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

-------

-------