Specific
Yield, and Hydraulic Conductivity
Parameter Tendency To Increase Tendency To Decrease
indicates how much water the well will produce per foot
of drawdown It can be calculated by the following equa-
tion
Porosity
Specific Yield
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Well sorted (same size)
Rounded particles
Stratified
Small particle size
Unconsolidated
High secondary porosity
Sand particle size
High secondary porosity
Gravel, sand
Well sorted (same size)
Stratified
Unconsolidated
High secondary porosity
Poorly sorted
Irregular-shaped
particles
Unstratified
Large particle size
Cemented/hthified
Low secondary porosity
Gravel, silt, clay
Low secondary porosity
Clay
Poorly sorted
Unstratified
Cemented/lithified
Low secondary porosity
Table 3-6 identifies factors that tend to increase or de-
crease porosity, specific yield, and hydraulic conductiv-
ity Interactions between factors may mitigate or offset a
given tendency Many of the same factors tend to in-
crease and decrease all three factors, but there are
some interesting differences Porosity tends to decrease
as particle size increases, whereas the reverse is true
for hydraulic conductivity This is because clays have a
high porosity, but the size of pores is so small that water
moves very slowly Specific yield, on the other hand, is
typically highest in sandy materials and generally de-
creases with larger and smaller particle sizes This is
because as particle size increases to gravels, the pore
space available to store water decreases, and as parti-
cle size decreases, water drains less readily from the
smaller pores
3.2.3 A Simple Well Test for Estimating
Hydraulic Conductivity
The next section describes more complex well tests for
measuring aquifer parameters, but a rough estimate of
hydraulic conductivity is possible if three easily meas-
ured parameters are known (1) the static water level
prior to any pumping, (2) the normal well pumping rate,
and (3) the level to which water drops alter pumping
starts and stays when inflow into the well equals the
pumping rate Drawdown is the difference between the
static level and the level to which the water drops during
pumping The discharge rate of the well divided by the
drawdown is the specific capacity, not to be confused
with specific yield (Section 311) The specific capacity
Specific capacity = Q/wd
(3-3)
where
Q = discharge rate, in gpm
wd = well drawdown, in ft (elevation of static water
surface - elevation when pumped)
If a well produces 100 gpm and the drawdown is 8 feet,
the well will produce 12 5 gpm for each foot of available
drawdown Multiplying specific capacity by 2,000 gives
a crude estimate of transmissivity (T = 2,000 x specific
capacity), which in turn can be used to estimate hydrau-
lic conductivity by rearranging equation 3-1
K = T/b = 2,000 x specific capacity/b (3-4)
Transmissivity estimates based on specific capacity
measurements, however, are commonly low because of
well construction details (e g , screen length is less than
the thickness of the aquifer) Worksheet 2-1 contains
space for recording information for calculating the spe-
cific capacity of a well
3.3 Field Measurement of Aquifer
Parameters
Detailed discussion of field methods for measuring aqui-
fer parameters is beyond the scope of this handbook,
but this section provides a general discussion of major
field methods Table 3-7 provides summary information
on more than 30 specific aquifer test techniques 4 These
are broadly grouped into (1) shallow water table tests,
(2) well tests, (3) tracer tests, and (4) other techniques
Each group is discussed briefly below
3.3.1 Shallow Water Table Tests
All the techniques in Table 3-7 for shallow water table
measure hydraulic conductivity The auger hole method
is the most widely used This method involves boring an
open hole below the water table, removing water, and
measuring the water level at intervals until water
reaches the original level Other methods may be more
appropriate for different site conditions This type of test
is generally not suitable for purposes of WHPA deline-
ation, because it requires a water table near the surface
and measures only hydraulic conductivity of the upper
part of the aquifer An exception may be in areas where
potential contamination from agricultural chemicals in
the wellhead area is a concern Because the tests are
4 The section and table references In Table 3-7 refer to sections and
tables in the EPA guide from which the table Is taken (U S EPA, 1993)
containing additional Information about the technique This guide is
available from EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information
55
-------
Table 3-7. Summary Information on Aquifer Test Methods
Technique
Shallow Water Tabte
Auger Hole
Pit Baling
Pumped Borehole
Piezometer
Tube
Well Point
Two-Hole
Four-Hote
Muttipla-Hole
Drainage Outflow
WoH Tests
Slug (Injection/Withdrawal)
Slug (Displacement)
Single-Well Pump
Multiple-Well Pump
Single Packer
Two-Packer*"
Tracers
Ions
Dyes
Gases
Stable Isotopes
Radioactive Isotopes
Water Temperature
Particulatos/Mteroorganlsms
Otfwr Techniques
Water Balance
Moisture Profile
Shallow Goothormal
Fluid Conductivity Log
Neutron Activation
Differential Temperature Log
Flow Meters
Single-Well Tracer Methods
Other Borehole Methods
Plezometrlc Map
Confined/
Unconflned
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Porous/
Fractured
Porous
Porous**
Porous
Porous
Porous**
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Porous
Porous
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Aquifer
Properties
Measured
K (horizontal)*
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (vertical)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K, H,T
K,H,T
K, S,T
A, K, S, T
K, H, T
K, H,T
D, F, V
D, F, V
D, F, R, V
D, F, R, V
D, F, R, V, T****
D,F, V
D, F, V
R
S
F, R
F
F, H,V
F
F, H, V
F, H, V
H
F, H
Chapter
Section8
421
421
421
422
422
422
423
423
423
423
431
431
432
432
433
433
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
451
452
162
313
335
352
353-355
356
Section 3
41
Table3
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-3
4-3, 4-6
4-3
4-3,4-6
4-3,4-6
4-3
4-3,4-6
4-5
Boldface « most commonly used methods
A* anlsotropy; D * dispersivity; F = flow direction, H = heterogeneity, K = hydraulic conductivity, R = recharge/age, S = specific storage/yield
TsTransmissivity; V = Velocity '
* Directional ratings are qualitative in nature Different references may give different ratings depending on site conditions and criteria used to
define directionality For example, U S EPA (1981) and Hendrickx (1990) note that this method often measures primarily horizontal conductivity
whereas Bouma (1983) indicates that the direction is undefined (see Rgure 7-2)
** Can be used in rocky soils, other methods generally require fine-grained soils
*" Can ba used to measure saturated hydraulic conductivity both above and below the water table in open holes in consolidated rock
*"* Actual uses are much more restricted due to health concerns
56
-------
relatively fast and inexpensive, they may be useful for
measuring variations in hydraulic conductivity in the
wellhead area with a shallow water table
3.3.2 Well Tests
Well tests are the most common and versatile methods
for directly measuring aquifer parameters They fall into
three mam categories (1) single-well slug tests, (2)
pumping tests (single and multi-well), and (3) packer
tests (single- and two-packer) Slug tests involve meas-
uring the rate at which water in a well returns to its initial
level after (1) a sudden injection or withdrawal of a
known volume of water from a well, or (2) instantaneous
displacement by a float, weight, or change in pressure
Pumping tests involve removing water from a well over
a period of time from days to possibly weeks and meas-
uring the changes in water levels in the pumping well
(single-well test) and adjacent monitoring wells (multi-
ple-well test) Pactertests are used to measure hydrau-
lic conductivity in isolated sections of a borehole by
monitoring the time-pressure response of the aquifer
section when water is injected The data from well tests
are plotted and matched against curves calculated using
analytical solutions to ground water flow appropriate for
the well construction and aquifer characteristics (Sec-
tion 4 5)
As Table 3-7 indicates, all well tests measuie hydraulic
conductivity, but the types of other aquifer parameters
that can be obtained from these tests van/ Slug and
packer tests provide information on relatively small por-
tions of an aquifer, but are relatively easy to conduct and
consequently are well-suited for characterizing aquifer
heterogeneity Pumping tests are more complex and
difficult to carry out, but provide information on a larger
portion of the aquifer Pumping tests are the only well
test method that provides information on the aquifer
storage properties of an entire aquifer
A key element of aquifer testing is the selection of an
appropriate analytical solution, or type curve developed
from an analytical solution, to analyze the test data
Characteristics of the aquifer should not violate the as-
sumptions used in developing the analytical solution
Checklist 4-1 should be used to identify key aquifer
characteristics that affect aquifer test results ASTM
(1991) provides guidance on the selection of aquifer well
test methods Figure 3-12 provides a decision tree for
the selection of methods covered in that guide Table 3-8
provides an index of references that give analytical so-
lutions to aquifer test data according to purnp test con-
ditions and type of test This table includes quite a few
references not cited in ASTM (1991) and is most likely
to be useful when aquifer conditions depart significantly
from assumptions in the most commonly used analytical
methods (Sections 4 4 and 4 5)
Well test methods are best suited for porous media, and
most methods tend to give misleading results where
fracture or conduit flow is an important component of
ground water flow Section 542 discusses how the
response of an aquifer to pumping can be used to
evaluate whetner fracture flow is a significant compo-
nent of flow in an aquifer
3.3.3 Tracer Tests
Ground water tracers are primarily used to identify the
source, direction, and velocity of ground water flow and
the dispersion of contaminants Depending on the type
of test and the hydrogeologic conditions, other parame-
ters, such as hydraulic conductivity, porosity, chemical
distribution coefficients, source of recharge, and age of
ground water can also be measured Any detectable
substance that can be injected into the subsurface and
travel in the vadose or saturated zone can serve as a
tracer Table 3-9 identifies more than 60 substances that
have been reported or suggested as tracers in ground
water studies Any contaminant that is detected in
ground water functions as a tracer, provided that the
original source is known
Table 3-9 groups tracers into seven major categories
and provides some summary information on uses of
these groups of tracers for aquifer characterization The
categories are (1) ions and other water soluble com-
pounds, (2) dyes, (3) gases, (4) stable isotopes, (5)
radioactive isotopes, (6) water temperature, and (7) par-
ticulates (including spores, bacteria, and viruses) Dyes
and ions are probably the most commonly used tracers
at contaminated sites Dye tracer tests are especially
valuable for characterizing fracture flow and flow in karst
limestone systems, where conventional well tests may
yield misleading results and ground water flow direc-
tions tend to be unpredictable Tritium, released into the
atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s,
serves as a useful tracer to identity ground water that
has been recharged in the last 30 years or so
3.3.4 Other Techniques
Table 3-7 identifies ten miscellaneous techniques for
aquifer characterization Piezometric maps were cov-
ered in detail in the previous chapter Numerous proce-
dures have been developed for hydrologic analysis
based on the water balance or budget for an area A
simple water balance equation is as follows (Dunne and
Leopold, 1978)
AGWS = P-I-AET-OF-ASM-GWR (3-5)
where
AGWS = change in ground water storage
P = precipitation
I = interception
57
-------
Tnamvi A««ifg. Sec. 5 «
Gnnpnen tad Rjuney (33)
BircnbUll«al(34)
Boulton ud Strtluon (35)
Mooch (3$)
Miltltte Aaatfera. Sec. 5JJ
Bennett and Pattea (28)
Hantmh(29)
NeiHUan and Withenpoon (30,31)
Jivradd and Withenpoon (32)
RWUl-Vertcil Athotropy, Sec. 5.2J 1
Week (22,23)
HediMitilAiltolroHr.Sec.53J2
A«ulfcr. Stc. 5.2.4
Feiroctal(25)
SU2nun(26)
Lohman(27)
OKooflxd Aqrifer. Stc. 53
Coaitant Dnchane. Slut Teal,
SeciJl Sec.513
BoBlton(37. 38 39) BoowerandRice(43)
Neuman (40.41,42) Bouwer(44)
Cedhd Aarfftr, See. 5 J.1
ytt
Couuat Duchvte,
Sec. 5.21 1
Tbea(l)
Cooper and Jacob (2)
J«cob<3)
VlrftHeDuctanc,
Sec. 5.2.1.2
SUUnura(4)
Hannah (6)
Abu Zied and Scott (8)
Aron and Scon (S)
La!ela1(9)
Moencn(5)
Slug Teg
Sec.52M
Hvonlcv(l2)
Cooper etal (14)
Constant Dnwdown.
Sec. 5.2 13
Jacob and Lohmin (10)
Hantush(6)
RuihtonandRathod(ll)
[\VllhnilSloraat, Sec. 53 2J
I Hannah and Jacob (19)
FIgu« 3-12. Decision tree for selection of aquifer test methods
(ASTM, 1991)
AET = actual evapotranspiration
OF = overland flow
ASM = change in soil moisture
GWR = ground water outflow
Many variants are possible The usual procedure is to
formulate the equation with the parameter of interest on
the left-hand side and the other components that define
the hydrologic system of an area or aquifer of interest
on the right-hand side Dunne and Leopold (1978) and
Brown et al (1983) are good sources for further infor-
mation on the water balance approach
The most useful application of the water balance ap-
proach in relation to wellhead protection is for estimation
of recharge in the zone of contribution of a well The
Thornthwaite Water Balance method is commonly used
for this purpose (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1955 and
1957) In an unconfmed aquifer, changes in soil moisture
profiles in response to changes in the water table pro-
vide an alternative to pumping tests for measurement of
specific yield
The barometric efficiency of confined aquifers, a meas-
ure of the response of a confined aquifer to changes in
atmospheric pressure, is being increasingly used to es-
timate aquifer storage properties and transmissivrty
(Section 2 1 5 and Table 2-3) Table 3-7 also identifies
some of the more commonly used borehole geophysical
logging methods for measuring aquifer parameters
These methods are used primarily for characterizing
aquifer heterogeneity vertically within a single borehole
and laterally between boreholes Chapter 5 (Hydro-
geologic Mapping) describes this process further
Table 3-8 Index to References on Analytical Solutions for Pumping Test Data
Pump Test Conditions References
Confined
Non-loaky, fully penetrating wells
Constant Discharge Theis (19935), Cooper and Jacob (1946), Jacob (1950), Variable Discharge
Abu-Zied and Scott (9163), Aron and Scott (1965), Hantush (1964), Lai et al (1973), Moench
(1971), Stallman (1962), Constant Drawdown Hantush (1964), Jacob and Lohman (1952),
Rushton and Rathod (1980), Unclassified Boulton and Streltsova (1977a,b)*, Brutsaert and
Corapcioglu (1976), Moench and Pnckett (1972), Papadopulos (1967)
Non-leaky, partially penetrating wells Hantush (1964)
Laaky, fully penetrating wells
Unconfinod
Fully penetrating wells
Partially penetrating wells
MuWpte Aquifers
Laloral Boundary
No Storage In Confining Bed Hantush and Jacob (1955), Storage in Confining Bed Hantush
(1960), Multiple Aquifers Hantush (1967), Neuman and Witherspoon (1972), Unclassified
Corapcioglu (1976), Hantush (1956,1959,1964*), Jacob (1946), Lai and Su (1974)
Constant Discharge Boulton (1954a, 1954b, 1963), Neuman (1972, 1973), Unclassified Boulton
and Streltsova (1978)*, Cooper and Jacob (1946), Jacob (1963), Neuman (1975)*, Pnckett (1965)
Hantush (1962), Boulton and Streltsova (1976)*, Streltsova (1974*. 1976*)
Aral (1990a, 1990b), Bennetand Patton (1962), Hantush (1967), Javendal and Witherspoon
(1969), Neuman and Witherspoon (1969-confined, 1972-leaky)
Ferris etal (1962), Lohman (1972), Stallman (1963)
'Analytical solutions for anisotropte aquifer conditions See also Table 3-10
Source Categories In first column taken from Driscoll (1986), subcategones in the second column taken from ASTM (1991) Unclassified
references are identified In Drisooll (1986), but not ASTM (1991) iv.«»mwj
58
-------
Table 3-9 List of Major Ground Water Tracers
INJECTED TRACERS
Natural Tracers
Stable Isotopes
Deuterium (2H)
Oxygen-18
Carbon-12
Carbon-13
Nitrogen-14
Nitrogen-15
Strontium-88
Sulfur-32
Sulfur-34
Sulfur-36
Radioactive
Tntum
Sodium-24
Chromium-51
Cobalt-58
Cobalt-60
Gold-198
Iodine 131
Phosphorus-32
Activable
Bromine-35
lndium-39
Manganese-25
Lanthanum-57
Dysprosium-68
Inactive
Ionized Substances
Na+CI
K+CI
Li+CI
Na+l
K+Br
Dnft Material
Lycopodium spores
Bacteria
Radioactive Isotopes
Tritium fH)
Carbon-14
Silicon-32
Chlonne-36
Argon-37
Argon-39
Krypton-81
Krypton-85
Bromine-32
Radon-222
Fluorocarbons
Viruses
Fungi
Sawdust
Fluorescent Dyes
Optical bnghteners
Tinopal 5Bm6x(FDA 22)
Direct Yellow 96
Fluorescein
Acid Yellow 7
Rhodamme WT
Eosm (Acid Red 87)
Amidorhodamme 6
(Acid Red 50)
Physical Characteristics
Water Temperature
Flood pulse
Gases
Helium
Argon
Neon
Krypton
Xenon
Source US EPA(1993)
3.3.5 Measurement ofAnisotropy
Measurement of anisotropy requires determination of
the direction of maximum and minimum hydraulic con-
ductivity In a homogenous, horizontally layered aquifer,
the direction of minimum conductivity is usually as-
sumed to be in the vertical direction, and the maximum
in the horizontal direction (Section 222) Fetter (1981)
suggests collecting undisturbed cores for measurement
of vertical hydraulic conductivity in the laboratory and
using slug tests, which primarily measure horizontal
conductivity, in the test hole This procedure also re-
quires installation of at least three wells to determine
accurately the orientation of equipotential lines
A number of other methods have been developed for
estimating anisotropy in layered aquifers using pumping
tests Most require a minimum of two or three observa-
tion wells, in addition to a pumping well, to measure the
degree of departure from a circular cone of depression
that occurs in an isotropic aquifer In fractured rock
aquifers, anisotropy can occur in three directions with no
principle axis aligned in a vertical or horizontal direction
In this situation, various approaches have been devel-
59
-------
oped for measuring anisotropy using packer tests in
multiple holes The dipole flow test, recently described
by Kabala (1993), is a single hole, multi-level packer test
that measures distribution of horizontal and vertical hy-
draulic conductivity and the specific storativity when
applied to different bounded intervals
Table 3-10 provides an index to references where more
detailed information on specific methods for measuring
anisotropy can be obtained Figure 5-3 in Chapter 5
illustrates pumping test responses that serve as qualita-
tive indicators of anisotropy
3.4 Laboratory Measurements of Aquifer
Parameters
Laboratory measurements of the properties of aquifer
materials require the collection of undisturbed soil cores
using thin-wall samplers for unconsolidated materials or
rotating core samplers for rock Porosity can be calcu-
lated if the dry bulk density of a known volume of soil or
rock and the average particle density are known (Daniel-
son and Sutherland) Various laboratory methods are
available for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity
of soil cores Alemi et al (1986), ASTM (1968, 1990),
Cleveland et al (1992), Klute and Dirksen (1986)
A disadvantage of measuring aquifer properties from
core samples is that they sample a very small portion of
the aquifer. Consequently, values for hydraulic conduc-
tivity tend to be low compared to values measured in the
field, which include the effects of secondary porosity and
aquifer heterogeneities (Bradbury and Muldoon, 1990,
Bryant and Bodocsi, 1987) On the other hand, labora-
tory measurement of multiple samples can provide valu-
able information on the vertical and lateral variability of
aquifer properties This information is especially impor-
tant for constructing grids for three-dimensional aquifer
modeling (Chapter 6)
3.5 References*
Abu-Zied, M and VH Scott 1963 Nonsteady Flow for Wells with
Decreasing Discharge J Hydraulic Div ASCE 89(HY3) 119-132
Alemi, M H, D R Nielsen, and J S Biggar 1976 Determining the
Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil Cores by Centnfugation Soil Sci
Soc Am J 40212-218
Alyamani, MS and Z Sen 1993 Determination of Hydraulic Con-
ductivity from Complete Grain-Size Distribution Curves Ground
Water 31 (4) 551-555
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1968 Standard
Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)
D2434-68, (Vol 4 08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA [K > 1x103 cm/s]
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1990 Standard
Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Satu-
rated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
D5084-90, (Vol 408), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA [K< 1x10"3 cm/s]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1991 Standard
Guide for Selection of Aquifer-Test Field and Analytical Procedures
in Determination of Hydraulic Properties by Well Techniques
D4043-91, (Vol 408), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA
Aral, M M 1990a. Ground Water Modeling in Multilayered Aquifers
Steady Flow Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 114 pp [Includes
disks for SLAM — steady layered aquifer model]
Aral, MM 1990b Ground Water Monitoring in Multilayered Aquifers
Unsteady Flow Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 143 pp [includes
disks for ULAM — unsteady layered aquifer model]
Tabfa 3-10 Index to References on Characterizing Hydraulic Properties of Anisotropic and Fractured Rock Aquifers
Topic References
Anisotropy
General
Bear and Dagan (1965), Fetter (1981), Freeze (1975), Llakopoulos (1965), Maasland (1957a, 1957b), Marcus
(1962), Scheidegger (1954)
Cited by ASTM Hantush (1961), Papadopoulos (1965), Neuman (1975), Weeks (1964, 1969), Other Citations
Boulton and Strellsova (1976), Butler and Liu (1993), Dagan (1967), Hantush (1966a, 1966b), Hantush and
Thomas (1966), Hsieh and Neuman (1985), Mansur and Dietrich (1965), Neuman et al (1984), Norris and Fidler
(1966), Way and McKee (1982)
Laboratory Methods Banton (1993), Rocha and Franciss (1977), Other Field Loo etal (1984-surface tiltmeter
survey), Maasland (1955-auger hole method)
Duguid and Lee (1977), Gal (1982), Gerke and van Genuchten (1993), Long and Billaux (1987), Long et al
(1982), Nelson (1985), Schmellmg and Ross (1989), Snow (1969), Tsang and Tsang (1987)
Cited by ASTM Barenblatt et al (1960), Boulton and Streltsova (1977b), Grmgarten and Ramey (1974), Moench
(1984), Other Citations Boulton and Streltsova (1977a, 1978), Elkins and Skov (1960), Gal (1982), Gringarten
(1982), Gringarten and Witherspoon (1972), Hsieh and Neuman (1985), Hsieh et al (1983, 1985), Jenkins and
Prentice (1982), Lewis (1974), McConneli (1993), Ramey (1975), Sauveplane (1984), Smith and Vaughn (1985)
Barker and Black (1983-slug tests), Bianchi and Snow (1968-fracture orientation), Huntley et al (1992-specific
capacity), Kerfoot (1992—thermal flowmeter, dye tracers), Moore (1992-hydrograph analysis) Ritzie and
Andolesk (1992-azimuthal resistivity), Tsang (1992), Witherspoon et al (1987-seismic), Young and Waldrop
(1990-EM borehole flowmeter)
• See also reference for pump test methods in fractured rock, which also characterize anisotropy, when present
Pump Test Methods*
Other Methods
Fractured Rock
Genera!
Pump Test Methods
Other Methods
60
-------
Aron, G and VH Scott 1965 Simplified Solutions for Decreasing
Flow in Wells J Hydraulics Division ASCE 91 (H\ 5) 1-12
Banton, O 1993 Field- and Laboratory-Determined Hydraulic Con-
ductivities Considering Anisotropy and Core Surface Area Soil Sci
Soc Am J 47 10-15 [Constant-head permeameler]
Barenblatt, G I, I P Zheltov, and IN Kochma 1960 Basic Concepts
in the Theory of Seepage of Homogenous Liquids in Fissured
Rocks [Strata] J Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 241286-
1301
Barker, J A and J H Black 1983 Slug Tests in Rssured Aquifers
Water Resources Research 191558-1564
Barton, Jr, A R et al 1985 Groundwater Manual for the Electric
Utility Industry, Vol 1 Geological Formations and Groundwater
Aquifers, 1st ed EPRICS-3901 Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA
Bear, J and G Dagan 1965 The Relationship Between Solutions
of Row Problems in Isotropic and Anisotropic Soils J Hydrology
3 88-96
Bedinger, M S 1961 Relation Between Median Gram Size and Per-
meability in the Arkansas River Valley U S Geological Survey
Professional Paper 424C, pp C31-C32 [Empirical equation for K
in sandy alluvium]
Bennett, G D and E P Patton, Jr 1962 Constant-Head Pumping
Test of a Multiaquifer Well to Determine Charactenstics of Individ-
ual Aquifers US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-G,
203 pp
Bianchi, L and D Snow 1968 Permeability of Crystalline Rock
Interpreted from Measured Orientations and Apertures of Frac-
tures Ann And Zone 8(2) 231-245
Boulton, NS 1954a Unsteady Radial Flow to a Pumped Well Allow-
ing for Delayed Yield from Storage Int Assoc of Hydrological
Sciences Publ No 37, pp 472-477
Boulton, N S 1954b Drawdown of the Water Table Under Non-
Steady Conditions Near a Pumped Well in an Unconfined Forma-
tion Proo Inst of Civil Engineers (London) 3(Pt3) 564-579
Boujton, N S 1963 Analysis of Data from Nonequilibnum Pumping
Tests Allowing for Delayed Yield from Storage Proc Inst of Civil
Engineers (London) 26 469-482
Boulton, N S and TD Streltsova 1976 The Drawdown Near an
Abstraction Well of Large Diameter Under Non-Steady Conditions
in an Unconfined Aquifer J Hydrology 30 29-46 [Homogenous
amsotropic aquifer]
Boulton, NS and TD Streltsova 1977a. Unsteady Flow to a
Pumped Well in a Two-Layered Water-Bearing Formation J Hy-
drology 35245-256 [Anisotropic, non-leaky confined fractured
rock aquifer]
Boulton, NS and TD Streltsova 1977b Unsteady Flow to a
Pumped Well in a Fissured Water-Bearing Formation J Hydrology
35 257-269 [Anisotropic, non-leaky confined fractured rock aqui-
fer]
Boulton, NS andTD Streltsova 1978 Unsteady Flow to a Pumped
Well in a Fissured Aquifer with a Free Surface Level Maintained
Constant Water Resources Research 14(3) 527-532 [Anisotropic,
unconfined, fractured-rock aquifer]
Bradbury, KR and MA Muldoon 1990 Hydraulic Conductivity De-
terminations in Unlithified Glacial and Fluvial Materials In Ground
Water and Vadose Zone Monitonng, DM Nielsen and AI
Johnson (eds), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 138-151 [Bedinger, Hazen,
Krumbem and Monk, Cosby et al and Puckett et al hydraulic
conductivity estimation methods]
Brown, R H , A A Konoplyantsev, J Ineson, and VS Kovalensky
1983 Ground-Water Studies An International Guide for Research
and Practice Studies and Reports in Hydrology No 7 UNESCO,
Pans
Brown, K W, R P Breckmndge, and R C Rope 1991 Soil Sampling
Reference Field Methods U S Fish and Wildlife Service Lands
Contaminant Monitoring Operations Manual, Appendix J Prepared
by Center for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, 83415 [Final
publication pending revisions resulting from field testing of man-
ual]
Brutsaert, W and M Y Corapcioglu 1976 Pumping of Aquifer with
Visco-Elastic Properties J Hydraulics Division ASCE
102(HY11) 1663-1675
Bryan*, J and A Bodocsi 1987 Precision and Reliability of Labora-
tory Permeability Measurements EPA/600/2-86/097 (NTIS PB87-
113791)
Butler, Jr.JJ and W Liu 1993 Pumping Test in Nonuniform Aqui-
fers The Radially Asymmetric Case Water Resources Research
29(2) 259-269
Chilmgar, G V 1963 Relationship Between Porosity, Permeability,
and Gram-Size Distribution of Sands and Sandstones In Proc
Int Sedimentol Congr, Amsterdam, Antwerp
Cleveland, TG , R Bravo, and J R Rogers 1992 Storage Coeffi-
cients and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivities in Aquitards Using
Extensometer and Hydrograph Data Ground Water 30(5) 701-
708 [Measurement of compression and swelling index on cores
in laboratory]
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) 1991
Guidelines for Mapping Stratified Drift Aquifers to Level B Mapping
Standards CDEP, Hartford, CT, 11 pp
Cooper, Jr H H and C E Jacob 1946 A Generalized Graphical
Method for Evaluating Formation Constants and Summarizing Well
Field History Trans Am Geophysical Union 27(4) 526-534
Corapcioglu, M Y 1976 Mathematical Modeling of Leaky Aquifers
with Rheological Properties Int Assoc of Hydrological Sciences
Pub No 121, pp 191-200
Cosby, BJ, GM Hornberger, RB Clapp, and TR Gmn 1984 A
Statistical Exploration of the Relationship of Soil Moisture Charac-
teristics to the Physical Properties of Soils Water Resources Re-
search 20(6) 682-690 [Empirical equation for K from soil samples
throughout the U S ]
Dagan, G 1967 A Method of Determining the Permeability and
Effective Porosity of Unconfined Anisotropic Aquifers Water Re-
sources Research 3 1059-1071
Danielson, RE and PL Sutherland 1986 Porosity In Methods of
Soil Analysis, Part 1,2nd ed , A Klute (ed), Agronomy Monograph
No 9 American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl, pp 443-461
Davis, S N and R J M DeWiest 1966 Hydrogeology John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 463 pp
Devmny, J S , L R Everett, JCS Lu, andRL Stollar 1990 Sub-
surface Migration of Hazardous Wastes Van Nostrand Remhold,
New York
61
-------
Duguld, JO and PC Y Lee Row in Fractured Porous Media Water
Resources Research 13558-566
Dunne, T and LB Leopold 1978 Water in Environmental Planning
WH Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 818 pp
ElWns, L F and A M Skov 1960 Determination of Fracture Orienta-
tion from Pressure Interference Trans Am Inst Mining Eng
219.301-304
Ferris, J G, D B Knowles, R H Brown, and R W Stallman 1962
Theory of Aquifer Tests U S Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1536-E
Fetter, Jr.CW 1981 Determination of the Direction of Groundwater
Flow Ground Water Monitoring Review 1(3) 28-31 [Effect of an-
Isotropy]
Freoze, RA 1975 A Stochastic-Conceptual Analysis of One-Dimen-
sfonal Ground Water Flow in Nonuniform Homogeneous Media
Water Resources Research 11 725-741 [See, also, comment by
G. Dagan, WRR 12 567 and reply by Freeze WRR 12 568]
Freeze, R.A andJ.A Cherry 1979 Groundwater Prentice-Hall Pub-
lishing Co, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 pp
Gale, J E 1982. Assessing the Permeability Characteristics of Frac-
tured Rock. In Recent Trends In Hydrogeology, TN Narasimhan
(ed), Geological Society of America Special Paper 189, pp 163-
182.
Gerka, H H and MT van Genuchten 1993 A Dual-Porosity Model
for Simulating the Preferential Movement of Water and Solutes in
Structured Porous Media Water Resources Research 29(2) 305-
319
Grlngarten, A C 1982 Flow Test Evaluation of Fractured Reservoirs
In Recent Trends In Hydrogeology, Geological Society of Ameri-
can Special paper 189. pp 237-263
Grlngarten, A.C andHJ Ramey, Jr 1974 Unsteady-State Pressure
Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Horizontal Fracture,
Partial Penetration, or ResWcted Entry Society of Petroleum En-
gineers Journal 14(4) 413-426
Grlngarton, A.C and RA. Witherspoon 1972 A Method of Analyzing
Pump Test Data from Fractured Aquifers In Proc Symp on Per-
colation through Fissured Rock (Stuttgart), Int Soc Rock Mechan-
ics and Int Assoc Engineering Geologists, pp T3-B-1 to T3-B-8
Hantush, M S 1956 Analysis of Data from Pumping Tests in Leaky
Aquifers Trans Am Geophys Union 37(6) 702-714
Hantush, MS 1959 Non-Steady Flow to Flowing Wells in Leaky
Aquifers J Geophysical Research 64(8) 1043-1052
Hantush, MS 1960 Modification of the Theory of Leaky Aquifers J
Geophysical Research 65(11) 3713-3725
Hantush, MS 1961 Drawdown Around a Partially Penetrating Well
J HydrauUc Division, ASCE87(HY4) 83-98 [Radial vertical anisot-
ropy]
Hantush, M S 1964 Hydraulics of Wells Advances In Hydroscience
1-281-432 [Includes analytical solutions for anlsotropfc aquifer
conditions]
Hantush, M.S. 1966a Walls in Homogeneous Anlsotroplc Aquifers
Watsr Resources Research, 2(2) 273-279
Hantush, M.S 1966b. Analysis of Data from Pumping Tests In An-
Isotropto Aquifers J Geophys Res 71(2)421-426
Hantush, M S. 1967 Flow to Wells In Aquifers Separated by a
Samlpervlous Layer J Geophysical Research 72(6) 1709-1720
Hantush, MS and C E Jacob 1955 Non-Steady Radial Flow in an
Infinite Leaky Aquifer and Non-Steady Green's Functions for an
Infinite Strip of Leaky Aquifer Trans Am Geophysical Union
36(1)95-100
Hantush, MS and R E Thomas 1966 A Method for Analyzing a
Drawdown Test in Anisotropic Aquifers Water Resources Re-
search 2(2) 281-285
Hazen.A 1893 Some Physical Properties of Sand and Gravels with
Special Reference to Their Use in Filtration 24th Annual Report,
Massachusetts State Board of Health, Boston [Empirical equation
for K for clean filter sands]
Heath, RC 1983 Basic Ground-Water Hydrology US Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220 Repubhshed in a 1984 edition
by National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH
Hendry, M J and B A Paterson 1982 Relationships Between Satu-
rated Hydraulic Conductivity and Some Physical and Chemical
Properties Ground Water 20(5) 604-605 [Texture, depth, electri-
cal conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, saturation percentage]
Horn, ME 1971 Estimating Permeability Rates J Irrig Drainage
Div ASCE 97(IR2) 263-274
Hsieh,PA andSPNeuman 1985 Field Determination of the Three-
Dimensional Hydraulic Conductivity Tensor of Anisotropic Media,
1 Theory Water Resources Research 21(11) 1655-1665
Hsieh, PA.SP Neuman, andES Simpson 1983 Pressure Testing
of Fractured Rock—A Methodology Employing Three-Dimensional
Cross-Hole Tests NUREG/CR-3213, U S Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC
Hsieh, PA, S P Neuman, G K Stiles, and E S Simpson 1985 Field
Determination of Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Conductivity Tensor
of Anisotropic Media 2 Methodology and Application to Fractured
Rocks Water Resources Research 21(11) 1667-1676 [Multi-well,
multi-level packer pressure tests]
Huntley, D R Nommensen, and D Steffey 1992 The Use of Specific
Capacity to Assess Transmissivity in Fractured-Rock Aquifers
Ground Water 30(3) 396-402
Jacob, C E 1946 Radial Flow in a Leaky Artesian Aquifer Trans
Am Geophysical Union, 27(2) 198-205
Jacob, CE 1950 Flow of Ground Water In Engineering Hydraulics,
H Rouse (ed), Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 321-386
Jacob, CE 1963 Determining the Permeability of Water Table Aqui-
fers In U S Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, pp
245-271
Jacob, CE andSW Lohman 1962 Nonsteady Flow to a Well of
a Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer Trans Am Geo-
physical Union 33(4) 559-569
Javendal, I and PA Witherspoon 1969 Method of Analyzing Tran-
sient Fluid Flow in Multilayered Aquifers Water Resources Re-
search 5(4) 856-869
Jenkins, DN andJK Prentice 1982 Theory for Aquifer Test Analy-
sis In Fractured Rocks Under Linear (Nonradial) Flow Conditions
Ground Water 20 12-21
Kabala, ZJ 1993 The Dipole Flow Test A New Single-Borehole Test
for Aquifer Characterization Water Resources Research 29(1) 99-
107 [Packer test]
Kerfoot, WB 1992 The Use of Borehole Flowmeters and Slow-Re-
lease Dyes to Determine Bedrock Flow for Wellhead Protection
In Ground Water Management 11 755-763 (Proc of the 6th
NOAC) [Thermal flowmeter]
62
-------
Klute, A andC Dirksen 1986 Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity
Laboratory Methods In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1,2nd ed,
A Klute (ed ), Agronomy Monograph No 9 American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, Wl, pp 687-734
Krasny, J 1993 Classification of Transmisswity Magnitude and Vari-
ation Ground Water 31(2) 230-236
Krumbem, WC andGD Monk 1942 Permeability as a Function of
the Size Parameters of Unconsohdated Sand Trans Petroleum
Dw AIMME 151 153-163 [Empirical equation for k using labora-
tory prepared sand samples]
Lai, R YS and C -W Su 1974 Nonsteady Row to a Large Well in
a Leaky Aquifer J Hydrology 22 333-345
Lai, RY, GM Karadi, and R A Williams 1973 Drawdown at Time-
Dependent Flowrate Water Resource Bulletin 9(5) 854-859
Lewis, C 1974 Introduction a I'HydrauIique des Roches (in French)
Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Miniers, Orleans, France
[Three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity tensor using hydraulic
triple probe technique, see Hsieh and Neuman (1985) for descrip-
tion]
Llakopoulos, A C 1965 Variation of the Permeability Tensor Ellipsoid
in Homogenous Anisotropic Soils Water Resources Research
1(1)135-142
Lohman, S W 1972 Ground-Water Hydraulics U S Geological Sur-
vey Professional Paper 708 [Covers methods for estimating aqui-
fer parameters]
Long, J C S and D M Billaux From Field Data to Fiacture Network
Modeling J Hydrology 100 379-409
Long, J C S , J S Remer, C R Wilson, and PA Witherspoon 1982
Porous Media Equivalents for Networks of Discontinuous Frac-
tures Water Resources Research 18(3)645-658
Loo, WW, K Frantz, and G R Holzhausen 1984 The Application
of Telemetry to Large-Scale Horizontal Anisotropic Permeability
Determinations by Surface Tiltmeter Survey Ground Water Moni-
toring Review 4(4) 124-130
Maasland, M 1955 Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity by the
Auger Hole Method in Anisotropic Soil Soil Science 81 379-388
Maasland, M 1957a Theory of Fluid Flow Through Anisotropic Me-
dia In Drainage of Agricultural Lands, J H Luthin (ed), ASA
Monograph 7, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl
Maasland, M 1957b Soil Anisotropy and Land Drainage In Drain-
age of Agricultural Lands, J H Luthin (ed), ASA Monograph 7,
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl, pp 216-285
McConnell, CL 1993 Double Porosity Well Testing in the Fractured
Carbonate Rocks of the Ozarks Ground Water 31 75-83
McKay, L D , J A Cherry, and R W Gillham 1993 Field Experiments
in Fractured Clay Till 1 Hydraulic Conductivity and Fracture Aper-
ture Water Resources Research 29(4) 1149-116?
McWhorter, DB and DK Sunada 1977 Ground-Water Hydrology
and Hydraulics Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 492
pp [Later edition published 1981]
Mansur, Cl and RJ Dietrich 1965 Pumping Test to Determine
Permeability Ratio J Soil Mech and Foundation Div ASCE
91(SM4) 151-183
Marcus, H 1962 The Permeability of a Sample of an Anisotiopic
Porous Medium J Geophys Res 675215-5225
Masch, FD and KJ Denny 1966 Grain-Size Distribution and Its
Effect on the Permeability of Unconsolidated Sands Water Re-
sources Research 2 665-677
Moench, A F 1971 Ground-Water Fluctuations in Response to Arbi-
trary Pumpage Ground Water 9(2) 4-8
Moench, A F 1984 Double Porosity Model for a Fissured Ground-
water Reservoir with Fracture Skin Water Resources Research
20(7) 831-846
Moench, A F and TA Pnckett 1972 Radial Flow in an Infinite Aquifer
Undergoing Conversion from Artesian to Water Table Conditions
Water Resources Research 8(2) 494-499
Moore, G K 1992 Hydrograph Analysis in a Fractured Rock Terrane
Ground Water 30(3) 390-395
Moms, DA and AI Johnson 1967 Summary of Hydraulic and
Physical Properties of Rock and Soil Materials as Analyzed by the
Hydraulic Laboratory of the U S Geological Survey U S Geologi-
cal Survey Water Supply Paper 1839-D, pp D1-D42
Nelson, R A 1985 Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reser-
voirs Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering, V 1,
Gulf Publishing Co , Houston, Texas, 320 pp
Neuman, S P 1972 Theory of Flow in Unconfmed Aquifers Consid-
ering Delayed Response of the Water Table Water Resources
Research 8(4) 1031-1045
Neuman, S P 1973 Supplementary Comments on Theory of Flow
in Unconfined Aquifers Considering Delayed Response of the
Water Table' Water Resources Research 9(4) 1102
Neuman, S P 1975 Analysis of Pumping Test Data from Anisotropic
Unconfined Aquifers Considering Delayed Gravity Response
Water Resources Research 11(2) 329-342
Neuman, SP and PA Witherspoon 1969 Theory of Flow in a
Confined Two Aquifer System Water Resources Research
5(4)803-816
Neuman, S P and PA Witherspoon 1972 Field Determination of
the Hydraulic Conductivity of Leaky Multiple Aquifer Systems
Water Resources Research 8(5) 1284-1298
Neuman, S P G R Walter, H W Bentley, J J Ward, and D D Gon-
zalez 1984 Determination of Horizontal Aquifer Anisotropy with
Three Wells Ground Water 22(1) 66-72
Nielsen, DM (ed) 1991 Practical Handbook of Ground Water Moni-
toring Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml (published in cooperation
with National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH), 717 pp
Norns, SE 1963 Permeability of Glacial Till US Geological Survey
Professional Paper 450-E, pp E150-E151
Norns, S E and R E Fidler 1966 Use of Type Curves Developed
from Electric Analog Studies of Unconfined Flow to Determine the
Vertical Permeability of an Aquifer at Piketon, Ohio Ground Water
443-48
Papadopulos, I S 1967 Drawdown Distribution Around a Large-Di-
ameter Well In Ground-Water Hydrology, M Marion (ed), AWRA
Proc Series No 4, American Water Resources Association, Be-
thesda, MD, pp 157-167
Papadopoulos, IS 1965 Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite
Anisotropic Aquifer In Proc Dubrovnik Symp on Hydrology of
Fractured Rocks, Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Publ No 23, pp 21-31
[Horizontal anisotropy]
Prickett, TA 1965 Type Curve Solutions to Aquifer Tests Under
Water Table Conditions Ground Water 3(3) 5-14
Puckett, WE, J H Dane, and B F Hajek 1985 Physical and Min-
eralogical Data to Determine Soil Hydraulic Properties Soil Sci
Soc Am J 49831-836 [Empirical equation for saturated hydraulic
conductivity for six Ultisols, soil moisture retention]
63
-------
Ramay, Jr., H J 1975 Interference Analysis for Anisotroplc Forma-
tion—A Case Study J Petroleum Technology 27(10) 1290-1298
[Papadopoulos method]
Ritzi.Jr.RW andRH Andolsek 1992 Relation Between Anisot-
ropte Transmlssivity and Azimuthal Resistivity Surveys in Shallow,
Fractured, Carbonate Flow Systems Ground Water 30(5) 774-
780
Rocha, M and F Franciss 1977 Determination of Permeability in
Anisotroplc Rock Masses from Integral Samples In Structural and
Geotechnlcal Mechanics, W J Hall (ed), Prentice-Hall, New York
pp. 178-202
Rushton, KR andKS Rathod 1980 Overflow Tests Analyzed by
Theoretfcal and Numerical Methods Ground Water 18(1) 61-69
Sauveplane, C 1984 Pumping Test Analysis in Fractured Aquifer
Formations State of the Art and Some Perspectives In Ground-
water Hydraulics, J Rosenshein, J andG Bennett (eds), Ameri-
can Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph 9, pp
171-206
ScheWegger, A.E 1954 Directional Permeability of Porous Media to
Homogeneous Ruids Geofis PuraAppI 3017-26
Schmolling, S Q and R R Ross 1989 Contaminant Transport in
Fracture Media Models for Decision Makers EPA/540/4-89/004
QmS PB90-268517), 8 pp
SOVQB, J 1991 Methods and Procedures for Defining Aquifer Pa-
rameters In. Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring,
D M Nielsen (ed), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, pp 397-447
Smith, E D. and N D Vaughan 1985 Experience with Aquifer Testing
and Analysis In Fractured Low-Permeability Sedimentary Rocks
Exhibiting Nonradial Pumping Response In Hydrogeology of
Rocks of Low Permeability, Memoirs, 17th Congress Int Assoc
Hydrogeologlsts (Tucson, AZ) XVI1137-149
Snow, DT 1969 Anisotropfc Permeability in Fractured Media Water
Resources Research 51273-1289
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1990 Elementary Soil Engineering
In Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices SCS,
Washington, DC, Chapter 4
StaKman, RW 1962 Variable Discharge without Vertical Leakage
(Continuously Varying Discharge) In Theory of Aquifer Tests, US
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, pp E118-E122
StaMman, R W 1963 Type Curves for the Solution of Single-Bound
Problems U S Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1545-C
pp C45-C47
Streltsova, TD 1974 Drawdown in Compressible Unconfined Aqui-
fer J Hydraulics Division, ASCE 100(HY11) 1601-1616 [Includes
solution for anisotropic aquifer conditions]
Streltsova, TD 1976 Analysis of Aquifer-Aquitard Flow Water Re-
sources Research 12(3) 415-422
Thols, CV 1935 The Relation between the Lowering of the Pie-
zometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a
Wall Using Ground Water Storage Trans Am Geophysical Union
16(Pt2) 519-524
Thompson, C M, LJ Hoteombe, D H Gancarz, A E Behl, J R Erik-
son, I Star, RK Waddell, and J S Fruchter 1989 Techniques to
Develop Data for Hydrogeochemicai Models EPRIEN-6637 Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
* Soa Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
Thornthwaite, C W andJR Mather 1955 The Water Balance Pub-
lications in Climatology, vol 8, No 1, Laboratory of Climatology,
Centerton, NJ, 104 pp
Thornthwaite, C W andJR Mather 1957 Instructions and Tables
for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and Water Balance
Publications in Climatology Vol X, No 3 Drexel Institute of Tech-
nology, Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, NJ
Todd, D K 1959 Groundwater Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 535 pp [2nd edition published 1980]
Tsang, Y W 1992 Usage of "Equivalent Apertures" for Rock Fractures
as Derived From Hydraulic and Tracer Tests Water Resources
Research 28(5) 1452-1455
Tsang, YW and C F Tsang 1987 Channel Model of Flow Through
Fractured Media Water Resources Research 23 467-479
Uma,KO,BCE Egboka, and KM Onuoha 1989 New Statistical
Gram-Size Method for Evaluating the Hydraulic Conductivity of
Sand Aquifers J Hydrology 108-434-366 [See also, 1991 com-
ment by Z Sen in J Hydrology 130 399-403]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 Subsurface Field
Characterization and Monitoring Techniques A Desk Reference
Guide, Vol I Solids and Ground Water EPA/625/R-93/003a Avail-
able from CERI *
Vukovic, M and A Soro 1992 Determination of Hydraulic Conduc-
tivity of Porous Media from Gram-Size Composition Water Re-
sources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 86 pp
Way, SC andCR McKee 1982 In-Situ Determination of Three-Di-
mensional Aquifer Permeabilities Ground Water 20(5) 594-603
[Multi-well pump test for homogeneous, anisotropic, leaky aquifer]
Weeks, E P 1969 Determining the Ratio of Horizontal to Vertical
Permeability by Aquifer Test Analysis Water Resources Research
5(1) 196-214
Weeks, E P 1964 Field Methods for Determining Vertical Permeabil-
ity and Aquifer Anisotropy U S Geological Survey Professional
paper 501-D, pp D193-D198
Wiebenga, WA, WR Ellis, and L Kevi 1970 Empirical Relations
in Properties of Unconsolidated Quartz Sand and Silts Pertaining
to Water Flow Water Resources Research 6 1154-1161
Wilson, L 1981 Potential for Ground-Water Pollution in New Mexico
In Environmental Geology of New Mexico, New Mexico Geological
Society Special Publication 10, pp 47-54
Witherspoon, PA, J C S Long, E L Majer, and L R Myer 1987 A
New Seismic-Hydraulic Approach to Modeling Flow in Fractured
Rocks In Proc NWWA/IGWMC Conf on Solving Ground-Water
Problems with Models, National Water Well Association, Dublin
OH, pp 793-826
Young, SC andJS Pearson 1990 Characterization of Three-Di-
mensional Hydraulic Conductivity Field with an Electromagnetic
Borehole Flowmeter In Proc Fourth Nat Outdoor Action Conf
on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical
Methods Ground Water Management 2 83-97
64
-------
Chapter 4
Simple Methods for Mapping Wellhead Protection Areas
This chapter describes a number of simple methods for
mapping wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) These
range from the very simple arbitrary fixed radius method
(Section 431), which requires only a map and a com-
pass for inscribing a circle of the defined radius around
a well, to analytical methods that can be solved graphi-
cally or with a hand calculator A microcomputer with a
spreadsheet program, although not required, can
greatly facilitate the use of these methods (Section
641)
Most of the methods covered in this chapter represent
adaptations of basic ground water flow equations and
equations developed to analyze data collected from
pumping tests using one or more criteria for WHPAs
(Section 4 1) Section 4 2 briefly examines some basic
ground water flow equations, and the remaining sec-
tions describe fixed-radius and simplified shape meth-
ods (Section 43) and simple analytical methods for
wellhead delineation (Sections 4 4 and 4 5)
4.1 Criteria for Delineation of Wellhead
Protection Areas
U S EPA (1987) defined five criteria that may be used
singly or in combination to define the area around a well
in which contamination could represent a threat to drink-
ing water drawn from the well (1) distance, (2) draw-
down, (3) time of travel, (4) flow boundaries, and (5)
assimilative capacity These are described briefly below
Section 422 examines interactions between areas de-
fined by thresholds established under different criteria
4.1.1 Distance
The distance criterion uses a fixed radius or other di-
mension from a well to delineate a WHPA As discussed
in Section 431, this criterion usually is based on some
kind of analysis involving the application of other criteria
to generalized hydrogeologic settings The approach is
simple and very inexpensive It is only suitable as a
preliminary step, because the criterion considers ground
water flow or contaminant processes only indirectly
Since the zone of contribution (Section 4 1 4) rarely is
circular, a fixed radius that provides adequate protection
will almost always include areas for which protective
actions are not required Distance is also the end-
product of the application of other delineation criteria
4.7.2 Drawdown
Drawdown occurs when water is removed from an aqui-
fer by pumping The water level declines in the vicinity
of the well, creating a gradient that drives water toward
the discharge point The gradient becomes steeper
closer to the well, because the flow is converging from
all directions and the area through which the water flows
gets smaller This results in a cone of depression around
the well (Figure 4-1) The cone of depression around a
well tapping an unconfmed aquifer is relatively small
compared to that around a well in a confined system
The former may be a few tens to a few hundred feet in
diameter, while the latter may extend outward for miles
The zone of influence (ZOI) is the distance from the well
where changes in the ground water surface can be
measured or inferred as a result of pumping (Figure
4-2) In a homogenous, porous aquifer, the ZOI will be
circular In heterogenous porous and fractures aquifers,
the ZOI typically has an elliptical or irregular shape
Ground water velocities increase within the cone of
depression of a well, causing contaminants to flow more
rapidly toward the well The drawdown criterion accu-
rately defines areas requiring protection over the aquifer
downgradient from the well, but generally does not in-
clude the zone of contribution upgradient based on flow
boundaries (Figure 4-2 and Section 414)
4.1.3 Time of Travel (TOT)
The time of travel criterion requires delineation of iso-
chrones (contours of equal time) on a map that indicate
how long water or a contaminant will take to reach a well
from a point within the zone of contribution (Section
4 1 4) The WHPA falls in the portion of the zone of
contribution that is downgradient from the selected iso-
chronia (say 50 years time of travel) This area is called
the zone of transport (ZOT) When the zone of contribu-
tion to a well is large (i e, ground water from the farthest
parts may take hundreds or thousands of years to reach
the well), the ZOT will define a smaller area than the
65
-------
Land Surface
Units of Cone
of Depression
Land Surface •
Potentkxnotnc Surface
' -'
Drawdown
Confining Bed
.-.
\
/V. Cone of
\| I / Opraa.cn
If
SS/S/////////;
Confined Aquifer
Confining Bad
The cone of depression sutrourxSng a pumping waS tn an unconfined aquifer a relatively small compared to that m a confined system
Ftgtim 4-1. Cones of depression In unconfined and confined aquifers (from Heath, 1983)
zone of contribution criterion (Figure 4-2) If the ZOC is
small, the two will generally overlap
DIVIDE
UIOSUMACI
UOENO-
flnffc»nc»
ZOT Z«i»ITtiRipon
Figure 4-2. Relationship between zone of Influence (ZOI), zone
of transport (ZOT), and zone of contribution (ZOC)
tn an unconfined porous-media aquifer with a slop-
Ing regional water table (from U S EPA, 1987)
4.1.4 Flow Boundaries (Zone of Contribution)
The flow boundary criterion uses mapping of ground
water divides and/or other physical and hydrologic fea-
tures that control ground water flow to define the geo-
graphic area containing ground water that flows toward
a pumping well (Figure 4-2) Designating this zone of
contribution (ZOC) as the WHPA provides the maximum
amount of protection, although there are special cases
where the drawdown (zone of influence) and time of
travel (zone of transport) criteria will coincide with the
ZOC (Section 422)
4.7.5 Assimilative Capacity
The assimilative capacity criterion allows the reduction
of a WHPA if contaminants are immobilized or attenu-
ated while moving through the vadose zone of the aqui-
fer so that concentrations are within acceptable limits by
the time they reach a pumping well This may occur by
processes of dilution, dispersion, sorption, chemical pre-
cipitation, and biological degradation (Section 1 2) A
WHPA defined by this criterion would include the zone
of attenuation (ZOA)
This criterion can be used in several ways Incorporation
of an empirical retardation factor tor a specific contami-
nant that represents the combined effects of attenuation
processes in the aquifer into time of travel calculations
would result in a shift of isochrones closer to the well A
more complex application involves establishing an ac-
ceptable concentration of a contaminant at the well and
66
-------
using solute transport models to define the distance
required to avoid exceeding the target concentration
(Figure 4-3)
In practice, this is an unrealistic approach because of
the difficulty of characterizing aquifer physical and
chemical properties for transport modeling of multiple
contaminants Where only one or two contaminants,
such as nitrate loadings from septic tanks or pesticide
loadings, are of primary concern, this approach may be
very useful
4.2 Overview of Wellhead Protection
Delineation Methods
4.2.1 Classification of Delineation Methods
Because the process of wellhead delineation typically
involves the use of more than one of the criteria
discussed in the previous section, methods for wellhead
delineation are not readily classified into distinctive
categories This guide classifies WHPA delineation
methods into four major groups of generally increasing
complexity
1 Geometric methods that involve the use of a
pre-determmed fixed radius and aquifer geometry
without any special consideration of the flow system,
or the use of simplified shapes that have been
pre-calculated for a range of pumping and aquifer
conditions (Section 4 3)
Simple analytical methods that allow calculation of
distances for wellhead protection using equations
that can be solved using a hand calculator or
microcomputer spreadsheet program These
methods fall into two major groups, which are often
used in combination time of travel calculations
(Section 44) and drawdown calculations (Section
45)
Hydrogeologic mapping, which involves identification
of the zone of contribution (as defined by flow
boundaries) based on geomorphic, geologic,
hydrologic, and hydrochemical characteristics of an
aquifer This is often used in combination with simple
analytical methods and is usually required when
using more complex analytical and numerical
computer flow and transport models Chapter 5
covers techniques for hydrogeologic mapping
Computer modeling methods, which involve the use
of more complex analytical or numerical solutions to
ground water flow and contaminant transport
U)
NOTE
S Continuous contamination
(torn a point souice plume
(b)
8 =
5f
£*
§
o
1000 —
LEGEND
5L Waier Table
NOTE
C,>C,>C2
Wheie
Ca = Acceptable concentration at well
C| = Concentration of Source 1 at well
Cj « Concentration ot Souice 2 at well
Figure 4-3 Conceptual illustration of WHPA delineation based on zone of attenuation (from U S EPA, 1987)
67
-------
processes. These methods can be broadly grouped
Into simple and complex models, as discussed in
Chapter 6
This classification scheme is generally similar to that
used In U S EPA (1987) with the following differences
(1) the arbitrary fixed radius, volumetric flow equation,
and simplified shapes methods are all placed in the
geometric category, (2) calculated fixed radius is
dropped as a category because the two examples given
fall into separate categories (the volumetric equation is
geometric, and the Vermont Department of Water Re-
sources method is a simple analytical method using a
drawdown criterion), (3) the numerical flow/transport
models category includes more complex analytical mod-
els that require computer programs for solution
Table 4-1 summarizes the advantages and disadvan-
tages and identifies the type of threshold criteria used
for the three geometric methods and the three other
Tabla 4-1 Comparison of Major Methods for Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas
Methods/Criteria Advantages Disadvantages
Geometric Methods
Arbitrary Rxed Radius
(distance)
Cylinder Method (calculated
fixed radius)
Simplified Variable Shapes
(TOT, flow boundaries)
Other Methods
Sfmpte Analytical Methods
(TOT, drawdown, flow
boundaries)
Hydrogeologic Mapping
(flow boundaries)
Computer Semi-Analytical
and Numerical
Row/Transport Models
(TOT, drawdown, flow
boundaries)
—Easily implemented
—Inexpensive
—Requires minimal technical expertise
—Easy to use
—Relatively inexpensive
—Requires limited technical expertise
—Based on simple hydrogeologic principles
—Only aquifer parameter required is porosity
—Less susceptible to legal challenge
—Easily implemented once shapes of
standardized forms are calculated
—Limited field data required once standardized
forms are developed (pumping rate, aquifer
material type and direction of ground water
flow)
—Relatively little technical expertise required
for actual delineation
—Greater accuracy than calculated fixed radius
for only modest added cost
—More accurate than simplified variable
shapes because based on site-specific
parameters
—Technical expertise required, but equations
are generally easily understood by most
hydrogeologists and civil engineers
—Various equations have been developed,
allowing selection of solution that fits local
conditions
—Allows accurate characterization of
drawdown in the area closest to a pumping
well
—Cost of developing site-specific data can be
high
—Well suited for unconfined aquifers in
unconsolidated formations and to highly
anisotropic aquifers such as fracture bedrock
and conduit-flow karst
—Necessary to define aquifer boundary
conditions
—Most accurate of all methods and can be
used for most complex hydrogeologic
settings, except where karst conduit flow
dominates
—Allows assessment of natural and
human-related affects on the ground water
system for evaluating management options
—Low hydrogeologic precision
—Large threshold radius required to compensate
for uncertainty will generally result in
overprotection
—Highly vulnerable aquifers may be underprotected
—Highly susceptible to legal challenge
—Tends to overprotect downgradient and
underprotect upgradient because does not
account for 2OC
—Inaccurate in heterogeneous and anisotropic
aquifers
—Not appropriate for sloping potentiometric surface
or unconfined aquifer
—Relatively extensive data on aquifer parameters
required to develop the standardized forms for a
particular area
—Inaccurate in heterogenous and anisotropic
aquifers
—Relatively extensive data on aquifer parameters
required for input to analytical equations
—Most analytical models do not take into account
hydrologic boundaries, aquifer heterogeneities,
and local recharge effects
—Less suitable for deep, confined aquifers
—Requires special expertise in geomorphic and
geologic mapping and judgement in
hydrogeologic interpretations
—Moderate to high manpower and data collection
costs
—High degree of hydrogeologic and modeling
expertise required
—Less suitable than analytical methods for
assessing drawdowns close to pumping wells
—Extensive aquifer-specific data required
—Most expensive methods in terms of manpower
and data collection/analysis costs
68
-------
major types of methods for delineating WHPAs (simple
analytical methods, hydrogeologic mapping, and com-
puter modeling) With the minor differences described
above, this table follows the sequence of methods cov-
ered in U S EPA (1987) Other important general refer-
ences on wellhead protection delineation methods
include Everett (1992), Matthess et al (1985), and
Southern Water Authority (1985) Important references
focusing on special geologic settings for WHPA deline-
ation include Kreitler and Senger (1991) for confined
aquifers and Bradbury et al (1991) for fractured rock
aquifers
Guidance documents for WHPA delineation have been
developed by a number of states Most of these docu-
ments use or elaborate on methods outlined in U S EPA
(1987) Baize and Gilkerson (1992—South Carolina),
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(1991a, 1991b), Heath (1991—North Carolina, also
used in Piedmont areas of South Carolina and Georgia),
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (1990), Mary-
land Department of the Environmental (1991), Muldoon
and Payton (1993—Wisconsin), New Hampshire De-
partment of Environmental Services (1991), Oregon De-
partment of Environmental Quality (1991), Swanson
(1992—Oregon), Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation (1983), and Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (1990)
In addition, all state submittals to the U S Environ-
mental Protection Agency for approval of wellhead pro-
tection programs contain a section describing WHPA
delineation methods to be used in the state Often these
documents contain state-specific criteria foi the applica-
tion of geometric methods (see examples in Section
43)
4.2.2 Relationship of Protection Areas
Based on Different Criteria
Table 4-2 provides summary definitions of types of well-
head areas based on four of the five criteria for wellhead
protection (1) zone of influence (ZOI), (2) zone of travel
(ZOT), (3) zone of contribution (ZOC), and (4) zone of
attenuation (ZOA) The first criterion, a fixed distance
threshold, is based on a qualitative or semiquantitative
application of one or more of these criteria Table 4-2
also defines the hydrogeologic or other conditions re-
quired for one zone to be less than, equal to, or greater
than another zone, and provides an indication of how
commonly the relationship occurs In general the follow-
ing relationships occur ZOA < ZOI < ZOT < ZOC
4.3 Wellhead Delineation Using
Geometric Methods
Site-specific use of geometric methods for wellhead
delineation requires no mathematical calculations (aibi-
Table 4-2 Relationships of WHPAs Based on Zone of
Influence, Time of Travel, Zone of Travel, Zone of
Contribution, and Zone of Attenuation
Terms/
Relationship Description
Zone of ZOI = area of drawdown or the cone of depression
Influence around a well created by pumping
Zone of ZOT = area around a well defined by a time of
Travel8 travel (TOT) isochron and aquifer boundaries
ZOTmax = ZOT defined by TOTmin isochron or the
edge of the ZOC, whichever is closer to the well
Zone of ZOC = portion of an aquifer in which all recharge
Contribution and ground water flows toward a pumping well
The boundaries of the ZOC are defined by ground
water divides and other aquifer boundaries
Zone of ZOA = area around an aquifer capable of reducing
Attenuation concentrations of a contaminant entering the area
at a specified maximum concentration level to less
than a defined acceptable concentration at the well
ZOI < ZOT When distance to TOTmln isochron (i e ZOTmax
boundary edge) lies outside the cone of
depression Most common situation for unconfmed
aquifers
ZOI = ZOT When distance to TOTmm isochron = distance to
ZOI boundary edge
ZOI > ZOT When TOTmin isochron lies within cone of
depression for a well Unlikely to occur in
unconfined aquifers, may occur in confined
aquifers with very large ZOI
ZOI < ZOC When upgradient ground water divide lies outside
cone of depression The case in most
hydrogeologic settings
ZOI = ZOC Rare May occur with flat water table, with high
recharge from rainfall within ZOI Also possible
when ZOI straddles a ground water divide
ZOI > ZOC Cannot occur
ZOT < ZOC When distance to TOTmin isochron < distance to
ZOC boundary The most common situation The
difference between the two zone decreases as the
TOT threshold criterion increases
ZOT = ZOC When distance to TOTm|n isochron = distance to
ZOC boundary
ZOT > ZOC By definition, cannot occur However, in this
situation TOT is less than TOTm|n indicating that
the well is very vulnerable to contamination from
sources within the ZOC
ZOA < ZOT When assimilative capacity is > 0
ZOA = ZOT When contaminant is not attenuated by the aquifer
a Defined by time of travel criterion TOT = time of travel for ground
water or contaminants from a point in an aquifer to a pumping well
= the minimum acceptable time of travel for purposes of
wellhead delineation TOT isochron = a line from which TOT is the
same at all points to a pumping well
trary fixed radius and simplified variable shapes) or very
simple volumetric calculations based on pumping rate
and aquifer porosity (cylinder method) The arbitrary
fixed radius and simplified variable shape methods,
however, must be based on prior use of more sophisti-
cated analysis of ground water flow in hydrogeologic
settings similar to the site at which the geometric
69
-------
method is being used Figure 4-4 illustrates these three
methods
4.3.1 Arbitrary Fixed Radius
The arbitrary fixed radius method (Figure 4-4a) requires
only (1) a base map, (2) a defined distance criterion
based on a generalized application of time of travel or
drawdown criteria to aquifers with similar characteristics
to the aquifer to be protected, and (3) a compass to draw
a circle with a radius around the well(s) that equals the
distance criterion The method does not explicitly ac-
count for site-specific conditions, except that some as-
sessment of the applicability of the assumptions used in
developing the distance criterion to the site is required
Table 4-1 summarizes advantages and disadvantages
of this method
Rgures 4-5 through 4-7 illustrate applications of this
method. Figure 4-5 illustrates two graphs used in Mas-
sachusetts to determine a protective radius based on
pumping rate The Zone 1 protective radius is subject to
the most stringent protection measures and is applied
to all wells (Figure 4-5a) The radius for interim wellhead
protection (Figure 4-5b) is used to delineate an outer
protective Zone II until the result of more accurate
WHPA delineation methods are available Figure 4-6
illustrates a graph for determining the radius of an outer
management zone based on pumping rate for crystalline
rock aquifers in Georgia Figure 4-7 illustrates a graph
for determining an initial protective radius in stratified
drift aquifers based on both pumping rate and transmis-
sh/ity. Table 4-3 illustrates a slightly different format for
this method The Theis method (Section 453) was used
to calculate typical 2- and 5-year time of travel distances
at different pumping rates for the five major aquifer types
in Idaho. This table allows identification of an interim
protective radius until more accurate wellhead deline-
ation methods can be used
4.3.2 Cylinder Method (Calculated Fixed
Radius)
The cylinder method uses a volumetric flow equation to
calculate a fixed radius around a well through which
water will flow at a specified travel time (Figure 4-4b)
The radius, in effect, defines a circular time of travel
Isochrone around the well, which, extended through the
aquifer, delimits a cylinder with a pore volume equal to
the volume of water pumped during the specified period
The basic equation is:
(4-1)
where:
Q = pumping rate of well
t s time of travel threshold
n = aquifer porosity
H = open interval or length of well screen
r = radius of cylinder
Solving for the radius, r, yields the equation
r = Sqrt(QT/7tnH)
(4-2)
This equation is most appropriate for a highly confined
aquifer with no vertical leakage from the overlying con-
fining bed The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation uses the volumetric equation and a 5-year
time of travel criterion to define Zone II of a WHPA (U S
EPA, 1987)
The volumetric flow equation is not appropriate for un-
confined aquifers because the cone of depression cre-
ates an aquifer geometry that is not cylindrical and does
not take recharge into account It also requires a negli-
gible regional gradient (<0 0005 or 0 001) Steeper gra-
dients will result in a zone of influence that is not circular
(see Figure 4-2) Since all water is assumed to come
from the aquifer, the volumetric flow equation results in
overprotection of semiconfmed aquifers, because it
does not account for flow into the aquifer from vertical
leakage through the confining bed
If the vertical flow of water can be quantified by analyz-
ing pumping test data or using the variant of Darcy's Law
covered in Section 454, leakage can be incorporated
into the volumetric equation as follows
Q = Qa + QI
(4-3)
where
Qa = volume of water pumped from the aquifer
QI = volume of water entering the aquifer through
leakage
Since both of these values depend upon the radius,
which is the unknown, a trial-and-error solution using a
computer spreadsheet is probably the easiest way to
determine the radius at which the Qa + Q| equals the
pumping rate
4.3.3 Simplified Variable Shapes
The simplified variable shapes approach is really based
on a combination of analytical solutions using time of
travel (Section 4 4) and drawdown equations (Section
4 5) Once the shapes are established, however, site-
specific application of the method involves orienting and
drawing the shapes on a base map without any mathe-
matical calculations If aquifer characteristics (porosity,
hydraulic conductivity) in an area are relatively uniform,
representative or standardized shapes for different lev-
els of pumping are established using drawdown and
time of travel criteria If aquifei characteristics vary in the
area in which the shapes are to be used, then different
combinations of aquifer parameters and pumping rates
70
-------
WHPA BOUNDARY
(a)
—^Pumping wad
1 Q.SOOgpm
-;e.02S
Volumatric-fkjw aquation
(Cylinder tqualnn)
R.SQRT(QtAteH)
when l-40yr
r. 6000 ft
(b)
Delineate Standardized Forms for Certain Aquifer Type
Direction of
. Ground Water
Flow
Various standardized farms ar« gimratad using analytical equations using srtsof
rapnsgntatlv* hydrogeoloflk: pararmtars. Upgradtont t«tent of WHPA Is calculated with
Time of Traval tquaUwi, downgradKnt with unHarm (low equation
STEP 2 I Apply Standardized Form to Wellhead in Aquifer Type
Direction of Ground
Water Flow
WHPA
Standardized form ft than applied to wells with similar pumping rate
and hydrogeologlc parameters.
(c)
Figure 4-4 WHPA delineation using geometric methods (a) fixed radius (U S EPA, 1991), (b) cylinder method, (c) simplified shapes
(U S EPA, 1987)
71
-------
Zone 1 Protective Radius
Massachusetts DEP - Division of Water Supply
i
i
Zone I nuthni In ftct « [180 * lot at pinnplng n
Approved Daily Yitld (gallons/day)
(a)
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL PUMPING RATE VS INTERIM WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA
3000
IWPA radius in feet = (32 x pumping rate in gallons per minute) — 400
I I I I l"|-
9O
720OO
(0
•4400
100,000
PUMPING RATE IN GALLONS PER MINUTE X 1440 MINUTES/DAY = GALLONS PER DAY
Rgure 4-5 Fixed radius for wellhead protection in Massachusetts based on pumping rate (a) Zone 1 protective radius, (b) protective
radius for Zone II Interim wellhead protection area (Pierce, 1992)
72
-------
4500-r
50
100 150 200 250 300
PDHPIHG RATS - Q .
Figure 4-7
Initial setback distance for level B mapping of
stratified drift aquifers based on pumping rate and
transmissivity (Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, 1991 b)
are tested to determine a large set of shapes Hundreds
of calculations may be required to establish "typical"
shapes for different aquifer characteristics and pumping
rates
This method requires that the necessaiy preliminary
work to define shapes has been completed Delineation
of a WHPAthen only requires (1) enough information
about a well to determine which shape "fits," and (2)
knowledge of the general direction of natural ground
water flow to orient the shape if it has any asymmetry
Figure 4-4c illustrates this process Table 4-1 identifies
relative advantages and disadvantages of this method
Figure 4-8 illustrates shapes used in New Jersey for
delineation of interim WHPAs in the three major types of
aquifers found in that state
4.4 WHPA Delineation Using Simple
Analytical Methods: Time of Travel
(TOT)
Dozens of analytical equations have been developed to
solve ground water flow problems The reason for the
large number is that different hydrogeologic settings and
well configurations require modifications of basic ground
water flow equations (Darcy's Law and the equation of
continuity) to account for aquifer boundary conditions
and other conditions, such as partial rather than full
penetration of an aquifer by a well Any ground water
flow equation can be reformulated to solve for distance
at a specified travel time The important thing is to
choose an equation with assumptions appropriate for
the well and aquifer in question This is discussed further
in Section 4 5
Many analytical equations describing ground water flow
can be solved with a hand calculator or by using a
microcomputer spreadsheet program (Section 641)
This section focuses on time of travel equations that
have been reported in the wellhead protection literature
that do not require special programming ability or off-
the-shelf software packages Section 642 discusses in
more detail relatively easy-to-use computer software
programs that allow more computationally complex ana-
lytical and semianalytical solutions to ground water flow
problems without the extensive data and specialized
knowledge required for numerical modeling with com-
puters
The equations covered here do not consider hydro-
dynamic dispersion (Section 122) or contaminant
retardation processes (Sections 1 3 and 415) In
homogeneous aquifers with no secondary porosity, re-
tardation processes for most contaminants tend to be
more significant than dispersion In this situation, time
of travel calculations will generally be overprotective
Where contaminants are not subject to attenuation (for
example, chlorides and nitrates) and where facilitated
transport is occurring (Section 1 2 4), time of travel cal-
culations should provide a reasonably accurate deline-
ation of the area at risk
On the other hand, time of travel calculations for
homogenous aquifers with significant secondary poros-
ity and heterogeneous aquifers > may significantly
underprotect wellhead areas, because hydrodynamic
73
-------
Tabla 4-3 Calculated Fixed Radii for Major Aquifers in Idaho (Idaho Wellhead Protection Work Group, 1992)
E. SNAKE RIVER PLAIN BASALTS
PUMP RATE
2 YEAR TOT
6 YEAH TOT
50GPM
leoo*
4400*
100 GPM
1600'
4400'
600 GPM
2000'
4700'
1000 GPM
2300
SOW
2000 GPM
2700'
5600'
3000 GPM
3100*
6000'
4000 GPM
3500*
6500'
COLUMBIA RIVER BASALTS
PUMP RATE
2 YEAH TOT
8 YEAR TOT
50GPM
300'
«xr
100 GPM
400*
600'
500 GPM
900'
1300'
UNCONSOUDATED ALLUVIUM
PUMP RATE
2 YEAH TOT
6 YEAR TOT
60GPM
6500'
16000'
100 GPM
6600'
160001
500 GPM
7100'
17000*
1000 GPM
1300'
2000'
2000 GPM
2200'
2900*
3000 GPM
2900*
3700'
4000 GPM
3700'
4600'
5000 GPM
3900
6900'
6000 GPM
4200*
7300'
7000 GPM
4600'
7700*
5000 GPM
4500'
6400'
6000 GPM
6300*
6200*
7000 GPM
8000*
7000'
1000 GPM
7700'
18000'
2000 GPM
8800'
18000'
3000 GPM
10000'
20000'
4000 GPM
11000
21000'
5000 GPM
i:>ooo
22000'
MIXED VOLCANICS/SEDIMENTARY ROCKS - PRIMARILY SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
PUMP RATE
2 YEAR TOT
6 YEAR TOT
50GPM
200'
300*
100 GPM
200*
400*
500 GPM
400'
70ff
1000 GPM
600
1000'
2000 GPM
900'
1300'
3000 GPM
1000*
1700
4000 GPM
1300'
1900'
5000 GPM
1600*
2200
6000 GPM
13000'
23000'
7000 GPM
14000*
24000'
6000 GPM
1BOO'
2500'
7000 GPM
aooo1
2700'
MIXED VOLCANICS/SEDIMENTARY ROCKS - PRIMARILY VOLCANICS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
PUMP RATE
2 YEAR TOT
5 YEAH TOT
eOGPM
3200*
8200'
100 GPM
3300'
6200'
600 GPM
3400*
6400'
1000 GPM
3600
6600
2000 GPM
3900'
9000
3000 GPM
4200
9300*
4000 GPM
4500
9700
5000 GPM
4600
10000'
6000 GPM
6000'
10000*
7000 GPM
S400*
11000*
GPM - Gallon* per mlnuta
TOT-Time of Travel
dispersion tends to be more significant than retardation
In such aquifers Hydrodynamic dispersion is significant
in these aquifers for several reasons (1) highly perme-
able porous zones and fracture/conduit flow result in
localized velocities that are significantly higher than the
average ground water velocity, (2) retardation proc-
esses are reduced in permeable zones (gravels, sands,
fractures, conduits) because permeable aquifer materi-
als tend to be less geochemically reactive For example,
the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of a sandy perme-
able zone in an aquifer will be significantly lower than
the CEC of less permeable fine-grained sediments It is
necessary to choose higher-than-measured hydraulic
conductivity values or use values in the upper range of
similar aquifer materials (Section 322) when the poten-
tial for hydrodynamic dispersion is high
4.4.1 TOT Using Darcy's Law and Flow Net
The simplest equation for calculating time of travel is the
form of Darcy's law that describes average linear veloc-
ity:
v = Ki/n
where-
v = average interstitial (linear) velocity
K = honzontal hydraulic conductivity
f« honzontal hydraulic gradient
n = porosity
(4-4)
This equation is most easily used when a potentiometnc
map of the aquifer is available for measuring hydraulic
gradients For preliminary calculations, K and n can be
estimated (Chapter 3) Once average velocity is known,
the time of travel over a given distance can be easily
calculated
t = d/v = dn/Ki
(4-5)
where
t = specified time of travel
d = distance
Or the distance to time of travel contours is calculated
as follows
= vt = tKi/n
(4-6)
where
d = the upgradient distance from the well to the TOT
line
v = average linear velocity (Equation 4-4)
t = specified time of travel
Sidebar 4-1 illustrates use of these equations This
equation is most applicable to the following situations
• To calculate time of travel in a highly confined aquifer
with a nearly flat potentiometnc surface (gradient of
<0 0005 to 0001)
• To calculate time of travel in an unconfmed aquifer
with a nearly flat water table and with drawdown that
74
-------
Public Well in Coastal Plain Aquifer
High Pumping Capacity
Low Gradient
High Aquifer Effective Porosity
High Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
Hybrid UFM/CFR Hethod
Wall in Piedmont Aquifer
Moderate Pumping Capacity
High Gradient
Moderate Aquifer Effective Porosity
Moderate Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
Hybrid OFM/CPR Method
I yr
19 jrr
<«««REGIONAL FLOW<«««
Well in Highlands Aquifer
Low Pumping Capacity
High Gradient
Low Aquifer Effective Porosity
Low Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
Hybrid UFM/CFR Method
ie rr <«««REGIONAL FLOW<«««
NJGS
6-15-90
Hap Scale = 1-24,000
2000 4000 60008000
FEET
M4« t* «¥«rl«» •• Ik* Pi«»l«|l»« Uses Outroilt
>r« »r*<«c«4 «(I«f Ik* Ktykil* Mlk*d f»;l«Mf k? tk« NJCS
Fkt p«rmt«r« «r« tyrletl
fkt fliiti w«r« itilit - -
rkl<
rk«(* HHPAt
Figure 4-8, Interim wellhead protection areas In New Jersey using simplified variable shapes (New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection and Energy, 1991}
75
-------
Sidebar 4-1.
Example Velocity and Time of Travel
Calculations
Interstitial velocity can be estimated by the following
equation
where
K * hydraulic conductivity
i s hydraulic gradient
v = average velocity, in ft/d
n « effective porosity
Time of travel can be calculated from the velocity us-
Jng the distance between the points for which the gra-
dient is calculated
tsd/v/365
where
t = time of travel in years
d «* distance in feet
The following example involves a spill of a conserva-
tive substance such as chlonde The liquid waste infil-
trates through the unsaturated zone and quickly
reaches a water table aquifer that consists of sand
and gravel with a hydraulic conductivity of 2,000
gpd/ft2 and an effective porosity of 0 20 The water
level in a well at the spill lies at an altitude of 1 ,525
feet and, at a well a mile directly downgradient, is at
1 ,515 feet The velocity of the water and the contami-
nant, and the time it will take for the chloride to con-
taminate the second well, can be determined by the
following equations
v s (2,000 gpd/ft2) x (10 ft/5,280 ft)/ 20 =
189gpd/f2 = 25ft/d*
t * 5,280 ft/2 5 Wd = 2,112 days or 5 8 yr
Rearranging the time of travel equation allows calcula-
tion of a fixed radius for a wellhead protection area
based on a time of travel threshold criterion
d * 365tv
In the above example, a threshold of 10 years would
result in an upgradient distance of 9,125 feet
*1ft/da748gpd/f?
is small compared to the aquifer or screened interval
(<10 percent)
To calculate time of travel of a contaminant from a
point source to a downgradient point of interest, if the
equipotential lines are approximately equally spaced
between the two points (i e , the aquifer is homoge-
neous) Somewhat moie complex methods are re-
quired for wells with steep gradients in the cone of
depression and wells in areas where there is a slop-
ing regional water table (Sections 442 and 443)
Equation 4 in Table 4-4 can be used to calculate velocity
induced by a pumping well with a circular cone of
depression
4.4.2 Cone of Depression/TOT (Flat Regional
Hydraulic Gradient)
Steep hydraulic gradients may exist in the vicinity of a
pumping well If this is the case, the changes in gradient
over relatively short distances must be considered when
using Equation 4-5 In confined aquifers especially, the
cone of depression may create a surface of continually
steepening gradients for a distance of miles from the
well In this situation, Kreitler and Senger (1991) recom-
mend calculating the time of travel for various incre-
mental distances from the well (e g, 0 to 10 ft, 10 to 100
ft, 100 to 1,000 ft, etc) using the hydraulic gradient for
each increment (values for n and K remain the same for
each calculation) The total time of travel to a given point
is the sum of the times of travel of each increment
Intermediate times of travel can be estimated graphi-
cally by plotting log of time of travel versus the log of
distance, which should be an approximately linear rela-
tionship Alternatively, the distance between increments
can be adjusted until the sum of the incremental TOTs
equals the target TOT
Equation 10 in Table 4-4 (which is essentially the same
as Equation 4-5) can be used for these calculations
This method requires reasonably accurate measure-
ment or estimation of the geometry of the cone of
depression
4.4.3 TOT With Sloping Regional
Potentiometric Surface
The cone of depression of a pumping well is asymmetric
when there is a significant slope with drawdown extend-
ing farther upgradient than downgradient Equations 5
and 6 in Table 4-4 can be used to calculate pumping
induced velocities in this situation Two similar time of
travel equations are available for this situation Kreitler
and Sen&Vr (1991) give the following equation, modified
from Bear and Jacob (1965)
tx = n/Ki [rx - (Q/27cKbi)ln{1 + (27tKbi/Q)rx}] (4-7)
where
tx = travel time from point x to a pumping well
n = porosity
rx = distance over which ground water travels in Tx,
rx is positive (+) if the point is upgradient, and
negative (-) is downgradient
76
-------
Table 4-4 Drawdown and Capture-Zone Geometry Equations (from Pekas, 1992)
DRAWDOWN CALCUUTIOHS - COHFINED AQUIFER (Section 453)
(la) Theoretical Drawdown .. 192 S 0 W(u)
c " 4 Pi K b
Sc R
4 K b t
Huntoon (1980)
Huntoon (1980)
(2) Pumping Well Drawdown
Javandel & Tsang (1986)
DRAWDOWN CALCULATIONS - UNCONFINED AQUIFER
(3) Approximate Drawdown
dh.
(2 b + [(2 b)1 - (4 1 2 b dhJT")
Walton (1962. 1967)
6ROUND-UATER FLOW VELOCITY CALCULATIONS (Sections 4 4 1 and 4 4 3)
(4) Velocity from Pumping
NET VELOCITY
(5) Upgradient from PU
(6) Downgradient from PW
V, =
2 Pi R b n.
+ K i
n.
„ V. - K 1
Vi p, = ' —
n.
& Tsang
Keely & Tsang (1983)
Keely & Tsang (1983)
GROUND-WATER DIVIDE CALCULATIONS (Section 451)
(7) Distance to Stagnation CB Q
2 Pi K b i
(8) Divide at Pumping Well „
Y"~ =
(9) Divide at Upgradient
2 Kb i
Javandel & Tsang (1986)
Javandel & Tsang (1986)
Javandel & Tsang (1986)
GROUND-WATER CAPTURE/TRAVEL TIME CALCULATIONS (Section 442)
(10) Capture/Travel Time
.. R n^_
r" ' K i,
McLane (1990)
WHERE
Q = Discharge or pumping rate (gpm) dh,;
Pi =3 14159 dh.
K = Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d
-------
Q « discharge
K = hydraulic conductivity
b s aquifer thickness
I = hydraulic gradient
In southern England the simplified variable shapes
method is used (see Section 433) employing the uni-
form flow equation (Section 451) and the following time
of travel equation (Southern Water Authority, 1985)
tx = S/v[±(rx - rw) + Zln{(Z ± rw)/(Z ± rx)}] (4-8)
where: Z = Q/2nKbi
and other factors not defined above are
v - velocity (see Eq 4-4)
S s specific yield or storativity
rw *» well radius
The plus or minus sign indicates a point upgradient and
downgradient, respectively
Calculation of distance for a specific travel time requires
trial-and-error calculations using different values for dis-
tances until the equation yields the desired travel time
This can easily be done using a spreadsheet on a
microcomputer
The main weaknesses of these equations are (1) they
only provide distance for travel times along a line
through the pumping well that is parallel to the regional
hydraulic gradient (i e, one point upgradient and one
point downgradient), and (2) they do not take into ac-
count recharge from the surface in unconfmed aquifers
or vertical leakage into semiconfined aquifers Where
equipotential lines on a potentiometric map are not
straight lines, this would be the shortest flow line up- and
downgradient. To define a wellhead protection area,
these equations must be used in combination with the
uniform flow equation (Section 451)
Kreitler and Senger (1991) recommend pathlme tracing
models such as WHPA and GWPATH (Section 6 4 3) as
the best method for calculating time of travel for confined
aquifers with regionally sloping potentiometric surfaces,
because they are able to actually define TOT contours
4.4.4 Interaquifer Flow and Time of Travel
The presence of a second aquifer separated by confin-
ing strata above or below a pumping well requires con-
sideration of whether to incorporate mteraquifer leakage
Into calculations for delineating a wellhead protection
area. Most of the simple methods for delineating well-
head protection areas assume that all of the water en-
tering the well comes from the aquifer in which the well
Is completed. If there is significant leakage, this assump-
tion results in a WHPA that is larger than required for
any given time of travel threshold
Any equations that use discharge from a well (Section
4 5) can take into account mteraquifer leakage, provided
that the amount of the leakage can also be calculated
A trial-and-error approach similar to that discussed in
Section 4 4 3 is required to determine the area in which
the volume of water from the aquifer and the volume of
water from leakage equals the volume of water pumped
from a well
Determining flow from one aquifer to another via a con-
fining unit uses a slightly modified form of Darcy's Law
QI = (Kv/m)AH
(4-9)
where
QI = quantity of leakage, in gpd
Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining
unit, in gpd/ft2
m = thickness of the confining unit, in ft
A = cross-sectional area, in ft2
H = difference in head between the two wells
Figure 4-9 illustrates two aquifers separated by a layer
of silt The silty confining unit is 10 feet thick and has a
hydraulic conductivity of 2 gpd/ft2 The difference in
water level between wells tapping the upper and lower
aquifers is 15 feet Assuming these hydrogeologic con-
ditions exist in an area of 1 square mile, the daily quan-
tity leaking from the shallower aquifer to the deeper one
within the area is
Q! = (2 gpd/tf/10 ft) x (5,280 ft)2 x 15 ft = 83,635,200 gpd
» , O 0 9 • 0
Aqurfer . , . „ »
* » 90
>i
Confining Bed — — —
P1 = 2 gpd/ft1 ~~ ~~ ~~_ .'
Aquifer
8 «•'*»*.*
8'*.9 .»B
•i
— - 110'
Arej of laakag* * 1 m*
f - 2gpd/ft«
m1 « 10 ft
Ah » 15ft
Q = PIA - -^r- AAh
m'
Q » rx x (5280 x 5280) x 15 * 83, (CIS,200 gpd
Figure 4-9 Using Darcy's Law to calculate the quantity of leak-
age from one aquifer to another
78
-------
This calculation clearly shows that the quantity of leak-
age, either upward or downward, can be highly signifi-
cant even if the hydraulic conductivity of the confining
unit is small
Kreitler and Senger (1991) propose using the time of
travel across a confining layer as one of several criteria
for differentiating semiconfmed from highly confined
aquifers Vertical time of travel across a confining layers
is
(4-10)
where factors not defined above are
tv = vertical time of travel (years) across the
confining layer
n = porosity
x = travel distance across confining strata
(generally equal to the thickness, m)
The required information comes from well log mterpie-
tation and pumping tests of the well or well field
Kreitler and Senger (1991) recommend a 40-year time
of travel to differentiate semiconfmed (40 years) Rearranging the above equa-
tion allows determination of the vertical permeability
required to separate a semiconfmed from a confined
aquifer
Kv=nmx/40H
(4-11)
Any other TOT threshold can be substituted for 40 in the
equation
4.5 WHPA Delineation Using Simple
Analytical Methods: Drawdown
By definition, wellhead protection areas are delineated
around pumping wells, which will create a cone of de-
pression Gradients within the cone of depression are
steeper than the local or regional hydraulic gradient,
causing ground water to flow more rapidly there Any
analytical method for analyzing the drawdown and flow
of ground water in the vicinity of a pumping well has
potential value for WHPA delineation provided that the
well design and aquifer conditions do not violate the
assumptions and boundary conditions upon which the
equation is based Most analytical methods focusing on
ground water flow to pumping wells have been devel-
oped to measure aquifer properties such as hydraulic
conductivity, specific yield, and storativity The same
equations, however, can be rearranged to solve for dis-
tance to a specific drawdown criterion using measured
or estimated values for other aquifer parameters for
WHPA delineation
Analytical solutions to ground water flow problems are
most easily developed for confined aquifers, because
the surface of the cone of depression does not represent
an actual flow, as in an unconfmed aquifer (i e , radial
flow to the well is horizontal throughout the vertical
section of the well, rather than having a vertical compo-
nent when it reaches the cone of depression) Exact
analytical solutions to radial flow to an unconfmed aqui-
fer are not possible, so simplifying assumptions that do
not completely reflect unconfmed flow conditions are
required (Todd, 1980) The simplifying assumptions gen-
erally do not create problems for estimating discharge
from a well, but become problematic in trying to define
the radius of the cone of depression for purposes of
WHPA delineation
Before selecting an analytical equation to characterize
the zone of influence (cone of depression) of an aquifer,
the characteristics of the aquifer and well must be known
or approximately known in order to select an equation
whose assumptions and boundary conditions are appro-
priate for the site Checklist 4-1 provides a checklist of
key well and aquifer characteristics that may affect the
appropriateness of a given analytical equation This sec-
tion focuses only on analytical equations for radial flow
to a pumping well Chapter 6 addresses considerations
related to modeling of ground water flow in one, two, and
three dimensions Only the most widely used analytical
methods are described here
4.5.1 Uniform Flow Equation (Sloping
Gradient)
The uniform flow equation has been widely used for the
delineation of wellhead protection areas where a sloping
water table results in an asymmetrical cone of depres-
sion (U S EPA, 1987, Kreitler and Senger, 1991, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,
1991) The general equation for the boundary of the
region producing inflow to a pumping well, developed by
the German Forchheimer in 1930, is as follows (Todd,
1980)
-y/x = tan[(2nKbi/Q)y]
(4-12)
where x and y are coordinates and other factors are as
defined earlier The zone of contribution is defined using
two equations derived from the above equation
and
x, = -Q/27rKbi
i = ±Q/2Kbi
(4-13)
(4-14)
These define the downgradient flow boundary (null
point) and the maximum width of the upgradient zone of
contribution, respectively (Figure 4-10) Equation 9 in
Table 4-4 can be used to calculate the distance to the
edge of the cone of depression upgradient Upgradient
79
-------
Checklist 4-1 Aquifer Characteristics for the
Selection of Analytical Solutions to
Ground Water Flow In the Vicinity of
Wells
Aquifer "type
Water taWe/unconflned
Confined, leaky
, Confined, non-leaky
Regional Hydraulic Gradient
<0 0005 (nearly flat)
0 0005 to 0 001 (transitional)
>0 001 (sloping)
Number of Aquifers
One
Two
More than two
Wen Penetration
Fully penetrating well
Partially penetrating welt
Aquifer Properties
Porous media
, Fracture flow*
Karst conduit flow
Isotroplc
Anisotropic
Homogeneous hydraulic parameters
Heterogeneous hydraulic parameters*
Flow Character/Dimension
. Steady-state
Transient
Radial
, X
X-Y
X-Y-Z
* Analytical solutions are not able to handle fracture flow or
heterogeneous aquifer properties In this situation,
maximum measured or estimated aquifer parameters such
as porosity and hydraulic conductivity should be used to
account for reduced time of travel resulting from fracture
from the well one or more zones can be delimited for
wellhead protection
1. Using the upgradient boundary of the cone of
depression
2. Delineating the entire upgradient zone of contribution
using ± yi as the width at the upgradient limit of the
cone of depression and using a potentiometric map
to extend the flow lines to a ground water divide or
other aquifer boundary (see Figure 6-5a)
3. Alternatively, using either of the time of travel
equations discussed in Section 44 to draw an
approximate TOT contour
The uniform flow equation applies to highly confined
aquifers It does not account for leakage, and so will
define larger WHPAs than are necessary if TOT criteria
are used As discussed in Section 444, it may be
possible to account for leakage, although in this situ-
ation, the noncircular shape of the cone of depression
would make this more difficult This equation can also
be used for unconfmed aquifers, using the saturated
thickness of the aquifer, provided that drawdown is
small (less than 10 percent) in relation to the saturated
thickness
4.5.2 Thiem Equilibrium Equation
The radial distance to zero drawdown for a pumping well
that has reached equilibrium (determined at the point at
which pumping at a constant rate does not result in
further declines in water levels in monitoring wells adja-
cent to the pumping well) can be estimated with the
Thiem equation (Thiem, 1906) Kreitler and Senger
(1991) present the equation in this form for calculating
distance to a specified drawdown criterion
= [Q/27iKb]logere/r
(4-15)
where
s = drawdown from original potentiometric surface
(threshold criterion)
Q - discharge
K = hydraulic conductivity
b = aquifer thickness
r = radial distance at point of drawdown observation
re = radial distance of zero drawdown of cone of
depression
Assumptions for this equation are fairly restrictive (1)
the aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic,1 (2) the aqui-
fer has infinite areal extent (i e , there are no boundary
conditions that affect flow within the cone of depression),
(3) the well penetrates the entire aquifer, (4) the regional
water table is nearly flat
4.5.3 Nonequilibrium Equations
A disadvantage of using the Thiem equation when con-
ducting pumping tests is that a long period of pumping
may be required to reach equilibrium A number of non-
equilibnum equations have been developed to measure
aquifer parameters based on changes m drawdown in
the pumping and monitoring wells as a function of time
For example, the Theis nonequilibnum equation (Theis,
1935) has been used by the Vermont Department of
1 Aquifers with secondary porosity, such as limestone and sandstone,
may exhibit homogeneous characteristics if sufficiently large volumes
are considered Consequently, pumping tests in rock aquifers may
yield good results The measured aquifer properties, however, are
only average values and tend to underestimate the potential for
contaminant transport
80
-------
(a)
Ground surface
Original
potentiometrtc
surface
Drawdown curve
Impermeable
t
Confined aquifer b
I
Not to scale
Not to scale
Ground water divide
Impermeable
Y /2reKbi \
Uniform-flow equation -— « tanf-—=•—YJ
Distance to down-
gradient null point
Boundary limit Y, •• ±
Where Q
K
b.
I «•
JI I
• Well-pumping rate
- Hydraulic conductivity
r Saturated thickness
Hydraulic gradient
.3 1416
2Kb)
Figure 4-10 Flow to a well penetrating a confined aquifer having a sloping potentiometric surface (a) vertical section, (b) plan view
(adapted from Todd, 1980)
Water Resources (1985) to calculate the radius of the
primary zone of protection
r = sqrt(u4Tt/S) (4-16)
where
T = aquifer transmissivity (Kb)
t = time to reach steady state
S = storativity or specific yield of aquifer
and u is a dimensionless parameter related to the well
function
= 47iTs/Q
(4-17)
where
s = drawdown at the maximum radius of influence
Q = pumping rate
To calculate the radius, the well function is calculated
using Equation 4-17 and u is obtained from Table 4-5
Table 4-4 contains some other simple drawdown equa-
tions for a confined aquifer (Equations 1a, 1b and 3) and
an approximate drawdown equation for an unconfmed
aquifer (Equation 3)
Any standard hydrogeology text provides examples and
tables for use of nonequilibnum methods The assump-
tions underlying these equations are somewhat more
restrictive than the Thiem equation (1) the aquifer is
homogeneous and isotropic, (2) the aquifer is of infinite
areal extent, (3) the well penetrates the entire aquifer,
(4) the well diameter is infinitesimal, (5) the water re-
moved for storage is discharged instantaneously with
decline of head, (6) the regional water table is nearly flat
Nonequilibnum equations were developed for confined
aquifers
4.5.4 Vermont Leakage and Infiltration
Methods for Bedrock Wells Receiving
Recharge From Unconsolidated
Overburden
The Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
(1983) has developed several simple equations for cal-
culating the radius of primary concern for wellhead pro-
tection where fractures in bedrock wells receive
recharge from unconsohdated overburden Where the
bedrock well receives recharge from saturated overbur-
den throughout the year, the leakage equation is used
r = sqrt[(Q/K)ji]
where
r = radius in feet
Q = amount pumped in fl3/day
K = hydraulic conductivity in ft/day
(4-18)
81
-------
Table 4-5. Values of the Function W(u) for Various Values of u for Theis Nonequilibrium Equation (adapted by Fetter, 1980, from
Wenzel, 1942)
u W(u)
1 X 10"'° 2245
2 21 76
3 21 35
4 21 06
5 2084
6 2066
7 2050
8 2037
9 2025
1 x 10~9 20 15
2 1945
S 1905
4 1876
5 1854
6 1835
7 1820
8 1807
9 1795
1 X 10~8 1784
2 1715
3 1674
4 1646
5 1623
6 1605
u W(u)
7 x 10~8 15 90
8 1576
9 1565
1 X 10~7 15 54
2 1485
3 1444
4 1415
5 1393
6 1375
7 1360
8 1346
9 1334
1 X 10~6 1324
2 1255
3 1214
4 1185
5 1163
6 11 45
7 11 29
8 11 16
9 11 04
1 X 10~s 1094
2 1024
3 984
u W(u)
4 x 10~s 9 55
5 933
6 914
7 899
8 886
9 874
1 X 10~4 8 63
2 794
3 753
4 725
5 702
6 684
7 669
8 655
9 644
1 x 10~3 6 33
2 564
3 523
4 495
5 473
6 454
7 439
8 426
9 4 14
u W(u)
1 X 10^ 404
2 335
3 296
4 268
5 247
6 230
7 215
8 203
9 1 92
1 X 10"' 1 823
2 1 223
3 0906
4 0702
5 0560
6 0454
7 0374
8 0311
9 0260
1 X 10° 0219
2 0049
3 0013
4 0004
5 0001
This equation was derived by using Darcy's Law (Equa-
tion 3-2) to solve for area of vertical leakage by assum-
ing a unit hydraulic gradient (i = 1 0) and solving for the
radius of a circle with that area Suggested K values for
use in Vermont are sand (100 ft/day), till (1 ft/day), basal
til! (0.01 ft/day) and silt and clay (0 001 ft/day)
The infiltration equation is used when the overburden is
not saturated throughout the year and assumes that all
infiltrating precipitation is available to the pumping well
= sqrt{(Q/l)/7t]
(3-19)
where
r = radius in feet
Q = annual pumpage (ftrVyr)
I = infiltration (ft/yr)
Suggested infiltration rates till (0 58 ft/yr), more perme-
able tills shallow to bedrock (1 ft/yr), and sand and
gravel (1.8 ft/yr) Primary WHPAs are delineated using
the radius, significant fractures traces, structural trends,
and topography. Secondary areas dram directly into
primary areas and are outlined along upslope drainage
divides. Figure 4-11 illustrates WHPAdelineations using
the leakage and infiltration methods
4.5.5 Equations for Special Situations
A variety of solutions to the basic nonequilibnum equa-
tion have been derived for special aquifer and pumping
conditions These special situations include
• Unconfmed aquifers
• Semiconfmed (leaky) aquifers
• Partially penetrating wells
Table 4-6 provides nonequilibnum analytical equations
and associated well function tables for the following
situations
1 Isotropic, nonleaky confined aquifer with fully
penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions,
2 Isotropic nonleaky confined aquifer with partially
penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions,
3 Isotropic leaky confined aquifer with fully penetrating
wells and constant-discharge conditions without
water released from storage in the confining layer,
4 Isotropic water table aquifer with fully penetrating
wells and constant-discharge conditions
Table 3-8 identifies additional references that address
various combinations of these special situations Other
complexities are added (1) when a well is located near
an aquifer boundary, such as a perennial stream or
water body, or near an impermeable boundary, (2) when
the cone of depression of pumping wells interact, or (3)
where a single well intersects more than one aquifer
Table 3-8 also identifies references that may be useful
for addressing these situations Often computer model-
ing is required, as discussed in Chapter 6
82
-------
LL WATER SYSTEM".
' '
Leakage Model
Q = KI^ Q = Discharge 72.5 crpn
K = Hydraulic Conductivity
.01 ft/day
I = Vertical = 1
A = Area
A = Q/K =72.5 gal/min 1440 mm/day
.01 ft/day 7.48 gal/ft3
Radius =
(a)
= 666 ft
Infiltration Model
Radius
Pumped ftj/yr
Infiltration ft/yr
Discharge = 8.3 GPM
R =
575229 ft. J/yr
.58 ft/yr
1
N
561 ft.
Figure 4-11 Delineation of wellhead protection areas for bedrock wells receiving recharge from overburden (a) leakage method,
(b) infiltration method (Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, 1983)
83
-------
Table 4-6 Commonly Used Pump Test Analytical Equations (from Walton, 1970)
Isotropic nonleaky artesian aquifer with fully penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions
1 Slr*S
Isotropic nonleaky artesian aquifer with partially penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions
Slr'S
T
m — i
.( r \ 187r',
'("=•" "- —
Isotropic leaky artesian aquifer with fully penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions
without water released from storage in aquitard
ISJr'S
u= —
B VTKP'/m') T B/
Isotropic water-table, aquifer with fully penetrating wells and constant-discharge conditions
187r»5
D{
where s — drawdown, in feet
Q =•= discharge, in gpm
T = coefficient of transmissibihty of aquifer, in gpd/ft
S =* coefficient of storage of aquifer, fraction
r = distance from production well to observation point, m feet
/ = time after pumping started, m days
m = saturated thickness of aquifer, in feet
mt = distance from top of aquifer to top of screen, m feet
f = coefficient of permeability of aquitard, in gpd/sq ft
m' — saturated thickness of aquitard, m feet
S, = specific yield of aquifer, m feet
fr
-------
Table 4-6 2 Values of W(u, rim,
= 075
rim = 01
001
0001
io-»
10-*
10-*
io-»
io-»
10-*
1
2
3
u
io-«
to-8
10-*
10-'
10-'
io-1
1
2
3
u
io-«
io-»
10-*
io-»
io-«
io-»
1
2
3
13 8767
11 5741
92716
69699
46712
22597
02823
00634
00167
rim = 05
13 5665
11 2639
89614
66597
43661
2.1511
03384
00808
00223
r/m -=100
13 338S
110359
86334
64317
41381
19231
02981
00806
00245
152580
12 9554
106478
8 1392
52967
2 4103
02898
00643
00169
'
02
144689
12 1663
98638
756Z1
52635
28822
039136
00910
00247
075
13 9367
11 6341
9 33116
702<>9
473<>3
2 52113
049'>9
012/1
00366
16 7637
14 2530
113995
83991
53635
24193
02898
00645
00169
V
01
154989
13 1963
10 8938
85921
62757
3.2620
04185
00942
00252
y-
020
16 2123
139097
116072
03055
70119
44451
07160
01675
00454
= 0.50
003
176358
15 3332
13 0307
106994
74555
35305
0.4319
00964
00254
025
010
189845
16 6837
143794
12.0777
97382
57545
07856
01794
00472
001
197506
174498
IS 1224
11 9812
78851
36050
0.4349
00966
00254
003
251707
228681
305656
182045
13 8971
68298
08493
01900
00501
0001
24.2954
211506
170340
125845
80462
3.6304
04353
00968
00255
001
31 4176
29.1150
26 7666
226026
153684
7.1101
08549
0.1875
00481
0.001
449718
407960
33 5338
249428
15.9702
71913
08531
01893
00481
Table 4-6 3 Values of W(u, r/B) or W(u", r/B) (after Hantush, 1956)
\. r/B
0000001
0000005
000001
000005
0000 1
00005
0001
0005
001
005
01
05
10
50
001
94413
94176
88827
83983
69750
63069
47212
40356
24675
18227
05598
02194
00011
OtlS
86313
84533
81414
6.9152
62765
47152
4.0326
24670
18225
05597
02194
00011
003
72450
72122
66219
61202
46829
40167
24642
18213
05596
02193
00011
OJOS
62282
60821
57965
46084
39795
24576
18184
05594
02193
00011
OJ07S
54228
54062
53078
44713
39091
24448
18128
05588
02191
00011
010
48530
48292
42960
38150
24271
18050
05581
02190
00011
OH
10595
38821
35725
83776
17829
{> 5561
11 2186
1)0011
0.2
35054
34567
32875
23110
17527
05532
02179
0001 1
03
27428
27104
19283
16704
05453
02161
00011
04
22290
22253
17075
15644
05344
02135
00011
OJ
18486
14927
14422
05206
02103
00011
06
15550
12955
13115
05044
02065
00011
07
13210
1.2955
1 1791
04860
02020
00011
0.8
1 1307
1 1210
10505
04658
01970
00011
09
09700
09297
04440
01914
00011
IjO
08409
08190
04210
01855
00011
U
04271
03007
01509
00010
20
02278
01944
01139
00010
2i
0 1174
00803
OOO09
85
-------
Table 4-6 4 Values of Krfr/B) (after Hantush, 1956)
N
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
r\B - N X J0~a
70237
66182
63305
61074
59251
57709
56374
55196
54143
53190
52320
51520
50779
50089
49443
48837
48266
47725
N X 10-'-
47212
43159
40285
38056
36235
34697
33365
32192
31142
30195
29329
28534
27798
27114
26475
25875
25310
24776
N X 70-1
24271
20300
17527
15415
13725
12327
11145
10129
09244
08466
07775
07159
06605
06106
05653
05242
04867
04524
N
04210
02138
01139
00623
00347
00196
00112
00064
00037
00012
00004
Table 4-6.5 Values of W(uty, rlD$ (from Boulton, 1963)
r/D, "001
N it rf(«..r/D,)
1 1 82
2 404
3 £31
3 782
4 840
5 942
6 944
r/D, — 08
N a H'fo.r/D,)
S —l 0046
1 0 0 197
2 0 0466
5 0 0 857
1 1 1 050
2 I 1 121
5 ] 1 131
rlDt -01
N n W(«.,r/D,)
1 1 1 80
5 1 324
1 2 381
2 2 430
5 2 471
1 I 483
1 4 485
rlDt =10
N n W{u,,rlDt)
5—1 0 0444
1 0 0 1855
2 0 0 421
5 0 0715
1 1 0819
2 1 0 841
5 I 0 842
r/Z>, = 02
N n W<«., <•/*>,)
5 0 1 19
1 1 1 75
5 1 295
1 2 329
5 2 350
1 3 351
rID, = / 5
If it W(u,,r/D,)
5 -1 00394
1 0 0 1509
1 25 0 0 199
2 0 0 301
5 0 0413
1 1 0 427
2 1 0 428
r/D, - 0 316
N n W(i/mr/D,)
1 0 0216
2 0 0544
5 0 1 153
1 I 1 655
5 1 2504
1 2 2 623
1 3 2648
rID, = 20
N n W(ua,rlD,)
333 — 1 00100
5 -1 00335
1 0 0114
1 25 0 0 144
2 0 0 194
5 0 0 227
1 1 0 228
r/D, = 04
N n W(u., r/D,)
1 0 0213
2 0 0 534
5 0 1 114
1 1 1 564
5 1 2 181
1 2 2 225
1 3 2 229
r/D, = 25
N n W (tit, r/D,)
S —1 00271
1 0 0 0803
1 25 0 0 0961
2 0 01174
5 00 1247
1 1 0 1247
r/D, — 06
N n W(u,,rlD,)
1 0 0 206
2 0 0 504
5 0 0 996
1 1 1311
2 1 1 493
5 1 1 553
1 2 1 555
r/D, = 3 0
ff a W(u,,rlD,)
S -1 00210
1 0 0 0534
1 25 0 0 0607
2 00 0681
5 00 0695
1 1 0 0695
r/D, — 001
N n ff(tf,.r/D,)
4 2 945
4 3 954
4 4 10 23
4 5 12.31
4 6 14 61
r/D, — 08
N n Jf(«,,r/Z>,)
2,5 —2 1 133
2.5 -1 1 158
1 25 0 1 264
25 0 1 387
9 37 0 1 938
2.S 1 2.704
r/D, = 0 J
ff n W(u,,rlDt)
4 0 486
4 1 495
4 2 564
4 3 772
4 4 1001
r/D, - / 0
N n WO/,, r/D,)
4-2 0844
4 —1 0901
40 1 356
4 1 3 140
r/D, = 02
N n W(u,,rlD,)
4 -1 351
4 0 354
2 1 369
4 1 385
1 S 2 4 55
4 2 542
r/D, = 1 S
N n W(a,,rlD,)
711 -2 0444
355 -1 0509
711 -1 0587
2 67 0 0 963
711 0 1569
r/D, = 0 316
N n W(«,,r/D,)
4 -1 2 66
4 0 274
4 1 338
4 2 542
4 3 772
r/D, = 20
N n W(u,,rlDt)
4—20 239
2 -1 0283
4 —1 0337
15 0 0614
4 0 1111
r/D; = 0 4
N n WO/,, r/D,)
1 —1 223
1 0 726
5 0 740
1 1 755
3 75 1 3 20
1 2 4 05
r/D, = 25
N n WO/,, r/D,)
256—2 0 1321
1 28 —1 0 1617
256 —1 01988
96 -1 03990
2 56 0 0 7977
r/D, = 06
N n WO/,, r/D,)
444-1 1586
2 22 0 1 707
4 44 0 1 844
1 67 1 2 448
4 44 1 3 255
r/D, = 30
N n WO,,, r/D,)
1 78 -2 0 0743
889 -2 00939
178 -1 01189
667 -1 02618
1 78 0 0 5771
86
-------
4.6 References*
Baize, DG and H H Gilkerson 1992 Wellhead Protection Technical
Guidance Document for South Carolina Local Ground-Water Pro-
tection Ground-Water Protection Division, South Carolina Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC, 74 pp
[Interim fixed radius, volumetric flow equation, Theis nonequili-
bnum equation, WHPA code]
Boulton, NS 1963 Analysis of Data from Nonequilibnum Pumping
Tests Allowing for Delayed Yield from Storage Proc Inst of Civil
Engineers (London) 26 469-482
Bradbury, KR, MA Muldoon, A Zaporozec, and J Levy 1991
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured Rocks
EPA/570/9-91-009, 144 pp Available from ODW* [May also be
cited with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey as
author] v-
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) 1991 a
Regulations for Mapping Wells in Stratified Drift Aquifers to Level
A Standards (Section 22a-354b-1) CDEP, Hartford, CT, 23 pp
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) 1991 b
Guidelines for Mapping Stratified Drift Aquifers to Level B Mapping
Standards CDEP, Hartford, CT, 11 pp
Everett, LG 1992 Significant Aspects of Ground Water Aquifers
Related to Well Head Protection Consideration Published in
NGWA/EPA series, National Ground Water Association, Dublin,
OH, 53 pp
Fetter, Jr, C W 1980 Applied Hydrogeology Charles E Merrill Pub-
lishing Co , Columbus, OH, 488 pp
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1992 The Georgia Well-
head Protection Plan (September, 1992) Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta,
GA
Hantush, M S 1956 Analysis of Data from Pumping Tests in Leaky
Aquifers Trans Am Geophys Union 37(6) 702-714
Heath, RC 1983 Basic Ground-Water Hydrology US Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220 Republished in a 1984 edition
by National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH
Heath, R C 1991 Appendix A (Analytical Method), Appendix B (Sim-
plified Method) In North Carolina Wellhead Protection Program
Application Manual, Groundwater Section, Division of Environ-
mental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, pp 39-56
Huntoon, PW 1980 Computationally Efficient Polynomial Approxi-
mations Used to Program the Theis Equation Ground Water
18(2) 134-136 [Analytical]
Idaho Wellhead Protection Work Group 1992 Idaho Wellhead Pro-
tection Plan (Draft) Division of Environmental Quality, Idaho De-
partment of Health and Welfare, Boise, ID, 86 pp + appendices
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 1990 Maximum Set-
back Zone Workbook. Community Water Supply Groundwater
Quality Protection IEPA, Springfield, IL, 62 pp [Theis equation
using available data, volumetric flow equation, uniform flow equa-
tion, Neuman equations with pump test, Theis equation with pump
test]
Javendal, I and C F Tsang 1986 Capture-Zone Type Curves A Tool
for Aquifer Cleanup Ground Water 24(5) 616-625 [Analytical]
Keely, J F and C F Tsang 1983 Velocity Plots and Capture Zones
for Simple Aquifers Ground Water 29(4) 701-714
Kreitler, C W and R K Senger 1991 Wellhead Protection Strategies
for Confined-Aquifer Settings EPA/570/9-91-008, 168 pp Avail-
able from ODW*
McLane, C F 1990 Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection and Deline-
ation Ground Water Management 1 383-397 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection)
Maryland Department of the Environment 1991 Wellhead Protection
Training Manual Water Supply Program, Maryland Department of
the Environment [Focus on wellhead delineation methods with
results of six demonstration projects representing different hydro-
geologic regions in Maryland]
Matthess, G, SS D Foster, and AC Skinner 1985 Theoretical
Background, Hydrogeology, and Practice of Groundwater Protec-
tion Zones Verlag Heise, Hannover, Germany, 204 pp
Muldoon, M and J Payton 1993 Determining Wellhead Protection
Boundaries - An Introduction Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Publication WR313-92, Madison, Wl, 24 pp
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 1991 Phase
I Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Guidance Wellhead Pro-
tection Program, Concord, NH [Uniform flow equation]
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE) 1991 New Jersey Wellhead Protection Program Plan
NJDEPE, Trenton, NJ, 104 pp
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1991 Guidance Docu-
ment for Wellhead Protection Area Delineation (Draft) Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, 9 pp
Pekas, BS 1992 Capture-Zone Geometry Calculations with Spread-
sheet Programs Ground Water Management 9 653-666 (Proc 5th
Int Conf on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models)
Pierce, J W 1992 Wellhead Protection Manual Massachusetts De-
partment of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply,
Boston, MA, 17 pp
Southern Water Authority 1985 Aquifer Protection Policy Guild-
bourne House, Worthing, U K, 47 pp
Swanson, RD 1992 Methods to Determine Wellhead Protection
Areas for Public Supply Wells in Clark County, Washington Inter-
governmental Resource Center, Vancouver, WA, 39 pp [DREAM,
FLOWPATH, MODFLOW/MODPATH]
Theis, CV 1935 The Relation between the Lowering of the Pie-
zometnc Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a
Well Using Ground Water Storage Trans Am Geophysical Union
16(Pt2) 519-524
Thiem, G 1906 Hydrologische Methoden Gebhardt, Leipzig, 56 pp
Todd, D K 1980 Groundwater Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 535 pp [First edition 1959]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas EPA/440/6-87-010
(NTIS PB88-111430) [R Hoffer may also be cited as author]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 Wellhead Pro-
tection Strategies for Confined Aquifer Settings EPA 570/9-91 -009
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation 1983 Vermont
Aquifer Protection Area Reference Document Water Quality Divi-
sion, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engi-
neering, Agency of Environmental Conservation, Montpelier, VT,
49 pp [Pump test in unconfined and leaky unconsolidated aqui-
fers, flow net analysis, infiltration or leakage model for bedrock
wells, hydrogeologic mapping for springs]
87
-------
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1990 Procedure. 10 VSA Walton, WC 1970 Groundwater Resource Evaluation McGraw-Hill
Chapter 48 Ground Water Protection Mapping Potential Class I New York, 664 pp
and II Ground Water Areas Department of Environmental Conser-
^SiSfZ^Sr"™0^0 fr M°ntpe«er',^Jf,eC?°,n 1 Wenzel- L K 1942 Methods for Determining Permeability of Water-
i^TZ H*ofEnvlronmentalConservaflon (1983) included Bearlng Materia|s wjth Specia| Refere4 to Dlsch^glng We||
asanAppenaixj Methods US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 887
Watton.WC 1962 Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer
Evaluation Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 49, 81 pp * See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
88
-------
Chapter 5
Hydrogeologic Mapping for Wellhead Protection
Hydrogeologic mapping provides a valuable comple-
ment to the simpler methods for wellhead protection
area (WHPA) delineation covered in the previous chap-
ter and is a necessary precursor to more complex
numerical modeling of ground water flow us>ing comput-
ers (Chapter 6) Figure 5-1 illustrates WHPA delineation
using geologic contacts and ground water divides as
the key elements of hydrogeologic mapping Poten-
tiometnc maps (Chapter 2) and methods for measuring
aquifer parameters (Chapter 3) are essential parts of
hydrogeologic mapping This chapter focuses on gen-
eral approaches to hydrogeologic mapping (basic ele-
ments—Section 51, existing data collection and
interpretation—Section 5 2, and field data collection—
Section 5 3)
Section 5 4 covers four aspects of hydrogeologic map-
ping that require special consideration in relation to
WHPA delineation (1) adjustments of WHPAs to ac-
count to aquifer boundaries (Section 541), (2) adjust-
ments of WHPAs based on aquifer heterogeneity and/or
anisotropy (Section 5 4 2), (3) assessing the presence
and degree of confinement in aquifers (Section 5 4 3),
and (4) mapping of fractured rock and karst aquifers
(Section 544) Section 5 5 describes the approach of
ground water vulnerability mapping based on hydro-
geologic factors that affect the movement of contami-
nants in the subsurface Finally, Section 5 6 discusses
use of geographic information systems (GIS) for WHPA
delineation
ground water
divide
ground water
divide
.-i « -V,',/.-i
ZONE I - Radius around public supply well
ZONE II - Land surface overlaying the part of the aquifer that contributes water to the well
ZONE III - Land surface through and over which water drains Into Zone II
Figure 5-1 Wellhead protection delineation using hydrogeologic boundaries (U S EPA, 1993a)
89
-------
5.1 Elements of Hydrogeologic Mapping
Hydrogeologic mapping requires the systematic and in-
tegrated appraisal of soils, geomorphology, geology, hy-
drology (including meteorologic aspects), geochemistry,
and water chemistry as they affect the occurrence, flow,
and quality of ground water A brief discussion of the
significance of these elements follows Any standard
hydrogeology textbook contains one or more chapters
devoted to methods for hydrogeologic mapping (see
Table 5-8). Section 5 3 identifies major references with
a focus on field aspects of hydrogeologic mapping
5.1.1 Soils and Geomorphology
The character and distribution of soils and landforms are
major considerations in hydrogeologic mapping in hu-
mid areas where unconfmed aquifers develop in uncon-
solidated materials and lie relatively near the land
surface In this setting, the water table generally follows
the land surface, although with more subdued relief
(Section 2 1 2). Recharge areas are generally located in
upland areas, and ground water divides tend to coincide
with surface watershed boundaries Valley bottoms and
floodplains with perennial streams represent discharge
areas
For all areas, soils and topography are the primary
features that determine how much precipitation infil-
trates into the ground to recharge ground water, and
how much runs off to surface streams Highly permeable
soils and flat topography favor infiltration, less perme-
able soils and steep slopes promote surface runoff
5.1.2 Geology
Geology forms the physical framework for the flow of
ground water Porosity (primary and secondary—Sec-
tion 2.1 4), storage properties (Section 311), and trans-
mitting properties (hydraulic conductivity—Section
3.1.2) are largely a function of the geologic materials
present. Stratigraphy (relationships of layered geologic
materials) affects local and regional ground water flow
by the distribution of strata of relatively higher and lower
permeability Structural features (the folding and fractur-
ing of rock fay tectonic processes) may alter directions
of ground water flow compared to horizontal sediments
by changing the inclination of permeable sediments and
confining units Displacement of sediments by faulting
may either provide zones of increased permeability
through fractunng or create aquifer boundaries when
impermeable strata block the flow of water through per-
meable strata (see Figure 2-17) Secondary fracture
porosity results primarily from tectonic stresses
5.1.3 Hydrology
Although the focus of hydrogeologic mapping is ground
water, the occurrence and flow of ground water must be
understood in the context of the larger hydrologic cycle,
which includes atmospheric water, water in the vadose
(unsaturated) zone, and surface water This is especially
true of unconfmed aquifers, which are intimately con-
nected to the hydrologic cycle Complete charac-
terization of unconfmed aquifers requires consideration
of infiltration of precipitation, the effects of evapotrans-
piration, and the relationship between the ground water
and surface water systems Potentiometric surface
mapping (Chapter 2) is one of the most important as-
pects of hydrogeologic characterization Confined aqui-
fers that are distant from areas of surface recharge can
be considered effectively isolated from the hydrologic
cycle, provided that they are highly confined (Section
5 4 3), which greatly simplifies analysis of the ground
water flow system (Section 4 5)
5.1.4 Hydrochemistry
Data on water quality can provide valuable insights into
the hydrogeologic system As discussed in Section
5 4 3, a number of hydrochemical indicators are useful
for assessing the presence and degree of confinement
of an aquifer The geochemical characteristics of the
aquifer matrix and factors such as pH and redox poten-
tial (Eh) and aquifer microbiology (Section 1 4) are es-
pecially important if the potential for attenuation of
contaminants is being considered in the WHPA deline-
ation process (Section 415)
5.2 Existing Data Collection and
Interpretation
The first step in hydrogeologic mapping is to find out
what information is already available for the area of
interest This includes first reviewing published maps
and reports about soils, geology, and hydrology of the
area The next step is finding and analyzing any unpub-
lished data, such as well drill logs, and hydrologic and
water quality data on file at local, state, or federal gov-
ernment offices EPA's STORET database may have
ground water quality data from the area (U S EPA,
1986c) Finally, examination of aerial photographs pro-
vides an opportunity to relate knowledge gained in re-
viewing published and unpublished information to the
specific wellhead area, and helps focus field efforts to
collect additional required information
The above steps do not have to be followed in strict
sequential order, but an intensive initial effort to identify
and review published and other existing information will
generally pay off by (1) avoiding field effort spent in
collecting data that is already available, and (2) targeting
the location and type of field data collection to yield the
greatest benefits Dury (1957) provides comprehensive
coverage of general aspects of map interpretation, and
Warman and Wiesnet (1966) discuss the design and
use of hydrogeologic maps Pettyjohn and Randich
90
-------
(1966) provide an example of hydrogeologic interpreta-
tions using lithofacies maps in glaciated areas Mey-
boom (1961) reviews terminology used in ground water
maps
Getting to know one or more individuals in the various
state and federal agencies that publish and maintain
files of information on soils, geology, and water re-
sources can facilitate the process of determining what
is available for the area of interest The planning and
utility departments of local government are also sources
of potentially valuable information that may not be avail-
able from other sources Worksheet 5-1 provides a form
for listing personal contacts and identifying available
maps that can provide a starting point for compiling a
hydrogeologic map of an area
5.2.1 Soil and Geomorphic Data
Section 321 discusses the use of soil survey data in
the estimation of aquifer parameters Soil surveys pub-
lished by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the
U S Department of Agriculture are typically at a scale
of 1 15,840 or 1 20,000 and mapped on a airphoto base
Simplified geomorphic maps can be readily developed
from a soil map by grouping soil map units into larger
geomorphic units (floodplams, terraces, uplands, etc)
Nonfloodplam soils are differentiated on the basis of
slope with letter designations in the map symbol This
allows development of geomorphic units based on slope
range Slope range, combined with the infiltration char-
acteristics of the soil, allow interpretations of infiltration-
runoff characteristics of an area Table 5-1 summarizes
criteria for SCS runoff classes, and Table1 5-2 includes
criteria for SCS hydraulic conductivity and permeability
classes This information can be used to develop a
qualitative assessment of the ground water recharge
potential in an area
5.2.2 Geologic and Hydrologic Data
The Hydrologic Atlas (HA) and Water Resource Investi-
gation (WRI) series of the U S Geological Survey are
some of the best sources of hydrogeologic information
In fact, a hydrologic atlas of aquifer areas and charac-
teristics may provide much of the information required
for WHPA delineation These maps are based on the
interpretation of all available geologic information from
soil profiles, test wells, rock outcrops, observation wells,
seismic surveys, and other means of subsurface obser-
vation The location of aquifers on these maps is esti-
mated by examining surficial geology, depth to bedrock,
and depth to the water table A hydrologic atlas contains
information about ground water availability, well loca-
tions, ground water quality, surficial deposits influencing
transmissivity, basin boundaries, flow characteristics of
surface water, and other hydrologic factois
Table 5-1 SCS Index Surface Runoff Classes
Runoff Classes*
Slope
Gradient (%)
Concave***
<1
1-5
5-10
10-20
>20
VH
N
N
N
VL
VL
L
H
N
N
VL
L
L
M
Ksat
MH
N
N
L
M
M
H
Class**
ML
N
L
M
H
H
VH
L
N
M
H
VH
VH
VH
VL
N
H
VH
VH
VH
VH
* Abbreviations Negligible-N, very low-VL, low-L, medium-M, high-H,
and very high-VH These classes are relative and not quantitative
** See Table 5-2 for definitions Assumes that the lowest value for
the soil occurs at <0 5 m If the lowest value occurs at 0 5 to 1 m,
reduce runoff by one class If it occurs at >1 m, then use the lowest
saturated hydraulic conductivity < 1 m VL Ksat is assumed for soils
with seasonal shallow or very shallow free water
*** Areas from which little or no water escapes by flow over the ground
surface
Source US EPA(1991 b)
Table 5-2 SCS Criteria for Hydraulic Conductivity and
Permeability Classes
Class
Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Very Low (VL)
Low (L)
Moderately Low (ML)
Moderately High (MH)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Permeability
Very Slow
Slow
Moderately Slow
Moderate
Moderately Rapid
Rapid
Very Rapid
Units
p/sec
<001
0 01-0 1
01-1
1-10
10-100
>100
cm/hr
<015
015-05
05-1 5
1 5-50
50-152
152-508
>508
in/hr
<0001
0 001-0 01
001-014
0 14-1 4
1 4-142
>142
-in/hr
<006
0 06-0 2
02-06
06-20
20-60
60-20
>20
Source US EPA (1991 b)
A water table or potentiometric surface map, if available,
is the next most valuable source of hydrogeologic infor-
mation (Chapter 2) Such maps may be available from
the state water resource agency or geological survey
SCS-published soil surveys usually give summary data
on monthly distribution, averages, and ranges of tem-
perature and precipitation The National Weather Serv-
ice (1988) is the primary source for other climatological
91
-------
Worksheet 5-1
Collection of Existing Data for Wellhead Protection
Contacts and Phone Numbers
EPA Regional Ground-Water Representative
USGS Water Resources Division State Office
SOS District/State Office
Federal Management Agency Local Office*
State Wellhead Protection Program
State Water Resource Agency**
State Environmental Protection Agency**
State Geological Survey
Local College/University Geology Department
Local College/University Library
Topographic Maps Soils/Vegetation Maps
7 1/2' Topographic Soil Map
, 15' Topographic Vegetation
Regional
Other
Geologic Maps Aerial Photography
State Large scale
Regional High altitude
Local Satellite
Hydrologlc Maps
USGS Hydrologic Atlas
State-Published Hydrologic Maps
Water Table/Potentiometnc Surface
Watershed
Wetlands
Flood Plain Maps (FEMA, FIRM)
Other
Land Use Maps
OwnershipAax Assessment
Subsurface Ownership (if different from surface ownership)
Zoning/Planning
Utilities
Other
' Required only if wellhead protection area includes federal lands (most likely in western U S ) Possible agencies include the Bureau
of Land Management, U S Forest Service, U S Fish and Wildlife Service, and U S Department of Defense
** If different from agency responsible for wellhead protection
92
-------
data, which may be required to evaluate recharge of
unconfmed aquifers Detailed precipitation data may be
useful if available well-level measurements for develop-
ing a potentiometric surface map were taken at different
times (Section 2 3)
Geologic information is available from many sources
The U S Geological Survey and state geological sur-
veys are the primary source for surficial and bedrock
geologic maps Important surface hydrologic features
include drainage basins (watersheds), surface water
bodies, wetlands, and flood zones Wetlands can be
identified on topographic maps, however, more detailed
wetland maps may be available from the state wetlands
regulatory agency or regional office of the U S Army
Corps of Engineers Flood mapping for every state has
been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Two types of flood mapping are avail-
able Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Maps These maps delineate
the areas adjacent to surface waters that would be
under water in 100-year and 500-year floods Historic
flood data may also be available from community and
state libraries
If published information sources are lacking or scarce,
a review of well logs, both public and private, and test
boring logs becomes the primary method for developing
preliminary hydrogeologic interpretations for an area
Well records provide geological data (although the qual-
ity of descriptions prepared by water well di illers may be
problematic) Records of well discharge and water level
fluctuations may provide a basis for evaluating an
aquifer's hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and
storativity
5.2.3 Airphoto Interpretation
Aerial photographs provide an inexpensive way to di-
rectly observe natural and artificial features on the land
surface Aerial photographs are basic to any geologic or
hydrogeologic investigation Much information can be
obtained from stereopairs of black-and-white air photos,
which provide a three-dimensional image of the surface
when viewed with a stereoscope Patterns of vegetation,
variations in grey tones in soil and rock, drainage pat-
terns, and linear features allow preliminary interpreta-
tions of geology, soils, and hydrogeology Table 5-3
describes the types of observations and the inferences
about geologic and ground water conditions that can be
made from aerial photographs Various standard texts
are available for guidance in air photo interpretation
methods (Avery, 1968, Lueder, 1959, Miller and Miller,
1961, Strandberg, 1967, Lillesand and Kiefer, 1979,
Verstappen, 1977) All air photo interpretations should
be field checked and revised where "ground truthmg"
indicates features that were missed or incorrectly deline-
ated
Black-and-white air photos are available from various
federal agencies for almost any location in the United
States These are the cheapest type of air photo to
obtain The nearest county office of the Soil Conserva-
tion Service or Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service (they will often be in the same building) is
the best starting place to determine what is available
Many of these offices have air photo coverage that
extends back to the 1930s When photographs for mul-
tiple years are available, all should be examined, be-
cause significant features that are obscured in one set
may be evident in another Also, sequential examination
of air photos taken at different times provides valuable
information on changes in land use
Air photos often reveal linear features, called fracture
traces, that indicate zones of relatively higher perme-
ability in the subsurface Fracture-trace analysis using
air photos can provide preliminary information on possi-
ble preferential movement of contaminants Fetter
(1980, pp 406-411) provides a good introduction to
fracture-trace analysis Panzek (1976) provides a good
review of the North American literature on fracture trace
and lineament analysis
5.3 Field Data Collection
More often than not, existing information sources will not
provide all the information required to delineate a
WHPA Where financial resources are very limited, field
data collection may be restricted to activities such as
measurement of water levels in existing wells to develop
a potentiometric map and very simple well tests (Section
323) Where a large population is served by a few
wells, and options for alternative water supplies are
limited if they should become contaminated, extensive
hydrogeologic field investigations for computer model-
ing, costing tens of thousands of dollars or more, may
be justified
A detailed discussion of field methods is beyond the
scope of this manual Some standard texts on geologic
mapping methods include Bishop (1960), Compton
(1962), Lahee (1961), and Low (1952) Thomas (1978)
reviews principles for field hydrogeological investiga-
tions, and Scheidegger (1973) reviews geomorphic as-
pects of hydrology Warman and Wiesnet (1966) provide
guidance on the design of hydrogeologic maps
LaMoreaux (1966) and UNESCO (1970) describe sym-
bols and conventions for the preparation of hydro-
geologic maps UNESCO (1975) provides the same for
geohydrochemical maps Figure 5-2 provides an over-
view of symbols recommended for hydrogeologic map-
ping Moore (1991) provides guidance on planning and
report preparation
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, any text on
hydrogeology provides some coverage on field mvesti-
93
-------
Table 5-3
Representative Types of Observations and Inferences of Geologic and Ground-Water Conditions from the Study of
Aerial Photographs (Heath and Trainer, 1981)
Type of Observation
Purpose of Observation
A. Water, or water features, at the land surface
1. Drainage density, subdivision of area on
basis of drainage density
2 Localized gain or toss of stream-flow
(e g, springs and seeps along streams,
sites or reaches of loss of water from
channel)
3 Seepage at land surface (commonly
shown by character and distribution of
vegetation)
4 Presence and dlstnbubon of man-made
water features (wells, improved spnngs,
reservoirs, canals)
B Character and areal distribution of rocks
1. Specific type(s) of rock(s) as inferred from
such evidence as landforms, texture,
color, or tone of land surface, vegetation
2. Spatial form and interrelations of rock
units (stratigraphy and structure)
3 Spatial relation of rock units to
surface-water bodies
Inference of ground-water conditions from surface-water conditions
Classification of terrain on basis of relative permeability, differentiation of tracts of
rather different permeability
Classification of streams as gaining or losing, and location of gaming and losing
reaches, from this, inference of general nature of ground-water discharge,
recharge, and circulation in near-surface rocks, together with geologic data, may
permit inference of confined or unconfined aquifers, and of geologic controls on
ground water
Location of sites of ground-water discharge, areal form and areal and topographic
distribution of these sites, together with geologic data, may permit inference of
type of aquifer and of geologic controls on ground water
Show presence of water, with supplementary data, particularly relating to
vegetation and land-surface drainage, may permit inference of effect of these
water features on ground water in the area (Photographs made before and after
construction of features are particularly valuable)
Inference of broad geologic controls on the occurrence of ground water
Broad classification of types of water-bearing material near the land surface, and
hence inference of probable porosity and relative permeability of near-surface
material, with data on climate, vegetation, and drainage, inference of chemical
quality of ground water
Inference of size, shape, and boundaries (lithologic and hydrologio) of probable
aquifers and aquicludes, inference of conditions of recharge and discharge of
ground water
Inference of hydrologic boundaries and recharge conditions
gallon methods Ground water texts that give special
emphasis to hydrogeologic mapping include Brass-
Ington (1988), Brown et al (1983), Erdelyi and Galfi
(1988), Mandel and Shifton (1981), UNESCO (1977),
U S. Geological Survey (1980), and Walton (1970) U S
EPA (1991 a) provides an overview of ground water in-
vestigation methods The reports of EPA-sponsored
workshops on minimum data requirements for ground
water (US EPA 1988a) and hydrogeologic mapping
needs for ground water protection and management
(U.S EPA 1990) may also serve as useful resources
U.S. EPA (1993c) provides a comprehensive compila-
tion of more than 250 methods for subsurface field
characterization and monitoring techniques The rest of
this section provides a brief overview of major field
methods and their applicability to WHPA investigations
5.3.1 Soil Survey
If an SOS soil survey is not available for the county in
which a WHPA is being investigated, SCS may be able
to provide technical assistance by mapping the area of
interest The nearest Distnct SCS office should be con-
tacted to find out about the possibility of, and procedures
for, obtaining technical assistance If governmental as-
sistance is not available, hiring a consulting soil scientist
might be an option The cost of this option might be
justified for a highly vulnerable unconfined aquifer serv-
ing a large population. Consulting soil scientists can be
identified by contacting the National Society of Consult-
ing Soil Scientists (325 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite
700, Washington, DC, 20003), the Office of the Ameri-
can Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy,
Crops, and Soils (ARCPACS, 677 S Segoe Rd , Madi-
son, Wl 53711-1086), or the state association of profes-
sional soil scientists, if one exists State associations
may have their own certification programs, and are prob-
ably the best starting point to find a soil scientist familiar
with soils in the area of interest Any contract signed with
a consulting soil scientist should specify that the map
conform to standards of the SCS National Cooperative
Soil Survey program
5.3.2 Surface Geophysical Measurements
Surface geophysical methods, such as DC resistivity,
electromagnetic induction, ground-penetrating radar,
seismic refraction and reflection, and microgravity sur-
veys, are beginning to be used more frequently in hy-
drogeologic investigations Table 5-4 provides summary
information on applications of surface geophysical
methods for ground water and contaminated site inves-
tigations The most commonly used methods are in
boldface type Geophysical methods require specialized
equipment and training and require verification by drill-
ing of boreholes Consequently, they are relatively ex-
pensive Where detailed hydrogeologic investigations
are required for numerical computer modeling, surface
94
-------
RECOMMENDED SYMBOLS1
RECOMMENDED SYMBOL,
A TOPOGRAPHY
TOPOGRAPHY
B GEOLOGY
1 GEOLOGICAL FORMATION
a STRATIGRAPHY
HEIGHT OM DEPTH Or FORMATION
(TOP OR BASE) RELATIVE TO THE
NATIONAL, REFERENCE LEVEL
CONTACT BETWEEN PERMEABLE ANO
IMPERMEABLE OR SIM! PCRMCABLC
FORMATIONS
SYMBOLS CONFORM AS PAII AS POSSI»LC
WITH INTERNATIONAL USAGE (CREY)
ONLY IF AGE is ESSENTIAL TO HVDROGEO
LOGICAL UNDERSTANDING. COLOURS SHOUU1
BC USED AND CONFORM AS FAR AS POSSIBLE
WITH INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGICAL. USAGE
LETTERS SYMBOLS AND PATTERNS SHOULD
CONFORM WITH INTERNATIONAL USAGE (BLACK)
CONTOUR LINE BROKEN WHERE UNCERTAIN
(SLACK)
LINE OF CONTACT
it CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OP THE
FORMATION
HYDROGRAPHY
ALL NATURAL WATERS IN BLUE
PCRCNMIM. STREAM WITH DIRECTION
OP FLOW
2 PERENNIAL. STREAM HIGHLY POLLUTED
3 PERENNIAL STREAM WITH HIGH
CHLORIDK CONTENT
4 SEASONAL. STREAM WITH DRIECTION
OP FLOW
T STREAM WITH D
(BROWN OR IN THE
COLOUR OP THE GEO
LOGICAL FORMATION)
SEE 3 I >
THE LITHOLOCICAL SYMBOLS MAY A
INDICATE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
SKEF 7
SEE F 3
S STRIKE AND Olf
6 AXIS OF AHTICUNC WITH OIR
TION OF AXIAL PLUNGE
AXIS OF SYNCLIHC WITH DIRCC
TIOH Of AXIAL. PLUNGE
FLEXURE WITH DIRECTION OP
DOWNTHROW SIDE
FLEXURE NOT AFFECTING COVERING
. 4- + -»•-*••*.
6 DISAPPEARANCE POINT OF STREAM
GAUGING STATION WITH YEARLY
AVERAGE FLOW ANO AREA OF CATCHMENT
8 MARSH SEASONAL, MARSH
9 FLOOD STACK AREA AREA INUNOATEO
DURING FLOODS
to FAULT WITH DIRECTION OF DOWN
THROW sioe
10 SURFACE WATER DIVIDE
FAULT NOT AFFECTING COVERING
LAYERS
OVERTHRUST FAULT
(TCCTH ON UPPER It-ATC) (SLACK)
C LITHOLOGY
FOR L1THOLOGY THE STANDARD INTERNATIONAL LETTERS SYMBOLS ANO PATTERNS IH SROWH
COLOUR OR IN THE COLOUR OF THE GEOLOGICAL FORMATION (SEE B 1) ARC RECOMMENDED
IH AREAS WITH A COMPLICATED LtTHOLOGY A MIXTURE OF THE SINGLE SYMBOLS MAY BC USED
SEMI PERMEABLE AND IMPERMCABLC FORMATIONS ARC TO BE OMITTED
i GRAVELS GRAVKU.Y DEPOSITS
1 SANDSTONES
n
(BROWN OR IH THC
COLOUR OFTHKOIO
LOGICAL FORMATION)
SEC B 1)
12 GROUP OF SPRINGS
13 THERMAL, OR THERMOUINCRAL,
14 NATURAL POND on WATBWOLC
WITH HO OUTLET
IS SALT LAKC
Q (BLUE OR DARK BLUE)
THC INSIDE OF THE SYMBOL SHOULD BE RC
SERVED FOR HYDROCHEMICAL DATA (IN
COLOURS ACCORDING TO F 3 AND F 5) THE
OUTSIDE FOR HYDRODYNAMICAL DATA THE
EXAMPLE GIVEN SHOWS ONE OF THS POSSI
BIUTIES
• FILING NUMBER
• TEMPERATURE
• ALTITUDE
• DISCHARGE
THC SYMBOL CAM BC USED AS THE BASIS OF SYM
SOLS FOR FURTHER CLASSIFICATION OF SPRINGS
THE SYMBOL, O 11 »UT LARGER
(BLUE OR DARK BLUE)
THE SYMBOC o it BUT WITH THICKER
OUTLINE (BLUE DM DARK BLUC)
(SLUC OM DARK SLUE)
4 CONGLOMERATES
S DOLOMITES
GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
HEIGHT OR DEPTH OF WATER LEVEL.
AT A (tlVEH TIMC AMD RELATIVE TO
THC NATIONAL. REFKRCKCC LXVZL
DIRECTION AND ACTUAL, VELOCITY
OFTHEOROUNO WATER FLOW
{ C a (H M/OAY)
ISOHYFSCS ISOPICXOMETRIC LINES Oft
OROUNO WATCH CONTOURS! BROKEN LINK
WHERE UNCERTAIN (BLUE)
(•LUC OR DARK BLUE)
CALCAREOUS SINTERS
S POROUS VOLCANIC e
3 GROUND-WATER DIVIDE
4 BOUNDARY OF AREA WITH CONFINED
GROUND WATER
°000ooo0oo0
1 These figures and symbols are applicable to all types
of maps (small and large-scale and specialized maps) apart
from exceptions mentioned for certain subjects
s BOUNDARY or AREA OF ARTESIAN
FLOW
« BOUNDARY OF WATER BEARING
FORMATION
»»««».„„„„„„„,,»
s» a 4
Figure 5-2 Symbols and conventions for preparation of hydrogeologic maps (LaMoreaux, 1966)
95
-------
RECOMMENDED SYMBOL
RECOMMENDED SYMBOL
OXOUMO WATM SARHIEH
ILC AMD s»c etAL MATS }
I AVC«A«C OIFTH or TW «r SATURATED
MAT Or WATCH BCAJIIM FORMATION
eBMviMca en UNG«MFIMCB ICLCW
a SURFACE
f HlMMT 0ft OCrTH Or TO* AHO/OR BASE
*» WATCH •CAMtMC FORMATION RELATIVE
T» T** NATIONAL RCPCNCMC LCVCU
19 THtexM*s« er THC WATER SATURATES
•0 AT A «tV« TIMC WITHTHJCX
Mill fHIMI
tl QttttXtXT ««OW«O WATCH HOKtZOMS
(AauirKJisI
( LA*«« ICALK AMO srcCIAL. MAT* )
tl tNrn.TNATt{M eOMamoMS or cevw
l*« LAVCHt OUAUTATtVC OUCIIII*
THM C «
CONTOUR LIHCS COIN THC COLOUR
or THX FORMATION
(•UJK UHC riOUHM IN RCD)
To «e SMOWM «r CNOSS SECTIOHS on ruwi
MCTmCALLV («Y COLOUR LXFT TO TKK OIS
CNCTIOH Or THE AUTHOR I
PATTKRNS AT THE OISCRCTION or THE
AUTHOR
Nor OCTEMMIHEO
4 CHEMICAL FROPCRTICS or THC
WATCH SEARINO. FORMATION
7 HIGHLY POLLUTED STREAM (ORGANIC
POLLUTION)
8 STREAM WITH HIGH CHLORIDE
CONTENT
(•LBC LINE WITH OREY SHADING ON
EACH SIOI)
(SLUC LINE WITH VIOLET SHADING ON
EACH SIOC)
(BLUE LINE WITH ViOUT SHAOINO
ALOWJ HAftaiN OF LAKE)
G BOREHOLES WELLS AND OTHER WORKS
ALL ARTIFICIAL WORKS ARE INDICATED IN RED
l BOREHOLE
2 Duo WELL *
I DUG WELL ORY
(RED)
(RED)
4 DRILLED WELL
LJNCS or EOUAL TRANSMISSIBILITY OR
COLOURS AT THC DISCRETION Or THC AUTHOR
A RANOC Or SHADES OF ONC COLOUR GREATER
INTENSITY Or COLOUR INDICATING GREATER
tl TlAMMttttlKJTV
vieta or WILLS O*OM
•r HAAHrruec Htmuotrta n*
A^tAier'EauAbwcLL.TiELa OR
re* tchio-ca wtUJ or Arr*att-
tMATC •rceirie CATAcrrr tci«
exAMc mvtoca «Y ORAWOOWN OR
•Y TOTAI. 69ICXAM1C Or THC WELLS
r«t A ttttt
{LAA4C fldE
tl CxrberTAM.cviuarcMtMT9rTKc A RAWSE or SKAOU or BLUE
T AREA OT TMC AOUirCR
THE iNsioc OF THE SYMBOL SHOULD BC
RESERVED FOR NYOROCHCMICAL DATA
(IN COLOURS ACCORDING TO F 3 AND F S)
THC OUTSIDE FOR HYDRODYNAMICAL QATA
THE EXAMPLE G1VCN SHOWS ONC OF THC
POSSIBILITIES
5 DRILLED WELL DRY
6 ARTESIAN WELL FLOWING
7 ARTESIAN WELL NON FLOWM
8 RECHARGE WELL
-f
4-
-5-
• NUMBER
STATIC LCVCL
•OEFTH
• TEMPCRATUKg
• DRAWDOWN
• YIELD
r HYtMOCHCMmTRY
t TVTAL, OeNGKHTRATtON OR TOTAL
eMAMMK W TOTAL HARONE1S ETC
WATCH
fSOCONe ON ISOCHLORIOC ETC CONTOUR
UNE BROKEN WHERE UNCERTAIN
OR A RANOC Or SKAOU IH CROSS
SCCTIOMS OR ON srCCIAL «A«
2 DCfTM Or tMTCRTACC BETWEEN
r*CSM ANO SALT CA6UNQ WATCH
KUW TKC KATSOKAL HCFCHEMCC LEVCL
COMTOUH UNE BROKEN W
HERE UNCERTAIN
S MW*J«AL •• THCHMAL WATCH
COLOUR REPRESENTIHa PREDOMINANT
CHARACTERISTIC | Bl COLOURED STREAKS
RCPRESENTINa MIXED FEATURES CON-
CENTRATION IS INDICATED BY DIFFERENT
SHADES OF THE COLOUR OR BY ISOCONCS f
•MLMMMATC WATER
4ALCIVM
UAAWUIUM
saatVM
flULP*WTC WATCH
MA4MCSHM4
OlL««t«C WATCH
CALCHJM
MA4MCSIUM
MMUM
4 TtMPEKATUHC IM OC*RIC*
COVTHMAOC
UGNT BLUC
VIOLXT BLUC
DARK (PRUSSIAN) BLUC
YELLOW
YELLOW BMOWH
6RCCH BROWN
CRCCN
FICORC (VIOLET)
SYMBOL or SPRING (O 11) en WELL (o 2
CTC ) OR POND (D 14) WITH THICKER
OUTUNC (BLUC OH DANK BLUE) THE IN-
SIOC OF THC SYMBOL SHOULD BC RESERVED
FOR HYDROCHEMICAL DATA IH COLOURS
ACCOROIN* TO F 3 OR SYMBOLS AS SHOWN
•ELOW
O
11 STOR
WATER
AGE RESERVOIR FOR SURFACE
* * CATCMMIMT °^ »•»»«
l4 PtPE UNE
IS DAM (WITH CAPACITY or RESERVOIR
C « IN MILLION M *)
" "NOERCROUNO DAM
17 CAHAL .RRICATION CANAL
19 ORAINASE CANAL OR ARTIFICIAL
20 GAUGIHS STATION OH A STREAM
21 HYDRO ELECTRIC STATIC
22 MINK usco
THE SAME SYMBOL AS FOR A WELL BUT
(RED)
&
(RED SOUARE SYMBOL
BLUE)
X
> I«/I
o
c
" M,m „„„,«„
24 QUARRY
Rgurs 5-2. Symbols and conventions for preparation of hydrogeologic maps (LaMoreaux, 1966) (continued)
96
-------
Table 5-4 Summary Information on Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods (All ratings are approximate and for
general guidance only)
Technique
Soils/
Geology
Leachate
Burled
Wastes
NAPLs Penetration Depth3 Cost"
Section in
US EPA
(1993b)
Airborne Remote Sensing and Geophysics
Visible Photography yes
Infrared Photography yes
Multispectral Imaging yes
Ultraviolet Photography yes
Thermal Infrared Scanning yes
Active Microwave (Radar) yes
Airborne Electromagnetics yes
Aeromagnetics yes
Surface Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods
Self Potential yes
Electrical Resistivity yes
Induced Polarization yes
Complex Resistivity yes
Time Domain Reflectometry yes
Capacitance Sensors yes
Electromagnetic Induction yes
Transient Electromagnetics yes
Metal Detectors no
VLF Resistivity yes
Magnetotellurics
Surface Seismic and Acoustic Methods
yes0
yes0
yes0
yes0
yes(T)
possibly
yes (C)
no
possibly"
possibly"
no
no
possibly"
no
yes
yes
yes0
yes0
yes0
yes0
possibly
possibly
possibly
no
Surf only
Surf only
Surf only
Surf only
Surf only
01-2
0-100
9
L
L-M
L
L
M
M
M
M
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 12
1 13
1 1 4
1 15
1 16
yes(C)
yes (C)
yes (C)
yes (C)
yes(C)
yes (C)
yes (C)
yes (C)
no
yes (C)
yes
yes (M)
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
possibly
possibly
yes
yes
possibly
possibly
no
no
no
S 60 (km)
Skm
Skm
S2"
S28
S 60(200)/C 15(50)
S 150 (2000+)
C/S 0-3
C/S 20-60
L
L-M
L-M
M-H
M-H
L-M
L-M
M-H
L
M-H
121
1 2 2, 9 1 1
123
123
624
624
131
132
133
134
Seismic Refraction
Shallow Seismic Reflection
Continuous Seismic Profiling
Seismic Shear/Surface Waves
Acoustic Emission Monitoring
Sonar/Fathometer
Other Surface Geophysical Methods
Ground-Penetrating Radar
Magnetometry
Gravity
Radiation Detection
Near Surface Geothermometry
Soil Temperature
Ground Water Detection
Other Thermal Properties
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes (C)
no
yes
no
yes(T)
yes(T)
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes (F)
no
yes
(nuclear)
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
S 1-30(200+)
S 10-30(2000+) M-H
C 1-100
S?
S2a
C no limit
C 1-25 (100s)
C/S 0-20'
S 100S+
C/S near surface
S 1-2a
S2"
S1-2e
L-M
142
L-M
M-H
L
L-H
M
L-M
H
L
L
L
L-M
141
1 43
144
1 45
1 46
151
152
153
154
1 61
1 62
163
Boldface = Most commonly used methods at contaminated sites
(C) = plume detected when contaminants) change conductivity of ground water, (F) = ferrous metals only, (T) = plume detected by temperature
rather than conductivity
a S = station measurement; C = continuous measurement Depths are for typical shallow applications, ( ) = achievable depths
Ratings are very approximate L = low, M = moderate, H = high
° If leachate or NAPLs are on the ground or water surface or indirectly affect surface properties, field confirmation required
Disturbed areas which may contain buried waste can often be detected on aerial photographs
® Typical maximum depth, greater depths possible, but sensor placement is more difficult and cable lengths must be increased
For ferrous metal detection, greater depths require larger masses of metal for detection, 100s of meters depth can be sensed when using
magnetometry for mapping geologic structure
geophysical methods can reduce total costs by optimiz-
ing the location of drillholes for more detailed subsurface
characterization For this situation, US E-PA (1987),
U S EPA (1993b), and Chapter 1 of U S EPA (1993c)
provide information that may be helpful in selecting
appropriate methods Table 5-5 identifies the most com-
monly used surface geophysical methods for charac-
terizing aquifer heterogeneity (Section 542)
97
-------
Tabla 5-5 Summary of Methods for Characterizing Aquifer Heterogeneity
M«thod Properties Comments
Vertical Variations
Drill logs
Electric logs
Nuctear logs
Acoustic and seismic logs
Other togs
Packer Tests
Surface geophysics
Lateral Variations
Polentometrfe maps
Hydrochemteal maps
Tracer tests
Geologic maps and
cross-sections
Isopach maps
Geologic structure maps
Surface geophysics
Changes in hthology
Aquifer thickness
Confining bed thickness
Layers of high/low hydraulic conductivity
Variations in pnmary porosity (based on
material description)
Changes in lithology
Changes in water quality
Strike and dip (dipmeter)
Changes in lithology
Changes in porosity (gamma-gamma)
Changes in lithology
Changes in porosity
Fracture characterization
Strike and dip (acoustic televiewer)
Secondary porosity (caliper,
television/photography)
Variations in permeability
(fluid-temperature, flowmeters, single
borehole tracing)
Hydraulic conductivity
Changes in lithology (resistivity, EMI,
TDEM, seismic refraction)
Changes in hydraulic conductivity
Changes in water chemistry
Time of travel between points
Changes in formation thickness
Structural features, faults
Variations in aquifer and confining layer
thickness
Stratigraphic and structural boundary
conditions affecting aquifers
Changes in lithology (seismic)
Structural features (seismic, GPR,
gravity)
Changes In water quality/ contaminant
plume detection (ER, EMI, GPR)
Basic source for geologic cross sections
Descriptions prepared by geologist preferred over those by
well drillers
Continuous core samples piovided more accurate
descriptions
Require uncased hole and fluid-filled borehole
Suitable for all borehole condition (cased, uncased, dry, and
fluid-filled)
Requires uncased or steel cased hole, and fluid-filled hole
Require open, fluid-filled borehole
Relatively inexpensive and easy to use
Single packer tests used during drilling, double-packer tests
after hole completed
Requires use of vertical sounding methods for electrical and
electromagnetic methods
Based on interpretation of the shape and spacing of
equipotential contours
Requires careful sampling, preservation and analysis to
make sure samples are representative
Requires injection point and one or more downgradient
collection points
Essential for mapping of flow in karst
Result from correlation features observed at the surface and
in boreholes
Distinctive strata with large areal extent required
See Table 5-6
Interpretations require verification using subsurface borehole
data
5.3.3 Geologic and Geophysical Well Logs
Geologic and geophysical well logs are essential for
developing a three-dimensional picture of the subsur-
face. Cliffs, road-cuts, river banks, and other areas
where vertical sections of subsurface materials are ex-
posed at the surface provide a good starting point for
observing the character of bedrock and unconsolidated
deposits below the ground surface As noted in Section
5.2.2, the examination of well logs and records of other
subsurface borings provides information about the sub-
surface in areas where exposures are not available
Often, additional drilling is required to confirm tentative
interpretations made from existing data or to fill in gaps
in coverage A hollow-stem auger with periodic or con-
tinuous core sampling with a thin-wall sampler is usually
the best drilling method in unconsolidated material
where accurate Stratigraphic information is required In
bedrock, continuous diamond coring provides samples
that allow an accurate description of changes in lithol-
98
-------
ogy These samples are especially valuable for identify-
ing the presence and observing the character of frac-
tures Chapter 2 in U S EPA (1993a) piovides more
detailed information about the suitability, advantages,
and disadvantages of different drilling and solids sam-
pling methods
The collection of undisturbed or minimally disturbed
subsurface samples adds to the cost of drilling Drill
cuttings can be observed as they are bi ought to the
surface, allowing the development of les<5 precise de-
scriptive logs of vertical changes in subsurface lithology
The mam difficulty in preparing logs from cuttings is that
it is hard to know the exact depth from which they came
In either situation, a trained geologist or hydrogeologist
should prepare the actual descriptive logs
Borehole geophysical logs can provide valuable addi-
tional information about subsurface geology, especially
when the drilling method does not recover intact cores
Depending on the type or combination of logs that is
used, a wide variety of subsurface properties can be
characterized (1) identification of the type and thickness
of strata within a borehole, (2) correlation of strata be-
tween boreholes, (3) measurement of moisture content
in the vadose (unsaturated) zone, (4) measurement of
porosity and specific yield, (5) characterization of frac-
tures, (6) identification of zones of high peimeabihty, (7)
measurement of the direction of ground water flow, (8)
characterization of water quality
Specific logging methods may be restricted to certain
borehole conditions (e g , may require an uncased, fluid-
filled hole or a certain minimum diameter) Chapter 3 in
U S EPA (1993a) provides information on the applica-
tions, borehole requirements, advantages, and disad-
vantages of more than 40 geophysical logging
techniques Perhaps a half dozen are commonly used
in hydrogeological investigations, but many more have
potential value for particular situations Section 542
identifies a number of methods that are particularly use-
ful for characterizing aquifer heterogeneity
5.3.4 Measurement of Aquifer Parameters
Section 3 3 discusses methods for field measurement of
aquifer parameters for use in analytical equations and
computer modeling for WHPA delineation Most of these
methods can also be used as part of hydrogeologic
mapping for locating aquifer boundaries and charac-
terization of aquifer heterogeneity (Section 541 and
542)
5.3.5 Ground Water Chemistry
Valuable complements to mapping physical charac-
teristics of an aquifer include sampling ground water
from existing wells and/or new boreholes drilled during
hydrogeologic mapping, measuring such parameters as
temperature, pH, and specific conductance, and analyz-
ing for common dissolved constituents (nitrate, sulfate,
calcium, sodium, and bicarbonate) Uses of hydro-
chemical data include
• Dating of ground water using tritium or carbon-14
allows estimation of how recently an aquifer has been
recharged Wells that pump recently recharged water
are more vulnerable to contamination than wells
where the water has been below the surface for hun-
dreds or thousands of years
• Other chemical characteristics, such as pH and dis-
solved constituent concentrations, tend to change the
longer water is in the ground, providing another indi-
cator of how close a well is to a recharge zone
• In karst areas, varying specific conductance of
springs indicates that the springs are fed by different
parts of the subsurface flow system
• Multiple aquifers in an area may have distinctive
chemistries In this situation, analyses of ground
water samples from wells can be used to determine
which aquifer is being tapped Samples with interme-
diate chemical compositions may indicate mixing of
water in a well that penetrates several aquifers
Ground water chemistry is a useful indicator of hetero-
geneity (Section 542) and is useful for assessing the
presence and degree of confinement in a aquifer (Sec-
tion 543) An important consideration in hydrochemical
mapping is that the samples should be representative of
conditions in the aquifer at the location sampled In
addition, no chemical alterations of the sample should
take place as a result of sampling, or between the time
that the sample is taken and analyzed
5.4 Special Considerations for Wellhead
Protection
Hydrogeologic mapping is especially valuable as a com-
plement to other WHPA delineation methods in the fol-
lowing areas (1) adjustments of WHPAs to account for
aquifer boundaries (Section 541), (2) adjustments of
WHPAs based on aquifer heterogeneity and/or aniso-
tropy (Section 5 4 2), and (3) assessing the presence
and degree of confinement in aquifers (Section 543)
Hydrogeologic mapping should be the primary method
for delineating WHPAs in fractured rock and unconfmed
karst aquifers where a porous-medium approximation
for ground water flow cannot be demonstrated Methods
for characterization and hydrogeoiogic mapping in such
settings are discussed in more detail in Section 544
99
-------
Checklist 5-1
Possible Aquifer Boundaries
Distance to well Within ZOC?*
Barrier Boundaries Yes No
Vertical/Sloping
Impermeable crystalline rocks
Fault displacement
Horizontal**
Recharge Boundaries
Natural ground-water divide (unconfmed aquifer)
Areal recharge from precipitation
Loosing stream
Lake, other surface water body
Above water table
Surface expression of water table
Leaky confining layer (downward flow)
Injection well
Areal artificial recharge
Discharge Boundaries
Gaining stream
Lake, other surface water body
Surface expression of water table
Interior drainage basin
Leaky confining layer (upward flow)
Drainage ditchAile dram
Other pumping wells
* As defined by one or more of the simple methods described in Chapter 4
" Impermeable geologic materials always form the base of an aquifer, see Table 5-6 for criteria for defining the extent to which
Impermeable confining layers represent boundaries to flow
100
-------
5.4.7 Delineation of Aquifer
Boundaries
Identification of aquifer boundaries is an essential part
of identifying a well's zone of contribution1 (ZOC)
Ground water divides upgradient from a well can be
readily identified using a potentiometnc surface map
(Chapter 2) Section 216 discusses other major types
of aquifer boundaries Checklist 5-1 can be used to
identify possible aquifer boundaries that may affect a
well Figure 2-7 provides illustrations of most of these
types of boundaries Determining the distance from the
boundary to the well will help identify those boundaries
that might be most significant for purposes of WHPA
delineation
Additional analysis using simple analytical methods for
calculating drawdown (Section 4 5) may be required to
determine whether an aquifer boundary actually func-
tions as a boundary to the well's zone of contribution
For example, a stream downgradient from a well would
represent a potential boundary, but if the distance to the
null point using the uniform flow equation (Section 451)
does not extend to the stream, then the null point, not
the stream, would mark the downgradient limit of the
zone of contribution 2 Similarly, an impermeable bound-
ary that lies outside the upgradient ZOC indicated by the
uniform flow equation would not be a boundary to the
ZOC
If a barrier or discharge boundary lies within a WHPA
defined by one or more of the simple methods covered
in Chapter 4, a WHPA can be reduced based on the
hydrogeological mapping of the boundary (provided that
the boundary has been or can be defined with some
precision) The presence of a recharge boundary within
a well's zone of influence (ZOI) based on calculation of
drawdown may require modification of the boundaries of
the ZOC For example, if a losing stream lies within the
ZOI, then the entire upstream drainage basin of the
stream lies within the ZOC of the well On the other
hand, as discussed in Section 4 4, any recharge in the
ZOC of a well serves to increase the time of travel from
more distant points in the ZOC While this means that
travel of contaminants from more distant sources is
slower, the presence of one or more recharge bounda-
ries within a WHPA is an indicator of increased vulner-
ability to contamination in areas nearer the well
1 Exceptions include (1) wells located in unoonfined aquifers where
the potentiometnc-surf ace is nearly fiat and the zone of influence does
not extend to a vertical impermeable aquifer boundaiy, and (2) wells
in highly confined aquifers that are far from the recharge zone andm
which faulting has not caused vertical displacement of sediments
If the null point is within several hundred feet of the stream, some
consideration should be given to the possibility of backwater effects
during flooding on the ZOC (Section 232)
5.4.2 Characterization of Aquifer
Heterogeneity and Anisotropy
As discussed in Section 2 1 3, aquifer heterogeneity and
anisotropyare important considerations in delineation of
wellhead protection areas Using an average value for
hydraulic conductivity in any of the simple methods
covered in Chapter 4 will underestimate the time of
travel or zone of influence based on drawdown, because
contaminants will travel faster in fractures or layers of
higher permeability, if they are present Aquifer anisot-
ropy or heterogeneity can result in incorrect delineation
of WHPA boundaries based on potentiometnc maps and
flow net analysis (Section 22) Figure 2-12 illustrates
this effect in an anisotropic aquifer, and Figure 2-19
shows how this can happen in a heterogeneous aquifer
Consequently, a major purpose of hydrogeologic map-
ping for wellhead protection should be to assess the
presence and degree of variability of hydrologic proper-
ties vertically and laterally Methods for measuring an-
isotropy (variations in vertical and horizontal hydraulic
conductivity at a particular location) are discussed in
Section 335
Any method that allows measurement or qualitative ob-
servation of the similarities and differences in a particu-
lar aquifer characteristic in a vertical or horizontal
direction allows assessment of whether an aquifer is
homogeneous or heterogeneous Table 5-5 summarizes
a number of field methods that are commonly used or
especially well suited for this purpose Drill logs and
geophysical borehole logs allow assessment of vertical
changes in lithology, porosity, and permeability Packer
tests allow measurement of variations in hydraulic con-
ductivity at different intervals Surface geophysical
methods, such as seismic refraction, seismic reflection,
and electrical resistivity soundings, also allow less pre-
cise mapping of vertical changes in lithology
An accurate potentiometnc surface map (Chapter 2) is
one of the most valuable ways to evaluate aquifer het-
erogeneity Hydrochemical maps also provide informa-
tion that can be specifically related to the hydrogeology
of an area Tracer tests (Section 333) may indicate
whether fracture flow or zones of high permeability exist
This is indicated when the time of travel of the tracer is
faster than the time of travel calculated from estimated
aquifer properties or values measured by well tests
Geologic cross-sections, isopach maps, and structural
maps, which are generally based on interpolations be-
tween borehole logs, allow assessment of hthologic vari-
ations Surface geophysical methods allow relatively
rapid measurement of lateral variations in lithology,
structure, and water quality where no better subsurface
information is available However, some verification with
subsurface borehole data is required
Geostatistical methods, originally developed for charac-
terizing mineral ore bodies, have been found to be
101
-------
Increasingly useful tools for characterizing the variability
of aquifer parameters (Delhomme, 1979, Hoeksma and
Kitandis, 1985) Poeter and Belcher (1991) recently de-
scribed a method for characterizing porous medium het-
erogeneity by "inverse plume analysis," in which the
spatial distribution of contaminant concentrations is
used to evaluate variation in aquifer properties Both of
these approaches, however, require a relatively high
density of subsurface observations, which may not be
available in potential wellhead protection areas Special
approaches to aquifer characterization are typically re-
quired in fractured rock and karst limestone aquifers, as
discussed in Section 544
5.4.3 Presence and Degree of Confinement
The presence and degree of confinement has a signifi-
cant impact on the vulnerability of an aquifer to contami-
nation and the size of the WHPAfor a given time of travel
or drawdown criterion (Sections 4 4 and 4 5) Figure 5-3
shows the location of major and significant minor con-
fined aquifers in the contiguous United States Methods
for evaluating these aquifer properties can be broadly
classified as (1) geologic, (2) hydrologic, and (3) hydro-
chemical. Table 5-6 identifies 15 indicators of confine-
ment and the characteristics that are associated with
highly confined or semiconfmed conditions Kreitler and
Senger (1991) provide more detailed discussion of
these methods.
5.4.4 Characterization of Fractured Rock
and Karst Aquifers
Where fracture or conduit flow (Section 214) occurs in
an aquifer, special care and techniques are required for
delineating wellhead protection areas Figure 5-4 iden-
tifies major areas of the United States and associated
territories where unconfmed fracture flow is significant,
and Figure 5-5 identifies major karst areas of the con-
tiguous United States and other areas where carbonate
rocks are at or near the surface The term "fractured
rock" aquifer in this manual refers to areas where most
of the water supplied to a pumping well comes from
fractures with sufficiently narrow apertures that Darcian
flow (Section 3 1 3) occurs Common geologic settings
where fractured rock aquifers occur include crystalline
intrusive igneous (i e , granites) and metamorphic rocks,
basalts, and some carbonates
The term "karsf aquifer in this guide refers to carbonate
aquifers where conduit flow is an important component
of the ground water flow system As shown in Figure 5-5,
not all carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) are
karst aquifers However, whenever carbonate aquifers
are present, either fracture or conduit flow should be
assumed
The fundamental objective of hydrogeologic mapping in
fractured rock and karst aquifers should be to identity
(1) the boundaries of the flow system, and (2) the struc-
ture of the flow system The rest of this section provides
EXPLANATION
Ij"!.r*.| Confined aquifer
-——— Approximate boundary
a Other (does not contain recognizable/
delineators confined aquifers)
600km
Scale I 14,000,000
Figure 5-3. Major and significant minor confined aquifers of the United States (Kreitler and Senger, 1991)
102
-------
Table 5-6 Indicators of Presence and Degree of Confinement
Information Source Highly Confined
Semiconflned (Leaky)
Geologic
Geologic maps and cross-sections
Environmental geologic and
hydrogeologic maps
Hydrologic
Water level elevation (single well)
of potentiometnc surface
Hydraulic head differences
between aquifers
Water level fluctuations
(continuous measurement)
Hydrologic measurements in
confining strata
Pump test for storativity
Pump test for leakage
Numerical modeling
Hydrochemistry
General water chemistry
Anthropogenic atmospheric tracers
Isotope chemistry
Contaminants
Changes in water chemistry over
time
Time of travel through confining
strata
Presence of continuous, unfractured,
confining stiata (clays, glacial till, shale,
siltstone)
See above
Above the top of the aquifer (not
diagnostic for differentiation of highly and
semi-confined aquifers)
Large head difference in water levels
measured in wells cased in different
aquifers (not diagnostic for differentiation of
highly and semiconfmed aquifers)
Short-lived and diurnal fluctuations in
response to changes in barometric
pressure, tidal effects, external loading
(Table 2-1), no response to recharge
events
No changes, in water levels in response to
pumping, diurnal but not seasonal water
level fluctuations (see above)
Storativity less than 0 001
Pump drawdown vs time curve matches
analytical solution(s) for highly confined
aquifer Estimated or calculated leakage
less than W3 gal/day/ft2
Simulation of potentiometnc surface
possible without estimates of leakage, or
required estimates are low (see above)
Chemical characteristics indicative of long
distance from recharge area
(region-specific)
No detectable tritium or fluorocarbons in
ground water
Carbon-14 dating of water samples
indicates age > 500 years
No detectable concentrations of potential
contaminants identified by inventory of
potential contaminant sources
Head declines from long-term pumping
have not resulted in changes in water
chemistry indicators of vertical leakage
Time of travel calculations based on
measured or estimated values of
difference in hydraulic head, porosity and
hydraulic conductivity exceed 40 years
Evidence of vertical permeability In confining
strata (fracture traces, faults, mineralization or
oxidation of fractures observed In cores)
Presence of artificial penetrations (abandoned
or producing oil and gas wells, water wells,
exploration boreholes)
Same
Same
Similar to highly confined aquifer, but may also
exhibit relatively large and rapid response to
recharge events because of leakage through
discrete points
Changes in water levels in response to
pumping, seasonal water-level fluctuations in
response to seasonal variations in precipitation
Between 0 01 and 0 001 (not diagnostic)
Pump drawdown Vs time curve requires use of
analytical solution for leaky aquifer Estimated
or calculated leakage 10 2 to 102 gal/day/ft2
Simulation of potentiometnc surface requires
use of large leakage values
Qualifies as confined using other criteria, but
chemical characteristics more similar to ground
water in recharge zones
Detectable concentrations of tritium or
fluorocarbons (less than 40 years old)
See above
Qualifies as confined using other criteria, and
contaminants detected in aquifer
Head declines from long term pumping have
resulted in changes in water chemistry
indicators of vertical leakage (see above)
Time of travel through confining strata < 40
years based on calculations or presence of
tritium or fluorocarbons
Source Adapted from Kreitler and Senger (1991)
an overview of major methods for characterizing the
boundaries and structure of fracture rock and karst
systems Table A-2 provides an extensive list of major
references on karst geology, geomorphology, and
hydrology where more detailed information can be
obtained
The primary method for mapping the boundaries of an
unconfmed fractured rock or karst aquifer is dye tracing
(Section 333) In karst aquifers this is the only reliable
method because conduit flow systems often do not fol-
low surface water drainage systems For example, Bon-
acci and Zivaljevic (1993), using dye tracing and a water
103
-------
UrconbHd fractured dofcxnto Imojtons
and cryjUtffiM aquifer araas
DO NOT USE THIS MAP OR ENLARGEMENT FOR SITE SPECIFIC PURPOSES
(a)
(b)
Rgure 5-4. Areas of unconfined fractured rock aquifers (a) contiguous United States, (b) Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
and Guam (Bradbury et al, 1991)
104
-------
Figure 5-5 Distribution of karst areas in relation to carbonate and sulphate rocks in the United States A = Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plain region, B = east-central region of Paleozoic and other old rock, C = Great Plains region, D = western mountain
region, 1 = karst areas, 2 = carbonate and sulphate rocks at or near the surface (from Davies and LeGrand, 1972)
budget of a large spring in the Dmaric karst of Montene-
gro, found the catchment area to be 76 to 79 km2, while
hydrogeologic mapping based on geology and topogra-
phy indicated a catchment area of 120 to 170 km23
Significant differences in flow direction may occur in
karst aquifers depending on whether low-flow or high-
flow conditions exist Again, such changes can only be
accurately determined using dye tracer tests For exam-
ple, low-flow and high-flow tracer tests were conducted
by injecting dye into several wells in the vicinity of
Lemon Lane landfill, a Superfund site contaminated with
PCBs The landfill is located on a topographic divide in
a karst area where more than 30 spnngs have been
identified within a mile-and-a-half radius of the landfill
(Figure 5-6a) A low-flow tracer test conducted in 1987
found that most water infiltrating in the vicinity of the
landfill flowed in a southeasterly direction, but some also
flowed to the northeast (Figure 5-6a) A high-flow tracer
test, conducted two years later, found that most flow was
still in a southeasterly direction, but that some flow
3 Note that the hydrogeology of karst terranes of the former Yugosla-
via are generally very different from karst areas in North America In
the United States, catchments in karst areas typically are larger than
would be expected based on an analysis of surface topography
4 Fracture trace analysis will not necessarily identify major conduits
in karst aquifers, however, because these may follow bedding planes
with no surface expression
occurred in all directions, with dye being detected in
essentially all of the springs in the area (Figure 5-6b)
A variety of methods are available for characterizing the
structure of fractured rock and karst flow systems
These can be broadly classified as (1) remote sensing,
surface, and borehole geophysical methods, (2) moni-
toring of natural fluctuations of water levels in wells and
their response to pumping, and (3) monitoring of dis-
charge and chemistry of springs
5441 Remote Sensing and Geophysical Methods
Fracture trace and lineament analysis using air photos
(Section 5 2 3) is a useful starting point for,identifying
possible areas of concentration and preferential direc-
tion of ground water flow4 Other remote sensing meth-
ods, such as near-infrared and thermal infrared
scanners, which detect variations in near-surface mois-
ture, may also be useful for mapping the location of
sinkholes and fracture trace analysis (LaMoreaux,
1979) Such observations should be supplemented,
where possible, with observation and analysis of the
character and orientation of rock joint and fracture pat-
terns at surface outcrops (LaPomte and Hudson, 1985)
A number of commonly used surface geophysical meth-
ods have potential applications for detection of subsur-
105
-------
I '*"{ ««% /
An. ^ -SMI/
(a)
(b)
Figure 5-6 Directions of ground water flow in a karst aquifer, Monroe County, Indiana (a) 1987 low-flow tracer test, (b) 1989 high-flow
tracer test (McCann and Krothe, 1992)
106
-------
face cavities in karst areas, including gravity, electrical
resistivity, seismic, and ground-penetrating radar
(Greenfield, 1979) Karous and Mares (1988) provide
detailed treatment of use of geophysical methods for
characterizing fractured-rock aquifers, including some
methods that are less commonly known For example,
Figure 5-7 illustrates how a conduit feeding a karst
spring can be mapped using self-potential measure-
ments In this example, the current electrode A was
grounded at the spring orifice, and potential's measured
along transects I through IV Figure 5-8 illustrates how
repeated seismic velocity measurements at different ori-
entations around a single point provide an indication of
the orientation of major fractures In this example, ve-
locities have been plotted on a polar diagram, with the
inferred direction of major fractures based on the higher
velocity measurements Azimuthal resistivity, in which a
series of resistivity measurements are taken by shifting
the position of the electrodes around a single point, is
another possible method for detecting fracture orienta-
tion (Ritzi and Andolesk, 1992)
Borehole geophysical methods provide a necessary
complement to surface geophysical and other charac-
terization techniques Acoustic televiewer, borehole tele-
vision, and dipmeter logs are especially useful for
determining the location and orientation of subsurface
fractures Fracture zones can also be detected using
borehole flowmeters (mechanical, thermal and the re-
cently developed electromagnetic flowmeler) with or
without pumping Single borehole and multiple well
Figure 5-8 Azimuthal seismic survey to characterize direction
of subsurface rock fractures (from Karous and
Mares, 1988)
tracer tests ar useful for characterizing the flow at a
more local scale Additional information on the surface
and borehole geophysical methods mentioned here can
be found in U S EPA (1993) Table 3-10 identifies a
number of additional references characterizing fractured
rock aquifers
5442 Water Level Monitoring
In unconfined fractured rock and karst aquifers, water
levels in wells intercepting fractures or conduits com-
monly show relatively large fluctuations in response to
precipitation events (see Figure 2-6) During times of low
flow, large differences in water levels in nearby wells
serve as an indicator of low matrix permeability (the well
with higher water levels) and fracture or conduit flow in
the well with the lower water levels
The response of water levels to pumping provides a
basis for judging whether the flow system functions as
a "porous medium equivalent" (i e , the aquifer can be
modeled as if it were flowing in a porous medium, even
though flow in fractures is occurring)5 Figure 5-9 illus-
trates three types of aquifer responses to pumping that
indicate a porous medium model should not be used for
characterizing an aquifer Granular aquifers (and frac-
tured-rock aquifers where fractures are relatively small
and evenly spaced) will generally show a linear relation-
250m
Figure 5-7 Mapping of subsurface conduit using self-potential
method (from Karous and Mares, 1988)
5 In the context of wellhead protection, even if a fractured rock or karst
aquifer can be modeled using porous medium flow assumptions,
results should be interpreted with great caution Values of hydraulic
conductivity calculated from such aquifer tests will reflect average
values, whereas actual ground water flow velocities will be much
higher For example, Qumlan et al (1991) cite a tracer test in the
Flondan aquifer using two wells 200 feet apart The theoretical arrival
time of the injected dye, based on geophysical logging and aquifer
testing, was about 40 days Actual breakthrough time was 5 hours
107
-------
(a)
POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
•
/*
2
Q
2
1
0
100 200 300 400
Discharge, gmp
£
NON-POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
3 .
2 .
1
0
100 200 300 400
Discharge, gmp
POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
NON-POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
10 100 1000
Time
10 100
Time
POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
NON-POROUS MEDIA EQUIVALENT
*•.. \.x*JC2JC1t
\ Drawdown, ft
V
N ^'JC3JC4
N
(Junction C«y,Wis,1989)
7(004)»
9* Well
(0 46) Drawdown at Well (m)
01 — Approximate Contour of
Equal Drawdown (m)
(from Smith and Vaughan, 1985)
11 (0 01)
Figure 5-9. Pumplng-test response Indicators of fracture/conduit flow (a) discharge drawdown plots (after Hickey, 1984), (b) time
drawdown curves (from Davis and Dewiest, 1966), (c) area! drawdown distribution (Bradbury et al, 1991)
108
-------
ship between drawdown and pumping rate, whereas
aquifers where fracture flow is significant may show a
leveling off response in drawdown as pumping rates
increase (Figure 5-9a) The presence of large water-
bearing fractures is indicated by a temporary leveling off
in a drawdown versus time plot (Figure 5-9b) Finally, if
major fractures are feeding a well, the cone of depres-
sion may depart significantly from a circular or elliptical
shape (Figure 5-9c) Non-porous medium equivalent
responses in aquifer tests require use of the appropriate
fracture-flow analytical solutions for analyzing pump test
data (see Section 335 and references in Table 3-10)
All of these responses can also be indicative of conduit
flow in carbonate aquifers
5443 Spring Monitoring
A distinctive characteristic of near-surface karst hydro-
logic systems is that springs serve as discharge points
for subsurface flow Much useful information about a
karst aquifer can be obtained by monitoring the amount
and chemistry of flow from a spring Kresic (1993) pro-
vides a review of methods for spring hydrograph analy-
sis and statistical analysis of time series measurements
of flow from springs and water level measurements in
wells With antecedent soil moisture conditions being
equal, a rapid increase in discharge from a spring in
response to a precipitation event indicates that point
recharge is a major component of subsurface flow,
whereas a relatively small flow response indicates that
dispersed recharge contributes most of the flow to a
spring Quantitative interpretations of spring hy-
drographs require continuous records of both spring
discharge and precipitation in the catchment area
Specific conductance, an easily measured ground water
parameter, is widely used for characterizing karst aqui-
fers Where multiple springs are present in an area,
springs with similar specific conductance can be consid-
ered to be closely interconnected, while large differ-
ences in specific conductance indicate that the flow
systems feeding the springs are largely independent
Monitoring of changes in water chemistry with changes
in spring discharge is also a useful way to characterize
karst aquifers Specific conductance is the parameter of
choice because it is easy to measure and can be moni-
tored continuously (Qumlan et al, 1992b) Other pa-
rameters such as hardness, degree of saturation with
respect to calcite and dolomite, and the Ca/Mg ratio can
also be used A high coefficient of variation of specific
conductance (CVC) indicates that point recharge is a
major contributor to flow, whereas a low CVC indicates
that most recharge comes from dispersed sources
Qumlan et al (1992b) suggest the following provisional
guidelines using CVC as a measure of aquifer vulner-
ability as defined in Figure 5-6 moderately sensitive =
<5 percent, very sensitive = 5 to 10 percent, hypersen-
sitive = >10 percent
A Cautionary Note Footnote 5 discusses the possible
risk of using porous-medium analytical models for de-
lineating WHPAs in fractured rock or karst areas, even
if aquifer test data suggest that flow behavior approxi-
mates that in a porous medium The results of any
methods used to quantify storage properties or hydraulic
conductivity in fractured rock and karst aquifers de-
scribed above must be evaluated in the context of the
volume of the aquifer that is being measured As noted
in Section 3 3, values for hydraulic conductivity tend to
increase as larger volumes of an aquifer are measured
This effect is particularly dramatic in karst aquifers Fig-
ure 5-1 Oa shows the effect of scale from laboratory core
measurements (centimeters) to regional (thousands of
meters) on the storage coefficient (S) and hydraulic
conductivity (K) in the Swabian Alps of southwestern
Germany Measurements of K range over six orders of
magnitude Figure 5-1 Ob, which summarizes data from
many different studies in karst areas, shows an even
wider range of eight orders of magnitude for the pre-
dominant ranges of major methods for estimating aver-
age velocity (laboratory core, double packer tests, slug
tests, pumping tests, and dye tracer tests) These fig-
ures make it clear that time of travel estimates used for
WHPA delineation in karst aquifers based on any meth-
ods other than dye tracer tests are unlikely to provide
adequate protection
5.5 Vulnerability Mapping
Ground water vulnerability mapping involves the deline-
ation of areas of varying susceptibility to ground water
contamination based on the interaction of charac-
teristics that promote or inhibit movement of contami-
nants in the subsurface Ground water vulnerability
maps may be developed as specific units within a
broader scheme of ground water classification, or may
just delineate highly vulnerable areas without paying
special attention to the characteristics of non-vulnerable
areas
Figure 5-11 illustrates WHPAs based on an arbitrary
radius and simplified shape marked on a vulnerability
map of Door County, Wisconsin When vulnerability
mapping is performed, efforts to inventory potential con-
taminant sources can be focused on areas where the
hazard is greatest Vulnerability mapping also allows
fine-tuning of management approaches within the
WHPA Highly vulnerable areas require stricter manage-
ment approaches than less vulnerable areas The rest
of this section reviews a number of approaches that
have been developed for vulnerability mapping
5.5.1 DRASTIC
DRASTIC is a widely used method for evaluating the
relative vulnerability of mappable hydrogeologic units to
ground water contamination DRASTIC is an acronym
109
-------
2000m
Regional
Krtg -1oe-3m/*-10E-4nVa
Sreg -0015
%frac -00001-00003
Kwgeond -3m/s 10m/i
Smgcond -1
Kragflt l*10E-4m/a-1'10E5m/H
Local
Pumping Taat
Kl -1'10E-4m/»-1'10E5m/s(10E3m/a-10E-6m/s)
SI -001-002
%fnte -00001
Kteond 001m/i-10irVs?
Slcond 1
Klfls 10S4m/g?
Sublocal
Slugff»aekerflnlectlon Teat
Kol -1*106-3 m/a-5*10&«nVS<10&5 m/s-10E-6 m/s)
Sal 0.02?
%frac-00001?
Katoond -O03nv*-01m/a
Ssicond 1
Ksffia 10E-7m/s-10ESrrV3
Laboratory
(a)
Klab - 10E-* m/8- 10E 9 m/» (< 10E-11 - > 1 m/s)
Slab.-003(0->012)
I
O
2
UJ
UJ
I
UJ
10°
ID"2
10-4
10'6
10-8
10-10
10
•12
• Predominant Range
in the Same Aquifer
I Range Reported
in the Literature
1800-f Dye Tests
in Conduits in
25 Countries
A Core (Lab) Tests
B Double Packer Tests
C Slug Tests
D Pumping Tests
E Dye Tests
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000
SCALE OF MEASUREMENT, LENGTH OF MEASUREMENT (m)
(b)
Figure 5-10. Scale dependence of ground water flow in karst systems (a) geometrical relationships and hydraulic conductivities at
different scales (Sauter, 1992), (b) measurement scales and average velocities of different measurement methods (modified
after Qulnlan et al, 1992a, and Sauter 1992)
110
-------
<— Direction ofregnnalgraund-walerflow
T8«W8»(MW1)
I I Contamination suscefrtiWa area based
on Held mapping of exposed fractures
tnkiidlt and otlwjurfacD natures
(afterSchuitofondotlors IMS)
•"• WHPAbitsd on wbtauy radius
"•" WHPAb«sedoniimpi:tl«dvin«b!«
•taps
KET UO 0 BOO WM MOO
Figure 5-11 WHPAs at Sevastopol site, Door County, Wiscon-
sin, based on fixed radius, simplified shape, and
vulnerability mapping (from Bradbury et al, 1991)
for the seven factors for which numerical ratings are
made to develop an index of vulnerability to ground
water contamination Depth to water table, net Re-
charge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography (slope),
frnpact to vadose zone, and hydraulic Conductivity of
the aquifer Conventional hydrogeologic mapping meth-
ods are first used to delineate areas with similar charac-
teristics A numerical value is given to each of the seven
factors, which are multiplied by a weighting factor and
added to obtain the DRASTIC index for the map unit
Worksheet 5-2 provides a form for calculating the
DRASTIC index Appendix B provides a more detailed
description of how to use this method with a SCS coun-
try soil survey to quickly develop a preliminary DRASTIC
map of a county
The DRASTIC index does not have any absolute mean-
ing, but provides a means to assess relative vulnerabil-
ity A DRASTIC index of greater than 150 is one means
of defining a highly vulnerable aquifer under EPA's
ground water protection strategy (U S EPA, 1986a)
The DRASTIC index has been found to give inconsistent
results in karst areas where the water table is relatively
deep (Sendlem, 1992), and in the and Tucson basin,
Arizona, for reasons that are not entirely clear (Pima
Association of Governments, 1992) Both of these stud-
ies suggest that the relatively high weighting given to
depth to water may understate the potential for contami-
nation when preferential pathways allow relatively rapid
vertical migration to deep water tables Another weak-
ness in the DRASTIC index is that is that it does not
readily allow differentiation of shallow perched water
tables over deeper regional water tables
DRASTIC, like many other vulnerability assessment
models, has technical limitations It must be remem-
bered that it is a standardized classification system and
only intended to provide qualitative guidelines Its focus
is on criteria rather than specific or unique situations in
an area According to Rosen (1994), DRASTIC was
never intended to give any precise answers, and the
system should be viewed and analyzed with this in mind
Rosen (1994) found in his work, as an example, that the
system tends to overestimate the vulnerability of porous
media aquifers compared to aquifers in fractured media
He recommended that the applicability of the results be
enhanced and the risk of misuse be reduced by directing
the analysis toward more scientifically defined factors,
such as sorption capacity, travel time, and dilution
5.5.2 Other Vulnerability Mapping Methods
Various other methods have been developed for vulner-
ability mapping They can be broadly classified as (1)
systems using numerical ratings (as with DRASTIC) and
(2) non-numerical systems in which map units may be
numbered in order of increasing vulnerability, or classi-
fied as highly vulnerable and less vulnerable Table 5-7
describes a number of vulnerability mapping techniques
and summarizes the type of criteria used Knox et al
(1993) include tables summarizing criteria for the SAFE,
WSSIM, HRS, SRM, and PI methods Perhaps the sim-
plest application of vulnerability mapping for wellhead
protection is to develop criteria based on local condi-
tions for defining highly vulnerable hydrogeologic set-
tings (Figures 5-6 and 5-12) The DRASTIC criteria in
Worksheet 5-2, the information in Table 5-7, and the
references indexed in Table 5-9 may be useful for devel-
oping locally appropriate vulnerability criteria
5.6 Use of Geographic Information
Systems for Wellhead Protection
Geographic information systems (GIS) use a common
spatial framework for data input, storage, manipulation,
analysis, and display of geographic, cultural, political,
environmental, and statistical data Computer process-
ing of spatial data can range from the use of relatively
simple graphics software that can plot contours or
isopleths from data for which x and y coordinates are
known using ASCII or other datafiles, through to com-
plex systems that can process digitized map data, main-
tain and manipulate large spatial databases, and
generate a wide variety of user-created tables, graphs,
and maps (Figure 5-12) This handbook uses the term
111
-------
Worksheet 5-2.
DRASTIC Worksheet (Circle appropriate range and rating).
County.
State
General Soli Map Unit Number
General Description
1 Depth to Water (ft) 2 Net Recharge (in)
Range
0-5
5-15
15-30
3Q-SO
50-75
75-100
100+
Rating
10
9
7
5
3
2
1
Range
Rating
0-2
2-4
4-7
7-10
10+
4. Soil Media
5 Topography (%)
Type
Thin/
Absent
Gravel
Sand
Peat
Structured
day
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silty Loam
day Loam
Muck
Massive
day
Rating
10
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Range
Ratng
0-2
2-6
6-12
12-18
18+
10
9
5
3
1
7. Hydraulic Conductivity
(gpd/sq ft.)
Range
1-100
100-300
300-700
700-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000+
Rating
1
2
4
6
8
10
3 Aquifer Media
Type
Massive Shale
Metamorphic/Igneous
Weathered M/I
Glacial Till
Bedded SS/LS/Shale
Massive Sandstone
Massive Limestone
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
Karst Limestone
Rating
Range Typical Actual
1-3 2
2-5 3
3-5 4
4-6 5
5-9 6
4-9 6
4-9 6
4-9 8
2-10 9
9-10 10
6 Vadose Zone Media
Type
Confining Layer
Silt/day
Shale
Limestone
Sandstone
Bedded LS/SS/Shale
Sand and Gravel with
Sig Silt and day
Metamorphic/Igneous
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
Karst Limestone
Rating
Range Typical Actual
1 1
2-6 3
2-5 3
2-7 6
4-8 6
4-8 6
4-8 6
2-8 4
6-9 8
2-10 9
8-10 10
DRASTIC Index
Rating x Weight =
Pesticide Rating x Weight =
1 x5= 1 x5 =
2 x4 =
3 x3 -
4 x2 =
5 xl =
6 x5 =
7 x3 -
Total *
2 x4 =
3 x3 =
4 x5 =
5 x3 =
6 x4 =
7 x2 =
Total
* Aquifers with DRASTIC ratings >150 are considered to be "highly vulnerable" by EPA
112
-------
Table 5-7 Summary of Major Ground-Water Vulnerability Mapping Methods
Description Major Vulnerability Criteria
References
The DRASTIC method can be
applied in any hydrogeologic setting
Results in a numerical index based
on the sum of weighted ratings for
seven criteria Most widely used
method
Illinois ground water aquifer
vulnerability maps and geographic
information system Subsurface
geologic data to a depth of 50 feet
has been digitized to develop a
state-wide stack-unit map
Karst limestone areas are highly
vulnerable by definition because
conduit flow allows rapid travel of
contaminants Several schemes
provide more detailed criteria for
assessing relative vulnerability
Vulnerability to contamination by
agricultural chemicals Various
vulnerability indexes have been
developed
Numerous schemes have been
developed to assess site suitability
for solid/hazardous waste land
disposal siting or risk from currently
contaminated sites Such suitability
ranking systems can also be used to
assess ground water vulnerability
General ground water classification
schemes
See Worksheet 5-2 Highly vulnerable = >150
(US EPA, 1986a)
Has been used for a variety of applications
Uhlman and Smith (1990) defined 8 classes for
LUST contamination potential based on depth to
uppermost aquifer and presence or absence of
major aquifer at depth Highly vulnerable aquifer
material within 5 feet of land surface, variable
underlying materials and major aquifer at depth
Qumlan et al (1992b) hypersensitive = high point
recharge, high conduit flow, low soil storage
(Figure 5-6) Schuster et al (1989), highly
vulnerable = shallow or exposed fracture dolomite
bedrock, permeable soils, open surface fractures,
sinkholes (Figure 5-12)
DRASTIC pesticide index places greater weight
on soil media and topography (Worksheet 5-2)
RAVE index (DeLuca and Johnson (1990) uses a
numerical index based on depth to ground water,
soil texture, percent organic matter, topographic
position, distance to surface waster, cropping
practice, pesticide application frequency/method,
and pesticide leaching index Scores >60
indicate high concern
LSR (landfill site rating) system uses (1) hydraulic
conductivity, (2) sorption, (3) aquifer thickness, (4)
depth and gradient of water table, (5)
topography), (6) distance to wells or streams
High suitability = low vulnerability to ground water
contamination Low suitability = high vulnerability
to ground water contamination Each method has
slightly different criteria
Criteria varies depending on the objective of the
classification scheme
Aller et al (1987) Case studies
See Table 5-9
See Table 5-9
Qumlan et al (1992b), Schuster et
al (1989), Sendlein (1992)
Others include the Pesticide Index
(PI)—Rao et al (1985), U S EPA
(1986d), SAFE (Soil/Aquifer Field
Evaluation)—Roux(1986), See
Table 5-9 for additional case study
references
LSR LeGrand (1964, 1983),
LeGrand and Brown (1977), HRS
(Hazard Ranking System) Caldwell
et al (1981), SRM (Superfund Site
Rating Methodology) Kufs et al
(1980), U S EPA (1989, 1991c),
SIA (Surface Impoundment
Assessment method) Silka and
Sweanngen (1978), U S EPA
(1983), WSSIM (Waste-Soil-Site
Interaction Matrix) Phillips et al
(1977)
General US EPA(1985, 1986a),
Sole aquifer program U S EPA
(1988b)
"full-scale GIS" to refer to the type of integrated system
illustrated in Figure 5-12, and "mmi-GIS" to refer to
personal computer (PC)-based software that is able to
perform most of the functions of full-scale GIS at the
scale of a USGS 75 minute quadrangle (discussed
further in Section 5 6 2) as an integrated package 6 The
term "desktop" GIS applies to the use of independent
pieces of PC-based software to achieve the same re-
sults that full-scale and mmi-GIS systems perform This
section provides a brief discussion of use of GIS for
wellhead protection Tables A-3 (Index to Major Refer-
The geographic area that would exceed the capabilities of a stand-
alone PC depends on two mam factors (1) the storage and memory
capacity of the computer, and (2) the amount and number of layers
of data that must be stored and processed Most stand-alone PCs
can readily handle a digitized USGS 7 5 minute quadrangle map and
the kind of data that would be required for WHPA delineation
ences on Geographic Information Systems) and A-4
(Periodicals, Conferences, and Symposia With Paper
Relevant to GIS) should be referred to for sources of
more detailed information on GIS
Pickus (1992) identifies six major areas where GIS can
support delineation of wellhead protection areas (1)
conceptualization of the regional and local hydro-
geologic flow system (this Chapter), (2) delineation of
wellhead protection areas using geometric and simple
analytical methods (Chapter 4), (3) development of
maps to aid in development and management of well-
head protection areas (Chapter 7), (4) geological and
geophysical mapping (this Chapter), (5) development of
model parameters for numerical modeling of ground
water flow and solute transport (Chapter 6), and (6)
integration of simulation results (Chapter 6) Essentially
all of these areas can be supported using either full-
113
-------
Ttbln 5-8 Index to Major References on Hydrogeologlc Mapping
Topic References
AJfPhoto/Map Avery (1968), Ciciarelli (1991), Denny et al (1968), Dury (1957), Lattman and Ray (1965), Lillesand
Interpretation and Kiefer (1979), Lueder (1959), Miller and Miller (1961), Ray (1960), SCS (1973), Strandberg
(1967), Verstappen (1977)
Data Climatic- Hatch (1988), Ground Water Data On (1984), Rowe and Dulaney (1991), U S EPA
Sources/Management (1990b), Minimum Data Requirements for Ground Water U S EPA (1988a, 1992c), STORET
Blake-Coleman and Dee (1987), U S EPA (1985b, 1986c), Locational Data Policy U S EPA (1992a,
1992b)
Hydrogeologfo Mapping Texts? Brasmgton (1988), Brown et al (1983), Erdelyi and Galfi (1988), Fetter (1980), Kolm (1993),
UNESCO (1970, 1975, 1977), U S EPA (1990a), U S EPA (1991 a, 1993c), U S Geological Survey
(1980), Walton (1970), see also references in Appendix A1, Papers- Kempton and Cartwnght (1984),
LaMoreaux (1966), Meyboom (1961), Pettyjohn and Randich (1966), Scheidegger (1973), Thomas
(1978a, 1978b), Warman and Wiesnet (1966), Characterization of Heterogeneity Delhomme (1979),
Gelher (1993), Gomez-Hernandez and Gorelick (1989), Hoeksma and Kitandis (1985), Jury (1985),
Philip (1980), Poeter and Belcher (1991)
Geologic Mapping Bishop (1960), Compton (1962), Lahee (1961), Low (1957), Moore (1991), Tearing (1991), U S EPA
(1991b), Fractured Rock Charactenzatiorr Bradbury et al (1991), Karous and Mare§ (1988),
LaPointe and Hudson (1985), Panzek (1976), UNESCO (1984)
Geophysical Methods General- U S EPA (1987,1993b), Karst/Fractured Rock- Karous and Mare§ (1988), Dobecki (1990),
Greenfield (1979), LaMoreaux (1979), Ritzi and Andolesk (1992)
Karst Bonacci and Zivaljevic (1993), Kresic (1993), McCann and Krothe (1992), Quinlan et al (1992a,
1992b), Sauter (1992), see also Appendix A 2
GIS Case Studies* EPA Projects- Fenstermaker and Mynar (1986a, 1986b), Wellhead Protection- Baker et al (1993),
Brandon et al (1992), Kerzner (1990a, 1990b), Rifai et al (1993), Steppacher (1988), Varljen and
Wehrmann (1990), Zidar (1990), Ground Water Vulnerability Mapping- Barrocu and Biallo (1993),
Sokoletal (1993)
Sos Tabtes A-3 and A-4 for major general references on GIS
Tabta 5-9 Index to Major References on Ground Water Vulnerability Mapping
Topic References
Methods/Criteria General Reviews Anderson and Gosk (1987), Bachmat and Collin (1987), Barrocu and Biallo
(1993), Hoffer (1986), Kamvetsky et al (1991), Knox et al (1993), DRASTIC Aller et al
(1987), Illinois Stack Unit System Berg and Kempton (1984), Berg et al (1984), Shafer
(1985), Waste Disposal Siting Caldwell et al (1981—HRS), Gibb et al (1983), Halfon (1989),
Kufs et al (1980—SRM), LeGrand (1964, 1983—LSR), LeGrand and Brown (1977—LSR),
Phillips et al (1977—WSSIM), Silka and Swearingen (1978—SIA), U S EPA (1983—SIA,
1986b, 1989—HRS, 1991c—HRS), Other Agricultural Chemical Systems DeLuca and
Johnson (1990—RAVE), Holman (1986a, 1986b), Rao et al (1985—PI), Roux et al
(1986—SAFE), Sokoletal (1993), US EPA (1986d—PI), Karst Quinlan et al (1992a),
Schuster et al (1989), General Ground Water Classification Schemes- Pettyjohn et al (1991),
U S EPA (1985a, 1986a), Sole Source Aquifers- U S EPA (1988b)
Risk Assessment McTernan and Kaplan (1990), Pfannkuch (1991), Reichard et al (1990), Trojan and Perry
(1989—Hazard Index)
Applications Waste Disposal Siting- Gibb et al (1983), Agricultural Chemicals- Alexander and Liddle
(1986), Blanton and Villenueve (1989), Ehtemshemi et al (1991), Holman (1986a, 1986b),
Sokoletal (1993), Karst Schuster et al (1989), Quinlm et al (1992b), Sendlein (1992),
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Uhlman and Smith (1990)
Casa Studies DRASTIC Alexander and Liddle (1986), Blanton and Villeneuve (1989), Duda and Johnson
(1987), Ehteshami et al (1991), FDER (undated), LeGrand and Rosen (1992), Pima
Association of Governments (1992), Sendlein (1992), Illinois Stack-Unit System Kempton and
Cartwnght (1984), Uhlman and Smith (1990)
114
-------
DATAINPUT
GIS
DATASTORAGE
AND RETRIEVAL
NEWLY ACQUIRED SPATIAL DATA
MAPS&
REMOTE SENSING DATA
SPATIAL DATA BASES
DATA MANIPULATION
AND ANALYSIS
TERMINAL
PLOTTER
t—t- -i *ScBM5/y
(.0 S IJOKml /(I J
Figure 5-12 Overview of major Geographic Infoimation System functions (OIRM, 1992)
scale GIS (Section 561) or PC-based GIS (Section
562)
5.6.1 Full-Scale GIS
The large amount of data that is stored and processed
using full-scale GIS requires a workstation or mainframe
computer environment with dedicated personnel for
data entry and management The costs of a full-scale
geographic information system are substantial, but the
greatest cost is the required commitment of personnel
for data entry and management7 Consequently, the use
of full-scale GIS for wellhead protection programs is
limited primarily to areas where financial and personnel
resources have been committed to developing GIS for
purposes other than wellhead protection, or where a
relatively large area is the focus for wellhead protection
efforts, as in the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project
(Steppacher, 1988) Anyone considering acquisition of
full-scale GIS for wellhead protection should read the
lessons learned and recommendations for future GIS
projects contained in Steppacher (1988) Pickus (1992)
The cost of most commercial, full-scale geographic information sys-
tems falls in the range of $10,000 to $100,000 (Rowe and Dulaney,
1991) The cost of mim-GIS and related PC-based software ranges
from hundreds to thousands of dollars
Examples of commercially available mmi-GIS software packages
include GEOBASE, SPASE, GISXKey, StratiFact, and ROCKWORKS
provides detailed guidance on using GIS and
ARC/INFO, the full-scale geographic information sys-
tem used by the U S Environmental Protection Agency
for hydrogeologic analysis
Baker et al (1993) and Rifai et al (1993) have described
use of the semianalytical WHPA code (Section 6 4 3) in
conjunction with full-scale GIS in Rhode Island and
Texas, respectively The Massachusetts Water Re-
sources Authority, which supplies water to 46 communi-
ties in Metropolitan Boston, has used GIS to delineate
critical recharge areas for local supplies and mapped
thousands of point and nonpomt potential sources of
contamination (Brandon et al, 1992)
5.6.2 Mini- and Desktop-GIS
Mmi-GIS performs most of the functions of full-scale GIS
as an integrated software package that can be used with
a stand-alone PC 8 The specific capabilities of different
commercial packages vary, but generally these systems
include (1) a spatial database for geologic, hydrologic,
and chemical data, (2) the ability to create base maps
and special purpose maps using data in the database,
and (3) the ability to create geologic cross-sections and
graphs of time series data Often these systems can be
used as preprocessors for numerical ground water mod-
els (i e , to create grids and input values into the grid)
115
-------
and as postprocessors for graphic presentation of model
output (see Chapter 6)
PC-based software that performs more specific func-
tions, such as graphic presentation of borehole logs,
cross sections, and contour maps, can also facilitate the
analysis of geologic and hydrologic data for hydro-
geologic mapping 9 Individual pieces of PC-based soft-
ware that can handle spatial data can be used in
combination to create a desktop GIS Varljen and
Wehrmann (1990) describe using AutoCAD® as a desk-
top GIS for a hydrogeological investigation The base
map contained digital data on terrain elevations, location
of transportation and water features, and names of cit-
ies, towns, and major landmarks in a CAD (computer
assisted drawing) DXF format [1 24000 scale (7 5 ft
quadrangles)]. Additional layers containing hydro-
geologic information were created using SURFER® and
exported to AutoCAD® for overlay on the base map
The advantage of using mmi-GIS software compared to
using separate software to perform different functions is
that import and export of data is minimized, reducing the
time required for data processing The advantage of
desktop GIS, especially if one or more of the individual
software packages have been purchased and are in
use, is possibly lower cost and greater flexibility in proc-
essing and presenting data for the particular needs of
the user
5.6.3 Special Considerations in the Handling
of Spatial Data
Spatial data is inherent to hydrogeologic mapping For
example, three coordinates are required to accurately
locate borehole logging data x and y coordinates define
the position with respect to the surface of the earth, and
the z coordinate defines the elevation U S EPA and
other federal agencies have adopted latitude and longi-
tude as the standard system for x-y coordinates, new
data collection should use that system U S EPA
(1992a, 1992b, and 1992c) provides guidance for col-
lection of spatial data Hydrogeologic data compiled
from existing sources may be located using a variety of
coordinate systems, such as Township-Range-and-Sec-
tion, state planar coordinates, or Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) If such data are to be processed elec-
tronically, conversion to a standard coordinate system is
required Most mini-CIS software packages include con-
version programs The General Coordinate Transforma-
tion Package (GCTP) developed by the U S Geological
0 Examples of commercially available software that can create bore-
hota and well construction logs include GTLog, logWRITER, QUICK-
LOG, and LOGGER Software designed to create cross-sections
(also able to construct individual borehole logs) include GTGS, gINT,
LOGGCORRELATE, and QUICKCROSS/FENCE Available contour-
ing software includes CONTUR, CoPlot, GRIDZO, LI-CONTOUR,
PS-Plot. QUICKSURF, SURFER, TECKON, and TURBOCON
Survey can be used to convert data between any of the
commonly used geodetic coordinate systems
5.7 References*
Alexander, WJ and S K Liddle 1986 Ground Water Vulnerability
Assessment in Support of the First Stage of the National Pesticide
Survey In Proc Conf on Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 77-87 [DRAS-
TIC]
Aller, L, T Bennett, JH Lehr, RJ Petty, and G Hackett 1987
DRASTIC A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water
Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings EPA/600/2-
87/035 (NTIS PB87-213914) [Also published in NWWA/EPA se-
ries, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH An earlier
version dated 1985 with the same title (EPA/600/2-85/018) does
not have the chapter on application of DRASTIC to maps or the
10 case studies contained in the later report]
Anderson, LJ and E Gosk 1987 Applicability of Vulnerability Maps
In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants, W van
Duijvenbooden and H G van Waegeningen (eds), Nat Inst of
Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, Noordwijk aan Zee, The
Netherlands, Vol 38, pp 321-332
Avery, TE 1968 Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, 2nd ed Bur-
gess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN, 234 pp
Bachmat, Y and M Collin 1987 Mapping to Assess Groundwater
Vulnerability to Pollution In Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater
to Pollutants, W van Duijvenbooden and H G van Waegeningen
(eds), Nat Inst of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene,
Noordwijk aan Zee, the Netherlands, Vol 38, pp 297-307
Baker, CP.MD Bradley, and S M Kazco Bobiak 1993 Wellhead
Protection Area Delineation Linking a Flow Model with GIS J
Water Resources Planning and Management (ASCE) 119(2) 275-
287
Barrocu, G and G Biallo 1993 Application of GIS for Aquifer Vul-
nerability Evaluation In Application of Geographic Information
Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management, K
Kovar and H P Nachtnebel (eds), Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Pub
No 211, pp 571-580
Berg, RC and J P Kempton 1984 Potential for Contamination of
Shallow Aquifers from Land Burial of Municipal Wastes 1 500,000
Map Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL
Berg, RC, JP Kempton, and K Cartwright 1984 Potential for
Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in Illinois Circular 532 Illinois
State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL
Bishop, MS 1960 Subsurface Mapping Wiley, New York
Blake-Colman, W and N Dee 1987 Ground-Water Data Manage-
ment with STORET EPA/440/6-87-005 US EPA Office of Ground
Water Protection
Blanton, O andJ Villeneuve 1989 Evaluation of Groundwater Vul-
nerability to Pesticides A Comparison Between the Pesticide
DRASTIC Index and the PRZM Leaching Quantities J Contami-
nant Hydrology 4 285-296
Bonacci, O and R Zrvaljevic 1993 Hydrological Explanation of the
Flow in Karst Example of the Crnojevia Spring J Hydrology
146405-419
Boring, WP 1992 Illinois Groundwater Quality Protection Program
Hazard Review Report for Neartown MHP Facility Number
2015565 Division of Public Water Supplies, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Springfield, IL [PLASM and WHPA codes]
116
-------
Bradbury, KR, MA Muldoon, A Zaporozec, and J Levy 1991
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured Rocks
EPA/570/9-91-009, 144 pp Available from ODW* [May also be
cited with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey as
author]
Brandon, FO, PB Corcoran, and J L Yeo 1992 Protection of Local
Water Supplies by a Regional Water Supplier Ground Water Man-
agement 13 525-538 ([8th] Focus Conf Eastern GW Issues) [GIS,
Massachusetts]
Brassington, R 1988 Field Hydrogeology Halsted Press, New York
Brown, RH, A A Konoplyantsev, J Ineson, and VS Kovalensky
1983 Ground-Water Studies An International Guide for Research
and Practice Studies and Reports in Hydrology No 7 UNESCO,
Pans
Caldwell, S , K W Barrett, and S S Change 1981 Ranking System
for Releases of Hazardous Substances In Proc of the Nat Conf
on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazard-
ous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp
14-20 [HRS]
Ciciarelh, J 1991 A Practical Guide to Aerial Photography Van Nos-
trand Remhold, New York, 261 pp
Compton, R R 1962 Manual of Field Geology Wiley, New York, 378
PP
Davies, WE and H E LeGrans 1972 Karst of the United States
In Karst Important Karst Regions of the Northern Hemisphere,
M Herak and VT Strmgfield (eds), Elsevier, N Y Chapter 15
Davis, SN andRJM DeWiest 1966 Hydrogeology John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 463 pp
Delhomme, J P 1979 Spatial Variability and Uncertainty in Ground-
water Flow Parameters A Geostatistical Approach Water Re-
sources Research 18 1215-1237
DeLuca, T and P Johnson 1990 RAVE Relative Aquifer Vulnerabil-
ity Evaluation MDA Technical Bulletin 90-01, Montana Department
of Agriculture, Helena, MT, 4 pp [Pesticide contamination]
Denny, C S , C R Warren, D H Dow, and WJ Dale 1968 A De-
scriptive Catalog of Selected Aerial Photographs of Geologic Fea-
tures of the United States U S Geological Survey Professional
Paper 590, 135 pp
Dobecki, TL 1990 Review of Geophysical Methods for Karst Detec-
tion and Mapping Bull Houston Geol Soc 32(5)21-24
Duda, A M and R J Johnson 1987 Targeting to Protect Groundwa-
ter Quality J Soil and Water Conservation 42(4) 325-330 [DRAS-
TIC, Tennessee Valley region]
Dury, G H 1957 Map Interpretation Pitman, London
Ehteshami, M, R C Peralta, H Eisele, H Deer, and T Tindall 1991
Assessing Pesticide Contamination to Ground Water A Rapid Ap-
proach Ground Water 29(6)862-868 [DRASTIC and CMLS
Model]
Erdelyi, M and J Galfi 1988 Surface and Subsurface Mapping in
Hydrogeology Wiley-lnterscience, New York, 384 pp
Fenstermaker, L K and F Mynar II 1986a Environmental Methods
Testing Site Data Status TS-AMD-86534, U S EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV [Chattanooga, TN
GIS project]
Fenstermaker, LK and F Mynar II 1986b San Gabnel Basin Geo-
graphic Information System Demonstration TS-AMD-885742-0,
U S EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV
Fetter, Jr, C W 1980 Applied Hydrogeology Charles E Merrill Pub-
lishing, Columbus, OH
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) Undated
Florida's Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network FDER, Talla-
hassee, FL, 20 pp [DRASTIC]
Gelher, LW 1993 Stochastic Subsurface Hydrology Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 390 pp
Gibb, J P, M J Barcelona, S C Schock, and M W Hampton 1983
Hazardous Waste in Ogle and Winnebago Counties, Potential Risk
via Ground Water Due to Past and Present Activities ISWS Con-
tract Report 336 Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL
G6mez-Hernandez, J J and S M Gorelick 1989 Effective Ground-
water Parameter Values Influence of Spatial Variability of Hydrau-
lic Conductivity, Leakance, and Recharge Water Resources
Research 24(3) 405-419
Greenfield, R J 1979 Review of Geophysical Approaches to Detec-
tion of Karst Assoc Eng Geol Bull 16(3)398-408
Halfon, E 1989 Comparison of an Index Function and a Vectonal
Approach Method for Ranking Waste Disposal Site Environ Sci
Technol 23(5)600-609
Hatch, WL 1988 Selective Guide to Climatic Data Sources Key to
Meteorological Records Documentation No 4 11 National Climatic
Data Center, Asheville, NC
Heath, RC and FW Trainer 1981 Introduction to Ground-Water
Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley & Sons, New York
Hickey, JJ 1984 Field Testing the Hypothesis of Darcian Flow
Through a Carbonate Aquifer Ground Water 22(5) 544-547
Hoeksma, RJ andPK Kitandis 1985 Analysis of the Spatial Struc-
ture of Properties of Selected Aquifers Water Resources Research
21(4) 563-572 [Geostatistical analysis]
Hoffer, R N 1986 Techniques of Mapping and Protection for Water-
Table Aquifers in the United States In Proc 19th Cong of Int
Assoc of Hydrogeologists (Karlovy Vary, Czechoslovakia), pp
207-212
Holman, D 1986a A Ground-Water Pollution Potential Risk Index
System In Proc Nat Symp on Local Government Options for
Ground Water Pollution Control, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
OK
Holman, D 1986b Groundwater Protection Alternatives for Pesti-
cides and Fertilizers Based on Local Information and Comparable
Potential Risk Index for Rock County, Wisconsin Rock County
Health Department, Environmental Health Division, Janesville, Wl,
23 pp
Jury, WA 1985 Spatial Variability of Soil Physical Parameters in
Solute Migration A Critical Literature Review EPRI EA-4228 Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Kanivetsky, R, BM Olsen, and E Porcher 1991 An Approach to
Ground-Water Protection Based on Hydrogeologic Sensitivity In
Proc First USA/USSR Joint Conf on Environmental Hydrology
and Hydrogeology, J E Moore et al (eds), American Institute of
Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, pp 146-157
Karous, M and S Mare§ 1988 Geophysical Methods in Studying
Fracture Aquifers Charles University, Prague, 93 pp
Kempton, J P and K Cartwright 1984 Three-Dimensional Geologic
Mapping A Basis for Hydrogeologic and Land-Use Evaluations
Bull Assoc Eng Geol XXI(3) 317-335
Kerzner, S 1990a EPA/Local Partnership at Work Ground Water
Management 3 83-96 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground Water Issues) [GIS, New Castle County, DE]
117
-------
Kerzner, S. 1990b An EPA/Local Partnership at Work—The Creation
of a Ground Water Protection Program Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 545-557 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [GIS, New Castle
County, DE]
Kreltar, C W and R K Senger 1991 Wellhead Protection Strategies
for Confined-Aquifer Settings EPA/570/9-91-008, 168 pp Avail-
able from ODW.*
Knox, R C, D.A Sabatinl, and L W Canter 1993 Subsurface Trans-
port and Fate Processes Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 430 pp
[DRASTIC, SAFE, MRS, SRM, WSSIM, PI]
Kolm, K. E. 1993. Conceptualization and Characterization of Hydro-
logic Systems GWMI 93-01, International Ground Water Modeling
Center, Golden, CO, 58 pp
Kreste, N.A 1993 Review and Selected Bibliography on Quantitative
Definition of Karst Hydrogeologlcal Systems In Annotated Bibli-
ography of Karst Terranes, Volume 5 with Three Review Articles,
PE. LaMoreaux, FA Assaad.andA McCarley (eds), International
Contributions to Hydrogeology, Vol 14, International Association
of Hydrogeologists, Vertag Heinz Heise, Hannover, West Germany,
pp 51-87
Kufs, C etal 1980 Rating of the Hazard Potential of Waste Disposal
Facilities In Proc of the Nat. Conf on Management of Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials Control Re-
search Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp 30-41 [SRM]
Lanes, FH 1961 Field Geology (6th ed) McGraw-Hill, New York,
926 pp
LaMoreaux, PE 1966 Activities of the Hydrogeologic Map Commit-
tee of the International Association of Scientific Hydrology Ground
Water 4(4) 28-32
LaMoreaux, PE 1979 Remote-Sensing Techniques and the Detec-
tion of Karst Assoc Eng Geol Bull 16(3)383-392
UPoInte, PR andJA Hudson 1985 Characterization and Inter-
pretation of Rock Mass Joint Patterns Geological Society of Amer-
ica Special Paper 199, Boulder, CO, 37 pp
Lattman, LH and R G Ray 1965 Aerial Photographs in Field Ge-
ology Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 221 pp
LeGrand, H E 1964 System for Evaluating the Contamination Potential
of Some Waste Sites J Am Water Works Assoc 56(8) 959-974
LeGrand, H.E 1983 A Standardized System for Evaluating Waste-
Disposal Sites, 2nd ed National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH [1st edition published 1980]
LeGrand, H E and H S Brown 1977 Evaluation of Ground Water
Contamination Potential from Waste Disposal Sources Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, U S Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC [LSR]
LeGrand, HE and L Rosen 1992 Common Sense in Ground-Water
Protection and Management in the United States Ground Water
30(6)867-872 [DRASTIC]
Ullesand, H and M Klefer 1979 Remote Sensing and Image Inter-
pretation Wiley, New York
Low, J W 1957 Geologic Reid Methods Harper, New York
Lueder, D R 1959 Aerial Photographic Interpretation Principles and
Applications McGraw-Hill, New York, 462 pp
McCann, M R and N C Krothe 1992 Development of a Monitoring
Program at a Superfund Site in a Karst Terrane Near Bioommgton,
Indiana Ground Water Management 10 349-370 (Proc 3rd Conf
on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground
Water In Karst Terranes)
McTernan, WF and E Kaplan (eds) 1990 Risk Assessment for
Groundwater Pollution Control American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York, 368 pp
Mandel, S and Z L Shifton 1981 Groundwater Resources Investi-
gation and Development Academic Press, New York, 288 pp
Meyboom, P 1961 A Semantic Review of the Terminology of Ground-
water Maps Bull Int Assoc Scl Hydrology Vl(1) 29-36
Miller, VC and C F Miller 1961 Photogeology McGraw-Hill, New
York
Moore, J E 1991 A Guide for Preparing Hydrologlc and Geologic
Projects and Reports AIH Special Report No 2 American Institute
of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, 100 pp
Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM) 1992 Geo-
graphic Information Systems (GIS) Guidelines Document OIRM
88-01 U S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Orr, VJ 1984 National Ground-Water Information Center Ground
Water 22(2) 207-209 [Description of the National Water Well As-
sociation's National Ground-Water Information Center and data
base]
Panzek, R R 1976 On the Nature and Significance of Fracture
Traces and Lineaments in Carbonate and Other Terranes In Karst
Hydrology and Water Resources, V Yevjevich (ed), Water Re-
sources Publications, Fort Collins, CO, Vol 1, pp 3-1 to 3-62
Pettyjohn, WA and PG Randich 1966 Geohydrologic Use of Li-
thofacies Maps in Glaciated Areas Water Resources Research
2(4) 679-689
Pettyjohn, W, M Savoca, and D Self 1991 Regional Assessment
of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the Conterminous United
States EPA-600/2-91-043 (NTIS PB92-113141)
Pfannkuch, HO 1991 Application of Risk Assessment to Evaluate
Groundwater Vulnerability to Non-Point and Point Contamination
Sources In Proc First USA/USSR Joint Conf on Environmental
Hydrology and Hydrogeology, J E Moore et al (eds), American
Institute of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, pp 158-168
Philip, JR 1980 Field Heterogeneity Some Basic Issues Water
Resources Research 16(2) 443-448
Phillips, C R , J D Nathwani, and H Mooij 1977 Development of a
Soil-Waste Interaction Matrix for Assessing Land Disposal of In-
dustrial Wastes Water Research 11 859-868 [WSSIM]
Pickus, J 1992 Data Automation Using GIS and ARC/INFO GIS
Support for Hydrogeologic Analysis Contract No 68-CO-0050,
U S EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV, 87 pp
Pima Association of Governments 1992 Application of Historic Well
Closure Information for Protection of Existing Wells, Final Techni-
cal Report Prepared for U S Environmental Protection Agency
Poeter, E P and WR Belcher 1991 Assessment of Porous Media
Heterogeneity by Inverse Plume Analysis Ground Water 29(1) 56-
62
Qumlan, J F, G J Davies, and S R H Worthmgton 1992a Rationale
for the Design of Cost-Effective Groundwater Monitoring Systems
in Limestone and Dolomite Terranes Cost Effective as Conceived
is Not Cost Effective as Built if the System Design and Sampling
Frequency Inadequately Consider Site Hydrogeology In Proc
Annual Waste Testing and Water Quality Assurance Symposium,
pp 552-570
118
-------
Quinlm, JF, PL Smart, GM Schmdel, EC Alexander, Jr, A.J
Edwards, and A R Smith 1992b Recommended Administra-
tive/Regulatory Definition of Karst Aquifer, Principles for Classifi-
cation and Carbonate Aquifers, Practical Evaluation of Vulnerability
of Karst Aquifers, and Determination of Optimum Sampling Fre-
quency at Spnngs Ground Water Management 10 573-635 (Proc
3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management
of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
Rao, PS, A G Hornsby, and R E Jessup 1985 lndi( es for Ranking
the Potential for Pesticide Contamination of Groundwater Pioc
Soil Crop Sci Soc Fla 441-8
Ray, RG 1960 Aerial Photographs in Geologic Interpretation and
Mapping U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 373,320 pp
Reichard, E, C Cranor, R Raucher, and G Zapponi 1990 Ground-
water Contamination Risk Assessment A Guide to Understanding
and Managing Uncertainties Int Assoc Hydrological Sciences
Publication No 196
Rifai, HS, LA Hendncks, K Kilborn, and PB Bedient 1993 A
Geographic Information System (GIS) User Interface for Delineat-
ing Wellhead Protection Areas Ground Water 31(3)480-488
[Wellhead Modeling User Interface (WMUI) with SYSTEM9/EM-
PRESS GIS software/relational data base management system,
WHPA code, Houston, TX case study]
Ritzi, Jr, R W and R H Andolsek 1992 Relation Between Amsot-
ropic Transmissivity and Azimuthal Resistivity Surveys in Shallow,
Fractured, Carbonate Flow Systems Ground Water 30(5)774-
780
Rosen, L 1994 A Study of the DRASTIC Methodology with Emphasis
on Swedish Conditions Ground Water 32 278-285
Roux, P, J DeMartims, and G Dickson 1986 Sensitivity Analysis
for Pesticide Application on a Regional Scale In Proc Conf on
Agncultural Impacts on Ground Water, National Water Well Asso-
ciation, Dublin, OH, pp 145-158 [SAFE]
Rows, G W and S J Dulaney 1991 Building and Using a Ground-
water Database Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 218 pp [Appendix
includes summary information on more than 80 GIS-related soft-
ware products]
Sauter, M 1992 Assessment of Hydraulic Conductivity in a Karst
Aquifer at Local and Regional Scale Ground Water Management
1038-55 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitonng
and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
Scheidegger, AE 1973 Hydrogeomorphology J Hydrology
23(3) 193-215
Schuster, W E , J A Bachhuberrt, and R D Steiglitz 1989 Ground-
water Pollution Potential and Pollution Attenuation Potential in
Door County, Wisconsin Door County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Department, Sturgeon Bay, Wl [5 maps, scale 1 inch = 2640
ft]
Sendlem, LVA 1992 Analysis of DRASTIC and Wellhead Protection
Methods Applied to a Karst Setting Ground Water Management
10 669-683 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring
and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes) [Fayette
County, KY]
Shafer, J M 1985 An Assessment of Ground-Water Quality and Haz-
ardous Substance Activities in Illinois with Recommendations for
a Statewide Monitoring Strategy Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, Champaign, IL, pp 79-90
Silka, LR and TL Sweanngen 1978 Manual for Evaluating Con-
tamination Potential of Surface Impoundments EPA-570/9-78-003
(NTIS PB85-211433) [SIA method]
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1973 Aerial-Photo Interpretation in
Classifying and Mapping Soils U S Department of Agriculture
Handbook 294
Sokol, G, Ch Leibundgut, KP Schulz, and W Wemzierl 1993
Mapping Procedures for Assessing Groundwater Vulnerabiity to
Nitrate and Pesticides In Application of Geographic Information
Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management, K.
Kovar and H P Nachtnebel (eds), Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Pub
No 211, pp 631-639
Steppacher, L (ed) 1988 Demonstration of a Geographic Informa-
tion System for Ground Water Protection The Cape Cod Aquifer
management Project (CCAMP) EPA/901/3-88-005, U S EPA Re-
gion 1, Boston, MA
Strandberg, C H 1967 Aerial Discovery Manual Wiley, New York
Tearing, W 1991 Engineering Geological Mapping Butterworth Pub-
lishers, Boston, MA, 488 pp
Thomas, RG 1978a Principles of Search Techniques for Hydrogeol-
ogy Ground Water 16(4) 264-272
Thomas, RG 1978b Shortest Path Problems in Hydrogeology
Ground Water 16(4) 334-340
Trojan, MJ andJA Perry 1989 Assessing Hydrogeologic Risk Over
Large Geographical Areas Bull 585-1988 (Item No AD-S53-
3421), Minn Ag Extension Station, University of Minn , St Paul
[HI—Hazard Index]
Uhlman, K, and LR Smith 1990 LUST Busting Inventory and
Ranking of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Ground
Water Management 1 565-577 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Con-
ferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Protection)
[Aquifer vulnerability ranking system]
UNESCO 1970 International Legend for Hydrogeological Maps
Pans, 101 pp [See, also, 1983 revised draft, 51 pp]
UNESCO 1975 International Legend for Geohydrochemical Maps
Paris
UNESCO 1977 Hydrological Maps UNESCO/WMO Studies and
Reports in Hydrology No 20, Paris/Geneva, 204 pp
UNESCO 1984 Ground Water in Hard Rocks United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Pans, France, 227
PP
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Surface Im-
poundment Assessment National Report EPA 570/9-84/002 (NTIS
DE84 901182) [SIA]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985a Selected State
and Territory Ground-Water Classification Systems EPA/440/6-85-
005 (NTIS PB88-111919)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985b Methods for the
Storage and Retrieval of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Ground-Water Monitoring Data on STORET User's Manual
Office of Solid Waste (NTIS PB-87-154928), 193 pp
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986a Guidelines for
Ground-Water Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water Protec-
tion Strategy Office of Ground-Water Protection, EPA, Washing-
ton
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986b Criteria for
Identifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology Under RCRA A
RCRA Interpretive Guidance, Appendix D Development of Vulner-
ability Criteria Based on Risk Assessments and Theoretical Mod-
eling EPA/530/SW-86-022D (PB86-224995)
119
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986c Ground-Water
Data Management with STORET EPA/600/M-86-007 (NITS PB86-
197860)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986d Pesticides in
Ground Water Background Document EPA/440/6-86-002 (NTIS
PB88-111976) [Pesticide Index]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Surface Geo-
physical Techniques for Aquifer and Wellhead Protection Area De-
lineation EPA/440/6-87-016 (NTIS PB88-229505)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988a EPA Workshop
to Recommend a Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground
Water Workshop Findings Report EPA/440/6-88-005 (NTIS
PB89-175442)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988b Sole Source
Aquifer Designation Petitioners Guidance EPA/440/6-87-003
(NTIS PB88-111992)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989 Field Test of the
Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System EPA/540/P-90/001
(NTIS PB90-222746), 140 pp [MRS Fact Sheets The Revised
Hazard Ranking System An Improve Tool for Screening Superfund
Sites, 1990, 6 pp (NTIS PB91-921307), The Revised Hazard
Ranking System Background Information, 1990, 14 pp (NTIS
PB91-921303), The Revised Hazard Ranking System Qs and As,
1990. 10 pp (NTIS PB91-921305)]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990a Hydrogeologic
Mapping Needs for Ground-Water Protection and Management
Workshop Report 1990 EPA/440/6-90-002 Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990b Integration of
large Databases for Ground-Water Quality Assessment A Work-
shop Sponsored by Aquatics and Subsurface Monitonng Branch
AMD, EMSL-LV U S Environmental Protection Agency, Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 a Handbook
Ground Water Volume II Methodology EPA/625/6-90/-16b, 141
pp Available from CERI*
U S. Environmental Protection Agency 1991b Description and Sam-
pling of Contaminated Soils A Reid Pocket Guide EPA/625/12-
91/002 Available from CERI*
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991c PA-Score Soft-
ware, User's Manual and Tutorial Version 1 0 Manual only NTIS
PB92-963302, 76 pp, manual and diskette NTIS PB92-500032
|HRS]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992a Locational Data
Policy Implementation Guidance Guide to the Policy EPA/220/B-
92-008, Office of Administration and Resources Management,
Washington DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992b Locational Data
Policy Implementation Guidance—Global Positioning System
Technology and Its Application In Environmental Programs—GPS
Primer EPA/600/R-92/036 (NTIS PB92-168358)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992c Definitions for
the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality
Policy Order 7500 1 A, Guidance document EPA/813/B-92/002
Available from ODW*
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993a Wellhead Pro-
tection A Guide for Small Communities Seminar Publication
EPA/625/R-93-002 (NTIS PB93-215580) Available from CERI*
US Environmental Protection Agency 1993b Use of Airborne, Sur-
face and Borehole Geophysical Methods at Contaminated Sites
A Reference Guide EPA/625/R-92/007 (NTIS PB94-123825)
Available from CERI*
US Environmental Protection Agency 1993c Subsurface Field
Characterization and Monitoring Techniques A Desk Reference
Guide, Vol I Solids and Ground Water, Vol II, The Vadose Zone,
Chemical Field Screening and Analysis EPA/625/R-93/003a&b
(NTIS PB94-136272) Available from CERI*
US Geological Survey 1980 Ground Water In National Handbook
of Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition, Office of
Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, Chapter 2
Varljen, MD and HA Wehrmann 1990 Using AutoCAD® as a
Desktop GIS for Hydrogeological Investigations In Mapping and
Geographic Information Systems, AI Johnson, C B Pettersson,
and JL Fulton (eds), ASTM STP 1126, American Society to
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA
Verstappen, HTh 1977 Remote Sensing in Geomorphology El-
sevier, New York
Walton, WC 1970 Groundwater Resource Evaluation McGraw-Hill,
New York, 664 pp
Warman, JC and D R Wiesnet 1966 The Design and Use of
Hydrogeologic Maps Ground Water 4(1) 25-26
Zidar, M 1990 Designing Monitoring Strategies for Well Head Pro-
tection in Confined to Semi-Confined Aquifers Case Study in the
Salinas Valley, California Ground Water Management 1 513-527
(Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Man-
agement and Wellhead Protection) [GIS]
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
120
-------
Chapter 6
Use of Computer Models for Wellhead Protection
Modeling with computers is a specialized field that re-
quires considerable training and experience In the last
few decades, hundreds of computer codes for simulat-
ing various aspects of ground water systems have been
developed Refinements to existing codes and develop-
ment of new codes proceed at a rapid pace The pur-
pose of this chapter is to provide a basic understanding
of modeling and data analysis with computers, and to
present more detailed information on the use of com-
puter models for wellhead protection area (WHPA) de-
lineation
This chapter focuses on computer software designed
specifically for modeling ground water flow and contami-
nant transport Computer spreadsheets, an attractive
alternative to off-the-shelf software if relatively simple
analytical methods are suitable, are discussed in Sec-
tion 641 Table 6-1 provides definitions for some impor-
tant terms used m connection with modeling of ground
water The meaning of the term "model" varies depend-
ing on the context in which it is used For example, the
analytical methods discussed in Chapter 4 are based on
simplified mathematical models that do not require a
computer Hydrogeologic mapping (Chapter 5) is per-
formed to develop a conceptual model of a site, as such,
it is an essential precursor to computer modeling The
terms code and program have a precise meaning, refer-
ring to models designed for use on computers They
may take the form of hard-paper documentation in the
format of whatever programming language was used, or
they may be on an electronic medium (disks or tapes)
The term "computer model" is often used interchange-
ably with the term "computer code," but it may also have
a broader meaning that includes the conceptual model
of a site which forms the basis for entry of spatial and
temporal data into a code
The first three sections in the chapter address basic
mathematical approaches to modeling (Section 6 1),
classification of computer codes (Section 6 2), and gen-
eral considerations in selecting a computer code (Sec-
tion 6 3) Section 6 4 focuses on the use of computer
codes for WHPA delineation Finally, Section 6 5 pro-
vides guidance on where to find additional information
on ground water modeling using computers
6.1 Mathematical Approaches to
Modeling
Models and codes are usually described by the number
of dimensions simulated (see the discussion of hetero-
Table 6-1 Definitions of Terms Used in Ground Water Flow
Modeling
Term
Definition
Model (a) A representation of a real system or
process, (b) an assembly of concepts in the
form of mathematical equations that portrays
understanding of a natural phenomenon
Conceptual model An interpretation or working description of the
characteristics and dynamics of the physical
system
Mathematical (a) Mathematical equations expressing the
model physical system and including simplifying
assumptions, (b) the representation of a
physical system by mathematical expressions
from which the behavior of the system can be
deduced with known accuracy
Boundary A mathematical expression of a state of the
condition physical system which constrains the
equations of a mathematical model
Computer Models
Computer The assembly of numerical techniques,
code/program bookkeeping, and control languages that
represents the model from acceptance of input
data and instruction to delivery of output
Calibration The process of refining the model
(model representation of the hydrogeologic
application) framework, hydraulic properties, and boundary
conditions to achieve a desired degree of
correspondence between the model simulation
and observations of the ground water flow
system
Sensitivity (model The degree to which the model result is
application) affected by changes in a selected model input
representing the hydrogeologic framework,
hydraulic properties, and boundary conditions
Verification The use of the set of parameter values and
(model boundary conditions from a calibrated model
application) to approximate acceptably a second set of
field data measured under similar hydrologic
conditions This should be distinguished from
code verification, which refers to software
testing (comparisons with analytical solutions
and other similar codes)
Source Adapted from ASTM (1993)
121
-------
geneity and isotropy in Section 5 4 2), and the mathe-
matical approaches used At the core of any model or
computer code are governing equations that represent
the system being modeled Many different approaches
to formulating and solving the governing equations are
possible The specific numerical technique embodied in
a computer code is called an algorithm The following
discussion compares and contrasts some of the most
Important choices that must be made in mathematical
modeling
6.1.1 Deterministic vs. Stochastic Models
A deterministic model presumes that a system or proc-
ess operates such that the occurrence of a given set of
events leads to a uniquely definable outcome The gov-
erning equations define precise cause-and-effect or in-
put-response relationships In contrast, a stochastic
model presumes that a system or process operates
such that factors contributing to an outcome are uncer-
tain Such models calculate the probability, within a
desired level of confidence, of a specific value occurring
at any point
Most available models are deterministic The heteroge-
neity of hydrogeoiogic environments, however, particu-
larly the vanability of parameters such as porosity and
hydraulic conductivity, plays a key role in influencing the
reliability of predictive ground water modeling (Smith,
1987) Beven (1989) argues that this heterogeneity cre-
ates fundamental problems in the application of physi-
cally based deterministic models
Stochastic approaches to characterizing variability with
the use of geostatistical methods such as knging are
being used with increasing frequency to characterize
hydrogeoiogic data (Deihomme, 1979, Hoeksma and
Kitandis, 1985) The governing equations for both deter-
ministic and stochastic models can be solved either
analytically or numencally (van der Heijde et al, 1988)
Vomvoris and Gelhar (1986) provide some simple ana-
lytical examples of stochastic prediction of dispersive
contaminant transport G6mez-Hern£ndez and Gorehck
(1989) review the literature on approaches to stochastic
simulation of ground water model parameters Dagan
(1989) provides comprehensive treatment of stochastic
modeling of subsurface flow and transport
6.1.2 System Spatial Characteristics
The spatial characteristics of a system can be modeled
in two major ways Lumped-parameter systems are
used when the total system is located at a single point
Distnbuted-parameter systems define cause-and-effect
relations for specific points or areas Input-response or
black box models do not explicitly address spatial char-
acteristics, but instead empirically relate observations of
different variables, such as the response of water levels
to recharge
The distnbuted-parameter approach is the one most
frequently used in ground water modeling The rest of
this chapter focuses on models of this type The mathe-
matical framework for distnbuted-parameter models
includes (1) one or more partial differential equations,
called field equations, (2) initial and boundary condi-
tions, and (3) solution procedures (Bear, 1979)
Depending on the solution method used, such models
are characterized as analytical, semianalytical, or
numerical
6.1.3 Analytical vs. Numerical Models
A model's governing equation can be solved either ana-
lytically or numerically Analytical models use exact
closed-form solutions of the appropriate differential
equations The solution is continuous in space and time
In contrast, numerical models apply approximate solu-
tions to the same equations Semianalytical models use
numerical techniques to approximate complex analytical
solutions, allowing a discrete solution in either time or
space Models using a closed-form solution for either the
space or time domain and additional numerical approxi-
mations for the other domain are also considered
semianalytical
Analytical models provide exact solutions, but employ
many simplifying assumptions concerning the ground
water system, its geometry, and external stresses to
produce tractable solutions (Walton, 1984a) This places
a burden on the user to test and justify the underlying
assumptions and simplifications (Javendel et al, 1984)
Semianalytical models can provide streamline and
traveltime information through numerical or analytical
expression in space or time This information is
especially useful for delineation of wellhead protection
areas (Section 643) Analytic element models are a
relatively recent development in semianalytical model-
ing of regional ground water flow These use approxi-
mate analytic solutions by superposing various exact or
approximate analytic functions, each representing a par-
ticular feature of the aquifer (Haijtema, 1985, Strack,
1987) A major advantage of these models compared to
analytic models is greater flexibility in incorporating
varying hydrogeology and stresses without a signifi-
cantly increased need for data (van der Heijde and
Beljm, 1988)
Numerical models are much less burdened by the sim-
plifying assumptions used in analytical models, and are
therefore inherently capable of addressing more compli-
cated problems They require significantly more input,
however, and their solutions are inexact (numerical ap-
proximations) For example, the assumptions of homo-
geneity and isotropicity are unnecessary because the
model can assign point (nodal) values of transmissivity
and storage Likewise, the capacity to incorporate com-
plex boundary conditions provides greater flexibility The
122
-------
user, however, faces difficult choices regarding time
steps, spatial grid designs, and ways to avoid truncation
errors and numerical oscillations (Remson et al, 1971,
Javendel et al, 1984) Improper choices may result in
errors unlikely to occur with analytical approaches (e g,
mass imbalances, incorrect velocity distubutions, and
grid-orientation effects) Table 6-2 summarizes the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of analytical and numerical
models
6.1.4 Grid Design
A fundamental requirement of the numerical approach
is the creation of a grid that represents the aquifer being
simulated (see Figure 6-1) This grid consists of inter-
connected nodes at which process input parameters
must be specified The grid forms the basis for a matrix
of equations to be solved A new grid must be designed
for each site-specific simulation based on the data col-
lected during site characterization and the conceptual
model developed for the physical system Grid design is
one of the most critical elements in the accuracy of
computational results (van der Heijde et al, 1988)
Table 6-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Analytical and
Numerical Methods
Advantages
Disadvantage's
Analytical Models
1 Efficient when data on the
system are sparse or
uncertain
2 Economical
3 Good for initial estimation of
magnitude of contamination
4 Rough estimates often
possible from existing data
sources
5 Input data for computer
codes usually simple
Numerical Models
1 Easily handle spatial and
temporal variations of
system
2 Easily handle complex
boundary conditions
3 Three-dimensional transient
problems can be treated
without much difficulty
1 Limited to certain idealized
conditions with simple
geometry, may not be
applicable to field problems
with complex boundary
conditions
2 Most cannot handle spatial
or temporal variations in
system
1 Achieving familiarity with
complex numerical
programs can be time-
consuming and expensive
2 Errors due to numerical
dispersion (artifacts of the
computation process) may
be substantial for transport
models
3 More data input is usually
required
4 Preparation of input data is
usually time-consuming
Values for natural process parameters would be
specified at each node of the grid in performing
simulations The grid density a greatest at the source
and at potential impact locations
(a)
Source Adapted from Javandel et al (1984) and Prickettetal (1986)
Figure 6-1 (a) Three-dimensional grid to model ground water
flow in (b) complex geologic setting with pumping
wells downgradient from potential contaminant
source (from Keely, 1987)
The grid design is influenced by the choice of numerical
solution technique Numerical solution techniques in-
clude (1) finite-difference methods (FD), (2) integral fi-
nite-difference methods (IFDM), (3) Galerkm and
vanational finite element methods (FE), (4) collocation
methods, (5) boundary (integral) element methods
(BIEM or BEM), (6) particle mass tracking methods,
such as random walk (RW), and (7) the method of
123
-------
characteristics (MOC) (Huyakorn and Pmder, 1983, Km-
zelbach, 1986) Figure 6-2 illustrates grid designs in-
volving FD and FE methods for the same well field
Finite-difference and finite-element methods are the
most frequently used numerical solution techniques
The finite-difference method approximates the solution
of partial differential equations by using finite-difference
equivalents, whereas the finite-element method approxi-
mates differential equations by an integral approach
Figure 6-3 illustrates some of the mathematical and
computational differences in the two approaches Table
6-3 compares the relative advantages and disadvan-
tages of the two methods
6.2 Classification of Ground Water
Computer Codes
The terminology for classifying computer codes accord-
ing to the kind of ground water system they simulate is
not uniformly established There are so many different
ways to classify such models (i e, porous vs fractured-
rock flow, saturated vs unsaturated flow, mass flow vs
chemical transport, single phase vs multiphase, isother-
mal vs. variable temperature) that a systematic classifi-
Concepts of the
physical system
Translate to
Partial differential equa-
tion boundary and initial
condition's
Subdivide region
into a grid and
apply finite-
difference approx-
imations to space
and time derivatives
Finite-difference
approach
Finite-element
approach
Transform to
Integral equation
Subdivide region
into elements
and integrate
I First-order differential
equations
Apply finite-difference
approximation to
time derivative
System of algebraic
equations
Solve by direct or
, , iterative methods
Solution
frit* dil for«ne«
grid block
• btocfc c«n!«rtxxj«
o source/link noo*
finite element
nodal potnt
source/sink node
Figure 6-2. Comparison of (a) finite-difference and (b) finite-
element grid configurations for modeling the same
well-field (from Mercer and Faust, 1981)
Figure 6-3 Generalized model development by finite-difference
and finite-element methods (from Mercer and Faust,
1981)
Table 6-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of FDM and FEM
Numerical Methods
Advantages
Disadvantages
Finite-Difference Method
Intuitive basis
Easy data entry
Efficient matrix techniques
Programming changes easy
Finite-Element Method
Flexible grid geometry
High accuracy possible
Evaluates cross-product terms
better
Low accuracy for some problems
(mainly solute transport)
Rectangular grids required
Complex mathematical basis
More complex programming
Source Adapted from Mercer and Faust (1981)
cation cannot be developed that would not require plac-
ing single codes in multiple categories
Table 6-4 identifies 4 major categories of codes and 11
major subdivisions, discussed below This classification
scheme differs from others (see, for example, Mangold
and Tsang, 1987, van der Heijde et al, 1988), by distin-
guishing among solute transport models that simulate
(1) only dispersion, (2) chemical reactions with a simple
retardation or degradation factor, and (3) complex
chemical reactions
124
-------
Table 6-4 Classification of Ground Water Flow and Transport Computer Codes
Type of Code Description/Uses
Flow (Porous Media)
Saturated
Variable saturated
Simulates movement of water in saturated porous media Used primarily for analyzing ground water availability
Simulates unsaturated flow of water in the vadose (unsaturated) zone Used in study of soil-plant relationships,
hydrologic cycle budget analysis
Solute Transport (Porous Media)
Dispersion
Simulates transport of conservative contaminants (not subject to retardation) by adding a dispersion factor into
flow calculations Used for nonreactive contaminants such as chloride and for worst-case analysis of
contaminant flow
Simulates transport contaminants that are subject to partitioning or transformation by the addition of relatively
simple retardation or degradation factors to algorithms for advection-dispersion flow Used where retardation and
degradation are linear with respect to time and do not vary with respect to concentration
Combines an advection-dispersion code with a hydrogeochemical code (see below) to simulate chemical
speciation and transport Integrated codes solve all mass momentum, energy-transfer, and chemical reaction
equations simultaneously for each time interval Two-step codes first solve mass momentum and energy
balances for each time step and then reequilibrate the chemistry using a distnbution-of-species code Used
primarily for modeling behavior of inorganic contaminants
Processes empirical data s.o that therrnodynamic data at a standard reference state can be obtained for
individual species Used to calculate reference state values for input into hydrogeochemical speciation
calculations
Solves a simultaneous set of equations that describe equilibrium reactions and mass balances of the dissolved
elements
Calculates both the equilibrium distribution of species (as with equilibrium codes) and the new composition of
the water as selected minerals are precipitated or dissolved
Simulates flow of water in fractured rock Available codes cover the spectrum of advectrve flow,
advection-dispersion, heat, and chemical transport
Simulates flow where density-induced and other flow vanations resulting from fluid temperature differences
invalidate conventional flow and chemical transport modeling Used primarily in modeling of radioactive waste
and deep-well injection
Simulates movement of immiscible fluids (water and nonaqueous phase liquids) in either the vadose or
saturated zones Used pnmanly where contamination involves liquid hydrocarbons or solvents
Source US EPA(1991)
Retardation/Degradation
Chemical-reaction
Hydrogeochemical Codes
Therrnodynamic
Distnbution-of-species
(equilibrium)
Reaction progress
(mass-ransfer)
Specialized Codes
Fractured rock
Heat transport
Multiphase flow
The literature on ground water codes sometimes uses
conflicting terminology For example, the term "hydro-
chemical" has been applied to completely different types
of codes Rice (1986) and van der Heijde et al (1988)
used the term hydrochemical for codes in the hydrogeo-
chemical category in Table 6-4, while Mangold and
Tsang (1987) used the term geochemical for such mod-
els and the term hydrochemical to describe coupled
geochemical and flow models (chemical-reaction trans-
port codes in Table 6-4) More recently, van der Heijde
and Emawawy (1993) have used the term hydrogeo-
chemical for codes that model aqueous chemical reac-
tions without regard to transport, that term is used here
The major types of models are discussed briefly below
Section 645 provides further discussion of the selec-
tion of codes for WHPA delineation
6.2.1 Porous Media Flow Codes
Modeling of saturated flow in porous media is relatively
straightforward, consequently, by far the largest number
of codes are available in this category Modeling variably
saturated flow in porous media (typically, soils and un-
consolidated geologic material) is more difficult because
hydraulic conductivity vanes with changes in water con-
tent in unsaturated materials Such codes typically must
model processes such as capillarity, evapotranspiration,
diffusion, and plant water uptake
Van der Heijde et al (1988) summarized 97 saturated
porous media codes and 29 variably saturated codes
Further screening by van der Heijde and Beljm (1988)
identified 27 flow models that are potentially suitable for
delineating WHPAS, several of which also can simulate
variably saturated flow These codes may result in
smaller wellhead protection areas than required if hydro-
dynamic dispersion is a significant factor in contaminant
transport (Section 622)
6.2.2 Porous Media Solute Transport Codes
The most important types of codes in the assessment of
ground water contamination simulate the transport of
-------
contaminants in porous media This is the second larg-
est category (73 codes) identified by van der Heijde et
al. (1988) as being readily available Solute transport
codes fall into three major categories (see Table 6-4 for
descriptions)- (1) dispersion codes, (2) retardation/deg-
radation codes, and (3) chemical-reaction transport
codes
Dispersion codes differ from saturated flow codes only
in having a dispersion factor These codes may be re-
quired if conservative contaminants such as nitrates are
of potential concern Retardation/degradation codes are
slightly more sophisticated because they add a retarda-
tion or degradation factor to the mass transport and
diffusion equations Such codes can be used to deline-
ate a zone of attenuation (Section 41 5) if flow transport
modeling results in such a large WHPA that further
targeting of management practices is required As dis-
cussed in Section 644, however, such codes must be
used with caution Chemical reaction-transport codes
are the most complex (but not necessarily the most accu-
rate) because they couple geochemical codes with flow
codes Chemical reaction-transport codes may be classi-
fied as Integrated or two-step codes (see Table 6-4)
Two recent numerical models specifically incorporate
blodegradation into contaminant transport models
BIOPLUMEII, developed for U S EPA, models oxygen-
limited biodegradation for two-dimensional transport (Ri-
fal et al., 1988). Celia et al. (1989) describe a new
numerical solution procedure for simulation of reactive
transport in porous media that incorporates both aerobic
and anaerobic biodegradation, and Kindred and Celia
(1989) present the result of test simulations
6.2.3 Hydrogeochemical Codes
Geochemical codes simulate chemical reactions in
ground water systems without considering transport
processes. These fall into three major categories (see
Table 6-4). (1) thermodynamic codes, (2) distnbution-of-
specles codes, and (3) reaction progress codes By
themselves, geochemical codes can provide qualitative
Insights into the behavior of contaminants in the subsur-
face Chemical transport modeling of any sophistication
requires coupling geochemical codes with flow codes
(see previous section) More than 50 geochemical
codes have been described in the literature (Nordstrom
and Ball, 1984), but only 15 are cited by van der Heijde
et al. (1988) as passing their screening criteria for reli-
ability and usability Geochemical codes are unlikely to
be used for WHPA delineation, except in specialized
situations where qualitative interpretations of aquifer
water quality are not adequate
6.2.4 Specialized Codes
This category contains special cases of flow codes and
solute transport codes (see Table 6-4), including (1)
fractured rock, (2) heat transport, and (3) multiphase
flow Fractured rock creates special problems in the
modeling of contaminant transport for several reasons
First, mathematical representation is more complex due
to the possibility of turbulent flow and the need to con-
sider roughness effects Furthermore, precise field char-
acterization of fracture properties that influence flow,
such as orientation, length, and degree of connection
between individual fractures, is extremely difficult In
spite of these difficulties, much work is being done in this
area (Schmellmg and Ross, 1989), van der Heijde et al
(1988) have identified 27 fractured rock models None
of these models, however, meet screening criteria es-
tablished by van der Heijde and Beljm (1988) for codes
potentially suitable for delineation of WHPAs
Heat transport models have been developed primarily in
connection with enhanced oil recovery operations
(Kayser and Collins, 1986) and programs assessing
disposal of radioactive wastes Van der Heijde et al
(1988) summarized 36 codes of this type Early work in
multiphase flow, centered in the petroleum industry, fo-
cused on oil-water-gas phases In the last decade,
multiphase behavior of nonaqueous phase liquids in
near-surface ground water systems has received in-
creasing attention However, the number of codes capa-
ble of simulating multiphase flow is still limited Van der
Heijde et al (1988) summarized 19 such codes This is
a rapidly developing area of research (El-Kadi et al,
1991)
6.3 General Code Selection
Considerations
All modeling involves simplifying assumptions concern-
ing parameters of the physical system being simulated
Furthermore, these parameters will influence the type
and complexity of the equations used to represent the
model mathematically Six major parameters of ground
water systems must be considered when selecting a
computer code for simulating ground water flow (Section
631) and six additional parameters for contaminant
transport (Section 632) Section 645 describes a spe-
cific computer code selection process for WHPA deline-
ation
6.3.1 Ground Water Flow Parameters
Type of Aquifer Confined aquifers with uniform thick-
ness are easier to model than unconfmed aquifers be-
cause the transmissivity (Section 312) remains
constant The thickness of unconfmed aquifers varies
with fluctuations in the water table, thus complicating
calculations Similarly, simulation of variable-thickness
confined aquifers is complicated by the fact that veloci-
ties generally increase in response to reductions in the
distance between confining beds, and decrease in re-
sponse to increases in these distances
126
-------
Matrix Characteristics Flow in porous media is much
easier to model than in rocks with fractures or solution
porosity This is because (1) equations governing lami-
nar flow are simpler than those for turbulent flow, which
may occur in fractures, and (2) porosity and hydraulic
conductivity can be more easily estimated for porous
media
Homogeneity and Isotropy. Homogeneous and iso-
tropic aquifers are easiest to model because their prop-
erties do not vary in any direction (Section 213) If
hydraulic properties and concentrations are uniform ver-
tically and in one of two horizontal dimensions, a one-
dimensional simulation is possible Horizontal variations
in properties combined with uniform vertical charac-
teristics can be modeled in two dimensions Most natu-
ral aquifers, however, show variation in all directions and
consequently require three-dimensional simulation,
which also necessitates more extensive site charac-
terization data The spatial uniformity or variability of
aquifer parameters such as recharge, hydraulic conduc-
tivity, porosity, transmissivity, and storativity (Section
31) will determine the number of dimensions to be
modeled
Phases Multiple phases are more difficult to simulate
than (1) flow of ground water, or (2) contaminated
ground water in which the dissolved constituents do not
create a plume that differs greatly from the unpolluted
aquifer in density or viscosity (see Sections 1 2 3 and
632)
Number of Aquifers A single aquifer is easier to simu-
late than multiple aquifers
Flow Conditions Steady-state flow, where the magni-
tude and direction of flow velocity are constant with time
at any point in the flow field, is much easier to simulate
than transient flow Transient, or unsteady, flow occurs
when the flow varies in the saturated zone in response
to variations in recharge or discharge rates These terms
may also be applied to unsaturated flow in the vadose
zone In this manual, the term variably saturated flow is
used to describe this type of unsteady flow
6.3.2 Contaminant Transport Parameters
Concentration The simplest way to model contaminant
transport in the subsurface is to specify a starting con-
centration in the ground water, without considering the
type of source
Type of Source. For more sophisticated simulation pur-
poses, sources can be characterized as point, line, area,
or volume A point source enters the ground water at a
single point, such as a pipe outflow or injection well, and
can be simulated with either a one-, two-, or three-
dimensional model An example of a line source is a
contaminant leaching from the bottom of a trench An
area source enters the ground water through a horizon-
tal or vertical plane The actual contaminant source may
occupy three dimensions outside of the aquifer, but for
modeling purposes contaminant entry into the aquifer
can be represented as a plane Examples of area
sources include leachate from a waste lagoon or an
agricultural field A volume source occupies three di-
mensions within an aquifer An example of a volume
source is a DNAPL that has sunk to the bottom of an
aquifer (see Figure 1-9) Line and area sources may be
simulated by either two- or three-dimensional models,
while a volume source requires a three-dimensional
model Figure 6-4 illustrates the type of contaminant
plume that results from a landfill in the following cases
Case 1, an areal source on top of the aquifer, Case 2,
an areal source within the aquifer and perpendicular to
the direction of flow, Case 3, a vertical line source in the
aquifer, and Case 4, a point source on top of the aquifer
Type of Source Release The release of an instantane-
ous pulse, or slug, of contaminant is easier to model
than a continuous release A continuous release may be
either constant or variable Figures 1-7b and 1-8b show
the different contaminant plume configurations resulting
from continuous and slug releases, respectively Figure
1-14 illustrates some effects of variations in the rate of
release on contaminant plume shape
Dispersion Accurate contaminant modeling requires
incorporation of transport by dispersion (see Section
1 2 2) Unfortunately, the conventional convective-dis-
persion equation often does not accurately predict field-
scale dispersion (U S EPA, 1988)
Adsorption It is easiest to simulate adsorption with a
single distribution or partition coefficient (1 3 2) Non-
linear adsorption and temporal and spatial variation in
adsorption are more difficult to model
Degradation As with adsorption, simulation of degra-
dation is easiest when a simple first-order degradation
coefficient is used Second-order degradation coeffi-
cients, which result from variations in various parame-
ters such as pH, substrate concentration, and microbial
population, are much more difficult to model Simulation
of radioactive decay is complicated but easier to simu-
late with precision because decay chains are well
known
Density/Viscosity Effects If the temperature or salinity
of the contaminant plume is much different from that of
the pristine aquifer, simulations must include the effects
of density and viscosity variations (see Section 1 2 3)
6.3.3 Computer Hardware and Software
The type of computer hardware available (model, mem-
ory available for core storage, peripherals for printing
code output, etc) is a primary consideration in selecting
a ground water computer code Earlier codes depended
heavily on mainframe computers (such as CDC, IBM,
127
-------
a various way: to represen* soj cc
c detailed view of 3D spreading for
various ways to represent source
boundary
Case-I
horizontal 2D areal source at top
of aquifer (for 3D modeling)
Case Z
vertical 2D source in aquifer
(for2D horizontal, vertically
averaged or 3D modeling)
b horizontal spreading muling from
vano-js source assumptions
Cases
1D vertical line source In aquifer
(for 2D horizontal vertically
averaged 2D cross sectional or
3D modeling)
Case 4
point source at top of aquifer
(for 2D or 3D modeling)
Rgure 6-4
Definition of the source boundary condition under a leaking landfill, numbers 1-4 refer to Cases 1-4 (from van der
Holjde et a), 1988}
PRIME, UNIVAC, and VAX models) Rapid advances in
microcomputer technology have resulted in increased
availability of ground water modeling software for per-
sonal computers (PCs)1 This trend stems from signifi-
cant improvements in the computing power and quality
of printed outputs obtainable from PCs It is also due to
the improved telecommunications capabilities of PCs,
which are now able to emulate the interactive terminals
of large business computers so that vast computational
power can be accessed and the results retrieved with
no more than a phone call
Many of the mathematical models and data packages
have been "down-sized" from mainframe computers to
PCs. Many more are now being written directly for this
market. A major advantage of PC-based codes is the
relatively low cost of both hardware (the necessary com-
puter and peripherals can probably be obtained for less
than $5,000) and software Most codes can be obtained
for less than $100
Most first-generation software for microcomputers has been devel-
oped for IBM PC/AT/XT and compatibles that typically require 640 K
(kilobyte) random access memory (RAM) Second-generation soft-
ware typically requires a 386 or 486 CPU (central processing unit)
with a math coprocessor and 2 megabytes (MB) RAM
6.3.4 Usability and Reliability
•
An ongoing program at the International Ground Water
Monitoring Center (IGWMC) evaluates codes using per-
formance standards and acceptance criteria (van der
Heijde, 1987b) The Center rates codes that are in its
data base using six usability and four reliability criteria
(van der Heijde and Beljm, 1988, van der Heijde et al,
1988) Favorable ratings for the usability criteria include
• Pre- and Postprocessors The code incorporates one
or more of this type of software
• Documentation The code has an adequate descrip-
tion of user's instructions and sample problems using
example datasets
• Hardware Dependency The code is designed to
function on a variety of hardware configurations
• Support The code is supported and maintained by
the developers or marketers
Favorable ratings for the reliability criteria include
• Review Both the theory behind the coding and the
coding itself are peer-reviewed
128
-------
• Verification The code has been verified (Table 6-1
and Section 635)
• Field Testing/Validation Code has been extensively
field-tested for site-specific conditions for which ex-
tensive datasets are available (Section 635)
• Extent of Use Code has been used extensively by
other modelers
6.3.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Modeling and computer codes are increasingly used in
regulatory settings where decisions may be contested
in court Therefore, careful attention must be paid to
quality assurance and quality control in both model de-
velopment and application There are four major aspects
to quality control for a site-specific application of a
model, as in the case of WHPA delineation (1) sensitiv-
ity, (2) calibration, (3) verification, and (4) validation
Table 6-1 provides summary definitions of these terms 2
The accuracy of the input values is of less concern when
model results are relatively insensitive to changes in
values for input parameters, compared to when a small
change in an input parameter causes a large change in
the model output Sensitivity testing may be useful in
guiding data collection for a site Less attention need be
given to estimating or measuring parameters that do not
greatly affect the outcome of the modeling, while addi-
tional effort may be required to ensure that sensitive
input parameters are measured accurately
Whether the basic code has been verified and validated
is an important criteria for selecting models Verification
is also desirable for site-specific applications, if it is
possible to obtain a second set of field data measured
under similar hydrologic conditions to the site-cali-
brated code The code can be considered verified if it
acceptably approximates the second data set This can
be determined by defining an acceptable level of depar-
ture between simulated values and the actual data set
Note that the term 'Validation" is not defined in Table 6-1 because
it has been the subject of some recent controversy Bredehoeft and
Konikow (1993) suggested abandoning use of the term validation by
the ground water modeling community because it implies a precision
that is not achieved in reality In response, McCombie and McKmley
(1993) argued that the term validation is appropriate for describing
the process of ensuring that mathematical models "ensure an accept-
able level of predictive accuracy" The term, which was included in
early ASTM ballots for adoption of D5447-93, was dropped in the final
standard Because the term is well established in the ground water
modeling literature, it is used in this manual in the sense suggested
by McCombie and McKinley (1993)
As of March 1,1987, the IGWMC had 632 code annotations in its
MARS data base for mainframe computers and 104 annotations in its
PLUTO database for personal computers These data bases have
now been merged In late 1993, the data base contained more than
700 codes
4 Anyone trying to select a mainframe model should refer to the
following publications, which are recommended for comparative infor-
mation van derHeijde and Beljin (1988), van der Heijde et al (1988),
US EPA (1988), and Thompson etal (1989)
and calculating the difference between actual and simu-
lated values (residuals) If these residuals fall within the
range that was defined as acceptable, the model can be
considered verified for application to that particular field
situation
Field validation of a numerical model consists of first
calibrating the model using one set of historical records
(e g, pumping rates and water levels from a certain
year), and then attempting to predict the next set of
historical records In the calibration phase, the aquifer
coefficients and other model parameters are adjusted to
achieve the best match between model outputs and
known data, in the predictive phase, no adjustments are
made (excepting actual changes in pumping rates, etc)
Presuming that the aquifer coefficients and other pa-
rameters were known with sufficient accuracy, a mis-
match means that either the model is not correctly
formulated or it does not treat all of the important phe-
nomena affecting the situation being simulated (e g, it
does not allow for leakage between two aquifers when
this is actually occurring) Field validation is completed
by conducting a postaudit, in which the predicted
changes in responses to changes in the system are
confirmed by field measurements
6.4 Computer Modeling for WHPA
Delineation
The great advantage of the computer is that large
amounts of data can be generated quickly and experi-
mental modifications made with minimal effort, so that
many possible situations for a given problem can be
studied in great detail The danger is that without proper
selection, data collection and input, and quality control
procedures, the computer's usefulness can be quickly
undermined, bringing to bear the adage "garbage in,
garbage out"
A bewildering number of ground water flow and contami-
nant transport codes are available 3 The number of fac-
tors that must be considered in selecting a code (Section
6 3) can make the task of choosing a code for a particu-
lar wellhead area daunting Van der Heijde and Beljin
(1988) identified 64 models in the International Ground
Water Modeling Center's database that satisfied criteria
for (1) outputs useful for WHPA delineation, and (2)
usability and reliability (Section 634) Additional
screening criteria were used to further reduce the num-
ber of codes covered in this manual
• Only codes identified in van der Heijde and Beljin
(1988) that can be used on personal computers are
considered Codes requiring mainframe computers
are likely to be too expensive for most local govern-
ments concerned with wellhead protection, or will be
used by consulting firms with personnel already fa-
miliar with how to use the code 4
129
-------
• Any codes available for personal computers men-
tioned in the published literature on ground water and
wellhead protection are included
6.4.1 Spreadsheet Models
PC computer spreadsheets are a very useful tool for
analyzing ground water data and solving analytical
equations for ground water flow Computer spread-
sheets are well suited for use with the simple analytical
methods described in Chapter 4 The major advantages
of spreadsheets include the following
• They do not require knowledge of any particular com-
puter programming language, although programming
experience is certainly useful
• The logic of spreadsheet models is embedded in
formulas contained within spreadsheet cells, which
allows for easy modification and identification of
errors
• Spreadsheet calculations are rapid, providing results
within a fraction of a second (seconds for complex
models) or after input values are entered
• Once a spreadsheet model has been set up, it is very
easy to analyze the sensitivity of model output to
changes In input parameters
• Many spreadsheet programs include data base and
graphic capabilities
Spreadsheet models are primarily limited to analytical
solutions Hence, they suffer from the disadvantages of
analytical approaches compared to numerical modeling
approaches (Table 6-2)
6.4.2 Overview of PC Models and WHPA
Applications
About a dozen computer codes that meet the additional
screening criteria mentioned above have been cited in
the literature as having been used in actual WHPA de-
lineation investigations These codes fall into three gen-
eral categories and are discussed further in the next
section.
1. Numerical codes developed for general ground water
flow modeling (MODFLOW and USGS-2D FLOW)
that are used to define the zone of influence (ZOI),
the cone of depression (COD), and/or the zone of
contribution (ZOC)
2. Simpler analytical and semianalytical "capture zone"
codes for defining the zone of influence and/or zone
of contribution of one or more pumping wells
3. Pathline tracing or reverse path codes (typically ana-
lytical or semianalytical) for calculating time of travel
and/or velocity using the output from numerical mod-
eling or capture zone codes
Solute transport (dispersion-only and retardation/degra-
dation) models have received limited, if any, use in
WHPA delineation This is primarily because the assimi-
lative capacity of aquifers is not easily modeled or quan-
titatively determined Relatively simple solute transport
models for personal computers, however, are increas-
ingly available This provides opportunities for providing
some assessment of the kind of safety factor that may
be built into WHPA delineations based on the assump-
tion that contaminants will not be attenuated Section
644 provides additional discussion of solute transport
models
6.4.3 Numerical Flow, Capture Zone, and
Pathline Tracing Models
Table 6-5 provides an index to documentation and case
studies that describe the use of PC-based computer
models for WHPA delineation At least four numerical
codes have been used for delineation of WHPAs MOD-
FLOW, FLOWPATH, PLASM, and USGS 2D-FLOW
MODFLOW, developed by the U S Geological Survey,
is a very versatile modular three-dimensional finite dif-
ference ground water model that simulates transient
flow in anisotropic, heterogeneous, layered aquifer sys-
tems Very complex hydrogeologic systems can ! 3
modeled, provided that a porous media flow assumption
can be justified This versatility is probably the reason
that MODFLOW has been reported in the wellhead
protection literature more frequently than any other
method
The most commonly reported analytical capture zone
models are the MWCAP module 'of the WHPA code,
CAPZONE (a refinement of the THWELLS analytical
model), and DREAM (Table 6-5) Pathline tracing mod-
els are especially useful for wellhead protection be-
cause of their relatively precise delineation of time of
travel isochrons These may also be referred to as par-
ticle tracking or reverse flow path models (Kreitler and
Senger, 1991) A two-set process is involved in pathlme
tracing First, the water level at the well and the poten-
tiometnc surface for the surrounding area is calculated,
often using a numerical or analytical capture zone
model Second, reverse flow paths are calculated using
semianalytical or numerical methods These codes al-
low much more accurate determination of both flow
paths and time of travel than do the TOT calculations in
Section 4 4
The use of pathlme tracing models in the context of
wellhead protection is a relatively recent development,
with all the models listed in Table 6-5 having become
available since 1987 GWPATH, developed by the Illi-
nois State Water Survey (Shafer, 1987a), has been most
frequently mentioned in the published literature in this
regard MODPATH, developed in 1989 for use with the
popular USGS model MODFLOW, has gained rapid
130
-------
Table 6-5 Examples of Use of Computer Models for Wellhead Protection
Model Documentation/Case Studies
Numerical Flow Codes*
FLOWPATH
MODFLOW
PLASM
USGS-2D FLOW
Capture Zone Codes*
CAPZONE/THWELLS
DREAM
WhAEM
WHPA (MWCAP)
Spreadsheet Capture Zone
Other Capture Zone
Methods
Drainage Ditch Capture
Zone
Reverse Path Codes*
GWPATH
PATH3D
WHPA (RESSQC,
GPTRAC)
MODPATH
RESSQ
ROSE
Unclassified
Documentation Franz and Guiguer (1990), Applications/Case Studies Cleary and Cleary (1991), Swanson
(1992)
Documentation McDonald and Harbaugh (1988), Case Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992), Bradbury et al
(1991), Heeley et al (1992), Kreitler and Senger (1991), Nelson and Witten (1990), OEPA (1992), Plomb
and Arnett (1992), Springer and Bair (1992), Swanson (1.992), TolmanetaL (199-1), Trefry (1990), U.S EPA
(t987, t992)
Documentation Hull (1983), Pnckett and Associates (1984), Pnckett and Lonnquist (1971), Walton (1989a)r
Case Studies Boring (1992), Wehrmann and Varljen (1990)
Documentation Trescottetal (1976), Case Studies US EPA (1987)
Documentation van der Heijde (1987a—THWELLS), Bair et al (1991 a—CAPZONE), CAPZONE Case
Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992), Bair et al (1991b, 1991c), OEPA (1992), Springer and Bair (1992),
THWELLS Case Studies Roadcap and Bair (1990), Springer and Bair (1990)
Documentation Bonn and Rounds (1990), Case Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992), Springer and Bair
(1992), Swanson (1992)
Documentation Strack and Haijtema (in press)
Documentation Blandford and Huyakorn (1991), Applications/Case Studies See references for
RESSQC/GPTRAC below
Documentation Pekas (1992), Equations Huntoon (1980), Javendel and Tsang (1986), Keely and Tsang
(1983a, 1983b), McLane (1990)
KGS Capture Zone McElwee (1991), Woods et al (1987), Analytic Element Method Kraemer and Burden
(1992), Other Ahlfield and Sawyer (1990), Grubb (1993), Lee and Wilson (1986), Linderfeldt et al (1989),
Nelson (1978a,b), Newsom and Wilson (1988), Shafer-Penm and Wilson (1991), Tiedeman and Gorelick
(1993), Wilson and Linderfeldt (1991)
Chambers and Barr (1992), Zheng et al (1988a, 1988b)
Documentation Shafer (1987a, 1990), Applications/Case Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992), Bair et al
(1991 b, 1991c), Kreitler and Senger (1991), OEPA (1992), Roadcap and Bair (1990), Shafer (1987b),
Springer and Bair (1990,1992), Varljen and Shafer (1991, 1993), Wehrmann and Varljen (1990)
Documentation Zheng (1992), Zheng et al (1992), Case Studies Bradbury et al (1991)
Documentation Blanford and Huyakorn (1991), Applications/Case Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992), Baker
et al (1993), Bhatt (1993), Boring (1992), Kreitler and Senger (1991), Oates et al (1990), Rifai et al
(1993), Springer and Bair (1992), U S EPA (1992)
Documentation Pollock (1988, 1989, 1990), Srmivasan (1992), Case Studies Bair and Roadcap (1992),
Buxton et al (1991), OEPA (1992), Springer and Bair (1992), Swanson (1992)
Documentation Javendel et al (1984), WellWare (1993), see also WHPA code above, Case Studies OEPA
(1992)
Lerner (1992a, 199?b)
Taylor (1989)
* Numerical and analytical capture zone codes are typically coupled with reverse path (particle tracking) codes for wellhead protection area
delineation Reported combinations include CAPZONE/GWPATH, DREAM/RESSQC, MWCAP/RESSQC (separate modules of the WHPA
code), PLASM/GWPATH, MODFLOW/MODPATH
acceptance because no additional data, except possibly
porosity, are required once a MODFLOW simulation has
been completed
The WHPA (Wellhead Protection Area) code, developed
for the U S Environmental Protection Agency, is de-
signed specifically for WHPA delineation The pathlme
tracing module of the WHPA code, RESSQC, is based
on the RESSQ code developed by Javendel el al
(1984) A stand-alone version of RESSQ that is more
user friendly has also recently become available (Well-
Ware, 1993) The WHPA code also has a semianalyti-
cal/numencal particle-tracking module called GPTRAC
The first version of WHPA (1 0) did not consider vertical
leakage, resulting in unnecessarily large protection ar-
eas for semiconfmed aquifers where leakage was sig-
nificant The latest version (2 1) has been modified to
131
-------
allow vertical leakage, permitting time of travel calcula-
tions to leaky aquifer settings Additional modifications
are underway to provide additional solutions and added
boundary conditions (personal communication, Neil
Blandford, HydroGeoLogic, Herndon, VA, September,
1993)
PATH3D is a pathlme tracing model recently developed
by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
(Zheng et al, 1992), and an enhanced version is com-
mercially available (Zheng, 1992) ROSE, a semianalyti-
ca! path line tracing model (Lerner, 1992a, 1992b),
follows a family of semianalytical models using an ap-
proach first developed by Nelson (1978a,b) Keely and
Tsang (1983) used Nelson's methods but presented
results in terms of capture zones as well as fronts of
pollution movement (RESSQ model) Javendel and
Tsang (1986) extended this work to look at nondimen-
sional expressions of capture zones Pekas (1992)
adapted equations presented in Keely and Tsang (1983)
and Javendel and Tsang (1986) to calculate capture
zones using a spreadsheet
As noted earlier, numerical and analytical capture zone
codes are typically coupled with reverse path (particle
tracking) codes for wellhead protection area delineation
Reported combinations include CAPZONE/GWPATH,
DREAM/RESSQC, MWCAP/RESSQC (separate mod-
ules of the WHPA code), PLASM/GWPATH, MOD-
FLOW/MODPATH Table 6-5 identifies case studies
illustrating use of these various combinations
The Wellhead Analytic Element Method (WhAEM)
model, currently under development for EPA's R S Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory (Ada, Oklahoma),
will allow WHPA delineation in more complex hydro-
geologic settings (multiple stream and other recharge
boundary conditions) than can be handled by available
capture zone/reverse path analytical codes It is likely to
be an attractive alternative to more complex numerical
codes, provided that the assumptions of homogeneity
and isotropy apply
6.4.4 Solute Transport Models
Mechanisms for reducing the concentration of contami-
nants In an aquifer are generally too complex and diffi-
cult to predict for selection as criteria for wellhead
protection (U S EPA, 1987) Accurate modeling of con-
taminant transport is limited by fundamental problems,
including (1) inability to describe mathematically some
processes, (2) complex mechanisms that are beyond
the capability of available numerical techniques, and (3)
difficulty in obtaining enough data of sufficient quality to
calibrate models (van der Heijde and Beljin, 1988)
Hydrodynamic dispersion, the process by which con-
taminants may travel faster than would be expected
from simple ground water flow calculations, must be
considered during the WHPA delineation process As
noted in Section 122, dispersion at the microscopic
scale is such a minor component of ground water move-
ment that it can generally be ignored Although disper-
sion at this scale results in a faster arrival time, it also
reduces concentration levels, and consequently can be
considered an attenuating process Contaminant trans-
port by macroscopic dispersion, on the other hand, is
best addressed using methods that account for the ef-
fect of aquifer heterogeneity on the speed of ground
water flow (Sections 213 and 542) For simple meth-
ods, this involves using the upper range of estimated or
measured hydraulic conductivity in ground water flow
calculations Numerical computer codes allow design of
the grid to account for more highly transmissive layers
Bradbury et al (1991) provide a good example of the
difference that a single highly transmissive layer in an
aquifer can make in travel times At the Sevastopol site
in Door County, Wisconsin, where the aquifer is in frac-
tured dolomite, time of travel to the upgradient ground
water divide based on calculations using a potentiomet-
nc surface map was 100 years (Figure 6-5a) Ground
water simulations using PATH3D that accounted for a
fracture zone at a depth of 170 feet below the ground
surface resulted in a travel time of / year from the
ground water divide (Figure 6-5b)
Retardation processes (Section 1 3) provide an un-
stated safety factor to WHPA delineations based on
advective flow to the extent that they dimmish the con-
centration of a contaminant as it moves through an
aquifer More than a dozen PC-based codes use rela-
tively simple retardation and degradation factors to
simulate concentrations of contaminants in ground
water These codes are most commonly used in heavily
contaminated settings to help develop remediation
strategies Such codes may have value for wellhead
protection, however, as a means of quantifying the
safety factor contained in delineations based on other
methods, or for further evaluations of the possible risks
associated with potential contaminant sources within the
WHPA (Chapter 8)
The mam considerations in using methods that allow
delineation of a zone of attenuation (Section 415) are
that (1) aquifer anisotropy and heterogeneity must have
been adequately incorporated into the WHPA to account
for the zone of more rapid transport, and (2) reliance
should not be placed on a single method for calculating
contaminant transport
Arnold (1992) used eight numerical models and four
analytical models to estimate attenuation of BTX (ben-
zene, toluene, xylene) from a gasoline spill 4,000 feet
from the Mississippi River Table 6-6 summarizes the
processes included in each model and the predicted
concentration (as a percentage of initial concentration)
after traveling from the spill site to the river There is a
132
-------
Water-tabla contour
(Interval Sit)
• • • Grourd water divide
* Test well (MW 1)
I ] Zone of contribution
TOT Timeoftraiel
—-• Buffer zont
SCALE 124 000
FEET 600 0 800 1003 2000
• • • Ground water divide
• Test well (MW1)
I I Zone of contribution
TOT Time of travel
SO ALE 124 000
FEET 600 0 500 1000 2000
• ™
6-monTOt,
0?)
Figure 6-5 Time of travel contours in a dolomite aquifer based on (a) potentiometnc surface map, (b) numerical modeling (from
Bradbury etal 1991)
two-order-of-magmtude range in the predicted concen-
trations For the purposes of evaluating contaminant
transport within a WHPA, the analytical models in Table
6-6 appear to be the most useful
6.4.5 Code Selection Process for Wellhead
Delineation
As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, there is
a continuous spectrum for increasing sophistication in
computer modeling of ground water, ranging from use
of simple analytical equations in spreadsheets on a PC
(Section 6 4 1) to complex ground water flow and con-
taminant transport models that require a mainframe
computer
If an IBM PC/AT/XT or compatible with at least 640K of
RAM (random access memory) and personnel with
some technical expertise in ground water aie available,
low-cost PC software can be considered for any well-
head area When an aquifer is anisotropic and hetero-
geneous, PC computer modeling is required, unless the
limitations of simple analytical solutions can be over-
come or very conservative assumptions are used in
calculations for delineating a WHPA The following steps
can help in selecting one or more codes for a site-
specific application
1 Use Checklist 4-1 (Aquifer Characteristics for Selec-
tion of Analytical Solutions to Ground Water Flow in
the Vicinity of Wells) to identify aquifer, matrix, and
flow characteristics
2 For each candidate model selected, fill out Work-
sheet 6-1 to develop a detailed profile of the charac-
teristics of the site and the model For all models with
an IGWMC identification number, this detailed infor-
mation can be obtained from Appendices B (Evalu-
ation of Usability and Reliability) and C (Detailed
Annotations) in van der Heijde and Beljm (1988),
available from the National Technical Information
Service Worksheet 6-1 also contains an area for
defining the specifications for the computer and pe-
ripherals on which the software will be run
3 Compare the code suitability worksheets (Worksheet
6-1) for each model and eliminate any that do not
seem appropriate based on a qualitative weighing of
(1) model characteristics (including complexity of re-
quired input data and grid design), (2) model output,
(3) usability and reliability, and (4) cost For the re-
133
-------
Worksheet 6-1.
Worksheet for Developing Ground Water Computer Code Specifications or Evaluating Code
Suitability for a Specific Site
Model Name- IGWMCNo
Contact Available from IGWMC
Address Other Location
Phone-
Site/Model Characteristics Model System Requirements Available Computer
Match System Requirements9
Yes No
Unconfined (water table) IBM PC/AT/XT (circle)
Semiconfined (leaky) Other Computer
Confined Random Access Memory
Single aquifer 640 K
Multiple aquifers 4MB
botropic Other ( )
Homogeneous Disk Drives
Anlsotropic Single floppy (HD
Heterogeneous Two floppy (HD.
Radial Hard drive
One-dimensional Disk Operating System
Two-dimensional DOS 2 1
Three-dimensional > DOS 2 11
Steady flow Math Coprocessor
Transient flow Required
Variably saturated flow Optional
Single-phase flow Graphics
Multi-phase flow CGA
Hydrodyanmic dispersion EGA
Retardation VGA
Decay/degradation
Boundary Conditions See Checklist 5-1
Site/Model Output
Zone of Influence
Cone of Depression
Time of Travel
Velocity
Pathways
Zone of Contribution
Fluxes
Concentration
Reliability
Yes No ?
Preprocessor Theory peer-reviewed
Postprocessor Coding peer-reviewed
User's instructions Verified
Sample problems Field validation
Hardware dependency
Support
Model Users many, few, unknown
134
-------
Table 6-6 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations of BTX Using the Same Inputs for Twelve Different
Models (Arnold, 1992)
Variables Included
Model Name Dispersion
Numerical Models
AT123D x
(Yen, 1981)
Bloplume II x
(Bedlent, 1989)
Conmlg x
(Walton, 1989)
Hydropal Slug x
(Watershed, 1988)
MOC (Old) x
(Konikow, 1978)
MOC (New) x
(Konikow, 1978)
Random Walk x
(Watershed, 1988)
SLAEM
(Strack, 1989)
Analytical Models
CDT Nomograph x
(Dragun, 1989)
HPS x
(Galya, 1987)
Rapid Assessment x
Nomograph
(Guswa, 1987)
Wilson-Miller x
Nomograph
(Kent, 1982)
Chemical Time to
Retardation Decay 'Blodegradatlon Run
x xx hrs-day
x xx days-wk
xxx 1-2 hrs
1-2 hrs
x days-wk
x xx days-wk
hrs
x xx days
x 1-2 hrs
x hrs-day
x xx 2-4 hrs
x x 1-2 hrs
Results %
of Initial
cone.
01
4
5
6
15
4
13
3
6
5
15
8
mainmg codes, contact the person or organization
from which the code is available to (1) find out current
price and availability information, and (2) determine
whether it will work on the available hardware If cost
is not a limitation, all codes that are left in this last
screening step and will work on the available hard-
ware should be obtained
The use of multiple methods (including those in Chap-
ters 4 and 5) is always preferable to the use of a single
method If different methods delineate similar areas, this
increases the confidence that an appropriate area is
being designated Large differences in areas using dif-
ferent delineation methods result in a better under-
standing of the hydrogeology of the site if the reasons
for the differences can be discerned This under-
standing, in turn, allows selection of a WHPAthat most
accurately reflects site conditions
6.4.6 Potential Pitfalls
Computers can easily give a false sense of security or
cause unwarranted confidence in the results The adage
"garbage in, garbage ouf always applies The proce-
dures outlined above are intended to reduce the chance
that computer codes are used inappropriately, but it is
useful to keep in mind pitfalls that can doom a ground
water modeling effort to failure (OTA, 1982, van der
Heijdeetal, 1985)
1 Inadequate conceptualization of the physical system,
such as flow in fractured bedrock
2 The use of insufficient or incorrect data
3 The incorrect use of available data
4 The use of invalid boundary conditions
5 Selection of an inadequate computer code
135
-------
General'
Tabla 6-7. Indsx to Major References on Ground Water Flow and Contaminant Transport Modeling
Topic References
Texts Anderson and Woessner (1992), Bachmat et al (1980), Bear and Bachmat (1990), Bear and Verruljt
(1987), Boonstra and de Ridder (1981), Cleary and Ungs (1978), Codell et al (1982), Dagan (1989)
Domenlco (1972), Fried (1975), Ghadlri and Rose (1992), Javendel et al (1984), Kinzelbaoh (1986), Mercer
and Faust (1981), National Research Council (1990), Finder and Gray (1977), Remson et al (1971), van der
Heijde et al (1985), van Genuchten and Alves (1982), Walton (1988), Wang and Anderson (1982)
Zienkiewicz (1977), Computational/Mathematical Methods Boas (1983), Burden et al (1981) Celiaetal
(1988), Cross and Moscardmi (1985), Gerald and Wheatley (1984), Hunt (1983), Huyakorn and Pmder
(1983), Istok (1989), James et al (1977), Press et al (1986), Rushton and Redshaw (1979), Boundary
Conditions Franke and Reilly (1987), Franke et al (1987), Review Papers Anderson (1979, 1983,1987),
Bear et al (1992), Faust and Mercer (1980a, 1980b), Gorelick (1983), Konikow and Mercer (1988) Mercer
and Faust (1980), Naymik (1987), Pnckett (1979), Prickett et al (1986), Yeh and Tnpathi (1989),
Bibliographies Edwards and Smart (1988)
Conferences/Symposia
Reviews/Comparisons
Applications
Quality Control
Other PC-Based Models*'
Selected Topics
Arnold etal (1982), Buxton et al (1989), Celiaetal (1988), Custodio et al (1988), Dickson et al (1982),
Haimes and Bear (1987), Jousma (1989), Kovar (1990), Melh and Zennetti (1992), NWWA/IGWMC (1984,
1985, 1987. 1989). NGWA/IGWMC (1992), Wrobel and Brebbia (1991)
Appel and Bredehoeft (1976), Appel and Reilly (1988), Bachmat et al (1978), Seven (1989), Beljm (1988)
El-Kadi and Beljm (1987-vadose zone), El-Kadi et al (1991), IMS/OSWER (1990), Kayser and Collins
(1986), Kincaid and Morrey (1984), Kincaid et al (1984), Mangold and Tsang (1987), Mercer et al (1982),
Morrey et al (1986), van der Heijde and Beljin (1988), van der Heijde and Einawawy (1993), van der Heijde
et al (1988), Simmons and Cole (1985), Thompson et al (1989), U S EPA (1988), Whelan and Brown
(1988)
Anderson and Woessner (1992), Bachmat et al (1978), Boonstra and de Ridder (1981), Boutweli et al
(1985), Bredehoeft et al (1982), Haimes and Bear (1987), Keely (1987), Moskowitz et al (1991), National
Research Council (1990), OTA (1982), U S EPA (1988), van der Heijde (1991), van der Heijde et al (1985)
Whelan and Brown (1988), WHPA Delineation Beljm and van der Heijde (1991), van der Heijde and Beljm
(1988)
Adrion et al (1981), Bredehoeft and Konikow (1993), Buxton et al (1989), California Toxic Substance
Control Program (1990), Huyakom et al (1984), Kovar (1990), McCombie and McKmley (1993), Ross et al
(1982), Siege! and Leigh (1985), U S EPA (1989), van der Heijde (1987b, 1989, 1990)
Ground Water How Aral (1990a—SLAM, 1990b—ULAM), Walton (1984a, 1984b—WALTON35,
1989b—WELFL.O, 1992), Contaminant Transport/Biodegradatlon Bedient et al (1989—BIOPLUME), Freeze
et al (1992), Konikow and Bredehoeft (1978—MOC), Mueller and Crosby (1989—comparison), Mundell et
al (1992—TDAST), Park et al (1992—VIRALT), Prickett and Associates (1984—Random Walk), Strack
(1989—SLAEM), Rifai et al (1988—BIOPLUMEII), Walton (1989a—Random Walk, 1989b—CONMIG) Yeh
(1981—AT123D), Spreadsheets Highland (1987)
Analytic Element Methods Haitjema (1985), Strack (1987, 1989), Capture Zones see Table 6-6, Stochastic
Modeling Ahlfield and Hyder (1990), Dagan (1989), Delhomme (1979), El-Kadi (1984), Gelhar (1986 1993)
Gomez-Hernandez Gorelick (1989), McLane (1990), Smith (1987), van der Heijde (1985), Vomvons and
Gelhar (1986), Yen and Guymon (1990), Modeling Contaminant Transport/Biodegradation Beljm (1988),
Celia et al (1989), Dragun (1989—CDT nomograph), Galya (1987), Guswa et al (1987—Rapid Assessment
Nomograph), Kent et al (1982—Wilson-Miller Nomograph), Kindred and Celia (1989), Hydrogeochemlcal
Modeling Nordstrom and Ball (1984), Rice (1986), Siegel and Leigh (1985), Fracture Flow Modeling
Schmelimg and Ross (1989), van der Heijde and El-Kadi (1989), Multiphase Flow Modeling Abnola (1988),
El-Kadi etal (1991) '
* See Table A-1 for ground water and hydraulics tests that cover analytical equations
** See also models identified in Table 6-6
6. Incorrect interpretation of the computational results
7. Imprecise or wrongly posed management problems
Computer modeling requires expertise in both hydro-
geology and computer technology The technology and
software may be more readily available than the exper-
tise When in doubt, consult an expert in government or
academia or a consultant with special expertise in com-
puter modeling of ground water
6.5 Sources of Additional Information on
Ground Water Modeling
The trend toward development of relatively inexpensive
and user-friendly codes for ground water modeling on
PCs increases the risk that pitfalls identified in the last
section will occur Users may lack the required breadth
of knowledge about hydrogeology and computer model-
ing Short courses (usually focusing on a limited number
136
-------
of codes), such as those sponsored by the IGWMC, the
National Ground Water Association, and various univer-
sities, are the best way to gam hands-on experience with
the more sophisticated models Many good texts are
available that address basic hydraulics and hydrogeol-
ogy (Appendix A, Table A-1) and computer modeling
Table 6-7 provides an index to major text references and
review papers on principles and applications of ground
water flow and contaminant modeling
The software catalog of the IGWMC (see address be-
low) contains more than 70 PC-based ground water
programs that can be purchased for prices ranging from
fifty to several hundred dollars (IGWMC, 1992) Ground
water flow and quality source codes developed by the
U S Geological Survey can be obtained for IBM-com-
patible series 360 or 370 computers ($40 00 per pro-
gram) from US Geological Survey, WRD, National
Water Information System, 437 National Center, 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA, 22092 Appel and
Reilly (1988) provide' summary descriptions of these
codes Many commercially developed codes, including
enhanced versions of public domain codes such as
MODFLOW, are available Two good sources of com-
mercially available software are Scientific Software
Group (1993), and Rockware Scientific Software (1993)
The continuing enhancement of existing software and
the development of new codes makes keeping abreast
with new developments a challenge The following
newsletters (available at no cost) are useful for this
purpose
• IGWMC Ground Water Modeling Newsletter is pub-
lished by the International Ground Water Modeling
Center, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO,
80401-1887 (303/273-3103)
• Geraghty & Miller Software Newsletter is a periodic
publication of the Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
(10700 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 600, Reston, VA
22091,703/758-1200)
• GeoTrans Newsletter often contains information on
applications and recent developments in ground
water modeling (46050 Manekm Plaza, Suite 100,
Sterling, VA22170, 703/444-7000)
The scientific journals Ground Water and Water Re-
sources Research are the best sources of peer-
reviewed research on ground water modeling Periodic
conferences sponsored jointly by the National Water
Well Association and IGWMC are excellent sources of
information on new developments and practical applica-
tions in ground water modeling (NWWA/IGWMC 1984,
1985,1987,1989, NGWA/IGWMC 1992) Table 6-7 lists
other conferences and symposia addressing ground
water modeling
EPA's Center for Subsurface Modeling Support
(CSMoS) provides ground water and vadose zone mod-
eling software and services to public agencies and pri-
vate companies throughout the United States Its
primary aim is to provide direct technical support to EPA
and state decision makers and to coordinate the use of
models for risk assessment, site characterization, reme-
dial activities, wellhead protection, and geographic
information systems (GIS) applications The Center's
address is
Center for Subsurface Modeling Support
US EPA
R S Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
PO Box 1198
Ada, OK, 74820
(405) 332-8800
6.6 References*
Abnola, LM 1988 Multiphase Row and Transport Models for Or-
ganic Chemicals A Review and Assessment EPRI EA-5976 Elec-
> trie Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Adnon, WR , M A Branstad, and J C Cherniasky 1981 Validation,
Verification and Testing of Computer Software NBS Special Pub-
lication 500-75 Institute for Computer Science and Technology,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC
Ahlfield, D P and Z Hyder 1990 The Impact of Parameter Uncer-
tainty on Delineation of Aquifer Protection Areas Variability in
Hydraulic Conductivity Ground Water Management 3 23-30 (Proc
Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground-Water Issues) [Farm-
mgton River Basin, CT, Monte Carlo method, unspecified numeri-
cal model]
Ahlfield, D P and C S Sawyer 1990 Well Location in Capture Zone
Design Using Simulation and Optimization Techniques Ground
Water 28(4) 507-512
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1993 Standard
Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to a Site-
Specific Problem D5447-93 (Vol 4 08) ASTM, Philadelphia, PA
Anderson, MP 1979 Using Models to Simulate the Movement of
Contaminants through Groundwater Row Systems CRC Critical
Reviews on Environmental Control 9(2) 97-156 [General review
of governing equations and approaches to modeling transport of
contaminants]
Anderson, M P 1983 Groundwater Modeling—The Emperor Has No
Clothes Ground Water 21 666-669
Anderson, M P 1987 Treatment of Heterogeneities in Ground Water
Flow Modeling In Proc (3rd) NWWA Conf on Solving Ground
Water Problems with Models (Denver, CO), National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp 444-466
Anderson, M P and WW Woessner 1992 Applied Groundwater
Modeling Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport Academic
Press, New York, 381 pp
Appel, C A andJD Bredehoeft 1976 Status of Groundwater Mod-
eling in the U S Geological Survey U S Geological Survey Cir-
cular 737 [Summarizes status of development and selected
references on 42 ground water modeling projects supported by
the U S Geological Survey]
137
-------
Appel, C.A and TE Reilly 1988 Selected Reports that Include
Computer Programs Produced by the U S Geological Survey for
Simulation of Ground-Water Row and Quality Water Resources
Investigations Report 87-4271 [Provides summary information on
about 40 models, March 6, 1991 update includes information on
16 more references]
Aral, M M 1990a Ground Water Modeling in Multilayered Aquifers
Steady Flow Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 114 pp [Includes
disks for SLAM—steady layered aquifer model]
Aral, M M 1990b Ground Water Modeling in Mutoiayered Aquifers
Unsteady Row Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 143 pp [Includes
disks for ULAM—unsteady layered aquifer model]
Arnold, F 1992 A Performance Comparison of Different Analytical
and Numerical Saturated Zone Contaminant Transport Models
Ground Water Management 9 21-29 (Proc 5th Int Conf on Solv-
ing Ground Water Problems with Models)
Bachmat,Y,B Andrews, D Holtz,andS Sebastian 1978 Utilization
of Numerical Groundwater Models for Water Resource Manage-
ment EPA 600/ 8-78/012 (NTIS PB285 782) [Appendix summa-
rizes Information on 250 models]
Bachmatetal (1980)—see van der Heijde et al (1985)
Bair, ES and GS Roadcap 1992 Comparison of Flow Models
Used to Delineate Capture Zones of Wells 1 Leaky-Confined
Fractured-Carbonate Aquifer Ground Water 30(2) 199-211
[CAPZONE/GWPATH, DREAM/RESSQC, MODFLOW/MOD-
PATH. Ohio]
Balr, ES.CM Safreed, and B W Berdainier 1991 a CAPZONE—
An Analytical Row Model for Simulation Confined, Leaky Confined,
or Unconfined Row to Wells with Superposition of Regional Water
Levels, User's Manual Prepared for OHIO EPA by Dept of Geo-
logical Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH [Modifica-
tion of THWELLS (van der Heijde, 1987a)]
Balr, ES, CM Safreed, and EA Stasny 1991b A Monte Carlo-
Based Approach for Determining Traveltime-Related Capture
Zones of Wells Using Convex Hulls as Confidence Regions
Ground Water 29(6) 849-861 [CAPZONE/GWPATH, Sandstone
aquifer, Ohio]
Balr, E S, A E Springer, and G S Roadcap 1991c Delineation of
Traveltime-Related Capture Areas of Wells Using Analytical Flow
Models and Particle-Tracking Analysis Ground Water 29(3) 387-
397 [CAPZONE/GWPATH, confined/unconfined stratified-drift
aquifer and leaky-confined fractured carbonate aquifer, Ohio]
Baker, C P, M D Bradley, and S M Kazco Bobiak 1993 Wellhead
Protection Area Delineation Unking a Row Model with GIS J
Water Resources Planning and Management (ASCE) 119(2) 275-
287. [WHPA code]
Bear, J 1979 Hydraulics of Groundwater McGraw-Hill, New York,
567 pp [Summarizes numerous analytical equations for flow and
mass transport]
Bear.J andYBachmat 1990 Introduction to Modeling of Transport
Phenomena in Porous Media Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hmg-
ham, MA
Bear, J. and A Verruijt 1987 Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pol-
lution, Reldel Publishing Co, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 414 pp
Boar, J, MS Beljin, and RR Ross 1992 Fundamentals of Ground-
Water Modeling EPA-540/S-92-005,11 pp
Bedlont, PB etal 1989 Bioplume II Users Manual National Center
for Ground Water Research, Rice University, Houston, TX
Beljin, M S 1988 Testing and Validation of Models for Simulating
Solute Transport in Groundwater Code Intercomparison and
Evaluation of Validation Methodology GWMI 88-11 International
Ground Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis,
IN "[$10 00]
Beljin, MS andPKM van der Heijde 1991 Selection of Ground-
water Models for WHPA Delineation GWMI 91-03, 9 pp [Paper
presented at the AWWA Computer Conference, April, 1991, Hous-
ton, TX]
Beljin, MS andPKM van der Heijde 1991 Selection of Ground-
water Models for WHPA Delineation In Transferring Models to
Users, E B James and W R Hotchkiss (eds), American Water
Resources Association, Bethesda, MD [Proc 1988 AWRA Symp,
Denver, also available as GWMI 91-03, International Ground
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN", $2 00]
Bhatt, K 1993 Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Due to Uncertainty in Aquifer Parameter Values J Hydrology
149 1-8 [WHPA/RESSQC model]
Blandford, TNandPS Huyakorn 1991 WHPA Modular Semi-Ana-
lytical Model for the Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas,
Version 2 0 Office of Ground Water Protection, Available from
IGWMC Version 1 0 was released in 1990 [Four modules
MWCAP, RESSQC, GPTRAC, MONTEC, available from IGWMC,
most current disk version is 21]
Boas, M L 1983 Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences
John Wiley & Sons, New York
Bonn, BA and SA Rounds 1990 DREAM—Analytical Ground
Water Flow Programs Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 115 pp
[Analytical PC ground water flow program (DREAM) for calculation
of drawdown, streamlines, velocities, and water level elevations,
includes disk]
Boonstra, J and NA de Ridder 1981 Numerical Modelling of
Groundwater Basins International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands [User-oriented
manual]
Boutweil, S H , S M Brown, B R Roberts, and D F Atwood 1985
Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites EPA 540/2-85/001 (NTIS PB85-211357) Also published in
1986 with the same title by Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,
NJ [Covers (1) selection of models, (2) simplified methods for
subsurface and waste control action, and (3) numerical modeling
of surface, subsurface, and waste control actions]
Bradbury, KR, MA Muldoon, A Zaporozec, and J Levy 1991
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured Rocks
EPA/570/9-91-009, 144 pp Available from ODW* [MODFLOW
and PATH3D in Door County, Wisconsin May also be cited with
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey as author]
Bredehoeft, J D andLF Konikow 1993 Ground-Water Models Vali-
date or Invalidate Ground Water 21(2) 178-179
Bredehoeft, J D, P Betzinski, C Cruickshank Villanueva, G de Mar-
sily, A A Konoplyntsev, and J U Uzoma 1982 Ground-Water
Models, Vol I Concepts, Problems, and Methods of Analysis with
Examples of Their Applications UNESCO Studies and Reports in
Hydrology No 34, Pans [Contains 21 case histories]
Burden, RL.JD Faires, and AC Reynolds 1981 Numerical Analy-
sis, 2nd ed Pnndle, Weer, and Schmidt, Boston, MA
Buxton, B E, S M Hogan, L Copley-Graves, and S E Brauning
(eds) 1989 Proceedings of the 1987 DOE/AECL Conference on
Geostatistical, Sensitivity, and Uncertainty Methods for Ground-
Water Flow and Radionuclide Modeling Battelle Press, Columbus,
OH [31 papers]
138
-------
Buxton, HT, TE Rally, DW Pollock and DA Smolensky 1991
Particle Tracking Analysis of Recharge Areas on Long Island, New
York Ground Water 29(1) 63-71 [MODPATH]
California Toxic Substances Control Program 1990 Scientific and
Technical Standards for Hazardous Waste Sites Vol 2, Exposure
Assessment Chapter 4, Draft Standards for Mathematical Model-
ing of Ground Water Flow and Contaminant Transport at Hazard-
ous Waste Sites
Celia, M A, L A Ferrand, C A Brebbia, WG Gray, and G F Pmder
(eds) 1988 Computational Methods in Water Resources Vol 1
Modeling Surface and Subsurface Flows, Vol 2 Numerical Meth-
ods for Transport and Hydrologic Processes Elsevier, New York
[7th International conference on computational methods in water
resources containing 121 papers, more than half of which are
specifically devoted to ground water Previous conferences were
titled "Finite Elements in Water Resources" and were held at
Princeton University (1976), Imperial College, UK (1978), Univer-
sity of Mississippi (1980), University of Hanover FRD (1982), Uni-
versity of Vermont (1984) and the Laboratono Nacional de
Engenhana Civil, Portugal (1986)]
Celia, MA.JS Kindred, and I Herrera 1989 Contaminant Trans-
port and Biodegradation 1 A Numerical Model for Reactive Trans-
port in Porous Media Water Resources Research
25(6) 1141-1148
Chambers, LW and JM Bahr 1992 Tracer Test Evaluation of a
Drainage Ditch Capture Zone Ground Water 30(5) 667-675
Cleary, TC B F and R W Cleary 1991 Delineation of Wellhead Pro-
tection Areas Theory and Practice Water Science and Technology
24(11) 239-250 [Illustrates use of FLOWPATH]
Cleary, R W and M J Ungs 1978 Analytical Models for Groundwater
Pollution and Hydrology Water Resources Program, Department
of Civil Engineering, Princeton, University
Coded, R B , KT Key, and G Whelan 1982 A Collection of Mathe-
matical Models for Dispersion in Surface Water and Groundwater
NUREG-0868 U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC [Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory]
Cross, M andAO Moscardim 1985 Learning the Art of Mathemati-
cal Modeling Ellis Harwood, Ltd , Chichester, UK
Custodio, E , A Gargum, and J P Lobo Ferreira (eds) 1988 Ground
Flow and Quality Modeling NATO ASI Series C Vol 224 Reidel
Publishing Co, Dordrecht, The Netherlands [Proceedings of work-
shop on advances in analytical and numerical ground water flow
and quality modeling]
Dagan, G 1989 Flow and Transport in Porous Formations Spnn-
ger-Verlag, New York [Focuses on stochastic modeling of subsur-
face flow and transport at different scales]
Delhomme, J P 1979 Spatial Variability and Uncertainty in Ground-
water Flow Parameters A Geostatistical Approach Water Re-
sources Research 18 1215-1237
Dickson, KL, AW Maki, and J Cairns, Jr (eds) 1982 Modeling
the Fate of Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment Ann Arbor
Science, Ann Arbor, Ml [21 papers]
Domenico, PA 1972 Concepts and Models in Groundwater Hydrol-
ogy McGraw-Hill, New York, 405 pp
Dragun, J 1989 The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials Haz-
ardous Material Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD
[CDT nomograph]
Edwards, A J and PL Smart 1988 Contaminant Transport Model-
ing An Annotated Bibliography Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, CA
(58 references)
El-Kadi, AI 1984 Modeling Variability in Ground-Water Flow GWMI
84-10 International Ground-Water Modeling Center, Butler Univer-
sity, Indianapolis, IN ** [$8 50]
El-Kadi, AI and M S Beljln 1987 Models for Unsaturated Flow and
Solute Transport GWMI 87-12 International Ground Water Mod-
eling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN ** [$2 00] [Sum-
mary information on 59 models]
El-Kadi, AI, O ,A Emawawy, PK Kobe, and PK M van der Heijde
1991 Modeling Multiphase Flow and Transport GWMI 91-04
International Ground Water Modeling Center, Butler University,
Indianapolis, IN ** [$10 00]
Faust, CR andJW Mercer 1980 Groundwater Modeling Recent
Developments Ground Water 18(6) 569-577
Franke, O L and TE Reilly 1987 The Effects of Boundary Condi-
tions on the Steady-State Response of Three Hypothetical
Ground-Water Systems—Results and Implications of Numerical
Experiments U S Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2315,
19 pp [Effects of boundary conditions on model response often
become evident only when the system is stressed Consequently,
a close match between the potential distribution in the model and
that in the unstressed natural system does not necessarily mean
that the model boundary conditions represent those in the natural
system ]
Franke, OL.TE Reilly, and GD Bennett 1987 Definition of Bound-
ary and Initial Conditions in the Analysis of Saturated Ground-
Water Flow Systems—An Introduction U S Geological Survey
Techniques of Water Resources Investigations TWRI 3-B5,15 pp
Franz, T and N Guiguer 1990 FLOWPATH, Version 4, Steady-State
Two-Dimensional Horizontal Aquifer Simulation Model Waterloo
Hydrogeologic Software, Waterloo, Ontario
Freeze, R A, J Massmann, L Smith, T Sperling, and B James
1992 Hydrogeological Decision Analysis National Ground Water
Association, Dublin, OH, 72 pp [Coupling of three models (1)
decision model based on a risk-cost-benefit objective function, (2)
a simulation model for ground water flow and transport, and (3)
an uncertainty model encompassing geological and parameter
uncertainty]
Fried, JJ 1975 Groundwater Pollution Theory, Methodology Mod-
eling, and Practical Rules Elsevier, New York, 330 pp
Galya, DP 1987 A Horizontal Plane Source Model for Ground-Water
Transport Ground Water 25(6) 733-739 [HPS analytical chemical
transport model]
Gelher, L W 1986 Stochastic Subsurface Hydrology from Theory to
Applications Water Resources Research 22(9) 135S-145S
Gelher, LW 1993 Stochastic Subsurface Hydrology Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 390 pp
Gerald, CF and PO Wheatley 1984 Applied Numerical Analysis,
3rd ed Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Ghadin, H andCW Rose (eds) 1992 Modeling Chemical Trans-
port in Soils Natural and Applied Contaminants Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml, 217 pp [Summary information on more than 70
models for soil erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and
subsurface chemical transport]
Gdmez-Hernandez, J J and S M Gorelick. 1989 Effective Ground-
water Parameter Values Influence of Spatial Variability of Hydrau-
lic Conductivity, Leakance, and Recharge Water Resources
Research 24(3) 405-419
Gorelick, S 1983 A Review of Distributed Parameter Groundwater
Management Modeling Methods Water Resources Research
19(2)305-319
139
-------
Grubb.S 1993 Analytical Model for Estimation of Steady-State Cap-
ture Zones of Pumping Wells in Confined and Unconfined Aquifers
Ground Water 31(1) 27-32
Guswa, JH, WJ Lyman, AS Donigian, Jr, TYR Lo, and EW
Shanahan 1987 Groundwater Contamination and Emergency
Response Guide Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ [Rapid As-
sessment Nomograph, first edition published 1984]
Ha|toma, H M 1985 Modeling Three-Dimensional Flow in Confined
Aquifers by Superposition of Both Two- and Three-Dimensional
Analytic Functions Water Resources Research 21(10) 1557-1566
[Analytic element method]
Haitnes, YY. and J Bear(eds) 1987 Groundwater Contamination
Use of Models In Decisionmaking Reldel Publishing Co, Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands
Heoloy, RW. K. Exarhoulakos, DF Reed and JA Fischer 1992
Bedrock/Overburden Interaction Reflected in Well Head Protection
Delineations In Ground Water Management 13 605-617 (Proc of
Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues) [MOD-
FLOW]
Highland, WR 1987 Use of PC Spreadsheet Models as a Routine
Analytical Tool for Solving Ground Water Problems In Proc (1st)
NWWA Conf on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models
(Denver, CO), National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp
1345-1352
Hoeksma, RJ andPK Kitandis 1985 Analysis of the Spatial Struc-
ture of Properties of Selected Aquifers Water Resources Research
21(4)563-572 [Geostatistica! analysis]
Hull, LC 1983 Prfckett and Lonnquist Aquifer Simulation Program
for the Apple II Minicomputer Report No EGG 2239, Idaho Na-
tional Engineering Laboratory [PLASM]
Hunt, B 1983 Mathematical Analysis of Groundwater Resources
Butterworths, Stoneham, MA, 271 pp
Huntoon, PW 1980 Computationally Efficient Polynomial Approxi-
mations Used to Program the Theis Equation Ground Water
18(2) 134-136 [Analytical]
Huyakorn, PS and G.F Pinder 1983 Computational Methods in
Subsurface Row Academic Press, New York, 473 pp (Paperback
edition published in 1986) [Advanced text]
Huyakom, PS, A G Kretsehek, R W Broome, J W Mercer, and B H
Lester 1984 Testing and Validation of Models for Simulating Sol-
ute Transport Development, Evaluation, and Comparison of
Benchmark Techniques GWMI84-13 International Ground Water
Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN **
Information Management Staff, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (IMS/OSWER) 1990 Report of the Usage of Computer
Models In Hazardous Waste/Superfund Programs, Phase II Rnal
Report U S Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC
International Ground Water Modeling Center (IGWMC) 1992
IGWMC Software Catalog Golden, CO, 40 pp
Istok, J 1989 Groundwater Modeling by the Finite Element Method
AGU Water Resources Monograph 13, American Geophysical Un-
ion, Washington, DC
James, M L, G M Smith, and J C Wolford 1977 Applied Numerical
Methods for Digital Computation with FORTRAN and CSMP, 2nd
ed Harper and Row, New York
Javendel, I andCFTsang 1986 Capture-Zone Type Curves A Tool
for Aquifer Cleanup Ground Water 24(5) 616-625 [Analytical]
Javendel, I, C Doughty, and C F Tsang 1984 Groundwater Trans-
port Handbook of Mathematical Models AGU Water Resources
Monograph No 10 American Geophysical Union, Washington,
DC, 228 pp [Covers analytical, semianalytical and numerical
methods, includes codes for ODAST, TDAST, LTIRD, RESSQ]
Jousma, G , J Bear, YY Haimes, and F Walter (eds) 1989 Ground-
water Contamination Use of Models in Decision-Making Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Hmgham, MA [60 papers, proceedings of
1987 International Conference held in Amsterdam]
Kayser, MB and AG Collins 1986 Computer Simulation Models
Relevant to Ground Water Contamination from EOR or Other Flu-
ids—State-of-the-Art NIPER-102 National Institute for Petroleum
and Energy Research, Bartlesville, OK [Summarizes recent de-
velopments and ongoing work in modeling ground water contami-
nation from enhanced oil recovery and other fluids]
Keely, J F 1987 The Use of Models in Managing Ground-Water
Protection Programs EPA 600/8-87/003 (NTIS PB87-166203)
Keely, J F and C F Tsang 1983a Velocity Plots and Capture Zones
for Simple Aquifers Ground Water 29(4) 701-714
Keely, J F and C F Tsang 1983b Velocity Plots and Capture Zones
of Pumping Center for Ground-Water Investigations In Proc Third
Nat Symp on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring,
National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp 382-395
Kent, DC, W A Pettyjohn, FE Witz, and TA Pnckett 1982 Meth-
ods for Prediction of Leachate Plume Migration In Proc 2nd Nat
Symp of Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, Na-
tional Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 246-263 [Wilson-
Miller Nomograph]
Kincaid, CT and J R Morrey 1984 Geohydrochemical Models for
Solute Migration Volume 2 Preliminary Evaluation of Selected
Computer Codes EPRI EA-3417-2 Electric Power Research In-
stitute, Palo Alto, CA [Evaluates 21 codes applicable to the study
of leachate migration]
Kincaid, CT,J R Morrey, and JE Rogers 1984 Geohydrochemical
Models for Solute Migration Volume 1 Process Description and
Computer Code Selection EPRI EA-3417-1 Electric Power Re-
search Institute, Palo Alto, CA [Summarizes mathematical models
and numerical methods for predicting leachate migration and de-
velops criteria for selection of codes]
Kindred, JS and MA Celia 1989 Contaminant Transport and
Biodegradation 2 Conceptual Model and Test Simulations Water
Resources Research 25(6) 1149-1159
Kmzelbach, W 1986 Groundwater Modeling An Introduction with
Simple Programs in BASIC Elsevier, New York [Intermediate text]
Konikow, LF and J D Bredehoeft 1978 Computer Model of Two-
Dimensional Solute Transport and Dispersion in Ground Water
U S Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investi-
gation TWRI 7-C2, 90 pp [MOC]
Konikow, L F and J M Mercer 1988 Groundwater Flow and Trans-
port Modeling J Hydrology 100(2)379-409
Kovar, K (ed) 1990 Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Mod-
eling Int Assoc Sci Hydrology Pub No 195
Kraemer, S R and D S Burden 1992 Capture Zone Delineation
Using the Analytic Element Method A Computer Modeling Dem-
onstration for the City of Hays, Kansas Ground Watei Manage-
ment 9697 (Proc 5th Int Conf on Solving Ground Water
Problems with Models) [Reverse path]
Kreitler, C W and R K Senger 1991 Wellhead Protection Strategies
for Confined-Aquifer Settings EPA/570/9-91-008, 168 pp Avail-
able from ODW** [Bastrop Country, Texas MODFLOW, WHPA,
Other GWPATH]
140
-------
Lee, KHL andJL Wilson 1986 Pollution Capture Zones for Pump-
ing Wells in Aquifers with Ambient Flow EOS 67(44) 966 [Ab-
stract]
Lerner, D N 1992a Well Catchments and Time-of-Travel Zones in
Aquifers With Recharge Water Resources Reseaich 28(10) 2621-
2628 [ROSE and WHPA models]
Lerner, D N 1992b A Semi-Analytical Model for Borehole Catch-
ments and Time-of-Travel Zones which Incorporates Recharge
and Aquifer Boundaries Quart J Eng Geol 25(2) 137-144
bgget, JA and PL-F Liu 1983 The Boundary Integral Equation
Method for Porous Media Flow Allen and Unwin, Inc, Winchester,
MA
Linderfelt, WR.SC Leppert, and J L Wilson 1989 Capture Zones
for Wellhead Protection Effect of Time Dependent Pumping, Satu-
rated Thickness and Parameter Uncertainty Eos 70(October
24)1079 [Abstract]
McCombie, C and I McKmley 1993 Validation—Another Perspec-
tive Ground Water 31(4) 530-531
McDonald, MG and AW Harbaugh 1988 A Modular Three-Dimen-
sional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model U S Geologi-
cal Survey Techniques of Water Resource Investigations TWRI
6-A1, 575 pp [MODFLOW, may also be cited with a 1983 or 1984
date as Open File Report 83-875]
McElwee, CD 1991 Capture Zones for Simple Aquifers Ground
Water 29(4) 587-590
McLane, C F 1990 Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection and Deline-
ation Ground Water Management 1 383-397 (Pioc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection)
Mangold, DC andC-F Tsang 1987 Summary of Hydrologic and
Hydrochemical Models with Potential Application to Deep Under-
ground Injection Performance LBL-23497 Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA [Summarizes information on 57 flow,
solute transport, and geochemical codes]
Melli, P and P Zannetti (eds) 1992 Environmental Modeling El-
sevier, New York [Proceedings of 1990 IBM Euiopean Summer
Institute Seminar on Environmental Modeling]
Mercer, JW and C R Faust 1980a Ground-Water Modeling Nu-
merical Models Ground Water 18(4) 395-409
Mercer, JW andCR Faust 1980b Groundwater Modeling Appli-
cations Ground Water 18(5)486-497
Mercer, J W and C R Faust 1981 Ground-Water Modeling National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, 60 pp [Introductory text, com-
pilation of 5 papers published in Ground Water Faust and Mercer
(1980), Mercer and Faust (1980a, 1980b)]
Mercer, JW, SD Thomas, and B Ross 1982 Parameters and
Variables Appearing in Repository Siting Models NUREG/CR-
3066, U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
Morrey, J R, C T Kmcaid, and C J Hosteller 1986 Geohydrochemi-
cal Models for Solute Migration Volume 3 Evaluation of Selected
Computer Codes EPRI EA-3417-3 Electric Power Research In-
stitute, Palo Alto, CA [Contains detailed evaluation of five codes
identified as best suited for studying leachate migration (EQ3/EQ6,
MINTEQ, FEMWATER1/FEMWASTE1, SATURN, and TRANS)]
Moskowitz, PD, R Pardi, M P DePhillips, and A F Memhold 1991
Computer Models Used to Support Cleanup Decision-Making at
Hazardous Waste Sites Brookhaven National Laboratory Draft
Report [Cited in Geraghty and Miller Software Newsletter, Spring
1992]
Mueller, D and E Crosby 1989 Comparison of Microcomputer
Based Groundwater Transport Models In Proc Fourth Int Conf
on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models (Indianapolis, IN),
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 797-820
Mundell, J A, TA Nichols, and M Hicks 1992 Addressing Off-Site
Concerns in Environmental Site Assessments In Ground Water
Management 12495-503 (Proc of [2nd] Environmental Site As-
sessments Conf) [Application of TDAST from Javendel et al
(1984)]
National Ground Water Association/International Ground Water Mod-
eling Center 1992 Fifth International Conference on Solving
Ground Water Problems with Models Ground Water Management
No 9 NGWA, Dublin, OH [49 papers]
National Research Council 1990 Ground Water Models Scientific
and Regulatory Applications National Academy Press, Washing-
ton, DC, 303 pp
National Water Well Association/International Ground Water Modeling
Center (NWWA/IGWMC) 1984 Proceedings of Conference on
Practical Applications of Ground Water Models NWWA, Dublin,
OH [44 papers]
National Water Well Association/International Ground Water Modeling
Center 1985 Proceedings of Conference on Practical Applications
of Ground Water Models NWWA, Dublin, OH [27 papers]
National Water Well Association/International Ground Water Modeling
Center 1987 Proceedings of Conference on Solving Ground
Water Problems with Models NWWA, Dublin, OH [45+ papers]
National Water Well Association/International Ground Water Modeling
Center 1989 Fourth International Conference on Solving Ground
Water Problems with Models NWWA, Dublin, OH [44+ papers]
Naymik, TG 1987 Mathematical Modeling of Solute Transport in the
Subsurface Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 17(3) 229-
251
Nelson, R W 1978a Evaluating the Environmental Consequences of
Groundwater Contamination, 1 An Overview of Contaminant Arri-
val Distributions as General Evaluation Requirements Water Re-
sources Research 14409-415
Nelson, RW 1978b Evaluating the Environmental Consequences of
Groundwater Contamination, 2 Obtaining Location/Arrival Time
and Location-Outflow Quantity Distributions for Steady Flow Sys-
tems Water Resources Research 14416-428
Nelson, ME and J D Witten 1990 Delineation of a Wellhead Pro-
tection Area in a Semi-Confined Aquifer Manchester, Massachu-
setts Ground Water Management 3 31 -45 (Proc Focus Conf on
Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues) [MODFLOW]
Newsom, JM andJL Wilson 1988 Flow of Groundwater to a Well
Near a Stream Effect of Ambient Groundwater Flow Direction
Ground Water 26(6)703-711 [Particle tracking/capture zone
method]
Nordstrom, D K and J W Ball 1984 Chemical Models, Computer
Programs and Metal Complexation in Natural Waters In Com-
plexation of Trace Metals in Natural Waters, C J M Kramer and
J C Dumker (eds), Martmus Nijhoff/Dr W Junk Publishers, The
Hague, pp 149-164
Dates, LE , WD Ward, S P Roy, and TN Blandford 1990 Tools
for Wellhead Protection Delineation and Contingency Planning
Ground Water Management 1 463-477 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection) [WHPA model]
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1982 Use of Models for
Water Resources Management, Planning, and Policy OTA, Wash-
ington, DC
141
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 1992 Comparison
of Delineation Methods and Conclusions In Ohio Wellhead Pro-
tection Program, OEPA, Columbus, OH, Appendix 3 [RESSQ,
CAPZONE/GWPATH, MODFLOW/MODPATH]
Park,N-S,TN Blandford, and PS Huyakorn 1992 VIRALT20 A
Modular Semi-Analytical and Numerical Model to Simulating Viral
Transport In Ground Water Available from IQWMC
Pekas, BS 1892 Capture-Zone Geometry Calculations with Spread-
sheet Programs Ground Water Management 9 653-666 (Proc 5th
Int Conf. on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models)
Finder, G F. and WG Gray Finite Element Simulation In Surface and
Subsurface Hydrology Academic Press, New York, 295 pp
Ptomb, DJ. and KM Amett 1992 Combining Groundwater Flow
Modeling, Particle Transport, and GIS for Effective Wellhead Pro-
tection In the Greater Miami River Valley, Ohio Ground Water
Management 9 571-594 (Proc 5th Int Conf on Solving Ground
Water Problems with Models) [MODFLOW]
Pollack, DW. 1988 Semlanalytteal Computation of Path Lines for
Finite Difference Models Ground Water 26(6) 743-750
Pollack, D W 1989 Documentation of Computer Programs to Com-
pute and Display Pathllnes Using Results from the U S Geological
Survey Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-
Water Flow Model U S Geological Survey Open Rle Report 89-
381, 188 pp [MODPATH]
Pollack, DW 1990 A Graphical Kernal System (GKS) Versions of
Computer Program MODPATH-PLOT for Displaying Pathlines
Generated from the U S Geological Survey Three-Dimensional
Ground-Water Flow Model U S Geological Survey, Reston, VA
22092.
Press, WH, B P Flannery, S A Teukolsky, and WT Vetterling 1986
Numerical Recipes The Art of Scientific Computing Cambridge
University Press, New York
Prfckett, TA 1979 Ground-Water Computer Models—State of the
Art Ground Water 17(2) 167-173
Prfckett and Associates, Inc 1984 Selected Numerical Flow and
Mass Transport Groundwater Models for the IBM-PC Micro Com-
puter Thomas A Prfckett and Associates, Inc, Urbana, IL [Theis
Wall Field Model, Analytical Random Walk, PLASM, Discrete Ran-
dom Walk Mass Transport Model]
Prickott, TA andCE Lonnquist 1971 Selected Digital Computer
Techniques for Ground-Water Resource Evaluation Illinois State
Water Survey Bulletin 55, Champaign, IL, 66 pp [PLASM]
Prickett, TA, D L Warner, and DD Runnells 1986 Application of
Flow, Mass Transport, and Chemical Reaction Modeling to Sub-
surface Liquid Injection In Proc Int Symp on Subsurface Injec-
tion of Liquid Wastes, National Water Well Association, Dublin,
Ohio pp 447-463
Romson, I, G M Hornberger, and FJ Molz 1971 Numerical Meth-
ods h Subsurface Hydrology John Wiley & Sons, New York, 389
pp. [Focuses on finite-difference numerical methods applied to
transient and steady-state flow problems]
Rica, R 1986 The Fundamental of Geochemical Equilibrium Models,
With a Listing of Hydrochemical Models That Are Documented and
Available GWMI 86-04 International Ground Water Modeling
Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, 29 pp ** [$3 50]
Rifal, HS, PB Bedient, RC Borden, and JF Haasbeek. 1988
BIOPLUMEII—Computer Model of Two-Dimensional Contaminant
Transport Under the Influence of Oxygen Limited Biodegradation
in Ground Water (User's Manual) EPA/600/8-88/093 (NTIS PB89-
151120)
Roadcap, GS andES Bair 1990 Delineation of Wellhead Protec-
tion Areas in Semiconfined Aquifers Using Semianalytical Meth-
ods Ground Water Management 1 399-412 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection) [Fractured dolomite aquifer, Richwood, Ohio,
THWELLS/GWPATH]
Rockware Scientific Software 1993 The 1993 Scientific Software
Catalog Rockware Scientific Software, 4251 Kipling St, Suite 595,
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033, 800/775-6745
Ross, B, J W Mercer, S D Thomas, and B H Lester 1982 Bench-
mark Problems for Repository Siting Models NUREG/CR-3097
U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
Rushton, KR andSC Redshaw 1979 Seepage and Groundwater
Flow Numerical Analysis by Analog and Digital Methods John
Wiley & Sons, Chlchlster, UK
Schafer-Perinl, A L and J L Wilson 1991 Efficient and Accurate
Front Tracking for Two-Dimensional Groundwater Flow Models
Water Resources Research 27(7) 1471-1485 [Method for particle
tracking/capture zone analysis in complex flow fields]
Schmelling, S G andRR Ross 1989 Contaminant Transport in
Fractured Media Models for Decision Makers Superfund Ground
Water Issue Paper EPA 540/4-89/004 (NTIS PB90-268517)
Scientific Software Group Environmental, Engineering and Wa^er
Resources Software & Publications, 1993-1994 Scientific Soft-
ware Group, PO Box 23041, Washington, DC, 20026-34041,
703/620-6793
Shafer, JM 1987a GWPATH Interactive Ground-Water Flow Path
Analysis Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 69, 42 pp
Shafer, JM 1987b Reverse Pathline Calculation of Tims-Related
Capture Zones in Nonuniform Flow Ground Water 25(3) 283-289
Shafer, JM 1990 GWPATH—Version 40 Champaign, IL
Siegel, MD and C D Leigh (eds) 1985 Progress in Development
of a Methodology for Geochemical Sensitivity Analysis for Perform-
ance Assessment Parametric Calculations, Preliminary Data-
bases, and Computer Code Evaluation NUREG/CR-5085
SAND85-1644 Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
69+pp
Simmons, CS andCR Cole 1985 Guidelines for Selecting Codes
for Groundwater Transport Modeling of Low-Level Waste Burial
Sites, Vol 1, Guideline Approach PNL-4980, Vol 1 Battelle Pa-
cific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA
Smith, L 1987 The Role of Stochastic Modeling in the Analysis of
Groundwater Problems Ground Water Modeling Newsletter 6(1)
Springer, A E andES Bair 1990 The Effectiveness of Semianalyti-
cal Methods for Delineating Wellfield Protection Areas in Stratified-
Dnft, Buried Valley Aquifers Ground Water Management
1 413-429 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [Wooster, Ohio,
THWELLS]
Springer, A E andES Bair 1992 Comparison of Methods Used to
Delineate Capture Zones of Wells 2 Stratified-Dnft Buned-Valley
Aquifer Ground Water 30(6)908-917 [CAPZONE/GWPATH,
DREAM/RESSQC, MODFLOW/MODPATH, Ohio]
Srmivasan, P 1992 GeoTrack A Computer Program to Display Par-
ticle Pathlines Generated from Groundwater Flow Simulations
Ground Water Management 9671-672 (Proc 5th Int Conf on
Solving Ground Water Problems with Models) [For use with MOD-
FLOW, MODPATH, FTWORK]
Strack, DDL 1987 Groundwater Mechanics Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ
142
-------
Strack,ODL 1989 SLAEM Users Manual StrackConsulting, North
Oaks, MN
Strack, DDL and H M Haijtema In press WhAEM Model for Well-
head Protection [Analytic element method, software currently be-
ing beta tested for EPA Ada Laboratory]
Swanson, RD 1992 Methods to Determine Wellhead Protection
Areas for Public Supply Wells in Clark County, Washington Inter-
governmental Resource Center, Vancouver, WA, 39 pp [DREAM,
FLOWPATH, MODFLOW/MODPATH]
Taylor, M D 1989 Use of Contaminant Transport Modeling for the
Establishment of Aquifer Protection Zones in Lee County, Florida
In Proc Fourth Int Conf on Solving Ground Water Problems with
Models (Indianapolis, IN), National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH, pp 599-618
Thompson, C M , L J Holcombe, D H Gancarz, A E Behl, J R Erik-
son, I Star, R K Waddell, and J S Fruchter 1989 Techniques to
Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical Models EPRI EN-6637 Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA [Summary information
on data requirements for 25 saturated and variably saturated flow
and transport codes and 5 geochemical codes]
Tiedeman, C and SM Gorelick 1993 Analysis of Uncertainty in
Optimal Groundwater Contaminant Capture Design Water Re-
sources Research 29(7) 2139-2153
Tolman, AL, KM Either, and RG Gerber 1991 Technical and
Political Processes in Wellhead Protection Ground Water Man-
agement 7401-413 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground Water Issues) [Central Maine, MODFLOW/MODPATH]
Trefry, A 1990 History and Summary of the Wellfield Protection
Ordinance, Palm Beach Country, Florida Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 559-563 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [MODFLOW]
Trescott, PC , G F Pinder, and S P Larson 1976 Finite-Difference
Model for Aquifer Simulation in Two Dimensions with Results of
Numerical Experiments U S Geological Survey lechniques of
Water Resource Investigations TWRI 7-C1,116 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas EPA/440/6-87-010
(NTIS PB88-111430) [Use of MODFLOW in southeastern Florida,
USGS-2D-FLOW in Connecticut]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988 Selection Criteria
for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments Ground-
Water Models EPA 600/8-88/075 (NTIS PB88-248762) [Contains
summary tables and descriptions of 63 analytical solutions and 49
analytical and numerical codes for evaluating ground water con-
taminant transport]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989 Resolution on
the Use of Mathematical Models by EPA for Regulatory Assess-
ment and Decision-Making EPA-SAB-EEC-89-012, 7 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 Handbook
Ground Water Volume II Methodology EPA/625/6-90/-16b, 141
pp Available from CERI* [Chapter 5 covers use of computers and
models in ground water investigations]
van der Heijde, PKM 1987a THWELLS A Basic Program to Cal-
culate Head Drawdown or Buildup Caused by Multiple Wells in an
Isotropic, Heterogeneous, Nonleaky, Confined Aquifer IGWMC-
PLUTO 6022 International Ground Water Modeling Center, Butler
University, Indianapolis, IN, 82 pp **
van der Heijde, PKM 1987b Quality Assurance in Computer Simu-
lations of Ground Water Contamination Environmental Software
2(1) 19-28 [Also available from IGWMC as GWMI 87 08 for $2 00]
van der Heijde, PKM 1988 Spatial and Temporal Scales in Ground-
water Modeling In Scales and Global Change Spatial and Tem-
poral Variability in Biospheno and Geospheric Processes, T
Rosswall (ed), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 175-223 [Also
available as GWMI 85-29, International Ground Water Modeling
Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN ** [$2 00]
van der Heijde, PKM 1989 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
in Groundwater Modeling GWMI 89-04 International Ground
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, 26 pp **
van der Heijde, PKM 1990 Quality Assurance in the Application of
Groundwater Models In Transferring Models to Users, EB
James and WR Hotchkiss (eds), American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, MD, pp 97-109 [Proc 1988AWRASymp ,
Denver, also available as GWMI 90-02, International Ground-
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN**
[$2 00]
van der Heijde, PKM 1991 Computer Modeling in Groundwater
Protection and Remediation GWMI 91-01 International Ground-
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN**
[$2 00] [Preprint of paper presented at IBM Europe Institute, Over-
lech, Austria (July, 1990)]
van der Heijde, P, and MS Beljm 1988 Model Assessment for
Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas EPA/440/6-88-002 (NTIS
PB88-231485 or PB88-238449), 267 pp [Also available from
IGWMC as GWMI 87-21 for $20 00]
van der Heijde, PKM and OA Emawawy 1993 Compilation of
Ground-Water Models EPA/600R-95-118 (NTIS PB93-209401)
[Summary information on models for porous media flow and trans-
port, hydrogeochemical models, stochastic models, and fractured
rock]
van der Heijde, PKM and A I El-Kadi 1989 Models for Flow and
Transport in Fractured Rocks GWMI 89-08 International Ground
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, 42 pp **
[$2 00]
van der Heijde, PK M , Y Bachmat, J D Bredehoeft, B Andrews, D
Holz, and S Sebastian 1985 Groundwater Management The
Use of Numerical Models Water Resources Monograph 5, 2nd
ed American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 180 pp [First
edition published in 1980 and authored by Bachmat, Bredehoeft,
Andrews, Holz and Sebastian]
van der Heijde, PK M, AI El-Kadi, and S A Williams 1988 Ground-
water Modeling An Overview and Status Report EPA/600/2-
89/028 (NTIS PB89-224497) Also available from International
Ground Water Modeling Center for $1500 as GWMI 88-10**
[Contains summary listings and usability/reliability ratings for 296
flow and transport codes organized in seven major categories]
van Genuchten, M Th and WJ Alves 1982 Analytical Solutions of
the One-Dimensional Convective-Disperslve Solute Transport
Equation U S Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1661,
149 pp
Varljen, M D andJM Shafer 1991 Assessment of Uncertainty in
Time-Related Capture Zones Using Conditional Simulation of Hy-
draulic Conductivity Ground Water 29(5) 737-748
Varljen, M D and J M Shafer 1993 Coupled Simulation-Optimiza-
tion Modeling for Municipal Ground-Water Supply Protection
Ground Water 31(3)401-409 [Flowpath/travel time numerical
modeling using adaptation of GWPATH, sandy alluvium, Illinois]
Vecchioli, J , J D Hunn, andWR Aucott 1989 Evaluation of Meth-
odology for Delineation of Protection Zones Around Public-Supply
Wells in West-Central Florida U S Geological Survey Water Re-
sources Investigations Report 88-4051, 36 pp
143
-------
Vbmvorfs, EG and L W Gelhar 1986 Stochastic Prediction of Dis-
perstvo Contaminant Transport EPA/600/2-86/114 (NTIS PB87-
141479)
Walton, WC 1962 Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer
Evaluation Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 49, 81 pp
Walton, WC 1984a Handbook of Analytical Ground Water Models
GWMI 84-06 International Ground Water Modeling Center, Hoi-
comb Research Institute, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN **
Walton, WC 1984b 35 Basic Groundwater Model Programs for
Desktop Microcomputers GWMI 84-06/4 International Ground
Water Modeling Center, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN ** [Disk-
ette with analytical and simple numerical programs to analyze flow
and transport of solutes in confined, leaky, or water table aquifers
with simple geometry]
Walton, WC 1988 Practical Aspects of Groundwater Modeling Ana-
lytical and Computer Models for Row, Mass and Heat Transport,
and Subsidence, 3rd ed National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH 2nd edition published in 1985 [Covers both analytical and
numerical methods, Includes several tables of field-determined
values that can serve as guide for first approximations of unknown
aquifer parameters]
Walton, WC 1989a Numerical Groundwater Modeling Row and
Contaminant Migration Lewis Pubishers, Chelsea Ml, 272 pp
[Book and disks cover modified version of the Illinois State Water
Survey's numerical flow (PLASM) and transport (random walk)
models]
Walton, WC 1989b Analytical Groundwater Modeling Row and
Contaminant Migration Lewis Pubishers, Chelsea Ml, 173 pp
[Includes four analytical microcomputer programs on 2 disks
WELFUN, WELFLO, CONMIG, GWGRAF]
Walton, WC 1992 Groundwater Modeling Utilities Lewis Pubishers,
Chelsea, Ml, 656 pp, 2 5-1/4 diskettes [MODFLOW, MOD-
PATH/MOOPATH-PLOT, MOC, SUTRA, INTERSAT/INTER-
TRANS]
Wang, H F and M P Anderson 1982 Introduction to Groundwater
Modeling Finite Difference and Rnite Element Methods WH
Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, 237 pp
Watershed Research, Inc 1988 Hydropal 1+2 Interative Hydro-
geologic Applications White Bear Lake, MN [Hydropal Slug, Ran-
dom Walk]
Wehrmann, HA. and MD Varljen 1990 A Comparison Between
Regulated Setback Zones and Estimated Recharge Areas Around
Several Municipal Wells in Rockford, IL Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 497-511 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [Glacial outwash,
PLASM/GWPATH]
WelTWare 1993 RessqM-DOS Available from Rockware, Scientific
Software, Wheat Ridge, CO [Modified version of RESSQ model
(Javende) et a!, 1984)]
Whelan, G andSM Brown 1988 Groundwater Assessment Mod-
eling Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act EPRI
EA-5342 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA [Ap-
pendix C presents summary information on RAPCON, PRZM,
GRDFLX, AT123D, VTT, and FE3DGW/CFEST codes]
Wilson, JL andWR Linderfelt 1991 Groundwater Quality in Pump-
ing Wells Located Near Surface Water Bodies New Mexico Water
Resources Research Institute Technical Completion Report No
261, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM [Particle track-
ing/capture zone analysis near surface water bodies]
Woods, JJ, CD McElwee, and DO Whittemore 1987 Computa-
tion of Time-Related Capture zones of Wells for Use with the
ERDAS Geographic Information System Kansas Geological Sur-
vey Open-File Report No 87-14, 59 pp
Wrobel, LC andCA Brebbia(eds) 1991 Water Pollution Model-
ing, Measuring and Prediction Computational Mechanics Publica-
tions, Billenca, MA [Proceedings of First International Conference
on Water Pollution, held in Southamption, UK]
Yeh, G T 1981 AT123D Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Three-
Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System
Environmental Sciences Division Publ No 1439, Oak Ridge Na-
tional Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Yeh, GT and VS Tripathi 1989 A Critical Evaluation of Recent
Developments in Hydrogeochemical Transport Models of Reactive
Multichemical Components Water Resources Research 25(1) 93-
108
Yen, C and G L Guymon 1990 An Efficient Deterministic-Probab-
hsbc Approach to Modeling Regional Groundwater Flow, 1 Theory
Water Resources Research 26(7) 1559-1567
Zheng, C 1992 PATH3D A Ground Water Path and Trend Simulator,
Version 3 2 S S Papadopulos and Associates, Bethesda, MD
Zheng, C, HF Wang, MP Anderson, and KR Bradbury 1988a
Analysis of Interceptor Ditches for Control of Groundwater Pollu-
tion J Hydrology 98 67-81 [Ditch capture zone analytic model]
Zheng, C, K R Bradbury, and M P Anderson 1988b Role of Inter-
ceptor Ditches in Limiting the Spread of Contaminants in Ground
Water Ground Water 26(6) 734-742 [Ditch capture zone analytic
model]
Zheng, C, KR Bradbury, and MP Anderson 1992 A Computer
Model for Calculation of Groundwater Paths and Travel Times in
Transient Three-Dimensional Flows Wisconsin Geological and
Natural History Survey Information Circular No 70 [PATH3D]
Zienkiewicz, O C 1977 The Finite Element Method, 3rd ed McGraw-
Hill, London
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
** The International Ground Watei Modeling Center is now located
in Golden, Colorado Prices subject to change
144
-------
Chapter 7
Developing a Wellhead Protection Program
Delineation of a wellhead or aquifer protection area,
covered in Part I of this handbook, is only one step in
the multi-faceted process of developing a wellhead pro-
tection program Part II of this handbook focuses on
implementation of wellhead protection areas (WHPAs)
at a local or regional level This chaptei provides an
overview of the key steps in implementing a wellhead
protection program, and the remaining chapters address
the major steps in addition to WHPA delineation that
involve technical issues contaminant identification and
risk assessment (Chapter 8) and management of
WHPAs (Chapter 9) Chapter 10 provides some case
studies that illustrate how implementation may be af-
fected by the natural hydrogeologic setting and social
and political conditions in an area
7.1 Overview of the Process
ERA'S seminar publication Wellhead Protection A Guide
for Small Communities (U S EPA, 1993) defines five
steps to developing a wellhead protection program
1 Form a community planning team
2 Define the land area to be protected
3 Identify and locate potential contaminants
4 Manage the wellhead protection area
5 Plan for the future1
Step 1 is the initial step in creating an evolving structure
for developing and implementing a wellhead protection
program It contains three essential elements
1 WHPA delineation (Section 7 2, and Part I)
2 Contaminant identification and risk assessment
(Section 7 3, and Chapter 8)
3 WHPA management (Section 7 4, and Chapter 9)
The planning phase of developing a wellhead protection
program addresses mainly the first two elements listed
above WHPA delineation and contaminant identifica-
tion/nsk assessment The planning phase also includes
identifying realistic options for WHPA management
11n this handbook, planning for the future is considered part of the
ongoing process of managing the WHPA
based on information concerning the type, location, and
risk posed by chemicals in the delineated WHPA The
implementation phase begins with selection of methods
to be used to protect the area, contingency planning,
and ongoing management and monitoring for as long as
the program exists (Section 7 5)
Wellhead and ground water protection typically requires
a cooperative effort at all governmental levels—local,
state, and federal—and between units of local govern-
ment Initiation at the local level will make the process
more responsive to local needs Local initiation allows
retention of local autonomy where autonomy is impor-
tant, and negotiation of cooperative arrangements with
other small communities or governmental units when
the greater resources of a multi-jurisdictional approach
are required
The actual structures used for planning and implemen-
tation should be compatible with any state-level well-
head protection program, and appropriate for the
community or communities served by the wells or aqui-
fers requiring protection The approach may vary some-
what, depending on the size of the community and
whether multiple jurisdictions are likely to be affected
by a wellhead protection program
7.1.1 Establishing a Community Planning
Team
For a wellhead protection program to be responsive to
local needs, the diverse perspectives and interests of
the community must be involved from the very begin-
ning This usually is best accomplished by establishing
a planning team or committee with clear responsibility
for carrying out the planning phase of a wellhead pro-
tection program Such a team serves several important
functions (1) ensuring that the concerns of different
segments of the community are addressed on an ongo-
ing basis during the planning process, (2) serving as a
focal point for public input during the process of evalu-
ating alternative management options for wellhead pro-
tection, and (3) providing a core of leadership for
educating the wider public and implementing the well-
head protection program
145
-------
The membership of the team should include local gov-
ernment officials who are in a position to set policy and
make funding decisions, as well as respected commu-
nity members who can explain and promote the program
within their respective constituencies Types of individu-
als who might serve on a planning team include
• Representatives of agriculture, business, and labor
• Member of local chapter of environmental/conserva-
tion organization
• Mayor.
• City council member
• County board member or supervisor
* Personnel from drinking water/wastewater treat-
ment/landfill facilities
• County sanitanan or health board member
• County emergency management representative
• Representative of home owners' or neighborhood as-
sociation
• Academic or research person
The type of community served by a drinking water sup-
ply system will largely determine the types of govern-
ment officials that would be involved in such a planning
committee The proportions of the population in the
planning area that are urban and rural and the activities
that contribute to the area's economy will determine the
community Interests that should be represented on the
committee Well-defined community interest groups—
such as those representing business, agriculture, and
the environment—are best represented by individuals in
leadership positions (such as an official of the Chamber
of Commerce or area development corporation, mem-
ber of Soil and Water Conservation District Board, presi-
dent of tocal chapter of an environmental organization)
Most members of the planning committee do not need
to have special technical expertise By including person-
nel from drinking water and wastewater treatment facili-
ties, the team will have members with technical
expertise in the main areas of concern and also will have
a ready resource for answering questions about the
current situation with respect to drinking water and
wastewater treatment
The planning committee should not do all the work, but
rather should delegate, coordinate, and integrate the
various activities required This can be accomplished
through mechanisms such as work groups, task forces,
and ad hoc or special committees established as
needed to perform detailed work in the areas of WHPA
delineation, contaminant inventory, identification of
management options, and implementation of solutions
7.1.2 Obtaining Technical Assistance
Early in the planning process, local expertise in addition
to that already represented on the planning committee
should be identified by compiling a list of the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of individuals in the
area who have expertise (or who supervise individuals
with expertise) in the areas of soils, geology, environ-
mental protection, drinking water and wastewater
management, and hazardous/municipal waste man-
agement The list might include the following
• Person(s) responsible for water and waslewater
treatment facilities (if not already part of the planning
team)
• Person(s) responsible for municipal solid waste land-
fills
• County sanitarian
• Chief(s) of town and/or volunteer fire department(s)
• Representatives from federal or state service agen-
cies in the area (Soil Conservation Service, Coopera-
tive Extension)
• Representatives from federal or state resource man-
agement agency offices in the area (such as the Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
Forest Service)
• Owners or managers of any major businesses that
might employ scientists or engineers
• Presidents or presiding officers of any civic organiza-
tions (such as Rotary, Lion's Club) and local affiliates
of state or national environmental organizations
• Science faculty (geology, chemistry, biology, etc) and
engineering faculty in any local educational institu-
tions (high school, junior colleges, and 4-year
colleges)
• Retired persons, especially those with technical
backgrounds
Participation by individuals on this list can be solicited
by sending a letter to each one that (1) describes the
purposes of the planning committee, (2) asks for an
indication of the willingness and availability of each
identified individual to participate in the process, and (3)
asks them to identify any other individuals with expertise
who might be able to provide assistance The letter
should make it clear that different levels of participation
are possible, such as (1) being available to answer
questions by phone, (2) providing technical review of
documents, (3) participating on subcommittees or task
groups, and (4) preparing written materials
146
-------
7.2 Selection of Methods for Wellhead
Protection Delineation
The state wellhead protection coordinator should be
contacted to determine if there is any state guidance
regarding the methods that can or should be used to
delineate WHPAs For example, Table 7-1 presents pro-
posed guidance from the state of Georgia identifying
generic wellhead protection areas (1) a fixed radius
"control zone" in the immediate vicinity of all wells, (2) a
fixed radius "inner management zone" based on
whether the aquifer is confined, unconfmed, or karst,
and (3) an "outer management zone" for which different
delineation methods are specified, depending on the
hydrogeologic setting Methods used for delineating the
outer management zone include (1) graphical determi-
nation of radius based on pumping rate in crystalline
rock aquifers (Figure 7-1), (2) hydrogeologic mapping in
karst aquifers, and (3) 5-year time of travel or volumetric
calculations in unconfmed or partially confined porous
media aquifers
The Idaho wellhead protection program, on the other
hand, identifies four major zones within a wellhead pro-
tection area, with a fixed radius used to Zone IA (Table
7-2). Zones IB and Zone II are delineated based on time
of travel using hydrogeologic mapping, semianalytical,
analytical, or numerical modeling based on site-specific
data Finally, Zone III includes known recharge areas
and flow boundaries based on hydrogeologic mapping
Table 7-1 Generic Wellhead Protection Areas Pioposed for
Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, 1992)
CONTROL ZONE
All Wells
Impervious surface (pavement) 15 feet
Pervious surface (soil) 25 feet
INNER MANAGEMENT ZONE
All Wells
Confined aquifer wells 100 feet
Unconfined aquifer wells 250 feet
Karst aquifer wells 500 feet
OUTER MANAGEMENT ZONE
Piedmont and Blue Ridge (Crystalline Rocks)
Pumping rate Radius of outer management
zone determined by "Heath
method"
Karstc Valley and Ridge and Coastal Plain (Unconfined Aquifer)
Hydrogeologic mapping (by EPD)
Coastal Plain (Unconfined or Partially Confined Porous Media)
5-year time of travel or volumetric calculations (by EPD)
Coastal Plain (Completely Confined Aquifer)
None
4500-r
CURVE BASED ON HEATH 8/91
NC WELHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
(SEE APPENDIX
50
100 150 200 250 300
PUHPIHG KATE - Q (GPH)
350 400
Figure 7-1
Radius of outer management zone based on pump-
ing rate for crystalline rock aquifers, Piedmont and
Blue Ridge (Georgia Department of Natural Re-
sources, 1992)
Table 7-2 Zones for Wellhead Protection Areas in Idaho
(Idaho Wellhead Protection Work Group, 1992)
Zone
Criteria and
Thresholds
Methods
Zone IA Minimum distance of
50 feet for wells
Minimum distance of
100 feet for springs
Zone IB Two-year time of
travel
Zone II Five-year time of
travel
Zone III Known recharge
areas and flow
boundaries
Fixed radius
Hydrogeologic mapping,
semianalytical, analytical,
or numerical modeling
using site specific data
Hydrogeologic mapping,
semianalytical, analytical,
or numerical modeling
using site-specific data
Hydrogeologic mapping
Table 4-1 (Chapter 4) summarizes the relative advan-
tages and disadvantages of the major methods for de-
lineating WHPAs Figure 7-2 provides a flow chart for
delineating a WHPA This figure identifies the appropri-
ate sections, tables, checklists, and worksheets in Part
I of this handbook for obtaining the required information
at each stage in the flow chart Figure 7-2 shows that
some form of hydrogeologic mapping is required for any
WHPA delineation effort At a minimum, this would in-
volve collecting and compiling existing data and maps
of the area (Worksheet 5-1) Collection of additional
data, as needed, is an ongoing process at each step in
the process State wellhead protection programs may
specify or provide guidance in selecting criteria (i e,
time of travel isochrons, drawdown limits) for delineating
WHPAs using simple analytical methods or computer
models
Use of multiple approaches to delineating a WHPA (i e,
moving as far through the flow chart in Figure 7-2 as
147
-------
Collect existing data
(Worksheet 5-1)
Hydrogeologlc mapping
as required (Chapter 5)
Yes
Are
geometric methods
suitable?
Use appropriate
geometric method
(Section 4.3)
Colled: existing water well
data (Worksheet 2-1)
Estimate aquifer properties
(Section 3 2, Worksheet 2-1)
identify aquifer characteristics
for selection of analytical
methods (Checklist 4-1)
Identify aquifer boundary
conditions (Checklist 5-1)
Are ^--^^ Yes
simple analytical methods
suitable?
No
Determine TOT or
drawdown criteria, use
appropriate equation
Review available ground
water models
(Worksheet 6-1, Table 6-5)
Yes
tea
suitable computer
coda available?
No
Collect additional
data as needed,
calibrate model
Perform hydrogeotogic mapping
to determine flow boundaries
and vulnerable areas (Chapter 5)
Yes
geometric method
adequate for final
delineation?
Yes
analytical method
adequate far final
delineation?
modeling results
adequate tor final
delineation?
No
Delineate
WHPA
Figure 7-2. Flow chart for selection of wellhead protection area delineation methods
148
-------
time and financial resources allow) increases the likeli-
hood that the area delineated excludes areas that do not
actually contribute ground water to the well Two situ-
ations that might require using more sophisticated de-
lineation methods, such as computer modeling, include
(1) the presence of a large number of potential sources
of contamination, (2) the presence of strong opposition
to regulatory controls for wellhead protection In the first
situation, the use of more sophisticated methods may
avoid unnecessary effort devoted to inventorying poten-
tial contaminant sources outside the zone of contribu-
tion In the second case, opposition may be partly
defused by excluding areas from regulatory controls that
might otherwise have been included More sophisticated
methods are also easier to defend against legal
challenge
Several authors have stressed the uncertainty in the
outcomes of the various computational approaches to
WHPA delineation (Varljen and Shafer, 1991, Bair et al,
1991, Lmderfelt et al, 1989, McLane, 1990, and Tiede-
man and Gorehck, 1993) They believe that due to the
sometimes serious land use decisions to be made
based on wellhead protection, the uncertainty in the
boundaries of the WHPAs should be directly incorpo-
rated into establishment of the ground water protection
policies
7.3 Contaminant Identification and Risk
Assessment
Once a WHPA has been delineated, the next stage
involves two distinct but interrelated activities (1) an
inventory of the type, location, and amount of all sources
within the WHPA that could potentially contaminate the
well or well field, and (2) an assessment of the risk that
contamination will actually occur Section 8 2 (Contami-
nant Identification Process for Wellhead Protection) and
Section 8 3 (Inventory of Potential Sources of Contami-
nation) provide detailed checklists for identifying the
wide range of potential contaminant sources and tables
that provide information on the characteristics of specific
sources
The source inventory process can be carried out by
volunteers who have received a modest amount of train-
ing Pilot projects sponsored by EPA and the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) in 1990 in El
Paso, Texas, and Elkhart, Indiana, trained retired volun-
teers to survey potential sources of ground water con-
tamination in the vicinity of public water supply wells
The success of these efforts has led to EPA/AARP Local
Drinking Water Partnership projects in at least 14 states
The risk assessment process can range from something
as simple as classifying sources within a WHPA as
"high," "medium," or "low" risk to using computer model-
ing of contaminant transport to calculate potential
exposure to specific contaminants Section 84 de-
scribes the various approaches that can be taken in
assessing the risk posed by potential contaminant
sources within a WHPA
7.4 Selection of Wellhead Protection
Management Methods
The contaminant inventory and risk assessment provide
the starting point for identifying options for managing a
WHPA Full implementation of a wellhead protection
management program begins with the selection of spe-
cific methods for protecting ground water in a WHPA
Typical elements of a management program include
1 Public education to increase awareness of the need
for protection of ground water supplies, and to en-
courage voluntary modifications of behavior and ac-
tivities that may threaten ground water quality
2 Use of nonregulatory methods for increasing the
area of a WHPA devoted to land uses that protect
rather than degrade ground water quality
3 Where nonregulatory approaches are not adequate,
regulation of land use and other human activities that
could pose a significant threat to ground water
quality
4 Contingency planning to provide for alternative water
supplies in the event of unforseen or accidental con-
tamination of a wellhead protection area
5 Monitoring of the effectiveness of the wellhead pro-
tection program and making appropriate modifica-
tions if objectives are not being met
High-risk sources, such as onsite septic-tank soil ab-
sorption systems, will generally require application^ of
the most stringent regulatory controls, whereas low-risk
sources can usually be addressed by nonregulatory
approaches such as public education, training, and
demonstration programs Sources that pose an interme-
diate risk can generally be controlled by a combination
of regulatory and nonregulatory approaches Chapter 9
addresses regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to
wellhead protection area management in more detail
7.5 Special Implementation Issues
Implementing a wellhead protection program presents
special challenges for drinking water systems that serve
small communities, which are faced with the task of
addressing the requirements of multiple environmental
programs with limited technical and financial resources
(Section 751) Another common difficulty in managing
a WHPA to protect ground water supplies occurs when
the boundaries of a WHPA lie outside the jurisdiction of
the governmental unit that serves the population that
obtains its drinking water from a wellhead area (Section
149
-------
7.52) Management of WHPAs in settings that are
highly vulnerable to contamination also presents special
challenges (Section 753)
7.5.1 Small Community Drinking Water
Systems
About 90 percent of all drinking water systems serve a
population less than 3,300 and 63 percent are 'Very
small" systems serving populations less than 500 This
population may be concentrated in a relatively small
area under the jurisdiction of a town government, or may
be scattered over an area as large as a county Half of
all local governments, which typically have primary re-
sponsibility for implementing a wellhead protection pro-
gram, serve populations of less than 1,000 About 75
percent of local governments have populations of less
than 3,000, and 80 percent have populations of less
than 5,000
A general characteristic of local governments that serve
small communities is that they have few, if any, full-time
paid employees and consequently limited resources for
addressing environmental planning without outside vol-
unteer or government assistance EPA's seminar publi-
cation Wellhead Protection A Guide for Small
Communities, developed in cooperation with the Na-
tional Rural Water Associaton (NRWA), is a useful start-
ing point. NRWA has ground water technicians who are
trained to assist small communities in developing well-
head protection management programs in fourteen
states. Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Lou-
isiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wis-
consin The procedure suggested in Section 71 2 for
identifying local resources with technical expertise
would be especially useful for small communities
7.5.2 Multiple Jurisdictions
As noted above, local governments generally have pri-
mary responsibility for management of WHPAs Compli-
cations arise when a WHPAfor one community extends
into the jurisdiction of one or more governmental units
This can occur when a WHRA for a town or city extends
into a rural area administered by a separate county
government. WHPAs also can cross county, state, and
even national boundaries Land ownership patterns
within a WHRA may also require coordination with mul-
tiple jurisdictions. For example, in the western United
States, federally owned or state-owned land commonly
will be located within a WHRA Junsdictional questions
may become especially complex for WHPAs where sur-
face and subsurface ownership differ (common in the
western United States), and for WHPAs that include
Indian and non-Indian lands
The biggest problem that multiple jurisdictions pose for
wellhead protection area management is that the local
government serving the people most directly concerned
with protection ground watei quality is typically limited
in its ability to impose regulatory controls outside of its
jurisdiction This difficulty becomes most acute when the
vulnerable and high-risk areas of a WHPA lie in another
jurisdiction that has little direct incentive to impose regu-
latory controls to protect someone else's ground water
supply
As soon as it becomes evident that a wellhead protec-
tion area will include more than one governmental juris-
diction, each jurisdiction should be asked to participate
in the planning and implementation process Any juris-
dictions choosing not to participate should be kept fully
informed, and the door left open for more active partici-
pation In the absence of legal authority to impose con-
trols in portions of a WHPA located outside the
jurisdiction of the governmental unit with the highest
stake in protecting ground water, the power of persua-
sion becomes the primary tool If the failure of another
governmental unit to act seriously threatens the integrity
of ground water quality in a WHPA, and all efforts at
persuasion are unsuccessful, state and federal environ-
mental agencies may have sources of leverage for con-
vincing a recalcitrant governmental unit to take
management actions within a WHPA
If all efforts at enlisting cooperation fail, a wellhead
protection program must proceed within the constraints
imposed by the noncooperatmg jurisdiction In this situ-
ation, the contingency plan for an alternative water
source in the event of contamination assumes special
importance The wellhead protection planning commit-
tee, which normally might consider its job completed
once the implementation phase begins, might be given
the additional task of developing a long-term plan that
would phase out water supply wells where effective
management of the entire WHPA is not possible, and
replacing them with wells where jurisdiction^ issues do
not serve as a major constraint on WHPA management
7.5.3 Systems in Highly Vulnerable Areas
Aquifers that are most vulnerable to ground water con-
tamination include (1) near-surface alluvial aquifers, (2)
unconfined fractured rock aquifers, and (3) karst terrains
where flow is concentrated in conduits created by dis-
solution of limestone WHPAs in these areas tend to be
larger than those for other hydrogeologic settings, be-
cause high hydraulic conductivity allows contaminants
entering ground water to move long distances in a short
period of time2 This creates a double challenge More
aggressive management is usually required to prevent
contamination, and management practices have to be
applied over a relatively large area A large WHPA also
2WHPAs for confined aquifers based on the cone of depression also
tend to be large, but the presence of the confining bed means that
they are not highly vulnerable to contamination
150
-------
increases the likelihood that multiple jurisdictions will be
located within the WHPA (Section 752)
In vulnerable areas, accurate mapping of aquifer
boundaries (Section 541) and characterization of frac-
ture and conduit flow (Section 542) are especially im-
portant for defining the wellhead protection area
Section 5 6 discusses special approaches to mapping
karst areas An accurate inventory of the type and loca-
tion of high-risk contaminant sources also takes on
added importance The case studies in Sections 1021
and 1024 illustrate WHPA management in karst
aquifers
7.6 References
Bair, ES, CM Safreed, and EA Stasny 1991b A Monte Carlo-
Based Approach for Determining Traveltime-Related Capture
Zones of Wells Using Convex Hulls as Confidence Regions
Ground Water 29(6) 849-861 [CAPZONE/GWPAFH, Sandstone
aquifer, Ohio]
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1992 The Georgia Well-
head Protection Plan (September, 1992) Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta,
GA
Idaho Wellhead Protection Work Group 1992 Idaho Wellhead Pro-
tection Plan (Draft) Division of Environmental Quality, Idaho De-
partment of Health and Welfare, Boise, ID, 86 pp + appendices
Lmderfelt, W R , S C Leppert, andJL Wilson 1989 Capture Zones
for Wellhead Protection Effect of Time Dependent Pumping, Satu-
rated Thickness and Parameter Uncertainty
McLane, C F 1990 Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection and Deline-
ation Ground Water Management 1 383-397 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection) Eos 70(October 24) 1079 [Abstract]
Tiedeman, C and S M Gorelick 1993 Analysis of Uncertainty in
Optimal Groundwater Contaminant Capture Design Water Re-
sources Research 29(7) 2139-2153
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 Wellhead Pro-
tection A Guide for Small Communities Seminar Publication
EPA/625/R-93-002 Available from ORD Publications, U S EPA
Center for Environmental Research Information, PO Box 19963,
Cincinnati, OH, 45268-0963 (513/569-7562) (NTIS PB93-215580)
Varljen, M andJ Shafer 1991 Assessment of Uncertainty in Time-
Related Capture Zones Using Conditional Simulation of Hydraulic
Conductivity Ground Water 29(5) 737-748
151
-------
-------
Chapter 8
Contaminant Identification and Risk Assessment
Delineation of a wellhead protection area (WHPA) is
only the first step in protecting a ground water supply
The next step requires the identification of potential
contaminant sources within the WHPA and the evalu-
ation of the risk posed by any identified sources This
information, in turn, provides the basis for developing
and implementing a wellhead area management plan
(Chapter 9)
The chapter provides a national and regional perspec-
tive on the extent, character, and sources of ground
water contamination (Section 8 1) Section 8 2 provides
an overview of the contaminant identification process for
wellhead protection Section 83 provides detailed
checklists for identifying potential sources and informa-
tion on major types of contaminants associated with
specific sources Finally, Section 8 4 provides an over-
view of the process for assessing the relative risks
posed by potential contaminant sources located within
a WHPA
8.1 Overview of Ground Water
Contamination in the United States
8.1.1 Extent of Contamination
A small percentage of all ground water in the United
States is estimated to be contaminated Lehr (1982),
using simple assumptions of total ground water and the
extent of ground water contamination, estimated that 0 2
percent of the ground water was contaminated The
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, 1984) cited a
range of 1 to 2 percent, and concluded that the extent
of contamination is likely to be greater because sub-
stances known to contaminate ground water are used
throughout society, while efforts to detect contamination
have focused primarily on public drinking water supplies
and point sources of contamination, such as landfills
and hazardous waste sites Furthermore, even if only a
small percentage of potentially available ground water
is contaminated, this percentage may be significant,
because (1) contamination is often near heavily popu-
lated areas, and (2) ground water demand has in-
creased for a variety of uses
8.1.2 Types of Contaminants
EPA estimates that 52 percent of the community water
wells and 57 percent of the domestic water wells in the
United States contain nitrate (U S EPA, 1990c) Nitrate
in ground water has few natural sources, at levels of
greater than 10 mg/L (as nitrogen), it can be an acute
health problem Fertilizer application, inadequate design
and maintenance of septic systems, unlmed wastewater
holding ponds, leaking sewer lines, and improper sludge
and manure application are major sources of ground
water contamination by nitrates
At least 63,000 synthetic organic chemicals are in com-
mon industrial and commercial use in the United States
This number continues to grow by approximately 500 to
1,000 new compounds every year (U S EPA, 1979)
More than 200 chemical substances have been found in
ground water, many of which could have potentially
adverse impacts on human health (OTA, 1984) This
number includes approximately 175 organic chemicals,
over 50 inorganic chemicals (metals, nonmetals, and
inorganic acids) and radionuclides Pettyjohn and
Hounslow (1983) provide a good introductory review of
the origin and significance of organic compounds in
ground water pollution
Organic chemicals have become a pervasive contami-
nant in ground water supplies Page (1981) measured
the concentrations of 56 toxic substances (9 heavy met-
als and 47 organic compounds) in more than 1,000
ground water samples and over 600 surface water sam-
ples selected to be representative of the entire state of
New Jersey Each compound tested was detectable in
one or more samples Five organic compounds were
found in more than 50 percent of the ground water
samples (1,1,1-trichloroethane—78 percent, chloroform
and carbon tetrachloride—64 percent, 1,1,2-tnchlo-
roethylene—58 percent, and trans-dichloroethylene—
50 percent) An additional 20 organic compounds were
detected in 10 to 50 percent of the samples Page
(1981) determined the maximum concentrations of most
of the substances tested in ground water samples, and
the statistical analysis indicated that overall ground
water was as polluted as surface water in New Jersey
153
-------
The Ground Water Supply Survey (GWSS) conducted
by U S EPA provided information on the frequency with
which volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were de-
tected in 466 randomly selected public ground water
supply systems (Westnck et al, 1984) The survey de-
tected one or more VOCs in 16 8 percent of the small
systems and 28 0 percent of the large systems sampled
Two or more VOCs were found in 6 8 percent and 13 4
percent of the samples from small and large systems,
respectively The two VOCs found most often were
trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Palmer et al (1988) reviewed data on Superfund sites
based on the pnmary hazardous substances detected
(see Rgure 8-1) Sites contaminated by organics made
up the largest group, including 136 sites, 78 sites were
contaminated by heavy metals Individual organic com-
pounds frequently singled out as major contaminants
include TCE, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toluene,
and phenol Arsenic and chromium are the most fre-
quently identified individual heavy metal contaminants
A reliable determination of the extent and severity of
ground water degradation and associated health risks in
the United States is probably not feasible because (1)
tens of thousands of sites where a potential for contami-
nation exists are not being monitored, and (2) compre-
PRIMARY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES DETECTED
ACIDS
ARSENIC
ASBESTOS
CARCINOGENIC
CHROMIUM
DIOXIN
HEAVY METALS
INORGANICS
MINING WASTES
OILS
ORGANICS/VOCs
PAHs
PCBs
PCEs
PESTICIDES
PHENOLS
RADIOACTIVE
SLUDGE
SOLVENTS
SYNFUELS
TCE
TOLUENE
T~l 18
t:.'M'..>1 30
12
37
J.V..T.I.-;< 27
16
n.~t. H 1 , ,,. lit' .ill' 1 ' *1
-------
Table 8-1 Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Category I—Sources Designed to Discharge Substances
Subsurface percolation (e g , septic tanks and cesspools)
Injection wells
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste (e g , brine disposal and drainage)
Nonwaste (e g, enhanced recovery, artificial recharge, solution
mining, and in situ mining)
Land application
Wastewater (e g, spray irrigation)
Wastewater by-products (e g, sludge)
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Category II—Sources Designed to Store, Treat, and/or
Dispose of Substances, Discharge through Unplanned Release
Landfills
Industrial hazardous waste
Industrial nonhazardous waste
Municipal sanitary
Open dumps, including illegal dumping (waste)
Residential (or local) disposal (waste)
Surface impoundments
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Waste tailings
Waste piles
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Materials stockpiles (nonwaste)
Graveyards
Animal burial
Aboveground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Nonwaste
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Nonwaste
Containers
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Nonwaste
Open burning and detonation sites
Radioactive disposal sites
Category III—Sources Designed to Retain Substances during
Transport or Transmission
Pipelines
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Nonwaste
Materials transport and transfer operations
Hazardous waste
Nonhazardous waste
Nonwaste
Category IV—Sources Discharging Substances as
Consequence of Other Planned Activities
Irrigation practices (e g, return flow)
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
Animal feeding operations
De-icing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Surface mine-related
Underground mine-related
Category V—Sources Providing Conduit or Inducing
Discharge through Altered Flow Patterns
Production wells
Oil (and gas) wells
Geothermal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells
Other wells (nonwaste)
Monitoring wells
Exploration wells
Construction excavation
Category VI—Naturally Occurring Sources Whose Discharge
Is Created and/or Exacerbated by Human Activity
Ground water-surface water interactions
Natural leaching
Saltwater intrusion/brackish water upcoming (or intrusion and
other poor quality natural water)
Source OTA (1984)
Category II includes sources designed to store, treat, or
dispose of substances but not to release contaminants
to the subsurface Examples include landfills, open
dumps, local residential disposal, surface impound-
ments, waste tailings and piles, materials stockpiles,
graveyards, aboveground and underground storage
tanks, containers, open burning sites, and radioactive
disposal sites It is important to note that while a number
of sources in this category are considered "waste"
sources (eg, landfills, dumps, impoundments, etc),
many others are "nonwaste" sources Storage tanks,
stockpiles, and a variety of containers with residues of
commercial products have been found to contribute con-
taminants to ground water
Category III consists of sources designed to retain sub-
stances during transport or transmission Such sources
consist primarily of pipelines and materials transport or
transfer operations Contaminant releases generally oc-
cur by accident or neglect—for example, as a result of
pipeline breakage or a traffic accident Again, most sub-
stances subject to release from sources within this cate-
gory are not wastes but raw materials or products to be
used for some beneficial purpose
Category IV includes those sources discharging sub-
stances as a consequence of other planned activities
This category contains a number of agriculturally related
sources such as irrigation return flows, feedlot opera-
tions, and pesticide and fertilizer applications A number
155
-------
f '
UndSpreadtna \
' Uaoon.ni
or Irrigation
! L
Percolation
t i
*'
Leakage
Cesspool
CJ
Sewer
$
Discharge i
I Leakage
* i
\
^-v«_
S~ '
' Discharge
or Injection
S
>^ ^ ^ > ,
— «.
T_»^rr^:^ rr.^^. orBasin ^-^ n
Water Table I V*i.««.yp"" , -, i
Percolation }****,. waKa9e '
i x ^ * ; — I*
Water Table AquHer |
^ Artesian Aquifer (Fresh)
Artesian Aquifer (Safine)
Intentional
' Input
Unintentional
' Input
_ Ground Water
' Movement
Figure 8-2 Sources of ground water contamination (from Geraghty and Miller, 1985)
of sources related to urban activities, such as highway
desalting, urban runoff, and atmospheric deposition, are
included Surface and underground mine-related drain-
age also fall within this category
Category V comprises sources providing conduits or
inducing discharge through altered flow patterns Such
sources include water, oil, and gas production wells,
monitoring wells, exploration holes, and construction
excavations Ground water contamination from produc-
tion wells stems from poor installation and operation
methods and incorrect plugging or abandonment proce-
dures Such practices create opportunities for cross-
contamination by vertical migration of contaminants
Finally, Category VI includes naturally occurring sources
whose discharge is induced or intensified by human
activity Ground water/surface water interactions, de-
scribed in the previous section, and saltwater intrusion
or upcoming (ground water movement upward as a
result of pumpage) provide the basis for this category
Withdrawals that are significantly more than recharge
can affect ground-water quality Saltwater intrusion in
coastal areas and brine-water upconmg from deeper
formations in inland areas both can occur when pum-
page exceeds an aquifer's natural recharge rate
Contaminants can be released from both point or non-
point sources Point sources are those that release
contaminants from a discrete geographic location, in-
cluding leaking underground storage tanks, septic sys-
tems, and injection wells Nonpomt sources of
contamination are more extensive in area and diffuse in
nature It is therefore difficult to trace contaminants from
nonpomt sources back to their origin Agricultural activi-
ties (i e , application of pesticides and fertilizers), urban
runoff, and atmospheric deposition are potential non-
point contaminant sources
In the 1970s, U S EPA conducted a series of regional
ground water contamination assessments (Table 8-6
identifies the individual reports) The four most com-
monly reported pollutants were (1) chlorides, (2) ni-
trates, (3) hydrocarbons, and (4) heavy metals Table
8-2 identifies the major sources for these four contami-
nants Table 8-3 provides an overview of the relative
importance of principal sources of ground water con-
tamination by region Septic tanks and cesspools re-
ceived the highest ranking as a contamination source in
all four regions
8.2 Contaminant Identification Process
for Wellhead Protection
The WHPA delineated using one or more methods de-
scribed in the preceding chapters provides the focus for
efforts to identify potential sources of contamination
156
-------
Table 8-2 Source of Contamination for Four Commonly Reported Pollutants (Miller and Scalf,
1974)
Source
Septic Tanks and Cesspools
Petroleum Exploration and Development
Landfills
Irrigation Return Flows
Surface Dischargers
Surface Impoundments
Spills
Buried Pipelines and Storage Tanks
Mining Activities
Salt-Water Intrusion
Water Wells
Agricultural Activities
Disposal Wells
Highway Deicing Salts
Artificial Recharge
River Infiltration
Spray Irrigation by Waste Water
Chlorides
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nitrates
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals
i
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X XN
X
X
X
X
Table 8-3 Principal Sources of Ground-Water Contamination and Their Relative Regional
Importance (Miller and Scalf, 1974)
Source Northeast Northwest South Central Southwest
Septic Tanks and Cesspools
Petroleum Exploration and Development
Landfills
Irrigation Return Rows
Surface Dischargers
Surface Impoundments
Spills
Buried Pipelines and Storage Tanks
Mining Activities
Salt-Water Intrusion
Coastal Areas
Inland Areas
Water Wells
Agricultural Activities
Fertilizers
Feedlot and Barnyard Wastes
Pesticides
I I
II II
I II
IV I
II I
I I
I II
I II
II I
III III
I II
II ' 111
III II
III III
111 III
I I
I I
II II
I I
III I
II III
II II
II III
111 II
II I
II II
I III
III II
II III
III III
Disposal Wells
Deep Wells IV III III III
Shallow Wells II I III III
Highway Deicing Salts I III IV IV
Artificial Recharge III IV III II
River Infiltration II II IV IV
Spray Irrigation by Waste Water III IV III III
I — High, II — Moderate, III — Low, IV — Not significant
157
-------
The Inventory should be comprehensive and should
include.
• Potential points sources (underground storage tanks,
wells, small commercial and industrial facilities, etc)
• Potential line sources (sewer lines, gas/petroleum
pipelines, highways with traffic that may haul hazard-
ous chemicals, etc)
• Potential area sources (waste disposal areas, agri-
cultural lands receiving fertilizer and pesticide treat-
ments, etc)
The inventory should identify the type of source, loca-
tion, and types of potential contaminants at each source
The next section provides detailed checklists for identi-
fying potential sources Identification of active potential
sources is relatively straightforward Location of inactive
sources, such as abandoned wells and old waste dis-
posal sites, might require some detective work All ex-
isting maps and sources of information on past human
activity in the area should be gathered and reviewed
Interviews with long-time residents in the area could
yield valuable information that cannot be obtained in any
other way In areas with a long history of oil and gas
exploration and production, or where the exact bounda-
ries of old waste disposal sites are not known, surface
geophysical methods and other field investigation tech-
niques might be required to locate and map abandoned
features Table 5-4 provides summary information on
potential surface geophysical methods Table 8-6 iden-
tifies references that provide more detailed information
on methods for locating abandoned wells
A convenient way to compile the results of the inventory
is to assign each source an identification number and
plot the identification number on a map of the WHPA
The boundaries of the areal sources should be clearly
marked on the map Repetition of the identifying number
along a line source provides a means for distinguishing
different types of sources This map provides the focus
for subsequent protective strategy development and
land management activities
Where a large number of commercial and industrial sites
with potential contaminants are located within a WHPA,
a phased approach may be desirable The first phase
would focus on identifying all potential sources, but
would not necessarily involve collection of detailed infor-
mation of all sites This information would then be
screened to identify sites where contaminants represent
a significant potential risk based on the preliminary in-
ventory. In the second phase, these sites would then be
revisited to collect more detailed information The final
step In this stage of the wellhead protection process
would be to evaluate the degree of threat posed by each
source. This is discussed further in Section 8 4
8.3 Inventory of Potential Sources of
Contamination
Hundreds of nonindustnal, commercial, and industrial
activities that produce or use organic and inorganic
substances pose a potential threat to ground water qual-
ity The number of potential contaminants of concern for
a given activity may be restricted to a few or many
substances A single comprehensive list of these activi-
ties for inventory purposes would be so large as to be
unmanageable This guide offers a four-step approach
to developing an inventory of potential sources of con-
tamination within a WHPA
1 Checklist 8-1 provides a "short list" of four major
categories of potential contamination sources A
"yes" or "uncertain" answer to any of the questions
within a major category on this checklist means that
use of the detailed checklist for that category should
be used (see next step)
2 Checklists 8-2 through 8-5 provide comprehensive
lists of activities that may result in ground water
contamination The first two (cross-cutting sources
and non-industrial sources) will probably be required
for most WHPAs In rural areas, the use of the re-
maining checklists may not be required Sections
8 3 1 through 832 provide additional discussion of
these checklists
3 More detailed information should be compiled for
each item that is identified within the WHPA The
following worksheets in Appendix C may provide
assistance in gathering information on specific
sources (1) Worksheet C-1 (Residential Source In-
ventory), (2) Worksheet C-2 (Farm Source Inven-
tory), (3) Worksheet C-3 (Agricultural Chemical
Usage Survey), (4) Worksheet C-4 (Transportation
Hazard Inventory), (5) Worksheets C-5 and C-6 (Mu-
nicipal/Commercial/lndustnal Source Inventory)
Worksheet 2-1 can be used to compile information
on active and abandoned wells
4 A separate inventory worksheet should be filled out
for each household or business by contacting the
resident, owner, or other lesponsible party The infor-
mation obtained from interviews can be cross-
checked and supplemented using Tables 8-4 and
8-5 This table contains a comprehensive list of the
potential sources contained in the checklist (in alpha-
betical order) It provides the following information
(1) common contaminants associated with the activ-
ity, and (2) references where more detailed informa-
tion about the contaminants associated with the
activity can be found Files maintained by the Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), estab-
lished under Title III of SARA (the Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-to-Know Act—EPCRA),
should also be consulted These files identify loca-
158
-------
Checklist 8-1
Potential Contaminant Source Shortlist for Wellhead Protection
Cross-Cutting Sources (Checklist 8-21
Does the WHPA include natural geologic or hydrogeologic conditions that impair ground-water quality for drinking
water? yes no If yes, evaluate the following options, if this has not already been done
— Look for alternative, higher quality water supply
Evaluate effectiveness of existing drinking water treatment system in treating water quality problems
If there are problems with the existing system evaluate additional or alternative treatment technologies
Are any active/abandoned wells or boreholes located within the WHPA' yes no uncertain? If yes, or
uncertain, conduct inventory using Checklist 8-2.
Are any above- or underground storage tanks in the WHPA' yes no uncertain' If yes, or uncertain,
conduct inventory using Checklist 8-2.
Are there any areas of controlled or uncontrolled disposal of wastes in the WHPA' yes no uncertain'
If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using Checklist 8-2.
Nonmdustnal Sources (Checklist 8-3}
Are there any areas within the WHPA used for agricultural, livestock or forest production? yes no
uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the Agricultural section of Checklist 8-3
Are there any private homes, apartments or condominiums within the WHPA' yes no uncertain If yes,
or uncertain, conduct inventory using the residential section of Checklist 8-3
Are there any nonagncultural, noniresidential areas within the WHPA that receive treatment with fertilizers or
pesticides9 yes no uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the nonresidential green
areas section of Checklist 8-3
Are any areas within the WHPA dedicate for municipal and other public service facilities? yes no
uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the municipal/public services section of Checklist 8-3
Are any highways, roads, airports, railroads, pipelines, or associated transportation service and support facilities
located within the WHPA' yes no uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the
transportation section of Checklist 8-3
Sources From Commercial. Natural Products Processing/Storage, and Resource Extraction Activities (Checklist 8-4)
Are there nomndustnal commercial activities within the WHPA' yes no uncertain If yes, or
uncertain, conduct inventory using the commercial section of Checklist 8-4
Are there any food, animal, or wood products processing or storage activities located within the WHPA' yes
no uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the natural products section of Checklist 8-4
Are there any areas within the WHPA affected by current or past mining, oil and gas production or other resource
extraction activities' yes no uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the resource
extraction section of Checklist 8-4.
Industrial Sources (Checklist 8-5)
Are there any chemical processing or manufacturing facilities within the WHPA' yes no uncertain H
yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the chemical section of Checklist 8-5
Are there any metal manufacturing, fabrication, or finishing facilities within the WHPA? yes no
uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the metals section of Checklist 8-5
Are there any other manufacturing facilities not included in the two previous categories within the WHPA' yes
no uncertain If yes, or uncertain, conduct inventory using the last section of Checklist 8-5
159
-------
Checklist 8-2
Cross-cutting Potential Contaminant Sources
(Check all categories found within the WHPA)
Wells and Related Features
Active Abandoned
Water supply wells
Monitoring wells
Sumps and diy wells for drainage
Geotechnical boreholes
Oil and gas production wells
Mineral, oil and gas exploration boreholes
For each identified feature obtain the following information, if possible
Location
Depth
Borehole Condition (cased, uncased, sealed, leaky)
Depth to ground water
Ground water quality
Storage tanks (see Worksheets C-2, C-5, and C-6)
Above- Underground
Agricultural
Residential
Nonresidentaal green areas
Municipal and other public services
Commercial
Industrial
Resource Extraction
For each identified tank obtain the following information, if possible
Location
Size
Contents
Age and condition
Waste Disposal Sites
Residential/Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Septic-tank sod absorption systems
Cesspools
Storage, treatment, and disposal ponds and lagoons
Municipal sewage treatment plant
Municipal sewer lines/lift stations
Wastewater irrigation/artificial ground-water recharge areas
Septage/sewage sludge land spreading areas
160
-------
Checklist 8-2
Cross-cutting Potential Contaminant Sources (Continued)
Controlled Waste Disposal/Handling Sites
Municipal solid waste landfill (active)
Recycling and waste reduction facility
RCRA Hazardous Waste TSD Faculty
Waste surface impoundments/lagoons
Waste injection well
Incinerator municipal waste, medical waste, hazardous waste
Demolition/detonation sites
Radioactive waste storage sites
Fire training facilities
Geothermal discharge
Uncontrolled Waste Disposal Sites
Accidental spill sites
Inactive/abandoned hazardous waste site (Superfund)
Other uncontrolled/clandestine waste disposal sites, open dumps
Abandoned mine spoils, mine tailings pile/pond
Radioactive (uranium null tailings, laboratory wastes)
For each identified waste disposal obtain the following information, if possible
Location
Amount and type of waste
Age
Laplace or planned measures to control contamination
161
-------
Checklist 8-3
Nonindustrial Potential Contaminant Sources
(Mark location of each identified feature on the WHPA map)
Residential (Single-family. apartments and condominiums^ — see Worksheet C-l
Common Household products
Wall and Furniture treatments
Car maintenance
Other mechanical repair and maintenance products
Lawns and Gardens (EPA/530/SW-90-027i)
Swimming Pools
— Home-based business (beaut/ shop, welding, etc.—see appropriate category in Checklist 8-4
Agricultural* (EPA/530/SW-90-027i) — see Worksheet C-2
Livestock*
Animal feedlots, stables, kennels
Manure spreading areas and storage pits (hne/ununed)
Livestock waste disposal areas
Animal bunal
Chemical storage areas and containers*
Farm machinery areas
Irrigated cropland*
Irrigation canals
Non-irrigated cropland*
Pasture*
Orchard/nursery*
Rangeland*
Forestland*
Other Green Areas* (EPA/530/SW-9O027i)
Building grounds
Educational/Vocational institutions
Government offices
Other offices
Stores
Processing/manufacturing fatalities
Camp grounds
Cemeteries
Country dubs
Golf courses
Nurseries
Parklands
Pest-infested areas (speedy type of land use)
Municipal and Other Public Services (gee also Checklist 7-2, controlled waste disposal sites)
Educational/Vocational faculties (EPA/530/SW-90-0271)
_ Public swimming pools
Sewer/stormwater drainage overflows
Storm water drains and basins
Government service offices
Military base/depot
162
-------
Checklist 8-3
Nonindustrial Potential Contaminant Sources (Continued)
Municipal and Other Public Sendees (confl
Public Utilities
Electric power and steam generation (coal storage areas, coal ash/FGD disposal areas)
Natural gas
Telephone/communications
Medical/care facilities (EPA/530/SW-90-027m)
Doctor/Dentist Offices
Hospital
Nursing and rest homes
Veterinary Services
Transportation — see Worksheet C-4
Airports
Active
Abandoned an- fields
Automobile/Truck (EPA/530/SW-90-027a & 027n)
Gasoline Service stations
Truck stops (gasoline plus diesel)
Dealers without service departments
Dealers with service departments
Car rental facilities
Government vehicle maintenance facilities
Taxi cab maintenance facilities
School bus maintenance facilities
Quick lube shops
Repair shops
Muffler repair shops
Body/paint shops
Undercoaters/mst proofing
Car washes
Other point/area! sources
Boat yards and mannas
Road/highway maintenance depots/road salt storage
Passenger transit facilities (local and interurban)
Railroad yards (EPA/530/SW-90-027k)
Trucking terminals (EPA/530/SW-90-027k)
Linear sources
Highways and roads*
Railroad tracks*
Oil and gas pipelines"
Other industrial pipelines*
Powerhne corridors*
Conduct agricultural chemical usage survey (Worksheet C-3)
163
-------
Checklist 8-4
Potential Contaminant Sources: Commercial, Natural Products Processing/Storage, and
Resource Extraction (see Worksheet C-5)
Commercial
Agricultural chemicals sales/storage (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers)
Barber and beauty shops/salons (EPA/S30/SW-90-027q)
Bowling alleys
Cleaning service* (EPA/530/SW-90-027b)
dry cleaners
commercial laundry
laundromats
carpet and upholstery cleaners
Construction service/materials (EPA/530/SW-90-027j)
plumbing
heating and air conditioning
paper hanging/decorating
drywall and plastering
carpentry
carpet flooring
roofing and sheet metal
wrecking and demolition
hardwareAumber/parts stores
Equipment/appliance repair (EPA/530/SW-90-027d)
Florists
Furniture/wood manufacturing repair and finishing shops (EPA/53Q/SW-90-027C & 027n)
Funeral services and crematories
__ Heating oil companies
Jewelrytoetal plating shops (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Leather/leather products (EPA/530/SW-90-027r)
Lawn and garden care services (EPA/530ySW-90-027i)
Office buildings and office complexes
Paint stores (EPA/530/SW-90-027p)
Pest extermination semcesfrestKade application services (EPA/530/SW-90-027i)
Pharmacies
Photography shops, photo processing laboratories
Printers, publishers and allied industries (EPA/530/SW-90-027g & 027p)
Laboratories (research/testing) (EPA/530/SW-90-027m)
Scrap, salvage, and junk yards
Sports and hobby shops
Taxidermists
Welders (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Food/Animaf/Timber Products Processing and Storage
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
Canned and preserved seafood processing
Soft dnnk bottlers
Grain mills ( grain storage/processing, animal feed, breakfast cereal, and wheat)
Sugar processing ( beet sugar, cane sugar refining)
Dairy products processing (creameries and dairies)
Leather products (EPA/530/SW-90-027r)
Meat products and rendering (slaughterhouses)
Poultry and eggs processing
164
-------
Checklist 8-4
Potential Contaminant Sources: Commercial, Natural Products Processing/Storage, and
Resource Extraction (Continued)
Food/Ammal/Tnnber Products Processing and Storage fcontl
Umber products processing
Pulp, paper and paperboard (EPA/530/SW-90-027o)
Builders' paper and board mills
Unbleached kraft and semichemical pulp
Pulp, paper and paperboard
Paper coating and glazing
Wood preserving facilities (EPA/53Q/SW-90-027f)
Resource Extraction
Abandoned exploration/production wells
Construction materials (sand, gravel)
Coal mining ( active, inactive)
Uranium mining ( active, inactive)
Metals mining ( active, inactive)
Phosphate mining ( active, inactive)
Natural gas production
Petroleum production/secondary recovery operations
Synthetic fuels (coal gasification, oil shale)
Waste tailings ___ heap leaching, non-heap leaching
165
-------
Checklist 8-5
Potential Contaminant Sources (See Worksheets C-5 and C-6)
Chemical Processing/Manufacturing
Chemical manufacturers
Explosive* (EPA/530/SW-90-027h)
Inorganic chemical manufacturing (EPA/53(VSW-90-027h)
Fertilizer manufacturing ( basic fertilizer chemicals, formulated fertilizer)
(EPA/530l/SW-9(W)27p)
Organic chemical manufacturing and plastics and synthetic fibers (EPA/530/SW-90-027h)
Paint manufacturing (EPA/530/SW-90-027p)
Pesticide formulation (EPA/530/SW-90-027h & 027p)
Petroleum refining/storage
Pharmaceutical manufacturing (EPA/530/SW-90-027p)
Phosphate manufacturing ( phosphorus-derived chemical, other non-fertilizer chemicals
Porcelain enameling
Rubber processing ( tare and synthetic, fabricated and reclaimed rubber)
(EPA/53Q/SW-90-027h)
Soap* and Detergent! (EPA/53Q/SW-90-027q)
Metals Manufactunng/Fabncataon/Flnishine
Aluminum Manufacturing and forming
___ Aluminum forming
Bauxite refining
Primary aluminum smelting
Secondary aluminum smelting
Cod coating
Copper forming
Electroplating (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Copper, nickel, chrome and zinc
Electroplating pretreatment
Metal manufacturing and fabrication (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Ferroalloy (smelt and slag processing)
Iron and steel manufacturing
Metal molding and casting (foundries)
Metal finishing (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Machine and metalworking shops (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Nonferrous metal* forming
Other Manufacturing
Asbestos manufacturing
.Asphalt/tar plants
Battery manufacturing (EPA/530/SW-927n)
Cement manufacturing
Electnc/electronic/commumcations equipment manufacturers (EPA/530/SW-90-027n)
Furniture and fixtures manufacturers (EPA/530/SW-9(M)27c)
Glass manufacturing
Pressed and blown glass
Insulation fiberglass
Flat glass
Stone, and clay manufacturer*
Textile manufacturing (EPA/530/SW-90-027e)
166
-------
Table 8-4 Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources
Source/Checklist No Contaminants12 3
Information Sources
Airports, abandoned airfields
(8-3)
Aluminum forming (8-5)
Asbestos manufacturing (8-5)
Asphalt plants (8-5)
Automobile/Truck service (8-3)
Battery manufacturing (8-5)
Barber and beauty shops (8-4)
Boat yards and marinas (8-3)
Bowling alleys
Camp grounds (8-3)
Canned and preserved fruits
and vegetables (8-4)
Canned and preserved
seafood processing (8-4)
Cement manufacturing (8-5)
Cemeteries
Chemical
process/Manufacturing (8-5)
Chemical storage areas and
containers (8-3)
Clandestine dumping areas
Cleaning services—dry
cleaners, commercial laundry,
laundromats (8-4)
Coll coating (8-5)
Construction service/materials
(8-4)
Copper forming (8-5)
Country clubs/golf courses
(8-3)
Cropland—irrigated and
nonirngated (8-2)
Dry cleaning (see cleaning
services)
Dairy products processing
(8-4)
Educational institutions (8-3)
Jet fuels, deicers (urea), batteiies, diesel fuel, chlorinated
solvents, automotive wastes,7 heating oil, building wastes13
Asbestos
Petroleum derivatives
Auto repair Waste oils, solvents, acids, paints, automotive
wastes,' miscellaneous cutting oils, Dealers Automotive
wastes,7 waste oils, solvents, miscellaneous wastes, Car
washes Soaps, detergents, waxes, miscellaneous chemicals,
Gasoline service stations Gasoline, oils, solvents,
miscellaneous wastes
Perm solutions, dyes, miscellaneous chemicals contained in
hair rinses
Diesel fuels, batteries, oil, septage from boat waste disposal
areas, wood preservative and treatment chemicals, paints,
waxes, varnishes, automotive wastes7
Epoxy, urethane-based floor finish
Septage, gasoline, diesel fuel from boats, pesticides for
controlling mosquitoes, ants, ticks, gypsy moths, and other
pests,5'9 household hazardous wastes from recreational
vehicles (RVs)8
Leaohate (formaldehyde), lawn and garden maintenance
chemicals10 s
See entnes for individual categories in Checklist 8-5
Pesticide5 and fertilizer6 residues
Potentially almost anything
Dry cleaners Solvents (perchloroethylene, petroleum
solvents, Freon), spotting chemicals (tnchloroethane,
methylchloroform, ammonia, peroxides, hydrochloric acid, rust
removers, amyl acetate), Laundromats Detergents, bleaches,
fabric dyes
Solvents, asbestos, paints, glues and other adhesives, waste
insulation, lacquers, tars, sealants, epoxy waste,
miscellaneous chemical wastes
Fertilizers,6 herbicides,510 pesticides for controlling
mosquitoes, ticks, ants, gypsy moths, and otheKpests,9
swimming pool chemicals, automotive wastes
Pesticides,5 fertilizers,6 gasoline and motor oils from chemical
applicators
BMPs Noake(1988)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
U S EPA (1991a), BMPs Inglese
(1992), NJDEPE (1992), Noake (1988),
US EPA(1991-1993—repair and
refinishmg)
Table 8-5, Dotson (1991)
BMPs Inglese (1992)
BMPs Noake (1988), U S EPA
(1991-1993)
Table 8-5
Table 8^5
Table 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
BMPs Noake (1988)
US EPA(1990a)
BMPs Noake (1988)
US EPA(1991 a), BMPs Inglese
(1988—dry cleaning), Noake
(1988—dry cleaning, laundromats)
Table 8-5
Table, 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
Worksheet 8-3, U S EPA (1990a),
BMPs Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
BMPs US EPA(1991-1993)
167
-------
Table 8-4. Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources (Continued)
Source/Checklist No Contaminants1'2'3
Information Sources
Electric/electronic/
communications equipment
manufacturers (8-5)
Electroplating and metal
finishing (8-5)
Equipment/appliance repair
(8-4)
Farm machinery areas
(8-3)
Farroaloy (8-5)
Fertilizer manufacturing (8-5)
Fiberglass-reinforced and
composite plastics
Food processing (8-4)
Funeral services and
crematories (8-4)
Furniture and fixtures
manufacturers (8-4)
Furniture/wood manufacturing,
repair, and finishing shops
(8-4)
Glass manufacturing (8-5)
Communications equipment Nitric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric
add wastes, heavy metal sludges, copper-contaminated
etchant (e g, ammonium persulfate), cutting oil and
degreaslng solvent (trtehloroethane, Freon, or
trichloroethylene), waste oils, corrosive soldering flux, paint
sludge, waste plating solution, Electric/electronic Cyanides,
metal sludges, caustics (chromic acid), solvents, oils, alkalis,
adds, paints and paint sludges, calcium fluoride sludges,
methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethane,
acetone, methanol, toluene, PCBs
Boric, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, and sulfuric acids, sodium
and potassium hydroxide, chromic acid, sodium and
hydrogen cyanide, metallic salts, spent solvents
Solvents, lubricants, solder (lead, tin), paint thinner
Automotive wastes,7 welding wastes
Chlorine, ammonia, ethylene glycol, nickel, formaldehyde,
bromomethane, pesticides and herbicides*'10
Formaldehyde, wetting agents, fumigants, solvents
Paints, solvents, degreasing sludges, solvent recovery sludges
Paints, solvents (methylene chloride, toluene), degreasing
and solvent recovery sludges
Solvents, oils and grease, alkalis, acetic wastes, asbestos,
heavy metal sludges, phenolic solids or sludges,
metal-finishing sludge
Potentially any regulated hazardous waste
Grain mils (8-4)
Hazardous materials TSDs
(8-2)
Hospitals—see medical
Institutions
Industrial lagoons and pits See Industry-specific waste listings
Inorganic chemical
manufacturing (8-5)
Iron and steel
manufacturing—blast
furnaces, stool works, rolling
mis (8-5)
Jewelry/metal plating shops
(8-4)
Junkyards—see scrap and
salvage yards
Landfills (8-2)
Lawns and gardens (8-3)
Heavy metal wastewater treatment sludge, pickling liquor,
waste oil, ammonia scrubber liquor, acid tar sludge, alkaline
cleaners, degreasing solvents, slag, metal dust
Sodium and hydrogen cyanide, metallic salts, alkaline
solutions (KOH, NaOH), acids (chromic, hydrochloric,
hydrofluoric, nitric, phosphoric, sulfuric), spent solvents,
heavy-metal contaminated wastewater/sludge
US EPA(1988b),BMPs Noake
(1988), U S EPA (1991-1993—printed
circuit boards)
Table 8-5, Dotson (1991), U S EPA
(1988b, 1990a, 1991 a), BMPs U S
EPA (1991-1993—finishing)
BMPs Inglese (1992), U S EPA
(1991-1993)
US EPA(1990a)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
BMPs US EPA(1991-1993)
PEI Associates (1990)
BMPs Inglese (1992)
US EPA(1988b)
US EPA(1991 a), BMPs Inglese
(1992), Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
BMPs Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
Leachate (composition depends on type of waste disposed) BMPs Noake (1988)
Fertilizers,5 herbicides and other pesticides used for lawn and
garden maintenance10
Worksheet 8-3, U S EPA (1990a),
BMPs NJDEPE (1992)
168
-------
Table 8-4 Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources (Continued)
Source/Checklist No Contaminants1'23
Information Sources
Leather tanning (8-4)
Livestock (8-3)
Machine and metalworkmg
shops (8-5)
Meat products and rendering
(8-4)
Medical institutions/services
(8-3)
Metal fabrication (8-5)
Metal finishing (8-5)
Metal molding and
casting/foundries (8-5)
Metals mining (8-4)
Nonferrous metals forming
(8-5)
Nonferrous metal
manufacturing (8-5)
Organic chemical
manufacturing, plastics, and
synthetic fibers (8-5)
Paint manufacturing (8-4)
Pesticide application services
(8-4)
Pesticide formulators (8-5)
Petroleum refining (8-5)
Pharmaceutical industry (8-5)
Phosphate manufacturing (8-5)
Photography shops, photo
processing laboratories (8-4)
Porcelain enameling (8-5)
Printers, publishers, and allied
industries (8-4)
Pulp, paper, and paperboard
(8-4)
Railroad tracks and yards (8-3)
Research laboratories (8-4)
Road deicmg/mamtenance
(8-3)
Rubber processing (8-5)
Livestock sewage wastes, nitrates, phosphates, chloride,
chemical sprays and dips for controlling insect, bacterial,
viral, and fungal pests on livestock, coliform4 and noncohform
bactena, viruses
Solvents, metals, miscellaneous organics, sludges, oily metal
shavings, lubricant and cutting oils, degreasers (TCE), metal
marking fluids, mold-release agents
X-ray developers and fixers,17 infectious wastes, radiological
wastes, biological wastes, disinfectants, asbestos, beryllium,
dental acids, formaldehyde, miscellaneous chemicals
Paint wastes, acids, heavy metals, metal sludges, plating
wastes, oils, solvents, explosive wastes
Paint wastes, acids, heavy metals, metal sludges, plating
wastes, oils, solvents, explosive wastes
Cyanide, sulfides, metals, acid drainage
Solvents, oils, miscellaneous organics and inorganics
(phenols, resins), paint wastes, cyanides, acids, alkalis,
wastewater treatment sludges, cellulose esters, surfactant,
glycols, phenols, formaldehyde, peroxides, etc
Dotson (1991), BMPs US EPA (1991-1993)
Pesticides, herbicides510
Cyanides, biosludges, silver sludges, miscellaneous sludges
Solvents, inks, dyes, oils, miscellaneous organics,
photographic chemicals
Metals, acids, minerals, sulfides, other hazardous and
nonhazardous chemicals16, organic sludges, sodium
hydroxide, chlorine, hypochlonte, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen
peroxide
X-ray developers and fixers,17 infectious wastes, radiological
wastes, biological wastes, disinfectants, asbestos, beryllium,
solvents, infectious materials, drugs, disinfectants
(quaternary ammonia, hexachlorophene, peroxides,
chlornexade, bleach), miscellaneous chemicals
Sodium chloride, calcium chloride, waste oil
Table 8-5, US EPA(1988b)
U S EPA (1990a), BMPs Naoke (1988)
BMPs Inglese (1992), Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
BMPs Inglese (1992), U S EPA
(1991-1993)
BMPs US EPA (1991-1993)
Table 8-5, US EPA(1988b)
Table 8-5, U S EPA (1988b), BMPs
US EPA (1991-1993)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
Table 8-5
BMPs Inglese (1992), US EPA
(1991-1993)
BMPs US EPA(1991-1993)
Table 8-5, Dotson (1991)
US EPA (1991-1993)
Table 8-5
BMPs Inglese (1992), Noake (1988),
US EPA (1991-1993)
Table 8-5
US EPA (1988b), BMPs Ingleses
(1992), US EPA (1991-1993)
Table 8-5, U S EPA (1988b)
BMPs Noake (1988)
BMPs Noake (1988), U S EPA
(1991-1993)
US EPA(1991 a), BMPs NJDEPE
(1992), Noake (1988)
Table 8-5, U S EPA (1988b)
169
-------
Table 8-4. Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources (Continued)
Sourcs/Chockllst No. Contaminants1'2'3
Information Sources
Sand and gravel mining (8-4) Diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluids
Scrap, salvage, and junkyards
(8-4)
Septic systems, cesspools,
and sewer lines (8-3)
Soaps and detergents (8-5)
Stormwater drains and basins
(8-3)
Sugar processing (8-4)
Stone and clay
manufacturers (8-5)
Swimming pools (8-3)
Texfote mills manufacturing
(8-5)
Timber products
processing—sawmills and
planers (8-4)
Underground storage tanks
(8-2)
Veterinary services (8-3)
Welders (8-4)
Wood preserving facilities (8-4)
Used oil, gasoline, antifreeze, PCB contaminated oils, lead
add batteries
Septage, coliform and noncoliform bacteria,4 viruses, nitrates,
heavy metals, synthetic detergents, cooking and motor oils,
bteach, pesticides,910 paints, paint thinner, photographic
chemicals, swimming pool chemicals,11 septic tank/cesspool
cleaner chemicals.12elevated levels of chloride, sulfate,
calcium, magnesium, potassium, and phosphate
Sodium chlonde, pathogens, petroleum products, soluble
pesticides
Solvents, oils and grease, alkalis, acetic wastes, asbestos,
heavy metal sludges, phenolic solids or sludges,
metal-finishing sludge
Swimming pool maintenance chemicals11
Treated wood residue (copper qulnolate, mercury, sodium
bazlde), tanner gas, paint sludges, solvents, creosote,
coating and gluing wastes
Gasoline, diesel fuel, other liquid petroleum products
Solvents, Infectious materials, vaccines, drugs, disinfectants
(quaternary ammonia, hexachlorophene, peroxides,
chlomexade, bleach), x-ray developers and fixers1',
formaldehyde, pesticides
Oxygen, acetylene, solvents and oils
Wood preservatives (pentachlorophenol, chromated copper
arsenate, ammoniacal copper arsenate), creosote
BMPs Noake (1988)
US EPA(1991a), BMPs NJDEPE
(1992), Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
BMPs Noake (1988)
Table 8-5
Table 8-5, U S EPA (1988b)
Table 8-5
BMPs NJDEPE (1992), Noake (1992)
BMPs Inglese (1992)
US EPA(1990a), BMPs Inglese
(1992)
US EPA(1988b,1990a, 1991a),
BMPs Noake (1988)
Source Adapted from U S EPA (1992)
Ini general, ground water contamination stems from the misuse and improper disposal of liquid and solid wastes, the Illegal dumping or
abandonment o! household, commercial, or industrial chemicals, the accidental spilling of chemicals from trucks, railways, aircraft, handling
facilities, and storage tanks, or the improper siting, design, construction, operation, or maintenance of agricultural, residential, municipal
commercial, and Industrial drinking water wells and liquid and solid waste disposal facilities Contaminants also can stem from atmospheric
pollutants, such as airborne sulfur and nitrogen compounds, which are created by smoke, flue dust, aerosols, and automobile emissions
fail as acid rain, and percolate through the soil When the sources listed in this table are used and managed properly ground-water
contamination Is not likely to occur
Contaminants can reach ground water from activities occurring on the land surface, such as industrial waste storage, from sources below
tfta land surface but above the water table, such as septic systems, from structures beneath the water table, such as wells or from
contaminated recharge water
This table lists the most common wastes, but not all potential wastes For example, it is not possible to list all potential contaminants
4 contained In storm water runoff or research laboratory wastes
Coliform bacteria can indicate the presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) microorganisms that may be transmitted in human feces
5 Diseases such as typhoid fever, hepatitis, diarrhea, and dysentery can result from sewage contamination of water supplies
Pesticides Include herbicides, Insecticides, rodentcides, fungicides, and avicides EPA has registered approximately 50,000 different pesticide
products for use In the United States Many are highly toxic and quite mobile in the subsurface An EPA survey found that the most common
pesticides found In drinking water wells were DCPA (dacthal) and atrazme (EPA, 1990b), which EPA classifies as moderately toxic (class 3)
fl and slightly toxtc (class 4) materials, respectively '
7 Pf EPA. National Pesticides Survey (EPA, 1991) found that the use of fertilizers correlates to nitrate contamination of ground water supplies
Automotive wastes can include gasoline, antifreeze, automatic transmission fluid, battery acid, engine and radiator flushes, engine and metal
dogreasers, hydraulic (brake) fluid, and motor oils
9 Toxte or hazardous components of common household products are noted in Table 3-2
Common household pesticides for controlling pests such as ants, termites, bees, wasps, flies, cockroaches, sih/erfish, mites ticks fleas
worms, rats, and mtee can contain active ingredients including napthalene, phosphorus, xylene, chloroform, heavy metals, chlorinated
10hydrocarbons, arsenic, strychnine, kerosene, nitrosammes, and dioxm
Common pesticides used for lawn and garden maintenance (i e, weed killers, and mite, grub, and aphid controls) include such chemicals
1(as 2,4-D, chiorpyrifos, diazinon, benomyl, captan, dicofol, and methoxychlor
Swimming pool chemicals can contain free and combined chlorine, bromine, iodine, mercury-based, copper-based, and quaternary alaicides
cyanuric acid, calcium or sodium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, sodium carbonate
170
-------
Table 8-4 Contaminants Associated With Specific Contaminant Sources (Continued)
12 Septic tank/cesspool cleaners include synthetic organic chemicals such as 1,1,1 trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride,
and methylene chloride
Common wastes from public and commercial buildings include automotive wastes, rock salt, and residues from cleaning products that may
contain chemicals such as xylenols, glycol esters, teopropanol, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, sulfonates, chlorinated phenolys, and cregols
Municipal wastewater treatment sludge can contain organic matter, nitrates, inorganic salts, heavy metals, cohform and noncoliform bacteria,
and viruses
Municipal wastewater treatment chemicals include calcium oxide, alum, activated alum, carbon, and silica, polymers, ion exchange resins,
sodium hydroxide, chlorine, ozone, and corrosion inhibitors
n"he Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines a hazardous waste as a solid waste that may cause an increase in mortality
or senous illness or pose a substantial threat to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed
of, or otherwise mansged A waste is hazardous if it exhibits characteristics of ignitabilrty, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity Not covered
by RCRA regulations are domestic sewage, irrigation waters or industrial discharges allowed by the Clean Water Act, certain nuclear and
mining wastes, household wastes, agricultural wastes (excluding some pesticides), and small quantity hazardous wastes (i e, less than 220
oounds per month) generated by businesses
X-ray developers and fixers may contain reclaimable silver, glutaldehyde, hydroqumone, phenedone, potassium bromide, sodium sulfite,
sodium carbonate, thiosulfates, and potassium alum
Table 8-5 Index to Development Documents for Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Selected Categories8 (U S EPA, 1987b)
Industrial Point Source EPA Publication NTIS Accession GPO Stock
Category Subcategory Document No No No
Aluminum forming
Asbestos manufacturing
Battery manufacturing
Aluminum forming
Building, construction, and
paper
Textile, friction materials, and
sealing devices
Battery manufacturing
EPA 440/1 -84/073
Vol I
Vol II
EPA 440/1 -74/0173
EPA 440/1 -74/035a
EPA 440/1 -84/067
Vol I
Vol II
PB84-244425
PB84-244433
PB238320/6
PB240860/7
PB85-121507
PB85-121515
-
5501-00827
"
Builder's paper and board
mills
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
Canned and preserved
seafood processing
Cement manufacturing
Coil coating
Copper forming
Dairy products processing
Electroplating and metal
finishing
Ferroalloy
Fertilizer manufacturing
Glass manufacturing
Gram mills
Pulp, paper and paperboard,
and builder's paper and
board mills
Apple, citrus, and potato
processing
Catfish, crab, and shrimp
Fishmeal, salmon, bottom
fish, sardinge, herring, clam,
oyster, scallop, and abalone
Cement manufacturing
Coil coating, Phase I
Coil coating, Phase II -
can-making
Copper
Dairy products processing
Copper, nickel, chiome, and
zinc
Electroplating - pretreatment
Metal finishing
Smelting and slag processing
Basic fertilizer chemicals
Formulated fertilizer
Pressed and blown glass
Insulation fiberglass
Flat glass
Gram processing
Animal feed, breakfast
cereal, and wheat
EPA 440/1-82/025
EPA 440/1-74/0273
EPA 440/1-74/0203
EPA 440/1-75/041 a
EPA 440/1-74/0053
EPA 440/1-82/071
EPA 440/1-83/071
EPA 440/1-84/074
EPA 440/1-74/0213
EPA 440/1-74/003a
EPA 440/1-79/003
EPA 440/1-83/091
EPA 440/1 -74/0083
EPA 440/1-74/0113
EPA 440/1-75/0423
EPA 440/1-75/034a
EPA440/1-74/001b
EPA 440/1-77/001C
EPA 440/1 -74/0393
EPA 440/1-74/0283
PB83-163949
PB238649/8
PB238614/2
PB256840/0
PB238610/0
PB83-205542
PB84-198647
PB84-192459
PB238835/3
PB238834/AS
PB80-196488
PB84-115989
PB238650/AS
PB238652/AS
PB240863/AS
PB256854/1
PB238078/0
PB238-907/0
PB238316/4
PB240861/5
5501-00790
5501-00920
5501-00866
5501-00898
5501-00816
5501-00780
5501-00868
5501-01006
5501-01036
5501-00781
5501-00814
5501-00844
5501-01007
171
-------
Table 8-5. Index to Development Documents for Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Selected Categories8 (Continued)
Industrial Point Source EPA Publication NTIS Accession GPO Stock
Category Subcategory Document No No No
Inorganic chemicals
manufacturing
Iron and steel
manufacturing
Leather tanning
Meat products and
rendering
Metal finishing
Metal molding and casting
(foundries)
Nonferrous metals forming
Nonferrous metals
manufacturing
Organic chemical
manufacturing and
plastics and synthetic
fibers
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals
Phosphate manufacturing
Porcelain enameling
Pulp, paper, and
paperboard
Rubber processing
Soaps and detergents
Sugar processing
Textile milts manufacturing
Timber products
processing
Inorganic chemicals Phase 1
Inorganic chemicals Phase II
Iron and steel
Volume 1
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
Volume VI
Leather tanning
Red meat processing
Renderer
Metal finishing
Metal molding and casting
Nonferrous metals forming
Bauxite refining - aluminum
segment
Primary aluminum smelting -
aluminum segment
Secondary aluminum
smelting - aluminum segment
Organic chemicals
manufacturing and plastics
and synthetic fibers
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceutical
Phosphorus-denved
chemicals
Other non-fertilizer chemicals
Porcelain enameling
Unbleached kraft and
semi-chemical pulp
Pulp, paper and paperboard,
and builder's paper and
board mills
Tire and synthetic
Fabricated and reclaimed
rubber
Soaps and detergents
Beet sugar
Cane sugar refining
Textile mills
Wood furniture and fixtures
Timber products processing
EPA 440/1 -82/007
EPA 440/1 -84/007
EPA 440/1 -82/024
EPA 440/1-82/024
EPA 440/1-82/024
EPA 440/1 -82/024
EPA 440/1 -82/024
EPA 440/1 -82/024
EPA 440/1 -82/024
EPA 440/1 -82/01 6
EPA 440/1 -74/01 2a
EPA 440/1 -74/031 d
EPA 440/1 -83/091
EPA 440/1 -85/070
EPA 440/1 -84/01 9b
Vol I
Vol II
Vol III
EPA 440/1 -74/01 9c
EPA440/1-74/019d
EPA 440/1-74/0196
EPA 440/1-87/009
EPA 440/1 -82/014
EPA 440/1 -83/084
EPA 440/1 -74/0063
EPA 440/1 -75/043
EPA 440/1 -82/072
EPA 440/1 -74/025a
EPA 440/1 -82/025
EPA440/1-74/013a
EPA 440/1 -74/0303
EPA 440/1-74/0183
EPA 440/1 -74/002b
EPA 440/1 -74/002C
EPA 440/1 -82/022
EPA 440/1 -74/033a
EPA 440/1 -81/023
PB82-265612
PB85-156446/XAB
PB82-2404253
PB82-240433b
PB82-240441C
PB82-240458d
PB82-2404666
PB82-240474f
PB83-1 72593
PB238836/AS
PB253572/2
PB84-115989
PB86-161452/XAB
.
PB83/228296
PB83/228304
PB83/228312
PB238463/4
PB240859/9
PB238464/2
Available from
NTIS sfter
publication (1/87)
PB83-172569
PB84-1 80066
PB241018/1
-
-
PB238833/AS
PB83-1 63949
PB238609/2
PB241916/6
PB238613/4
PB238462/6
PB238147/3
PB83-1 16871
_
PB81 -227282
-
.
-
5501-00843
-
-
_
_
5501-00116
5501-00817
5501-00819
-
-
5503-00078
-
-
.
.
5501-00885
5501-01016
5501-00867
5501-00117
5501-00826
-
.
-
"This list Includes only "final" development documents for effluent limitations guidelines For many industries, these documents are in the draft
or proposal stage
172
-------
Table 8-6 Index to Major References on Types and Sources of Contamination In Ground Water
Topic References
Baseline Chemistry
Types of Contaminants
Contaminant
Chemical Behavior
GW Contamination
Assessments
Contamination Sources
General
General Canter et al (1987), Cole (1972-Europe), Guswa et al (1984), Haimes and Snyder (1986), Meyer (1973), Miller
(1980,1985), Pettyjohn (1972), U S Public Health Service (1961), van Duijvenbooden and van Waegenmgen
(1987), van Duijvenbooden et al (1981), Ward et al (1985), Bibliographies/Literature Reviews Atlantic Research
Corporation (1980), Bader (1973), Congressional Research Service (1984), Geyer (1972), Landortf and Cartwright
(1977), Rima et al (1971), Summers and Spiegel (1974), Todd and McNulty (1974), U S EPA (1972), van der
Leeden (1991), Zanom (19H)
Durfor and Becker (1964), Soil Connor and Shacklette (1975), Ebens and Shacklette (1982), Shacklette et al
(1971a,b, 1973,1974), Ground/Surface Water Clarke (1924), Durum and Haffty (1961), Durum et al (1971),
Ebens and Shacklette (1982), Feth (1981), Rshman and Hem (1976), Hem (1972), Kopp and Kroner (1968),
Ledm et al (1989), Leenheer et al (1974), Skougstad and Horr (1963), Thurman (1985), White et al (1963,
1970)
Page (1981), Palmer et al (1988), Pettyjohn and Hounslow (1983), Zoeteman (1985), National Water Quality
Assessments Francis et al 1981), US EPA(1985a), Westncketal (1984)
See Table 1-2
US Ballentme et al (1972), Lehr (1982), Patrick etal (1987), Pye and Kelley (1984), US EPA (1984),
Regional Assessment Fuhnman and Barton (1971-AZ, CA, NV, UT), Miller and Scalf (1974), Miller et al
(1974-northeast), Miller et al (1977-southeast), Scalf et al (1973-southcentral), van der Leeden et al
(1975-northwest), Source Assessments US EPA (1977—waste disposal), US EPA (1978,1983-surface
impoundments), U S EPA (1985b-mjection of hazardous waste), U S EPA (1986a, 1986b-underground storage
tanks), US EPA(1986d, 1990c-pesticides)
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (1988), LaSpma and Palmquist (1992), Meyer (1973), Miller (1982),
Noake (1988), Shmeldecker (1992), U S EPA (1977, 1987a, 1988a, 1990b, 1991b), U S Fish and Wildlife
Service (1986), U S OTA (1984), State WHPA Contaminant Inventory Guidance Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality (1992), New Hampshire Office of State Planning (1991), North Dakota State Department
of Health (1993), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1991), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(1992), RIDEM (1992), Washington State Department of Health (1993)
Dotson (1991), U S EPA (1987b, 1988b, 1990a, 1991a, 1992), Ward et al (1990)
Ashton and Underwood (1975), Delfmo (1977), D'ltn and Wolfson (1987), Nielsen and Lee (1987), Novotny and
Chesters (1981), Overcash and Davidson (1980), U S EPA (1984, 1991b)
Bloom and Degler (1969), Fairchild (1987), Hallberg (1986) Irvine and Knights (1974), Jenkins (1979), U S EPA
(1986c)
Aller (1984), Fnschknecht at al (1983), Gass et al (1977), Texas Water Commission (1989b)
Silka and Sweanngen (1978), U S EPA (1978, 1983)
Geyer (1972), Zanom (1971)
Guswa etal (1984)
Rima et al (1971), US EPA(1985b, 1990)
US EPA(1986a, 1986b)
California Assembly Office of Research (1985), Canter and Knox (1984,1985), Cartwright and Sherman (1974),
Noss (1989), Scalf et al (1977, Thomson (1984)
Energy Production/Use Boulding (1992), Dotson (1991), U S Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (1979), U S EPA (1988c)
* See also references for estimating releases of hazardous chemicals in Table A-5
Commercial/Industrial*
Rural/Non Point
Agncultural Chemicals
Abandoned Wells
Surface
Impoundments
Landfills
Accidental Spills
Waste Injection Wells
USTs
Septic Systems
tions where hazardous chemicals are stored and
used Table A-5 identifies references that provide
more information on collection and analysis of infor-
mation collected pursuant to EPCRA
Users of this manual should be aware that many state
wellhead protection programs have developed their own
checklists, worksheets, and inventory forms for identify-
ing potential contaminant sources The materials in this
chapter represent a synthesis based on a review of
materials developed by state programs as of late 1993
Any of these state materials, as well as any sub-
sequently developed, can be used as an alternative to
or in combination with the materials in this chapter This
is a complex topic in which improvements are always
possible The best approach is probably to compare the
latest materials available for the state's wellhead protec-
tion program with the material in this chapter and select
the materials that seem most appropriate for the WHPA
of interest Alternatively, materials should be modified if
comparisons show that no single checklist, worksheet,
173
-------
or inventory form addresses all the information needs
fqr the WHPA
A few words about natural contamination sources The
checklists in this chapter do not address contamination
sources that result from natural processes In some
areas, particularly in and and semi-arid areas of the
western United States, ground water is of marginal qual-
ity, or exceeds drinking water standards for elements
such as arsenic, chloride, fluoride, heavy metals, and
radionuclides. Little can be done to prevent such con-
tamination, so the options are essentially limited to find-
ing an alternative, higher quality source of drinking
water, or treatment to remove contaminants Human
activity may cause degradation of ground water from
natural sources Examples include mobilization of heavy
metals and radionuclides by mining activities and salt-
water intrusion into fresh-water aquifers by pumping
Such activities are included in the checklists in this
chapter.
8.3.1 Cross-Cutting Sources: Wells, Storage
Tanks and Waste Disposal
Checklist 8-2 identifies three major sources of potential
contamination. (1) wells and related features, (2) stor-
age tanks, and (3) waste disposal sites These are
called cross-cutting sources because they may be as-
sociated with any of the activities identified in the de-
tailed checklists for nonmdustrial, commercial, and
industrial sources The high risk of ground water con-
tamination from storage tanks, especially underground
storage tanks, and waste disposal sites is another rea-
son for placing them in a separate checklist
8.3.2 Nonindustrial Sources
Checklist 8-3 identifies five major categories of potential
contamination sources that can be broadly classified as
nonindustriah (1) agricultural, (2) residential, (3) other
green areas, (4) municipal and other public services,
and (5) transportation The category of "other green
areas" includes any nonagricultural and nonresidential
area where grass and other vegetation may receive
regular applications of agricultural chemicals In the resi-
dential category, each individuals in each residence or
living unit should be interviewed, if possible, and a
household hazardous waste inventory prepared Such
interviews should increase awareness by individuals
and families living within a WHPAof ground water con-
cerns, and should lay the groundwork for any future
public education efforts
8.3.3 Commercial and Industrial Sources
Checklists 8-4 and 8-5 identify more than 90 commercial
and industrial activities that present potential for ground
water contamination Commercial activities are gener-
ally service- and sales-oriented, while industrial activi-
ties involve primarily processing and manufacturing In
practice, the dividing line is not always clear, so both
checklists should be examined if the classification of an
identified source is uncertain Commercial activities as-
sociated with transportation are included in Checklist
8-3
Checklist 8-4 identifies three major categories of activi-
ties (1) commercial services and sales, (2) activities
related to processing and storage of natural products
(food, other animal products, and wood), and (3) re-
source extraction activities Checklist 8-5 identifies three
major categories of industrial activities (1) chemical
processing and manufacturing, (2) metal manufacturing,
fabrication, and finishing, and (3) other manufacturing
A wide array of potential contaminants are associated
with commercial and industrial activities U S EPA has
developed a series of information sheets, available from
the RCRA Hotline, on 17 business activities that may
generate hazardous wastes (U S EPA, 1990a) Check-
lists 8-4 and 8-5 indicate activities covered by these
summary sheets with the EPA document order number
Tables 8-4 and 8-5 identify reference sources where
more detailed information can be obtained on industrial
processes and potential contaminants
8.4 Evaluating the Risk From Potential
Contaminants
Methods for evaluating the risk posed by potential con-
taminant sources within a WHPA can range from a
relatively simple process—classifying sources as high,
moderate, and low risk—to a comprehensive risk as-
sessment process in which fate and transport of chemi-
cals of concerns are modeled to quantify exposure and
risk to people or ecosystems This section focuses on
relatively simple ranking methods for evaluating risk
(Section 841) and briefly discusses situations in which
more complex methods may be required
8.4.1 Risk Ranking Methods
Classifying potential contaminant sources into risk cate-
gories (high, medium, low) is the simplest way to identify
the sources within a WHPA that pose a threat to ground
water quality Figure 8-3 illustrates a matrix developed
by the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project to evalu-
ate pollution potential from 32 land use categories The
top of the matrix contains ratings for 16 groups of chemi-
cals according to (1) overall threat to public health, (2)
mobility, (3) and whether they may occur naturally in
significant concentrations The overall threat to public
water supply for each land use category in Figure 8-3 is
rated as low (L) to high (H) in the right hand column,
based on the number of potential contaminants associ-
ated with the category and the potential threat posed by
each contaminant
174
-------
Potential
Contaminants
Overall Threat
to Public Water Supply3
Figure 8-3 Land use/public-supply well pollution potential matrix (Noake, 1988)
175
-------
Key to Figure 8-3
The contaminant(s) released from this land-use category may render groundwater at a public-supply well undnnkable in
accordance with federal and state maximum contaminant levels
This land use category is not generally associated with the release of the particular contaminant m quantities that would
render the groundwater at a public-supply well undrinkable However, the contaminant may be associated with a particular
activity
Low Threat
M = Medium Threat
= High Threat
This Matrix is based on a literature review and the combined field experience of the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP)
THIS MATRIX SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE AND HANDY REFERENCE It is not a substitute for looking at a particular land use
In detail There will always be the potential for a business to use an unusual process using chemicals not normally associated with that
business The land-use categories included in the Matrix and Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection are those that
might be found in the primary recharge area of a public-supply well in Massachusetts This Matrix may be misleading or erroneous if
applied to low-yield private wells
1 Ni!r«!« has • cumulative impact on groundwater quality No one category is responsible for the release of nitrate A variety of land use categories release nitrate These
Include animal faadlots, landfills septic systems septage lagoons municipal wastewater and agricultural activities including turf maintenance
2. Thoro ara no known Instances of beauty parlors contaminating well water in Massachusetts More research is needed lo determine the severity of a threat to
Qroundwaterfrem this land use category
3 Rtlit \oGtMdetoContimirulion Sources for Wellhead Protection pp 1 2
Figure 8-3. Land use/public-supply well pollution potential matrix (Noake, 1988) (continued)
Following the approach in Figure 8-3, once the potential
contaminant source inventory has been completed,
each land use category or individual source is placed in
a nsk category Figure 8-3 has five categories (low,
low-medium, medium, medium-high, and high), but
fewer categories (low, medium, and high) can also be
used Rgure 8-3 and Checklist 8-6, which identifies high
and moderate nsk land use activities based on ratings
from a variety of sources, can provide some guidance
in how to classify potential contaminant sources within
a wellhead protection area Not all sources agree m their
classification of specific land use categories, and clas-
sification decisions should consider all factors particular
to the wellhead protection area in question Aquifer vul-
nerability mapping, as descnbed in Section 55, is a
valuable complement to the risk ranking approach to
evaluating potential contaminant sources For example,
any given potential contaminant source represents a
less significant threat to a highly confined aquifer than
to an unconfined aquifer (see Section 5 4 3)1 Table 5-9
identifies a number of references that discuss vulner-
ability mapping in the context of risk assessment
Whether a land use is classified as high or moderate risk
becomes a significant consideration when developing
options for managing the WHPA High-risk land uses are
frequently prohibited in high priority wellhead protection
1 An exception to this would be where the source is near an improp-
erly abandoned well that provides a pathway from the surface to the
confined aquifer
areas, and moderate-risk are commonly restricted in
such areas Table 10-1 illustrates how particular high-
and moderate-risk land uses have been either prohib-
ited or restricted (i e , special permit required) in four
water resource protection zones on Nantucket Island
Figure 8-4 illustrates the results of a two-phased evalu-
ation of potential hazards for a public water supply well
in Illinois The first phase (Figure 8-4a) involved a sum-
mary tabulation of the information obtained from the
individual source surveys (see Worksheet C-6) The
numbers in the first column refer to map locations, and
the second and third columns refer to Illinois environ-
mental permits Note that the last two columns indicate
whether the source is a potential hazard, and if so,
whether the hazard might be significant The Phase II
evaluation (Figure 8-4b) incorporates the potential
source characteristics tabulated in the first phase and
also takes into consideration geologic susceptibility, at-
tenuative soil properties and depth to water table In this
example, a geographic information system was used to
relate all of the variables identified in Figure 8-4 and to
evaluate the potential hazardous to the ground water in
the wellhead study area
8.4.2 Other Risk Evaluation Methods
Risk ranking and aquifer vulnerability mapping methods
are probably adequate for many WHPAs Where many
high risk potential contaminant sources exist within a
WHPA, more sophisticated risk assessment approaches
176
-------
Checklist 8-6
Risk Categories of Land Uses and Activities Affecting Ground Water Quality
High Risk (Frequently Prohibited in High Priority Water Supply Protection Areas)
Airport maintenance areas
Animal feedlots
Appliance/small engine repair shops
Asphalt/concrete/coal tar plants
Auto repair and body shops*
Boat service, repair and washing establishments
Beauty parlors/hairdressers
Business and industrial uses (excluding agriculture) which involve the onsite disposal of process
wastes from operations
Car washes
Chemical/biological laboratory
Chemical manufacturing/industrial areas
Cleaning service (dry cleaning, laundiomat, commercial laundry)*
Disposal of liquid or teachable waste except for property designed commercial and residential
onsite wastewater disposal systems and normal agricultural operations
Electroplaters (metal plating and finishing) and metal fabricators*
Fuel oil distributors
Furniture and wood stripping and refinishing*
Gasoline stations
Golf courses/parks/nursenei)
Graveyards
Improperly constructed or abandoned wells (perched, confined aquifers)
Junkyards and salvage yards.*
Landfills and dumps
Making the surface of more than 10% of any lot impervious
Mining operations
Medical services (including dental/vet)
Military installations
Motels/hotels
Municipal sewage treatment facilities with onsite disposal of primary or secondary effluent
Oil and gas drilling and production
Outdoor storage of road salt, or other de-icing materials, the application of road salt and the
dumping of salt-laden snow"
Outdoor storage of pesticides or herbicides
Parking areas of over 50 spaces
Pesticide/herbicide stores
Petroleum product refining and manufacturing
Photo processors/printing establishments
RCRA hazardous materials TSDs
Sand and gravel extraction
Trucking or bus terminals
Underground storage and/or transmission of oil, gasoline or other petroleum products
Use of septic system cleaneis which contain toxic chemicals (such as methylene chloride, and
1,1,1 tnchloroethane)
Wood preserving and treating*
177
-------
Checklist 8-6
Risk Categories of Land Uses and Activities Affecting Ground Water Quality (Continued)
Moderate Risk (Frequently restricted in high priority water supply protection areas)
Aboveground storage tanks without secondary containment structures
Artificial groundwater recharge facilities
Excavation for the removal of earth, sand, gravel and other soils
Drainage from impermeable surfaces without installation and maintenance of oil, grease and
sediment traps
Drywells and unlined stormwater drainage channels and impoundments
Irrigation in areas with coarse, permeable soils
Residential lot size in areas not served by municipal sewers (larger lot sizes reduce the amount of
contamination from septic systems and household chemicals)
Unlined irrigation canals and tailwater sumps (arid areas)
Use of road salt (Nad)
__ Use of commercial fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides
Sources: Lawrence (1992), Noake (1988), Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health
(1993)**
* Highest risk light industrial uses identified in U.S EPA (1991a)
** Incomplete; several other sources the provide this kind of risk ranking have been identified and will be
incorporated into this table for the final report
178
-------
X Ivaluafcic
BIT*
HMO
/
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER GRAIM (3)
LOUIS DREYFUS
COBP (4)
FBKIN HASTt-
HATXR PLANT tl (7)
BOORS CRAIN CO (8)
PXKIH ENEROX CO (9)
RICHEST GRAIN (10)
ELECTRIC BOOSTER
STATION (11)
QUAKER OATS CO (12)
SHUCK CLEANING (14)
COLT OSU* LAWN
CAM (IS)
XMI (IS)
8HALLBMBERGER
EXCAVATING (17)
HOHIHER'S
AUTOMOTIVE (ie>
BSDA
302/303
MO
MO
ns
•0
NO
ns
no
ns
HO
NO
NO
NO
MO
ISO*
311/312
MO
NO
MO
ns
ns
ns
NO
MO
NO
MO
ns
MO
MO
MOH-
SI'WBRBD
HO
no
HO
no
HO
110
a/A
HO
H/A
MO
NO
MO
NO
ONSITB
UST
NO
ns
MO
MO
ns
ns
NO
ns
HO •
NO
ns
NO
MO
ONSITB
SOLVENTS
MO
ns
NO
MO
HO
ns
NO
HO
1
t
1
1
1
oNSin
RELEASE
NO
NO
MO
MO
ns
MO
NO
HO
NO
NO
HO
HO
NO
SOIL/OW
COHTAH.
HO
HO
MO
NO
MO
MO
NO
HO
MO
MO
MO
HO
HO
CLEANUP
HO
HO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HO
MO
HO
HO
MO
MO
MO
MONITOR
WELLS
NO
HO
HO
HO
NO
HO
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
HO
MO
POTEH
HAZARD
MO
ns
ns
NO
ns
ns
NO
ns
ns
ns
YES
ns
ns
SIGNIFICANT
HASARD
HO
NO
HO
MO
XBS
XBS
HO
NO
HO
HO
HO
MO
NO
(a)
Ph>««t II Bvaluafetan nf Potential Haxarda
SITB
MAKE
/
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER GRAIN
(3)
LOUIS OBBXPUS
CORP.
<«>
PEKIN HASTE
HATBR PLANT
«i (7)
SOURS GRAIN
(8)
PEKIN ENERGY
COMPANY
<»>
MIDWEST GRAIN
PRODUCTS
(10)
ELECTRIC
BOOSTER
STATION (11)
PROBLEM,
SITE
1.
2. X
1. X
2
1. X
2
1.
2 X
1 X
2.
1 X
2
1
2. X
susc
GEOLOGY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ATTENUATIVE
SOIL PROP.
H M L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IM 1-YEAR
CAP ZONE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
III 2-YEAR
CAP ZONE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IH 3-YXAR
CAP ZONE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DEPTH TO
WATER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HAZARD
POTENTIAL
4
S
4
S
4
5
3
6
S
4
5
4
4
S
1 • YES (• g., y<> facility i* probl«oa< io, gmology in woe., «oil« h«v« low aetmuttion capability, in 1 yr ZOC,
in 3 yr ZOC, and dapth of water !••• than 50 ft of LSE.)
2 • MO (Man* th« opposite)
(b)
Figure 8-4 Illustration of wellhead protection contaminant source evaluation of potential hazards, Pekin, Illinois (a) Phase I,
(b) Phase II (Adams et al, 1992)
179
-------
may be required to help identify the most efficacious and
cost-effective options for reducing risk Factors that
need to be considered for a comprehensive risk assess-
ment include (1) chemical toxicity, (2) pathways that can
lead to exposure, (3) the characteristics of the popula-
tion being exposed (density, age, etc), (4) the prob-
ability that health-threatening exposures will actually
occur, (5) the cost of options for reducing risk from
exposure, and (6) the perception of risk by the exposed
population
EPA has developed a relatively sophisticated procedure
to assess and screen relative threats to ground water
supplies posed by potential contaminant sources (U S
EPA, 1991c) This procedure results in an overall risk
rating for each contaminant source based on (1) the
likelihood of well contamination and (2) the severity of
well contamination Figure 8-5 shows three potential
contaminant sources in Pekm, Illinois, plotted on the
EPA risk matrix Source 6 represents a high risk, even
though the likelihood of well contamination is low, be-
cause the contamination would be severe if it did occur
A variety of methods have been developed for evaluat-
ing risks addressed by other EPA programs For exam-
ple, several methods have been developed to help
communities evaluate the nsk posed by chemicals that
must be reported under EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) program (FEMA/DOT/EPA, 1989, US EPA,
1989) These methods focus more on the risks posed
by airborne accidental releases of chemicals Elements
of these methods, however, could be adapted for use in
evaluating the risks of ground water contamination by
chemicals reported under the TRI program Similarly,
methods used to assess risk at Superfund sites and for
other EPA programs may be useful, under certain cir-
Risk Matrix
KvorrcofwcacofiT/ujiwioN.s
012345
S
X
S
X
Figure 8-5 Risk matrix for selected contaminant sources
within wellhead protection area for well numbers 1,
2, and 3, Pekln, Illinois (Adams et al, 1992)
cumstances, for evaluating risk in WHPAs Table A-5
provides an index to major references on risk assess-
ment in relation to ground water contamination and other
methods for exposure and risk assessment
8.5 References*
Adams, S et al 1992 Pilot Groundwater Protection Needs Assess-
ment for Illinois American Water Company's Pekm Public Water
Supply Facility Number 1795040 Division of Public Water Sup-
plies, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL
Aller, L 1984 Methods for Determining the Location of Abandoned
Wells EPA-600/2-83-123(NTISPB84-141530) Also published in
NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH,
130 pp [Air photos, color/thermal IR, ER, EMI, GPR, MD, MAG,
combustible gas detectors]
Ashton, PM and RC Underwood 1975 Non-Point Sources of
Water Pollution Virginia Water Resources Center, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA
Atlantic Research Corporation 1980 Literature Search on Ground-
water CETHH-TS-C11-91085 U S Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 60 pp [Ab-
stracts focussing on methods for containing ground water]
Bader, J S et al 1973 Selected References—Ground-Water Con-
tamination, United States and Puerto Rico U S Geological Sur-
vey, Washington, DC [834 references indexed according to
geographic areas, states, and kinds and sources of contamination]
Ballentine, R K, S R Reznek, and C W Hall 1972 Subsurface Pol-
lution Problems in the United States EPA TS-00-72-02 (NTIS
PB210293)
Bloom, S C and S E Degler 1969 Pesticides and Pollution Bureau
of International Affairs, Washington, DC
Boulding, JR 1992 Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste In Indiana
An Analysis of Technical and Regulatory Issues, Final Report
Prepared for Hoosier Environmental Council, Indianapolis, IN, 104
pp [Contains comprehensive review of literature on potential for
ground water contamination from coal ash and flue gas desulfun-
zation wastes]
California Assembly Office of Research 1985 The Leaching Fields
A Nonpomt Threat to Groundwater California State Assembly,
Sacramento
Canter, L W and R C Knox 1984 Evaluation of Septic Tank System
Effects on Ground Water Quality EPA/600/2-84/107 (NTIS PB84-
244441), 381 pp
Canter, L W and R C Knox 1985 Septic Tank Systems Effects on
Ground Water Quality Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Canter, LW, RC Knox, and DM Fairchild 1987 Ground Water
Quality Protection Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project 1988 Guide to Contamina-
tion Sources for Wellhead Protection Cape Cod, MA Available
from U S EPA Region I
Cartwnght, K and FB Sherman, Jr 1974 Assessing Potential for
Pollution from Septic Systems Ground Water 12 239-240
Clarke, FW 1924 The Composition of the River and Lake Waters
of the United States U S Geological Survey Professional Paper
135, 199 pp
Cole, J A (ed ) 1972 Groundwater Pollution in Europe Water Infor-
mation Center, Port Washington, NY [More than 50 papers and
case histories]
180
-------
Congressional Research Service 1984 Groundwater Contamination
by Toxic Substances A Digest of Reports U S Library of Con-
gress, Washington, DC
Connor, JJ and HT Shacklette 1975 Background Geochemistry
of Some Rocks, Soils, Plants, and Vegetables in the Conterminous
United States U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-F
Dean, LF and M A Wyckoff 1991 Community Planning and Zoning
for Groundwater Protection in Michigan A Guidebook for Local
Officials Prepared for Office of Water Resources, Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources Available from Michigan Society
of Planning Officials, 414 Mam St, Suite 202, Rochester, Ml
48307
Delfmo, J J 1977 Contamination of Potable Groundwater Supplies
in Rural Areas In Drinking Water Quality Enhancement Through
Source Protection, R B Pojacek (ed), Ann Arbor Science Press,
Ann Arbor, Ml, pp 275-295
D'ltn, FM andLG Wolfson(eds) 1987 Rural Groundwater Con-
tamination Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Dotson, G K 1991 Migration of Hazardous Substances through
Soils Part II—Determination of the Leachability of Metals from
Five Industrial Wastes and their Movement within Soil, Part III—
Flue-Gas Desulfunzation and Fly-Ash Wastes, Part IV—Develop-
ment of a Serial Batch Extraction Method and Application to the
Accelerated Testing of Seven Industrial Wastes
EPA/600/2091/017 (Part II, incorporating unpublished portions of
Part I interim report NTIS AD-A 158990, Part III AD-A 182108,
Part IV AD-A 191856) [Waste from electroplating, secondary zinc
refining, inorganic pigment, zinc-carbon battery, titanium dioxide
pigment, nickel-cadmium battery, hydrofluoric acid, water-based
paint, white phosphorus, chlorine production, oil re-refming, flue-
gas desulfunzation, and coal fly ash]
Durfor, C N and E Becker 1964 Public Water Supplies of the 100
Largest Cities in the United States, 1962 US Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1812, 364 pp
Durum, WH and J Haffty 1961 Occurrence of Minor Elements in
Water U S Geological Survey Circular 445
Durum, WH , J D Hem, and S G Heidel 1971 Reconnaissance of
Selected Minor Elements in Surface Waters of the United States,
October 1970 U S Geological Survey Circular 643
Ebens, RJ and HT Shacklette 1982 Geochemistry of Some
Rocks, Mine Spoils, Stream Sediments, Soils, Plants and Waters
in the Western Energy Region of the Conterminous United States
U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 1238
Fairchild, DM (ed) 1987 Ground Water Quality and Agricultural
Practices Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Federal Energy Management Agency, U S Department of Transpor-
tation and U S Environmental Protection Agency (FEMA/
DOT/EPA) 1989 Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Proce-
dures Available from Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Publications Department, 500 C St, SW, Washington, DC 20472
Feth, J H 1981 Chloride in Natural Continental Water-A Review U S
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2176, 30 pp
Fishman, M J and J D Hem 1976 Lead Content of Water In Lead
in the Environment, TG Lovenng (ed), U S Geological Survey
Professional Paper 957, pp 35-41
Flanagan, E K, J E Hansen, and N Dee 1991 Managing Ground-
Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Areas A
Priority Setting Approach Ground Water Management 7 415-418
(Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues)
Francis, J D , B L Brower, and WF Graham 1981 National Statis-
tical Assessment of Rural Water Conditions
Frischknecht, FC, L Muth, R Grette, T Buckley, and B Kornegay
1983 Geophysical Methods for Locating Abandoned Wells U S
Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-702,211 pp Also publish-
ed as EPA/600/4-84-065 (NTIS PB84-212711)
Fuhnman, DK and JR Barton 1971 Ground Water Pollution in
Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah EPA 16060 ERU 12/71
(NTIS PB211 145)
Gass, TE.JH Lehr, andHW Heiss, Jr 1977 Impact of Abandoned
Wells on Ground Water EPA/600/3-77-095 (NTIS PB-272665)
Geraghty, JJ andDW Miller 1985 Fundamentals of Ground Water
Contamination Short Course Notes Geraghty and Miller, Inc
Syosset, NY
Geyer, J A 1972 Landfill Decomposition Gases An Annotated Bib-
liography EPASW-72-1-1 (NTIS PB213 487) [48 articles]
Guswa, J H, WJ Lyman, AS Donigian, Jr, TYR Lo, and E W
Shanahan 1984 Groundwater Contamination and Emergency
Response Guide Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NY
Haimes, YY and J H Snyder(eds) 1986 Groundwater Contamina-
tion Engineering Foundation, New York
Hallberg, G R 1986 Overview of Agricultural Chemicals in Ground
Water In Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water—A Conference,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 1-66
Hem, JD 1972 Chemistry and Occurrence of Cadmium and Zinc in
Surface Water and Ground Water Water Resources Research
8 661-679
Inglese, Jr, O 1992 Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Ground Water A Local Official's Guide to Managing Class V
UIC Wells Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
Hartford, CT, 138 pp
Irvine, D E G and B Knights 1974 Pollution and the Use of Chemi-
cals in Agriculture Butterworth, London
Jenkins, S H (ed) 1979 The Agricultural Industry and Its Effects on
Water Quality Pergamon Press, New York
Kopp, J F and R C Kroner 1968 Trace Metals in Water in the United
States, October 1,1962-September 30,1967 U S Department of
the Intenor, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 48 pp
LaSpma, J and R Palmquist 1992 Catalog of Contaminant Data-
bases A Listing of Databases of Actual or Potential Contaminant
Sources Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Ledm,A,C Pettersson,B Allard,andM Aastrup 1989 Background
Concentration Ranges of Heavy Metals in Swedish Groundwaters
from Crystalline Rocks A Review Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
47419-426 Includes Cr, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb
Leenheer, J A, R L Malcolm, PW McKmley, and LA Eccles 1974
Occurrence of Dissolved Organic Carbon in Selected Groundwater
Samples in the United States J Res U S Geological Survey
2 361-369
Lehr.JH 1982 How Much Ground Water Have We Really Polluted1'
Ground Water Monitoring Review 2(1) 4
LICIS, IJ , H Skovronek, and M Drabkm 1991 Industrial Pollution
Prevention Opportunities for the 1990s EPA/600/8-91/052 (NTIS
PB91-220376) [Identifies approaches to source reduction and
waste recycling for 17 industries textile dyes and dyeing, pulp and
paper, printing, chemical manufacture, plastics, Pharmaceuticals,
paint industry, ink manufacture, petroleum industry, steel industry,
non-ferrous metals, electronics/semiconductors, automobile
manufacture/assembly, laundries/dry cleaning, and automobile re-
finishmg/repair]
181
-------
Undorff, DE and K.Cartwright 1977 Ground-Water Contamination
Problems and Remedial Actions Illinois Geological Survey Envi-
ronmental Geology Note 81 [75 references, 116 ground-water
contamination case histories]
Lawrence, J L 1992 Vulnerability Assessment Criteria Public Water
Supply Protection (Draft) New Mexico Department of the Environ-
ment, Santa Fe, NM [Criteria for giving waivers for constituents
to be monitored by drinking water systems]
Mayar, C F (ed) 1973 Polluted Groundwater Some Causes, Ef-
fects, Controls, and Monitoring EPA 600/4-73-001 b (NTIS PB232
117)
MIer, DW (ed) 1980 Waste Disposal Effects on Ground Water
Premier Press, Berkeley, CA [Note this report is the same as
US EPA(1977)]
MKer, DW 1982 Groundwater Contamination A Special Report
Goraghty & Miller, Inc, Syosset, NY
Millar, DW. 1985 Chemical Contamination of Ground Water In
Ground Water Quality, CH Ward, W Giger, and PL McCarty,
(eds), Wiley Intersclence, New York, pp 39-52
MiKer, D W and M R Scalf 1974 New Priorities for Groundwater
Quality Protection Ground Water 12(6) 335-347
MtKer, DW, PA DeLuca, and TL Tessier 1974 Ground Water
Contamination In the Northeast States EPA 660/2-74/056 (NTIS
PB235 702)
Miter, J C, PS Hackenberry, and FA DeLuca 1977 Ground-Water
Pollution Problems in the Southeastern United States EPA 600/3-
77/012 (NTIS PB268 234)
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 1992 Contaminant
Source Inventory Wellhead Protection Newsletter III, NDEQ, Lin-
coln, NE, 12 pp
Now Hampshire Office of State Planning 1991 Developing a Local
Inventory of Potential Contamination Sources Prepared for New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply
and Pollution Control Division, Concord, NH, 63 pp
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE) 1992 Ground Water Protection Practices Series Motor
Vehicle Services (6 pp), Roadway Deicing (6 pp), Unregulated
Underground Storage Tanks (10 pp), Urban/Suburban Landscap-
ing (8 pp), Septic Systems (8 pp) NJDEPE, Trenton, NJ
Nielsen, EG and LK. Lee 1987 The Magnitude and Costs of
Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals—A Na-
tional Perspective Economic Research Service, U S Dept of
Agriculture, Washington, DC, 54 pp
Noake, K.D 1988 Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead
Protection (Draft) Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Boston, MA
North Dakota State Department of Health 1993 North Dakota Well-
head Protection User's Guide Division of Water Quality, Bismarck,
ND
Noss, R R. 1989 Septic System Cleaners A Significant Threat to
Groundwater Quality Journal of Environmental Health 51(4) 201-
204
Novotny, V and G Chesters 1981 Handbook of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Sources and Management Van Nostrand Remhold, New
York.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1984 Protecting the Na-
tion's Groundwater from Contamination, Vols I and II OTA-0-233
and OTA-0-276 OTA, Washington, DC [Chapter 2 of Volume I
and Appendix A of Volume II focus on ground-water contamination
and its Impacts]
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1991 Guidance for Conduct-
ing Pollution Source Inventories in Wellhead Protection Areas
(Draft) OEPA, Division of Ground Water, Columbus, OH, 17 pp
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1992 Guidelines for
Potential Source of Contamination for Wellhead Protection in Ore-
gon Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR
[Based on Noake (1988)]
Overcash, MR andJM Davidson (eds) 1980 Environmental Im-
pact of Nonpoint Source Pollution Ann Arbor Science Press, Ann
Arbor, Ml
Page, GW 1981 Comparison of Groundwater and Surface Water
for Patterns and Levels of Contaminations by Toxic Substances
Environ Sci Technol 15 1475-1481
Palmer, C D, W Fish, and J F Keely 1988 Inorganic Contaminants
Recognizing the Problem In Proc 2nd Nat Outdoor Action Conf
on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical
Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp 555-
579
Patnck, R, E Ford, and J Quarles 1987 Groundwater Contamina-
tion in the United States, 2nd ed University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, PA (First edition, published in 1983, was by Pye,
Patnck and Quarles) [Contains special summaries for 19 states
AZ, CA, CT, FL, ID, IL, MA, MT, NE, NJ, NM, ND, OR, PA, Rl,
SC, TX, VT, and WA]
PEI Associates 1990 Guidance for Food Processors Section 313,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPA
560/4-90-014 Available from EPCRI Hotline *
Pettyjohn, W A 1972 Water Quality in Stressed Environments Bur-
gess Pub Co , Minneapolis, MN, 309 pp
Pettyjohn, W A and AW Hounslow 1983 Organic Compounds and
Ground-Water Pollution Ground Water Monitoring Review 3(4) 41-
47
Pye, VI and J Kelley 1984 The Extent of Groundwater Contami-
nation in the United States In Groundwater Contamination, Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 23-33
Pye, Patnck and Quarles (1983) — see Patrick et al (1987)
Reichard, E,C Cranor, R Rauchei.andG Zapponi 1990 Ground-
water Contamination Risk Assessment A Guide to Understanding
and Managing Uncertainties Int Assoc Hydrological Sciences
Publication No 196
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM)
1992 Inventory of Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamina-
tion in Wellhead Protection Areas RIDEM Guidance Document
RIDEM, Providence, Rl, 38 pp + appendices
Rima, D R, E B Chase and B M Myers 1971 Subsurface Waste
Disposal by Means of Wells-A Selected Annotated Bibliography
U S Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2020 [692 refer-
ences]
Scalf, MR, JW Keeley, and CJ LaFevers 1973 Ground Water
Pollution in the South Central States EPA R2-73/268 (NTIS PB222
178)
Scalf, M R, WJ Dunlap, and J F Kreissl 1977 Environmental Ef-
fects of Septic Tank Systems EPA/600/3-77-096 (NTIS PB272-
702), 43 pp
Shacklette, HT et al 1971 a Elemental Composition of Surfteial
Materials in the Conterminous United States U S Geological Sur-
vey Professional Paper 574-D Includes Al, Ba, Be, Bo, Ca, Ce,
Cr, Co, Cu, Ga, Fe, La, Pb, Mg, Mo, Ne, Nl, Nb, P, K, So, Na, Sr,
Ti, V, Y, Yb, Zn, Zr
182
-------
Shacklette, HT et al 1971b Mercury in the Environment—Surficial
Materials of the Conterminous United States U S Geological Sur-
vey Circular 644
Shacklette, HT et al 1973 Lithium in Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States and Partial Data on Cadmium U S
Geological Survey Circular 673
Shacklette, H T et al 1974 Selenium, Fluorine, and Arsenic in Sur-
ficial Materials of the Conterminous United States U S Geological
Survey Circular 692
Shmeldecker, C L 1992 Handbook of Environmental Contaminants
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 371 pp [Key to contaminants that
are likely to be associated with specific types of facilities, proc-
esses, and products]
Silka, LR andTL Sweanngen 1978 Manual for Evaluating Con-
tamination Potential of Surface Impoundments EPA-570/9-78-003
(NTIS PB85-211433)
Skougstad, MW andCA Horr 1963 Occurrence and Distribution
of Strontium in Natural Water U S Geological Survey Water-Sup-
ply Paper 1496-D, pp D55-D97
Summers, WK and Z Spiegel 1974 Ground Water Pollution A
Bibliography Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml [Par-
tially annotated, more than 400 references organized by topic]
Texas Water Commission 1989b On Dangerous Ground The Prob-
lem of Abandoned Wells in Texas Austin, TX
Thomson, M , et al 1984 Characterization of Soil Disposal System
Leachates EPA/600/2-84/101 (NTIS PB84-196229)
Thurman, E M 1985 Humic Substances in Groundwater In Humic
Substances in Soil, Sediment, and Water Geochemistry, Isolation,
and Characterization, Aiken, G R , D M McKnighi, R L Wershaw,
and P MacCarthy (eds), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 87-
103
Todd, D K and D E O McNulty 1974 Polluted Groundwater A Re-
view of the Significant Literature EPA680/4-74-OD1 (NTIS PB235
556) Also published in 1976 under same title by Water Information
Center, Plamview, NY [661 references]
U S Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 1979 Effects
of Rue Gas Cleaning Waste on Groundwater Quality and Soil
Characteristics EPA/600/2-79/164 (NTIS PB80-118656)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1972 Subsurface
Water Pollution—A Selective Annotated Bibliography, Part I—Sub-
surface Waste Injection (NTIS PB211 340), Part II—Saline Water
Intrusion (NTIS PB211 341), Pt III—Percolation from Surface
Sources (NTIS PB211 342) [Total of 319 references]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1977 The Report to
Congress, Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground
Water EPA/570/9-77/001 (NTIS PB265-081), 512 pp [Note this
report is the same as Miller (1980) ]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1978 Surface Im-
poundments and their Effects on Ground Water Quality in the
U S —A Preliminary Survey EPA-570/9-78-005
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1979 Environmental
Assessment Short-Term Tests for Carcinogens, Mutagens and
Other Genotoxic Agents EPA/615/9-79/003 (NTIS PB300 611)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1933 Surface Im-
poundment Assessment National Report EPA 570/9-84-002 (NTIS
DE84-901182)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1984 National Statis-
tical Assessment of Rural Water Conditions Executive Summary
(EPA/570/9-84-003—Also included in Technical Summary), Tech-
nical Summary (EPA/570/9-84-004, NTIS PB84-213517), Set of
four Volumes (EPA/570/9-84-004, NTIS PB84-222322), Vol I
(EPA/570/9-84-004a, NTIS PB84-222330, 424 pp), Vol II
(EPA/570/9-84-004b, NTIS PB84-222348, 444 pp), Vol III
(EPA/570/9-84-004C, NTIS PB84-222355, 465 pp), Vol IV
(EPA/570/9-84-004d, NTIS PB84-222363, 316 pp)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985a National Water
Quality Inventory 1984 National Report to Congress EPA 440/4-
85-029
s
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985b Report to Con-
gress on Injection of Hazardous Wastes EPA 570/9-85/003 (NTIS
PB86-203056)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986a Summary of
State Reports oh Releases from Underground Storage Tanks EPA
600/M-86/020
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986b Underground
Motor Fuel Storage Tanks A National Survey, Vol 1, Technical
Report EPA 560/5-86-013
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986c Pesticides in
Ground Water Background Document EPA/440/6-86-002 (NTIS
PB88-111976)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986d National Survey
of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987a EPA Activities
Related to Sources of Ground-Water Contamination EPA/440/6-
87/002 (NTIS PB88-111901), 125 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987b Estimating Re-
leases and Waste Treatment Efficiencies for the Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Form EPA/560/4-88-002 (NTIS PB88-210380)
Available from EPCRI Hotline *
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988a Guide to Con-
tamination Sources for Wellhead Protection (Draft) Offices of
Ground-Water Protection and Drinking Water
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988b Industry-Spe-
cific Guidance Documents for Estimating Releases Monofilament
Fiber Manufacture (EPA/560/4-88-004a, NTIS PB93-205961),
Printing Operations (EPA/560/4-88-004b, NTIS PB93-205979),
Electrodeposition of Organic Coatings (EPA/560/4-88-004c, NTIS
PB93-205987), Spray Application of Organic Coatings (EPA/560/4-
88-004d, NTIS PB93-205995), Semiconductor Manufacturers
(EPA/560/4-88-004e, NTIS PB93-206001), Formulation of Aque-
ous Solutions (EPA/560/4-88-004f, NTIS PB93-206019), Electro-
plating Operations (EPA/560/4-88-004g, NTIS PB93-206027),
Textile Dyeing (EPA/560/4-88-004h, NTIS PB93-206035), Press-
wood & Laminated Wood Products Manufactunng (EPA/560/4-88-
0041, NTIS PB93-206043), Roller, Knife and Gravure Coating
Operations (EPA/560/4-88-004J, NTIS PB93-206050), Paper and
Paperboard Production (EPA/560/4-88-004k, NTIS PB93-206068),
Leather Tanning and Finishing (EPA/560/4-88-0041), Wood Pre-
serving (EPA/560/4-88-004p, NTIS PB93-206084), Rubber Pro-
duction and Compounding (EPA/560/4-88-004q, NTIS
PB93-206092) Available from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988c Report to Con-
gress Waste from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power
Plants EPA/530-SW-88-002 (NTIS PB88-177977)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989 Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide, 2 Volumes (Version 1 0)
EPA/560/2-89-002 (NTIS PB90-122128)
183
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990a Does Your Busi-
ness Produce Hazardous Waste? Many Small Businesses Do
EPA/530/SW-90-027, 5 pp Available from RIC* [2- to 4-page
business-specific reports (EPA/530/SW-90-027A to S) are also
avatlabte from RIC" Vehicle Maintenance (A), Dry-cleaning and
Laundry (8), Furniture/Wood Finishing (C), Equipment Repair (D),
Textile Manufacturing (E), Wood Preserving (F), Printing and Allied
Industry (Q), Chemical Manufacturers (H), Pesticide End-Users (I),
Construction (J), Motor Freight Terminals/Railroad Transport (K),
Educational/Vocational (L), Laboratories (M), Metal Manufacturing
(N), Pulp and Paper Industry (O), Formulators (P), Cleaning and
Cosmetics (Q). Leather and Leather Products (R), Uniform Haz-
ardous Waste Manifest Instructions (S)]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990b Ground Water
Handbook, Vol I Ground Water and Contamination EPA/625/6-
90/016a. Available from CERI"
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990c National Sur-
vey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Phase I Report EPA/570/9-
90-014 (NTIS PB91-125765)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 a A Review of
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination from Light Industry
EPA/440/8-90-005 (NTIS PB91-145938)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991b A Review of
Methods for Assessing Nonpomt Source Contaminated Ground-
Water Discharge to Surface Water EPA/570/9-91-010 (NTIS
PB92-188697). 99 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991c Managing
Ground Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Ar-
eas A Priority Setting Approach EPA 570/9-91-023 (NTIS PB93-
115863) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992 Publications Of-
ffca of Science and Technology Catalog EPA-820-B-92-002
Available from U S EPA Office of Water Resource Center (WH-
556) 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, 202/260-7786
[List of tides for over 200 EPA documents used to develop indus-
trial effluent limitations and guidelines along with information on
how documents can be obtained]
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990-1993 Guide to
PoMutfon Prevention Series (alphabetical by title) The Automotive
Refidshing Industry (EPA/625/7-91/016, NTIS PB92-129139), The
Automotive Repair Industry (EPA/625/7-91/013, NTIS PB91-
227975), The Commercial Printing Industry (EPA/625/7-90/008,
NTIS PB91-110023), The Fabricated Metal Products Industry
(EPA/625/7-90/006, NTIS PB91-110015), The Fiberglass-Rein-
forced and Composite Plastics Industry (EPA/625/7-91/014, NTIS
PB91-227967), The Marine Maintenance and Repair Industry
(EPA/B25/7-91/015, NTIS PB91-228817), The Mechanical Equip-
ment Repair Industry (EPA/625/R-92/008, NTIS PB93-127793),
Metal Casting and Heat Treating Industry (EPA/625/R-92/009,
NTIS PB93-127793), The Metal Finishing Industry (EPA/625/R-92-
011, NTIS PB93-100105), Non-Agricultural Pesticide Users
(EPA/625/R-93/009, NTIS PB94-144634), The Paint Manufactur-
ing Industry (EPA/625/7-90/005, NTIS PB90-256405), The Pesti-
cide Formulating Industry (EPA/625/7-90/004, NTIS
PB90-192790), The Pharmaceutical Industry (EPA/625/7-91/017,
NTIS PB92-100080), The Preprocessing Industry (EPA/625/7-
91/012, NTIS PB92-129121), The Printed Circuit Board Manufac-
turing Industry (EPA/625/7-90/007, NTIS PB90-256413), Research
and Educational Institutions (EPA/625/7-90/010, NTIS PB90-
256439), Selected Hospital Waste Streams (EPA/625/7-90/009,
NTIS PB90-256421) Available from CERI *
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 1986 Contaminant Issues of Con-
cern—National Wildlife Refuges Washington, DC
U S Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1984 Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, 2 Vols OTA-O-233 and
OTA-O-276 Washington, DC
US Public Health Service 1961 Proceedings of the 1961 Sympo-
sium, Ground Water Contamination U S Public Health Service
Tech Rept W61-5
vanderLeeden, F.LA Cerrillo, and D W Miller 1975 Ground-Water
Pollution Problems in the Northwestern United States EPA 660/3-
75/018 (NTIS PB242 860)
van der Leeden, F 1991 Geraghty & Miller's Ground-Water Bibliog-
raphy, 5th ed Water Information Center, Plainview, NY 4th ed
1987 [Some 5,000 selected references in 32 categones]
van Duijvenbooden, W and HG van Waegenmgen (eds) 1987
Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants Nat Inst of
Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, Noordwijk aan Zee, the
Netherlands, Vol 38
van Duijvenbooden, W, P Glasbergen, and H van Lelyveld 1981
Quality of Groundwater Elsevier, New York [Sections 1 (Effects
of diffuse polluting sources, land and precipitation) and 2 (effects
of local polluting sources) contain 45 papers]
Ward, C H, W Giger, and PL McCarty (eds) 1985 Ground Water
Quality Wiley-lnterscience, New York. [Part One contains 8 con-
tributed chapters on sources, types, and quantities of contami-
nants in ground waters]
Ward, WD.LE Dates, and KB McCormack 1990 Tools for Well-
head Protection Control and Identification of Light Industrial
Sources Ground Water Management 1 579-593 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection)
Washington State Department of Health 1993 Inventory for Potential
Contaminant Sources Within Washington's Wellhead Protection
Areas Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA, 25
PP
Westrick, J J, J W Mello, and R F Thomas 1984 The Ground Water
Supply Survey J Am Water Works Assoc 76(5) 52
White, D E, J D Hem, and G A Waring 1963 Chemical Composi-
tion of Subsurface Waters U S Geological Survey Professional
Paper 440-F, 67 pp
White, D E, M E Hmkle, and I Barnes 1970 Mercury Contents of
Natural Thermal and Mineral Fluids In Mercury in the Environ-
ment, U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 713, pp 25-28
Zanoni, AE 1971 Ground-Water Pollution and Sanitary Landfills—-A
Critical Review In Proceedings of the National Water Quality
Symposium, EPA 1606 ERB 08/71 (NTIS PB214614), pp 97-110
[61 references]
Zoeteman, BCJ 1985 Overview of Contaminants in Ground Water
In Ground Water Quality, C H Ward, W Giger, and PL McCarty,
(eds), Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 27-37
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
184
-------
Chapter 9
Wellhead Protection Area Management
Management of wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) to
prevent ground water contamination involves several
steps
• Identification of protection options appropriate for the
types of potential contaminants present
• Selection of those that are technically and politically
feasible for the area
• Implementation of the options
• Monitoring of the effectiveness of management and
application of additional management practices, if
required
• Development of contingency plans to address threats
to a water supply as a result of accident or failure
of the management practices that have been
implemented
This chapter includes a checklist and tables that provide
a comprehensive overview of available options, but
does not discuss specific approaches in detail Table 9-4
at the end of the chapter provides an index to major
references sources where more detailed information
can be obtained about specific options for management
of wellhead protection areas
9.1 General Regulatory and
Nonregulatory Approaches
Wellhead protection management options or tools can
be broadly classified as regulatory and nonregulatory At
the local level, regulatory approaches generally involve
the use of some form of (1) zoning ordinances, (2)
subdivision or individual lot controls, or (3) promulgation
of local health and environmental regulations designed
to directly or indirectly protect ground watei in a WHPA
State-level legislation or regulations may also address
wellhead protection Nonregulatory controls, as the
name implies, involve voluntary actions on the part of
the public and private sector to enhance ground water
protection
Wellhead protection management options can also be
classified as technical and nontechnical Although the
dividing line may not always be clear, technical options
generally involve controls based on some under-
standing of the relationship between contaminant char-
acteristics and the hydrogeology of a WHPA Nontech-
nical options are generally not directly related to
scientific considerations, although indirect relationships
exist to the extent that WHPA delineation and contami-
nant risk assessment processes are scientifically
based
Checklist 9-1 identifies 45 specific wellhead protection
tools in three major categories (1) nontechnical regula-
tory options, (2) nontechnical nonregulatory options,
and (3) technical regulatory and nonregulatory options
Nontechnical options are not discussed further here
However, Checklist 9-1 indicates where Tables 9-1 and
9-2 provide summary information on specific options
The rest of this chapter focuses on general technical
approaches to WHPA management (Section 9 2), spe-
cific approaches for different types of land use (Section
9 3), and contingency planning (Section 9 4)
9.2 General Technical Approaches
9.2.1 Design Standards and Best
Management Practices
Design standards define specifications for how a
building or onsite wastewater disposal system
should be constructed Best management practices
(BMPs) define how repeated activities, such as con-
struction and farming, should be carried out so as
to minimize adverse environmental impacts The
great advantage of these approaches is their sim-
plicity They establish an objective standard for
monitoring compliance Design standards usually
require inspection for compliance at the time of in-
spection, although some ongoing monitoring may
also be required BMPs may require ongoing moni-
toring for compliance Design standards and BMPs
will only provide adequate protection, however, if
the assumptions used in establishing the standard
or practice apply within a WHPA Design standards
and BMPs tend to be less flexible than performance
standards (next section) because they cannot be
readily modified to reflect local conditions
185
-------
Checklist 9-1
Wellhead Protection Tools
Regulatory Options (Nontechnical^
Zoning Ordinances (Table 9-2)
Overlay ground water protection districts (Table 9-1)
Land use prohibitions (Table 9-1)
Special permitting (Table 9-1)
Large-lot zoning (Table 9-1)
Transfer of development rights (Table 9-1)
duster/PUD Design (Table 9-1)
Growth controlsAnmng (Table 9-1)
Subdivision and Individual Lot Controls
Subdivision ordinances (Table 9-2, see also Technical Options below)
Site plan review (Table 9-2)
Health and Environmental Regulations
Prohibit or additional regulation of underground storage tanks (Table 9-1)
Other source prohibitions (Table 9-2)
Inspection and testing (Table 9-2)
Prohibition/regulation of small sewage treatment plants (Table 9-1)
Phosphorus buffer zone
Septic cleaner ban (Table 9-1)
Septic system maintenance/upgrades (Table 9-1)
Registration and inspection of businesses using tone/hazardous materials (Table 9-1)
Regulation of household hazardous waste
Regulation of agricultural chemicals
Regulation of private wells, permits, pump and water quality testing (Table 9-1)
Legislative (State-level)
Establishment of regional WHPAs (Table 9-1)
Passage of laws authorizing regulation where regulatory powers are limited
Nbnregulatory Options (NontechrucaTl
Land acquisition by purchase or donation (Tables 9-1, 9-2)
Purchase of development rights (Table 9-2)
Taxation deferments for nondevelopment
Conservation easements (Table 9-1)
Voluntary limits to development (Table 9-1)
Land banking/transfer taxes (Table 9-1)
Contingency planning (Tables 9-1,9-2)
Hazardous waste collection program (Table 9-1)
Public education (Tables 9-1, 9-2)
Training and demonstration (Table 9-2)
Waste reduction (Table 9-2)
Water conservation
186
-------
Checklist 9-1
Wellhead Protection Tools (Continued)
Technical Regulatory and Nonreeulatorv Options
General
Wellhead protection zones
Ground water monitoring (Tables 9-1, 9-2)
Performance standards (Table 9-1)
Operating standards (Table 9-2)
Design standards (Table 9-2)
Best management practices — BMPs (Table 9-2)
Capture zone management
Subdivision 'Controls
Nitrogen/phosphorus loading standards
Drainage Requirements (Table 9-1)
Nonpoint Source Pollution Controls
Agriculture BMPs
Construction Site BMPs
187
-------
Table 9-1. Summary of Wellhead Protection Tools
Applicability to
Wellhead Protection
Land Use Practice Legal Considerations Administrative Considerations
Regulatory: Zoning
Overlay GW
Protection Districts
ProhibRton of
Various Land Uses
Special Permitting
Large-Lot Zoning
Transfer of
Development Rights
Chjster/PUD Design
Growth Controls/
Timing
Used to map wellhead
protection areas
(WHPAs)
Provides for
Identification of sensitive
areas for protection
Used In conjunction with
other tools that follow
Used within mapped
WHPAs to prohibit
ground-water
contaminants and uses
that generate
contaminants
Used to restrict uses
within WHPAs that may
cause ground water
contamination if left
unregulated
Used to reduce Impacts
of residential
development by limiting
numbers of units within
WHPAs
Used to transfer
development from
WHPAs to locations
outside WHPAs
Used to guide residential
development outside of
WHPAs
Allows for "point source"
discharges that are more
easily monitored
Used to time the
occurrence of
development wrthin
WHPAs
Allows communities the
opportunity to plan for
wellhead delineation and
protection
Community identifies
WHPAs on practical
base/zoning map
Community adopts
prohibited uses list
within their zoning
ordinance
Community adopts
special permit
"thresholds" for various
uses and structures
within WHPAs
Community grants
special permits for
"threshold" uses only if
ground water quality
will not be
compromised
Community "down
zones" to increase
minimum acreage
needed for residential
development
Community offers
transfer option within
zoning ordinance
Community identifies
areas where
development is to be
transferred "from" and
"to"
Community offers
cluster/PUD as
development option
within zoning ordinance
Community identifies
areas where
cluster/PUD is allowed
(I e, within WHPAs)
Community imposes
growth controls in the
form of building caps,
subdivision phasing, or
other limitation tied to
planning concerns
Well-accepted method of
identifying sensitive areas
May face legal challenges
if WHPA boundaries are
based solely on arbitrary
delineation
Well-organized function of
zoning
Appropriate techniques to
protect natural resources
from contamination
Well-organized method of
segregating land uses
within critical resource
areas such as WHPAs
Requires case-by-case
analysis to ensure equal
treatment of applicants
Well-recognized
prerogative of local
government
Requires rational
connection between
minimum lot size selected
and resource protection
goals
Arbitrary large lot zones
have been struck down
without logical connection
to Master Plan or WHPA
program
Accepted land use
planning tool
Well-accepted option for
residential land
development
Well-accepted option for
communities facing
development pressures
within sensitive resource
areas
Growth controls may be
challenged if they are
imposed without a rational
connection to the
resource being protected
Requires staff to develop overlay
map
Inherent nature of zoning
provides "grandfather" protection
to pre-existing uses and
structures
Requires amendment to zoning
ordinance
Requires enforcement by both
visual inspection and onsite
investigations
Requires detailed understanding
of WHPA sensitivity by local
permit granting authority
Requires enforcement of special
permit requirements and onsite
investigations
Requires amendment to zoning
ordinance
Cumbersome administrative
requirements
Not well suited for small
communities without significant
administrative resources
Slightly more complicated to
administer than traditional "grid"
subdivision
Enforcement/inspection
requirements are similar to "grid"
subdivision
Generally complicated
administrative process
Requires administrative staff to
issue permits and enforcement
growth control ordinances
188
-------
Table 9-1 Summary of Wellhead Protection Tool s (Continued)
Applicability to
Wellhead Protection
Land Use Practice Legal Considerations Administrative Considerations
Performance
Standards
Used to regulate
development within
WHPAs by enforcing
predetermined standards
for water quality
Allows for aggressive
protection of WHPAs by
limiting development
within WHPAs to an
accepted level
Community identifies
WHPAs and
established
"thresholds" for water
quality
Adoption of specific
WHPA performance
standards requires sound
technical support
Performance standards
must be enforced on a
case-by-case basis
Complex administrative
requirements to evaluate impacts
of land development within
WHPAs
Regulatory Subdivision Control
Drainage
Requirements
Used to ensure that
subdivision road
drainage is directed
outside of WHPAs
Used to employ
advanced engineering
designs of subdivision
roads within WHPAs
Regulatory Health Regulations
Underground Fuel
Storage Systems
Privately Owned
Wastewater
Treatment Plants
(Small Sewage
Treatment Plants)
Septic Cleaner Ban
Septic System
Upgrades
Used to prohibit
underground fuel
storage systems (USTs)
within WHPAs
Used to regulate USTs
within WHPAs
Used to prohibit small
sewage treatment plants
(SSTP) within WHPAs
Used to prohibit the
application of certain
solvent septic cleaners,
a known ground water
contaminant, within
WHPAs
Used to require periodic
inspection and
upgrading of septic
systems
Community adopts
stringent subdivision
rules and regulations
to regulate road
drainage/runoff in
subdivisions within
WHPAs
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance prohibiting
USTs within WHPAs
Community adopts
special permit or
performance standards
for use of USTs within
WHPAs
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance within
WHPAs
Community adopts
special permit or
performance standards
for use of SSTPs
Within WHPAs
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance prohibiting
the use of septic
cleaners containing
1,1,1-tnchloroethane or
other solvent
compounds within
WHPAs
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance requiring
inspection and, if
necessary, upgrading
of septic systems on a
time basis (e g , every
2 years) or upon
tile/property transfer
Well-accepted purpose of
subdivision control
Well-accepted regulatory
option for local
government
Well-accepted regulatory
option for local
government
Well-accepted method of
protecting ground water
quality
Well-accepted purview of
government to ensure
protection of ground water
Requires moderate level of
inspection and enforcement by
administrative staff
Prohibition of USTs require little
administrative support
Regulating USTs requires
moderate amounts of
administrative support for
inspection followup and
enforcement
Prohibition of SSTPs require little
administrative support
Regulating SSTPs requires
moderate amount of
administrative support of
inspection followup and
enforcement
Difficult to enforce even with
sufficient administrative support
Significant administrative
resources required for this option
189
-------
Tabla 9-1. Summary of Wellhead Protection Tools (Continued)
Applicability to
Wellhead Protection
Land Use Practice Legal Considerations Administrative Considerations
Toxic and
Hazardous Materials
Handling Regulations
Used to ensure proper
handling and disposal of
toxic materials/waste
Private Well
Protection
Used to protect private
onslte water supply wells
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance requiring
registration and
inspection of all
businesses within
WHPA using
toxic/hazardous
materials above certain
quantities
Community adopts
health/zoning
ordinance to require
permits for new pnvate
wells and to ensure
appropriate well-to-
septic-system setbacks
Also requires pump
and water quality
testing
Non-regulatory. Land Transfer and Voluntary Restrictions
Sato/Donation
Land acquired by a
community with WHPAs,
either by purchase or
donation Provides broad
protection to the
ground-water supply
Conservation
Easements
Can be used to limit
development within
WHPAs
Limited Development
As the title implies, this
technique limits
development to portions
of a land parcel outside
of WHPAs
Non-regulatory: Other
Monitoring
Used to monitor ground
water quality within
WHPAs
Contingency Plans
Used to ensure
appropriate response In
cases of contaminant
release or other
emergencies within
WHPA
As non-regulatory
technique,
communities generally
work in partnership
with non-profit land
conservation
organizations
Similar to
sales/donations,
conservation
easements are
generally obtained with
the assistance of
non-profit land
conservation
organization
Land developers work
with community as part
of a cluster/PUD to
develop limited
portions of a site and
restrict other portions,
particularly those within
WHPAs
Communities establish
ground water
monitoring program
within WHPA
Communities require
developers within
WHPAs to monitor
ground water quality
downgradient from
their development
Community prepares a
contingency plan
Involving wide range of
municipal/county
officials
Well accepted as within
purview of government to
ensure protection of
ground water
Well accepted as within
purview of government to
ensure protection of
ground water
There are many legal
consequences of
accepting land for
donation or sale from the
private sector, mostly
involving liability
Same as above
Similar to those noted in
cluster/PUD under zoning
Accepted method of
ensuring ground water
quality
None
Requires administrative support
and onsite inspections
Requires administrative support
and review of applications
There are few administrative
requirements involved in
accepting donations or sales of
land from the private sector
Administrative requirements for
maintenance of land accepted or
purchased may be substantial,
particularly if the community
does not have a program for
open space management
Same as above
Similar to those noted in
cluster/PUD under zoning
Requires moderate
admimstra-tive staffing to ensure
routine sampling and response if
sampling indicates contamination
Requires significant up-front
planning to anticipate and be
prepared for emergencies
190
-------
Table 9-1 Summary of Wellhead Protection Tools (Continued)
Legislative
Regional WHPA
Districts
Land Banking
Applicability to
Wellhead Protection
Land Use Practice Legal Considerations Administrative Considerations
Hazardous Waste
Collection
Public Education
Used to reduce
accumulation of
hazardous materials
within WHPAs and the
community at large
Used to inform
community residents of
the connection between
land use within WHPAs
and drinking water
quality
Communities, in
cooperation with the
state, regional planning
commission, or other
entity, sponsor a
"hazardous waste
collection day" several
times per year
Communities can
employ a variety of
public education
techniques ranging
from brochures
detailing their WHPA
program, to seminars,
to involvement in
events such as
hazardous waste
collection days
There are several legal
issues raised by the
collection, transport, and
disposal of hazardous
waste
No outstanding legal
considerations
Hazardous waste collection
programs are generally
sponsored by government
agencies, but administered by a
private contractor
Requires some degree of
administrative support for
programs such as brochure
mailing to more intensive support
for seminars and hazardous
waste collection days
Used to protect regional
aquifer systems by
establishing new
legislative districts that
often transcend existing
corporate boundaries
Used to acquire and
protect land within
WHPAs
Requires state
legislative action to
create a new
legislative authority
Land banks are usually
accomplished with a
transfer tax established
by state government
empowering local
government to impose
a tax on the transfer of
land from one party to
another
Well-accepted method of
protecting regional ground
water resources
Land banks can be
subject to legal challenge
as an unjust tax, but have
been accepted as a
legitimate method of
raising revenue for
resource protection
Administrative requirements will
vary depending on the goal of
the regional district
Mapping of the regional WHPAs
requires moderate administrative
support, while creating land use
controls within the WHPA will
require significant administrative
personnel and support
Land banks require significant
administrative support if they are
to function effectively
Source Horsley and Witten, 1989
9.2.2 Performance and Operating Standards 9.2.3 Ground Water Monitoring
Performance and operating standards focus on estab-
lishing measurable environmental standards that protect
human health or the environment Performance and
operating standards alone do not specify how perform-
ance should be achieved Determining compliance for
environmental standards, such as minimum acceptable
concentrations of a chemical in ground water, is rela-
tively simple, requiring sampling and chemical analysis
Noncomphance, however, will require additional actions
to find the reason for noncomphance and the implemen-
tation of methods to bring the system back into compli-
ance This approach generally provides more flexibility
than design standards and BMPs, since almost any
method can be used as long as the performance stand-
ard is achieved To be effective, performance and opera-
tion standards must be implemented far enough from
the wellhead area that noncomphance can be rectified
without posing a threat to the well
Ground water monitoring is an essential component of
wellhead protection All WHPA delineation methods in-
volve irreducible uncertainties due to the inherent physi-
cal and chemical complexity of hydrogeologic systems
Previous chapters have made suggestions for ways to
address uncertainties, but no delineation method or
ground water management practice is fail-safe For early
detection of contamination, monitoring wells should be
installed between significant point sources of potential
contamination and the wellhead ahead in the most direct
ground water flow path line (Chapter 2) One or more
monitoring wells should be installed upgradient of the
wellhead along a specified time of travel contour (say 2-
to 5-year isochron) to provide an early warning of the
presence of contaminants traveling toward the well
Installation of ground water monitoring wells and ground
water sampling require special procedures to ensure
191
-------
Table 9-2. Potential Management Tools for Wellhead Protection (Born et al, 1987, U S EPA, 1989)
Regulatory Nonregulatory
Zoning Ordinances. Zoning ordinances typically are
comprehensive land-use requirements designed to direct the
development of an area Many local governments have used
zoning to restrict or regulate certain land uses within wellhead
protection areas
Subdivision Ordinances. Subdivision ordinances are applied to
land that Is divided Into two or more subunlts for sale or
development Local governments use this tool to protect wellhead
areas In which ongoing development is causing contamination
SIta Plan Review. Site plan reviews are regulations requiring
developers to submit for approval plans for development occurnng
within a given area This tool ensures compliance with regulations
or other requirements made within a wellhead protection area
Dttlgn Standards Design standards typically are regulations that
apply to the design and construction of buildings or structures
TWs tool can be used to ensure that new buildings or structures
placed within a wellhead protection area are designed so as not
to posa a threat to the water supply
Oporatlng Standards Operating standards are regulations that
apply to ongoing land-use activities to promote safety or
environmental protection Such standards can minimize the threat
to the wellhead area from ongoing activities such as the
application of agricultural chemicals or the storage and use of
hazardous substances
Source Prohibitions. Source prohibitions are regulations that
prohtolt the presence or use of chemicals or hazardous activities
within a given area Local governments can use restrictions on the
storage or handling of large quantities of hazardous materials
within a wellhead protection area
Inspection and Testing Local governments can use their
statutory home rule power to require more stringent control of
contamination sources within wellhead protection areas than given
In federal or state rules
Purchase of Property or Development Rights The purchase
of property or development rights is a tool used by some
localities to ensure complete control of land uses in or
surrounding a wellhead area This tool may be preferable if
regulatory restrictions on land use are not politically feasible and
the land purchase is affordable
Public Education Public education often consists of brochures,
pamphlets, or seminars designed to present wellhead area
problems and protection efforts to the public in an
understandable fashion This tool promotes the use of voluntary
protection efforts and builds public support for a community
protection program
Waste Reduction Residential hazardous waste management
programs can be designed to reduce the quantity of household
hazardous waste being disposed of improperly This program has
been used un localities where municipal landfills potentially
threaten ground water due to improper household waste disposal
in the wellhead area
Best Management Practices BMPs are voluntary actions that
have a long tradition of being used, especially un agriculture
Technical assistance for farmers wishing to apply them is
available from local Extension and SCS offices
Training and Demonstration These programs can complement
many regulations, for example, training underground storage tank
inspectors and local emergency response teams or
demonstration of agricultural BMPs
Ground-Water Monitoring Ground-water monitoring generally
consists of sinking a series of test wells and developing an
ongoing water quality testing program This tool provides for
monitoring the quality of the ground-water supply or the
movement of a contaminant plume
Contingency Planning Local governments can develop their
own contingency plans for emergency response to spills and for
alternative water supply in case of contamination of the existing
supply
that samples are representative Major EPA documents
that provide guidance in this area include Aller et al
(1991), Barcelona et al (1985), U S EPA (1986d), U S
EPA (1986e), and U S EPA (1993b)
9.3 Specific Regulatory and Technical
Approaches
In addition to Checklist 9-1 and Tables 9-1 and 9-2
discussed earlier, the following may be helpful in devel-
oping specific regulatory and technical approaches for
managing a WHPA
* Worksheet C-7 includes (1) a summary form for iden-
tifying existing bylaws available to regulate land use
activities within a WHPA and areas where regulations
might be needed, and (2) a questionnaire to identify
key concerns and existing control mechanisms
• Rgure 9-1 provides ratings for the applicability of 10
local regulatory techniques to 34 land use categories
• Table 9-3 identifies general BMPs for commercial and
industrial facilities
• Table 8-4 identifies references containing recom-
mended detailed BMPs for specific land uses
Chapter 10 includes six case studies that provide exam-
ples of different approaches to management of WHPAs
in different hydrogeologic settings
9.4 Contingency Planning
Developing a contingency plan to deal with emergency
threats to ground water quality in the WHPA, such as
accidental chemical spills, is an essential part of man-
aging a wellhead protection area The plan should in-
clude information that allows a rapid response to
minimize damage from accidental spills or other re-
leases of chemicals, such as during efforts to control a
fire at a known chemical storage site The plan should
also include short- and long-term solutions to the
192
-------
Local
Regulatory
Techniques
(see discussion
In Guidebook)
Land Use Categories
Boat Yards/Builders
;hemlca) Manufacture
Clandestine Dumping
urnllure Stripping & Palming
9oU Courses/Turf Management
hazardous Materials Storage
•tlgh Technology Industries
Industrial Lagoons and Pits
Jewelry and Metal Plating
Machine Shops/Metal Working
Municipal Wastewater /Sewer Lines
Photography Labs/Printers
Railroad Tracks and Yards
Research Labs/Hospitals
Road and Maintenance Depots
Sand and Gravel Mining/Washing
Septage Lagoons and Sludge
Septic Systems, Cesspools
Stables, Feedlots, Kennels
Stormwater Drains/Retention Basins
Underground Storage Tanks
Vehicular Services
Wood Preserving
Explanation of the Matrix
| | Not Applicable
Applicable to Proposed Uses
Applicable to Existing
and Proposed Land Uses
This Matrix relates local regulatory techniques to various
land use categories The local authority has options for
controlling potential contaminant sources Each technique
can Incorporate provisions for misting uses, proposed
uses, and other situations, such as a changed use or an
abandoned use Because techniques to control existing uses
automatically cover future uses, a box showing appltc-
ablllty to existing uses only does not appear
Figure 9-1 Land use/local regulatory techniques matrix (Noake, 1988)
193
-------
Tabte 9-3. General Best Management Practices (Inglese, 1992)
DESIGN BMPa
Subsurface Disposal
Systems
Floor Drains
Dry Walls
FlOOfS
Storage Facllittes
Minimum setback distances should be established between limits of leach fields and wellheads Distances
should be based on information such as percolation tests, zone of influence of leachate mounding, wellhead
protection areas, and time of travel
Leach fields must be sized according to soil charactenstics and hydraulic and pollutant loadings Excessively
sized septic system leach fields may cause reduced effectiveness If normal flows are inadequate to maintain a
biologically active clogging layer throughout the leach field
Septic systems are not recommended in areas with karst, fractured, cavernous, volcanic, or any other highly
permeable subsurface formation
Additional detention times for septic tanks, and larger buffer zones around leachfields should be considered in
septic system design
All septic tank installations should be designed or retrofitted with provisions for sampling at the outlet baffle
Gas baffles should be Installed at the outlet
Maximum contaminant levels must be met for pollutants prior to discharge to leachfield distribution system
Any facility on a septic system must have its septic tanks effluent monitored for Ph, BOD, nitrites, nitrates, and
ammonia Monitoring should be done annually and increased to a quarterly schedule if detectable levels are
recorded After three successive non-detectable readings, the monitoring can be reduced to an annual schedule
Verify that the septic system is serviced by a waste hauler
Eliminate floor drain discharges to the ground, septic systems (except in sanitary facilities), storm sewers or to
any surface water body from any location in the facility
If no floor drains are installed, all discharges to the floor should be collected, contained, and disposed of by an
appropriate waste hauler in accordance with federal and state requirements
Floor drains in sanitary facilities must either discharge to a septic system, a municipal sanitary sewer or a
holding tank which Is periodically pumped out ft,
Roor drains In work areas can either be connected to a holding tank with a gravity discharge pipe or to a
collection sump which discharges to a holding tank
Dry wells must be eliminated in ALL cases unless they receive ONLY CLEAN WATER DISCHARGES which meets
all established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and other
state and local standards for drinking water, and is in compliance with any other state and local requirements
Floor surfaces In work areas and chemical storage areas should be sealed with an impermeable matenal
resistant to acids, caustics, solvents, oils, or any other substance which may be used or generated at the
facility Sealed floors are easier to clean without the use of solvents
Work area floors should be pitched to appropriate floor drains If floor drains are not used, or if they are located
close to entrance ways, then berms should be constructed along the full width of entrances to prevent
stormwater runoff from entering the building
Berms should also be used to Isolate floor drains from spill-prone areas
Loading and unloading of materials and wastes should be done within an enclosed or roofed area with
secondary containment and isolated from floor drains to prevent potential spills from contaminating stormwater
or discharging to the ground
Underground storage tanks should not be used, unless explicitly required by fire codes or other federal, state or
local regulations
Where underground tanks are required, they should have double-walled construction or secondary containment
such as a concrete vault lined or sealed with an impermeable material and filled with sand Both types of tanks
should have appropriate secondary containment monitonng, high level and leak sensing audio/visual alarms
level indicators, and overfill protection If a dip stick Is used for level measurements, there should be a
protective plate or basket where the stick may strike the tank bottom
Above-ground tanks should have 110% secondary containment or double-walled construction, alarms and
overfill protection, and should be installed in an enclosed area Isolated from floor drains, stormwater sewers or
other conduits which may cause a release Into the environment
Fill-pipe Inlets should be above the elevation of the top of the storage tank
Tanks and associated appurtenances should be tested periodically for structural integrity
Storage areas for new and waste materials should be permanently roofed, completely confined within
secondary confinement berms, isolated from floor drams, have sealed surfaces, and should not be accessible to
unauthorized personnel
Drum and container storage areas should be consolidated into one location for better control of material and
waste Inventory
194
-------
Table 9-3 General Best Management Practices (Continued)
Cooling Water
Utilities
Water Conservation
Foundation Drainage &
Dewatenng
Stormwater
Management
Cross-connections
Work Areas
Connection to
Municipal Sanitary
Sewers
Holding Tanks
PROCEDURAL BMPs
Material & Waste
Inventory Control
Preventative &
Corrective Maintenance
Closed-loop cooling systems should be considered to eliminate cooling water discharges
Any cooling water from solvent recovery systems should be free of combination from solvent, i metals or other
pollutants, and should not discharge to the ground Cooling water may be discharged to a stoi m sewer, sanitary
sewer, or stream, provided all federal, state, and local requirements are met
Floor drains should be eliminated in rooms where boilers or emergency generators are nousei i
Flow restrictors and low-flow faucets for sinks and spray nozzles should be installed to minim1 Ize hydraulic
loading to subsurface disposal systems
If water from foundation drainage and dewatermg is not contaminated, it may be discharged to a storm sewer
or stream in accordance with any applicable federal, state, or local requirements
Contaminated water from foundation drainage and dewatermg indicates a likely ground wate r combination
problem, which should be investigated and remediated as necessary
Stormwater contact with materials and wastes must be avoided to the greatest extent possible Storage of
materials and wastes should be isolated in roofed or enclosed areas to prevent contact with precipitation
Uncovered storage area's should have a separate Stormwater collection system which discharges to a holding
tank
Stormwater from building roofs may discharge to the ground However, if solvent distillatio'n equipment or vapor
degreasmg is used, with a vent that exhausts to the roof, then roof leaders may become 'cross contaminated
with solvent These potential sources of cross contamination must be investigated and eli mmated
Cross-connections, such as sanitary discharges to storm sewers, Stormwater discharges to sanitary sewers, or
floor dram discharges to storm sewer systems, should be identified and eliminated
Consolidate waste-geneiating operations and physically segregate them from other operations They should
preferably be located within a confinement area with sealed floors and with no direct arjcess to outside the
facility This reduces the total work area exposed to solvents, facilitates waste stream segregation and efficient
material and waste handling, and minimizes cross combination with other operations sind potential pathways for
release into the environment
Waste collection stations, should be provided throughout work areas for the accumulation of spent chemicals,
soiled rags, etc Each station should have labeled containers for each type of waste fluid This provides safe
interim storage of wastes, reduces frequent handling of small quantities of wastes to storage areas, and
minimizes the overall risk of a release into the environment
New solvent can be supplied by dedicated feed lines or dispensers to minimize han dlmg of materials These
feed lines must default to a closed setting to prevent unmonitored release of material
Existing and future facilities should connect their sanitary facilities to municipal sanitary sewer systems where
they are available
Facilities should discharge to holding tanks If they are located where municipal sanitary sewers are not
available, subsurface disposal systems are not feasible, existing subsurface disposal systems are failing, or if
they are high risk facilities located in wellhead protection areas
Conduct monthly monitoring of inventory and waste generation ,
Order raw materials on an as-needed basis and in appropriate unit sizes to avoidl waste and reduce inventory
Observe expiration dates on products in inventory
Eliminate obsolete or excess materials from inventory
Return unused or obsolete products to the vendor
Consider waste management costs when buying new materials and equipment
Ensure material and waste containers are properly labeled Not labeling or mi<>labelmg is a common problem
Mark purchase date and use older materials first
Maintain product Material Safety Data Sheets to monitor materials in inventor/ and the chemical ingredients of
wastes Make MSDS sheets available to employees
Observe maximum on-site storage times for wastes
Control access to materials that are hazardous when spent, encourage material substitution
A regularly scheduled internal inspection and maintenance program should 'oe implemented to service
equipment, to identify potential leaks and spills from storage and equipment failure, and to take corrective
action as necessary to avoid a release to the environment At a minimum, the schedule should address the
following areas
195
-------
Table 9-3 Genoral Best Management Practices (Continued)
Provontative &
Corrective
Maintenance
(continued)
SplH Control
Materials & Waste
Management
Tanks, drums, containers, pumps, equipment, and plumbing,
Work stations & waste disposal stations,
Outside and inside storage areas, and stormwater catch basins & detention ponds,
Evidence of leaks or spills within the facility and on the site,
Areas prone to heavy traffic from loading and off loading of materials and wastes,
Properly secured containers when not in use,
Proper handling of all containers,
Drippage from exhaust vents,
Proper operation of equipment, solvent recovery, and emission control systems
Use emergency spill tots and equipment Locate them at storage areas, loading and unloading areas
dispensing areas; work areas
Clean spills promptly
Use recyclable rags or absorbent spill pads to clean up minor spills, and dispose of these materials properly
Clean large spills with a wet vacuum, squeegee and dust pan, absorbent pads, or brooms Dispose of all clean
up materials properly
Minimize the use of disposable granular- or powder-absorbents
Spilled material should be neutralized as prescribed in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), collected, handled
and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations
Use shake-proof and earthquake proof containers and storage facilities to reduce spill potential
U'3e spigots, pumps, or funnels for controlled dispensation and transfer of matenals to reduce spillage, use
different spigots, etc, for different products to maintain segregation and minimize spillage
Su°!if ,materials in a controlled, enclosed environment (minimal temperature and humidity variations) to prolong
shelf life, minimize evaporative releases, and prevent moisture from accumulating
Keep containers closed to prevent evaporation, oxidation, and spillage
Place drip pans under containers and storage racks to collect spillage
Segregate wastes that are generated, such as hazardous from non-hazardous, acids from bases, chlonnated
from noncnlorfnated solvents, and oils from solvents, to minimize disposal costs and facilitate recycling and
s
Management
Errmty drums and containers may be reused, after being properly rinsed, for storing the same or compatible
materials
Recycle cleaning rags and have them cleaned by an appropriate industnal launderer
Use dry cleanup methods and mopping rather than flooding with water
Ftoora may be roughly cleaned with absorbent prior to mopping, select absorbents which can be reused or
recycled
Recycle cardboard and paper, and reuse or recycle containers and drums
Wastos accumulated in holding tanks and containers must be disposed of through an appropriately licenssd
waste transporter in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations
Management involvement in the waste reduction and pollution prevention initiatives is essential to its successful
implementation in the work place By setting the example and encouraging staff participation through incentives
or awards, management can increases employee awareness about environmentally sound practice A first step
is to involve management in conducting a waste stream analysis to determine the potential for waste reduction
and pollution prevention This analysis should include the following steps
Identify plant processes where chemicals are used and waste is generated,
Evaluate existing waste management and reduction methods,
Research alternative technologies,
Evaluate feasibility of waste reduction options,
Implement measures to reduce wastes, and
Periodically evaluate your waste reduction program
Develop an; energy and materials conservation plan to promote the use of efficient technologies
u»iLm«!.*,i,,«,4 inventories, and reduced water and energy consumption
196
-------
Table 9-3 General Best Management Practices (Continued)
Management
(continued)
Employee Training
Communication
Record Keeping
Sound environmental management should include the currency and completeness of site and facility plans,
facility records and inventory management, discharge permits, manifests for disposal of wastes, contracts with
haulers for wastes, and contracts with service agents to handle recycling of solvents or to regularly service
equipment
Training programs should be developed which include the following
Proper operation of process equipment,
Loading and unloading of materials,
Purchasing, labeling, storing, transferring, and disposal of materials,
Leak detection, spill control, and emeigency procedures, and
Reuse/recychng/material substitution
Employees should be trained prior to working with equipment or handling of materials, and should be
periodically refreshed when new regulations or procedures are developed
Employees should be made aware of MSDS sheets and should understand their information
Employee awareness of the environmental and economic benefits of waste reduction and pollution prevention,
and the adverse consequences of ignoring them, can also facilitate employee participation
Posting of signs, communication with staff, education and training, and posting of manuals for spill control,
health and safely (OSHA), operation and maintenance of facility and equipment, and emergency response are
essential Storage areas for chemicals and equipment, employee bathrooms, manager's office, and waste
handling stations are suggested areas for posting communication A bulletin board solely for environmental
concerns should be considered
Regular inspection and maintenance schedules should be posted and understood by staff
Facility plans, plumbing plans, and subsurface disposal system plans and specifications must be updated to
reflect current facility configuration Copies of associated approvals and permits should be maintained on flle
OSHA requirements, health and environmental emergency procedures, materials management plans, inventory
records, servicing/repair/inspections logs, medical waste tracking and hazardous waste disposal records must
be maintained up to date and made available for inspection by regulatory officials
temporary or permanent loss of all or a portion of the
water system source A contingency plan should include
the following elements
1 Basic information about the water supply system,
such as population, number of service connections,
location of fire hydrants, average daily usage, and
the names and telephone numbers of the water sys-
tem operator, the fire chief, police chief, and other
emergency planning officials
2 A list of potential contaminant sources and their lo-
cations (see Chapter 8)
3 A map identifying the WHPA boundaries, how they
were delineated, and significant aspects of local hy-
drogeology, geography, and geology that affect
movement of contaminants in the subsurface
4. Fire-fighting plans for specific sites, especially sites
within the WHPA that store or handle toxic chemicals
Such plans should be developed in coordination with
the Local Emergency Planning Committee (see Sec-
tion 8 3)
5 Surface spill emergency response procedures, includ-
ing the names and phone numbers of agencies and
other individuals outside the community who should be
informed These procedures should be developed in
coordination with the Local Emergency Planning Com-
mittee (see Section 8 3) Information on the type, loca-
tion, and amount of spill should be recorded
6 Short-term emergency water supply options, includ-
ing a brief description of the type and location of
water supply and the names and telephone numbers
of people who should be contacted in the event that
the source must be used
7 Long-term alternative water supply options
U S EPA (1990c) provides general guidance on contin-
gency planning Many state wellhead protection
programs have developed additional guidance Work-
sheet C-8 can be used to develop a contingency plan,
and Worksheet C-9 can be used for chemical emer-
gency spill and documentation If these worksheets are
used, any state guidance documents should be re-
viewed and the worksheet modified, if necessary
197
-------
Tabte 9-4. Index to Major References on Ground Water Protection Management*
T°P'C References
General Land Use
Planning
QW Protection
Institutional
Framework
Ellfckson and Tartock (1981), Freund and Goodman (1968), Getzels and Thurow (1979), Global Cities Project
(1993), Handler (1977), Miller and Wood (1983), Mossa (1987), Robinson (1988), Rusmone (1982), Wilson et
al (1979)
Amsden and Mullen (1990), Cantor and Knox (1986), Cantor et al (1987), Clark and Cherry (1992)
Conservation Foundation (1987a, 19875,1987c), Cross (1993), Flanagan et al (1991), Greeley-Polhemus
Group (1985), Horsley Witten Hegemann, Inc (1992), Kerns (1977), LeGrand and Rosen (1992), Matthess et
al (1985), Milde et al (1983), Montana Environmental Quality Council (1990), Page (1987), Poiacek (1977)
Southern Water Authority (1985), Stroman (1987), U S EPA (1984a, 1984b, 1985a, 1987b, 1987g, 1991a
1991b, 1992c), U S OTA (1984), Western Michigan University (1988), Worden (1988), Zaporozec (1991), Best
Management Practices Noake (1988), Inglese (1992), Emergency Planning New York State Department of
Health (1984), U S EPA (1985e), Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Holmes (1979), ICPRB (1981), Novotny
and Chesters (1981), Erosion/Sediment Control APA (1984), Association of Bay Area Governments (1981),
Goldman et al (1986), Agriculture Baker (1990-pesticides), Freshwater Foundation (1988-1990), Kemp and
Erickson (1989), Massey (1984), Stewart (1976), U S EPA (1987e, 1988d), Road Salt Curtis et al (1986)
Greeley-Polhemus Group (1985), NJDEPE (1992), Septic Systems Lukm (1992), NJDEPE (1992), U S EPA
(1986b, 1986C, 1987c), Industrial Source Control API (1988), Inglese (1992), Licis et al (1991), NJDEPE
(1992), vanZyl et al (1987), Ward et al (1990), Karst Davis and Quinlm (1991), Fischer et al (1991), Qumlln et
al (1991), Rubin (1991), Accidental Spills Yang and Bye (1979a, 1979b), Sole Source Aquifers- U S EPA
(1987d, 1988c), Monitoring Aller et al (1991), Barcelona et al (1985), Meyer (1990), Nielsen and Schalla
(1991), US EPA (1986d, 1986e, 1989e, 1993b)
Henderson (1987), Hodge and Brown (1990), Holmes (1979), Kems (1977), LeGrand and Rosen (1992) Lehr
(1987). Pisanelli and Dutram (1990), Redlich (1988), Tolman et al (1991), Western Michigan University (1988)
Yanggen and Amrhein (1989), Ordinances Minnesota Project (1984), Trefry (1990), Data Management U S
EPA(1987h, 1988f, 1990b), EPA Program Analyses US EPA(1985b, 1990d, 1992c), State Programs Booth
and Branson (1983-New York), Born et al (1988-Wisconsm), Environmental Law Institute (1990), Henderson et
al (1985), Leavall (1990-Ohio), Meccozi (1989-Wisconsin), National Research Council (1987), NHDES
(1991—NH), Pisanelli and Dutram (1990-Maine), Raymond (1981), Roy (1988), Stroman (1987-MA) U S EPA
(1985c, 1987b, 1987f, 1988a, 1988e, 1989a, 1992b), Walden (1988), Weatherington-Rice and Hottman
(1990-Ohto), Financing Allee (1986), U S EPA (1987l, 1987f, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1992b)
Allee (1986). APA (1975), Blatt (1986), Boody (1990), Born et al (1988), Cross (1991), Dean (1988), DiNovo
and Jaffe (1984a, 1984b), Group for the South Fork (1982), Jaffe (1987), Jaffe and DiNovo (1987), MDEP
(1991), Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health (1993), National Research Council
(1987), National Rural Water Association (1991), New Hampshire Office of State Planning (1991) Gates et al
(1990), Pettyjohn (1989), Potter (1984), Redlich (1988), Rusmone (1982), Tripp and Jaffe (1979), University of
Oklahoma (1986), U S EPA (1989c, 1989d, 1990c), Yanggen and Weberdorfer (1991), Declsion-Maker/Citizen
Guides Baize and Gilkerson (1992), Born et al (1987), Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (1981)
Community Resource Group (1992), Concern (1989), Dean and Wyckoff (1991), Gordon (1984), Hall Associates
and Dight (1986), Harrison and Dickinson (1984), Hrezo and Nickinson (1986), Madarchik (1992), Masschusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (1985), Mullikm (1984), Murphy (undated), North Dakota State
Department of Health (1993), Paly and Steppacher (undated), Pierce (1992), Raymond (1986), U S EPA
(1987a, 1990a, 1992a, 1993a)
Maine Association of Conservation Commissions 1985), Massachusetts Audubon Society (1984-1987), New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (1989), North Dakota State Department of Health
(1992), Paly and Steppacher (undated), Sponenberg and Kahn (1984), Texas Water Commission (1989)
University of Rhode Island (1988), U S EPA (1984b, 1985d, 1990a, 1991c, 1991d, 1992d), Waller (1988)
' Sea also casa study references in Chapter 10
Local
Planning/Approaches
Public Education
Materials
9.5 References*
Altos, DJ 1986 Local Finance and Policy for Ground Water Protec-
tion The Environmental Professional 8(3) 210-218
After, L, et al 1991 Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design
and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells EPA/600/4-
89/034 (NTIS PB90-159807),221 pp* Also published In 1989 by
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH In Its NWWA/EPA
series, 398 pp [Nielsen and Schalla (1991) contain a more up-
dated version of material In this handbook that Is related to design
and Installation of ground-water monitoring wells]
American Petroleum Institute (API) 1988 Literature Survey Subsur-
face and Groundwater Protection Related to Petroleum Refinery
Operations. API Publication 800 API, Washington, DC [$54 00]
American Planning Association (APA) 1975 Performance Controls
for Sensitive Lands A Practical Guide for Local Administrators
Planning Advisory Service Report #307 and #308, APA, Chicago,
IL, 156 pp
American Planning Association (APA) 1984 State and Local Regu-
lations for Reducing Agricultural Erosion Planning Advisory Serv-
ice Report #386, APA, Chicago, IL, 42 pp
Amsden, TL and WA Mullen 1990 Ground Water and Pollution
Prevention Ground Water Management 1 357-363 (Proc of the
1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and
Wellhead Protection)
Association of Bay Area Governments 1981 Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Association of Bay
Area Governments, Oakland, CA, 275 pp
198
-------
Baize, DG and H H Gilkerson 1992 Wellhead Protection Technical
Guidance Document for South Carolina Local Ground-Water Pro-
tection Ground-Water Protection Division, South Carolina Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC, 74 pp
Baker, B 1990 Groundwater Protection from Pesticides Garland
Publishing, New York, 151 pp
Barcelona, MJ, JP Gibb, JA Helfrich, and EE Garske 1985
Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling EPA 600/2-85/104
(NTIS PB86-137304) Also published as ISWS Contract Report
374, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL
Blatt, DJL 1986 From the Ground Water Up Local Land Use
Planning and Aquifer Protection J of Land Use and Environmental
Law 2(2) 119-148
Boody, G 1990 Creating Special Protection Areas for Groundwater
and Sustainable Agriculture A Preliminary Strategy for Local Com-
munity Action Ground Water Management 1 1-15 (Proc of the
1990 Cluster of Conferences Agricultural Impacts on Ground
Water Quality)
Booth, RS and A Branson 1983 Major Institutional Arrangement
Affecting Groundwater in New York State Cornell University Cen-
ter for Environmental Research, Ithaca, NY
Born, S M , D A Yanggen, and A. Zaporozec 1987 A Guide to
Groundwater Quality Planning and Management for Local Govern-
ments Special Report 9 Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey, Madison, Wl, 92 pp
Born, S M , D A Yanggen, A R Czecholinksi, R J Tierney, and R G
Hennmg 1988 Wellhead Protection Districts in Wisconsin An
Analysis and Test Applications Special Report 10 Wisconsin Geo-
logical And Natural History Survey, Madison, Wl, 75 pp
Cantor, LW and RC Knox. 1986 Ground Water Pollution Control
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Cantor, LW, RC Knox, and DM Fairchild 1987 Ground Water
Quality Protection Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency 1981 Guide to
Groundwater and Aquifer Protection Bristol, CT
Clark, II, E H and PJ Cherry 1992 Groundwater Managing the
Unseen Resource World Wildlife Fund Publications, Baltimore,
MD, 34 pp
Community Resource Group, Inc 1992 The Local Decision-Makers'
Guide to Groundwater and Wellhead Protection 16 pp Available
from RCAP offices [Cover pages may vary slightly]
Concern, Inc 1989 Groundwater A Community Action Guide Wash-
ington, DC, 22 pp
Conservation Foundation 1987a Groundwater Saving the Unseen
Resource Washington, DC [Final Report of the National Ground-
water Policy Forum]
Conservation Foundation 1987b A Guide to Groundwater Pollution
Problems, Causes, and Government Responses Washington, DC
Conservation Foundation 1987c Groundwater Protection Washing-
ton, DC, 240 pp
Cross, B L 1991 A Guide to Local Ground Water Protection Texas
Water Commission, Austin, TX
Cross, B L 1993 Groundwater Safety is a Public Challenge Envi-
ronmental Protection 4(3) 44-47
Curtis, C, C Walsh, and M Przybyla 1986 The Road Salt Manage-
ment Handbook Introducing a Reliable Strategy to Safeguard
People & Water Resources Pioneer Valley Planning Commission,
West Springfield. MA
Davis, G A, and J F Quinlan 1991 Legal Tools for the Protection of
Ground Water In Karst Terranes Ground Water Management
10 637-649 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring
and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
Dean, LF 1988 Local Government Regulations for Groundwater
Protection Michigan Case Examples In Policy Planning and Re-
source Protection A Groundwater Conference for the Midwest,
Institute for Water Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kala-
mazoo, Ml, pp 143-150
Dean, LF and M A Wyckoff 1991 Community Planning and Zoning
for Groundwater Protection in Michigan A Guidebook for Local
Officials Prepared for Office of Water Resources, Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources Available from Michigan Society
of Planning Officials, 414 Mam St, Suite 202, Rochester, Ml
48307
DiNovo, F and M Jaffe 1984a Local Groundwater Protection Mid-
west Region American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 327 pp
[See also Jaffe and DiNovo (1987)]
DiNova, FandM Jaffe 1984b Local Regulations for Ground-Water
Protection Part I Sensitive Area Controls Land Use Law and
Zoning Digest 30(5) 6-11
Ellickson, R C and A D Tarlock 1981 Land Use Controls Cases
and Materials Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, MA
Environmental Law Institute 1990 Appendix Survey and Analysis of
State Ground-Water Programs, Policies, Authorities and Manage-
ment Tools Prepared for the Office of Ground-Water Protection,
U S EPA, Washington, DC
Fischer, J A, R J Canace, and D H Monteverde 1991 Karst Geol-
ogy and Ground Water Protection Law Ground Water Manage-
ment 10653-666 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology,
Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
[Hunterdon County, NJ]
Flanagan, E K, J E Hansen, and N Dee 1991 Managing Ground-
Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Areas A
Priority Setting Approach Ground Water Management 7 415-418
(Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground-Water Issues)
Freshwater Foundation 1988-1990 Agricultural Chemicals and
Groundwater Protection Conferences Series Agricultural Chemi-
cals and Groundwater Protection Emerging Management and Pol-
icy (1987, 23 papers and panel responses), Agnchemicals and
Groundwater Protection Resources and Strategies for State and
Local Management (1988, 43 papers plus panel comments),
Groundwater and Agnchemicals Suggested Policy Directions for
1990 (1989,17 papers/panel presentations) Freshwater Founda-
tion, Navarre, MN
Freund, EC andWI Goodman 1968 Principles and Practices of
Urban Planning International City Managers Association, Wash-
ington, DC
Getzels, J andC Thurow(eds) 1979 Rural and Small Town Plan-
ning American Planning Association, Washington, DC
Global Cities Project 1993 Land Use Stewardship and the Planning
Process An Environmental Guide for Local Government, Volume
10, Global Cities Project, San Francisco, CA, 228 pp
Goldman, S TA Bursztynsky, and K Jackson 1986 Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook American Planning Association, Chi-
cago, IL, 480 pp
Gordon, W 1984 A Citizen's Handbook for Groundwater Protection
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY
199
-------
Qreeley-Polhemus Group, Inc 1985 Handbook of Methdds for the
EvaluaBon of Water Conservation of Municipal and Industrial
Water Supply U S Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water
Resources, Fort Betvolr, VA
Group for the South Fork. 1982 Groundwater Management A Hand-
book for the South Fork Group for the South Fork, Inc, Bridge-
hampton, NY
Hail and Associates and R Dight 1986 Ground Water Resource
Protection. A Handbook for Local Planners and Decision Makers
in Washington State Prepared for King County Resource Planning
and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Harrison, E.Z. and M A. Dickinson 1984 Protecting Connecticut's
Groundwater A Handbook for Local Government Officials Con-
necticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT
Henderson,TR,J Traubman,andTGallagher 1985 Groundwater
Strategies for State Action The Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC
Henderson, TR 1987 The Institutional Framework for Protecting
Groundwater In the United States In Planning for Groundwater
Protection, G W Page (ed), Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp
29-69
Handler, B 1977 Caring for the Land Environmental Pnnciples for
Site Design and Review Planning Advisory Service Report #328,
American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 94 pp
Hodge, R A andAJ Brown 1990 Ground Water Protection Policies
Myths and Alternatives Ground Water 28(4) 498-504
Holmes, BH 1979 Institutional Bases for Control of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Office of Water and Waste Management
Horslsy and Witten 1989 Aquifer Protection Seminar Tools and
Options for Action at the Local Government Level Barnstable
Village, MA.
Horsiay Witten Hegemann, Inc 1992 Ground Water Hydrology, Con-
tamination and Management US Environmental Protecton
Agency Region 2 and Office of Ground Water
Hrezo,M and P Nfckinson 1986 Protecting Virginia's Groundwater
A Handbook for Local Government Officials Virginia Water Re-
sources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA
Ingfese, Jr, O 1992. Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Ground Water A Local Official's Guide to Managing Class V
UIC Wells Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT, 138 pp
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 1981
Proceedings of Nonpoint Pollution Control Symposium Rockville,
MO
Jaffe, M 1987 Data and Organizational Requirements for Local
Planning In Planning for Groundwater Protection, G W Page
(ed), Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 89-124
Jaffe, M and FK. DiNovo 1987 Local Groundwater Protection
American Planning Association, Washington, DC, 262 pp [see,
also DiNovo and Jaffe (1984a)]
Kemp, L and J Enckson 1989 Protecting Groundwater Through
Sustainable Agriculture The Minnesota Project, Preston, MN 41
PP
Kerns, WR (ed) 1977 Proceedings of a National Conference on
PuWfc Policy on Ground-Water Quayty Protection Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA, 163 pp
Leavall, DN 1990 The Development of Wellhead Protection In Ohio
Ground Water Management 1 669-683 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection)
LeGrand.HE andL Rosen 1992 Common Sense in Ground-Water
Protection and Management in the United States Ground Water
30 867-872
Lehr, J H 1987 Editorial Wellhead Protection—The Ounce of Pre-
vention That is Now in Jeopardy Ground Water 25 514-516
Ucis, IJ, H Skovronek, and M Drabkm 1991 Industrial Pollution
Prevention Opportunities for the 1990s EPA/600/8-91/052 (NTIS
PB91-220376) [Identifies approaches to source reduction and
waste recycling for 17 industries textile dyes and dyeing, pulp and
paper, printing, chemical manufacture, plastics, Pharmaceuticals,
paint industry, ink manufacture, petroleum industry, steel industry,
non-ferrous metals, electronics/semiconductors, automobile
manufacture/assembly, laundries/dry cleaning, and automobile re-
finishmg/repair]
Lukm, J 1992 Understanding Septic Systems Northeast Rural
Water Association, Williston, VT
Madarchik, LS 1992 How-To Manual for Ground Water Protection
Projects Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX, 55 pp
Maine Association of Conservation Commissions 1985 Ground
Water Maine's Hidden Resource Hallowell, ME
Massachusetts Audubon Society 1984-1987 Ground Water I nforma-
ton Ryer Series An Introduction to Groundwater and Aquifers (#1,
1984), Groundwater and Contamination From Watershed into the
Well (#2,1984), Mapping Aquifers and Recharge Areas (#3,1985),
Local Authonty for Groundwater Protection (#4, 1985), Under-
ground Storage Tanks and Groundwater Protection (#5, 1985),
Protecting and Maintaining Private Wells (#6, 1985), Pesticides
and Groundwater Protection (#7,1986), Landfills and Groundwater
Protection (#8,1986), Road Salt and Groundwater Protection (#9
1987) Lincoln, MA
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
1985 Groundwater Quality and Protection A Guide for Local Of-
ficials Boston, MA
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
1991 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems (Revised,
October 1991) MDEP, Division of Water Supply, Boston, MA, 182
pp + appendices
Massey, D T 1984 Land Use Regulatory Powers of Conservation
Districts in the Midwestern States for Controlling NonPomt Source
Pollution Drake Law Review 33 36-11
Matthess, G , S S D Foster, and AC Skinner (eds) 1985 Theo-
retical Background, Hydrogeology, and Practice of Groundwater
Protection Zones International Contributions to Hydrology, Vol 63,
Heise, Hannover, Germany, 204 pp
Mecozzi, M 1989 Groundwater Protecting Wisconsin's Buried Treas-
ure Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wl
Meyer, PD 1990 Ground Water Monitoring at Wellhead Protection
Areas Ground Water Monitonng Review 10(4) 102-109
Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health 1993
Effective Wellhead Protection Programs Lesson Learned from
Local Communities Michigan Departments of Natural Resources
and Public Health, Lansing, Ml, 32 pp
Milde, G, K Milde, P Fnsel, and M Kiper 1983 Basis in New
Developments of Ground-Water Quality Protection Concepts in
Central Europe In Proc of the Int Conf on Ground-Water and
Man, Vol II, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra
pp 287-295
200
-------
Miller, C andC Wood 1983 Planning and Pollution An Examination
of the Role of Land Use Planning in the Protection of Environ-
mental Quality Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 232 pp
Minnesota Project 1984 Model Ordinance for Grourtdwater Protec-
tion The Environmental Professional 6 331-349
Montana Environmental Quality Council 1990 SJR ?2 Interim Study
on Ground Water Quality Protection and Management Final Re-
port to the 52nd Montana State Legislature Montana Environ-
mental Quality Council, Helena, MT, 123 pp
Mossa, E (ed) 1977 Land Use Controls in the United States A
Handbook on the Legal Rights of Citizens Natural Resources
Defense Council/The Dial Press, New York, NY
Mulhtan, E B 1984 An Ounce of Prevention A Ground Water Pro-
tection Handbook for Local Officials Vermont Departments of
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Health, and
Agriculture, Montpeher (Mornsville?), VT
Murphy, J Undated Groundwater and Your Town What Your Town
Can Do Right Now Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, Hartford, CT
National Research Council 1986 Ground Water Quality Protection
State and Local Strategies National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, 309 pp
National Rural Water Association 1991 Training Manual Ground
Water/Wellhead Protection Technical Assistance Program Dun-
can, OK.
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 1989
Groundwater Out of Sight Not Out of Danger Boston, MA
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
1991 A Guide to the New Hampshire Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram and the Groundwater Protection Act NHDES, Waster Supply
and Pollution Control Division, Concord, NH, 15 pp
New Hampshire Office of State Planning 1991 Model Health Ordi-
nances to Implement a Wellhead or Groundwater Protection Pro-
gram Prepared for New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, Concord,
NH, 63 pp
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE) 1992 Ground Water Protection Practices Series Motor
Vehicle Services (6 pp), Roadway Deicmg (6 pp), Unregulated
Underground Storage Tanks (10 pp), Urban/Suburban Landscap-
ing (8 pp), Septic Systems (8 pp) NJDEPE, Trenton, NJ
New York State Department of Health 1984 Emergency Planning
and Response - A Water Supply Guide for the Supplier of Water
New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY
Nielsen, DM and R Schalla 1991 Design and Installation of
Ground-Water Monitoring Wells In Practical Handbook of
Ground-Water Monrtonng, D M Nielsen (ed), Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml, pp 239-331
Noake, KD 1988 Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead
Protection (Draft) Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Boston, MA
North Dakota State Department of Health 199? North Dakota
Groundwater A Resource to Protect North Dakota State Depart-
ment of Health, Bismarck, ND, 13 pp
North Dakota State Department of Health 1993 North Dakota Well-
head Protection User's Guide NDSDH, Division of Water Quality,
Bismarck, ND
Novotny, V and G Chesters 1981 Handbook of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Sources and Management Van Nostrand Remhold, New
York.
Oates, LE , WD Ward, S P Roy, and TN Blaridford 1990 Tools
for Wellhead Protection Delineation and Conlmgemcy Planning
Ground Water Management 1 463-477 (Proc of the> 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection)
Page, GW (ed) 1987 Planning for Groundwater Proitection Aca-
demic Press, Orlando, FL
Paly, M and L. Steppacher Undated Companion Workb ook for The
Power to Protect Three Stories About Groundwater Massachu-
setts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA, 37 pp Other sponsi ors include
U S Environmental Protection Agency and New Englanc I Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission [Workbook for C>2 minute
video]
Pettyjohn, W 1989 Development of a Ground-Water Management
Aquifer Protection Plan School of Geology, Oklahoma St ate Uni-
versity, Stillwater, OK
Pierce, J W 1992 Wellhead Protection Manual Massachusetts De-
partment of Environmental Protection, Division of Wateir i Supply,
Boston, MA, 17 pp
Pisanelli, AJ and PW Dutram 1990 Institutional Constraints to
Implementation of the Maine Ground Water Management Stra tegy
Ground Water Management 3 69-82 (Proc Focus Conf on E "ast-
ern Regional Ground Water Issues)
Pojacek, RB (ed) 1977 Dnnkmg Water Quality Enhancement
Through Source Protection Ann Arbor Science Press, Ann Arb or,
Ml
Potter, J 1984 Local Ground-Water Protection A Sampler of Ap>-
proaches Used by Local Governments Misc Paper 84-2 Wiscon
sin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison, Wl, 17 pp
Qumlan, JF, PL Smart, GM Schmdel, EC Alexander, Jr, A J
Edwards, and A R Smith 1991 Recommended Administa-
five/Regulatory Definition of Karst Aquifer, Pnnciples for Classifi-
cation and Carbonate Aquifers, Practical Evaluation of Vulnerability
of Karst Aquifers, and Determination of Optmum Sampling Ke-
quency at Springs Ground Water Management 10 573-635 (Proc
3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management
of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
Raymond, LS (ed) 1981 Groundwater Management in the North-
eastern States Legal and Institutional Issues Center for Environ-
mental Research, Ithaca, NY
Raymond, Jr, LS 1986 Chemical Hazards in Our Groundwater,
Options for Community Action A Handbook for Local Officials and
Community Groups Center for Environmental Research, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY
Redlich, S 1988 Summary of Municipal Actions for Groundwater
Protection in the New England/New York Region New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Boston, MA
Robinson, NA 1988 Environmental Regulation of Real Property
Law Journal Seminars-Press, New York, NY
Roy, S 1988 Developing a State Wellhead Protection Program A
User's Guide to Assist State Agencies Under the Safe Dnnkmg
Water Act U S EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, (NTIS
PB89-173751), 48 pp
Rubin, PA 1991 Land-Use Planning and Watershed Protection in
Karst Terranes Ground Water Management 10 769-793 (Proc 3rd
Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of
Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
Rusmone, B (ed) 1982 Private Options Tools and Concepts for
Land Conservation Island Press, Covelo, CA, 296 pp 130 papers]
201
-------
Southern Wafeir Authority 1985 Aquifer Protection Policy Guild-
bouma Housa. Worthing, U K., 47 pp
Sponenberg, TD and J H Kahn 1984 A Groundwater Primer for
Virginians Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacfcsburg,, VA
Stewart, BA (ed) 1976 Control of Water Pollution from Cropland
U S EPA and USDA.
Stroman, M 1987 The Aquifer Land Acquisition Program An Ap-
proach frar Protecting Ground Water Resources in Massachusetts
Texas Wat* ar Commission 1989 The Underground Subject Anlntro-
ducUoq to Ground Water Issues In Texas Austin, TX
Tolman, ,A.L, K.M Bither, and RG Gerber 1991 Technical and
PoKtto al Processes In Wellhead Protection Ground Water Man-
agamont 7401-413 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Groin id- Water Issues) [Central Maine]
Trefry, A 1990 History and Summary of the Wellfield Protection
Ordinance, Palm Beach Country, Florida Ground Water Manage-
ment 1.559-563 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Wa'tor Management and Wellhead Protection)
Trtpp, J,B and A.B Jaffe 1979 Preventing Groundwater Pollution
To waids a Coordinating Strategy to Protect Critical Recharge Ar-
eias Harvard Environ Law Review 3(1) 1-47
Unr- /oreity of Oklahoma 1986 Proceedings of a National Symposium
• on Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control
Norman, OK
U nivarsity of Rhode Island 1988 Natural Resource Facts Senes
Maintaining Your Septic System (by G Loomis and Y Calhoon),
Household Hazardous Waste (by A McCann and TP Husband)
University of Rhode Island, Providence, Rl
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1984a EPA Ground-
Water Protection Strategy EPA/440/6-84-002 (NTIS PB88-
112107).
US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1984b Protecting
Ground-Water The Hidden Resources EPA/440/6-84-001 (NTIS
PB88-111929) [EPA Journal reprint available from ODW*]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985a Protection of
Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water Contamination Semi-
nar Publication, EPA/625/4-85/016 (NTIS PB86-168358), 181 pp
AvaKaWa from CERI*
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985b Ground-Water
Monitoring Strategy, 1985 EPA/440/6-85-008 (NTIS PB88-
111888)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985o Overview of
State Ground-Water Program Summaries, Vol 1 EPA/440/6-85-
003 (NTIS PB88-111208)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985d Protecting Our
Ground Water EPA/440/6-85-006 (NTIS PB92-188689) [Bro-
chure]
US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985e Emergency
Planning for Potable Water Supplies EPA/570/9-85-SPD-1 Avail-
able from ODW*.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986a Ground-Water
Data Management with STORET EPA/600/M-86-007 (NITS PB86-
197860). Ch 5
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986b Septic Systems
and Groundwater Protection An Executive's Guide EPA/440/6-
86/005 (NTIS PB88-112131), 13 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986c Septic Systems
and Groundwater Protection A Program Manager's Guide and
Reference Book EPA/440/6-86/005 (NTIS PB88-112123), 134 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986d RCRA Ground
Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document
EPA530/SW-86-055 (OSWER-9950 1), (NTIS PB87-107751) 332
pp Also published in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH Final OSWER Directive 9950 2 (NTIS
PB91-140194, or PB91-140178) Executive Summary OSWER
9950 1a (NTIS PB91-140186)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986e Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, 3rd ed, Vol II Field Manual Physi-
cal/Chemical Methods EPA/530/SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223),
First update, 3rd ed EPA/530/SW-846 3-1 (NTIS PB89-148076)
[Latest version of Chapter 11, Ground-Water Monitoring, should
be obtained, most recent final draft was dated October, 1991]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987a Wellhead Pro-
tection A Decision Maker's Guide EPA/440/06-87/009 (NTIS
PB88-111893), 24 pp
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987b An Annotated
Bibliography on Wellhead Protection References EPA/440/6-87-
014 (NTIS PB88-148754) [142 references]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987c Septic Tank
Siting to Minimize the Contamination of Ground Water by Micro-
organisms EPA/440/6-87-007 (NTIS PB88-112115)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987d Sole Source
Aquifer Background Study Cross Program Analysis EPA/440/6-
87-015 (NTIS PB88-230933)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987e Cross-Program
Summary Pesticides Under EPA Statutes Office of Ground-Water
Protection and Office of Pesticide Programs
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987f State and Ter-
ritorial Use of Ground-Water Strategy Grant Funds (Section 106
of the Clean Water Act) EPA/440/6-87-008 (NTIS PB88-231493)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987g Improved Pro-
tection of Water Resources from Long-Term and Cumulative Pol-
lution Prevention of Ground-Water Contamination in the United
States EPA/440/6-87-013 (NITS PB88-111950) [Prepared for the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987h Ground-Water
Data Requirements Analysis EPA/440/6-87-005 (NTIS PB87-
225532)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987i Guidance for
Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds under the Safe Drinking Water Act EPA/440/6-87-011
(NTIS PB88-111422), 50 pp [Later versions published in 1988,
1989?]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988a Developing a
State Wellhead Protection Program A User's Guide to Assist State
Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act EPA/440/6-88-003
(NTIS PB89-173751)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988b Reference
Guide on State Financial Assistance Programs Office of Ground
Water Protection
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988c Sole Source
Aquifer Designation Petitioners Guidance EPA/440/6-87-003
(NTIS PB88-111992)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988d Protecting
Ground Water Pesticides and Agricultural Practices EPA/440/6-
88-001 (NTIS PB88-23096) Office of Ground Water Protection
202
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988e Survey of State
Ground Water Quality Protection Legislation Enacted from 1985
Through 1987 EPA/440/6-88-007 (NTIS PB88-175475)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988f EPA Workshop
to Recommend a Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground
Water Workshop Findings Report. EPA/440/6-88-005 (NTIS
PB89-175442)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989a Funding
Ground-Water Protection A Quick Reference to Grants Available
Under the Clean Water Act EPA/440/6-89-004 (NTIS PB92-
190255)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989b Local Financing
for Wellhead Protection EPA/440/6-89-001 (NTIS PB92-188705)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989c A Local Plan-
ning Process for Groundwater Protection Office of Drinking Water,
Washington, DC
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989d Wellhead Pro-
tection Programs Tools for Local Governments E PA/440/6-89-
002, 50 pp Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989e Indicators for
Measuring Progress on Ground-Water Protection E PA/440/6-88-
006 (NTIS PB92-11442)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990a Citizen's Guide
to Ground-Water Protection EPA/440/6-90-004, 33 pp Available
from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990b Hydrogeologic
Mapping Needs for Ground-Water Protection and Management
Workshop Report 1990 EPA/440/6-90-002 Available from ODW*
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990c Guide to
Ground-Water Supply Contingency Planning for Local and State
Governments EPA/440/6-90-003 (NTIS PB91-145755)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990d Progress in
Ground-Water Protection and Restoration EPAM40/6-90-001
(NTIS PB92-188671)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 a Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water EPA's Strategy for the 1990s EPA/21 Z-
1020, 84 pp Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 199lb Managing
Ground Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Ar-
eas A Priority Setting Approach (Draft) EPA 570/9-91-023 (NTIS
PB93-115863) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991c Pi electing Local
Ground-Water Supplies Through Wellhead Protection EPA/570/9-
91-007, 18 pp Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991d Why Do Well-
head Protection? Issues and Answers in Protecting Public Drinking
Water Supply Systems EPA/570/9-91-014,19 pp Available from
ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992a Ground Water
Protection A Citizen's Action Checklist EPA/810-F91-002, 2 pp
Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992b A Handbook for
State Ground Water Managers Using EPA Ground Water-Related
Grants to Support the Development and Implementation of Com-
prehensive Sate Ground Water Protection Programs EPA/813-B-
92-001 Available from ODW*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992c Implementing
EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy for the 1990s Draft Com-
prehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Available from ODW*
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993a Wellhead Pro-
tection A Guide for Small Communities Seminar Publication
EPA/625/R-93-002 (NTIS PB93-215580) Available from CERI*
U S Environmental Protection Agency 1993b Subsurface Field
Characterization and Monitoring Techniques A Desk Reference
Guide, Vol I Solids and Ground Water, Vol II, The Vadose Zone,
Chemical Field Screening and Analysis EPA/625/R-93/003a&b
(NTIS PB94-136272) Available from CERI*
U S Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1984 Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, 2 Vols OTA-O-233 and
OTA-O-276 Washington, DC
vanZyl, D J A,, S R Abts, J D Nelson, and TA Shepherd (eds)
1987 Geotechnical and Geohydrological Aspects of Waste Man-
agement Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml
Walden, R 1988 Ground Water Protection Efforts in Four New Eng-
land States EPA/600/9-89/084 (NTIS PB89-229975), 154 pp
Waller, RM 1988 Ground Water and the Rural Homeowner US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Ward, WD.LE Oates, and KB McCormack 1990 Tools for Well-
head Protection Control and Identification of Light Industrial
Sources Ground Water Management 1 579-593 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection)
Weatherington-Rice, J and A Hottman 1990 Beyond a State
Ground-Water Protection Strategy Where Do We Go From Here?
Ground Water Management 1 529-544 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection) [Ohio case study]
Western Michigan University 1988 Policy Planning and Resource
Protection A Groundwater Conference for the Midwest Institute
for Water Sciences, Kalamazoo, Ml
Wilson, J S, P Tabas, and M Henneman 1979 Comprehensive
Planning and the Environment A Manual for Planners University
Press of America, Lanham, MD, 283 pp
Worden, R C 1988 Is Preventon of Contamination Cheaper than
Treatment at the Wellhead? Ground Water Management Section,
U S Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Boston, MA
Yang, JT and WC Bye 1979a A Guidance for Protection of
Ground-Water Resources from the Effects of Accidental Spill of
Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Substances EPA/570/9-79-
017 (NTIS PB82-204900), 166 pp
Yang, J T and WC Bye 1979b Methods for Preventing, Detecting,
and Dealings with Surface Spills of Contaminants Which May
Degrade Underground Water Sources for Public Water Systems
EPA/570/9-79-018 (NTIS PB82-204082), 118 pp
Yanggen, DA andLL Amrhem 1989 Groundwater Quality Regu-
lation Existing Governmental Authority and Recommended Roles
Columbia J of Environmental Law 14(1) 1-109
Yanggen, DA and B Webendorfer 1991 Groundwater Protection
Through Local Land-Use Controls Wisconsin Geologic and Natu-
ral History Survey Special Report 11, Madison, Wl, 48 pp
Zaporozec, A 1991 Regional Strategies to Protect Ground-Water
Quality In Proc First USA/USSR Joint Conf on Environmental
Hydrology and Hydrogeology, J E Moore et al (eds), American
Institute of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, pp 181-187
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
203
-------
-------
Chapter 10
Wellhead Protection Case Studies
10.1 Overview of Case Studies
This chapter contains six case studies that illustrate the
range of approaches that are possible for planning and
implementing wellhead protection programs Each case
study is presented in a uniform format that includes (1)
a brief description of the communily and hydrogeologic
setting of the wellhead area, (2) wellhead protection
area (WHPA) delineation methods used, (3) contami-
nants of concern, and (4) management methods used
to protect ground water The case studies emphasize
two hydrogeologic settings that are especially vulner-
able to contamination (1) alluvial aquifers (Sections
10 2 2, 10 2 5, and 1026), and (2) carbonate aquifers
(Sections 1021,1023 and 1024) The first three case
studies illustrate well-based protection approaches
ranging from a single well in southeastern Pennsylvania
(Section 102 1) to multiple wells in Rockford, Illinois
(Section 1022), to multiple wellfields in Palm Beach
County, Florida (Section 1023)
The remaining case studies illustrate different ap-
proaches to ground water protection that emphasize
land use controls without special reference to location
of wells Clinton Township in Hunterdon County, New
Jersey, focuses on land use controls in highly vulnerable
carbonate areas (Section 1024) Nantucket, Massa-
chusetts, applies land use controls of varying stringency
to four aquifer protection zones that cover the island's
entire 40 square miles (Section 1025) The Pima Asso-
ciation of Governments, in Pi ma County, Arizona, has
developed a regional approach to ground water protec-
tion that emphasizes land use controls ba&ed on hydro-
geologic vulnerability mapping (Section 1026)
Section 103 provides information on additional refer-
ence sources that contain case studies in WHPA deline-
ation and management
10.2 Case Studies
10.2.1 Cabot Well, Pennsylvania: The Cost of
Not Protecting Ground Water Supplies
The Cabot well illustrates the possible costs associated
with failing to develop a wellhead protection program
(Emnch and Luitweiler, 1990)
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting The Phila-
delphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC) serves a
population of about 8,000,000 people in a 333 square
mile service area north and west of Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania About 25 percent of the utility's production
capacity comes from one well and one major ground
water reservoir In 1965, PSWC drilled a water supply
well near King of Prussia, Pennsylvania The well was
completed in the Cambrian-age Ledger dolomite, a fairly
pure, often massive, coarsely crystalline formation
known to yield large amounts of water The well was
drilled to a depth of 275 feet, cased to 140 feet, and
yields almost 2,000 gallons per minute
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods The
Cabot well was drilled before existing programs for well-
head protection were established
Contaminant Sources When the Cabot well first be-
gan operation, there were occasional incidents of ele-
vated turbidity which were attributed to sinkhole activity
in the carbonate rock terrain These incidents were suc-
cessfully controlled (see below) Rapid urbanization oc-
curred around the well in the 1970s and 1980s, nearby
land was developed for a business campus and an
office/hotel/convention center complex (Figure 10-1)
Construction activities resulted in turbidity problems in
the well Relocation of a stream in the area, fill of the
floodplam, and inadequate sizing of culverts resulted in
occasional floods that inundated the well The periodic
flooding resulted in erratic turbidity spikes and high" bac-
teria counts
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods
Turbidity from sinkhole development was successfully
controlled by locating sinkholes as soon as they devel-
oped and promptly filling them with compacted gravel
and clay to prevent infiltration of surface waters Recas-
ing of the well failed to solve the problems of turbidity
and bacterial contamination stemming from uncontrolled
urban development in the vicinity of the well Eventually,
investigation of bacterial records, dye studies of the
stream and nearby sewer, review of a sewer inflow and
infiltration study, and placement of monitoring wells
around the central well provided evidence that the sewer
was the source of the bacteria At the time the case
205
-------
Formtr Stream Chararel
Figure 10-1. Development around Cabot well (Emrlch and Lult-
wellor, 1990)
study was written, remediation of the sewer was in
progress, and PSWC was conducting pilot tests of ad-
vanced filtration technology in case problems were not
entirely corrected The authors of the case study con-
cluded that hundreds of thousands of dollars in investi-
gation and remediation costs were the legacy of the
absence of an effective wellhead protection program
10.2.2 Rockford, Illinois: Wellhead
Management in a Contaminated
Aquifer
Rockford, Illinois, illustrates the importance of con-
sidering possible vanations in well pumping rates, and
interactions between multiple pumping wells when de-
lineating a wellhead protection area (Wehrmann and
Varijen, 1990).
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting Rockford, in
northcentral Illinois, has a population of about 140,000
The main source of water supply is a sand and gravel
glacial outwash aquifer associated with the Rock River
that fills a bedrock valley to depths exceeding 250 feet
Depth to ground water is approximately 30 to 40 feet,
and municipal wells are capable of producing in excess
of 1,000 gallons per minute The study area, which has
been placed on EPA's National Priority List for cleanup
of contamination (see below), includes over 300 private
domestic wells and 3 municipal wells
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods Nu-
merical ground water flow modeling (PLASM and
GWPATH) was used to delineate zones of contribution
of wells and evaluate the interactions of well operations
on capture zones
Contaminant Sources A large number of industrial
facilities, many of which have operated in the area for
decades, have created a high potential for contamina-
tion of ground water Sampling of ground water wells has
documented extensive contamination by volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) of the public and private wells in
southeast Rockford Maximum VOC levels in several
private wells exceeded 0 4 mg/L, and the 3 municipal
wells contained VOC concentrations from 0 035 to more
than 1 4 mg/L These findings resulted in southeast
Rockford being placed on EPA's National Priority List of
Superfund Sites, with emergency response and reme-
dial investigations currently under way
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods
The discovery that three municipal wells were contami-
nated with VOCs resulted in their abandonment and an
increase in pumping rates from two wells to the north-
east Figure 10-2 shows 5-, 10-, and 20-year capture
zones under pre-VOC discovery pumping conditions
(Wells 7A, 35, and 38 are the ones that were found to
be contaminated with VOCs) The small circle around
each well marks the 400-foot minimum setback zone
specified in the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act of
SCALE
Figure 10-2 Five-, 10-, and 20-year time-related captures zones
under pre-VOC discovery pumping conditions,
Rockford, Illinois, the small circle denotes the 400'
minimum setback zone (Wehrmann and Varijen,
1990)
206
-------
1987 (IGPA) The IGPAalso allows a maximum setback
zone of 1,000 feet from the wellhead, and a regulated
recharge area that extends up to 2,500 feet from a well
or group of wells It is clear from Figure 10-2 that even
the maximum setback is not adequate if more than a
5-year time of travel criterion is used for delineating a
wellhead protection area Figure 10-3 illustrates 20-year
capture zones for pre-VOC discovery pumping condi-
tions (dark line), post-VOC pumping conditions (lighter
line around wells 9A and 11), and the locations of poten-
tial hazardous waste sources This figure illustrates the
importance of considering the effect of pumping rates
and interactions between wells in well fields when de-
lineating wellhead protection areas For example, the
effect of increasing pumping rates in Well 11 and shut-
ting down contaminated wells 7A and 38 resulted in a
shift of the 20-year capture zone to the south The total
number of potential contaminant sources for Well 11
remained about the same About half the potential con-
taminant sources for pre-VOC discovery pumping lie
outside the post-VOC discovery capture zone, however,
while an equal number of potential contaminant sources
that were previously located within the capture zone of
the contaminated wells fall within the post-VOC discov-
ery capture zone of Well 11 The lesson from this case
study is that "capture zone management' may be an
option for protection of ground water supplies in addition
to land use management
Figure 10-3 Twenty-year capture zones overlain on locations
of potential hazardous waste sources Asterisks
denote potential sources of contamination, the
darker outline constitutes the capture zone for
pre-VOC discovery pumping conditions and the
light outline, post-VOC discovery conditions
(Wehrmann and Varljen, 1990)
10.2.3 Palm Beach County, Florida: Wellfield
Protection Ordinance
Palm Beach County illustrates a zoned approach to
protection of multiple wellfields (Trefry, 1990)
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting Palm Beach
County, in southeastern Florida, includes 25 county and
municipal governments and 30 water utilities Approxi-
mately 80 percent of the potable water supply comes
from ground water Withdrawals of ground water are
regulated by the multi-county South Florida Water Man-
agement District Most ground water in the county
comes from a shallow unconfmed aquifer system Forty-
two wellfields, each permitted for withdrawals of
100,000 gallons per day or more, serve incorporated
and unincorporated portions of the county These well-
fields include a total of 445 existing and proposed wells
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods The
U S Geological Survey's MODFLOW numerical model
was used to delineate four zones around each wellfield
(1) the land area around the wellhead/field bounded by
the 30-day time of travel isochron, (2) the area included
--within the 30-day and 210-day time of travel isochron,
(3) the area between the 210-day and 500-day isochron,
and (4) the area within the 1 -foot drawdown contour line
Zones for each wellfield are periodically reviewed and
revised, if necessary
Contaminant Sources The use, handling, production,
and storage of hazardous and toxic materials associ-
ated with commercial and industrial activities are the
mam contaminant sources of concern in the county
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods In
April 1985, the South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict informed Palm Beach County that a request for an
increase in its water consumption permit would not be
granted until a wellhead protection ordinance was de-
veloped That same month a Water Resources Manage-
ment Advisory Board was created by the Board of
County Commissioners, which in turn created a Well-
field Protection Ordinance Subcommittee to draft an
ordinance The ordinance was passed in early 1988
The ordinance requires a permit for the use, handling,
production, and storage of regulated toxic substances
Different requirements apply depending on the wellhead
protection zone (see above for definitions of the limits of
the four zones) In general, Zone 1 is an area of prohi-
bition, Zones 2 and 3 require secondary containment to
obtain a permit, and daily monitoring of chemicals is
required in Zone 4
Initial implementation of the ordinance resulted in iden-
tification of a total of 3,550,000 gallons of regulated
substances, and 118 pollutant storage tanks that require
secondary containment and monitoring or removal from
Zones 1, 2, and 3 Difficulties in implementing the ordi-
nance include (1) activities and information must be
207
-------
coordinated with the large number of utilities (30) and
local governmental units (25), (2) wellfield mapping has
been hampered by constantly changing locations of ex-
isting, proposed, and previously unidentified wells, (3)
staff is overloaded in dealing with permit review and
enforcement; and (4) facilities have had difficulty obtain-
ing bonding for their operations
10.2.4 Clinton Township, New Jersey:
A Limestone Aquifer Protection
Ordinance
Clinton Township illustrates the use of technically based
land use controls to protect areas of the township un-
derlain by vulnerable carbonate aquifers Emphasis is
on controlling development in all vulnerable areas, not
just wellhead areas (Fischer et al, 1991a&b)
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting The Town-
ship of Clinton, Hunterdon County, in northwestern New
Jersey, was primarily an agricultural area in the 1970s
but in recent years has been targeted by state planning
agencies and development interests as a prime growth
area for urban development The township relies upon
ground water as the source of all its drinking, agricul-
tural, and industnal water The township is located upon
a Paleozoic outlier within the New Jersey Highlands
physiographic province, and about 15 percent of the
township is underlain by solution-prone, folded and
faulted Cambro-Ordovician carbonates In addition to
being highly vulnerable to contamination, the potential
for foundation failure or sinkhole formation below poten-
tial contaminants must be considered
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods Ex-
isting detailed geologic maps delineated areas of car-
bonate rock in the township where the "limestone"
ordinance discussed below applied
Contaminant Sources Specific contaminant sources
were not identified in the source case study, although
the potential for sinkhole formation under hazardous
material storage or use areas were identified as a spe-
cial concern with the carbonate rocks
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods Of-
ficials in Clinton Township had the foresight to initiate a
process that would protect ground water supplies with-
out eliminating the inevitable urban development that
was occurring in the Township In the fall of 1987, the
Township ordered a 150-day moratorium on develop-
ment in carbonate rock areas Geologists with the state
provided the necessary information for delineating the
moratorium areas A committee of lay and technical
people was immediately convened to draft an ordinance
that would protect ground water supplies in the carbon-
ate areas The "limestone" committee include repre-
sentatives from the local watershed association, the
Township Engineers office, the Township Sanitary Engi-
neers office, the New Jersey Geological Survey, the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
The County Health Department, the Town Councils, and
a geological engineer with experience in investigation
and construction in karst terrane An attorney who was
experienced in state land laws reviewed the final com-
mittee drafts of an ordinance and converted what was
primarily a technical document into a defendable legal
document
In May 1988 two ordinances were passed (1) an ena-
bling ordinance setting forth the reasons regulatory con-
trols were required in the carbonate areas of the
township to protect public health, welfare, and safety,
and (2) a "limestone" ordinance that established proce-
dures for ensuring that any proposed construction pro-
ject would only be approved if protection of ground water
quality could be ensured The ordinance established a
phased investigation process that provides the applicant
for a construction permit to cancel a project if the prob-
lems seem insurmountable at an early stage For each
phase of investigation and design, the ordinance pro-
vides specific requirements or suggested methods of
investigation, as well as indicating preferred and alter-
nate procedures As of 1991, the ordinance had with-
stood legal challenge by a developer, and resulted in
several developments being either canceled or signifi-
cantly altered in order to protect ground water quality in
the carbonate areas of the township
10.2.5 Nantucket Island, Massachusetts:
Implementation of a Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan
Nantucket Island illustrates how a zoned approach to
ground water protection combined with regulatory con-
trols targeted at major contaminants of concern can
protect both public wellhead areas and more dispersed
privately owned water wells (Horsley, 1990)
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting The Island of
Nantucket, south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, covers
an area of 40 square miles A shallow glacial sand and
gravel aquifer serves as the only source of drinking
water for its 7,400 year-round residents and 32,000
summer visitors Two major public supply wellfields and
about 3,500 private wells tap the aquifer The water table
is at or near the surface in the vicinity of ponds and
streams and is as much as 100 feet below the surface
in central portions of the island Typically ground water
is within 10 to 20 feet of the surface Hydraulic conduc-
tivities as high as 970 feet/day have been measured
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods The
Theis nonequilibnum equation (Section 453) and flow
net analysis were used to delineate the zone of contri-
bution to the Siasconset wellfield (Figure 10-4) and a
simplified fixed radius approach was used for the Wan-
208
-------
WR4
WR4
ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION
TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONE
CONTRIBUTING AREAS
TO PONDS I HARBORS
•'OTEMTIAL PRIVATE
WEU PBOTECT,ON A
Rgure 10-4 Water resource protection districts, southeastern Nantucket Island, Massachusetts (Horsley, 1990)
209
-------
nacomet wellfield Water table maps were used to de-
lineate Identify aquifer recharge areas on the island
Contaminant Sources Septic systems, used by 60
percent of Nantuckefs residents for wastewater dis-
posal, are the most common contamination source Po-
tential sources of contamination include two landfills,
four active farms, extensive cranberry bogs, three golf
courses, eight hazardous waste sites, 400 underground
fuel storage systems, two sewage treatment plants, and
numerous businesses that use toxic and hazardous ma-
terials. Salt water intrusion is a problem in many private
wells located near the island's shoreline
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods
The water resource management plan for Nantucket
involved the delineation of four critical water resources
protection zones Recommended land use controls in-
cluded (1) a four-tiered water resources overlay zoning
bylaw, (2) health regulations limiting sewage flow per lot
size based on nitrogen loading, (3) a 300-lot separation
between private wells and septic systems, (4) a regula-
tion requiring registration and inspection of businesses
using toxic and hazardous materials, (5) an effluent
limitation of 5 mg/L for new projects proposing sewage
discharges exceeding 2,000 gallons/day, and (6) a wet-
lands bylaw addressing the predicted hydrologic im-
pacts of sea level rise Figure 10-4 illustrates the four
water resource protection districts delineated in the Si-
asconset area, and Table 10-1 identifies regulated land
uses within each district
10.2.6 Tucson Basin, Arizona: Regional
Wellhead Protection in an Urbanized
Arid Environment
The Tucson Basin illustrates how an association of local
governments within a single county used a study of
already contaminated wells to develop a regional ap-
proach of ground water protection (Pima Association of
Governments, 1992)
Community and Hydrogeologic Setting Pima County
in southern Arizona is located in the Basin and Range
physiographic province, which is characterized by north-
west-trending mountain ranges separated by alluvial
basins. The climate is and to semi-arid Most of the
population in the county in concentrated in the Tucson
basin, which has no significant sources of natural, per-
ennial surface water in its urbanized areas The Tucson
metropolitan area relies entirely on ground water for
agricultural, industrial, and drinking water, which is
drawn from three major Pleistocene- to Tertiary-age al-
luvial units In 1980, ground water pumpage was about
200,000 acre-feet/year, divided equally between indus-
trial, agricultural, and public supply In 1989, depths to
water in the Tucson basin generally ranged between 50
and 300 feet below land surface and averaged around
Table 10-1
Regulated Land Uses, Water Resource Protection
Zones, Nantuckel Island, Massachusetts
(Horsley, 1990)
WR1 WR2 WR3
treatment facilities with
on-site disposal of primary
or secondary treated
effluent
Car and truck washes
Road salt stockpiles
Dry cleaning
establishments, com or
commercial laundries
Motor vehicle and boat
service and repair facilities
including body shops
Metal plating establishments
Chemical and
bacteriological laboratories
Trucking or bus terminals
Any use which involves as
a principal activity the
manufacture, storage, use,
transporation, or disposal
of toxic or hazardous
materials
Any use which involves the
use of toxic and hazardous
materials in quantities
greater than those
associated with normal
household use
Residential development at
densities exceeding those
stated in Section E of this
bylaw
Golf courses
P P
P P
P P
SP
SP
SP
P
P
P
P
P
P
SP
P
P
SP
SP
WR4
Sanitary landfills
Junk yards, salvage yards
Municipal sewage
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP SP
P SP
SP SP
P = Prohibited, SP = Special permit required
200 feet Current water levels in some wells have
dropped more than 100 feet compared to levels in 1940
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation Methods The
Pima Association of Governments (PAG) is developing
a system for ground water vulnerability mapping based
on the hydrogeologic factors that are most closely cor-
related with contamination of existing wells (see below)
Contaminant Sources Forty-four contaminated public-
supply wells were identified in Pima County, the major
contaminants were volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
petroleum products and additives, and nitrate Landfills
and unrestricted discharges of liquid waste from indus-
trial areas were the most significant known sources of
the VOC contamination Petroleum contamination was
traced to a leaking underground pipeline and leaking
210
-------
underground storage tanks Irrigated agriculture, sew-
age treatment plants, and septic systems were identified
as the likely sources of nitrate contamination In general,
the wells were not adjacent to the pollution sources
Wellhead Protection Area Management Methods
PAG evaluated various wellhead protection strategies
based on hydrogeologic and land use information re-
lated to the contaminated wells PAG concluded that
strategies that focused on establishing WHPAs around
individual wells, whether they were based on an arbi-
trary fixed radius or a time of travel criterion, were
ineffective and impractical This conclusion was based
primarily on the finding that the pollution sources for
most of the contaminated wells were more than a mile
away The high density of wells in the Tucson area also
makes a well-by-well delineation strategy difficult The
most significant factors in evaluating a well's suscepti-
bility to contamination were (1) proximity to a major
recharge source, (2) shallow or perched ground water,
and (3) the presence of upgradient land uses that might
contribute contaminants PAG has developed a strategy
of delineating regional WHPAs to protect the areas in
Pima County that are most susceptible to ground water
contamination (i e, recharge zones and areas with shal-
low or perched ground water) High-risk land uses would
be excluded from undeveloped, sensitive areas through
planning and zoning ordinances and land acquisition
programs No new regulatory programs were recom-
mended, but existing regulatory programs would be
modified to provide additional protection and increased
monitoring in the regional WHPAs
10.3 Sources of Additional Information
on Case Studies
Table 10-2 summarizes information on case studies ad-
dressing ground water or wellhead protection in other
publications that contain multiple case studies Table
10-3 provides an index of individual case studies by
state, and also identifies case studies in karst areas
Table 10-2 Summary Information on Case Studies In Other Sources on Ground Water and Wellhead Protection*
Reference Description of Case Studies
Bornetal (1988)
Bradbury etal (1991)
Kreitler and Senger
(1991)
Maryland Department of
the Environment (1991)
US EPA (1987)
US EPA (1993)
Case studies on the development of wellhead protection districts for six communities in Wisconsin
(Whiting, Seymour, Rib Mountain, Eagle River, Tomah, and Mazomame) Hydrogeologic settings included
unconfmed sand-and-gravel aquifers, and unconfmed and semiconfmed sandstone aquifers Wellhead
delineation methods included hydrogeologic mapping, analytical models (cone of depression), and time of
travel calculations
Two detailed case studies on WHPA delineation in fractured rock aquifers (1) Junction City, Wisconsin
(wells in clayey residuum over metavolcamc rock, and (2) Sevastopol test site, Door County, Wisconsin
(well in residual soils over fractured dolomite aquifer) Delineation methods included water table mapping,
aquifer tests, isotope analysis, and numerical computer modeling
Detailed case studies on WHPA delineation in confined sandstone aquifers in the Gulf Coast Sedimentary
Basin for the towns of Bastrop and Wharton, Texas Delineation methods included hydrogeologic and
hydrochemical mapping, the cylinder method, simple analytical methods, and semianalytical and numerical
computer modeling
Chapter 6 contains case studies of wellhead protection area delineation for six communities in Maryland
including the following hydrogeologic units coastal plain semi-confined aquifer, coastal plain unconfmed
aquifer, central Maryland sedimentary rock aquifer, Piedmont crystalline rock aquifer, and carbonate rock
aquifer
Appendix A provides examples of application of WHPA delineation methods for Florida and Dade County,
Flonda, Massachusetts, Vermont, The Netherlands, and Germany Appendix B contains four detailed case
studies comparing different delineation methods (1) Cape Cod, Massachusetts, (2) southern Florida, (3)
central Colorado, and (4) southwestern Connecticut
Four case studies (1) Hill, New Hampshire (WHPA delineated in sandy glacial till aquifer over crystalline
rocks using uniform flow equation), (2) Cottage Grove, Wisconsin (WHPA delineated for sandstone aquifer
using the WHPA code), (3) Enid, Oklahoma (WHPA delineated for wellhead in an alluvial aquifer using
hydrogeologic mapping, semianalytical methods, and computer modeling), (4) Descanso Community Water
District, California (WHPA delineated in weathered regohth over metamorphic and granitic bedrock using
water table map, analytical methods, flow net analysis, and time of travel calculations)
211
-------
Table 10-3 Index to Case Study References on Ground Water and Wellhead Protection*
Topic References
States
Karat
GIS
Arizona Pima Association of Governments (1992), California Horsely Witten Hegemann, Inc (1991), Lewcock
(1987), Zidar (1990), Connecticut Miller et al (1992), Delaware Kerzner (1990a, 1990b), Yancheski (1992),
Yancheski et al (1990), Illinois Adams et al (1992), Wehrmann and Varljen (1990)**, Indiana Parrett (1986),
Florida Trefry (1990)**, Walters (1987), Kentucky Sendlein (1991), Maine Marler (1991), Tolman et al (1991),
Maryland Maryland Department of the Environment (1991), Massachusetts Brandon et al (1992), Heeley et al
(1992), Horsley (1990)**, Moore et al (1990a), Nelson and Witten (1990), Nickerson (1986), Paly and Steppacher
(undated), Ram and Scwharz (1987), Steppacher (1988), Michigan Dean (1988), Missoun Moore et al (1990b),
New Jersey Fischer et al (1991 a, 1991b)**, Heeley et al (1992), Page (1987b, 1987c), New York Koppelman
(1987), Ohio Bair and Roadcap (1992), Bair et al (1991a, 1991b), Roadcap and Bair (1990), Springer and Bar
(1990,1992), Weathermgton-Rice and Hottman (1990), Pennsylvania Emrich and Luitweiler (1990)**, Texas Butler
(1987), Cross (1990), Cross and Schulze (1988), Rifai et al (1993), Vermont Toch (1991), Washington Randall
and Brown (1987), Wisconsin Born et al (1988), Osbome and Sorenson (1990), Osborne et al (1989), Page
(1987a), Potter (1984), Zaporzec (1985), Unspecified Caswell (1993—New England), Other Countries Roeper
(1990-Canada)
Emrich and Luitweiler (1990)**, Fischer et al (1991a, 1991b)**, Moore et al (1990b), Sendlein (1991)
See Table 5-8
Computer Models See Table 6-6
* Sea also Table 6-6 for case studies indexed according to computer model use
** Case study written up hi this chapter
10.4 References*
Adams, S.etal 1992 Illinois Groundwater Protection Program Pilot
Groundwater Protection Needs Assessment for Pekm Public Water
Supply Facility Number 1795040 Division of Public Water Sup-
plies, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL
[GIS]
Bair, ES and GS Roadcap 1992 Comparison of Row Models
Used to Delineate Capture Zones of Wells 1 Leaky-Confined
Fractured-Carbonate Aquifer Ground Water 30(2) 199-211
[CAPZONE/GWPATH, DREAM/RESSQC. MODFLOW/MOD-
PATH, Ohio]
Bair, ES , CM Sagreed, and E A. Stasny 1991 a A Monte Carlo-
Based Approach for Determining Traveltime-Related Capture
Zones of Wells Using Convex Hulls as Confidence Regions
Ground Water 29(6) 849-861 [CAPZONE/GWPATH, Sandstone
aquifer, Ohio]
Bair. E S , A.E. Springer, and G S Roadcap 1991b Delineation of
Travoltime-Retated Capture Areas of Wells Using Analytical Flow
Models and Particle-Tracking Analysis Ground Water 29(3) 387-
397 [CAPZONE/GWPATH, confined/unconfined stratified-dnft
aquifer and leaky-confined fractured carbonate aquifer, Ohio]
Bom, S M, DA Yanggen, A R Czechohnksi, R J Tiemey, and R G
Honning 1988 Wellhead Protection Districts in Wisconsin An
Analysis and Test Applications Special Report 10 Wisconsin Geo-
logical And Natural History Survey, Madison, Wl, 75 pp
Bradbury, KR, MA Muktoon, A Zaporozec, and J Levy 1991
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas in Fractured Rocks
EPA/570/9-91-009, 144 pp Available from ODW** [May also be
cited with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey as
author]
Brandon, FO, PB Corcoran, and J L Yeo 1992 Protection of Local
Water Supplies by a Regional Water Supplier Ground Water Man-
agement 13 525-538 ([8th] Focus Conf Eastern GW Issues) [GIS,
Massachusetts]
Butter, K.S 1987 Urban Growth Management and Groundwater Pro-
tection Austin, Texas In Planning for Groundwater Protection,
G W Page (ed), Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 261-288
CaswsB, B 1993 Evolution of a Wellhead Protection Area Water
We!) Journal 48(3) 35-38 [Glacial fluvial deposits in New England]
Cross, B L 1990 A Ground Water Protection Strategy The City of
El Paso Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX
Cross, BL and J Schulze 1989 City of Hurst (A Public Water
Supply Protection Strategy) Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX
Dean, LF 1988 Local Government Regulations for Groundwater
Protection Michigan Case Examples In Policy Planning and Re-
source Protection A Groundwater Conference for the Midwest,
Institute for Water Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kala-
mazoo, Ml, pp 143-150
Emnch, G H and P Luitweiler 1990 Ground Water Impairment from
Lack of Wellhead Protection A Water Utility's Response Ground
Water Management 1 641-652 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Con-
ferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Protection)
[Dolomite aquifer, Pennsylvania]
Fischer, J A, R J Canace, and D H Monteverde 1991 a Karst Ge-
ology and Ground Water Protection Law Ground Water Manage-
ment 10653-666 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology,
Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes)
[Hunterdon County, NJ]
Fischer, J A, J Fischer, and H Lechner 1991b Clinton Township,
New Jersey Ground-Water Protection Ground Water Management
7 477-491 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground-Water
Issues) [Karst]
Heeley, RW, K Exarhoulakos, DF Reed and JA Fischer 1992
Bedrock/Overburden Interaction Reflected in Well Head Protection
Delineations In Ground Water Management 13 605-617 (Proc of
Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues) [Frac-
tured sedimentary rock, Massachusetts and New Jersey, MOD-
FLOW]
Horsley, S 1990 Water Resource Management Plan for Nantucket
Island, Massachusetts—A Case Study Ground Water Manage-
ment 33-20 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground
Water Issues)
Horsley Witten Hegemann, Inc 1991 A Case Study in Wellhead
Protection for Local Governments Prepared for U S Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region 9, San Francisco, CA [Des-
canso, San Diego County, California]
212
-------
Kerzner, S 1990a EPA/Local Partnership at Work Ground Water
Management 3 83-96 (Proo Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground Water Issues) [GIS, New Castle County, DE]
Kerzner, S 1990b An EPA/Local Partnership at Work—The Creation
of a Ground Water Protection Program Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 545-557 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [GIS, New Castle
County, DE]
Koppelman, LE 1987 Long Island Case Study In Planning for
Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed), Academic Press, Or-
lando, FL, pp 157-204
Kreitler.'c W and R K Senger 1991 Wellhead Protection Strategies
for Confined-Aquifer Settings EPA/570/9-91-008, 168 pp Avail-
able from Drinking Water Hotline
Lewcock, T 1987 Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley), California, Case
Study In Planning for Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed),
Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 299-324
Marter, L 1991 The Maine Wellhead Protection Progiam Chelsea,
Maine A Case Study in Cooperative Effort Ground Water Man-
agement 7509-522 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground- Water Issues)
Maryland Department of the Environment 1991 Wellhead Protection
Training Manual Water Supply Program, Maryland Department of
the Environment [Focus on wellhead delineation methods with
results of six demonstration projects representing different hydro-
geologic regions in Maryland]
Miller, A B , J E Diercks, and R P Schreiber 1992 Implementing
Connecticut's New Groundwater Mapping and Protection Regula-
tions at a Major Wellfield on the Connecticut River Ground Water
Management 13 473-487 ([8th] Focus Conf Eastern GW Issues)
Moore, BA, AH Cathcart, and SC Danos 1990a Littleton, Mas-
sachusetts' Wellhead Protection and Monitoring Strategy Ground
Water Management 3 47-67 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Re-
gional Ground Water Issues) [Glacial deposits over igneous and
metamorphic rocks]
Moore, B A, J T Witherspoon, L L Bullard, T J Aley, and J K Rosen-
feld 1990b Strategy for Delineation and Detection Monitoring of
the Fulbnght Springhead Protection Area, Spnngfield, Missouri
Ground Water Management 1 447-461 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection) [Karst aquifer]
Nelson, M E and J D Witten 1990 Delineation of a Wellhead Pro-
tection Area in a Semi-Confined Aquifer Manchester, Massachu-
setts Ground Water Management 331-45 (Proc Focus Conf on
Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues)
Nickerson, S 1986 Local Participation in Regional Ground Water
Management A Cape Code Example In Proc Nat Symp on
Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, pp 242-243
Osborne, TJ and J L Sorenson 1990 Wellhead Protection in Wis-
consin Case Studies of the Town of Weston and City of Wisconsin
Rapids Ground Water Management 1 479-495 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection) [Alluvial aquifers over igneous and metamorphic
rocks]
Osborne, TJ J L. Sorenson, M R Knaack, D J Mechenich, and M J
Travis 1989 Designs for Wellhead Protection in Central Wiscon-
sin - Case Studies in the Town of Weston and City of Wisconsin
Rapids Central Wisconsin, Groundwater Center, Stevens Point,
Wl, 95 pp
Page, GW 1987a Wausau, Wisconsin, Case Study In Planning for
Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed), Academic Press, Or-
lando, FL, pp 241-260
Page, GW 1987b Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Case Studies In
Planning for Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed}, Academic
Press, Orlando, FL, pp 289-298
Page, G W 1987c South Brunswick, New Jersey, Case Study In
Planning for Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed), Academic
Press, Orlando, FL, pp 325-340
Paly, M and L Steppacher Undated Companion Workbook for The
Power to Protect Three Stories About Groundwater Massachu-
setts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA, 37 pp Other sponsors in-
clude U S Environmental Protection Agency and New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission [Workbook for 32
minute video]
Parrett, CL 1986 Marion County, Indiana Dealing with Ground
Water Protection In Proc Nat Symp on Local Government Op-
tions for Ground Water Pollution Control, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK
Pima, Association of Governments 1992 Application of Historic Well
Closure Information for Protection of Existing Wells, Final Techni-
cal Report Prepared for U S Environmental Protection Agency
Potter, J 1984 Local Ground-Water Protection A Sampler of Ap-
proaches Used by Local Governments Misc Paper 84-2 Wiscon-
sin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison, Wl, 17 pp
Ram, BJ and HE Schwarz 1987 Bedford, Massachusetts, Case
Study In Planning for Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed),
Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 341-369
Randall, JH andSM Brown 1987 Aquifer Protection—One Wash-
ington City's Experience In Proc Focus Conf on Northwestern
Ground Water Issues (Portland, OR), National Water Well Asso-
ciation, Dublin, OH
Roadcap, G S and E S Bair 1990 Delineation of Wellhead Protec-
tion Areas in Semiconfined Aquifers Using Semianalytical Meth-
ods Ground Water Management 1 399-412 (Proc of the 1990
Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead
Protection) [Fractured dolomite aquifer, Richwood, Ohio]
Roeper UVR 1990 Development of an Aquifer Management Plan
in a Complex Glacial Setting—Regma, Canada Ground Water
Management 1 685-693 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Confer-
ences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Protection)
Sendlem.LVA 1991 Analysis of DRASTIC and Wellhead Protection
Methods Applied to a Karst Setting Ground Water Management
10 669-683 (Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring
and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes) [Fayette
County, KY]
Springer, A E andES Bair 1990 The Effectiveness of Semianalyti-
cal Methods for Delineating Wellfield Protection Areas in Stratified-
Dnft, Buried Valley Aquifers Ground Water Management
1 413-429 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [Wooster, Ohio]
Springer, AE andES Bair 1992 Comparison of Methods Used to
Delineate Capture Zones of Wells 2 Stratified-Dnft Buned-Valley
Aquifer Ground Water 30(6)908-917 [CAPZONE/GWPATH,
DREAM/RESSQC, MODFLOW/MODPATH, Ohio]
Steppacher, L (ed) 1988 Demonstration of a Geographic Informa-
tion System for Ground Water Protection The Cape Cod Aquifer
Management Project (CCAMP) EPA/901/3-88-005, U S EPA Re-
gion 1, Boston, MA
213
-------
Toch, S L1991 A Balance Between Conservation and Development
Watershed Management in Rural Vermont Ground Water Man-
agement 7457-464 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground-Water Issues)
Toirnan, A.L, K.M Either, and RG Gerber 1991 Technical and
Political Processes in Wellhead Protection Ground Water Man-
agement 7401-413 (Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional
Ground- Water Issues) [Central Maine]
Trefry, A 1990 History and Summary of the Weilfield Protection
Ordinance, Palm Beach Country, Florida Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 559-563 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [MODFLOW]
U 8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas EPA/440/6-87-010
(NTIS PB88-111430) [R Hoffer may also be cited as author]
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 Wellhead Pro-
tection A Guide for Small Communities Seminar Publication
EPA/625/R-93-002 (NTIS PB93-215580) Available from ORD
Publications, U S EPA Center for Environmental Research Infor-
mation, PO Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH, 45268-0963 513/569-
7562.
Waiters, R R 1987 Dade County, Florida, Case Study In Planning
for Groundwater Protection, G W Page (ed), Academic Press,
Ortando, FL, pp 205-240
Weatherington-Rtoe, J and A Hottman 1990 Beyond a State
Ground-Water Protection Strategy Where Do We Go From Here?
Ground Water Management 1 529-544 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster
of Conferences Ground Water Management and Wellhead Pro-
tection) [Ohio case study]
Wehrmann, H A and M D Varljen 1990 A Comparison Between
Regulated Setback Zones and Estimated Recharge Areas Around
Several Municipal Wells in Rockford, IL Ground Water Manage-
ment 1 497-511 (Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground
Water Management and Wellhead Protection) [Glacial outwash]
Yancheski.TB 1992 The Impacts of a New Ground Water Protection
Ordinance on Development in Northern Delaware Yet Another
New Experience for Developers! Ground Water Management
13 513-524 ([8th] Focus Conf Eastern GW Issues)
Yancheski, TB, CA Burns, and JG Charma 1990 Development
With Consideration for Ground-Water Resource and Wellhead Pro-
tection It Can Be Done! Ground Water Management 1 625-639
(Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Man-
agement and Wellhead Protection) [Sand and gravel aquifer, New
Castle County, Delaware]
Zaporozec, A (ed) 1985 Groundwater Protection Principles and
Alternatives for Rock County, Wisconsin Special Report 8 Wis-
consin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison, Wl, 57
PP
Zidar, M 1990 Designing Monitoring Strategies for Well Head Pro-
tection in Confined to Semi-Confined Aquifers Case Study in the
Salinas Valley, California Ground Water Management 1 513-527
(Proc of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Ground Water Man-
agement and Wellhead Protection) [GIS]
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
214
-------
Appendix A
Additional Reference Sources
This appendix identifies major reference sources for the 4 Chemical hazard exposure and risk assessment (Ta-
followmg four areas ble A-5)
1 Hydrology, hydrogeology, and hydraulics (Table A-1) Tne references for each subject area follow the table(s)
2 Karst geology, geomorphology, and hydrology (Table *f ldentlfy the maJ°r subJect areas covered ^ the
* o\
3 Geographic information systems (Tables A-3 and
A-4)
215
-------
Table A-1. Index to Major References on Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Hydraulics*
Topic References
Hydrogeology
Watof Resources/Hydrology Bras (1990). Bowen (1982), Branson et al (1981), Chow (1964), Chow et al (1988), Downing and
Wilkinson (1992). Dunne and Leopold (1978), Gray (1973), Gngg (1985), Kazmann (1988), Leopold and
Langbein (1960). Lmsley et al (1949), Maidment (1993), Memzer (1942), Shaw (1988), Tebutt (1973)
Todd (1970), van der Leeden et al (1990), Viessman et al (1977), Wisler and Brater (1959)
Engineering ASCE (1952), Butler (1957), Lmsley et al (1958), Linsley and Franzmi (1972), Skeat (1969)
Bibliography/Glossary Lohman et al (1972), Pfannkuch (1969), van der Leeden et al (1991)
Introductory AWWA (1989), Baldwin and McGumess (1963), Barton et al (1985), Heath (1980, 1983).
Heath and Trainer (1981), Mills etal (1985), Rau (1970), Redwine et al 1991), US EPA (1985 1990)
Intermediate-Advanced- Bouwer (1978), Bowen (1980), Cooley et al (1972), Custodio and Llama (1975)
Davis and DeWiest (1966), Drisooll (1986), Fetter (1980), Freeze and Cherry (1979), Gelher (1993)
Johnson (1966), Klimentov (1983), Kovacs et al (1981), Matlhess (1982), McWhorter and Sunada
(1981), Raghunath (1982), Todd (1980), Tolman (1937), Investigations Brassington (1988), Brown et al
(1983), Erdelyi and Galfi (1988), Mandel and Shifton (1981), U S Geological Survey (1980) Walton
(1970), Ground Water Engineering De Marsily (1986), Hunt (1983), Kashef (1986), Rethati (1984),
Walton (1991), Edited Volumes Back and Stephenson (1979), IAH (1985), IAHS (1967), Jones and
Laenen (1992), Moore et al (1989,1991), Saleem (1976), Zaporozec (1990)
See Table 1-2
Bentall (1963a,b), Bouwer (1978), Brown et al (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Clarke (1988)
Dawson and Istok (1991), Dnscoll (1986), Earlougher (1977), Ferns et al (1962), Johnson and Richter
(1966), Kruseman and de Ridder (1990), Lohman (1972), Stallman (1971), Streltsova (1989) U S
Geological Survey (1980), U S EPA (1991), Walton (1962, 1979, 1987), Wenzel (1942)
Ground Water Row Bear (1979), Bennett (1976), Bureau of Reclamation (1960,1981), Campbell and
Lehr (1973), Chapman (1981), Daly (1984-flow lines), DeWiest (1965), Edelman (1983), Freeze and
Witherspoon (1967), Glover (1964, 1974), Halek and Svec (1979), Hantush (1964), Hubbert (1940
1969), Hunt (1983), Jacob (1950), Lohman (1972), De Marsily (1986), McWhorter and Sunada (1981)
Peterson et al (1952), Randkrvi and Callender (1976), Rosenshem and Bennett (1984), Strack (1989)
U S EPA (1986-flow lines), Verruijt (1970), Zijl and Nawalany (1993), Porous Media Flow Bear (1972).
Bear and Corapciuglu (1987), Brooks and Corey (1964), Collins (1961), Corey (1977-heterogenous
fluids), Cushman and Hall (1991), Dagan (1989), DeWiest (1966), Dullien (1979), Greenkorn (1983),
IAHR (1972), Milne-Thompson (1968), Muskat (1937), Scheidegger (1960), White (1974), Engineering
Hydraulics Colt Industries (1974), Dodge and Thompson (1937), Hauser (1991), Lencastre (1987)
Rouse (1950), Simon (1976), Drainage/Seepage Bear et al (1968), Bureau of Reclamation (1968)
Cedergren (1989), Harr (1977), Luthm (1973), Marino and Luthin (1982), Powers (1992), Rushton and
Redshaw (1979)
* Sea Table A-2 for index of major references on karst geology, geomorphology, and hydrology
•• References listed under hydrogeology will also cover hydraulics and pumping tests
Chemical/Contaminant
Hydrogeology
Pumping Tests"
Hydraulics**
Table A-1 References*
American Society of CMI Engineers (ASCE) 1952 Hydrology Hand-
book. Manual of Engineering Practice No 28 ASCE, New York
American Water Works Association (AWWA) 1989 Ground Water
Manual MP21 Denver, CO, 160 pp
Back, W and D.A Stephenson (eds) 1979 Contemporary Hydro-
geology Elsevier, New York
Baldwin, H L and C L McGuiness 1963 A Primer on Ground Water
U S Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 25 pp
Barton, Jr, A R etal 1985 Groundwater Manual for the Electric
Utility Industry, Vol 1 Geological Formations and Groundwater
Aquifers, 1st ed EPRICS-3901 Electric Power Research Institute,
Pato Atto, CA. [See also Redwine et al (1991)]
Bear. J 1972. Dynamics of Flow in Porous Media Elsevier, New
York, 764 pp (Reissued in paperback in 1988 by Dover Publica-
tions, Mineda, NY)
Bear, J 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater McGraw-Hill, New York,
567 pp
Boar, J, D Zaziavsky, and S Irmay 1968 Physical Principles of
Water Percolation and Seepage And Zone Research, Vol 29,
UNESCO, Paris, 465 pp
Bear, J and MY Corapciuglu (eds) 1987 Advances in Transport
Phenomena in Porous Media NATO Advanced Studies Institutes
Series E, Vol 128 Martmus Nijhoft Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands
Bennett, GD 1976 Introduction to Ground-Water Hydraulics A Pro-
grammed Text for Self-Instruction U S Geological Survey Tech-
niques of Water Resources Investigations TWRI 3-B2
Bentall, R (ed) 1963a Methods of Determining Permeability, Trans-
missibility, and Drawdown U S Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 1536-1
Bentall, R (compiler) 1963b Shortcuts and Special Problems
in Aquifer Tests U S Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1545-C [17 papers]
Bouwer, H 1978 Groundwater Hydrology McGraw-Hill, New York,
480 pp [General text covering ground-water hydraulics, quality,
and management]
Bowen, R 1980 Ground Water John Wiley & Sons, New York, 227
pp [General text with 13 chapters]
Bowen, R 1982 Surface Water John Wiley & Sons, New York, 289
PP
Branson, FA, GF Gifford, KG Denard, and RF Hadley 1981
Rangeland Hydrology, 2nd ed Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA
216
-------
Bras, R L 1990 Hydrology An Introduction to Hydrologic Science
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Brassmgton, R 1988 Field Hydrogeology Halsted Press, New York
[Introductory field manual for field techniques in hydrogeologic
investigations]
Brown, RH, A A Konoplyantsev, J Ineson, and VS Kovalensky
1983 Ground-Water Studies An International Guide for Research
and Practice Studies and Reports in Hydrology No 7 UNESCO,
Pans [Chapter 6 covers aquifer tests]
Bureau of Reclamation 1960 Studies of Ground-Water Movement
Technical Memorandum No 657 US Department of The Interior,
Denver, CO, 180 pp [Collection of 19 office memoranda on studies
of technical problems arising from ground-water movement on
Bureau of Reclamation projects]
Bureau of Reclamation 1978 Drainage Manual US Department of
The Interior, Denver, CO, 286 pp
Bureau of Reclamation 1981 Ground Water Manual—A Water Re-
sources Technical Publication, 2nd ed U S Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 480 pp [1st edition
1977, 7 chapters covering hydraulics and pumping tests]
Butler, S S 1957 Engineering Hydrology Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ
Campbell, MD and JH Lehr 1973 Water Well Technology
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY [Chapter 10 covers
well hydraulics]
Cedergren, H R 1989 Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, 3rd ed
John Wiley & Sons, New York [2nd edition published 1977]
Chapman, RE 1981 Geology and Water—An Introduction to Ruid
Mechanics for Geologists Martmus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 228 pp
Chow, VT (ed) 1964 Handbook of Applied Hydrology A Compen-
dium of Water-Resources Technology McGraw-Hill, New York,
1453 pp
Chow, VT, DR Maidment, and LW Mays (eds) 1988 Applied
Hydrology McGraw-Hill, New York, 572 pp
Clarke, D 1988 Groundwater Discharge Tests Simulation and Analy-
sis Dev in Water Science 37 Elsevier, New York [Series of
analytical programs for analyzing aquifer tests, covers confined,
leaky-confined and unconfined aquifers]
Collins, RE 1961 Flow of Fluids in Porous Media Remhold Pub-
lishing Corp , New York, 275 pp
Colt Industries 1974 Hydraulic Handbook Fairbanks Morse Pump
Division, Colt Industries, Kansas City, KS, 246 pp
Cooley, R L , J F Harsh, and D L Levy 1972 Pnnciples of Ground-
Water Hydrology Hydrologic Engineering Methods, for Water Re-
source Development, Vol 10 US Army Corps, of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA
Corey, AT 1977 Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous
Media Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO
Cushman, J H and L Hall 1991 Dynamics of Fluids in Hierarchical
Porous Media Academic Press, New York, 528 pp
Custodio, E and M R Llama 1975 Hidrologia Subterranea, 2 Vols
Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, 2,359 pp
Dagan, G 1989 Flow and Transport in Porous Formations Sprin-
ger-Verlag, New York [Focuses on stochastic modeling of subsur-
face flow and transport at different scales]
Daly, CJ 1984 A Procedure for Calculating Ground Water Flow
Lines CRREL Special Report 84-9 US Army Corps of Engineers
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,
NH
Davis, SN andRJM DeWiest'1966 Hydrogeology John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 463 pp [General text focusing on geologic aspect
of ground water, includes chapter on radionuclides in ground
water]
Dawson, KJ andJD Istok 1991 Aquifer Testing Design and Analy-
sis of Pumping and Slug Tests Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml,
280 pp
De Marsily, G 1986 Quantitative Hydrogeology Groundwater Hy-
drology for Engineers Academic Press, New York, 440 pp
DeWiest, R J M 1965 Geohydrology John Wiley & Sons, New York,
366 pp
DeWiest, RJM (ed) 1969 Flow Through Porous Media Academic
Press, New York, 366 pp [11 contributed chapters]
Dodge, R A and M J Thompson 1937 Fluid Mechanics McGraw-
Hill, New York
Downing, R A andWB Wilkinson (eds) 1992 Applied Groundwater
Hydrology A British Perspective Oxford University Press, New
York, 352 pp [19 contributed chapters on ground-water manage-
ment, quality, and waste disposal]
Dnscoll, FG 1986 Groundwater and Wells, 2nd ed Johnson Divi-
sion, UOP Inc, St Paul, MN, 1089 pp First edition by Johnson,
UOP, 1966 [Chapter 9 covers well hydraulics and Chapter 16
discusses collection and analysis of pumping test data]
Dullien, FAL 1979 Porous Media Fluid Transport and Structure
Academic Press, New York
Dunne, T and LB Leopold 1978 Water in Environmental Planning
W H Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 818 pp
Earlougher, Jr, RC 1977 Advances in Well Test Analysis Mono-
graph No 5, Soc Petrol Eng of AIME, New York, 264 pp
Edelman, J H 1983 Groundwater Hydraulics of Extensive Aquifers,
2nd ed ILRI Bulletin No 13 International Institute for Land Rec-
lamation and Improvement, Wagenmgen, The Netherlands, 216
pp [First edition published in 1972]
Ferris, J G , D B Knowles, R H Brown, and R W Stallman 1962
Theory of Aquifer Tests U S Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1536-E
Fetter, Jr, C W 1980 Applied Hydrogeology Charles E Merrill Pub-
lishing Co, Columbus, OH, 488 pp [Textbook focusing on ground-
water occurrence and flow]
Freeze, R A andJA Cherry 1979 Groundwater Prentice-Hall Pub-
lishing Co, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 pp [Comprehensive text
covering all aspects of ground-water flow, ground-water contami-
nation, and geochemistry]
Freeze, RA and PA Witherspoon 1967 Theoretical Analysis of
Regional Ground-Water Flow 3 Quantitative Interpretations
Water Resources Research 4 581-590
Gelher, LW 1993 Stochastic Subsurface Hydrology Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 390 pp
Glover, R E 1964 Ground-Water Movement Tech Eng Monograph
No 31 US Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 76 pp
Glover, R E 1974 Transient Ground Water Hydraulics Water Re-
sources Publications, Fort Collins, CO, 413 pp
217
-------
Gray, DM (ed) 1973 Handbook on the Principles of Hydrology (with
special emphasis directed to Canadian conditions in the discus-
sions, applications and presentation of data) Water Information
Center, Port Washington, NY. 720 pp [Reprint of 1970 edition
published in Canada]
Qroenkom, R.A. 1983 Row Phenomena in Porous Media Funda-
mentals and Applications in Petroleum, Water and Food Produc-
tion. Marcel Dekker, New York, 550 pp
Grtgg, NS 1985 Water Resources Planning McGraw-Hill, New
York, 328 pp
Hatok, V. and J Svec 1979 Ground-Water Hydraulics Develop-
ments In Water Science, Vd 7, Bsevier, New York, 620 pp
Hantush, M S 1964 Hydraulics of Wells Advances in Hydroscience
1.181-432
Harr, ME 1977 Ground Water and Seepage McGraw-Hill, New
York, 315 pp
Hausar. B.A 1991 Practical Hydraulics Handbook. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml, 347 pp [Focuses on applications for drinking and
wastowator operators]
Heath, R C 1980 Basks Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology with
Reference to Conditions In North Carolina U S Geological Survey
Open File Report OFR 80-44, 93 pp
Heath, R C 1983 Basks Ground-Water Hydrology U S Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220 Repufallshed in a 1984 edition
by National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH [Contains one-
and two-page synopses of fundamental concepts and terms in
hydrogeology; most of this material can also be found in chapter
2 of US EPA (1985)]
Heath, R C and FW Trainer 1981 Introduction to Ground Water
Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley & Sons, New York, 284 pp [Intro-
ductory text including laboratory exercises]
Hubfaert,MK 1940 The Theory of Ground-Water Motion J Geology
48785-944
Hubbert, M K 1969 The Theory of Ground-Water Motion and Re-
lated Papers Hafner Publishing Co, 311 pp
Hunt, B 1983 Mathematical Analysis of Groundwater Resources
Butterworth, Boston, 271 pp
International Association for Hydraulic Research (IAHR) 1972 Fun-
damentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media Elsevier,
Now York. [Conference proceedings containing 31 papers]
International Association of Hydrogeologlsts (IAH) 1985 Hydrogeoi-
ogy of Rocks of Low Permeability, 2 Parts Vol XVII, Int Congr of
IAH Memoires (Tucson, AZ), 850 pp
International Association of Scientific Hydrology (IASH) 1967 Hy-
drology of Fractured Rocks (Proc of 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium),
2 Vols IASH Publ No 73
Jacob, CE 1950 Row of Ground Water In Engineering Hydraulics,
H. Rouse (ed), Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 321-386
Johnson, AI and R C Rfchter 1967 Selected Bibliography on Per-
meability and Capillarity Testing of Rock and Soil Materials In
Permeabnity and CapiHanty of Soils ASTM STP 417 American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 167-210
Johnson, E E, Ino 1966 Ground Water and Wells Johnson Division,
UOP, St Paul, MN, 440 pp [See Driscoll (1986) for 2nd edition]
Jones, ME and A. Laenen (eds) 1992 Interdisciplinary Approaches
tn Hydrology and Hydrogeoiogy Amencan Institute of Hydrology,
Minneapolis. MN, 644 pp [Proc AIH 1992 Annual Meeting, Port-
land, OR]
Kashef.AI 1986 Groundwater Engineering McGraw-Hill, New York,
512 pp
Kazmann, R G 1988 Modern Hydrology, 3rd ed Harper and Row,
New York Earlier edition 1972,635 pp [Comprehensive text cov-
ering water resources from physical, environmental, economic,
and societal perspectives]
Klimetnov, PP 1983 General Hydrogeoiogy MIR Publishers, Mos-
cow
Kovacs, G , J GSIfi, and N Pataki 1981 Subterranean Hydrology
Water Resource Publications, Littleton, CO, 988 pp
Kruseman, G P and N A DeRidder 1990 Analysis and Evaluation
of Pumping Test Data ILRI Publication No 47 International Insti-
tute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wagenmgen, The
Netherlands, 345 pp [Completely revised edition of the 1979 Eng-
lish version of Bulletin 11, discusses 46 different analytical tech-
niques]
Lencastre, A 1987 Handbook of Hydraulic Engineering John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 540 pp
Leopold, LB and WB Langbein 1960 A Primer on Water US
Government Printing Office 1970-0-398-800, 50 pp
bnsley.Jr.RK andJB Franzim 1972 Water Resources Engineer-
ing, 2nd ed McGraw-Hill, New York, 690 pp
Lnsley, Jr, RK, MA Kohler, and JLH Paulhus 1949 Applied
Hydrology McGraw-Hill, New York
Unsley, Jr.RK and MA Kohler 1982 Hydrology for Engineers, 3rd
ed McGraw-Hill, New York, 512 pp [1 st edition by LJnsley, Kohler,
and Paulhus published In 1958]
Lohman, SW 1972 Ground-Water Hydraulics US Geological Sur-
vey Professional Paper 708 [Covers methods for estimating aqui-
fer parameters]
Lohman, SW et al 1972 Definitions of Selected Ground-Water
Terms—Revisions and Conceptual Refinements U S Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988,21 pp
Luthin, JN 1973 Drainage Engineering RE Krieger Publ Co,
Huntington, NY
Maidment, D R (ed) 1993 Handbook of Hydrology McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1,000 pp
McWhorter, DB andDK Sunada 1981 Ground-Water Hydrology
and Hydraulics Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 492
pp [Earlier edition published in 1977]
Mandel, S andZL Shifton 1981 Groundwater Resources Investi-
gation and Development Academic Press, New York, 288 pp
Marino, MA and JN Luthin 1982 Seepage and Groundwater
Elsevier, New York, 492 pp
Matthess, G 1982 Properties of Groundwater John Wiley & Sons,
New York [Text focusing on geochemical aspects of ground water]
Meinzer.OE (ed) 1942 Hydrology McGraw-Hill, New York, 712
pp [Reprinted by Dover Publications, New York]
Mills, WB etal 1985 Water Quality Assessment A Screening Pro-
cedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants, Part II EPA 600/6-
85/002b [Part 2 covers basic hydrogeologic concepts for
assessing water-quality impacts of toxic and conventional pollut-
ants]
Milne-Thompson, LM 1968 Theoretical Hydrodynamics, 5th ed
Macmillan, New York
218
-------
Moore, J E, A A Zaporozec, S C Csallany, and TC Varney (eds)
1989 Recent Advances in Ground-Water Hydrology American
Institute of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, 602 pp tProc of 1988
Int Conf on Ground-Water Hydrology, Tampa, FL]
Moore, J E, R A Kanivetsky, J S Rosenshem, C Zenone, and S C
Csallany (eds) 1991 First USA/USSR Joint Conference on En-
vironmental Hydrology and Hydrogeology American Institute of
Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, 464 pp [Proc 1990 Int Conf, Len-
ingrad, USSR]
Muskat, M 1937 The Flow of Homogenous Fluids Through Porous
Media McGraw-Hill, New York, 763 pp
Peterson, DF etal 1952 Hydraulics of Wells Agnc Exp Sta Bull
351, Utah State College, Logan UT
Pfannkuch, HO 1969 Elsevier's Dictionary of Hydrogeology El-
sevier, NY, 168 pp
Powers, J P 1992 Construction Dewatering A Guide to Theory and
Practice, 2nd ed Wiley & Sons, Somerset, NJ, 494 pp [First
edition published in 1981]
Raghunath, H M 1982 Groundwater John Wiley, Somerset, NJ, 456
PP
Randkivi, AJ and R A. Callander 1976 Analysis of Groundwater
Flow John Wiley & Sons, New York, 214 pp
Rau, J 1970 Ground Water Hydrology for Water Well Drilling Con-
tractors National Water Well Association, Columbus, OH, 257 pp
Redwine, JC etal 1991 Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility
Industry, Second Edition, Vol 1 Geological Formations and
Groundwater Aquifers EPRI GS-7534 Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA [First edition by Barton et al (1985)]
Rethati, L 1984 Groundwater in Civil Engineering Elsevier, New
York, 474 pp
Rosenshem, J, and G Bennett (eds) 1984 Groundwater Hydrau-
lics American Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph 9
Rouse, H (ed) 1950 Engineering Hydraulics Wiley and Sons, New
York. [Proceedings of the 1949 Hydraulics Conference, University
of Iowa, Iowa City, may be cited with a 1949 date]
Rushton, KR andSC Redshaw 1979 Seepage and Groundwater
Flow John Wiley & Sons, 339 pp
Saleem, ZA (ed) 1976 Advances in Groundwater Hydrology
American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN, 333 pp
Scheidegger, A E 1974 The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media,
3rd ed University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario [1st ed
published by MacMillan in 1957, 2nd ed published in 1960]
Shaw, E M 1988 Hydrology in Practice, 2nd ed Van Nostrand Re-
mhold, New York [Introductory text focusing on surface hydrology]
Simon, A L 1976 Practical Hydraulics John Wiley & Sons, New York
Skeat, WO, (ed) 1969 Manual of British Water Engineering Prac-
tice, Vol II, Engineering Practice, 4th ed W Heffer and Sons,
Cambridge
Stallman, RW 1971 Aquifer-Test Design, Observation and Data
Analysis U S Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations, TWRI 3-B1
Strack, ODL 1989 Ground Water Mechanics Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ [Advanced mathematically oriented text]
Streltsova, TD 1989 Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations
John Wiley & Sons, New York [Focuses on testing of deep oil-
bearmg formations]
Tebutt, THY 1973 Water Science and Technology Barnes & Noble
Books, New York, 240 pp
Todd (1970)—see van der Leeden et al (1990)
Todd, D K 1980 Groundwater Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 535 pp First edition 1959 [Basic text on the
fundamentals of ground-water hydrology with 14 chapters]
Tolman, C F 1937 Ground Water McGraw-Hill, New York, 593 pp
[Text on ground-water hydrology with 17 chapters]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985 Protection of
Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water Contamination Semi-
nar Publication, EPA/625/4-85/016 (NTIS PB86-168358), 181 pp
Available from CERI [Chapter 2 contains most of the material in
Heath (1983)]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986 Criteria for Iden-
tifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology Under RCRA A RCRA
Interpretive Guidance EPA/530/SW-86-022 (Complete set NTIS
PB86-224946) [Individual Appendices (EPA/530/SW-86-022A to
D) Technical Methods for Evaluating Hydrogeologic Parameters
(A, PB86-224961), Groundwater Flow Net/Flow Line Construction
and Analysis (B, PB86-224979), Technical Methods for Calculating
Time of Travel in the Unsaturated Zone (C, PB86-224987), Devel-
opment of Vulnerability Criteria Based on Risk Assessments and
Theoretical Modeling (D, PB86-224995)]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990 Ground Water
Handbook, Vol I Ground Water and Contamination EPA/625/6-
90/01 6a Available from CERI*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 Handbook
Ground Water Volume II Methodology EPA/625/6-90/-16b, 141
pp Available from CERI* [Chapter 4 covers ground-water tracers
and Chapter 5 covers aquifer-test analysis]
U S Geological Survey 1980 Ground Water In National Handbook
of Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition, Office of
Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, Chapter 2
van der Leeden, F 1991 Geraghty & Miller's Groundwater Bibliog-
raphy, 5th ed Water Information Center, Plamview, New York, 507
PP
van der Leeden, F, FL Troise, and DK Todd (eds) 1990 The
Water Encyclopedia, 2nd ed Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 808
pp [First edition edited by Todd published in 1970]
Verruijt, A 1970 Theory of Ground Water Flow Gordon and Breach,
New York
Viessman,Jr,W,TE Harbaugh, and J W Knapp 1977 Introduction
to Hydrology, 2nd ed I ntext Educational Publishers, New York 1st
edition published 1972 [General text on surface and ground-water
hydrology]
Walton, WC 1962 Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer
Evaluation ISWS Bulletin No 49 Illinois State Water Survey,
Champaign, IL
Walton, WC 1970 Groundwater Resource Evaluation McGraw-Hill,
New York, 664 pp
Walton, WC 1979 Progress in Analytical Groundwater Modeling In
Contemporary Hydrogeology, W Back and DA Stephenson
(eds) Elsevier, New York [Review paper covering various ana-
lytical methods for analyzing pump-test data]
Walton, WC 1987 Groundwater Pumping Tests Design and Analy-
sis Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 201 pp
Walton, WC 1991 Principles of Groundwater Engineering Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 346 pp
219
-------
£f ; ^ ? ? , £dl for Determining Permeabilrty of Water- Zaporozec, A (ed ) 1 990 Minimizing Risk to the Hydrologio Envi-
k*Z5 ^? ~ * See 'ntfoducfton for information on how to obtain documents
Wtelor, CO andER Brater 1959 Hydrology, 2nd ed John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
220
-------
Table A-2 Index to Major References on Karst Geology, Geomorphology and Hydrology
Topic References
Glossary
Hydrology/Ground Water
Karst Tracing
Geomorphology/Geology
Geochemistry
Engineering Aspects
Environmental Aspects
Conference Proceedings
Monroe (1970)
Bibliographies LaMoreaux (1986), LaMoreaux et al (1970,1989,1993), Warren and Moore (1975), Texts
Bogli (1980), Bonacci (1987), Burger and Dubertret (1975), Ford and Williams (1988), LaMoreaux (1986),
LaMoreaux et al (1975,1984), Milanovic (1981), Stnngfield et al (1974), White (1988), Review Papers
Kresic (1993), LeGrand and Stnngfield (1973), Case Histories Burger and Dubertret (1984), White and
White (1989), Proceedings AGWSE (1991), Beck and Wilson (1987), Doaxm (1988), Gunay and Johnson
(1986), IASH (1967), Rauch and Werner (1974), Tolson and Doyle (1977), Yevjevich (1976)
Aley and Fletcher (1976), Aley et al (in press), Back and Zoetl (1975), Bogli (1980), Brown (1972), Ford
and Williams (1989), Gospodanc and Habic (1976), Gunn (1982), Jones (1984), LaMoreaux (1984, 1989),
Milanovic (1981), Mull et al (1988), Qumlan (1986, 1989), Sweeting (1973), SUWT (1966, 1970, 1976,
1981, 1986), Thrailkill et al (1983)
Dreybodt (1988), Fold and Williams (1988), Herak and Stnngfield (1972), Jakucs (1977), Jennings (1985),
Rauch and Werner (1974), Sweeting (1973), Trudgill (1985), White (1988)
Dreybodt (1988)
Davies et al (1976), James (1992), Proceedings Beck (1984, 1989), Beck and Wilson (1987)
AGWSE (1991), Beck (1984, 1990), Beck and Wilson (1987), Doaxm (1988), NWWA (1986, 1988)
AGWSE (1991), Beck (1984,1990), Beck and Wilson (1987), Doaxm (1988), Gunay and Johnson (1986),
IASH (1967), NWWA (1986, 1988), Rauch and Werner (1974), Tolson and Doyle (1977), Yevjevich (1976)
Table A-2 References
Aley, T and MW Fletcher 1976 The Water Tracer's Cookbook
Missouri Speleology 16(3) 1-32
Aley, T, J F Qumlan, E C Alexander, and H Behrens In press The
Joy of Dyeing A Compendium of Practical Techniques for Tracing
Groundwater, Especially in Karst Terranes National Ground Water
Association, Dublin, OH
Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers (AGWSE)
1991 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Hydrogeology,
Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst
Terranes (Nashville, TN) Ground Water Management, Book 10
National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH, 793 pp
Back, W and J Zoetl 1975 Application of Geochemical Principles,
Isotopic Methodology, and Artificial Tracers to Kaist Hydrology In
Hydrogeology of Karstic Terrains, A Burger and L Dubertret
(eds), Int Assoc Hydrogeologists, Pans, pp 105-121
Beck, BF (ed) 1984 Sinkholes Their Geology, Engmeenng and
Environmental Impact, Proc 1st Multidisciplmary Conference on
Sinkholes and Environmental Impacts of Karst (Orlando, FL)
Balkema, Accord, MA [More than 60 papers]
Beck, BF(ed) 1989 Proc Conf on Engineering and Environmental
Impacts of Sinkholes and Karst Balkema, Brookfield, VT [46 pa-
pers]
Beck, B F and WL Wilson (eds) 1987 Karst Hydrogeology Engi-
neering and Environmental Applications, Proc 2nd Multidiscipli-
nary Conference on Sinkholes and Environmental Impacts of Karst
(Orlando, FL) Balkema, Accord, MA [More than 60 papers]
Bogli, A 1980 Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology Spnnger-
Verlag, New York [Text focusing on karst hydrology and the de-
velopment and classification of underground cavities]
Bonacci, O 1987 Karst Hydrology with Special Reference to the
Dmanc Karst Spnnger-Verlag, New York [Text on karst hydrology
focusing on the Dmanc karst of Jugoslavia, includes chapters on
tracing]
Brown, M C 1972 Karst Hydrology of the Lower Maligne Basin,
Jasper, Alberta Cave Studies No 13 Cave Research Associates,
Castro Valley, CA [Chapter III reviews tracer methods]
Burger, A and L Dubertret (eds) 1975 Hydrogeology of Karstic
Terrains International Union of Geological Sciences, Series B,
Number 3 Int Assoc Hydrogeologists, Pans [Eleven contributed
chapters on the hydrogeology of karst terrains with a multi-lingual
glossary of specific terms]
Burger, A and L Dubertret (eds) 1984 Hydrogeology of Karstic
Terrains Case Histories International Contributions to Hydrogeol-
ogy, Vol 1, Int Assoc of Hydrogeologists, Pans [61 case histo-
ries]
Daoxian, Y (ed) 1988 Karst Hydrogeology and Karst Environment
Protection Proc 21st Congress of the IAH (Guilm, China), 2 vol-
umes Int Assoc Sci Hydrology Publ No 176 [Vol 1 contains
119 papers and abstracts, Vol 2 contains 143 papers and ab-
stracts]
Davies WE, JH Simpson, GC Olmacher, WS Kirk, and EG
Newton 1976 Map Showing Engineering Aspects of Karst in the
United States U S Geological Survey Open File Map 76-623
Dreybodt, W 1988 Processes in Karst Systems Physics, Chemistry
and Geology Spnnger-Verlag, New York
Ford, DC and PW Williams 1989 Karst Geomorphology and Hy-
drology Unwm Hyman, Winchester MA, 601 pp
Gospordanc, R and P Habic(eds) 1976 Underground Water Trac-
ing Investigations in Slovenia 1972-1975 Institute Karst Re-
search, Ljubljana, Jugoslavia
Gunay, G and AI Johnson (eds) 1986 Karst Water Resources
Int Assoc Sci Hydrology Pub No 161 [Symposium proceedings
with 45 papers]
Gunn, J 1982 Water Tracing in Ireland A Review with Special
References to the Cuillcagh Karst Irish Geography 15 94-106
Herak, M and VT Strmgfield (eds) 1972 Karst Important Karst
Regions of the Northern Hemisphere Elsevier, New York [15
contributed chapters on major karst regions of the northern hemi-
sphere]
221
-------
International Association of Scientific Hydrology (IASH) 1967 Hy-
drology of Fractured Rocks (Proc of 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium),
2 Vote IASH Pubt No 73
Jakucs, L 1977 Morphogenetlcs of Karst Regions Variants of Karst
Evolution Adam Htlger, Bristol UK
James, A.N 1992 Soluble Materials in CMI Engineering Ellis Nor-
wood, U K. [Dam construction in karst]
Jennings, J.N 1985 Karst Geomorphology Basil Blackwell, New
York.
Jones, WK 1984 Dye Tracers in Karst Areas National Speleological
Society Bulletin 36 3-9
Kresfc, N.A 1993 Review and Selected Bibliography on Quantitative
Definition of Karst Hydrogeologteal Systems In Annotated Bibli-
ography of Karst Terranes, Volume 5 with Three Review Articles,
PE LaMoreaux, FA Assaad.andA McCartey(eds), International
Contributions to Hydrogeology, Vol 14, International Association
of Hydrogeologists, Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover, West Germany,
pp 51-87
LaMoreaux, PE (ed) 1986 Hydrology of Limestone Terranes Int
Assoc Hydrogeologists, Veriag Heinz Hesse, Hannover, West
Germany [Includes an annotated bibliography for the literature
published since 1975, see White and Moore (1976) for bibliog-
raphy to 1975]
LaMoreaux, PE, D Raymond, and TJ Joiner 1970 Hydrology of
Limestone Terranes Annotated Bibliography of Carbonate Rocks
Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 94A
LaMoreaux, PE, HE LeGrand, VT Stnngfield, and JS Tolson
1975 Hydrology of Limestone Terranes Progress of Knowledge
About Hydrology of Carbonate Terranes Geological Survey of
Alabama Bulletin 94E, pp 1-30
LaMoreaux, PE.BM Wilson, and B A Mermon(eds) 1984 Guide
to the Hydrology of Carbonate Rocks UNESCO, Studies and
Reports in Hydrology No 41
LaMoreaux, PE, E Prohfc, J Zoetl, JM Tanner, and BN Roche
(ods). 1989 Hydrology of Limestone Terranes Annotated Bibliog-
raphy of Carbonate Rocks, Volume 4 International Association of
Hydrogeologists Int Cont to Hydrogeology Volume 10 Verlag
Halnz Helse GmbH, Hannover, West Germany
LaMoreaux, PE, FA Assaad.andA McCarley(ed) 1993 Anno-
tated Bibliography of Karst Terranes, Volume 5 with Three Review
Articles International Contributions to Hydrogeology, Vol 14, In-
ternational Association of Hydrogeologists, Veriag Heinz Heise,
Hannover, West Germany, 425 pp
UGrand.HE andVTStringfield 1973 Karst Hydrology—A Review
J. Hydrology 20(2) 97-120
Mifanovfc, PT 1981 Karst Hydrogeology Water Resources Publica-
tions, Littleton, CO, 444 pp [May also be cited with 1979 date]
Monroe, WH (compiler) 1970 A Glossary of Karst Terminology US
Geotogfcal Survey Water Supply Paper 1899-K, 26 pp
MuM, D S , TD Lleberman, J L Smoot, and L H Woosely, Jr 1988
Application of Dye-Tracing Techniques for Determining Solute-
Transport Characteristics of Ground Water in Karst Terranes EPA
904/6-88-001, Region 4, Atlanta, GA
National Water Well Association (NWWA) 1986 Proceedings 1st
Conference on Environmental Problems in Karst Terranes and
Their Solutions NWWA, Dublin, OH
National Water Well Association (NWWA) 1988 Proceedings 2nd
Conference on Environmental Problems in Karst Terranes and
Their Solutions NWWA, Dublin, OH [22 papers]
Qumlan, J F 1986 Discussion of "Ground Water Tracers" by Davis
et al (1985) with Emphasis on Dye Tracing, Especially in Karst
Terranes Ground Water 24(2) 253-259 and 24(3) 396-397 (Refer-
ences)
Quinlan, J F 1989 Ground-Water Monitonng in Karst Terranes Rec-
ommended Protocols and Implicit Assumptions EPA 600/X-
89/050, EMSL, Las Vegas, NV
Rauch, H W and E Werner (eds) 1974 Proceeding of the Fourth
Conference on Karst Geology and Hydrology West Virginia Geo-
logical and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV [32 papers]
Stringfield, VT, PE LaMoreaux, and H E LeGrand 1974 Karst and
Paleohydrology of Carbonate Rock Terranes in Semiarid and Arid
Regions with a Comparison to Humid Karst of Alabama Geological
Survey of Alabama Bulletin 105
Sweeting, M M 1973 Karst Landforms Columbia University Press,
New York [Includes chapter on tracing]
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT) 1966 1st
SUWT (Graz, Austria) Published in Steinsches Beitraege zur
Hydrogeologie Jg 1966/67
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT) 1970 2nd
SUWT (Freiburg/Br, West Germany) Published in Steinsches
Beitraege zur Hydrogeologie 22(1970)5-165, and Geologisches
Jahrbuch, Reihe C 2(1972) 1-382
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT) 1976 3rd
SUWT (Ljubljana-Bled, Yugoslavia) Published by Ljubljana Insti-
tute for Karst Research Volume 1 (1976), 213 pp, Volume 2
(1977) 182 pp See also Gospodaric and Habic (1976)
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT) 1981 4th
SUWT (Bern, Switzerland) Published in Steinsches Beitraege zur
Hydrogeologie 32(1980) 5-100, 33(1981) 1-264, and Beitraege zur
Geologie der Schweiz—Hydrologie 28 pt 1(1982) 1-236, 28
pt 2(1982) 1-213
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT) 1986 5th
SUWT (Athens, Greece) Published by Institute of Geology and
Mineral Exploration, Athens
Thrailkill, J , et al 1983 Studies in Dye-Tracing Techniques and Karst
Hydrogeology Univ of Kentucky, Water Resources Research Cen-
ter Research Report No 140
Tolson, JS and FL Doyle (eds) 1977 Karst Hydrogeology Mem-
oirs of the 12th Int Congress, Int Assoc Hydrogeologists Univer-
sity of Alabama, Huntsville, AL [60 papers]
Trudgill, S T 1985 Limestone Geomorphology Longman, New York
Warren, WM and J D Moore 1975 Hydrology of Limestone Terra-
nes Annotated Bibliography of Carbonate Rocks Geological Sur-
vey of Alabama Bulletin 94E, pp 31-163
White, WB 1988 Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains
Oxford University Press, New York, 454 pp
White, WB and EL White (eds) 1989 Karst Hydrology Concepts
from the Mammoth Cave Area Van Nostrand Remhold, New York,
343 pp [12 contributed papers]
Yevjevich, V (ed) 1976 Karst Hydrology and Water Resources, Vol
1 Karst Hydrology, Vol 2 Karst Water Resources Water Re-
sources Publications, Fort Collins, CO [Symposium proceedings
with 38 papers]
-------
Table A-3 Index to Major References on Geographic Information Systems (CIS)
Topic References
Texts
G1S Systems
Government Use
Spatial Data
Temporal GIS
Data Sources
Introductory Arnoff (1989), Cadoux-Hudson and Heywood (1992), Pequet and Marble (1990), Ripple (1989), Star
and Estes (1990), Cartography ACSM (1992d), Clarke (1990), Johnson et al (1992), Tomlm (1990), Technology
ACSM (1992b), Antenucci et al (1991), Maguire et al (1992), Land Resource Assessment Burrough (1986),
Gokee and Joyce (1992), Ripple (1987), Young and Cousins (1993), Urban Applications Huxhold (1991),
Geoscience/Geotechnical Applications Johnson etal (1992), Thomas (1988), Ground-Water and Environmental
Applications Johnson et al (1992), Kovar and Nachtnebel (1993), Pickus (1992), Scepan et al (1993) General
Applications Johnson et al (1992), Maguire et al (1991), Ripple (1987)
Arc/Info ESRI (1990), Pickus (1992), AutoCAD® Jones and Martin (1988), TIGER Carbaugh and Marx (1990),
Comparison/Evaluation FICC (1988), Rowe and Dulaney (1991)
US EPA Fenstermaker (1987), OIRM (1992), U S EPA (1992a, 1992b, 1992c), US Geological Survey USGS
(1991a), Soil Conservation Service SCS (1991), Other Federal FICC (1990), FGDC (1991a, 1991b, 1993),
States ACSM (1992a), August and McCann (1990), PlanGraphics (1991), Warnecke (1988), Local ACSM (1992c)
Analysis Cressie (1991), Goodchild and Gopal (1989), Raper (1989), Samet (1990), Tomhn (1990), Data
Management/Processing Date (1985,1990), Fergmo (1986), Fleming and von Halle (1986), International
Geographical Union Commission on GIS (1992), Samet (1989, 1990), Standards/Format Elissal and Caruso
(1983), Johnson et al (1992), National Committee for Cartographic Data Standards (1987), USFWS (1984),
USGS (1990a, 1990b, 1991b), Information Exchange ANSI (1986a, 1986b), ASTM (1993), Bureau of Census
(1992—TIGER), Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company (1991), Mornson and Wortman (1992), NIST
(1992), USGS (1992), Data Coding NBS (1987, 1988), U S EPA (1992c), USGS (1983), Locational
Methods/Surveying Onsrud and Cook (1990), U S EPA (1992a, 1992b)
Langran (1992)
Soils SCS (1991), Topography Bauer (1989—AutoCad) ,
223
-------
Tabla A-4 Periodicals, Conferences, and Symposia with Papers Relevant to GIS
Sponsor Year Title
ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention Proceedings
1986 Rrm Foundations, New Horizons (Vol 3, Geographic Information Systems, 286 pp)
1987 Technology for the Future, Applications for Today (7 Volumes, Vol 5, GIS/LIS, 222 pp)
1988 The World in Space (6 Volumes, Vol 5, GIS, 248 pp)
1989 Agenda for the Nineties (Vol 4, GIS/LIS)
1991 Annual Convention (6 Volumes, Vol 2 Cartography and GIS/LIS, Vol 4, GIS)
1992 Annual Convention (Vol 1 ASPRS, Vol 2 ACSM)
1992 Global Change (5 Volumes, Vol 3, GIS and Cartography)
Annual GIS Workshops/Conferences
ASPRSAJSFS 1986 Geographic Information Systems Workshop, 220 pp
ACSM/ASPRS 1987 GIS'87—Into the Hands of the Decision Maker (2 Volumes, 760 pp , Vol III—post conference
proceedings, 234 pp)
ACSM/ASPRS
AAGAJRISA 1988 GIS/LIS'88—Accessing the World (2 Volumes, 980 pp)
1989
1990
1991 GIS/LIS'91 Proceedings
1992 GIS/LIS'92 Proceedings
Biannual International Automated Cartography Proceedings
1987 AutoCartO 8 (775 pp)
1989 AutoCarto 9 (879 pp)
1991 AutoCarto 10 (Vol 6 of ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention Proceedings)
Photogrammetrlc Engineering and Remote Sensing Special GIS Issues
1987 October, 184 pp
1988 November, 170 pp
1989 November, 144 pp
Other Conferences/Symposia
ASTM 1990 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Mapping Practices and Standards
AWRA 1993 Geographic Information Systems and Water Resources
Periodicals/Newsletters
TechntcalJoumals Cartography and Geographic Information Systems (ACMS), GIS/GIMS News (ASPRS*), International Journal of GIS
Photoflrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing (ASPRS)
Vendor Newsletters ARC News (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands CA*), Grass Clippings (Geographic Resource
Analysis Support System, Stennle Space Center, MS*), Monitor (Erdas, Inc, Atlanta, GA*), Remote Sensing and Database Development
(James W SewaB Company, Old Town ME*), TYDAC News (TYDAC Technologies Corporation, Arlington, VA*)
Qovemment Agency Newsletters Federal Geographic Data Committee (FDC) Newsletter (USGS, Reston, VA*), GIS News Layers (Division
of Equalization and Assessment, Albany, NY*), GIS Update (Vermont Geographic Information System, Montpelier, VT*), MASS GIS
Newsletter (Massachusetts GIS Project, Boston, MA*), New Jersey GIS Update (Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton NJ*)
NRGIS News (Minnesota Natural Resources Geographic Information Systems, St Paul, MN*), RIGIS News (University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rl*)
Other CAGIS Journal, Environmental Resources Research Institute Newsletter (Pennsylvania State University University Park PA*) Geo
Info Systems. GIS Review (Greenland, NH*), GIS World (Fort Collins, CO*), Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Newsletter
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS*), The GIS Forum (Spring, TX*), SALIS Journal, URISA News (URISA, Washington DC*) Wisconsin
Land Information Newsletter (Center for Land Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wl*)
Abbreviations
AAG Association of American Geographers
ACMS Amortean Congress on Surveying and Mapping
ASPRS American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWRA American Water Resources Association
UIRSA Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
•Addresses Hsted In August and McCann (1990)
224
-------
Table A-3 References*
Adams, S etal 1992 Illinois Groundwater Protection Program Pilot
Groundwater Protecton Needs Assessment for Pekln Public Water
Supply Facility Number 1795040 Division of Public Water Sup-
plies, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL
[GISJ
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) 1992a
State Geographic Information Activities Compendium ACSM, Be-
thesda, MO
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) 1992b GIS
A Guide to the Technology ACSM, Bethesda, MD
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) 1992c The
Local Government Guide to GIS ACSM, Bethesda, MD
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) 1992d GIS
Microcomputer and Modern Cartography ACSM, Bethesda, MD
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1986a Specification
for a Data Descriptive File for Information Interchange ANSI/ISO
8211-1985, FIPS PUB 123
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1986b Computer
Graphics Metafile for the Storage and Transfer of Picture Descrip-
tive Information ANSI X3 122-1986, FIPS PUB 128
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1993 Metadata
Support for Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data
Exchange Draft Specification D1801 Subcommittee ballot, Janu-
ary
Antenucci, J C , K Brown, P L Croswell, M J Kevany, and H N
Archer 1991 Geographic Information Systems A Guide to the
Technology Van Nbstrand Remhold, New York, 301 pp
Aronoff, S 1989 Geographic Information Systems A Management
Perspective WDL Publications, Ottawa, Canada, 294 pp [Intro-
duction for users and managers]
August, PV and A McCann 1990 Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) in Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources Science
Fact Sheet No 90-23, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rl,
11 pp [Included as Appendix to RIDEM (1992)]
Bauer, M F" 1989 Digital Map Users Guide American Digital Cartog-
raphy, Inc, Appleton, Wl [USGS topographic maps for AutoCad]
Bureau of Census 1992 TIGEFt/SDTS™ Prototype Files, 1990 Pre-
liminary Description Available from Census Bureau, Geography
Division, Geographic Base Development Branch, Washington, DC
20233
Burrough, PA 1986 Principles of Geographical Information Systems
for Land Resources Assessment Clarendon/Oxford University
Press, New York, 193 pp [Advanced text]
Cadoux-Hudson, J and DI Heywood(eds) 1992 Geographic In-
formation 1992/3 Yearbook of the Association for Geographic In-
formation Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 632 pp
Carbaugh, L and RW Marx 1990 The TIGER System A Census
Bureau Innovation Serving Data Analysts Government Information
Quarterly 7(3) 285-306
Clarke, K 1990 Analytical and Computer Cartography Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Cressie, N 1991 Statistics for Spatial Data John Wiley & Sons, New
York. [Comprehensive and readable text on the analysis of spatial
data through statistical models, unifies a previously disparate sub-
ject under a common approach and notation]
Date, C J 1985 Introduction to Database Systems, Vol II Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA
Date, C J 1990 Introduction to Database Systems, Vol 1, 5th ed
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Elissal, A A and VM Caruso 1983 Digital Elevation Models US
Geological Survey Circular 895-B
ESRI, Inc 1990 PC Arc/Info User's Manual Environmental Research
Institute, Inc, Redlands, CA
Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography
(FICC) 1988 A Process for Evaluating Geographic Information
Systems Available from U S Geological Survey Publications, Re-
ston, VA
Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography
(FICC) 1990 A Summary of GIS Use in the Federal Government
Available from U S Geological Survey Publications, Reston, VA
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 1991 a A National
Geographic Information Resource The Spatial Foundation of the
Information-Based Society US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 10 pp +4 Appendices
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 1991b First Annual
Report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget Avail-
able from U S Geological Survey Publications, Reston, VA
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 1993 Manual of Fed-
eral Geographic Data Products Available from U S Geological
Survey Publications, Reston, VA
Fenstermaker, L K 1987 Geographic Information System Briefing for
the Administrator and Deputy Administrator TS-AMD-87650, U S
EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,
NV
Fengno, C F 1986 A Data-Management System for Detailed Areal
Interpretive Data U S Geological Survey Water Resource Inves-
tigations Report 86-4091, 103 pp
Fleming, C and B von Halle 1989 Handbook of Relational Data-
base Design Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Gokee, TL and LA Joyce 1992 Analysis of Standards and Guide-
lines in a Geographic Information System Using Existing Resource
Data Research Paper RM-304, Rocky Mountain Forest and Ex-
periment Station, Fort Collins, CO, 12 pp
Goodchild, M and S Gopal(ed) 1989 Accuracy of Spatial Data-
bases Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 308 pp
Huxhold, W 1991 Introduction to Urban GIS Oxford University
Press, New York
International Geographical Union Commission on GIS 1992 Pro-
ceedings 5th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling,
2 Vols [More than 70 papers, held August 3-7,1992 in Charleston,
SC]
Johnson, AI, C B Pettersson, and J L Fulton 1992 Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and Mapping Practices and Standards
ASTM STP 1126, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA
Jones, FH and L Martin 1988 The AutoCAD® Database Book-
Accessing and Managing CAD Drawing Information Ventana
Press, Chapel Hill, NC
Kovar, K. and HP Nachtnebe! (eds) 1993 Application of Geo-
graphic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources
Management Int Assoc Sci Hydrology Pub No 211, 693 pp
[Proc IAHS/UNESCO conference held in Vienna, Austria, April,
1993, 68 papers]
Langran, G 1992 Time in Geographic Information Systems Taylor
& Francis, Bristol, PA, 200 pp [Covers conceptual, logical, and
physical design of temporal GISs]
225
-------
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company 1991 Information Ex-
change Format for Environmental Expert Systems, Preliminary
Analysis (Draft) EPA/600/X-91/119 US EPA Environmental
Monitoring System Laboratory, Las Vegas
Magulre, D J, M F Goodchild, and D W Rhind 1991 Geographical
Information Systems Principles and Applications John Wiley &
Sons, New York. [2 volume set with 60 papers]
Morrison, J L and K. Wortman (eds) 1992 Implementing the Spatial
Data Transfer Standard Cartography and Geographic Information
Systems 19(5)277-334 [Special Issue with 12 papers on the fed-
eral STDS]
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 1987 Codes for the Identifica-
tion of the State, The District of Columbia and the Outlying Areas
of the United States, and Associated Areas Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 5-2, NBS, U S Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington, DC
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 1988 Representation for Cal-
endar Date and Ordinal Date for Information Interchange Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 4-1, NBS,
U S Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
National Committee for Digital Cartographic Data Standards 1987
Issues in Digital Cartographic Data Standards Report 9
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1992 Spatial
Data Transfer Standard Federal Information Processing Standard
Publication 173 (RPS Pub 173) [Available from NTIS or Internet
tedreserusgsgov(13011482), user name anonymous, after
connecting cd usgs sdts]
Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM) 1992 Geo-
graphic Information Systems (GIS) Guidelines Document OIRM
88-01. U S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Onsrud, HJ and DW Cook (eds) 1990 Geographic and Land
Information Systems for Practicing Surveyors A Compendium
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Bethesda, MD,
219 pp [Collection of 22 articles from the recent GIS/LIS literature]
Pequet, D and D Marble (eds) 1990 Introductory Readings in
Geographic Information Systems Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 387
PP
Pfckus, J 1992 Data Automation Using GIS and ARC/INFO GIS
Support for Hydrogeologic Analysis Contract No 68-CO-0050,
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV, 87 pp
PlanGraphtes 1991 Summary of State GIS Coordination, Legislation
and Funding Sources PlanGraphics, Frankfort, KY, 9 pp
Paper, J («d) 1989 Three Dimensional Applications in Geographic
Information Systems Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 189 pp [Survey
of approaches and problems in modeling real geophysical data]
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM)
1992 Inventory of Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamina-
tion In Wellhead Protection Areas RIDEM Guidance Document.
RIDEM, Providence, Rl, 38 pp + appendices
Rlppte,W(ed) 1987 Geographic Information Systems for Resource
Management A Compendium ASPRS, Falls Church, VA/Ameri-
can Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Bethesda, MD, 288 pp
Papers on land suitability; water, sod, and vegetation resource
management, and urban and global GIS applications]
Rlppte, W. (ed.) 1989 Fundamentals of Geographic Information Sys-
tems. A Compendium ASPRS, Falls Church, VA/American Con-
gress on Surveying and Mapping, Bethesda, MD, 248 pp
Rowe, G W and S J Dulaney 1991 Building and Using a Ground-
water Database Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml, 218 pp [Appendix
includes summary information on more than 80 GIS-related soft-
ware]
Samet, H 1989 Applications of Spatial Data Structures Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA [Applications in computer graphics, image
processing, and GIS]
Samet, H 1990 Design and Analysis of Spatial Data Structures
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA [Hierarchical (quad-tree and oc-
tree) state structures]
Scepan, J, R C Frohn, D Heath, J Pickus, M Fmkbeiner, and B
Moore 1993 The Use of Geographic Information Systems in Well-
head Protection Programs (February Draft) Cooperative Agree-
ment CR-816196, US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1991 State Soil Geographic Data
Base (STATSGO) Data Users Guide SCS Miscellaneous Publica-
tion No 1492, U S Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
88 pp
Star, J and J Estes 1990 Geographic Information Systems An
Introduction Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 303 pp [Intro-
ductory text for students and professionals]
Thomas, HF (ed) 1988 GIS Integrating Technology and Geos-
cience Applications National Academy of Science, Washington,
DC
Tomlin, D 1990 Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic
Modeling Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992a Locational Data
Policy Implementation Guidance Guide to the Policy EPA/220/B-
92-008, Office of Administration and Resources Management,
Washington DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992b Locational Data
Policy Implementation Guidance—Global Positioning System
Technology and Its Application In Environmental Programs—GPS
Primer EPA/600/R-92/036
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992c Definitions for
the Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality
Policy Order 7500 1A, Guidance document EPA/813/B-92/002
Available from ODW*
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1984 Map Projections for
Use with the Geographic Information System FWS/OBS-84/17
USFWS, Washington, DC
U S Geological Survey (USGS) 1983 Specifications for Repre-
sentation of Geographic Point Locations for Information Inter-
change U S Geological Survey Circular 878-B, 23 pp
US Geological Survey (USGS) 1990a Digital Elevation Models-
Data Users Guide 5 USGS National Mapping Division, Reston,
VA, 51 pp
US Geological Survey (USGS) 1990b Digital Line Graphs from
1 24,000-Scale Maps—Data Users Guide National Mapping Pro-
gram Technical Instructions USGS National Mapping Division,
Reston, VA, 107 pp
U S Geological Survey (USGS) 1991 a National Mapping Program
Technical Instructions, RPS Pub 123 Function Library Software
Documentation (Draft) USGS National Mapping Division, Reston,
VA
US Geological Survey (USGS) 1991b General Cartographic Trans-
formation Package USGS National Mapping Division, Reston, VA,
87 pp
226
-------
US Geological Survey (USGS) 1992 A Prototype SDTS Federal Young, RH and S Cousins (eds) 1993 Landscape Ecology and
Profile for Geographic Vector Data with Topology (Draft) USGS Geographic Information Systems Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 300
National Mapping Division, Reston, VA, 17 pp pp
Wamecke, L. 1988 Geographic Information Coordination in the * See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
States Past Efforts, Lessons Learned, and Future Opportunities
Information Management Review 3(4) 27-38
227
-------
Table A-5 Index to Major References on Chemical Hazard and Risk Assessment
Topic References
General
Risk Communication
SARA Tttle III*
Chemical Fate Assessment
Models/Methods
Exposure Assessment
General
Models/Methods
Risk Assessment
General
Chemical Hazards
Ground Water"
Drinking Water
Ecological
Public Health
Sandman (1986), U S EPA (1987-1989, 1988J, 1988a, 1989a, 1989C, 1990a)
Genera/ US EPA(1988b, 1988e, 1989f, 1989g, 1989h, 1989i, 19905, 1992b), Emergency Planning US
EPA (1987b. 1988g, 1988h, 19881, 1990j)
(See also Table 1-2)
Calabrese and Kostecki (1992)
U S EPA (1986-1988,1988c, 1990i), Exposure Factors Schaum (1990), U S EPA (1985b), Food
Contamination Pathways US EPA(1986c)
Birdetal (1991—TEEAM)
National Research Council (1983), US EPA (1986-1988,1987a), Information Sources US EPA(1986b),
Biological Values U S EPA (1988d), Data Useability U S EPA (1990g), Model/Methods Reviews
Calabrese and Kostecki (1992), U S EPA (1990e, 1990f)
Conway (1982), FEMA/DOT/EPA (1989), U S Department of Agriculture Extension Service (1989), U S
EPA (1987d, 1988b, 1988f, 1989b, 1990f, 1992b), Estimating Chemical Releases PEI Associates (1990),
US EPA(19870, 1989b,1990d)
Texts/Reports McTeman and Kaplan (1990), Reichard et al (1990), Trojan and Perry (1989), U S EPA
(1991), Papers Flanagan etal (1991), Pfannkuch (1991)
Lowrence (1992), U S EPA (1985a, 1990e)
Eastern Research Group (1991), Norton et al (1988), Suter (1993), U S EPA (1989e, 1990H)
US EPA(1986-1988, 1986a, 1989d, 1990c, 1990Q
* Commonly referred to as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
** See also references on vulnerability mapping identified in Table 5-9
Table A-5 References*
Bird, S L, J M Chepltek, and D S Brown 1991 Preliminary Testing,
Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis for the Terrestrial Ecosystem
Exposure Assessment Model (TEEAM) EPA/600/3-91/019 (NTIS
PB91-161711)
Calabrese, EJ and PT Kostecki 1992 Risk Assessment and Envi-
ronmental Fate Methodologies Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL,
150 pp. [Description and critical review of existing software
(AERIS, GEOTOX, LUFT, MYGRT, PCGEMS/SESOIL, POSSM,
PPLV, PRZM, RAFT, Risk Assistant, SESO1L), and other methods
developed at the state level (California, New Jersey, and Massa-
chusetts)]
Conway, RE (ed) 1982 Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemi-
cals Van Nostrand Remhold, New York.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. 1991 Summary Report on Issues in
Ecological Risk Assssment Proceedings of a Colloquium Series
March-July, 1990 Prepared for Risk Assessment Forum, U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Federal Energy Management Agency, U S Department of Transpor-
tation and US Environmental Protection Agency
(FEMA/DOT/EPA). 1989 Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis
Procedures Available from Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Publications Department, 500 C St, SW, Washington, DC
20472.
Flanagan, E K., J E Hansen, and N Dee 1991 Managing Ground-
Water Contamination Sources In Wellhead Protection Areas A
Priority Setting Approach Ground Water Management 7 415-418
(Proc Focus Conf on Eastern Regional Ground-Water Issues)
McTernan, WF and E Kaplan (eds) 1990 Risk Assessment for
Groundwater Pollution Control American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York, 368 pp
National Research Council 1983 Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government Managing the Process National Academy Press,
Washington, DC
Norton,S,M McVey, J Colt, J Durda,and R Hegner 1988 Review
of Ecological Risk Assessment Methods EPA/230/10-88-041
[Review of 16 methodologies]
PEI Associates 1990 Guidance for Food Processors Section 313,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPA
560/4-90-014 Available from EPCRI Hotline *
Pfannkuch, HO 1991 Application of Risk Assessment to Evaluate
Groundwater Vulnerability to Non-Point and Point Contamination
Sources In Proc Rrst USA/USSR Joint Conf on Environmental
Hydrology and Hydrogeology, J E Moore et al (eds), American
Institute of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, pp 158-168
Reichard, E,C Cranor, R Raucher,andG Zapponi 1990 Ground-
water Contamination Risk Assessment A Guide to Understanding
and Managing Uncertainties Int Assoc Hydrological Sciences
Publication No 196
Sandman, PM 1986 Explaining Environmental Risk US EPA Office
of Toxic Substances, 27 pp Available from EPCRI Hotline *
Schaum, J 1990 Exposure Factors Handbook 1990 EPA/600/8-
89/043 (NTIS PB90-106774)
Suter, II, G W 1993 Ecological Risk Assessment Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml, 538 pp
228
-------
Trojan, MJ andJA Perry 1989 Assessing Hydrogeologic Risk Over
Large Geographical Areas Bull 585-1988 (Item No AD-S53-
3421), Minn Ag Extension Station, University of Minn, St Paul
US Department of Agriculture Extension Service 1989 Risk Man-
agement for Small Communities Series Risk Management Man-
ual A Reference Tool for Small Local Governments, 220 pp, Risk
Management Workbook A Guide to Implementation of Risk Man-
agement Programs For Small Local Governments, 117 pp, Risk
Reduction Techniques Methods to Promote Safety and Efficiency
for Small Local Governments, Risk Management Instructor's
Guide Techniques for Training Public Officials to Manage Risks
Available from Southern Rural Development Center, PO Box 5446,
Mississippi State, MS 39762 [Joint project with Public Risk Man-
agement Association and Oklahoma State University Cooperative
Extension Service, mam focus is on management of liability risks
but addresses environmental risks such as emergency response
and underground storage tank management]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985a Techniques for
the Assessment of the Carcinogenic Risk to the U S Population
Due to Exposure to Selected Volatile Organic Chemicals in Drink-
ing Water EPA/570/9-85-001 (NTIS PB84-213941)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1985b Development
of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in
Exposure Assessment EPA/600/8-85/010 (NTIS PB85-242667)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986-1988 Risk As-
sessment Guidelines Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk assessment
(51 FR 33992-34003, 9/24/86), Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk
Assessment (51 FR 34006-34012, 9/24/86), Guidelines for Health
Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (51 FR 34028-34040,
9/24/86), Guidelines for the Health Assessment of Suspect Devel-
opmental Toxicants (51 FR 34028-34025, 9/24/86), Guidelines for
Exposure Assessment (51 FR 34042-24054, 9/24/86), Proposed
Guidelines for Assessment Male Reproductive Risk and Request
for Comments (53 FR 24850-24869, 6/30/88), Proposed Guide-
lines for Assessing Female Reproductive Risk (53 FR 24834-
24847, 6/30/88), Proposed Guidelines for Exposure-Related
Measurements and Request for Comments (53 FR 48830-48853,
12/2/88)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986a Superfund Pub-
lic Health Evaluation Manual EPA/540/1-86/060
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986b Superfund Risk
Assessment Information Directory EPA/540/1-86/061 (NTIS
PB87-188918), 200 pp
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986c Methods for
Assessing Exposure to Chemical Substances, Vol 8, Method for
Assessing Environmental Pathways of Food Contamination
EPA/560/5-85-008
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 a The Risk As-
sessment Guidelines of 1986 EPA/600/8-87-045 Washington DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987b Hazardous Ma-
terials Emergency Planning Guide NRT-1 Available from EPCRI
Hotline*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987c Estimating Re-
leases and Waste Treatment Efficiencies for the Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Form EPA/560/4-88-002 (NTIS PB88-210380)
Available from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987d Technical Guid-
ance for Hazards Analysis OSWER-88-001 Available from EPCRI
Hotline* [Used in conjunction with NRT-1]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987-1989 Risk As-
sessment, Management, Communication A Guide to Selected Re-
sources Guide (NTIS PB87-185500), 1st Update (PB87-203402),
2nd Update (PB88-100102), 3rd Upate (PB88-128178), Volume 2,
No 1 (PB88-210596), Volume 2, No 2 (PB89-189641)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987-1989 Risk As-
sessment, Management, Communication A Guide to Selected Re-
sources Guide (NTIS PB87-185500), 1st Update (PB87-203402),
2nd Update (PB88-100102), 3rd Upate (PB88-128178), Volume 2,
No 1 (PB88-210596), Volume 2, No 2 (PB89-189641)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988a Report of Con-
ference on Risk Communication and Environmental Management
U S EPA Technical Assistance Bulletin 4, 7 pp Available from
EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988b Community
Right-to-Know and Small Business OSWER-88-005 Available
from EPCRI Hotline*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988c Superfund Ex-
posure Assessment Manual EPA/540/1-88/001 (NTIS PB90-
135859)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988d Recommenda-
tions For and Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk
Assessment EPA/600/6-87/008 (NTIS PB88-179874)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988e Chemicals in
Your Community A Citizen's Guide to the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act OSWER-90-002 Available
from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988f List of Extremely
Hazardous Substances OSWER-EHS-1 Available from EPCRI
Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988g Cntena for Re-
view of Hazardous Materials Emergency Plans NRT-1A Available
from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988h Guide to Exer-
cises in Chemical Emergency Preparedness Programs OSWER-
88-006 Available from EPCRI Hotline * [Compilation of 3 Technical
Assistance Bulletins (1) Introduction to Exercises in Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Programs, (2) A Guide to Planning and
Conducting Table-Top Exercises, (3) A Guide to Planning and
Conducting Reid Simulation Exercises, U S EPA(1990j) replaces
this guide and includes this information]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988i It's Not Over in
October A Guide for Local Emergency Planning Committees Im-
plementing the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986 OSWER-90-004 Available from EPCRI
Hotline *
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988j Seven Cardinal
Rules of Risk Communication (Brochure) Available from EPCRI
Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989a Chemical Re-
leases and Chemical Risks A Citizen's Guide to Risk Screening
(Pamphlet) EPA/560/2-89-003, 8 pp Available from EPCRI Hot-
line*
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989b Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide, 2 Volumes (Version 1 0)
EPA/560/2-89-002 (NTIS PB90-122128)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989c Risk Commu-
nication About Chemicals in Your Community A Manual For Local
Officials EPA 230/09-89-066, EPA/FEMA/DOT/ATSDR, 76 pp
Available from EPCRI Hotline* [Facilitators Manual and Guide
(EPA/230/09-89-067) also available]
229
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989d Risk Assess-
ment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 Human Health Evalu-
ation Manual, Part A, Interim Final EPA/540/1-89/002 (NTIS
PB90-155581), 290 pp [1990 9-page Fact Sheet with same title
NTIS PB90-273830.1991 Human Health Evaluation Manual, Sup-
plemental Guidance Standard Default Exposure Factors NTIS
PB91-921314, 28 pp]
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989e Risk Assess-
ment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 2 Environmental Evalu-
ation Manual, Interim Rnal EPA/540/1-89/001 (NTIS
PB90-155599), 64 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989f Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 Questions
and Answers Available from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989g Toxic and Haz-
ardous Chemicals, Titte III and Communities An Outreach Manual
for Community Groups EPA/S60/-1-89-002 (NTIS PB93-200806)
Available from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989h Information Re-
sources Directory EPA/OPA 003-89 Available from EPCRI Hot-
line.'
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989i When All Else
Fallsl Enforcement of the Emergency Planning and Community
Rfght-to-Know Act OSWER 89-010,12 pp Available from EPCRI
HoUkie'
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990a Public Knqwl-
edga and Perceptions of Chemical Risks in Six Communities
Analysis of a Baseline Survey EPA/230/01-90-074 (NTIS PB90-
217316) Conducted by Georgetown University Medical Center
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990b Emergency
Planning and Community Rlght-to-Know (Title III) Factsheet Avail-
abto from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990c Hazardous
Substances In Our Environment A Citizens' Guide to Under-
standing Health Risks and Reducing Exposure EPA/230/09-90-
081 Available from US EPA Public Information Center, PM-211-B,
401 M St, SW, Washington, DC 20460 [Brochure titled Under-
standing Environmental Health Risks and Reducing Exposure
Highlights of a Citizens' Guide (EPA/230/09-90-082) is also avail-
able from the same source]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990d Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Clarification and Guidance for the Metal Fab-
rication Industry (Section 313 Issue Reporting Paper) EPA/560/4-
90-012 Available from EPCRI Hotline *
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990e Risk Assess-
ment Methodologies Comparing State and EPA Approaches
EPA/570/9-90-012 Available from ODW*
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990f Computerized
System for Performing Risk Assessments for Chemical Constitu-
ents of Hazardous Waste EPA/600/D-90/044 (NTIS PB90-
222001), 22 pp [System combines database, exposure and risk
values in an IBM-PC format]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990g Guidance for
Data Useability in Risk Assessment EPA/540/G-90/008 (NTIS
PB91-921208), 272 pp [2-page fact sheet with same title NTIS
PB91-921312]
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990h Quantifying Ef-
fects in Ecological Site Assessments Biological and Statistical
Considerations EPA/600/D-90/152 (NTIS PB91-129189), 31 pp
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990i Statistical Meth-
ods for Estimating Risk for Exposure Above the Reference Dose
EPA/600/8-90/065 (NTIS PB90-261504)
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990j Developing a
Hazardous Materials Exercise Program A Handbook for State and
Local Officials NRT-2 Available from EPCRI Hotline * [Replaces
US EPA(1988h)]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1991 Managing
Ground Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Ar-
eas A Priority Setting Approach (Draft) Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992a Publications
Office of Science and Technology Catalog EPA-820-B-92-002
Available from U S EPA Office of Water Resource Center (WH-
556) 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, 202/260-7786
[List of titles for over 200 EPA documents used to develop indus-
trial effluent limitations and guidelines along with information on
how documents can be obtained]
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992b Title III List of
Lists Consolidated List of Chemical Subject to Reporting Under
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act EPA
560/4-92-011/500-B-92-002 Available from EPCRI Hotline *
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
230
-------
Appendix B
DRASTIC Mapping Using an SCS Soil Survey
This appendix describes a relatively simple method for
developing a preliminary countywide ground water vul-
nerability map when a soil survey prepared by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) of the U S Department of
Agriculture is available SCS has published soil surveys
for most counties in the eastern and midwestern U S
and many counties in western states These soil maps
delineate map units containing similar soil charac-
teristics based on such characteristics as landscape
position, slope, soil wetness, depth to bedrock, and type
of bedrock Map units are then grouped into soil asso-
ciations based on geomorphology, surface, and/or bed-
rock geology Figure B-1 illustrates a general soil
association map for Monroe County, Indiana, which has
seven major soil associations
The procedure for developing a DRASTIC index for
each soil association is as follows
1 Review the text descriptions of the major soil series
in the soil association Most of the information
needed to make ratings on Worksheet 5-2 can be
obtained from these descriptions, including depth to
water, aquifer media, soil media, topography, and
vadose zone media Where soils in the association
have contrasting properties, make ratings for the
dominant soil or some sort of weighting based on
relative acreages in the soil association (The soil
report will have a table indicating the lotal acreages
of different map units)
2 Use the table and figures identified in Section 322
to estimate hydraulic conductivity for each soil asso-
ciation
3 Where the water table is generally deeper than five
feet, someone familiar with the hydrogeology of the
area should be contacted (U S Geological Survey^
state Water Resources Division office, state water
resources agency, high school earth science teacher,
etc) to estimate typical water-table depths in each
map unit Where perched water tables are present
near the surface but the regional water table is sig-
nificantly deeper, the depth to the water table used
for water supply should be used If bolh are used for
water supply, separate DRASTIC indexes should be
calculated for the two aquifers in the soil association
4 Estimate net recharge for each soil association, as
described in more detail below
5 Calculate the DRASTIC index for each soil associa-
tion
Figure B-2 illustrates a filled-out DRASTIC Worksheet
for a soil association over karst limestone in southern
Indiana The rating of 172 is well above the EPA index
value of 150 for highly vulnerable aquifers The legend
for Figure B-1 shows the DRASTIC indexes for all seven
soil associations in the county The DRASTIC indexes
range from 74 for map unit 1 (relatively unsusceptible to
ground-water contamination) to 172 for map unit 2
These ratings, made by someone familiar with the soils
and geology of the county, took only a couple of minutes
for each map unit Someone with no special familiarity
with the soils and geology of the county might need a
couple of hours to come up with ratings, based on a
review of the contents of the soil survey
The precise numerical ratings for individual elements of
the DRASTIC index is less important than the relative
differences in the index for different map units If numeri-
cal index ratings for several units are very close together
or very high, expert advice from a geologist or hydro-
geologist to refine the accuracy of ratings may be re-
quired
Estimation of Net Recharge
Net recharge is the most difficult parameter to estimate
for the DRASTIC index, because accurate estimation of
net recharge requires extensive collection of data on
precipitation and surface and ground water flow for a
watershed Aller et al (1987), the developers of the
DRASTIC index, do not provide much guidance for es-
timation of net recharge The following procedure is
suggested as a relatively simple method to develop a
first approximation of net recharge
1 Identity the ground water region within which the
county is located, using Figure B-31 Chapter 2 in
U S EPA (1990), available from the Center for Envi-
1 The alluvial valleys regions Include the floodplains of major U S
rivers The range of recharge can be applied to any soil association
consisting of alluvial soils
231
-------
T JON
T »N
— 39 00
R 2W
R 1W
R I E
R 2E
Dr-astic Rating
74- Q;
172.
SOIL LEGEND
, i Berks-Weikert Moderately deep and shallow steep and very steep well drained soil,
_—I formed m residuum from sandstone siltstone and shale on uplands
"5 1 Crider-Caneyville Deep and moderately deep gently sloping tn strongly sloping well
1 drained soils formed in loess and residuum from limestone on uplands
74-
I3|
;oo
3
4
i Ebal-Gilpln Tilsit Deep and moderately deep nearly level to moderately steep
moderately well drained and well drained soils formed m loess colluvium and residuum
from shale sandstone and siltstone on uplands
Hajrmond-Stendal Deep nearly level well drained and somewhat poorly drained sou
formed in alluvium on flood plains
Ryter Hickory Deep gently sloping to very steep well drained soils formed in loess
gliciil till and residuum from limestone on uplands
Hosmer-Cflder Deep nearly level to moderately sloping well drained and moderately
well drained soils formed in loess and residuum from limestone sandstone siltslone and
shale on uplands
Peoga-Bartle Deep nearly level poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils
formed in loess and lakebed sediments arm old alluvium on uplands
B-1. SCS soil association map for Monroe County, Indiana, with DRASTIC ratings (modified from Thomas, 1981)
232
-------
worksheet 5-2 DRASTIC WORKSHEET (Circle appropriate range and rating).
County: Monroe. State: IN/
General Soil Nap Unit Nuaber:
General Description:
1. Depth to Water
(feet)
2. Net Recharge
(Inches)
Range
0-5
5-15
15-30
30-50
75-100
100+
Rating
10
9
7
5
r>
2
1
Range
Rating
0-2
2-4
-7
I
1
3
6
10
10+
4. Soil Media
5. Topography
(Percent Slope)
Type
Thin/
Absent
Gravel
Sand
Peat
[ Structured
VClav
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silty Loam
Clay Loam
Muck
Massive
Clay
Rating
10
10
9
8
^
6
5
4
3
2
1
Range
Rating
0-2
2-6
10
9
C6-12
12-18
18+
7. Hydraulic Conductivity
(gpd/sq. ft.)
Range
Rating
1-100
100-300
300-700
700-1.000
1
2
4
6
Cl. 000-2. 000 S^i
2,000+
"Ki
ov
»»c.<-
3. Aquifer Media
Type
Rating
Range Typical Actual
Massive Shale
Me tamorphic/ Igneous
Weathered M/I
Glacial Till
Bedded SS/LS/Shale
Massive Sandstone
Massive Limestone
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
fKarst Limestone
1-3
2-5
3-5
4-6
5-9
4-9
4-9
4-9
2-10
9-1 0}
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
8
9
10 '0
6. Vadose Zone Media
Type
Confining Layer
Silt/Clay
Shale
Limestone
Sandstone
Bedded LS/SS/ Shale
Sand and Gravel with
Sig. Silt and Clay
Met aroorphic/ Igneous
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
(TCarst Limestone
DRASTIC Index
Rating x Weight =
1. 3 x 5 = /«*
2. B x 4 = 3X
3. 10 x 3 = 30
4. T X 2 = 14-
6. to x 5 = fro
7. B x 3 = J.4-
Range
1
2-6
2-5
2-7
4-8
4-8
4-8
2-8
6-9
2-10
8-10)
Rat i ng
Typical Actual
1
3
3
6
6
6
6
4
8
9
10 /<&
Total
* Aquifers with DRASTIC ratings >150 are considered to be "highly vulnerable" by EPA.
Figure B-2 Sample Drastic Worksheet for soil association overlying karst limestone in Monroe County, Indiana
233
-------
**"t f^
Northeast 'and
SuperiprUplon
fc /
\AHuvioi; yColorodor^J
i \ / .
\ iC-1 o«d
v ./ Wyomihg
V V Bosfn
Glaciated
Central region
Nanglaeiated
Central region
Figure B-3. Major ground water regions in the United States (Heath, 1982)
234
-------
ronmental Research Information (see Introduction
for information on how to obtain documents) provides
more detailed descriptions of these ground water
regions
2 Determine the typical range for net annual recharge
(inches) for the appropriate region using the following
information from Heath (1982) western mountain
ranges (01-2), western alluvial basins (00001-1),
Columbia lava plateau (02-10), Colorado plateau
and Wyoming basin (001-2), high plains (02-3),
nonglaciated central region (0 2-20), glaciated cen-
tral region 0 2-10), Piedmont and Blue Ridge (1-10),
Northeast and Superior uplands (1-10), Atlantic and
Gulf coastal plain (2-20), Southeast coastal plain
(1-20), alluvial valleys (2-20), Hawaiian Islands (1-
40), and Alaska (01-10)
3 Use Figures B-4 (mean annual precipitation) and B-5
(average annual potential evapotranspiration) to es-
timate the approximate maximum and minimum dif-
ference between average precipitation and
evapotranspiration in the ground water region of in-
terest This involves, first, comparing the boundaries
of the ground water region (Figure B-3) and marking
or noting the location of maximum and minimum
average precipitation (Figure B-4) and maximum and
minimum evapotranspiration (Figure B-5) within the
region Calculating the difference between precipita-
tion and evapotranspiration at the max/mm points in
Figure B-4 (precipitation) and the max/mm points in
Figure B-5 (evapotranspiration) will allow identifica-
tion of the two points in the region where precipitation
minus evapotranspiration is the greatest and where
it is the least Negative values should not be a matter
of concern (in fact, they should be expected west of
95° longitude) What is important is the range be-
tween the maximum and the minimum
4 Estimate the approximate average precipitation and
evapotranspiration for the area of the SCS soil sur-
vey, using Figures B-4 and B-5 2
5 Estimate average net recharge in the soil survey area
in relation to the net recharge range identified in step
2 by interpolation For example, in the nonglaciated
central region, if the county value for precipitation
minus evapotranspiration lies halfway between the
range calculated for the region as a whole, the aver-
age net recharge would be around 10 inches per year
(halfway between 02 and 20 inches) This is a
county average that must be adjusted to account for
differences in runoff between soil associations
6 Use Tables 5-1 (SCS Index Runoff Classes) and 5-2
(SCS Criteria for Hydraulic Conductivity and Perme-
ability Classes) to assign a runoff class for each soil
association map unit
7 Net recharge ratings for the DRASTIC index (Work-
sheet 5-2) for each soil association should be as-
signed as follows based on surface runoff class index
(see Table 5-1 for abbreviations) M = use value
calculated in Step 5, N, VL, and L = circle the next
higher net recharge category in Worksheet 5-2, H
and VH = next lower net recharge category Note the
inverse relationship between runoff and recharge
For example, in the example cited in step 5, where
average net recharge was estimated to be 10 inches,
soil associations in the medium (M) runoff class
would have a DRASTIC rating of 8, soil associations
low runoff classes would have a DRASTIC index
rating of 9, and soil associations with high runoff
classes would have a DRASTIC index of 6
At best, the above procedure will provide a rough esti-
mate of net recharge that can be used in the absence
of better data More accurate estimates may require
assistance from the individuals who are familiar with the
soils, geology, surface and subsurface hydrology of the
area
References
Aller, L, T Bennett, JH Lehr, RJ Petty, and G Haokett 1987
DRASTIC A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water
Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings EPA/600/2-
87/035 (NTIS PB87-213914) [Also published in NWWA/EPA se-
ries, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH An earlier
version dated 1985 with the same title (EPA/600/2-85/018) does
not have the chapter on application of DRASTIC to maps or the
10 case studies contained in the later report]
Heath, RC 1982 Classification of Ground-Water Systems of the
United States Ground Water 20(4) 393-401
Thomas, JA 1981 Soil Survey of Monroe County, Indiana US
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 184 pp +
62 map sheets
Thornthwaite, CW 1948 An Approach to a Rational Classification
of Climate Geog Rev 38 55-94
U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990 Ground Water
Handbook, Vol I Ground Water and Contamination EPA/625/6-
90/016a Available from CERI*
Viessman, Jr.W.TE Harbaugh, andJ W Knapp 1977 Introduction
to Hydrology, 2nd ed Intext Educational Publishers, New York 1st
edition published 1972 [General text on surface and ground water
hydrology]
* See Introduction for information on how to obtain documents
2 The SCS soil survey report contains precipitation data for compari-
son with Figure 5-15
235
-------
S
GO
10
a>
T"
cr>
CO
a>
Q_
O
u
i
£
(0
c
CO
&
Q.
O)
£
236
-------
s
o
5.
ta
I
I
2
to
i
I
CD
£
237
-------
-------
Appendix C
Worksheets for Potential Contaminant Source Inventories and Wellhead
Protection Area Management
This appendix includes examples of worksheets that
may be useful for conducting contaminant source inven-
tories within wellhead protection areas and developing
management plans for ground water protection Many
state wellhead protection programs have developed
worksheets for similar purposes If such worksheets are
available, they can be compared with similar work-
sheet(s) in this Appendix and the worksheet that is most
comprehensive and easiest to use should be selected
If neither worksheet includes all relevant information, the
worksheet that is selected can be modified to include
the desired additional information
The following worksheets are intended for use with the
inventory of potential contaminants within wellhead pro-
tection areas (Chapter 8)
• Residential Potential Contaminant Source Inventory
(Worksheet C-1)
• Farm Potential Contaminant Source Inventory (Work-
sheet C-2)
• Agricultural Chemical Usage Inventory (Worksheet
C-3)
• Transportation Hazard Inventory (Worksheet C-4)
• Mumcipal/Commercial/lndustrial Potential Contami-
nant Source Inventory Short Form (Worksheet C-5)
• Mumcipal/Commercial/lndustrial Potential Contami-
nant Source Inventory Long Form (Worksheet C-6)
The "short form" for municipal, commercial, and indus-
trial contaminant sources (Worksheet C-5) can be used
when the presence of storage tanks and/or use of sol-
vents are the primary sources of potential concern If
other hazardous chemicals are present, the "long form"
(Checklist C-6) can be used
The following worksheets are intended for use in devel-
oping a management plan for wellhead protection
• Bylaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection
Worksheet (Worksheet C-7)
• Drinking Water Supply Contingency Plan (Worksheet
C-8)
• Chemical Spill Emergency Notification and Docu-
mentation (Worksheet C-9)
References (Sources of Worksheets)
Adams, S et al 1992 Pilot Groundwater Protection Needs Assess-
ment for Illinois American Water Company's Pekln Public Water
Supply Facility Number 1795040 Division of Public Water Sup-
plies, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
1991 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems (Revised,
October 1991) MDEP, Division of Water Supply, Boston, MA, 182
pp + appendices
New York State Department of Health 1984 Emergency Planning
and Response—A Water Supply Guide for the Supplier of Water
New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY
North Dakota State Department of Health 1993 North Dakota Well-
head Protection User's Guide Division of Water Quality, Bismarck,
ND
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1991 Guidance for Conduct-
Ing Pollution Source Inventories In Wellhead Protection Areas
(Draft) OEPA, Division of Ground Water, Columbus, OH, 17 pp
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1992 Ohio Wellhead Protec-
tion Program OEPA, Division of Drinking and Ground Water, Co-
lumbus, OH
239
-------
Worksheet C-1
Residential Potential Contaminant Source Inventory
(North Dakota State Department of Health, 1993)
NORTH DAKOTA
fil
DATE:
PUS :
WELLHEAD
PROTECTION
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA SURVEY FORM
RESIDENTIAL
This survey form is designed to inventory activities that may impact groundwater
quality within the public water supply wellhead protection area (WHPA).
Name:
Address:
City: _
Phone:
Please describe all water wells on the
property:
First well:
Use/Name:
irrigation)
Depth:
(e.g., stock, house,
Diameter:
Depth to water:
Pumping rate (gallons per minute):
What year was the well installed?
Location: Township Range
Section Quarters _
(Please locate on the section/block
map provided.)
Second Well:
Use/Name:
Depth:
Depth to water:
(e.g., stock, house, irrigation)
Diameter:
1 mile or 1 block'
I
_»«_ «^ _ w t _^ ^_ —_ ^_
SECTION MAP
Fhis map represents an entire section of
land. Please take care to plot the
Ideation of the source to the nearest 10
acres (see instructions). This map may
also be used to represent a one-block
area.
Pumping rate (gallons per minute):
What year was the well installed?
Location: Township Range Section Quarters
(Please locate on the section/block map provided.)
Third Well:
Use/Name:
(e.g., stock, house, irrigation)
Depth: Diameter:
Depth to water: Pumping rate (gallons per minute):
What year was the well installed?
Location: Township Range Section Quarters
(Please locate on the section/block map provided.)
240
-------
Worksheet C-1 (Continued)
Are there any abandoned wells on the property?.
If yes, were they plugged and how?
If there is a septic tank/drain field on the property, please describe:
Septic tank:
Location:
(township, range, section, quarters, or other description; also locate on map)
Size: Depth: Year: __ Last pumped out:
Drain field size and location:
Is there any heating/fuel oil storage on the property? Describe:
Are there any livestock on the property7 Describe (if farm, please use Farm
form):
Please describe any chemicals used or stored on the property.
Storage:
Usage:(fertilizers or pesticides on lawns or gardens?what type?
quantity? frequency?)
Disposal:
Are there any floor drains in your home or building that do not connect
to the city sewer system?
If so, what is disposed of there?
Other problems or comments:
241
-------
Worksheet C-2
Farm Potential Contaminant Source Inventory
(North Dakota State Department of Health, 1993)
NORTH DAKOTA
51
DATE:
PWS :
WELLHEAD
PROTECTION
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA SURVEY FORM
FARM
This survey form is designed to inventory activities that may impact groundwater
quality within the wellhead protection area (WHPA).
Name:
Address:
City: _
Phone:
Please describe all water wells on the
property:
First well:
Use/Name:
(e.g., stock, house,irrigation)
Diameter:
Depth: ___^
Depth to water:
Pumping rate (gallons per minute):
What year was the well installed? .
Location: Township Range _^_
Sectioa Quarters
(Please locate on the section/block
map provided.)
Second Well:
Use/Name:
1 mile or 1 block
. ^_ ^_ .^_ «•_
—
.
(e.g., stock, house, irrigation)
Depth: Diameter: ^
Depth to water: __^__ Pumping rate
(gallons per minute);
What year was the well installed?
Location: Township Range Secti on
(Please locate on the section map provided.)
Third Well:
Use/Name:
SECTION MAP
rhis map represents an entire section of
land. Please take care to plot the
location of the source to the nearest 10
acres (see instructions). This map may
also be used to represent a one-block
area.
Quarters
Depth:
(e.g.
stock, house, irrigation)
Diameter:
Pumping rate (gallons per minute):
Depth to water:
What year was the well installed?
Location: Towjiship Range Section
(Please locate on the section map provided.)
Quarters
242
-------
Worksheet C-2 (Continued)
Are there any abandoned wells on the property?.
If yes, were they plugged and how?
If there is a septic tank/drain field on the property, please describe:
Septic tank:
Location: p r______^-^______
(township, range, section, quarters, or other description; also locate on map)
Size: Depth: __ Year: Last pumped out:
Drain field size and locations __
Is there any heating/fuel oil storage on the property? Describe:
Please list the crops that you typically plant.
What is the total acreage that you farm?
Please list each crop separately followed by the number of acres that
are generally in that crop or the percentage of the total in that crop.
Crop #1 acres or %
Crop #2 ~ acres or %
Crop #3 2 acres or %
Crop #4 acres or %
Chemicals (pesticides or fertilizers):
Please list the chemicals that you applied to each crop in the last two years,
Volume
Crop i Chemicals applied f of Years Kq/hectare/vr
Please describe any chemical storage procedures and the name of the
chemicals which you currently store.
Please describe any irrigation or chemigation practices.
Please describe any chemical mixing practices.
Please describe your container disposal practices.
243
-------
Worksheet C-2 (Continued)
Are there any livestock on the property?
Please list the types of livestock, how many, and their location.
Please describe the location, age, and design of any feedlots.
Please describe any manure storage on the property.
Do you have any underground storage tanks? If so, describe their size,
location, and contents.
Do you have any above ground storage tanks? If so, describe their size,
location, and contents.
Other problems or comments:
244
-------
Worksheet C-3
Agricultural Chemical Usage Inventory (State of Oklahoma)
2 _
i}
s I
i!
l
E x < _ S
f<2
1
IH rJ
!!!
|S S £
Ililfi
flifff
iilill
InnnaDDDDDDD
s s
uDOnDDODDDD
E :
1
o i
*§£«•**•
Ul _f C4 CM
DDDD
I
1
i;« i
£31°
EJil
£nnn
DD
I
rfl
C]
i|
1|
II
I s-
1 tsi
Sill
Ib! CO =
S 3'i
I
? * 3 «
s«| I
S R 1 8
= s = fc
« I I 2
! S3 " 3
llffl
D DDDDDDD
S- 2
9
S e i ^
Sana
•« a
8 ""
i i
O) I
fe I
S B
na
> I f
O a in
oDD
Z "= «? P t>
I a 11 s
Snana
245
-------
Worksheet C-3 (Continued)
HI
fill
annn
&
z
I
D
{flfli
1111 a
IDDDDDD
10
3
1 a § i i
II
I §§
111
i a
SI
u <
DD
3
i
>
Is
DO
I I
2 1
f
75 «£ «•
1 I 1
c .3 *
i I s
e E x
n t!
§31II 1
O esT D a ro lS
DDDDDD
246
-------
Worksheet C-3 (Continued)
1!
£S
in
s S 8 & £ £ Z
£ DDDDDDDD
DD
iDD
l
l
JS
5
>DDD
o W -c-
i S S
fe "- g
1 S »
5 S i
o. 5
III!
IP. 11
lili
1H
Jo w u
ID DO
2
I
2 " &
gz S
§ s ®
ill
oS ^
II i
£• g
1 1
D D
si
c* E
DD
it
a. o
DD
If
if
£ 1
| S
& ™.
||S
< S n
S E 15 £ 5 . i j
I 3 S § X |1
t s &3 S lai
- mill
g" r- S S I 1 w j
S E ^ < O O 3
DDDDDDD
i!M
5 i
11
1
«
~ s ~S S f
i i§:l
1111! 11
Q a S o -j < w
EDDDDDDI
l i
£ 0) c *"
— CL S «>
li
8 g E J
Is S I
t s- 3 §
f ||I
. « -2 d. £
247
-------
Worksheet C-3 (Continued)
U 1 £
ill
son
i
if
6 a
X «
I?11-1
I I S S 3 5 3 ffi I S S
iDnDODDDDD DDDDn
jpl
111llIII I
?nnnnnDD a
Ills
t &lf
lifi
DDDD
o 3
in
248
-------
Worksheet C-3 (Continued)
E
f I
3 °-
o g-
I
fi
£
g
? I I £r
IL o S. 8 o
g o 5 5 £
2DDDD
£1
DD
E
I
S l
if
w r-
1 S
s s
I i
I s.
I t
« i
I s
gi
DD
D) o
I IS
s
g s
I
g | I
| o |
ISSlil!
Snnnaan
I |
s. 8
an
249
-------
Worksheet C-4
Transportation Hazard Inventory (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency)
1. Facility Name_
2. Describe facility type_
3. Describe Location
4 Hap Ho._
5. Minimum Distance from nearest public well
6. List potential pollution sources (operation and construction information)
7. Describe any past pollution incidents
8. Date of installation (pipelines)
9. Additional Information (protection measures, handling practices, etc.)
250
-------
Worksheet C-5
Municipal/Commerical/lndustnal Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Short Form
(Adams et al., 1992)
1. FACILITY NAME:
2. FACILITY ADDRESS:
3. OWNER/OPERATOR/OTHER:
4. TYPE OF BUSINESS:
5. TYPE OF HAZARD OBSERVED:
6. ARE STORAGE TANKS PRESENT' Yes NO
(IF NO, SKIP TO~OTJESTION~T7
A. IF YES, ARE THE TANKS ABOVE GROUND (AG)
BELOW GROUND (BG)
a.) IS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PRESENT?
INTEGRITY?
YES
AGE
SIZE
ITEMIZE
TANK MATERIAL
MATERIAL
STORED
TANK 1
TANK 2
TANK 3
TANK 4
TANK 5
TANK 6
TANK 7
TANK 8
TANK 9
TANK 10
B. COMMENTS:
Owner Darrell Becker
Tank Pressure Tested Annually
7. ARE SOLVENTS PRESENT? YES NO
(IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 8)
NO
AG/BG
TYPE
STORAGE
METHOD
ITEMIZE
QUANTITY
DISPOSAL
METHOD
USE
SOLV. 1
SOLV. 2
SOLV
SOLV
SOLV
A.
COMMENTS:
251
-------
Worksheet C-5 (Continued)
PAGE 2
IS THE FACILITY SEWERED' YES NO
A. ARE THE FLOOR DRAINS CONNECTED TO THE SEWER' YES
NO
B. COMMENTS: No floor drains present.
IS THE FACILITY SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION'
YES NO (IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 10)
A. IF YES, WHAT TYPE OF REMEDIATION?
B. IS THIS REMEDIATION CURRENTLY UNDER AGENCY
LITIGATION, VOLUNTARY CLEAN-UP, OTHER?
C. COMMENTS:
10. ARE THERE ANY PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS WHICH MAY INDICATE A
POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE GROUNDWATER? YES NO
(IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 11)
A. IF YES, DESCRIBE:
B. COMMENTS:
11. SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS OF THE FINDINGS ENUMERATED ABOVE,
AND INDICATE THE DEGREE OF POTENTIAL HAZARD THIS
•FACILITY MAY POSE TO THE GROUNDWATER.
This facility stores petroleum below ground, is within the
capture zone of the wells. Therefore, Beck Oil Co. appears
to pose a significant hazard to the future security of the
public water supply.
INSPECTOR:
252
-------
Worksheet C-6
Municipal/Commerical/lndustrial Potential Contaminant Source Inventory Long Form
(Adams etal., 1992)
HAZARD REVIEW WORKSHEET
1 Unique I 0 Number . _ - Distance and Direction from the Wellhead
2 Mature of Business ,
3 DLPC Permit Humberts) and Description (e g RCRA Generic Solid Waste. UIC. etc )
4 OAPC Permit Numoer(s) and Description
5 OWPC Permit Numbers and Description (e g , NPOES Industrial Pre-Treatment. Sewer Plans, etc )
6 ERU Incidents and Description
ERU 313 Reports and Description
3 ESOA 302/303 Reports and Description
9 ESDA 311/312 Reports and Description
10 PWS compliance monitoring conducted and describe the results (e g . VOC/VOA sample detects
etc ) — —
11 ISFH list the underground storage tanks registered, provide the owner name and address
Owner Name Address
12 Is the site sewered or non-sewered»
If the site is not sewered, describe
-------
Worksheet C-6 (Continued)
13 Has on-site oasl or present landfill ing, land treating, or surface, impoundment of waste, other
than landscape waste or construction and demolition debris occurred?
[ J Yes. If yes. describe
I ] No.
14 Are there currently any on-site piles of special or hazardous waste?
[ ] Yes. If yes. describe.
C ] No.
IS. Are on-site piles of wasi£ (other than special or hazardous wastes) managed according to
Agency guidelines?
C ] Yes.
[ ] No If no. describe
16. Are there currently any underground storage tanks present on-site. and will any underground
tanks be installed in the future'
C ] Yes If yes. describe _ _____ _ _
C ] Mo
-'ai Has any situations) occurred at this sue wmch resulted in a "release" of any hazardous
substance or petroleum?
C ] Yes (continue to next question)
C ] Ho (stop here)
Jb). Have any hazardous substances or petroleum, wnich were released come into contact with
the ground surface at this site? (Note— do not automatically exclude paved or otherwise
covered areas that may stm have allowed chemical substances to penetrate into the
ground. )
C ] Yes (continue to next question)
[ ] Ho (stop here)
(c). Have any of the following actions/events been associated with the release(s) referred to
in question i7(b)'
C ] Hiring of a cleanup contractor to remove obviously contaminated materials including
SUOS01IS
[ ] Replacement or major repair of damaged facilities
[ ] Assignment of -n-house maintenance staff to remove obviously contaminated materials
including subsoils
C ] Designation, by IEPA or the ESOA. of a release as "significant" under the Illinois
Chemical Safety Act
[ ] Reordering or other replenishment of Inventory due to the amount of substance lost
1
[ ] Temporary or more long-term- monitoring of groundwaVer at or near the site
[ ] Stop usage of an on-site or nearby water well because of offensive characteristics of
[ ] Coping with fumes from subsurface storm drains or inside basements
[ ] Signs of substances leaching out of the ground along the base of slopes or at other
low points on or adjacent to the site
254
-------
Worksheet C-6 (Continued)
>d) The on-site release* s) max have been or sufficient magnitude to contaminate
groundwaters Summarize tne problem
18 Are there more than 100 gallons of either pesticides or organic solvents, or 10,000 gallons of
any hazardous substance or 30 000 gallons of petroleum present at any time'
[ ] Yes If yes describe
[ ] HO
'19 Do any of the regulated entities have groundwater monitoring systems, and have any exceeded
compliance requirements'
[ ] Yes If yes. describe
. ] MO
20 After considering all of the above criteria does this site potentially pose a hazard to
groundwater'
[ ] Yes If yes describe —
C 1 No
RC 3inn/Sp0867K/l-5
255
-------
Worksheet C-7
Bylaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection Worksheet
(Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1991)
Bylaw Summary Form
Please note with an (X) if controls exist to regulate the following land uses/activities If
controls are currently under consideration, indicate with an (X) in the 'To Be Addressed"
column. For all existing controls, cite the authority for regulating land use and the
appropriate bylaw or regulation
Existing Controls To be Regulatory
Prohibit/Restrict Addressed Authority Section
1. Landfills and open dumps
2. Landfilhng of sludge or septage ~
3. Automobile graveyards/junkyards ~ ~
4 Stockpiling/disposal of snow/ice ~~
containing de-icing materials
5. Individual sewage disposal systems
exceeding 110 gals/quarter acre or
440 gals/acre
6. Wastewater treatment plants except
for replacement, repair, or systems
treating contaminated ground or
surface water
7. Facilities that generate, treat,
store or dispose of hazardous waste
other than very small quantity
generators, household hazardous
waste collection, waste oil retention,
treatment works associated with
groundwater cleanups
8. Storage of sludge and septage ~~~~~~"~~~ ~
9. Storage of deicers unless in ~
proper building
10. Storage of commercial fertilizers " ~
unless in proper structure
11. Storage of manure unless in ~
proper structure
12. Storage of liquid hazardous materials ~
unless in proper container
13. Soil removal/replacement within "
four feet of the water table
14. Storage of liquid petroleum "
products other than household
use, waste oil retention, emergency
generators or treatment works
IS. Making impervious > 15% or 2500 ft2 " "
of any lot without artificial recharge
PLEASE ATTACH COPIES OF REFERENCED BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS
256
-------
Worksheet C-7 (Continued)
Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems - 1991 Edition
Appendix E - Rvlaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection Questionnaire Page 2
Wellhead Protection Questionnaire
I. Name of Applicant
Municipal contact person
Address.
Phone number-
Community in which the proposed new source is located
If this wellhead protection questionnaire accompanies a request for the approval of a
Zone II for an existing source(s), please check here
Please respond to the following questions. If the applicant is not a municipality, it may be
necessary to obtain information from appropriate local officials
II. Wellhead Protection Priorities
Rank hi order of importance (1 high - 6 low) the following municipal management priorities
for the town in which the Zone I for the proposed well is located Please indicate with an
(X) if some initiative is underway in a given area.
Set up representative water protection committee
Coordinate with adjacent towns, watershed associations or other groups to
enhance multi-town protection efforts
Improve bylaws, regulations and/or zoning
Improve enforcement .and local review
Financing for wellhead protection '
Other (describe).
III. Intei-municipal Relations
1. Is any of the estimated recharge area of the proposed new source located in an adjoining
commumty(ies)? YES NO
If so, please list the Recharge Area (Zone I, n, m) and commumty(ies).
2. List the communities that have estimated or delineated aquifer recharge areas in the
community in which the proposed well is located.
257
-------
Worksheet C-7 (Continued)
Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems - 1991 Edition
Appendix E - Bvlaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection Questionnaire Pgg? ?
3. Do you anticipate that any of the estimated Zone H for the proposed well is threatened
by actions or activities in an adjacent community7 YES NO
4. Is the community in which the new source is located involved in any mtermumcipal
activities related to wellhead protection with the communities listed in 1 and 2 (above)?
YES NO
Briefly describe.
IV' Existing and Potential Public Supply Well Concerns
1. Possible ground water problems may be associated with existing land use in the estimated
Zone n of the proposed well.
Does the estimated Zone n contain.
Industry
Commercial businesses
Vacant land zoned for industry or commerce
Non-sewered residences
Landfills
What are the residential lot size requirements in the estimated Zone H (i.e., one acre
zoning, etc.)?
What percent of the estimated Zone n is sewered?
2- **av
-------
Worksheet C-7 (Continued)
Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems - 1991 Edition
Appendix E - Bylaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection Questionnaire Page 4
3 Water supply concerns for the overall supply system to which the new source will
contribute After you have noted specific concerns, please indicate if you feel they are
being adequately addressed
Is this concern being addressed?
inadequate water supply (difficulty
meeting peak seasonal demands) Yes No
inadequate supply (long-term) Yes No
decreasing yields Yes No
possible need to add treatment
(such as filtration, etc) Yes No
lack of drought/emergency planning Yes No
V. Existing Control Mechanisms
Resource Management Activities
Please use the following code m your response
Yes = currently in place UD = under development
N/A = not applicable NAD = not addressed
f = unfamiliar with activity
Aquifer protection district or water supply protection district
Inventory of potentially threatening land uses
Cluster zoning
Nutrient loading limits or other performance standards
Open space zoning
Septic system design, placement and management
Prohibition or limited use of septic system cleaners
Pnvate well construction regulations and/or periodic inspections
Herbicide/pesticide control or Integrated Pest Management program
Site plan review
Temporary building moratona (purpose )
Subdivision development (te., controls-for drainage)
Stormwater management
Land Acquisition Program
Household hazardous waste collection
Used motor oil collection
Early warning monitoring system for groundwater protection
Modified road salt application in water supply areas
Water conservation program
259
-------
Worksheet C-7 (Continued)
Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems - 1991 Edition
Appendix E - Bylaw Summary Form and Wellhead Protection Questionnaire Page 5
- Representative water protection committee
- Inter-governmental coordination (with adjacent or other towns)
- intra-governmental coordination (within your community)
- Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Water Dept. and Water
Commissioners input on development proposals
- Designation of a "Water Resources Management Official" to be in charge
™ r° Watef ManaSement A<* Permit
Public Education Program
Economic Related
True cost pricing
Rate structure to promote conservation
Rate structure to promote water conservation; seasonal pricing, flat rate or
increasing block rate
Transferrable development rights
Implementation /Enforce™?^
Y=Yes N=No D=Don't know
1. Zoning and non-zoning controls that protect groundwater and recharge areas are in place
but all provisions are not fully implemented Y N D
2. Enforcement provisions are written into easting and proposed controls
Y N D
3' viofatooenTeDt Pr0visi0m under zonmS ^ n°n-zoning bylaws are adequate to address
4. Use of MGL Ch. 40, Section 21D, Noncnminal disposition (environmental
ticketing), is authorized for the town in which the primary recharge area is
located. Y N D
Prepared by:
Title/Affiliation:
Date:
260
-------
Worksheet C-8
Drinking Water Supply Contingency Plan
(Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1992)
"ATER SUPPLY CWTirGcNCY =L.ifI FOP MOBILE nOME 3ARK
LOCATZD AT .OHIO AS OF
Date
COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
PARK OFFICE - LIST EXACT LOCATION -
(Desk, Bulletin Board, etc.)
PARK OPERATORS RESIDENCE_
PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING
°EVISIONS (All copies of tms olan must be revised as the names, addresses and telephone
numbers of personnel, suppli-rs, contractors ana governmental agencies are
are cnanged, as //ell as chances in the water suooly systsii but at least
annually )
PAGE NAME DATE REVISED
IN ABSENCE OF PARK OWNER OR OPERATOR
Tne following person(s) ars thoroughly familiar with the ene--sency plan and are
authorized to make necessary repairs to the water system in ansence of the owner.
PHONE DURING IF NO ANSWER
NAME ADDRESS OFFICE HOURS CALL
The following person(s) are thoroughly familiar with the plan and are available under
emergency circumstances.
261
-------
Worksheet C-8 (Continued)
POTENTIAL EMERGENCY CONDITIONS
Power Outage
Park manager shall take all necessary steps as to shut aown the water treatment plant
such as turning off the cnemical feed equipment, disconnecting well pump and high
service pumps, to prevent electrical damage to equipment or over feed of cneimcmls
under certain conditions. memicais
1. Determine the expected length of the electrical outage.
2. Determine the amount of water on hand in the distribution system storaae tank
3. Notify the park residents if necessary. s
Short Term Power Failure (Less than 2 Hours)
(a) If necessary, ask for water conservation during power outage.
(b) If system pressure should drop below 20 Ibs., all water for drinking and cooking
shall be disinfected before use by boiling or chlorination as indicated under
Emergency Disinfection.
(c) Advise the park residents when conditions are back to normal.
EXTENDED POWER FAILURE (Two Hours or More)
a
b
c
d
e
(f
Restrict water use for drinking and cooking.
Notify all necessary parties (see call list).
Notify water users (see Emergency Notification).
Provide water hauling if necessary (see Alternate Sources).
Request state aid if necessary (see call list).
Emergency power generating equipment.
WELLS OUT OF SERVICE - CONTAMINATION. LOSS OF WATER TABLE. PUMP FAILURE. ETC.
1. Should any one of the wells become contaminated or deteriorated to a condition
that is unable to furnish water of a satisfactory quantity and quality it shall
then be taken out of service until the cause can be determined. The other well
should then be placed into service.
2. If one well is out of service, depending on severity of situation, users should
be notified to conserve water during well repairs if necessary.
3. If both wells are contaminated or unable to pump water due to the water table
level, shut-down the wells, treatment plant and close the main line finished
. water valvt.
4. Notify Ohio E.P.A. and Park Owner.
262
-------
Worksheet C-8 (Continued)
5. Obtain and analyze water samples at __
6 Make necessary repairs and disinfecz ner Ohio EPA. instructions.
TREATMENT PLANT FAILURE (Filters, Softsiers, etc,)
In the event of filters or softeners, bypass the plant from the raw water main into the
distribution system.
1 Immediately bypass the plant.
2. Notify Ohio E.P.A. and Park Owner.
3. Make necessary repairs and disinfect if necessary
WATER LINE BREAK - RAW
1. Raw water line breaks from well field.
(a) Snut-down wells and plant. See Power Outages Section.
(b) Isolate area of break.
(c) Notify users of situation if necessary.
(d) Make necessary repairs and disinfect.
DISTRIBUTION BREAKS
1. Break in distribution main.
a) Immediately isolate area of break.
b) Check for depressurization of system.
.c) Notify users of situation.
(d) Make necessary repairs and disinfect.
LOSS OF STORAGE CAPABILITY
~v
If the storage tank is out of service due to contamination or repair, pressure relief
valves shall be installed in distribution system. The well pumps can be used to
maintain pressure in the system. A pressure gauge shall be installed in the system in
order to monitor the system's pressure.
263
-------
Worksheet C-8 (Continued)
VATER USERS HAVT'.'G A KEEP epR CONTINUOUS '/ATF3 SHPP; j>
AP°«ESS. PHONE
(Suggestion) (It would be heloful to Tcentify these carsons for health or other reason*
nol SSTnJe^K "**"' ^"^ ° "' m6dlCal SqU1Pment« etc'* If ^<°«
no
FOUR HOUR °HONE NUMBERS
OS. ADEMIS iS&'SS
OHIO EPA DISTRICT OFFICE 1-800-282-9378
SHERIFF'S OFFICE "
SIRE DEPARTMENT "
:OUNTY DISASTER AGENCY
•LECTRIC CO.
PHONE CO. '
LOCAL RADIO STATION "
HOSPITAL "
EMERGENCY SQUAD ZZZZ^ZH "
OHIO UTILITIES '
PROTECTION SERVICE 1-800-362-2764
3THER PHONE NUMBERS
MATERIALS (Repair Clamps, Valves, Pipe and Fittings, Feeders, etc,)
CHEMICALS (Chlorine, Calcium Hypochlonte, etc.)
ELECTRICIANS (.Local Contractors for Equipment - Support}
264
-------
Worksheet C-8 (Continued)
SACKHOE
PHONE DURING IF NO ANSWER,
NAME ADDRESS OF'ICE HOURS CALL
WELL DRILLERS AND PUMP SERVICE
VATER SYSTEM HAP (Attach Copies of Maps to the Plan)
(Suggestion) [This map may be hand drawn and should show location of valves, lines, etc.
with sufficient accuracy to allow others to locate the valve.)
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION OF WATER USERS
(Suggestion) (Door-to-Ooor, Written Notification, etc,)
In the event of a water related emergency, public information will be provided to the
residents door-to-door by the employees and on the bulletin board in the park office.
1 Notify users if emergency disinfection of drinking water is required.
2. Advise the public as to the expected duration of the emergency.
3. If necessary, ask for conservation.
4. Advise if necessary that potable water is available at the park office with
limits for drinking and cooking.
5. Advise the public when water is available for sanitation.
6. Advise the public when conditions are near normal.
EMERGENCY SUPPLY OF DRINKINS WATER
NAME OF SUPPLY LOCATION TO OBTAIN WATER CONTACT PERSON PHONE
TRANSPORTING DRINKING WATER
(Suggestions) (Water Haulers, Milk Haulers, Fire Department, etc.)
PHONE DURING IF NO ANSWER,
NAME ADDRESS OFFICE HOURS CALL
265
-------
Worksheet C-8 (Continued)
1. Notify users of situation.
2. Hake necessary repairs and disinfect per Ohio E.P.A District Office
T nc^t*tij*^nn
instruction
PROCEDURES TO RETURN THE SYSTEM TO SERVICE
Emergency situations could result in depressurization or contamination of the water system
at a single point in the distribution system or over a larger area of the system. If
depressurization occurs within a small, defined area, the system can be isolated by
immediately closing valves to keep the spread of possible contamination. The following
steps should be taken:
1. Determine area to be isolated and isolate area.
2. Repair damages to distribution system and disinfect if necessary
3. If repairs are lengthy, make orovisions for temporary water supply
4. Notify users to boil all water for drinking purposes in affected area.
5. Obtain and test water samoles for possible contamination.
6. Disinfect affected mains with calcium hypochlorite or other approved method, from
the Ohio E.P.A. District Office.
7. If contaminated, thoroughly flush mains and services; obtain and test additional
samples.
8. Notify users that problems have been corrected; open valves.
REPAIR PARTS & LOCATION (Inventory of Equipment, Spare Parts and Chemicals Required or
Repair of the Water System Which are Carried in Inventory by
Local Suppliers or Contractors)
PARTS AND SIZE (Valves, Pipe, Repair Clamps, Extra Pump, Motors, Chemicals, etc.)
LOCATION
EMERGENCY DISINFECTION OF DRINKING WATER
See Attached OEPA Form PWS-3
266
-------
Worksheet C-9
Chemical Spill Emergency Notification and Documentation
(Adapted from New York State Department of Health, 1984)
This notification report represents a typical form that might be adapted for use In a water supply
contingency plan
PART 1 - FACTS RELATED TO EMERGENCY
1 Person or department calling in emergency
Phone No /Radio frequency Date/Time call received
.2 Location of emergency
Street and Home/Building number
Other (approximate location, distance from landmark, etc)
3. Nature of the emergency (e g „ broken water main, chemical spill, lost pressure in home, etc)
Condition at scene
Actual/Potential damage (briefly describe the situation)
Access restrictions, if any
7 Assistance already on the scene (who, what are they doing, etc.)
PART 2 - EMERGENCY INVESTIGATION
1 Personnel Investigating emergency
2. Reported results of investigation
Time Assessed
' Adapted from Emergency Planning and Response • A Water Supply Guide for the Supplier of
Water New York State Department of Health, January 19S4
267
-------
Worksheet C-9 (Continued)
EXAMPLE OF EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION REPORT*
PART 3 - EMERGENCY ACTION TAKEN
1 Immediate action taken
Is immediate action- Permanent
Temporary
3. Was an emergency crew dispatched: Yes No Time arrived on scene
4. Note all other actions that will be necessary to bring the water supply system back into operation
PAJVT 4 . PERSONS/DEPARTMENTS NOTIFIED OF EMERGENCY
Positions
Chief Operator
, .., General Manager
Local Health Department
_ Engineer
__ Operations Supervisor
Plant Manager
Shift Operator
__ Fire Department
__ Police Department
__ Highway Department
Local Elected Official
(.Mi\ or. Commissioner etc.)
Department of Health
Department of Transportation
Department of Environmental
Conservation
County Civil Defense
.. Other (refer to system personnel
and support call up lists)
Priority water users
News Media
Name
Work Phone Home Phone Time of Call
Signature of Person Who Filled Out Form
• To be completed and used by water supply system personnel
268
-------
Worksheet C-9 (Continued)
EXAMPLE OF REPORTING FORM FOR CHEMICAL INCIDENTS
• Identity of contaminant material
Manifest/shipping invoice/billing label
Shipper/manufacturer identification
Container type
Placard/label information
Railcar/truck 4-digit identification number
Nearest railroad track intersection/line intersection
t Characteristics of material, if readilv detectable
(for example, odor, flammable, volatile, corrosive)
» Present physical state of material (gas, liquid, solid)
• Amount already released
• Amount that may be released
• Other hazardous materials in proximity
• Whether significant amounts of the material appear to be
entering the atmosphere, nearby surface wateV, storm drams,
or soil
• Direction, height, color, odoi of any vapor clouds or plumes
• Weather conditions (including «md direction and speed)
• Local terrain conditions
• Personnel at the scene
«U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1995-650-006/22046
269
-------
------- |